"I think people are stupid and gullible and irresponsible and bad, and they will be swayed by other bad people, and they will do bad things... Not me because I'm better and smarter than those other people and I won't be swayed, so I should be able to make decisions for those other people, because otherwise bad people will, and I want them to be forced by men with guns to do what I think they should do, because I am good and right and my thoughts and preferences and decisions are good and right"
-- Everyone who wants the government to restrict rights... but they can't admit it
Showing posts with label Political Correctness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Correctness. Show all posts
Sunday, May 31, 2020
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Impossible Ideology, False Dichotomy, and Unacceptable Conclusions
This post is a clarification of an ongoing theme I've addressed before... and which has been addressed many times before by myself, by other bloggers, and by scholars like Victor Davis Hanson, and Thomas Sowell.
I'm talking about the "Stupid or Evil" false dichotomy.
Those of us with a libertarian, or economic conservative bent (social conservatives seem to suffer from this tendency as much as liberals, just in a different area), frequently have a huge problem understanding why "Progressives", liberals, socialists etc... keep advocating and even implementing clearly nonviable ideas, against all past results or evidence.
How anyone can still, not slightly, but whole heartedly, and with the entire force of a government behind them; implement socialist ideas? The entire 20th century stands as incontrovertible evidence that socialism, in any form, in any way, for any reason; is not just a failed political system, but a horrible idea in general.
And yet, millions of people around the world still advocate for it passionately... even kill or die for it.
When we oppose these people, or these ideas, they declare us to be "stupid" or "ignorant", "delusional", "defrauded and manipulated by evil/greedy masters" or simply "evil" ourselves.
The question here is not one of fact, it is one of ideology; in a belief structure where the political is the personal, and political ideology substitutes for tribal identity, or religious faith.
For these people evidence, and reality, are irrelevant. Something is true not because of evidence, reality, or history; but because their ideology says it must be true. Something is false not because evidence says so, or because it doesn't work; it is false because it differs from the ideology.
This behavior is maddeningly baffling to those of us who attempt to use reality, history, logic, and a healthy appreciation for the law of unintended consequences; as a guide for our ideas and our actions.
Warren Meyer over at Coyote Blog, put up a post this morning, that put me in mind of this particular topic again (emphasis mine):
It is impossible, because they are arguing from ideology not from reality. They believe in what HAS to be true, because their ideology says so; not what reality, or experience, proves to be true.
Their ideology is core to their perception of their identity, and their sense both of self worth, and the worth of others. Their judgement and reason are based on it. Everything is filtered through this ideological prism, because it HAS to be, for the health of their own psyche.
For someone whose entire perception of self worth depends on their adherence to an ideological precept ("I am a good/better person because I believe this morally better thing"), then anyone who disagrees with this precept must be stupid, ignorant, defrauded, deluded, or evil.
There is no room for honest disagreement in this. To preserve their self worth, and sense of identity, there can be no doubt, and no acceptance of any possibility of error. There is one true path, which they follow, and anyone who deviates from it is apostate.
If therefore, one cannot dismiss opponents of their ideological precept as stupid, ignorant, defrauded, or deluded (and in the case of clearly intelligent, well informed people, presenting reasoned arguments against your precepts, you obviously cannot); the only thing you can challenge is their motives.
Your opponents MUST KNOW that you are right, that your ideology is right; since they are intelligent and well informed, and of course any intelligent and well informed person (such as yourself) can see your ideology is clearly morally superior (just as you did).
Therefore your opponents must be evil, or at best venal and self-interested.
It simply must be that way, because any other conclusion is unacceptable.
I'm talking about the "Stupid or Evil" false dichotomy.
Those of us with a libertarian, or economic conservative bent (social conservatives seem to suffer from this tendency as much as liberals, just in a different area), frequently have a huge problem understanding why "Progressives", liberals, socialists etc... keep advocating and even implementing clearly nonviable ideas, against all past results or evidence.
How anyone can still, not slightly, but whole heartedly, and with the entire force of a government behind them; implement socialist ideas? The entire 20th century stands as incontrovertible evidence that socialism, in any form, in any way, for any reason; is not just a failed political system, but a horrible idea in general.
And yet, millions of people around the world still advocate for it passionately... even kill or die for it.
When we oppose these people, or these ideas, they declare us to be "stupid" or "ignorant", "delusional", "defrauded and manipulated by evil/greedy masters" or simply "evil" ourselves.
The question here is not one of fact, it is one of ideology; in a belief structure where the political is the personal, and political ideology substitutes for tribal identity, or religious faith.
For these people evidence, and reality, are irrelevant. Something is true not because of evidence, reality, or history; but because their ideology says it must be true. Something is false not because evidence says so, or because it doesn't work; it is false because it differs from the ideology.
This behavior is maddeningly baffling to those of us who attempt to use reality, history, logic, and a healthy appreciation for the law of unintended consequences; as a guide for our ideas and our actions.
Warren Meyer over at Coyote Blog, put up a post this morning, that put me in mind of this particular topic again (emphasis mine):
"I am perfectly capable of believing Drum honestly thinks that further deficit spending will improve the economy this year. I think he’s nuts, and working against all historic evidence, but never-the-less I believe he is sincere, and not merely pushing the idea as part of some dark donkey-team conspiracy. Why is it that he and his ilk, from both sides of the aisle, find it impossible to believe that their opponents have similarly honest intentions?Yes, it is impossible.
I mean, is it really so hard to believe — after spending a trillion dollars to no visible effect, after seeing Europe bankrupt itself, and after seeing the American economy begin to recover only after crazy stimulus programs have mostly stopped — that some folks have an honest desire to see economic improvement and think further stimulus programs are a bad idea"
It is impossible, because they are arguing from ideology not from reality. They believe in what HAS to be true, because their ideology says so; not what reality, or experience, proves to be true.
Their ideology is core to their perception of their identity, and their sense both of self worth, and the worth of others. Their judgement and reason are based on it. Everything is filtered through this ideological prism, because it HAS to be, for the health of their own psyche.
For someone whose entire perception of self worth depends on their adherence to an ideological precept ("I am a good/better person because I believe this morally better thing"), then anyone who disagrees with this precept must be stupid, ignorant, defrauded, deluded, or evil.
There is no room for honest disagreement in this. To preserve their self worth, and sense of identity, there can be no doubt, and no acceptance of any possibility of error. There is one true path, which they follow, and anyone who deviates from it is apostate.
If therefore, one cannot dismiss opponents of their ideological precept as stupid, ignorant, defrauded, or deluded (and in the case of clearly intelligent, well informed people, presenting reasoned arguments against your precepts, you obviously cannot); the only thing you can challenge is their motives.
Your opponents MUST KNOW that you are right, that your ideology is right; since they are intelligent and well informed, and of course any intelligent and well informed person (such as yourself) can see your ideology is clearly morally superior (just as you did).
Therefore your opponents must be evil, or at best venal and self-interested.
It simply must be that way, because any other conclusion is unacceptable.
Monday, January 25, 2010
A must watch from Warren Meyer (of CoyoteBlog, and ClimateSkeptic)
Catastrophe Denied: The Science of the Skeptics Position (studio version) from Warren Meyer on Vimeo.
Warren is local to me (he lives about three miles away actually), and runs both the excellent libertarian small business and economics blog CoyoteBlog, and the absolutely essential climate blog Climate Skeptic.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Speaking Truth to Power
I'm not one for explicitly mixing military command, and religiosity (which is different from personal religion or faith); as Boykin is known for doing. I'm also loathe to use CBN as a source, given some of the things they've broadcast in the past...
But this man is speaking the unvarnished truth.
If there's a man on this planet who knows a terrorist when he sees one, and how to deal with him; it's Jerry Boykin.
There's a lot more to Boykins background than what they briefly mention in this segment.
Look at the mans record (what parts of it are publicly available anyway. There's enough there that a bright boy should be able to figure it out).
For almost 40 years, this mans life has utterly revolved around two things: God, and counter-terrorism. The fact that he sees these two things as explicitly linked may disturb some sensibilities, but it does not invalidate his knowledge and experience.
If for some reason you want to discount what this man is saying because of his religious views, or how he chooses to express them... You're a damn fool.
But this man is speaking the unvarnished truth.
If there's a man on this planet who knows a terrorist when he sees one, and how to deal with him; it's Jerry Boykin.
There's a lot more to Boykins background than what they briefly mention in this segment.
Look at the mans record (what parts of it are publicly available anyway. There's enough there that a bright boy should be able to figure it out).
For almost 40 years, this mans life has utterly revolved around two things: God, and counter-terrorism. The fact that he sees these two things as explicitly linked may disturb some sensibilities, but it does not invalidate his knowledge and experience.
