Tag: trainwreck

PZ Myers, professional “biologist”

Now, before you read this, keep in mind that PZ Myers is actually employed to teach college students biology:

Keep in mind that Jemisin is black. Here’s Theodore Beale coming right out and saying that while she’s human, she’s not fully equal to a white man, himself (and please, his invocation of “genetic science” is reeking bullshit).

The amusing thing is that Myers not only didn’t understand what it meant when I pointed out that NK Jemisin and I are not equally homo sapiens sapiens, he also doesn’t have a clue about current genetic science.  In fact, most of the people who have taken offense at the statement that “genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens sapiens” have done nothing more than demonstrate they have not kept up with relatively recent developments in genetics by interpreting my words in a manner that is not only ignorant, but precisely backward.

You see, Africans are pure homo sapiens sapiens.  Non-Africans are not. NK Jemisin, being of African extraction, is almost surely more purely homo sapiens sapiens than I am.  Or, for that matter, than PZ Myers is. 

“Previous research has revealed that Neanderthal DNA can be found in the
genomes of everyone who isn’t of African extraction. But, as Pääbo said,
“The Denisovans had contributed DNA only to people in Papua New Guinea,
Fiji, Australia, and other places in Melanesia.” In other words, modern
humans entering Asia interbred with Denisovans. But the Denisovan DNA
didn’t wind up circulating to other areas of the world the way
Neanderthal DNA did.”

So, everyone who isn’t African possesses DNA from other homo species, including Homo neanderthalensis and what is either Homo denisova or Homo sapiens denisova.  This is why I often mock those who believe in both evolution by natural selection and human equality, because humanity is not only NOT all the same under our skin, we are not, according to current genetic science, even all entirely the same subspecies.  If we apply their idiot logic, then I was actually claiming that I am not fully equal to Jemisin rather than the other way around.

That’s not the only thing that the excitable and characteristically buffoonish Myers gets wrong.  I’m not annoyed at being called a racist, I’m not demanding any apologies for it, and I’m certainly not threatening any lawsuits over it.  For crying out loud, John Scalzi has been calling me a Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit for months and it doesn’t bother me in the slightest since I am none of those things.  I demanded an apology because NK Jemisin broke SFWA confidentiality rules by misreading part of my presidential campaign platform, then claimed that I am a “self-described
misogynist, racist, anti-Semite, and a few other flavors of asshole.”  However, I have never described myself as any of those four things.

I assume Myers would similarly object if Ms. Jemisin claimed PZ Myers is a self-described Catholic pedophile who teaches puppetry to kindergarteners.

Myers is also wrong about my having modified my original post in any way.  The incompetent philosopher is confusing a later post for the original one because he didn’t scroll down the page.  It’s still there in its entirety.  Everything it contains is factually true, utterly defensible, and I will note that not a single person who is throwing hissy fits about it has dared to take up my offer to debate them on any of its contents.  The abysmal scientific ignorance of a collegiate biology teacher concerning the subject may offer an indication of why those who are even less cognizant of the relevant genetic science and its implications are nervous about doing so.

It appears Myers also failed to read Jemisin’s speech.  She is the one who asserted that the “racist stand-your-ground laws” were passed against people like her.  I merely pointed out WHY those laws were passed; because people were being violently attacked by the aforementioned people and needed a legal right to self defense.

Myers doesn’t even attempt to address any of the factual statements I made or try to challenge their accuracy, he merely points-and-shrieks.  No wonder he has twice run away from debates with me; he’s not capable of rational dialectic.  As for not being embarrassed, why would I ever be embarrassed by being aware of history, capable of logic, and reasonably up-to-date on genetic science?  If the hysterical left is really going to abandon history, logic, and science in favor of its precious equality myths, it’s simply not going to be possible for anyone with a functioning brain to take it seriously much longer.

Forget the SFWA kerfluffle.  The real scandal is that a science illiterate like PZ Myers is employed to teach science to college students.

SF vs science

Shattersnipe would appear to favor a rhetorical approach to the seemingly indisputable observation that not all human population groups are equally civilized:

And there is white-hot anger, so fierce you become the eye within the
maelstrom of your own rage, calm as your pulse exceeds the beats of a
marathon runner, calm as your fingers grasp and clench, calm as you grip
your aggressor’s throat and squeeze.

