There are times when money, even a very small amount of it, really can buy you happiness. For me, happiness is a vicious unicorn toy.
Under no circumstances
Harvested squeezings from mirth's most irritated pore
Sunday, October 09, 2005
(JavaScript Error)
Previous Posts
- Yet another great reason to never shop at Walmart....
- Last month, Tom Delay proudly informed us that the...
- Bet you never knew Neuroscience 101 classes were s...
- I don't know how many of you have heard about Sere...
- More quotations are in order, I think."It does not...
- "Higher gas prices are a sign of ...
- Cutest. Cephalopod. Ever.Can I keep him?
- Best. Beer ad. Ever.
- Fascism: n.1. A system of government marked by cen...
- Here's another entry for the I-Can't-Make-This-Shi...
22 Comments:
Just like in The Last Unicorn when she uses the curve to stab that guy in one eye and out the other.
This should buy you smug happiness, although the price tag is a little higher than your new murder'corn.
"CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports there was chaos on the Hour floor as Republican leaders passed the [refineries] bill by holding a five-minute vote open for almost 50 minutes until they could convince two Republicans to change their votes.
They buttonholed lawmakers for last-minute lobbying as Democrats complained loudly that the vote should be closed. Finally two GOP lawmakers switched from "no" to "yes," giving the bill's supporters the margin of victory."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2005/10/07/politics/main926916.shtml
It's amazing, the Democrats took 40 years to get this corrupt. It's a good thing we have reformers around here who've voted in strict obedience to the party line for every national candidate in every election, so that the RNC knows it can count on their automatic support no matter what and therefore feel free to embrace McCain and reform without fear of losing those voters. Without that kind of 100% commitment to Bush, DeLay and Frist, fiscal conservatism would be in real trouble.
This newspaper is second to none in its pro-American sentiments; in the early Bush years it devoted much ink to defending the President against the often malevolent and ignorant attacks of a congenitally anti-American European media. But we know a lost cause when we see one: the longer President Bush occupies the White House the more it becomes clear that his big-government domestic policies, his preference for Republican and business cronies over talented administrators, his lack of a clear intellectual compass and his superficial and often wrong-headed grasp of international affairs – all have done more to destroy the legacy of Ronald Reagan, a President who halted then reversed America’s post-Vietnam decline, than any left-liberal Democrat or European America-hater could ever have dreamed of. As one astute American conservative commentator has already observed, President Bush has morphed into the Manchurian Candidate, behaving as if placed among Americans by their enemies to do them damage. The Business
(Thanks for showing me how to link, Slushpup)
Yeah, I was going to post something about how the Republicans flat out and blatantly violated what should have been a fair vote. But then I remembered that Republicans being corrupt, immoral, cheating, lying criminals is no longer news. Our "liberal media" must just have gotten tired of reporting on so many abuses of power, I guess.
I don't know if you take requests, so I'll call it a supplication . . . how about a post on your thoughts on Miers? She seems to bring together Bush's basic governing principles: cronyism, lack of qualification, cult of personality, and tokenism. And of course appointing someone smart and distinguished like Justice Roberts must have been physically painful for him.
My thoughts on Myers? Here...
THE GOOD:
-She's a female who broke several non-trivial glass ceilings during her career.
-She has shown some signs of acknowledging that females and gays are at least semi-deserving of minimum human rights, if not actual equality under the law. (These days, that's a rarity)
-It could be worse. Bush could have appointed Roy Moore.
-The wingnuts are pitching a fit over her.
THE BAD:
-She's almost certainly not going to support gay rights or woman's rights in practice.
-She's going to help create a terrifying foursome: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Miers. While not an actual majority on the court, this group will be a dangerous alliance because all they need is one more justice to stand with them on any given issue.
-She's yet another appointee who will swing the court further into the fanatical right wing.
THE UGLY:
-She worships Bush as a God. Anybody with judgment that poor is not somebody you want on SCOTUS, no matter what your political affiliation.
-She has no experience that qualifies her for this position. Her nomination further lowers the already-deplorable standards for SCOTUS appointments; Roberts showed us that we don't get to judge appointees based on ideology, and Miers has now shown us we can't block them based on experience (or lack thereof). We now have literally no standards for SCOTUS nominations.