If for some reason you want to discount what this man is saying because of his religious views, or how he chooses to express them... You're a damn fool.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Some lefties actually know how to make fun of themselves
Mostly Zimmerman makes fun of conservatives; but her really goes after assholes, whackjobs, and extremists of all stripes. A lefty with some perspective, and a sense of humor... Too bad that seems to be so rare these days.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Monday, February 09, 2009
So, we're not all going to drown, or be killed by hurricanes?
This is the single best, and clearest, explanation of the Rationalist Position on wlobal warming I've Ever Seen
Key line: "So, why don't we ever talk about the suns contribution to global warming? ...Well, because we can't regulate it, tax it, or make it feel guilty for what it's doing".
Got it in one there friend.
There's no profit, political gain, or power to be grabbed from acknowledging the real causes, and real effects of whatever global warming there actually is. So, the interested parties simply ignore all that, shout down anyone who disagrees with them, and go about seizing as much power as they can, in a disorderly fashion.
From "What You Oughta Know", a website with videos explaining an assortment of general, and sometimes esoteric knowledge.
Oh and here are the links he mentioned in the video:
Oh and just for fun, here's the same sites take on "Liberals vs. Conservatives"... which is really a pretty solid explanation of the foundations of minarchist positions:
And a great take on the bailout:
Key line: "So, why don't we ever talk about the suns contribution to global warming? ...Well, because we can't regulate it, tax it, or make it feel guilty for what it's doing".
Got it in one there friend.
There's no profit, political gain, or power to be grabbed from acknowledging the real causes, and real effects of whatever global warming there actually is. So, the interested parties simply ignore all that, shout down anyone who disagrees with them, and go about seizing as much power as they can, in a disorderly fashion.
From "What You Oughta Know", a website with videos explaining an assortment of general, and sometimes esoteric knowledge.
Oh and here are the links he mentioned in the video:
Pacific Research Institute:
the documentary, more information
Reid A. Bryson - scroll down for ice cap article
Solar Activity: A dominant factor in climate dynamics - scroll down read sections in blue
BBC’s The Great Global Warming Swindle
Other possible causes for global warming
Oh and just for fun, here's the same sites take on "Liberals vs. Conservatives"... which is really a pretty solid explanation of the foundations of minarchist positions:
And a great take on the bailout:
Friday, April 11, 2008
This is why I love Clarkson...
...even though he hates America, he still writes stuff like this:
Thirty years ago in South Africa, there was white power. Then there was black power. And now there is no power.
No really. There isn't. The electricity-generating company over there has just announced that the power stations are not capable of meeting demand and that there will be outages for two, three or six hours a day for at least the next seven years.
So far as I can see, no one is asking why this has happened. Everyone suspects it's because the power company, since it took over the reins from De Boer Pik Racist, has been operating a policy of only employing black people. So the whites, the ones who know how to run a power station, have left the job of generating electricity to a bunch of guys who don't know how to.
No one's actually saying that of course. It's a political potato so hot that you're going to get your fingers burned if you even whisper such a thing.
Friday, August 10, 2007
The New Inquisition
This is just too funny for words:
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
I say again, the concept of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, except in the case of localized micro-climates, holds absolutely no scientific water.
Honest scientists will tell you the same thing if pressed (and if their funding doesn’t depend on it), but the agenda politics of todays science (admittedly on both sides of the political spectrum, but generally on different subjects), prevents real, honest, science from occurring anymore; or from being reported if and when it is (the record of suppressing science which disproves catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is long and shameless at this point).
The mere language used by catastrophists against those who seek to use actual science rather than sociopolitical ideological faith, calling us "deniers" in an attempt to paint an equivalence with holocaust deniers, should make it clear that their concern is not truth.
The honest numbers are simple.
Global temperatures have risen an average of less than 1 degree centigrade since measurements started being taken ("adjusted measurements", which have been conclusively proven to be inaccurate and possibly deliberately manipulated say it may be as much as 1.8 degrees, but that is the absolute maximum).
There is no “sudden and precipitous increase”. There is no hockey stick. It was a lie, and even many of the climate change people have admitted it. The ice caps aren’t melting, in fact in most areas they are thickening slightly. The sea level isn’t rising any more than it would have naturally.
Oh and in case you didn't know... Polar bears are excellent swimmers.
More damning to the catastrophists faith; even by their own admission, there has been NO rise (and there may in fact have been a slight decline) in global average temperatures, SINCE 1996.
Since temperature recordings have begun, volcanic eruptions have put more carbon into the atmosphere, and caused more temperature change, than all of human industry and activity since the beginning of the human race; but it wasn’t by increasing temperatures with carbon, it was by decreasing them with dust in the air... much of which was in fact carbon particulates.
The world has been far colder than today at times when there was far more carbon in the atmosphere; even without more dust. The world has been far warmer than today with far less carbon in the air, even WITH more dust.
The amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and carbon particulates in the atmosphere are FAR less than one half of one percent of total carbon dioxide, and far less than one half of one percent of total carbon particulates (the vast majority of CO2 is released by soil, rotting vegetation, oceanic microorganisms, and seafloor offgassing. The vast majority of particulates, are released by forest fires, and volcanic activity ). Considering how small a percentage of our atmospheric carbon and carbon compounds (between 0.03 and 0.06 percent. Not between 3% and 6%, 3 one hundredths of a percent), that amount is completely insignificant to global climate change.
This is not to say they don't effect local microclimates, they certainly do. But in those local microclimates, these concentrations are literally hundreds to thousands of times higher.
These levels of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere are not a temperature driver, or a climate forcing.
In fact, historical records show that overall CO2 levels (which, remember, human inputs make up only a tiny fraction of) TRAIL global climate change by anywhere from a few hundred years, to a few thousand.
All currently existing GLOBAL climate change can be fully and scientifically explained by natural endothermic cycles (atmospheric oceanic interaction combined with volcanic and other geothermal activity, and large particulate emissions such as forest fires, plus natural greenhouse component and other climate forcing component emissions), and the fluctuation in output of the sun (because earth is an exothermic system). The suns output has varied greatly over the course of human history (and of course long before), and periods of warming and cooling have tracked right along with that output.
Models using average sunspot activity as an indicator of solar thermal forcing, have proven to be accurate within a few percentage points at predicting historical temperatures.
Some models (those used by catastrophists) predict that there may be FUTURE global climate change based on a theory that human generated carbon inputs, even though they are far lower than historical levels which did NOT cause these things to happen, will somehow cause the entire climate system to change the way it has always functioned.
These models are ridiculous on their face. The way you test a model is to run if forwards and backwards without adjustment, and see if it can accurately predict what actually happened in the past, using the data from further back in the past; then verifying against actual future results over time.
None of the models that predict significant global climate change due to human carbon inputs, come anywhere close to predicting the historical record.
They always consistently overestimate warming by SEVERAL HUNDRED PERCENT, as in estimating 4 to 8 times the actual warming.
And NONE of them came anywhere close to predicting the variability of the historical record, always showing a consistent warming trend over time, even for CENTURIES that had a significant cooling trend.
The models were not made to predict the actual climate... they were specifically made to predict massive warming, no matter the input. And that's what they do, as non-catastrophists have proven, running data which any rational model should predict steady or cooling temperatures through the models... and they STILL predicted significant warming.
I leave it up to you to decide whether the models were just designed badly, or whether the distortion was intentional. Either way, these models cannot be trusted, and decisions should certainly not be made based on them.
The climate IS changing, and has since the moment the earth formed a climate. As near as we can tell (through ice core samples and the like) there has never been a period of more than 200 years without at least a 1 degree change in global average temperatures.
The climate will continue to change on its own; and no normal human activity will change global climate significantly one way or the other… unless it’s something that actually would kill us all (which would by definition not be normal... Incredibly massive particulate pollution over a high percentage of the earths surface - including the oceans - would do it. It would initially trigger warming from trapped thermal radiation, followed by extremely rapid cooling from blocking out the sun, and then a sudden ice age; and likely kill all crops and food animals in the process, along with at least 80% of humanity in the first two years, if not more, and ultimately followed by mass global extinction).
That isn’t to say we shouldn’t attempt to develop better sources of energy, we should. We aren’t going to “run out” of oil... ever in fact; a basic understanding of economics would show that. But, hydrocarbon fuels are eventually going to get more and more expensive as time goes on, and hydrocarbon fueled combustion engines are relatively inefficient, and do contribute significantly to micro climate pollution.