This last I feel for Theodore Beale.

Recently, I blogged about sexism in the SFWA Bulletin.
I wrote that piece as a self-declared comic rant, the tone inspired by
anger at men who ultimately meant well, however offensive and outdated
their efforts at showing it. I received a lot of support for having done
so; but of course, there was a flipside. My anger, said some, was
unseemly and unprofessional. My arguments were poorly reasoned. I was
preaching to the choir. I was the gendered pejorative of choice. But the
thing is, I can shrug that off. I deal out enough criticism that I
expect to receive my share in return, and whatever form that pushback
takes, it very rarely shocks me. By the standards of women on the
internet, in fact, I’m pretty lucky. I’ve received a minimum of rape
threats, I rarely get called a cunt, and if some of my detractors are
uncivil, then I can usually dish it out in return. I was bullied,
harassed, attacked and assaulted enough at school for being forthright,
female and unfeminine that written threats just don’t chill me the way
they used to. (They still chill me, of course. And I didn’t suffer
nearly as much as others. Nonetheless, the comparison stands – and no,
this isn’t an invitation to try harder.)
The point being, I have privilege, and that
privilege protects me. I’m a middle-class, well-educated, straight white
ciswoman with a functional, middle-class white family, and however much
the misogyny gets to me at times, I can draw on that privilege – on
that firmly entrenched sense of self-worth and the emotional, social and
financial safety net which supports it – and fight back. I belong to
the second most privileged group of people on the planet, and whatever
abuse I still suffer regardless of that, I have the cultural status to
counter it and be heard. As an individual, therefore, I’m hard to
oppress. I have privilege. I have resilience. I have opinions.
And I have anger….
I feel poisoned even typing that. Sickened.
Trembling. I cannot even imagine how Jemisin feels. Nor am I attempting
to speak for her. She is, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant
women – one of the most brilliant people and writers, period – active in
SFF today, and my voice in this matter is not a replacement for hers.
I am speaking because it would be a crime against conscience not to.
I am speaking because a world where men like
Theodore Beale are left to speak unchallenged by the weariness of their
opponents is not a world I want to live in. I am speaking because my privilege affords me a chance to be heard.
And I am speaking because of the bodily
disgust, the rage and hatred and putrescence I feel for members of my
own race, both now and throughout history, who speak of savages and
lesser beings, of civilisation and the right to kill those outside or
perceived to be incapable of it; who speak, as Beale does, as though
people of colour are a genetically different, inferior species of human
when compared to his Aryan ancestors.
This is my Reconciliation.
The passion of it all just gives you shivers, doesn’t it?  It’s hard to decide what is the most amusing part of this hysterical “dabacle”.  It’s a little subtle, perhaps, but I think, in the end, my favorite part is where she declares the “bodily
disgust, the rage and hatred and putrescence” she feels for the idea that “people of colour” are “genetically different”.
What is so funny about this is that it all goes back to 2005, and a WND column when I pointed out that women don’t write much hard science fiction because they have little aptitude or inclination for science.  And now, eight years later, we see a spelling-challenged female SFWA writer who is frothing-at-the-mouth furious at the idea that Africans are a genetically distinct population group, a group that therefore must necessarily be either inferior or superior to other population groups.
In other words, she is a science fiction writer who is deeply and violently offended by science.  This should suffice to explain why science fiction has qualitatively declined over the years.

But we shouldn’t be too harsh on her.  After all, she does an excellent job of proving my original point in my response to Ms Jemisin, which is that there can be no reconciliation between the observant and the delusional.  This isn’t a challenge to my views, but rather, an exemplary underlining of them.

