|
I think it's already annoying that my fiancee's car decides to lecture us with an irritating beeping sound whenever the passenger needs to unbuckle for more than a few seconds. If you like that, you'll be thrilled to know that 'progressive' inventors around the world are busy thinking of more ways to coerce you into behaving as they think you should.
We already have problems trying to encourage people to throw their junk into the trash, rather than littering. This kind of response from a trash can (one of several in a row — you'll have to figure out which to use for each type of material, no doubt) certainly won't help. You know what's really telling, here? The inventors ponder a world where trash bins would already be able to detect which "type" of recyclable material each bit is. And what's their first thought, in response to that possibility? That the trash can (or another machine, later) could automatically sort and route it to the proper compartment? Oh, no: their first thought is that the trash can could use that knowledge to heave the trash back onto the user or sidewalk, embarrassing (and possibly splattering) some well-meaning human being who didn't quite recycle 'correctly' enough.
They don't know what "sentient" means, do they?
Oh, only the grandmothers and homeless, eh? It sounds like their moral framework is: Dumping a employed person off a park bench? Good! Get to work you lazy person! Sitting is not for you! Go out and earn us some more tax dollars! Dumping a homeless person off a park bench? Oh no! What have we done! You poor person you! You need to sit and relax some more! And what's the value in exploring what happens when technology "goes wrong"? (Or is that just an ad hoc explanation for a poorly-thought-through idea?) If they really wanted to explore what happens when technology goes wrong the possibilities are endless: fire hydrants which pump kerosene, car washes which use sulfuric acid, active subway turnstyles which are sharped to dismember users. (Monty Python has a few suggestions, also.) But, again, what's the point of that? Any idiot can think of a billion devices which don't or won't work well. (A clock which shows random numbers! A television which shows nothing at all!) A challenge would be to think of improvements, not malfunctions.
Can the fish now also text back: "We're fine, but really annoyed by this plastic floating trash above us which keeps shining beams of lights into our eyes at night while we're trying to get some rest!"?
This also makes tons of sense: if a family uses "too much" energy (thus a bureaucrat in the background is implied, deciding how much energy each is allowed, 'according to their needs'), we should kill some plants to compensate — thus reducing the amount of carbon which will be captured! Can our new would-be masters think their way out of a paper bag too? You've heard it. I've heard it. We've all heard it countless times recently: "Avatar" is the #1, top-grossing film of all time. So here's a more accurate list, adjusted for the obscure concept of "inflation", wherein the value of the US dollar continues to decline as the government prints more and more bills. The results? "Avatar" is in 21st place — slightly less popular than both "Fantasia" and (oh, how embarrassing) a certain film which introduced everyone's favorite persona dramatis, Jar-Jar Binks. But, to its credit, "Avatar" did slightly edge out "Mary Poppins." Global Warmingists are in full-blown spin control. Let's take a look at what is being said; examine the calibre of argument. Guardian's George Monbiot:
Monbiot has good motivations. In contrast, every global warming skeptic is an intentional liar, disinterested in truth. Obligatory ad hominem fallacy: Check!
Citation? None provided of course. One prominent example would be lovely. Most people I've read say the e-mails demonstrate a willingness to distort and hide data. And indeed, they have. As these were the main scientists behind the UN's assessment, their motives and ethics indeed should also, reasonably, cast some doubt on the results.
Monbiot oddly links to an article which undermines his own contention, noting that the temperature record he cites "draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data." Monbiot also doesn't mention the HARRY_README.TXT file, which shows said land temperature data was apparently totally unreliable and irreproducible. Nor does he mention the CRU's odd "loss" of all known historical temperature data when asked to release it. Nor subsequent evidence that CRU and NOAA cherry-picked Russian and Canadian land station data. The article he links also admits: "The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics." So Monbiot cites this article as proof of the reliability of the historical temperature record, but the article its implies it's probably fried? Has he read his own best evidence?
Which glaciers? The most recent revelation is that the many of the "shirking" glaciers in question most certainly aren't. Which sea ice? Actual scientific records show it's roughly holding steady since 1979.
Which "responses"? Examples please?
Ah. No other theory makes sense, so it MUST have been CO2. Boy, that's science in action, isn't it? Never mind that global CO2 was hardly being affected by industrial sources back in 1850; also never mind recent evidence pointing to no net change in atmospheric CO2 since 1850 (article recently renamed to make conclusion seem more ambiguous) .
1. The implicit logic here is "I can find someone who lied against global warming, therefore it's true"? Huh? I thought he opposed such fallacies. 2. Please, by all means, read the examples. It's pretty tepid stuff: a coal company wants to "reposition global warming as theory"! (Al Gore or UN officials would never do the converse, right?) A single AGW-skeptical scientist received some funding from an electric power consortium? (No pro-AGW scientist has ever received money for supporting global warming, surely? — how about every single one with a government grant?) A think tank published a list of global-warming-sceptics which included some incorrect names (yet the UN's list of signatories has the same problem — scientists who disagree, like Dr. Chris Landsea, cannot get their names removed.) And finally, horror of horrors, a man of some influence in the Bush administration, skeptical of AGW, was found to have indirect links to Exxon! (Did Monbiot even notice that Jeffery Immelt, CEO of GE, who stands to make billions from confirming global warming — is also one of Obama's top advisors? No, that's nothing compared to a minor Bush official's influence.) As I imply with the counter-examples noted above, the opposite cases are far more pervasive and lucrative — if Monbiot thinks such influences can corrupt a scientific position, he should be overwhelmed by the temptations which could lead one to a pro-warming stance. But it seems he's utterly blind to such. 3. None of this rises to the level of supposedly objective scientists — whose work supposedly forms the entire world's "consensus" position — destroying, losing, and hiding inconvenient evidence. Elsewhere, Monbiot charges:
Um, I'm not "ignoring" such evidence at all. I just don't see how some petition having a few false signatories on it does anything to negate the head of the UN's IPCC taking money to say that glaciers were melting when, in fact, they weren't. The later sheds doubt on a specific "finding", the former does nothing of the sort.