In many ways, doing things greener IS in fact better. Saving energy is generally a very good thing. Not polluting is generally a good thing. When it isn’t, is when it destroys economies, prevents job growth, reduces food production, increases food prices, and all the other ways that forced greenism (I won’t even call it environmentalism, because it isn’t doing the environment much good), causes pain, suffering, misery, and general reductions in peoples health, quality of life, standard of living, and basic liberties.
“Climate change” isn’t about the environment... It’s about giving financial and political control to anti-western, anti-capitalists.... Or just the cynical opportunists who would use peoples good intentions and fears to increase their own power.
It’s about punishing those rich capitalist nations and people, for not being poor socialists... Or just for "not doing things the RIGHT way".... whatever that particular person or group happens to think the "right" way is.
It isn’t science, it’s a pseudo-scientific sociopolitical ideological movement, and near religion. The adherents don’t need any proof, because they have faith; and any who challenge that faith must be burned as heretics in their new inquisition.
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
I say again, the concept of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, except in the case of localized micro-climates, holds absolutely no scientific water.
Honest scientists will tell you the same thing if pressed (and if their funding doesn’t depend on it), but the agenda politics of todays science (admittedly on both sides of the political spectrum, but generally on different subjects), prevents real, honest, science from occurring anymore; or from being reported if and when it is (the record of suppressing science which disproves catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is long and shameless at this point).
The mere language used by catastrophists against those who seek to use actual science rather than sociopolitical ideological faith, calling us "deniers" in an attempt to paint an equivalence with holocaust deniers, should make it clear that their concern is not truth.
The honest numbers are simple.
Global temperatures have risen an average of less than 1 degree centigrade since measurements started being taken ("adjusted measurements", which have been conclusively proven to be inaccurate and possibly deliberately manipulated say it may be as much as 1.8 degrees, but that is the absolute maximum).
There is no “sudden and precipitous increase”. There is no hockey stick. It was a lie, and even many of the climate change people have admitted it. The ice caps aren’t melting, in fact in most areas they are thickening slightly. The sea level isn’t rising any more than it would have naturally.
Oh and in case you didn't know... Polar bears are excellent swimmers.
More damning to the catastrophists faith; even by their own admission, there has been NO rise (and there may in fact have been a slight decline) in global average temperatures, SINCE 1996.
Since temperature recordings have begun, volcanic eruptions have put more carbon into the atmosphere, and caused more temperature change, than all of human industry and activity since the beginning of the human race; but it wasn’t by increasing temperatures with carbon, it was by decreasing them with dust in the air... much of which was in fact carbon particulates.
The world has been far colder than today at times when there was far more carbon in the atmosphere; even without more dust. The world has been far warmer than today with far less carbon in the air, even WITH more dust.
The amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and carbon particulates in the atmosphere are FAR less than one half of one percent of total carbon dioxide, and far less than one half of one percent of total carbon particulates (the vast majority of CO2 is released by soil, rotting vegetation, oceanic microorganisms, and seafloor offgassing. The vast majority of particulates, are released by forest fires, and volcanic activity ). Considering how small a percentage of our atmospheric carbon and carbon compounds (between 0.03 and 0.06 percent. Not between 3% and 6%, 3 one hundredths of a percent), that amount is completely insignificant to global climate change.
This is not to say they don't effect local microclimates, they certainly do. But in those local microclimates, these concentrations are literally hundreds to thousands of times higher.
These levels of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere are not a temperature driver, or a climate forcing.
In fact, historical records show that overall CO2 levels (which, remember, human inputs make up only a tiny fraction of) TRAIL global climate change by anywhere from a few hundred years, to a few thousand.
All currently existing GLOBAL climate change can be fully and scientifically explained by natural endothermic cycles (atmospheric oceanic interaction combined with volcanic and other geothermal activity, and large particulate emissions such as forest fires, plus natural greenhouse component and other climate forcing component emissions), and the fluctuation in output of the sun (because earth is an exothermic system). The suns output has varied greatly over the course of human history (and of course long before), and periods of warming and cooling have tracked right along with that output.
Models using average sunspot activity as an indicator of solar thermal forcing, have proven to be accurate within a few percentage points at predicting historical temperatures.
Some models (those used by catastrophists) predict that there may be FUTURE global climate change based on a theory that human generated carbon inputs, even though they are far lower than historical levels which did NOT cause these things to happen, will somehow cause the entire climate system to change the way it has always functioned.
These models are ridiculous on their face. The way you test a model is to run if forwards and backwards without adjustment, and see if it can accurately predict what actually happened in the past, using the data from further back in the past; then verifying against actual future results over time.
None of the models that predict significant global climate change due to human carbon inputs, come anywhere close to predicting the historical record.
They always consistently overestimate warming by SEVERAL HUNDRED PERCENT, as in estimating 4 to 8 times the actual warming.
And NONE of them came anywhere close to predicting the variability of the historical record, always showing a consistent warming trend over time, even for CENTURIES that had a significant cooling trend.
The models were not made to predict the actual climate... they were specifically made to predict massive warming, no matter the input. And that's what they do, as non-catastrophists have proven, running data which any rational model should predict steady or cooling temperatures through the models... and they STILL predicted significant warming.
I leave it up to you to decide whether the models were just designed badly, or whether the distortion was intentional. Either way, these models cannot be trusted, and decisions should certainly not be made based on them.
The climate IS changing, and has since the moment the earth formed a climate. As near as we can tell (through ice core samples and the like) there has never been a period of more than 200 years without at least a 1 degree change in global average temperatures.
The climate will continue to change on its own; and no normal human activity will change global climate significantly one way or the other… unless it’s something that actually would kill us all (which would by definition not be normal... Incredibly massive particulate pollution over a high percentage of the earths surface - including the oceans - would do it. It would initially trigger warming from trapped thermal radiation, followed by extremely rapid cooling from blocking out the sun, and then a sudden ice age; and likely kill all crops and food animals in the process, along with at least 80% of humanity in the first two years, if not more, and ultimately followed by mass global extinction).
That isn’t to say we shouldn’t attempt to develop better sources of energy, we should. We aren’t going to “run out” of oil... ever in fact; a basic understanding of economics would show that. But, hydrocarbon fuels are eventually going to get more and more expensive as time goes on, and hydrocarbon fueled combustion engines are relatively inefficient, and do contribute significantly to micro climate pollution.
In many ways, doing things greener IS in fact better. Saving energy is generally a very good thing. Not polluting is generally a good thing. When it isn’t, is when it destroys economies, prevents job growth, reduces food production, increases food prices, and all the other ways that forced greenism (I won’t even call it environmentalism, because it isn’t doing the environment much good), causes pain, suffering, misery, and general reductions in peoples health, quality of life, standard of living, and basic liberties.
“Climate change” isn’t about the environment... It’s about giving financial and political control to anti-western, anti-capitalists.... Or just the cynical opportunists who would use peoples good intentions and fears to increase their own power.
It’s about punishing those rich capitalist nations and people, for not being poor socialists... Or just for "not doing things the RIGHT way".... whatever that particular person or group happens to think the "right" way is.
It isn’t science, it’s a pseudo-scientific sociopolitical ideological movement, and near religion. The adherents don’t need any proof, because they have faith; and any who challenge that faith must be burned as heretics in their new inquisition.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
International Buck Like Funnies Day
Today is May First, May Day as it were, and by some folks calendars this is "International Workers Day" or some other such shite.
See the Chicago Haymarket riots occurred on this day in 1886, and ever since then commie trade-unionists, including the entire soviet union (who made it one of their major holidays), have claimed it as their own.
This day is Bealtaine, a joyous celebration of life, fertility, and birth (well, technically speaking Bealtaine is the exact astronomic midpoint between the vernal equinox and summer solstice, which falls on the 5th, 6th, or 7th depending on the year, but it's a useful stand-in).
Yes folks, May Day is all about the nookie.
Hell one of the traditional celebrations of may day involves dancing around a giant symbolic cock, wrapping it with ribbons, drinking heavily, and then going off and screwing like mad (funny how those things coincide isn't it).
Personally, I'd much rather celebrate a good rogering and a swelling belly than memorialize a bunch of commies starting a riot and then killing millions over the next 120 years.
So I say:
See the Chicago Haymarket riots occurred on this day in 1886, and ever since then commie trade-unionists, including the entire soviet union (who made it one of their major holidays), have claimed it as their own.
Fuck You Commies
This day is Bealtaine, a joyous celebration of life, fertility, and birth (well, technically speaking Bealtaine is the exact astronomic midpoint between the vernal equinox and summer solstice, which falls on the 5th, 6th, or 7th depending on the year, but it's a useful stand-in).
Yes folks, May Day is all about the nookie.
Hell one of the traditional celebrations of may day involves dancing around a giant symbolic cock, wrapping it with ribbons, drinking heavily, and then going off and screwing like mad (funny how those things coincide isn't it).