SFWA Forum: the “moderated” posts

Since the freethinkers at the SFWA Forum are presently debating whether my comments can be permitted in the very place where I am attacked with the most badthink words the rabbits can produce, I hereby give myself permission, as per the SFWA Forum guidelines, to quote my posts here before they are disappeared again:

1. Posted Today, 03:41 AM
 

Her speech is ridiculous, her call for reconciliation is impossible, and, it should be noted, MS Jemisin is lying about me:

“For the past few days I’ve also been observing a “kerfuffle”, as
some call it, in reaction to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers’
of America’s latest professional journal, the Bulletin. Some of you may
also have been following the discussion; hopefully not all of you. To
summarize: two of the genre’s most venerable white male writers made
some comments in a series of recent articles which have been decried as
sexist and racist by most of the organization’s membership. Now, to put
this in context: the membership of SFWA also recently voted in a new
president. There were two candidates — one of whom was a self-described
misogynist, racist, anti-Semite, and a few other flavors of asshole. In
this election he lost by a landslide… but he still earned ten percent of
the vote. SFWA is small; only about 500 people voted in total, so we’re
talking less than 50 people.”

I am not “a self-described misogynist, racist, anti-Semite, and a few
other flavors of asshole”.  It is John Scalzi, Patrick Nielsen Hayden,
and Theresa Nielsen Hayden who have described me that way.  I merely
posited that even if their false claims were true, I would still be the
right choice for SFWA president given my industry connections and
executive experience. Nor have I ever made any active efforts to take
away the woman’s “most basic rights”; I am in fact a libertarian. NK
Jemisin’s speech is not only ignorant, it is blatantly and provably
dishonest with regards to me, with regards to the history of science
fiction, and with regards to Florida and Texas state law.

I hereby demand a public apology from Ms Jemisin.

Moreover, based on the particular nature of her false claim, Ms Jemisin has clearly violated the Forum rules, which state “The
SFWA discussion forums are for SFWA members only, and all posts made
here are confidential. Material may not be re-posted outside these
forums without the explicit permission of their authors.”  Her false statement was clearly based on my announcement which was posted here in the forums by Lawrence Schoen.

I therefore also request that she be given a warning point by a Forum moderator.

2. Posted Today, 07:52 AM

[PERMISSION TO QUOTE REQUESTED]

She did nothing of the kind.  I have never described myself anywhere
as misogynist, racist, or anti-Semite and a search of my blog will prove
that.  The only time I’ve even bothered to address such stupid
accusations together is here, in the Forum, which is why it is obvious
that she violated SFWA confidentiality.  I have zero interest in
debating with you, Mr. Sanford. I enjoy challenges and you’re not half
as intelligent as people I’ve crushed in three exchanges.

[PERMISSION TO QUOTE REQUESTED]

I should certainly hope so.  I was warned for violating SFWA
confidentiality once because I was unaware even partial quotes were not
permitted.  I expect Ms Jemisin to be similarly disciplined.  If not,
well, then we’ll know just how impartial the moderators are.  Anyhow,
20x more people will read this on my blog than will read it here.

[PERMISSION TO QUOTE REQUESTED]

Reality isn’t racist, Mr. Sanford.  Neither is history.  They simply
are.  And you can’t escape the fact that Ms Jemisin lied about me and
about the state laws of Texas and Florida.  As some of my Australian
readers have already pointed out, Ms Jemisin has no idea what she’s
talking about concerning Australian race relations either.

3. Posted Today, 08:15 AM

[PERMISSION TO QUOTE REQUESTED]

So, if I’d simply written: “That post on her blog is one of the most
racist attacks I’ve seen in a long time.”, that would not require
moderation?  Who are you trying to kid?

Meanwhile, the President-elect, Steven Gould, notes: “Lots
of people calling for the expulsion of this guy. With reason.”

Well, my lawyer and I would certainly enjoy seeing them try to expel a paid-up Lifetime member for the thoughtcrime of expressing his opinion.  You see, I’ve already got the entire SF Forum on record, so it would be fascinating to see them attempt to defend various statements by certain authors while claiming that mine were worthy of expulsion.

A Robot doubles down

The remarkable thing about these leftist idiots is how shameless they are.  It doesn’t matter how badly they are caught out, or how completely they are shown to be wrong, they will double-down without hesitation, as A Robot does in defense of his “review” of Men on Strike:

In reviewing scientific literature, which Men On Strike purports to be,
one must review the source material which the author uses to support the
claims and assertions of the author. The source material is the basic
evidence that the author uses to show the person reading the book, “hey,
these things that I’m writing? They’re supported by facts, evidence,
and research. You can trust me and my work because a lot of time and
effort has gone into reviewing this material and making sure the most
accurate depiction of the facts of the matter at hand is presented.”