The four examples Monbiot gave were fairly obscure; I follow this debate pretty closely, and I'd never heard of any of said incidents, much less been influenced by them before they were "exposed". And the behavior he cites is mostly ethical (e.g. there's nothing immoral about a company wanting to argue its case in public) so I'm not sure what's to condemn in most cases. And, contrary to his "no accountability" claim, the case he cited with a clear, intentional ethical conflict — the Bush administration official — was actually fired. (Again, does he read his own stuff?) Guardian's Fred Pearce offers a few more attempts:
He's right that "hide the decline", in context, referred specifically and only to truncating a series of tree-ring data, so that the resulting graph wouldn't show a downward trend after 1961. But, um, shouldn't that alone be a troubling indication of cherry-picking? Not for a true believer, apparently. I don't think most the media, pro- or con-, realizes this distinction (and thus aren't "lying" but are merely mistaken) — which may not matter much anyway, given the other subterfuges revealed in the letters, and subsequent exposures of IPCC fraud...
Um, no: technically, what we have is an absolute drop in temperature (normally termed "cooling"!) which some like to interpret (wrongly) as a "slackening of the warming trend." If you have a peak in 1998, then by definition, temperatures have fallen since then. This isn't some odd usage specific to global warming: it the the normal meaning of all the words we're using here. Fred Pearce wishes to avoid such, apparently.
Um, no, again. The shocking point is that Trenberth was privately admitting there's cooling, and admitting it doesn't agree with the models; it wasn't predicted at all. This, in turn, casts significant doubt on the reliability of the touted computer models which supposedly "prove" future warming trends. Which would indeed certainly "undermine" their position — I don't see what's dishonest about that at all.
Oh! Yes, I see now. That's the usual usage: when you "contain" a phenomenon, it means to understand it! Like when the CDC says we should "contain" an outbreak of disease, they mean they only want to "understand" it. Someone should really inform the dictionary people, as they seem to think it means "keep within limits"; "to prevent from advancing". (Stupid dictionary people!) And never mind that Mann's now-widely-discredited hockey-stick graph is a textbook example of getting rid of unwanted effects: "Jan Esper, David Frank and Robert Wilson (EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 2004) further argued that the fatal flaw with Mann, Bradley and Hughes' temperature reconstruction is its incorrect representation of longer-term trends. They observed that the statistical methods used inappropriately remove trends over long time periods." No, nothing to see here! Move along.
Oh, Mann said that he wasn't working to hide the medieval warming trend? Gee, I guess that settles it completely! Forget completely what independent research demonstrated, above. How can you argue with steel, vice-like logic like this? Case closed! I'm sorry I ever entertained a single doubt! Too bad "deniers" aren't afforded the same assumptions of good faith and intentions. Bookworm has a very nice piece, saying pretty much everything I'd want to say on the subject, about the difference between "Freedom of Religion", and the "Freedom from Religion" — a coercive, non-liberal concept which many on the left (in my direct experience) wish to see become the law of the land. An enduring theme in my little world is the war between "science" and science. This idea is not new, but I seem to have gotten the narrative entirely backwards, given that I think "science" is the usual view of the "scientific" and activist establishment, held more for social, religious, monetary, and altruistic reasons than due to evidence. One bit of "science" which has been foisted on us since the Carter administration was the belief that we had to have a universal, federal 55-MPH because it saved lives. What extensive researched backed up this idea before it was implemented on a national scale?
This improvement in morality rates isn't, apparently, a mere artifact of better vehicular lifesaving technologies, but seems to correlate with fewer accidents:
To be fair, I do suspect the 55-MPH speed limit saved fuel, though (another motivation for its Carter-era promulgation). And who cares about a few lives being lost as long as fewer gallons of gasoline are consumed? ... which, come to think of it, also reminds me of another favorite bit of traffic "science" — red-light cameras — in this way:
One of the things I hated about the sitcoms of the late '70s and early 80's were the laugh tracks. Jack Tripper or Maude would say something plainly and patently unfunny, and, from somewhere, an unseen chorus of hysterical laughter would erupt. Funny thing is, I think I also heard people laughing during classic comedies like "I Love Lucy" and "Bewitched", but, if so, it never bothered me. Perhaps such shows had actual, live studio audiences doing the laughing. Or maybe it was canned, then, too. In either event, I probably didn't notice as much because the laughter had never before functioned as a substitute for being funny. Likewise, I would suspect that perhaps some of SOTU applause during the Bush years was scripted (or perhaps not, who knows). But it wasn't as jarring, because I remember it as being at major points, points which made sense, and which I expected Republicans — or even both parties — would agree. But if you want to understand the level of sincerity behind applause at the recent SOTU, all you have to do is listen to, and think about, the uproarious standing ovation this particular set of promises brought:
Look at the second line: these are the exact same kinds of weasel-words he used on the same subject during the campaign. What do they mean? What did he say? Is he in favor of offshore drilling? Were Democrats applauding that? Or was he going to make a "tough decision" to oppose all such drilling? Which would create jobs, how, exactly? Nobody knew. Nobody could have known. The sentence has no content; it promises precisely nothing and thus requires (contrary to what it claims for itself) no bravery at all. Yet it brought loud applause and shouts of acclaim. Which were obviously as genuine as Maude's laugh track. By the way, I agree with him about nuclear power — if he means it this time. But even that silver lining has a cloud: that reminds me of the one thing, in retrospect, I agreed with Jimmy Carter about too. Not a positive association.