Personally, I'd much rather celebrate a good rogering and a swelling belly than memorialize a bunch of commies starting a riot and then killing millions over the next 120 years.
So I say:
FUCK YOU COMMIES,
TAKE BACK MAY DAY
TAKE BACK MAY DAY
Sunday, April 29, 2007
"There Oughta Be A Law": A conversation with someone who just doesn't get it
A few months ago, Arizona passed a statewide comprehensive smoking ban in all work places and public gathering spaces, excepting private clubs, or those that earn 51% or more of their revenue from tobacco.
Essentially, as of May first, it will be illegal to smoke in public in Arizona; except on the sidewalk (away from bus stops), in your own car, in a private club, or at a smoke shop.
Mel and I went to a casual Mexican restaurant in Scottsdale for lunch today, and when we asked to be seated they asked us the normal question, "Smoking or Non-Smoking". A bystander said "Ahh no more smoking as of May first thank god".
I answered "Non-Smoking", and then I turned to the gentleman who had spoken and said "Well sir, I don't smoke, and I would prefer to not have people smoke around me, but this law is a bad thing".
The gentleman responded "Why's that?"
"Well sir" I replied "It's a violation of property rights".
"Property rights? How can it be a violation of property rights. I just don't want people smoking around me when I eat".
"Sir, It's a question of self determination. A private property owner should be able to determine on his own, whether people can smoke on his property or not. If the government can tell you that people can't smoke on your property, they can tell you anything"
"Ok" he replied "I understand what you're saying and I agree with it as far as it goes; but I don't want people smoking around me".
"Well sir, then you should choose non-smoking sections" I countered.
"I do; but why should I have to put up with other people smoking around me at all?" he asked; seeming genuinely puzzled how I (as a non-smoker) could disagree with him.
"Sir" I politely and patiently explained "It's not your property, it's not your decision; or the governments for that matter. If you don't want people smoking around you, you can always go to restaurants that don't allow smoking. If it is profitable for restaurants to make such restrictions, then they will do so".
"Some of them already do, and I don't see why they all shouldn't".
At this point I'd given up on the idea that the person could see the problem with what he was saying, but I gave it one more effort responding with "Why should the government, or you for that matter sir, decide what a private property owner can do with his property?"
"But smoking is bad. I just don't like it. I don't want people smoking near me"; was his final argument (actually his first, final, and only argument).
He just didn't get it. He didn't understand why the government shouldn't step in and force a private property owner to do whatever HE personally wanted them to do. He thought it was entirely reasonable that his preferences should be made into law, and should infringe on the rights of the property owner. As far as he was concerned, because he didn't want people smoking around him while he ate, then no-one should ever be allowed to smoke in a restaurant.
As we were about to be seated I turned and made one final statement: "Sir, d'you know what the most dangerous words in the English language are? 'There oughta be a law'"
Essentially, as of May first, it will be illegal to smoke in public in Arizona; except on the sidewalk (away from bus stops), in your own car, in a private club, or at a smoke shop.
Mel and I went to a casual Mexican restaurant in Scottsdale for lunch today, and when we asked to be seated they asked us the normal question, "Smoking or Non-Smoking". A bystander said "Ahh no more smoking as of May first thank god".
I answered "Non-Smoking", and then I turned to the gentleman who had spoken and said "Well sir, I don't smoke, and I would prefer to not have people smoke around me, but this law is a bad thing".
The gentleman responded "Why's that?"
"Well sir" I replied "It's a violation of property rights".
"Property rights? How can it be a violation of property rights. I just don't want people smoking around me when I eat".
"Sir, It's a question of self determination. A private property owner should be able to determine on his own, whether people can smoke on his property or not. If the government can tell you that people can't smoke on your property, they can tell you anything"
"Ok" he replied "I understand what you're saying and I agree with it as far as it goes; but I don't want people smoking around me".
"Well sir, then you should choose non-smoking sections" I countered.
"I do; but why should I have to put up with other people smoking around me at all?" he asked; seeming genuinely puzzled how I (as a non-smoker) could disagree with him.
"Sir" I politely and patiently explained "It's not your property, it's not your decision; or the governments for that matter. If you don't want people smoking around you, you can always go to restaurants that don't allow smoking. If it is profitable for restaurants to make such restrictions, then they will do so".
"Some of them already do, and I don't see why they all shouldn't".
At this point I'd given up on the idea that the person could see the problem with what he was saying, but I gave it one more effort responding with "Why should the government, or you for that matter sir, decide what a private property owner can do with his property?"
"But smoking is bad. I just don't like it. I don't want people smoking near me"; was his final argument (actually his first, final, and only argument).
He just didn't get it. He didn't understand why the government shouldn't step in and force a private property owner to do whatever HE personally wanted them to do. He thought it was entirely reasonable that his preferences should be made into law, and should infringe on the rights of the property owner. As far as he was concerned, because he didn't want people smoking around him while he ate, then no-one should ever be allowed to smoke in a restaurant.
As we were about to be seated I turned and made one final statement: "Sir, d'you know what the most dangerous words in the English language are? 'There oughta be a law'"
Saturday, April 28, 2007
What's the deal with ADD?
Someone asked on the gunthing.com forums, what's the deal with ADD? Is it all bullshit, or do all these kids really need medication?
Well, really, it's about 99% bullshit; and for the 1% of kids diagnosed that actually have it, the treatments often are worse than the problem.
Most often the diagnosis of ADD or ADHD or any of the related "persnality disorders" is part of the general war on boys (between 5 and 8 times as many boys are diagnosed with ADD as girls - depending on which numbers you believe).
The issue here is that many of the criteria for diagnoses are all parts of normal little boy behavior. Of course to todays "enlightened" politically correct, non-competitive, sensitive society, little boys behavior is unacceptable. It's not ok to be competitive or judgmental or aggressive or any of the other things that separate boys social behavior from girls social behaviot.
The teachers have been trying since the early seventies to turn little boys into little girls. When they found that no matter how much they socially indoctrinated the boys, they would still behave like boys; they turned to medication.
Most of the rest of the time, when this relentless pursuit of pharmacology isn't part of social engineering, it's as an aid to teachers who have poor control and discipline over students.
This one I don't blame on the teachers, I blame it on the parents and administrators. Children are today allowed what I would call obscenely poor standards of behavior, both in public and in private; because the parents from my generation on down, are either afraid to be parents, or have been taught ridiculously stupid things about parenting.
Of course administrators aren't going to allow teachers to use stricter discipline or harsher punishments than parents would allow.
... and of course, that's all part of the social engineering as well. Indoctrinate kids make for indoctrinated parents.
Finally, the diagnosis of "personality disorders" like ADD is almsot ALWAYS used to justify increases "special needs" funding for the schools. In some districts, every kid they get with ADD is worth as much as $5000 extra to the school; and medicated kids are well behaved kids who take less time and effort and money.
Except of course for those who don't need the medications (most of them), who end up zonked, and have their developing personalities messed up by psychoactive drugs. Or the kids who the medications backfire on, and turn them manic or generate other psychoses in them.
You cannot possibly understand the effect that psychoactive drugs have on childrens personalities; because they havent fully formed their personalities yet. You can never know if it's really your kid, or if it's the drugs.
The fact is, maybe 1 out of every 20 or 30 kids had "problems concentrating and acting out" before the ADD drugs were heavily prescribed; and most of those kids did reasonably well without drugs. Maybe 1 in 100 kids were a serious behavioral problem. Now, one out of 5 (yes, seriously, 1 out of 5) kids in affluent communities (the poor don't generally take ritalin) are on some kind of psychoactive medication before they leave high school.
This isn't to take away from those who WERE helped by the drugs, and really did need them (that 1 in 100 I mentioned). I had several friends growing up who were little monsters without their drugs, had no attention span, would act out violently etc... Thats the 1 in 20 or 30 that I talked about who can really use it.
All those other Kids though? ...Teachers and parents should be dealing with their children, not their pharmacists.
Well, really, it's about 99% bullshit; and for the 1% of kids diagnosed that actually have it, the treatments often are worse than the problem.
Most often the diagnosis of ADD or ADHD or any of the related "persnality disorders" is part of the general war on boys (between 5 and 8 times as many boys are diagnosed with ADD as girls - depending on which numbers you believe).
The issue here is that many of the criteria for diagnoses are all parts of normal little boy behavior. Of course to todays "enlightened" politically correct, non-competitive, sensitive society, little boys behavior is unacceptable. It's not ok to be competitive or judgmental or aggressive or any of the other things that separate boys social behavior from girls social behaviot.