Regarding the ugly, I agree that she's unqualified (although I see no reason, at least yet, to believe that she's an intellectual lightweight). But wait until you see the hearings to decide if she gets a pass on that, some Republican senators who object to her based on ideology and who are looking forward, as probably 90 senators at any given time are, to the next few presidential primaries may come down on her like a freight train for her unqualified status. Certainly this has not been a period when optimistic predictions have ended up looking smart, but if Roberts sailed through because of his superb qualifications and she ends up a major embarrassment to her nominator because of her lack, it could have the opposite effect of what you fear, if presidents see that their base or the opposition will always oppose on ideology and the only defense is high qualification. Although, this being the W Bush ilk, I fear they'll manage to turn her lack of qualification or any sign of capability into a massive popularity gain.
As for your four horsemen scenario, I don't think Roberts will be an automatic vote in that camp. Certainly his status as an adopting and not a biological father should eliminate some of the inane but often effective anti-gay 'reasoning' that would otherwise be offered before the court when DOMA and Florida's adoption-by-alcoholics-with-a-history-of-child-abuse-but-never-a-gay policy comes up.
What I don't like is how they're using her status as a born again to tell the Dobson crowd that she's one of them.
In any case, she's a far throw short of Justice O'Conner, but I consider Roberts, who I admit I seem to have a crush on, is a huge improvement over Rehnquist. Although I certainly have my doubts about anyone appointed by Bush to a legal position after the way torture's flourished and been covered up rather than dealt with under his administration, and also the Sciavo intervention.
PS Could you revisit the October 4 thread? There's a point I've been trying to get across for awhile, about needing to know who's being counted among the world's most prominent theologians to answer a question about them, that I just can't seem to articulate coherently. I'd appreciate it if you'd give it a try.
Off topic, but another thing I'd like your thoughts on: the McCain G.I. Joe, Real American Hero amendment to, only five years into the 21st Century, ban torture (presumably even by "a few bad apples"). Bush promised to veto McCain-Feingold and then signed it, promised to veto spending cuts (yes, cuts) and managed to thusly kill them in Congress so he didn't have to, and is now threatening to make this bill his first actual veto. The White House managed to kill a similar measure before, but since literal 24h/6d/4,000y Creationism is now more popular than Bush by more than a typical margin of error, I doubt he can keep even a Republican congress from passing it this time. So do you think he'll have the courage of his convictions and veto it?
Aleks, you didn't honestly just wonder whether Bush will have "the courage of his convictions," did you?
Will Bush have the courage of his convictions? Gee, does a Guantanamo prisoner enjoy three gourmet meals each day?
You mean the courage of his convictions when it comes to vetoing a bill outlawing torture? Let's just say I'll give him a fair chance and won't rush to judgment.
PS Could you revisit the October 4 thread? There's a point I've been trying to get across for awhile, about needing to know who's being counted among the world's most prominent theologians to answer a question about them, that I just can't seem to articulate coherently. I'd appreciate it if you'd give it a try. (Apologies if you've already done so).
Sorry, Aleks, but I just can't stop laughing at the Oct 4 comments long enough to post. When somebody flat out states that the world's foremost scientific and theological minds have all unanimously agreed that science and religion are incompatible...well, at that point you might as well give up talking with them and go hunt some leprechauns, because it'll be a more practical use of your time.
If I would have used the phrase "all unanimously agreed" I would agree that the statement was idiotic. That's why I didn't use that phrase. I was making a simple generalization that, to this point, no one has shown to be incorrect. Aleks told me that some Popes and Rabbis accept evolution, but then said that he didn't say they fully endorse evolution, which to me is the same thing. I will happily back down from my statement if someone tells me why it is incorrect. I was only making an observation based on my perceptions and my beliefs, I wasn't arguing the point. Please, tell me what is wrong with the statement. Do you think that most paleontologists and biologists accept organized religion? Do you think most of the religious leaders and religious scholars accept the theory of evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years? (definition from the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary according to: http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-definition.pdf)
I understand if you think I'm wrong, I just made an observation. Observations are by definition limited to what you have seen and experienced, without consideration to facts that might be unknown. I could easily be way off base, but I would greatly appreciate it if someone would at least tell me WHY it is such a laughably inaccurate observation.