For example, on our dismal economy:
We're going to double our exports? In only five years? During a recession? (The moment of judgment conveniently falling, most likely, during someone else's term.) Really? How? By having a committee (NEI) do something? What? He says they'll "reform export controls". Really? What, are we preventing someone from exporting something right now? Or is that code for either punishing imports, or punishing companies which outsource? Both actions would cause us to shed jobs; this is anti-economic nonsense. Young Americas portrayed as a generation of greedy, entitled people, with their hands out:
Nobody should go broke because they went to college? Huh? So I should be able to go to school as long as I want, in any subject, regardless of how irrelevant, and never have to pay it off? Of course, he's not really saying that. A loan should only be forgiven if I then work for the government! This is particularly ironic given that government workers are paid much more (easily 20% more) than private-sector equivalents for the same work. In short, he's saying that if you become a part of the left-wing establishment, a permanent Democratic constituent, we'll give you a free education, too. (At the bank's expense, no less.) If not, well, good luck with that. Since when was greed a bad thing, eh? The obvious effect of this will be, of course, to make student loans harder to obtain. The subsidies he complains about exist to lower the cost of such loans. Now he's telling banks they're also going to risk losing the whole loan if the student majors in Art History or Feminist Theory and ends up working as a janitor, or starts working for the Department of Motor Vehicles. The cynic in me wonders if the effect is intentional: so that he can then complain about the scarcity of student loans, blame the banks more, and demand unlimited free college education like (cough) France has. And again, on healthcare:
We, the American people, were much stupider than he ever imagined. He used too many big words. He didn't appeal enough to our greed. He takes his share of the blame for us being so dense. Bad us! Please, Mr. Obama, condescend to us a bit more! ...
Yes! That's precisely it! I was worried I wouldn't be given enough free stuff! It wasn't that we were concerned that we'd leave our nation poorer or more in debt. It wasn't that we were concerned about what would happen to the poor people below us on the economic ladder — would can't afford health insurance as it is, much less with a new mandate and threats of IRS seizure. And I certainly wasn't concerned we were instantly passing multi-thousand-page bills, written by special interest groups, that no-one else had read! No, I personally wanted a larger cash payout.
Um, remember what the Republicans have been saying, until they're blue in the face, about tort reform, lowering barriers to interstate competition, allowing pre-tax purchase of insurance, subsidizing insurance for the poorest workers, and getting rid of state mandates which raise insurance premiums? No, he's never heard it. And he will never hear it. Because this is another utterly disingenuous, throw-away line meant to imply the opposite of reality: that his plan is the only game in town. It is, in short, a lie. He's not at all interested in examining other ways of getting to the requirements he states.
Um, isn't promising that massive new handouts will "reduce our deficit" precisely the sort of "political posturing" he pretends to be opposed to here? I could go on this way for hours. Nearly every paragraph contains some falsehood, some fantasy, some plan which will do precisely the opposite of what it claims, or some backhanded insult to anyone who didn't toe the line. I have no idea how this played with most listeners, but I hope they're finally getting wise to such tactics. Things went horribly wrong in Portland, Oregon:
Wasn't the police officer breaking the law, not to mention violating his human dignity, by trying to save his life in the first place? Hasn't Oregon decided that suicide is fundamental right? Perhaps he traveled all the way from Kansas for that very reason? Maybe "self-immolation tourism" will be Oregon's next big growth market? Could cross-market with organic gardening needs.