You
cannot separate reviewing the source material from reviewing the book
at hand, because the source material is the entire reason that one
should believe the assertions of the book. If you’re reading a book that
seriously studies any natural, social, or scientific phenomenon, you
have to check the source material. Theodore Beale is just one of many
sources not worth trusting that are liberally sourced in Helen Smith’s
book: Vox Day taken as a serious source of unbiased, well-researched
material is just the most egregious example and the one that could be
most easily demonstrated due to the great deal of material Beale puts
online.

That said, even without the contributions of Vox Day, Men
On Strike suffers greatly from a serious lack of actual research. The
vast majority of claims that it makes about men and women
(psychologically, socially, or otherwise) are not based on verifiable
data, instead relying on the anecdotes of whoever Smith could find that
supported the view she puts forth in Men On Strike. The book has not
gone through the peer review process that scientific literature goes
through to ensure accuracy. I’ve been totally unable to find any amount
of literature written by Helen Smith from any sort of peer-reviewed
journal or database. The only things I’ve been able to find written by
Helen Smith appear on her personal web site, and on the web sites of
people or organizations who share her political beliefs.

Real
scientists write and research for the purpose of scientific advancement,
and a big part of doing that is making sure that their research stands
up to peer review. The acknowledgements make no mention of any person
who reviewed Men On Strike to make sure it was scientifically accurate.
She mentions “friends and colleagues who have helped and encouraged”
her, but that is the only thing close to acknowledging scientific peer
review. Helen Smith intentionally decided not to bring her book to the
attention of the scientific community while presenting her book as
supported by scientific research and scrutiny. Her footnotes are filled
with references to her own research, and there are more citations of
blogs and of political organizations than of real scientific literature
on any subject even ostensibly related to the subject of sexual
inequality.

Men On Strike is, above all else, a compilation of
anecdote and political bias. It has no basis in research or verifiable
evidence beyond the quotations in her book having actually existed. 

The amusing thing is that this defense proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he didn’t read the book.  Dr. Helen directly addresses this line of criticism in the book, pointing out that she is being held to a standard to which no female writer attacking men is ever held.   Men on Strike isn’t “scientific literature”; it doesn’t pretend to be.

Ironically enough, in his attempt to keep people from reading Dr. Helen’s book, he’s only brought new people to the blog, such as KC:

I just stumbled upon your blog yesterday, ironically through the
1-star Men On Strike review that pointed me to your site.  (“Nobody can possibly be as
wacked-out as this person is saying,” I thought to myself, intent
on verification.) So far, I’ve found your site by turns
interesting, thought-provoking, and mildly infuriating.  (Thanks
for all the fantasy and SF links, by the way.) I just have one
question.  Since your views on Christianity are, well, not the
most mainstream, I’m wondering if you came by them on your own or
if there are any particular theologians or books you’ve drawn on
for inspiration.

KC, didn’t you know you’re always supposed to accept the claims of a leftist, no matter how absurd, without verifying them?  How are they supposed to be taken seriously if you’re actually going to look into what they are saying?  Anyhow, in answer to KC’s question, GK Chesterton and CS Lewis are the two Christian writers I have found most inspiring.

Mailvox: in defense of sad engineer girl

Rebecca hasn’t figured out that all humans are not completely interchangeable:

AHHHHHHH! are you NUTS! It is estimated that the planet will reach 9
BILLION people in about 2050. The last thing we need is an increasing
population. 

Increasing population of what?  How will further inhibiting the already limited breeding potential of high-IQ European women solve the problem of the quadrupling of a Nigerian population that can’t feed itself or maintain its societal infrastructure in just 60 years?  What percentage of those estimated 9 BILLION PEOPLE does she believe will be attending elite European universities and studying engineering?  Even if the problem truly exists, encouraging AA to make herself an evolutionary dead end won’t even begin to solve it.

No takes the simplest of rhetorical approaches to rational discourse:

Fuck you, Vox Day. I am sorry to have had the misfortune of discovering your existence.

Benhke, on the other hand, hopes I will open up my heart and use my “intelligens” in a constructive way.