CF
This is why I tried to explain it to you. Noone can prove it "incorrect" if you won't tell us who you're talking about. You've now stated that your claim was not about anyone in particular, meaning that it was just some wordy babble made more obnoxious by its pretentions. That is why "no one has shown to be incorrect", although you're welcome to as much gloating over that as you like. It was such a laughably stupid observation because it was meaninglessly vague, impossible to prove or disprove, typically and absurdly absolutist, and contradicted by exceptionally prominent anecdotes, which according to you were all you wanted.
"...it was meaninglessly vague, impossible to prove or disprove, typically and absurdly absolutist, and contradicted by exceptionally prominent anecdotes, which according to you were all you wanted."
Impossible to disprove, yet contradicted. Vague, yet absolutist. Obviously you have no desire to argue my observation. You won't answer the questions I pose, you say you can't disprove it but already have, and you say that it was absolutist but vague.
I asked two clear questions that, it answered, would have clarified your position as to why my observation is inaccurate or incomplete. You choose not to answer those questions and, thus, to make it impossible to debate your position.
CF
"Impossible to disprove, yet contradicted."
Your claim was vague and impossible to disprove, because you won't define who qualifies. You could claim that the most qualified prophets believed in dragons, and without knowing who what made someone a prophet and more or less qualified in your study I would be just as pathetically unable to disprove your magnificant statement. Knowing your abilities as I do, I can see why you choose to gloat about that. It is also flatly contradicted by the most obvious anecdotes (various Popes). I don't consider anecdotes to be evidence, but you said that was what you wanted. If all you were capable of arguing is anecdotes, than your claim is flat wrong and very very obviously so, but keep telling yourself it's not been disproven.
" Vague, yet absolutist."
Obviously you think you're saying something clever, so go ahead and explain the problem with my statement. Remember that I was referring to "The most accomplished scientists of the world and the most accomplished theologists of the world perhaps have only one thing in common: the belief that science and religion are mutually exclusive. They believe that true belief in science and religion simultaneously is impossible."
"Obviously you have no desire to argue my observation. You won't answer the questions I pose, you say you can't disprove it but already have, and you say that it was absolutist but vague."
In fact I treated you like an adult of potentially adequate intelligence, ignoring all past performance to do so, to see how you managed with this one. I'll try to explain this again. It can't be disproven because you haven't actually said anything containing any facts or data or subject to them. It is absolutest because you claimed "The most accomplished scientists of the world and the most accomplished theologists of the world perhaps have only one thing in common: the belief that science and religion are mutually exclusive. They believe that true belief in science and religion simultaneously is impossible." And it has been "disproven" according to the idiotic criteria you say you wanted it argued upon, anecdotes.
As for the seperate, new questions you asked, I can't answer them without knowing who qualifies as the members of any category addressed. I also do not have access to that kind of statistical information, and doubt it has ever been gathered. Why aren't you producing that data? It was your statement, hopefully you haven't convinced yourself otherwise quite yet.
"I asked two clear questions that, it answered, would have clarified your position as to why my observation is inaccurate or incomplete. You choose not to answer those questions and, thus, to make it impossible to debate your position."
I'll try to help you out for what I'd like to think is the last time, although I know better. If what you're trying to get at with is whether there's a negative correlation between scientific education and religious practice, I'm sure there is. People used to deductive reasoning are probably less likely to buy angels and virgin births and resurrections and an afterlife, as there is no evidence of any of these things. Many prefer to leave, and hopefully but not always admit, the gaps in scientific knowledge and capability rather than make a leap of faith.
But go ahead and brag about how your statement hasn't been disproven, that's sure to impress you.
"Your claim was vague and impossible to disprove..."
"...keep telling yourself it's not been disproven."
That's just silly. Besides the obvious contradiction, you should remember that I told you it was disproven because you told me that Popes have believed in evolution. I told you it WAS disproven. How about this easily answerable question: Did those Popes and Rabbis you mentioned accept evolution as a means of accounting for ALL the varieties of life on this planet, as the theory of evolution attests? A second, also easily answerable question, do you believe that most of the biologists and evolutionary theorists believe in organized religion? (Three options to each question: yes, no, I don't know.)