Yes. I think "Beauty and the Beast" would have been so much better if Belle had been confined to an electric wheelchair. And, um, doesn't "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" count? Or wasn't he handicapped enough? Probably hard to set a believable action/fantasy film in the middle ages with a quadriplegic hero. I was subjected to stand-up comedy Friday night. I say "subjected to" because I love the form, when done (what I consider) well, but you have to know the right place and people. Otherwise it tends to devolve to one part cleverness, two or three parts obsession with bodily functions and sex. Politically, stand-up comedy seems to generally re-enforce whatever leftist dogmas are in vogue. Friday night was filled with contradictions. I heard how terrible it was to oppose gay marriage in California, and lots of jibes at Denver's alleged discomfort with racial differences. Message received: It's bad to hate or look down people who are different than you. Um, except not: The comedians also relentlessly made fun of Wal-Mart shoppers, particularly arguing that many of them were handicapped — mocking the distorted forms of people with clubbed feet, the mentally retarded, etc. Well, yes: generally people with infirmities have trouble making as high an income, so they tend to shop at stores which will give them more affordable merchandise. Meaning Wal-Mart. (Har har.) The Duggers were also mentioned, and Christians in general came up for repeated comedic thrashings. The message, overall? So, yeah, it's bad to hate. Except, um, this group over here. Look how stupid they all are. And this other group. Wow, are they stupid. And hateful. Because they don't like people who are different than themselves. Unlike me. Gosh, I hate them for that. The crowd loved it. America sleeps as Ebenezer Scrooge on Christmas Eve, poised between two possible futures, and being shown dreams — well, nightmares, really — of potential Christmases to come, with a glimpse at our own tombstone. If you want to peer into one possible future — a future advocated by those who view Europe as a model for the US — one only need read the daily (insane) goings-on being reported in the UK. Today's bit of political-correctness-on-steroids weirdness:
Once upon a time, "discrimination" was a positive word: quality merchandise was advertised as appealing to "discriminating" buyers — that is, people who had the ability to distinguish between a good product and a pile of trash. Or so the appeal went, anyway. During the civil rights struggle, the problem ("bigotry", actually, or "prejudice" — meaning to "judge before") was also called "racial discrimination" — a fair term, since what mattered (e.g. one's fitness for a job) was being ignored in favor of that which didn't (skin tone). Now, people simply reflexively jump whenever the word "discrimination" is used. Yes, indeed, the woman above hopes to "discriminate" between people who would work hard and those who wouldn't. That must be evil, right? She's drawing distinctions, and treating applications as though they might not all be equal. Well, of course. That's what sane employers do. This once-helpful word is used like a truncheon even in the US. People opposing same sex marriage are demonized because they "discriminate" based on the gender-parity of the two potential "parents" which might result from the union. And indeed, they do. But, as in the example above, the substance of the debate is thus hidden: How did society end up enshrining committed male/female unions with the word "marriage"? What societal benefits did this form of union confer, that it warranted a special word, and special protections, that others didn't? Where is the evidence that forcibly undoing that ancient distinction will be generally helpful to society, rather than harmful? And didn't we come out of a huge financial crisis which was caused, at least in part, by a desire to stop lenders from "discriminating" between those who were most likely to be able to afford a particular mortgage, and those who couldn't? Weren't we trying to get banks to treat both kinds of applicants equally? The example above demonstrates that, at least among the PC crowd, the word "discrimination" (like "tolerance", another helpful word, corrupted) can indeed act as a powerful thought-stopper. I hope this story gets around — shining a light on this absurdity will hopefully make people stop and think a bit more the next time they hear "discrimination" thrown around. I have an odd fascination with illogic. There's something about watching a human brain, or collection of them, malfunction which is both sad and interesting — both, because the brain in question can't see it happening. I was never a huge Charles Johnson fan. Back when everyone in the rightosphere was saying, "Oh, you've gotta read LGF!", I somehow just never saw the same thing in his website. I don't know where the disconnect was (what I was somehow missing, I assume) but quite a number seemed entranced by LGF. That said, I was never particularly a critic either. In recent years, his site seemed obsessed with creationism, as if there's some sort of parallel threat from (a) extremists who want to blow up buildings and force me to convert to their religion, and (b) a Baptist who attends a church potluck dinner where most those attending think the earth is several billion years younger than it really is. That's an odd sort of myopia (paranoia even, perhaps?) I see among a certain breed of New Atheist, but, well, each to their own. I don't care too much, as long as he doesn't go as far as Sam Harris (or Richard Dawkins), and recommend the extermination (or mere criminalization) of those with whom he disagrees. I mention him because I'd heard rumors that Charles had sort of "melted down", and was curious what his reasons were. Reading his own charges, and responses from those he seems to have attacked, I'd suspected such criticism had merit. The latest correspondence (if you can call it that) between radio talk show host Dennis Prager, and Johnson's subsequent response, I think, illustrates perfectly what's gone wrong. I won't do a blow-by-blow, but the pattern is the the same each time. Johnson attacks by accusing "the right" of (for example):
Prager responds by saying: "Uh, who are these people?", and:
And Johnson replies:
The odd thing about all this is that Johnson continually appeals to logic while invoking clear fallacies. You can read for yourself that Prager only characterized Johnon as "associating the American right with facism", which Johnson clearly has done. Yet Johnson then tries to turn Prager's response into a claim that Johnson has said "everyone on the right" has said or done X, when Prager has said no such thing. This is very weird to watch, because Charles is repeatedly accusing Dennis of invoking a straw man argument, while, in fact, doing exactly that. And, as I noted above, he apparently can't see he's doing it. As I said, I won't bore you with the rest of it; it follows the same pattern: 1. Johnson characterizes "the right", by and large, as doing X (that is, after all, what saying "the right" means — not that it's true of every member of the set, but that it's a fair characterization of a dominant trend within the group) 2. Prager responds by questioning how Johnson's specific examples can be applied broadly to the right in the US. ("I looked them up... The BNP is the British National Party, a racist group that in the last U.K. general election received 0.7 percent of the popular vote. So what?") [I'd also note the BNP is actually leftist, not rightist, as is commonly asserted.] 3. Johnson accuses Prager of a straw man, wrongly claiming Prager said Johnson said every member of "the right" must have done X. Johnson also blames bloggers for the content of their comments section, or says they once "supported" (as in, apparently, once stood near, or talked with) some group he dislikes. One of the first things I see "going", that is, malfunctioning, in the society around me is a selective inability to handle simple generalizations. Someone will say, for example: "Democrats support a larger government", and an irate Democrat will respond with: "That's not true! I'm personally against it!" Of course, the PARTY does indeed have beliefs and preferences, and certainly a larger state is a big part of their program. The fact that certain supporters sometimes disagree, but vote for them anyway, doesn't negate that. These people behave (at moments) as if we're supposed to refrain from all generalizations, and never say things like "Dogs have four legs" (when, of course, some dogs have lost a leg, or were born without one), "Ice cream is cold" (because, of course, some of it, somewhere, has melted), "Democrats want big government" (because some people call themselves "Democrats" while wanting smaller government), etc. Yet they, themselves don't refrain from such generalizations, and seem to understand how to correctly parse them as long as the subject isn't their particular "hot button" issue. Second, concerning guilt-by-association: My rather-small workplace produced no less than three representatives to the Democratic National Convention. I also would hope that my own efforts there have contributed to the bottom line, thus helping, at least in part, pay the salary of these three individuals. And I have certainly eaten with them, and spoken sociably with them. If they posted here, I'd let their comments stand. (These are the sort of links Johnson is drawing to assert people "lent support to" fascists.) So did I thus "lend support" to the election of Barack Obama? Using the standards Johnson seems to be applying, I'd apparently be guilty of such. Um, whatever. If such a standard can produce the result that I "lent support to" Obama's presidential campaign, then said litmus test produces nearly meaningless results. In short, another fallacy. As usual, my follow-up question is: what causes a mind to go wrong in such a way? Often, I suspect it's something to do with deeply-held religious-like beliefs; perhaps in Johnson's case it has something to do with his atheism and fixation upon American Christians. Note, again, I'm not saying all atheists are subject to such, nor that Christians are immune from such illogic either: just that I'd guess that his obsession against creationism and sudden illogical turn against the right aren't utterly disconnected. Is Johnson concerned about support for fascism? He should learn a bit about its historical manifestations, if so. As I see it, European fascism involved an obsession with blaming "bankers" and "capitalism", a cult of personality, relentless demands for change, a desire for socialist benefits and health-related regulations, and deep sensitivity for the environment. As Goldberg documented, it was a "middle way" between extreme socialism and capitalism, which co-opted corporations for state goals rather than outlawing them directly. Good thing nothing even remotely like that is happening in the US right now. Except with, um, Ann Coulter. Heard, minutes ago, that Coakley had conceded, and that Brown had won in Massachusetts. (Note the lack of a final "e" before the s.) So I went to Google News to check coverage, and what is their top story? Massachusetts race wasn't a referendum on health-care reform No, of course it wasn't. Not all. Nothing to see here, move along everyone. Forget announcing Brown won: let's go directly into spin mode. Oh, while we're at it, what brilliant justification does our would-be tourguide to reality provide for his analysis?
Ah yes, the voters (stupid unthinking things that they are) were in a grumpy mood and threw a temper tantrum. Because of, y'know, the bad weather, Haitian earthquake, and all. Without thinking, they took off of work, made their way to the polls, stood in line, and then cast their ballots — all in a blind, unreasoning fit of pique. This is the exact same narrative that California newspapers trotted out when voters rejected the state's massive spending hikes last year: they're just stupid little two-year-olds, crying and acting out irrationally. Well, I guess we've been warned what "those of us who are Washington insiders" — as well as their editors at WaPo and Google — think of anyone who doesn't knuckle under and "get with" their latest brilliant program for us. All sarcasm aside, I *love* the way he closes; you can almost hear him plugging his ears, squinting his eyes, and trying to make the impending reality go away!!!!:
Sunspots! Vampires! Cosmic rays! Invading alien body snatchers!