Wow 🙁 You guys makes me sick to my stomach and brakes my heart. Maybe
you are right in some of your points, but you are really cuel (sometimes
in a direct, sometimes in a subtile way) in your way of expressing your
truth- whatever the truth may be. This woman is fighting for her
feeling of freedom – which is a very exsistential need. And both age and
gender, does not (just like culturel background does not) make a
difference – her statement comes from her point of view, and that point
of view is valid, because her value as a human being is valid.
Furthermore – I can assure you that many people care for her feelings –
cause more than 200 people in this world has the ability to feel empathy
with even strangers. I am very sorry for you guys, that you do not
believe this – it really tells more about you than anything else…
Please open up your heart, and use your intelligens in a constructive
way, which in my point of view can be defines as bringing peace, and not
fear, anger and resentment…What good do you men, the stronger gender,
do for the world/society, if not that?

But what can be more constructive than laughter?  By making it possible for people laugh at the likes of Behnke and others, I am making the world a better and happier place.

Unknown goes right for the conventional feminist riposte, but derails into a morass of blather:

u guys are real losers…women are doing well in engineering and making a
great success of ur lives…the hatred u have for them is
appalling…which makes me wonder about ur own success…

Women doing well in engineering are making a great success of our lives? Translation, anyone?

SFWA burns a witch

Amanda takes exception to the ongoing SFWA witch hunt, which is being led by Rapey McRaperson and his sidekick, Rachel Swirsky:

What did Resnick and Malzberg do that was so bad, you ask? Well, at the beginning of the column in issue 200, he admits to have written — gasp — porn. And he sold it to a “lady” editor. He identifies female authors and editors as “lady” writer and “lady” editor. Oh, and he’s pissed — not that I necessarily blame him. He and Malzberg had been attacked in the SFWA forums for stating their opinions  in what is basically an op-ed column (gee, I thought that’s what op-eds were for). People were demanding that SFWA censor them by not letting them write the column any longer and, gasp, he called them out on it.

Could he have been more circumspect? Probably. Are some of his ideas old-fashioned? Of course. But that isn’t, in my opinion, the real crime with what’s been going on. The crime is how the detractors behaved. They took their issues with Resnick and Malzberg public without giving the public the opportunity to read the columns in question and make up their own mind. They attacked two men who have more experience in the field and, in the vast majority of cases, more sales than these attackers will ever hope to have. Instead of simply asking to post a counter piece to what Resnick and Malzberg said, they went on the attack, with all the name calling and vitriol they accused the two gentlemen — gasp, have I just committed the crime of sexism by calling them gentlemen? — of being sexist and misogynistic.

In other words, this very vocal but apparently small group resorted to bullying and threats to leave or never join SFWA in order to impose their own views on SFWA. Pardon me for not jumping on their bandwagon but I don’t support bullies and you can sure as hell bet that if the tables were turned on them, they’d be whining about how we just don’t understand and we aren’t enlightened or whatever the latest bullshit politically correct term happens to be.

This is an issue, if you want to give it that much credence, that should have been handled in-house. But no, these bullies took their complaint public but didn’t want to give the public the whole story. After all, if they did, the public might just see through all their catch phrases and righteous indignation. They demanded SFWA act so this atrocity never be allowed to occur again.

And SFWA caved and did so publicly and in a way that adds to the condemnation that has been heaped on Resnick and Malzberg, as well as the editor of the Bulletin.

The much-criticized editor of the SFWA Bulletin, Jean Rabe, resigned under pressure today.  It appears Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg will be stripped of their column as well. It shouldn’t be long before all criticism of women, romance novels in space, and the Obama administration are banned in the SFWA Forum.

It’s absolutely freaking hilarious.  I just wish I could share all the self-congratulatory back-patting over all the brave, brave courage that the censorious freakshows believe they are exhibiting by boldly taking on chainmail bikinis and references to ladies.