CF
** "Your claim was vague and impossible to disprove..."
"...keep telling yourself it's not been disproven."
That's just silly. Besides the obvious contradiction,**
This should be easy even for you: what contradiction?
**you should remember that I told you it was disproven because you told me that Popes have believed in evolution. I told you it WAS disproven.**
Then you said that it was something "no one has shown to be incorrect." But go ahead and keep telling yourself I'm the one who contradicts himself, even if you can't show where or how.
**How about this easily answerable question: Did those Popes and Rabbis you mentioned accept evolution as a means of accounting for ALL the varieties of life on this planet, as the theory of evolution attests?**
I don't know which Rabbis you mean, and aside from that I don't know the answer. I have no data on the subject, but since it's your claim why don't you provide some? I do know that they didn't believe "that science and religion are mutually exclusive. They believe that true belief in science and religion simultaneously is impossible."
**A second, also easily answerable question, do you believe that most of the biologists and evolutionary theorists believe in organized religion? (Three options to each question: yes, no, I don't know.)**
So easily answerable that I already have. I said that I suspected scientists were religious at a statistically lower rate than the general public. I think I read a survey somewhere that said only 40% of American scientists considered themselves religious or something like that (that's an anecdote, I can't vouch for the quality of the research or my recollection of it). If you're trying to make a point of "biologists and evolutionary theorists" in particular, I have no knowledge regarding their beliefs.
Now here's an easily answerable question in return: what led you to assert that "The most accomplished scientists of the world and the most accomplished theologists of the world perhaps have only one thing in common: the belief that science and religion are mutually exclusive. They believe that true belief in science and religion simultaneously is impossible." You don't seem to be going anywhere, so I suppose it's only reasonable to try and figure out why you say these things.
"This should be easy even for you: what contradiction?"
The assertion that it is impossible to disprove yet I should "keep telling [myself] it's not been disproven". If it is impossible to disprove then it couldn't have been disproven.
"If you're trying to make a point of "biologists and evolutionary theorists" in particular, I have no knowledge regarding their beliefs."
Yet my observation was laughable? You have no idea whether or not it's true, yet it is laughable. II have not argued at all on behalf of my observation. I simply have asked you to show me why it is inaccurate. All you have told me is that you aren't sure what percentage of evolutionary scientists are religious and you that you believe most religious leaders accept evolution, but not necessarily as a means to account for all variations of life on earth (which is what evolutionary theory suggests is the case). When pressed, you won't say whether you believe the vast majority of religious leaders fully accept evolution or whether the vast majority of evolutionary scientists reject religion. How can you say my observation is false without taking a position on either of these points?
CF
You seem to be extremely bothered by the fact that I made my initial claim without any evidence to support it. Truthfully, I didn't mean to state fact, only an over-generalized observation. That's why I wasn't prepared to argue it at the time. Now I am prepared.
As for my position that most evolutionary scientists are not religious, this expert testimony should provide support:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9958118/
"Earlier Friday, the defense concluded its case with testimony from University of Idaho microbiology professor Scott Minnich, who supports discussing the concept in high school science classes.
Minnich said articles on intelligent design are not found in the major peer-reviewed scientific journals because it is a minority view.
"To endorse intelligent design comes with risk because ****it's a position against the consensus****," he said. "Science is not a democratic process.""
(*'s added for emphasis).
Not just a majority position, a position against the "consesus". Now, do you have ANY evidence to the contrary, or just anecdotes?
CF
1. =="This should be easy even for you: what contradiction?"
The assertion that it is impossible to disprove yet I should "keep telling [myself] it's not been disproven". If it is impossible to disprove then it couldn't have been disproven.==
It is impossible to disprove your claim because you refuse to give definitiones for "theologists". I admit that, therefore, it cannot be disproven. Author could claim that prominant theologians were loud and proud Satanists, and noone could disprove it without knowing who qualifies. You can keep praising yourself for having made a claim so meaningless as to be unprovable and undisprovable, but you shouldn't expect anyone but yourself to be impressed. I guess I have to ask yet again, where's my "contradiction"?