Oh yes — great advice! In a perverse way, I hope Congressional Democrats follow his lead and try every twisted trick they can imagine. I do think there are reasonable arguments which can be made against, say, waterboarding. I just don't see them, often... A thoughtful Jonah Goldberg writes:
Absolutely right. One of the things which bothers me most about the "torture" debate is the way most anti-"torture" advocates seem to exude moral unseriousness. Take waterboarding, for example. One can argue — plausibly and respectably, I think — that waterboarding constitutes a form of torture. Yet only a tiny fraction of the "enhanced interrogation" (three individuals, if I'm not mistaken) has involved waterboarding. Opponents of "torture" have refused to provide a clear alternative boundary, and seem to have lumped every possible form of discomfort — including loss of sleep, uncomfortable quarters, a woman pretending to have menstrual blood on her finger — in as well, all apparently equally being "torture." I'd like to see those who complained about torture actually elucidate a detailed, alternative vision. Is it the current protocol, where we grant a captured terrorist the same Miranda rights a US citizen receives, and can only use promises of a short and/or cushy incarceration as a carrot to exchange for intelligence? Are they willing to own up to the results of that vision? And are they willing to countenance a similar application of "torture" being applied domestically? Isn't being handcuffed thus also a form of "torture"? How about being made to wear rather un-warm prison garb and sleep on very thin mattresses? And surely solitary confinement is "torture" as well. Is that really a slippery slope they're prepared to unleash on our domestic law enforcement organizations? If not, again, where is that line? Another example of moral unseriousness is the failure to admit that such techniques have been successful at times. "Oh, they only get the person to tell you want you want to hear!" It's true a person can be coerced into signing false confessions. But, if so, how could the accused produce accurate information they didn't know just to please their interrogators? The morally-smug armchair critics I encounter assert no such thing has ever happened, apparently to avoid giving a serious, responsible answer to the very-real "ticking bomb" scenario. An additional hallmark of moral unseriousness is the demonization of all who disagree — which is another primary anti-"torture" tactic. Yes, of course: there are no reasonable people who could ever fail to come to your precise conclusion! They must certainly be acting out of bad motives. (What bad motives? We never hear. They just unaccountably want to embrace evil.) Yet another apparently thoughtless argument is that if we "torture" them, then they'll torture our people if captured. Answer: Um, have you seen the video of Daniel Pearl's death? Are you aware of how our CIA guys were treated when captured in Lebanon? Are you aware the extremists are already in favor of mass murder, writ large? Are you aware of the way the Taliban treated people, long before 9/11? Are you aware terrorists put rat-poison laced nails in suicide bombs to ensure innocent men, women, and children will suffer as long as possible before dying? Perhaps this argument could be made more effectively, but, as it stands, I have trouble accepting detailed psychological models of terrorists from people who seem completely unaware of the nature and past behavior of such. And then there's the ultimate point, which Jonah, to his credit, raises — a point which has always seemed kind of obvious to me, and yet which seems to invite a quick topic change whenever I raise it. (Jonah has seen the same reaction, apparently...)
No kidding! And yet people will say that soldiers have the right to kill someone in the field — make them dead for all eternity — but not to shoot them in the leg to force them to give up information which could save lives. Huh??? Shoot me in the leg, please! In a similar vein, others will declare, with all certainty, that we should never torture. Well, great, are they entirely against all killing by our government, too? Take all of our soldiers off the field? Take guns away from our police? Embrace absolute pacifism? Why is throwing a guy against a wall more morally reprehensible than killing him? The topic is quickly changed. Finally, as a Christian, I'd also demand an answer to the bigger question: On what basis do critics of "torture" claim it is morally wrong? If a Christian wants to say: "Well, that's not a Christ-like thing to do", then I could buy that argument — or a similar one from a different faith. Whether right or wrong, it's at least minimally coherent: a. There are ultimate, non-subjective moral laws, But, of course, most those who oppose "torture" aren't coming from such a religious tradition (indeed, quite the opposite), and typically can't offer similarly rational grounds for using words like "right" and "wrong" — an atheist can only mean, by saying "wrong", ultimately: "Well, I personally find it distasteful.", or appeal to common goals or beliefs. (And there's nothing wrong with that, IMO — it's also my preferred way of arguing in public.) Yet many on the left, who are, in fact, atheists, also denounce others using extreme, absolute, moralistic language ("Bush is evil! Torture is wrong!") — without being able to point, in even the faintest way, to some reason we should believe their idea of "right" and "wrong" is particularly binding. Typically, they're just recycling misunderstood JudeoChristian religious beliefs, without understanding the rather non-atheistic origins of their alleged absolute moral truisms. (And if so, this isn't just an example of unseriousness on a particular topic, it betrays a largely unserious or at least unexamined approach to life and morality as a whole.) Now I can imagine, if I were opposed to such techniques, how I would argue against them, as an atheist or as a theist. There are certain common-sense, pragmatic arguments one could make. (I don't find them ultimately convincing, but they're at least not stupid arguments.) But I always hate getting the feeling that I have better arguments for the other side then they have. If I'm not deluded, it implies I'm taking their own position far more seriously than they are. And that's, in a nutshell, what I find so troubling about this "torture" debate. No wonder it's been taking Obama so long to appoint people — the man has some fairly selective criteria:
No, not the nicest black students, or smartest, or those with the most admirable character. Not the most learned professors, or the most engaging feminists. Nope.