The dangerous vision of the SFWA

I posted a pair of comments that were in line with my post yesterday on the SFWA Forum.  (Forum posts are private and one is not allowed to quote them elsewhere, otherwise I would quote the posts to which I was responding.) This resulted in numerous complaints to the moderator, a warning for “abusive behavior”, the deletion of the following posts, and a temporary removal of my posting abilities there by a creature with the unlikely Warrior Woman name of Cat Rambo.
Not that it will likely make a
difference, but I don’t see how “Moahr Titz” is going to
improve the Bulletin. As for more diversity, that’s a fantastic idea
if you want to render the Bulletin of absolutely no interest to
anyone except women who derive vicarious pleasure from listening to
other people moan about the travails of life. If this was the
Organization for Respecting Women and not the SFWA, hey, these
various suggestions are fine. But they have absolutely nothing to do
with science fiction. Consider: it will be a pretty hollow victory to
claim that everyone in professional science fiction is finally
respecting women, minorities, dwarves, and fairies in the desired
manner if in the process you manage to drive away three-quarters of
the science fiction readership.
The Bulletin absolutely should have
scantily clad women being rescued by manly men from bug-eyed aliens
on the cover from time to time. It should have robots and spaceships
too. Whether you find that offensive or not, that’s part of what
science fiction was, and is. Science fiction is supposed to be the
literature of dangerous ideas, not safe and inoffensive and
respectful and politically correct ones.
And if you can’t handle that
concept, then you should get the hell out of the field and the
organization. You don’t belong in either of them.
I therefore encourage every member
of the SFWA who is offended by the Dialogues or the Bulletin covers
to follow e. Catherine Tobler’s excellent example and resign from the
organization. Because regardless of your literary talents and
interests, you are clearly not fit to be a science fiction writer.
Science fiction isn’t about respect, equality, or inoffensiveness, it
is about science and the future.

I also addressed the idea that the Dialogues column between Mike Resnick and Barry Salzberg should be forcibly retired with alacrity.

How about a regular column by women
writers complaining about sexism in [science
fiction/fantasy/horror/publishing/games] and how there are not enough
female [fill-in-the-blank]. That would be totally new and different
and impossible to find anywhere else!
Maybe every four issues we could
change it up with a column by a black writer complaining about racism
in [science fiction/fantasy/horror/publishing/games] and how there
are not enough black [fill-in-the-blank].
Who wants to read about the history
of yucky old science fiction by some old white guys of whom nobody
has ever heard anyway?

So, praising the decision of a member to quit, expressing the opinion that others of similarly delicate minds would do well to follow her example, and noting that women are inordinately inclined to be easily offended, speech-controlling fascists resulted immediately in fascistic, speech-repressing activity by an offended woman.  In the eyes of the present SFWA, criticism equals abuse.

And you thought the Sports Guy was joking.  Women really do ruin everything. Even for themselves. Perhaps especially for themselves.

No wonder a number of SFWA members refuse to post on the Forum and stubbornly stick with the old ones on SFF.net.  The SFWA Forum doesn’t just stifle discourse, it actively eliminates it altogether.

Harlan Ellison wept.

The infernal Dan Brown

I have never read what passes for a Dan Brown novel, and it seems that this is probably for the best.  But I should note that the vast success of writers who write for idiots doesn’t bother me any more than the success of sixteen year-old pop stars who perform for teen girls does.  Given MPAI, it stands to reason that the writer whose primary goal is to sell as many books as possible should always cater to the lowest nominally literate consumer.

However, it is a bit much to be expected to also accept the intellectual pretensions of a man who is manifestly writing for the ignorati.  For not only is Brown’s “research” obviously incorrect, the fact that he confuses the ascents of the Purgatorio with the circles of the Inferno tends to suggest that it is entirely nonexistent.  I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn he’d never even read the entire Inferno, let alone the rest of La Comedia.

Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, having written what
for lack of a mightier term we must call a novel, a novel that proved that John
the Apostle was a girl, Mary Magdalene a helpless goddess, and a hypotenuse an
African water buffalo—having revealed for millions the lavish colors of the
frescoes in Notre Dame de Paris (there are no frescoes in Notre Dame de Paris),
the grim austerity of Spanish Cathedrals (Spanish Cathedrals are notorious for
baroque exuberance), and the deep mystery of the Golden Ratio (every schoolboy
knew about the Golden Ratio)—having shown the world that he could write a novel
about art, theology, and Christian history while knowing nothing about art,
theology, and Christian history, except what he could glean from the covers of
matchbooks and obiter dicta from Cher—having shown how much
you can do if you do not bother to open an ordinary encyclopedia, this Dan
Brown, I say, this man of our time and of no time, has now written a novel about
the greatest poet who ever lived, Dante.