The teachers have been trying since the early seventies to turn little boys into little girls. When they found that no matter how much they socially indoctrinated the boys, they would still behave like boys; they turned to medication.
Most of the rest of the time, when this relentless pursuit of pharmacology isn't part of social engineering, it's as an aid to teachers who have poor control and discipline over students.
This one I don't blame on the teachers, I blame it on the parents and administrators. Children are today allowed what I would call obscenely poor standards of behavior, both in public and in private; because the parents from my generation on down, are either afraid to be parents, or have been taught ridiculously stupid things about parenting.
Of course administrators aren't going to allow teachers to use stricter discipline or harsher punishments than parents would allow.
... and of course, that's all part of the social engineering as well. Indoctrinate kids make for indoctrinated parents.
Finally, the diagnosis of "personality disorders" like ADD is almsot ALWAYS used to justify increases "special needs" funding for the schools. In some districts, every kid they get with ADD is worth as much as $5000 extra to the school; and medicated kids are well behaved kids who take less time and effort and money.
Except of course for those who don't need the medications (most of them), who end up zonked, and have their developing personalities messed up by psychoactive drugs. Or the kids who the medications backfire on, and turn them manic or generate other psychoses in them.
You cannot possibly understand the effect that psychoactive drugs have on childrens personalities; because they havent fully formed their personalities yet. You can never know if it's really your kid, or if it's the drugs.
The fact is, maybe 1 out of every 20 or 30 kids had "problems concentrating and acting out" before the ADD drugs were heavily prescribed; and most of those kids did reasonably well without drugs. Maybe 1 in 100 kids were a serious behavioral problem. Now, one out of 5 (yes, seriously, 1 out of 5) kids in affluent communities (the poor don't generally take ritalin) are on some kind of psychoactive medication before they leave high school.
This isn't to take away from those who WERE helped by the drugs, and really did need them (that 1 in 100 I mentioned). I had several friends growing up who were little monsters without their drugs, had no attention span, would act out violently etc... Thats the 1 in 20 or 30 that I talked about who can really use it.
All those other Kids though? ...Teachers and parents should be dealing with their children, not their pharmacists.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Dishonesty, and Dishonor
Okay now, first off, I'm saying this as a man who is both Catholic, and a veteran; Don't Ask Don't Tell is offensive, insulting to all men and women who wear the uniform, gay or straight, and it should be ended one way or another.
Top US General Calls Homosexuality Immoral
By Al Pessin
Pentagon
13 March 2007
The top U.S. military officer has said homosexuality is immoral, sparking renewed controversy about the status of homosexuals in the U.S. military. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, told the Chicago Tribune newspaper the military ban on homosexuals should continue, because homosexuality is immoral. The newspaper posted audio from the interview on its Web site.
PACE: "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts."
General Pace told the Tribune that to officially allow homosexuals to serve in the military would be an endorsement of immoral activity. He said the military should not endorse any immoral acts, mentioning specifically homosexuality and extra-marital affairs, which are also against military regulations. General Pace endorsed the current policy, under which homosexuals serve by keeping their sexual orientation a secret.
The military is no place for mealy mouthing and careful parsing of statements for political correctness... or rather it shouldn't be, but all too often it is.
Whatever you think of homosexuality, you can't deny that DADT is a moral, social, and disciplinary disgrace of epic proportions.
Now, again as both a Catholic and a veteran, the idea that someone should be banned from serving their country because a general believes their private sexual behavior is immoral, is ludicrous. If his morality is coming from his Christianity he should know he is in no position to judge, that's Gods job.
We ban adultery in the military, not because it is immoral, but because it is dishonorable. It is the betrayal of a sacred oath, and if a man will betray his marriage vows, might he not betray his service oath as well?
There is nothing inherently dishonorable about homosexuality; but we force gay men and women into being dishonorable, ever day that they serve in silence.
Hell, I'm willing to bet MY private sexual behavior would GREATLY disturb Gen. Pace as well; and I'm a happily married man with two kids, who honorably served my country.
The fact of the matter is, there are thousands upon thousands of gay men and women serving honorably in the armed forces today; there always have been and there always will be. To tacitly accept their honorable service, and then insist that they dishonor themselves by being closeted is a shameful stain on OUR honor, as service members, as veterans, and as a nation.
Freedom of conscience is among our highest freedoms, and forced denial of self is an abuse of that freedom.
Hell, I knew for a fact that I was serving with gay service members; and was friends with several serving gays and lesbians who were quite candid about their sexual orientation, with friends only. It didn't effect their job, and it didn't make them poor service members; but it very definitely effected their souls.
It made me ashamed to have to accept this policy. IT IS WRONG.
Now, as to whether gays SHOULD be allowed to openly serve, I am of mixed mind on that.
The priary official concern, and logic behind the offical ban, is that gays serving with straights will result in inapprorpiate sexual behavior.
To my mind, so long as we set and enforce appropriate standards of behavior and discipline, and severely punish anyone who does not abide by those standards, be they gay or straight, I don't care who my buddy wants to have sex with (even if it's me).
Implicit in the banning of gays, while we allow men and women to serve together; is the assumption that gay men, and lesbian women will be less able to control themselves around other service members they are attracted to than straight service members. I find this implied assertion to be quite offensive; and disrespectful to ALL service members not just gays and lesbians.
The fact of the matter is, the rules say keep it in your pants (or if you don’t for gods sakes don't let it screw up the job). If we can expect straight folks to do it, we can expect gay folks to do it.
I'm not saying there aren't issues here. There will always be elements of anti-gay sentiment in the military; especially in the hypermasculine culture that pervades most of the military (and I don't necessarily think that culture is inappropriate much of the time); but so what, there are idiots currently serving who also hate women, Muslims, Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Arabs, and every other identity group out there (note the caps).
Then there's the people who say "What about AIDS and other STDs that homosexuals are at higher risk for? In the barracks environment, in training, and in combat, there is a lot of close contact, potentially with with bodily fluids, as well as transfusions and the like".
Well, yes that's true, but the fact is that every service member can be required to have an AIDS test every six months, and probably SHOULD be, straight or gay. As I was getting out I beleive they were instituting regular screening for many STDs, and they have been testing for Gonorrhea, Syphillis, and Hpeatitis with every physical, for as long as such test have existed.
Hell, you can’t even say that gay men are at a much greater risk here, because soldiers, sailors, and airmen as a class, are about the most promiscuous people on the planet (I know, I was one of them), as well as frequent patrons of prostitutes, who are the highest risk group for sexually transmitted diseases by far.
After over a decade of exclusion, we now allow gay men with clear AIDs tests to give blood in the civvy world (presuming they don't have other risk factors like a high number of partners etc...); and we require a standard of behavior in or service members higher than society requires for gay men as a whole, so I reject this argument as speciaous.
All that said, I think this whole thing is one gigantic social mess. Hell, we’ve screwed up the military trying to integrate women, and still haven't managed to do so successfully for over 60 years of trying (since the inception of the Womens Army Corps nurses serving near the front in WW2).
And I'm not saying women shouldn't be allowed to serve either. I’m of the opinion that anyone who can meet the standards of a combat soldier should be allowed to serve in combat. That those standards be the same for all genders, sexual preferences, races, creeds or any other thing. Everybody has to pass the same test no matter what, and that test is predicated on what makes a good soldier, not what the average of the lowest performing group can pass (which is how womens PFT standards were developed by the by).
My point is however, that even given the position of women in our society, as the now dominant cultural force (and if you don’t think that’s true, you haven't watched much network TV or been on a universtiy campus recently - lucky you); we STILL can’t get integrating them into our military forces right. Integrating open homosexuality is a lot more controversial and difficult socially than women.
Then there's the fact that the service environment engenders a lot of very unguarded and intimate social contact, with communal quarters, showers etc... Some raise the entirely valid point that you wouldn't force a woman to shower with a man, nor should you force straight men to shower with gay men who might have sexual interest in them
I don't agree with that point in it's entirety, but I do see the issue; and I don't think the solution is separate accommodation for gay and straight (That would be just ridiculous, and nearly impossible to do in a combat zone anyway). Hell, I don't even think we should have separate accommodation for men and women out in the field. If women want to play with the boys they should shower with the boys... but that's neither here nor their.
The armed forces are not the place for social experimentation, and forcing such a change in the middle of a war is beyond stupidity.
My thought is that “don't ask don't tell” is insulting and shameful to all concerned; that anyone currently serving who is gay should be allowed to come out of the closet should they choose to do so, but we should avoid at all costs treating gays as a protected class etc… etc…
I just don't know how to do it.
Honestly, I don’t think we can do it right now. I don’t think it’s far off, but I don’t think it’s this year, or next year.