Progress! As the battle for "same sex marriage" succeeds, recedes, and loses its novelty, I suspect we will see increased demands for "equality" from other special-interest groups. One of these, of course, will be the "transgendered" — that "T" trailing off at the far end of "LGBT". 1970's-style feminism was based on the insistence that men and women were identical, that "gender" differences were socially constructed. Though the left claims the mantle of "science", it has often had far deeper "anti-science" reflexes than any religious nut you'd find on the right: it doesn't take a particularly sophisticated experiment to show that women are different than men. Indeed, feminists' acceptance of separate women's sports (and claims that the world would be better if only it were run by women) admits exactly this. So what will it mean for feminism when men are simply allowed to call themselves "women", have themselves classified as a double- or triple-minority (Bob is now a "woman" AND is "transgendered", trumping the minority status of genuine women — and if he likes women, as most men do, he's also now a "lesbian" too!) — and yet are still also allowed to keep many of the genetic advantages conferred to men? This is not wild speculation: just a few months ago, a huge debate emerged about whether South African runner Caster Semenya was "actually" a woman. Testing showed she a hermaphrodite — I'm certainly sympathetic to her situation. She probably never knew. But what happens when otherwise-ordinary men — who are not hermaphroditic in the slightest — start declaring themselves women, wanting to participate in sports, and wanting to fill minority slots in corporate boards? I suspect we'll find ourselves in a very confused situation, with odd and contradictory rules, such as being unable to call transgendered man a "he", yet simultaneously having the exact opposite rule regarding sports participation. I also suspect we'll see a clash between more traditional feminists (if that term makes any sense) and sexual-rights radicals. I'm too chicken to try it myself (and my fiance wouldn't approve, for several good reasons), but I'd love to see some guy simply declare himself a woman. Not cross-dress, not shave his facial hair (instead grow it out, more preferably), just declare himself a "her." As a fringe benefit, here in Colorado, he'd also have the right (thanks to our current governor, Bob Ritter) to hang out in the womens' locker room — and, by law, the state should fine anyone who stops him from doing so. It would be a great way to spark debate on what sex and gender really are. I freely admit that in some cases (i.e. hermaphrodites like Semenya), "gender" is not entirely clear. And I have sympathy for "her" in her situation. But we are not helping her by changing society to make it similarly unclear for everyone. ("What gender have you decided to be when you grow up?") I also know and understand that there are men and women who do not feel comfortable with their gender identity and wish they could be the opposite gender. No doubt, they do find the current situation "repressive". And, again, I do not hate such people, but rather feel compassion for their struggle. (And I'll probably get flack for saying that, but so be it.) But there are no scenarios in which everyone can be made happy, and far more harm will be inflicted by changing society to make them feel more accepted, particularly with regard to legal and medical recognition of sex differences. It's a brave new world — or many want it to be, anyway. I am so not-sad that I have mostly stopped watching TV:
Clearly needs more midgets. :-) Where I grew up, Milwaukee, there was quite a trade in figurines of Catholic saints, medals, etc. A friend of mine tells me the purpose of such is as a reminder, but most seemed to think they were a talisman which would bring luck. (You wouldn't want to start on your road trip without St. Christopher standing proudly atop your dashboard!) Or objects of supplication. These saints were always depicted in the holiest of poses, with radiant faces, broad arm sweeps, and sometimes halos. As a tongue-in-cheek homage to this tradition, I've always thought it would be fun to create a "modern saints" figurine series, honoring those who in modern times who have promoted the Christian faith. Ideally, I'd like them to depicted in as politically incorrect a manner as possible, though I wouldn't have to work hard, as most of them were anyway. A few candidates:
How could you not want to own such a statuette? Of course, he should be depicted huffing on a cigar, and probably peering quizzically at a map held in his hands. He should also be clearly obese. I nominate him as patron saint of the disorganized.
Needless to say, I nominate him as the patron saint of political activists.
I guess the stereotypical brown monkish attire would have to do — although deftly wielding a pistol at unseen attackers.
I've seen them by the highways, on a million exit ramps, And if you listen to my songs I hope you hear the water falling
God bless 'em. Via Volokh (1, 2), a months-old but still-appalling study I hadn't seen before:
Clicking through, I found this similarly appalling (but not-at-all surprising) result:
Although the author appears a bit surprised, given the "presumed higher degree of racial tolerance", the result is consistent with other studies which show that support for classical racism and socialism tend to go hand-in-hand. Oddly, a few hours ago, I caught a few minutes of an interview with conservative pundit Michelle Malkin on C-SPAN2; a caller was informing the national audience that Michelle was reflexively in favor of Israel because her husband was a Zionist Jew. Michelle was, understandably, a bit surprised to learn her husband was a Jewish Zionist. I somehow doubt her critic was an ardent Republican. Jim Wallis is the man behind "Sojourners", a Christian-tinted left-leaning political activism group. He typically assails Republicans for almost everything, yet asserts a non-partisan status by occasionally also criticizing Democrats for either not pursuing their agenda with sufficient zeal, or tepidly (and toothlessly) mentioning that they have the wrong stance on abortion. I suppose that's not a particularly glowing introduction (and certainly not an "unbiased" one — I make no pretensions of such) but I do claim it's a fair one, given the years I've watched him and read his materials. How does he view the current situation?
Wait — before we get going — what does "a religious response" even mean? It might mean "my personal, particular religious response", but given his coming implication that others, in order to be moral, must act similarly, it cannot be interpreted as merely his own personal take. He's implying his words will create a burden upon all ethically-minded "religious" individuals. Yet the response he's about to outline is predicated on "grace", which is a classical Christian belief. (Indeed, being forgiven by another's sacrifice is where even modern Jews and Christians part company.) But perhaps it would be too "exclusive" to point to his own faith, so he terms his response "religious", as though Muslims, Shamans, Satanists, Baptists, and Jains must all agree.