2 =="If you're trying to make a point of "biologists and evolutionary theorists" in particular, I have no knowledge regarding their beliefs."
Yet my observation was laughable? You have no idea whether or not it's true, yet it is laughable. II have not argued at all on behalf of my observation. I simply have asked you to show me why it is inaccurate.==
That's charming, and probably a step up for you. I called your claim that prominent theogians and scientists agree that religion and science are mutually hostile laughable and that is a contradiction because I said I have no knowledge of an almost completely unrelated point?
3 ==All you have told me is that you aren't sure what percentage of evolutionary scientists are religious==
You made the claim. Why don't you take some responsibility for once?
4 ==and you that you believe most religious leaders accept evolution,==
Before I assume you're deliberately fabricating again, please demonstrate what statements of mine say or imply such a claim.
5(?) ==but not necessarily as a means to account for all variations of life on earth (which is what evolutionary theory suggests is the case).==
Useless until you justify the original claim (that I "believe most religious leaders accept evolution")
6 (your second post). The fact that you think arguing against teaching "Intelligent Design" in science classrooms is proof of atheism pretty much says it all. In any case, I never claimed that "evolutionary scientists" tended to be religious, merely that your claim that "The most accomplished scientists of the world and the most accomplished theologists of the world perhaps have only one thing in common: the belief that science and religion are mutually exclusive. They believe that true belief in science and religion simultaneously is impossible" was idiotic. Author certainly agreed, and rather than defending that claim you keep trying to change the subject and then claiming that I have made claims on the new topic, so even with all your insulating arrogance you don't seem too confident about your claim. Also note that for all your whining about me insulting you, I just asked for you to justify the claim and explain who you were referring to. I have a hard time seeing how your inability to do so is anyone else's fault but yours, but then I am comforted greatly by the knowledge that we have so little in common.
Anyway, you listed this thread as an example of you using facts and me cowering away from them, so assuming you weren't lying please list the facts you have used and that I have hidden from.
1. "This should be easy even for you: what contradiction?"
You said:
"It is impossible to disprove your claim...it cannot be disproven."
You also said:
"If all you were capable of arguing is anecdotes, than your claim is flat wrong and very very obviously so, but keep telling yourself it's not been disproven."
That contradiction.
2. Do you know whether most prominent biologists and evolutionary theorists feel that religion and their science is mutually exclusive? You said earlier that you had "no idea", but I want to make sure I'm not making any assumptions. Do you know whether they feel that way?
3.==All you have told me is that you aren't sure what percentage of evolutionary scientists are religious==
"You made the claim. Why don't you take some responsibility for once?"
You made the claim that my observation was laughable. That is the claim that isn't being supported here. If you won't support it, will you back down from it?
4 & 5==and you that you believe most religious leaders accept evolution, but not necessarily as a means to account for all variations of life on earth (which is what evolutionary theory ==
"Before I assume you're deliberately fabricating again, please demonstrate what statements of mine say or imply such a claim."
I didn't put anything in quotes, I attempted to summarize your position based on what you've said. Why are you asking me what you think? Tell me what you think. My whole point in that long sentence was that I can't figure out what your position is. Instead of telling me, you keep asking ME what your position is. Are you going to "Put up" or not?
6. Did you read my second post? Did you see the factual support for the belief that evolutionary scientists reject religion? Did you see the quote and the source? That is factual support. Why are you ignoring it? I "put up" facts and you respond by not even saying what your position is. Even what I thought you'd said has been thrown out the window. All you'll tell me now is that my original observation is "idiotic". Your post contained 559 words and that's the only position you took. You won't tell me why. You won't tell me if you believe evolutionary scientists embrace religion and you won't tell me if leading theologists, like Pope's and prominent Rabbi's and bishops and even televangelists, denounce evolution as a means to account for ALL forms of life on earth. If you answer nothing else, and I'm guessing you won't, have the balls to answer this one question: Is it honorable and intelligent to call something someone said idiotic while being completely unwilling or unable to tell them why? You speak of integrity and intelligence quite a bit, so I would think you would be able to relate to the relevence of such a question. I hope you have the courage to respond.
CF
Post a Comment
<< Home