UPDATE:
WASHINGTON — Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed mild regret Tuesday for voicing his belief that homosexual acts are “immoral,” but he stopped short of an apology as gay rights groups and a powerful Republican senator rebuked the general for the comments he made to the Chicago Tribune.
As critics fired rhetorical volleys, Pace issued a statement expressing regret that he had put so much stress on the morality issue when he defended the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military during a Monday interview with the Tribune’s editorial board.
“In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct,” Pace said in his statement. “I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views.”
Well, although I disagree with him, Ill say I respect the man all the more for saying this, in this way. He didn’t cave to pressure to apologize for his personal views; but he acknowledged that it was entirely inappropriate for him to have expressed his personal views in the context of military policy.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Friday, March 04, 2005
Protesting Truth
"The personal is the political", has been a rallying cry of collectivists, "progressivists", marxists, and others on the left since the 1960's. Never has this concept been so apparent than in it's application to the politics of today.
A lot of folks, libertarian and conservative alike call the Democratic party the "demonrats", or the "dhimmicrats". It's garbage like this that prompts this sort of rhetoric:
Lets repeat that: Democratic policymakers, and thinkers are actively hoping for, and in some cases working toward the defeat of Americas efforts around the world. They do this not because they are philosophically opposed to democracy, but because they wish to deny the credit for this success to republicans. Democrats realize that if this project succeeds, it will permanently harm their political position, and though it would be an unqualified boon to the world, their personal political calculation is far more important to them.
The truth is that the Bush administrations ideals, if not necessairly their operations in detail, are succeesing over the ideals promoted by democrats. The democrats refuse to acknowledge this truth, and everything they do is simply railing against it.
They are protesting truth.
This is what happens when you follow the collectivist dictum, "the personal is the political, and the political is the personal". Every bit of life becomes politicised. Every position you hold, every idea you have, every stand you take is now judged against some invisible standard of ldeological purity, and god help you if you are found wanting. In this climate it is not possible for you to appreciate facts or results that are contradictory to, or even neutral towards your position, all data must either be supportive, or it must be discredited.
This stance is most visible, and most violent, in the politics of race, gender, and sexuality. I equate these issues with each other, because both their emotional context, and their rhetoric are similar.
This is a territory where everyone speaks in code, or if they don't they are castigated, attacked as insenstive, racist, sexist, homophobic, and the like. Further, it's a territory where facts, and data are irrelvant to the issues. No facts can be accepted, or even discussed, if they in any way less than wholeheartedly support the position being taken by the group, unless the soul purpose of that discussion is to refute or discredit those data. Contradictory data are to be taken as, and publicly treated as, lies and propaganda, no matter the source, or the credibility.
I should also note, the far right can be just as bad, if not worse, but their stupidity and perfidy shows itself in different ways (equating opinions, values, and morals with facts and truth), and what I'm writing about here is the tendency to protest truth because of agenda.
I have three examples for you: Lawrence Summers, Jada Pinkett Smith, and B strain AIDS (Oh and please don't think I'm singling out women or gays specifically in this, I just couldnt find a good example of blatant race baiting in the last few weeks. I'm sure one will pop up shortly).
More in the extended entry...
Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, is a moderate liberal. He was President Clintons final secretary of the treasury. He has lead some of the most "progressive" hiring, and admissions practices at Harvard, and he has given a great deal of support to liberal causes. Summers however, is also a scientist (well, a doctor of economics actually), an intelligent man, and a man who apparently doesn't take his politics personally enough, or seriously enough for many on the left, where this is a grave, possibly fatal flaw.
Mr. Summers gave a speach recently where he was lamenting the lack of women in the hard sciences, an undisputed fact; and where he talked about the current scientific thinking on some of the reasons behind it. This was not unfounded speculation, but a thoughtful, if shallowly treated (because of time constraints) review of certain research in the cognitive sciences; which suggests there are specific gender related traits which appear more often in men and less in women, that would tend to make men more able, at the top of the standard distribution and above it, in the hard sciences.
This speach wasn't a value judgement, or a condemnation of women, or even a statement that women are less intelligent than men, it was simply talking about a group of scientific studies, presumably without political agenda, presented by someone favorable towards "womens issues", but also someone who has a great respect for truth, and for results. It is those least two traits that really caused the "offense" in question.
Note: According to the best sets of statistics I have seen the average woman is more intelligent than the average man; there are more women at the top end of the standard distribution of intelligence, and more men at the low end of it. However there are more men at the top end outside the standard distribution (though more out of the top 100 known most intelligent people are women) ; the standard distribution for men is somewhat broader than for women, and in that breadth skews a bit higher; Thus the data also say this is true by a very slight margin; a very unpopular sentiment indeed.
Well, the response to this was predictably political, and entirely driven by agenda. MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins, told reporters "I felt I was going to be sick," that "my heart was pounding and my breath was shallow," that "I just couldn't breathe, because this kind of bias makes me physically ill," and that she had to flee the room because otherwise "I would've either blacked out or thrown up."
This type of high level (or low level depending on your point of view) emotional rhetoric is considered sensible discourse in this arena. A grown woman; a scientist no less, saying that she was made physically ill near to the point of unconsciousness, and bolting away from an idea that offends her. In any other environment this would be considered immature and silly (and in fact feel free to feel that way now; I certainly do). I personally think this woman does nothing but add weight to some peoples worst prejudices about women.
Mr. Lawrence has been roundly criticised, and thousands of leftist agenda activists have called for his resignation, but hundreds of serious, and reputable scientists have rallied to support him. Cognitive researchers, many of them women, agree that what he said is what they believe to be true right now, and that in fact the differences may even be deeper and more significant.
This scientific belief (we can't yet say it is certain fact, or even a concrete theory) is unnacceptable to agenda politics, so they protest against it; but how can you protest fact?
Which brings me to the B strain AIDS issue.
Recently a substrain of B strain AIDS, originally only found in southeast Asia, but now making its way across Asia and africa, has started to appear in New York and San Francisco.
B strain is remarkably more dangerous than A strain, the dominant form of AIDS in the west. A strain is actually a relatively weak and fragile virus, dying quickly when exposed to air or sunlight, and requiring a signficant number of virus particles to be introduced directly into the bloodstream to infect. It is quite possible for you to have normal unprotected sex with someone who has active A strain AIDS hundreds of times, and not be infected (please note, this is obviously an INCREDIBLY bad idea, it's just the truth), especially if you are male and it is your female partner who is infected. Female to male infection is relatively rare with A strain.
If you are infected with A strain HIV, with modern treatement regimens you can expect to live indefinitely. It was once believed that the mortality rate for AIDS would be 100%, that it was simply a matter of extending time, but there are people who have lived with AIDS for 20 years or more now. For these people, AIDS has become a chronic disease rather than an acute one.
The same things cannot be said about B strain. B strain is a far more hardy virus, surviving for hours in hostile environments, and requiring far fewer live virus particles to produce infection. Notably, B strain appears to be able to produce infection with a far lower volume of body secretions and a lower count of virii in those secretions. Where blood infiltration from small vaginal or anal tears is the primary infection vector for A strain, with B strain, there can be enough virii present in vaginal secretions to cause infection without open wounds. There may even be enough in saliva, and there certainly is from breast milk. The fact that this strain is so virulent, allows it to sometimes survive, and potentially infect, from the residues of vaginal and anal fluids that are left on the gentials or in the mouth after sexual intercourse with condoms and dental dams. This has lead to B strain being the primary cause of new infections for heterosexual men outside the U.S. , and to far higher rates of infection among gay men and lesbians.
Worse, with this particular substrain of B strain, infections proceed far faster than A strain, which typically takes from 6 months to two years, and can take from 10 to 20 years to begin showing symptoms.With treatment and the right immune system, active AIDS infection can sometimes not appear at all (as in the case of Magic Johnson). Conversely, B strain infection can become apparent within weeks, and the progress of the virus from there is extremely rapid. B strain resists all known treatments, and is known to cause death within 6 months in some cases, and 20 months in almost all cases.
So why don't more Americans know about B strain AIDS? It's existence has been known for well over a decade, and this substrain was identified more than 5 years ago, why hasn't this been more widely reported?
Some suggest that it is because reporters and news organizations dont want to inflame a large anti-gay backlash that may occur if this information is discussed publicly. In fact, when stories recently appeard on CNN, and in Time, USA Today, and the New York Times discussing B strain AIDS, gay advocacy groups protested. They did not dispute the facts of the stories, or even their presentation (note, these are all very liberal news organizations, unlikely to treat this issue as an anti-gay issue), but the mere fact that people were talking about this at all. They want us to stop talking about it, because it might make people angry with gays.
They are protesting the truth.
How can you protest the truth?