The question I'd have is how far were they from being able to afford their property, under any reasonable interest rate? This article in the NY Times, noting "Treasury officials appear to have concluded that growing numbers of delinquent borrowers simply lack enough income to afford their homes and must be eased out", appears to suggest otherwise: that it's not simply the interest rate, but rather that using an unnaturally low interest rate, people purchased homes above their otherwise affordable range. Even so: Why is having to move one of the worst tragedies which can befall one? I lived for years in someone's basement, at times well below poverty-level income. Are these people of a higher caste than I, such that they are entitled to a fairly nice home no matter what? (And I, living in a basement, should have been supporting their considerably higher standard of living?) Why don't I deserve a fairly nice home too (I still don't have one), even at someone else's expense?
Wait another second. Whatever one feels about the "behavior" of banks, isn't it fairly obvious that banking is one of the most tightly-regulated industries in the United States? Even if we fully accept the main argument from the left — that Clinton-era deregulation allowed "greed" into the industry — then don't the regulators bear at least some responsibility, if not primarily so, given their alleged dereliction of duty? (Much less in the conserative scenario, where CRA and FM/FM and other Dem initiatives played a huge role in kick-starting the bubble in the first place...) Yet in Jim Wallis's world, the government cannot be at fault, seemingly.
Has Jim read the parable in question? The man begging for mercy was going to be sold into slavery, not being made to move to a smaller, more affordable dwelling. Given that he's not even bothering to outline some severe, unconscionable consequence, it seems that he's arguing, essentially, there should be no negative consequences, ever from bad financial judgment. How could you even sustain such a system, where every time a person asked to default a loan the answer was "yes"? How could banks exist to lend money for people to buy homes? Is that what he really wants? Or should the taxpayers just give everyone free homes? (Liberals, it seems to me, do often ask themselves the "yes, but what comes next?" questions.) I agree with the parable, BTW. But it's a call for mercy in extreme, dire circumstances, and a warning that we are all under God's judgment. (Wallis avoids highlighting salvific themes.) Mercy was granted by an individual, not compelled by Caesar. And even God's own legal code, given to Israel, ensured there would at least some penalties for unpaid debt.
Wallis calls this a "religious" response, but his argument so far is almost entirely, aside from one (arguably misapplied) passing reference to a parable, based on his own economic and political filters. The crisis was caused by "greedy bankers", not a utopian desire (and corresponding policies) to get homes in the hands of those who couldn't afford them. Rescuing banks is presumably fine (I'd disagree) but we should also rescue every homeowner who isn't making payments. Wallis offers far too little logic to make these policy demands a necessary outcome of his particular faith, much less all "religious" peoples, of any sort.
Ah! A moral recovery! Who could be opposed to that?
Another good suggestion: we should take this opportunity to make individual changes. Yet our personal moral development is apparently but a means to a larger end...
So that's the end game. "Human beings should preside over the market." Well, what does he think "the market" is? A series of interactions initiated and carried out by plants, insects, and rocks? What he really means is that a few select individuals, called "the state" should control the behaviors of others; as he put it, "increased regulation" for what is already one of the most regulated areas of economic activity. But if he never holds regulators accountable, and regulation so far hasn't prevented a crisis, and regulators are prone to being co-opted, then why is yet more regulation the answer? (In years of asking this simple question, I have yet to receive a clear, forthright answer.)
In other words, those in government should decide how much is "enough", and should decide who gets what in that fixed pie. Imagine how we'd be living now if Wallis' argument had prevailed in the 1400s! Although I'm sure, unlike then, we are now at the end of economic progress. (Remember, this outlook calls itself "progressive"!) Once again, this isn't a "religious" argument. Jim Wallis unwittingly acts here as an economic and historical expert. He knows that we're about to come to the end of our rope, in terms of improved standard of living, and thus socialism is now the appropriate response. If his religious perceptions seem questionable here, his economic and political expertise undoubtedly more so.
Yes, he's right. But the flip side, which apparently hasn't occurred to him, is that he himself has just used anxiety for material things (a spectre of coming material scarcity) to argue for extreme government control over the distribution and production of wealth. This is a characteristic which pervades the left: modern environmentalism, for example, is, as it's core, nothing but the political embodiment of an extreme, almost crazed fear over material things. Yet, given his own scarcity-mongering, I'm not holding out hope the Right Reverend Wallis will soon produce an equally stinging rebuke to Greenpeace and Al Gore. On a positive note, he closes the article with some nice descriptions of voluntary activities taken by individuals and small groups: charity, examining investments, transferring money, helping each other. I have no issue with that. Yet note that he's stated that this is a temporary, stopgap measure ("leading the way" before the state acts) — and his group, Sojourners, in nearly every call to action, demands that more governmental power be brought to bear. I don't have any problem with people mixing their religious belief with politics: everyone does it, some are just more honest and self-aware than others. But I do have a problem with people who confuse their politics with their religion. My religious values teach me I should support policies which help the most people. But I turn to economics and history, as God intended, to discover which polices those are. (Or Jim could just read his bible, and discover that God didn't want the Israelites to live under a powerful state. But perhaps that's asking a bit much.) Those left of me seem to skip that analysis, immediately connecting some charitable urge they feel with whatever idea first pops into their mind — and condemning those who have done more homework, in that connecting phase, as immoral. Done a few times, that's an understandable mistake. But over the long run, a steadfast refusal to examine the evidence and consider alternatives — while demanding such policies be forced on others, against their will — seems to move from being an intellectual or academic failing to a moral one.
Hey! I have friends who own ferrets. This is a completely unnecessary slur against ferrets.
|