Only it doesn’t have
a damned thing to do with Dante, just as The
Da Vinci Code didn’t have anything to do with Leonardo.  Dante is just
a quick needle used to inject the “story” into the reader’s head.  This
time, Mr. Brown has opened a lot of encyclopedias, deluging the reader with 400
pages of material that belongs in Michelin guides to Florence, Venice, and
Istanbul, none of it to the point.  Even at that, he gets details wrong as
soon as he veers away from something you might find in a guide book, especially
when he engages in an exceedingly rare moment of telling us something about
Dante’s poem.  He says it was called a Comedy
because it was written in the vernacular, “for the masses.”  No, a comedy,
according to the medieval definition, was a poem in which a character moves
from misery to happiness, regardless of what language it is written in, and
there were no “masses” to read it, since books were still costly to produce and
scarce.

He says that Dante’s
Purgatory has nine circles of ascent; no, there are seven, one for each of the
deadly sins.  He says that Purgatory is the only way to get from the
Inferno to Paradise.  No, it isn’t; nobody but Dante visits Inferno and
leaves the place, and plenty of people do not have to ascend the
mountain.  Essentially, Dante’s poem is about the resurrection of a human
soul, by the grace of God, to turn from the lie of evil to the truth and beauty
of goodness.  Brown doesn’t get any of that, because he doesn’t care about
any of that.

What’s this book
about?  It’s 462 pages of bad prose.  Portentous sentence
fragments.  Italics, for somber
emphasis.  J—–, there are childish profanities!  Even childish
punctuation?!  Anticlimaxes, a good dollop of Most Favored Bigotry, for
sales; one dimensional characters, most of them pallid even in their one
dimension, and a message with all the sophistication of Sesame Street. 

I understand that Eco isn’t for everyone, let alone Calvino and Borges.  But it would be nice if someone in Brown’s position would be responsible enough, if not to actually bother reading Dante, to at least hire someone to read it for him and ensure that he isn’t actively misinforming the sort of people whose only exposure to the culture Brown is mining are his books.

Tears of a clown

As Dennis Miller noted, at this rate, Obama is going to admit he was born in Kenya sometime next week. Did I not tell you in 2008 that his administration was going to be more entertaining than a barrel of monkeys?  And note that as a general rule, history tends to indicate that the conspiracy theorists often err on the side of being insufficiently pessimistic.

UPDATE: You know it’s bad when even the administration enthusiasts at the New York Times are desperately casting about for something positive to talk about, but wind up throwing in the towel: 

 Maybe, while he’s crisis-managing, the president could also figure out a way to show people government working at something other than reorganizing troubled agencies. Maybe he could start off with passing a bill that’s supereasy. I notice that in state legislatures, when times are tough, parties are sometimes able to get together in order to pick a new state thing. You know, state bird, state animal. Some states find this so relaxing they never stop. (New Mexico has an official state guitar, state tie and state aircraft, which, unfortunately, is the hot-air balloon.)

The United States has a few of these items, like a bird and an anthem, but there’s plenty of territory to cover. The president could demand that Congress pick an official national rock.

Health evaders and the B Ark

I wonder what they’re going to call the millions of Americans who refuse to turn over their health information to the IRS next year?  Health evaders?  Health protesters?

When Obamacare’s individual mandate takes effect in 2014, all Americans
who file income tax returns must complete an additional IRS tax form. The new form will require disclosure of a taxpayer’s personal identifying health information in order to determine compliance with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. As confirmed by IRS testimony to the tax-writing House Committee on Ways and Means, “taxpayers will file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and/or making a payment”.

Whatever they call them, I tend to imagine there are going to be a fair amount of them.  Honestly, I don’t see how this whole creaky system is going to survive much longer.  History shows that there is a lot of ruin in a nation, but at this rate, the entire business activity of the USA is soon going to be computers trading stocks with other computers and people filling out forms for the IRS and other government agencies.

Welcome to the B Ark economy.