The truth is that this is an incredibly nasty and dangerous disease, and the information that it is here in America is important to save lives. The information that it can cause infection even with condom use is important to save lives. The information that you can't treat it is important to save lives.
They are protesting the truth, because it interferes with their agenda.
They're right by the way; it probably WILL make people angry at gays. It will probably male people angry at the promiscuous as well. It may produce a reaction, a backlash if you will; similar to that which occurred when AIDS was originally publicised in the early to mid 80's. I think that would be a regretable thing, but it doesn't change the fact that by trying to suppress the truth, these groups are making it far more likely that people will contract, and will die from this horrible disease.
To the agenda protestors, these facts can't discussed, because they might endanger homonormalization, the process of changing the ideas and mores of our society so that homosexuality is accepted as normal. I have no problem with this idea, as far as I'm concerned your sexual preferences are jsut that, yours; what I have a problem with, is that any time something comes out that is negative towards gays, it is forbidden to speak about it, for fear of threatening the goal, no matter how important it may be. There are those who would call me homophopic just for bringing this whole subject up.
Which brings around to my final example (and coincidentally back to Harvard) Jada Pinkett Smith.
Mrs. Smith (the wife of rapper Will Smith), recently gave a talk about her life and her experiences (as a 34 year old straight black woman), during the "Cultural Rythyms" festival at Harvard. The closing of her talk included this quote:
The day after the talk, a letter of protest was written to the administration of Harvard, from the "Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations" (boy that's a mouthful isn't it). Some time later a press release was issued, and an article has appeared in the Crimson saying the following:
Heteronormative
It's not really a word, it's a term of art promulgated by the activist industry. Its purpose is to put forth the idea that any favorable discussion of, or endorsement or conventional heterosexual relationships is in fact directly oppression of homosexuals, because it makes them "uncomfortable".
When did being uncomfortable, become oppression? For that matter, how does one have the right to be uncomfortable about someones normal personal relationships? How does one have any right to be uncomfortable about someone speaking of their marriage, or their children?
Let me jsut get this straight, they don't want people to be uncomfortable talking about gay relationships, but they DO want people to be uncomfortable talking about heterosexual relationships?
They are saying that the mere fact that a 34 year old, straight, black woman is talking about her personal experiences, her life, and her ideas is offensive, and is in fact oppression and prejudice.
Honestly, I have nothing useful to say about this. There is no useful way I could respond to or debate this idea, because t's risible on it's face. There is nothing I can say that can indict this idea more than this:
They are protesting truth.
A lot of folks, libertarian and conservative alike call the Democratic party the "demonrats", or the "dhimmicrats". It's garbage like this that prompts this sort of rhetoric:
"[A]s a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen."Notice that "as an American" bit was almost an afterthought; but it get's better:
"Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us ... There's always hope that this might not work."Not that there was any doubt before, but now serious thought makers within the party are admitting it publicly, they hope for the defeat of America so that they can gain politically.
Lets repeat that: Democratic policymakers, and thinkers are actively hoping for, and in some cases working toward the defeat of Americas efforts around the world. They do this not because they are philosophically opposed to democracy, but because they wish to deny the credit for this success to republicans. Democrats realize that if this project succeeds, it will permanently harm their political position, and though it would be an unqualified boon to the world, their personal political calculation is far more important to them.
The truth is that the Bush administrations ideals, if not necessairly their operations in detail, are succeesing over the ideals promoted by democrats. The democrats refuse to acknowledge this truth, and everything they do is simply railing against it.
They are protesting truth.
This is what happens when you follow the collectivist dictum, "the personal is the political, and the political is the personal". Every bit of life becomes politicised. Every position you hold, every idea you have, every stand you take is now judged against some invisible standard of ldeological purity, and god help you if you are found wanting. In this climate it is not possible for you to appreciate facts or results that are contradictory to, or even neutral towards your position, all data must either be supportive, or it must be discredited.
This stance is most visible, and most violent, in the politics of race, gender, and sexuality. I equate these issues with each other, because both their emotional context, and their rhetoric are similar.
This is a territory where everyone speaks in code, or if they don't they are castigated, attacked as insenstive, racist, sexist, homophobic, and the like. Further, it's a territory where facts, and data are irrelvant to the issues. No facts can be accepted, or even discussed, if they in any way less than wholeheartedly support the position being taken by the group, unless the soul purpose of that discussion is to refute or discredit those data. Contradictory data are to be taken as, and publicly treated as, lies and propaganda, no matter the source, or the credibility.
I should also note, the far right can be just as bad, if not worse, but their stupidity and perfidy shows itself in different ways (equating opinions, values, and morals with facts and truth), and what I'm writing about here is the tendency to protest truth because of agenda.
I have three examples for you: Lawrence Summers, Jada Pinkett Smith, and B strain AIDS (Oh and please don't think I'm singling out women or gays specifically in this, I just couldnt find a good example of blatant race baiting in the last few weeks. I'm sure one will pop up shortly).
More in the extended entry...
Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, is a moderate liberal. He was President Clintons final secretary of the treasury. He has lead some of the most "progressive" hiring, and admissions practices at Harvard, and he has given a great deal of support to liberal causes. Summers however, is also a scientist (well, a doctor of economics actually), an intelligent man, and a man who apparently doesn't take his politics personally enough, or seriously enough for many on the left, where this is a grave, possibly fatal flaw.
Mr. Summers gave a speach recently where he was lamenting the lack of women in the hard sciences, an undisputed fact; and where he talked about the current scientific thinking on some of the reasons behind it. This was not unfounded speculation, but a thoughtful, if shallowly treated (because of time constraints) review of certain research in the cognitive sciences; which suggests there are specific gender related traits which appear more often in men and less in women, that would tend to make men more able, at the top of the standard distribution and above it, in the hard sciences.
This speach wasn't a value judgement, or a condemnation of women, or even a statement that women are less intelligent than men, it was simply talking about a group of scientific studies, presumably without political agenda, presented by someone favorable towards "womens issues", but also someone who has a great respect for truth, and for results. It is those least two traits that really caused the "offense" in question.
Note: According to the best sets of statistics I have seen the average woman is more intelligent than the average man; there are more women at the top end of the standard distribution of intelligence, and more men at the low end of it. However there are more men at the top end outside the standard distribution (though more out of the top 100 known most intelligent people are women) ; the standard distribution for men is somewhat broader than for women, and in that breadth skews a bit higher; Thus the data also say this is true by a very slight margin; a very unpopular sentiment indeed.
Well, the response to this was predictably political, and entirely driven by agenda. MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins, told reporters "I felt I was going to be sick," that "my heart was pounding and my breath was shallow," that "I just couldn't breathe, because this kind of bias makes me physically ill," and that she had to flee the room because otherwise "I would've either blacked out or thrown up."
This type of high level (or low level depending on your point of view) emotional rhetoric is considered sensible discourse in this arena. A grown woman; a scientist no less, saying that she was made physically ill near to the point of unconsciousness, and bolting away from an idea that offends her. In any other environment this would be considered immature and silly (and in fact feel free to feel that way now; I certainly do). I personally think this woman does nothing but add weight to some peoples worst prejudices about women.
Mr. Lawrence has been roundly criticised, and thousands of leftist agenda activists have called for his resignation, but hundreds of serious, and reputable scientists have rallied to support him. Cognitive researchers, many of them women, agree that what he said is what they believe to be true right now, and that in fact the differences may even be deeper and more significant.
This scientific belief (we can't yet say it is certain fact, or even a concrete theory) is unnacceptable to agenda politics, so they protest against it; but how can you protest fact?
Which brings me to the B strain AIDS issue.
Recently a substrain of B strain AIDS, originally only found in southeast Asia, but now making its way across Asia and africa, has started to appear in New York and San Francisco.
B strain is remarkably more dangerous than A strain, the dominant form of AIDS in the west. A strain is actually a relatively weak and fragile virus, dying quickly when exposed to air or sunlight, and requiring a signficant number of virus particles to be introduced directly into the bloodstream to infect. It is quite possible for you to have normal unprotected sex with someone who has active A strain AIDS hundreds of times, and not be infected (please note, this is obviously an INCREDIBLY bad idea, it's just the truth), especially if you are male and it is your female partner who is infected. Female to male infection is relatively rare with A strain.
If you are infected with A strain HIV, with modern treatement regimens you can expect to live indefinitely. It was once believed that the mortality rate for AIDS would be 100%, that it was simply a matter of extending time, but there are people who have lived with AIDS for 20 years or more now. For these people, AIDS has become a chronic disease rather than an acute one.
The same things cannot be said about B strain. B strain is a far more hardy virus, surviving for hours in hostile environments, and requiring far fewer live virus particles to produce infection. Notably, B strain appears to be able to produce infection with a far lower volume of body secretions and a lower count of virii in those secretions. Where blood infiltration from small vaginal or anal tears is the primary infection vector for A strain, with B strain, there can be enough virii present in vaginal secretions to cause infection without open wounds. There may even be enough in saliva, and there certainly is from breast milk. The fact that this strain is so virulent, allows it to sometimes survive, and potentially infect, from the residues of vaginal and anal fluids that are left on the gentials or in the mouth after sexual intercourse with condoms and dental dams. This has lead to B strain being the primary cause of new infections for heterosexual men outside the U.S. , and to far higher rates of infection among gay men and lesbians.
Worse, with this particular substrain of B strain, infections proceed far faster than A strain, which typically takes from 6 months to two years, and can take from 10 to 20 years to begin showing symptoms.With treatment and the right immune system, active AIDS infection can sometimes not appear at all (as in the case of Magic Johnson). Conversely, B strain infection can become apparent within weeks, and the progress of the virus from there is extremely rapid. B strain resists all known treatments, and is known to cause death within 6 months in some cases, and 20 months in almost all cases.
So why don't more Americans know about B strain AIDS? It's existence has been known for well over a decade, and this substrain was identified more than 5 years ago, why hasn't this been more widely reported?
Some suggest that it is because reporters and news organizations dont want to inflame a large anti-gay backlash that may occur if this information is discussed publicly. In fact, when stories recently appeard on CNN, and in Time, USA Today, and the New York Times discussing B strain AIDS, gay advocacy groups protested. They did not dispute the facts of the stories, or even their presentation (note, these are all very liberal news organizations, unlikely to treat this issue as an anti-gay issue), but the mere fact that people were talking about this at all. They want us to stop talking about it, because it might make people angry with gays.
They are protesting the truth.
How can you protest the truth?
The truth is that this is an incredibly nasty and dangerous disease, and the information that it is here in America is important to save lives. The information that it can cause infection even with condom use is important to save lives. The information that you can't treat it is important to save lives.
They are protesting the truth, because it interferes with their agenda.
They're right by the way; it probably WILL make people angry at gays. It will probably male people angry at the promiscuous as well. It may produce a reaction, a backlash if you will; similar to that which occurred when AIDS was originally publicised in the early to mid 80's. I think that would be a regretable thing, but it doesn't change the fact that by trying to suppress the truth, these groups are making it far more likely that people will contract, and will die from this horrible disease.
To the agenda protestors, these facts can't discussed, because they might endanger homonormalization, the process of changing the ideas and mores of our society so that homosexuality is accepted as normal. I have no problem with this idea, as far as I'm concerned your sexual preferences are jsut that, yours; what I have a problem with, is that any time something comes out that is negative towards gays, it is forbidden to speak about it, for fear of threatening the goal, no matter how important it may be. There are those who would call me homophopic just for bringing this whole subject up.
Which brings around to my final example (and coincidentally back to Harvard) Jada Pinkett Smith.
Mrs. Smith (the wife of rapper Will Smith), recently gave a talk about her life and her experiences (as a 34 year old straight black woman), during the "Cultural Rythyms" festival at Harvard. The closing of her talk included this quote:
"Women, you can have it all—a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career," she said. "They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it."I think to most of us, that statement could not possibly seem to be offensive. But most of us do not live and breathe an agenda of changing reality."To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas. Be open," she added.
The day after the talk, a letter of protest was written to the administration of Harvard, from the "Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations" (boy that's a mouthful isn't it). Some time later a press release was issued, and an article has appeared in the Crimson saying the following:
"The BGLTSA release acknowledged that the Foundation was not responsible for Pinkett Smith’s comments. But the Foundation has pledged to “take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class,” according to the release.
Pinkett Smith was honored as the Foundation’s “Artist of the Year” at its 20th annual Cultural Rhythms show, which she also hosted.
BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods ’06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith’s speech was “motivational,” some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.
“Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable,” he said.
Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.
“Our position is that the comments weren’t homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships,” Woods said.
Margaret C. D. Barusch ’06, the other BGLTSA co-chair, said the comments might have seemed insensitive in effect, if not in intent.
“I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship—a heterosexual relationship,” Barusch said. “I don’t think she meant to be offensive but I just don’t think she was that thoughtful.”
In order to discuss these concerns and ensure that such a misunderstanding doesn’t occur again, Paulus said the BGLTSA and the Foundation are planning a joint breakfast later this week as well as a general discussion forum for all of the SAC member groups.
Paulus added that the Foundation will issue a letter later this week apologizing for any offense the show might have caused and encouraging concerned students to attend the planned discussions."
Heteronormative
It's not really a word, it's a term of art promulgated by the activist industry. Its purpose is to put forth the idea that any favorable discussion of, or endorsement or conventional heterosexual relationships is in fact directly oppression of homosexuals, because it makes them "uncomfortable".
When did being uncomfortable, become oppression? For that matter, how does one have the right to be uncomfortable about someones normal personal relationships? How does one have any right to be uncomfortable about someone speaking of their marriage, or their children?
Let me jsut get this straight, they don't want people to be uncomfortable talking about gay relationships, but they DO want people to be uncomfortable talking about heterosexual relationships?
They are saying that the mere fact that a 34 year old, straight, black woman is talking about her personal experiences, her life, and her ideas is offensive, and is in fact oppression and prejudice.
Honestly, I have nothing useful to say about this. There is no useful way I could respond to or debate this idea, because t's risible on it's face. There is nothing I can say that can indict this idea more than this:
They are protesting truth.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Superiority complex
In my essay "Why I Carry a Gun", I explicitly state some thing that either piss people off, make them uncomfortable, or provoke irrational emotioanl reactions.
To wit:
Responses from the left have come in many varieties, most often I get the arguments "Why do you need a gun", "Wouldnt the world be a better place without guns", and "arent you worried you'll shoot someone". Further, many insults are directed my way, calling me immature, accusing me of needing a gun as a phallic replacement, saying that I was clearly psychotic, and asking how I can possibly have such a superior attitude because of something that is so obviously wrong (carrying a gun that is).
The basic thread running through all of this, is that there must be some special jsutification for having, owning, or carrying a gun.
Here's the thing, pro-gun and anti-gun people are arguing from a different set of first principles. There can be no useful debate betwen two people with different first principles, except on those principles themselves.
More in the extended entry...
ProGun people believe that the gun is a useful tool with no inherent motive, and no inherehnt dangers, excepting misuse. Additionally, guns are examples of elegance in mechanical engineering, which many take pleasure in. Finally they are a source of enjoyment through the practice of the skill of marksmanship. But guns are jsut inanimate object; dangerous if muisused, but so are knives, screwdrivers, chainsaws, cars.. well really just about anything. A gun is an inanimate object, just like any other two pound chunk of metal.
Anti-gun people operate from a completely different principle. They believe guns are inherently wrong. They equate guns with assault and murder, and conflate a causal relationship. They believe that if anyone would have a gun, they must have a valid justification for it, and that they (the anti-gun people) must judge the validity of this justification. They believe that the desire to carry a gun is in iteslf a pathology, and therefore no-one who wishes to carry a gun should be trusted to do so.
Personally I think this position is ridiculous. It's an inanimate object. It has not intent. It has no will. It has no magical properties. Picking up a gun does not turn you into Rambo, or Gary Gilmore.
I have asked a girlfriend to pick up a gun and hand it to me from my work bench, and they actually shrunk back from it, as if it would hurt them.
I carry a gun because I can, and because it is a useful tool. I never explicitly stated that a gun is a useful tool in my original essay, because anyone who isn't an idiot, or blinded by their emotional reaction to an inanimate object should be able to see that a gun is useful. I also carry a pocket knife, a flashlight, and a multitool, because I can, and because they are useful tools.
Does carrying a gun make me feel better? More secure? Absolutely. I know that no matter who might try to harm me or those around me, I have an advantage in stopping them. I know that I won't necessarily have to rely on the police, or the people around me to help. I know that by merely having a gun I am more likely to be able to stop an assault from happening because most defensive uses of guns do not involve any shots being fired.
Am I supposed to feel bad because carrying a gun makes me feel better?
Do I take pleasure in the fact that I can kill someone with it? Of course not. I can almost as easily kill someone with my bare hands, or a knife, or even easier with my car.
Only those that impute some mystical power to guns could ever make these arguments without realizing how ridiculous they are.
What I do appreciate, is that carrying a gun is a greater responsibility than not carrying one. I have a greater capacity for harm with less effort, (though no greater responsiblity to not harm), and should act accordingly. THis is no different than a large and strong man appreciating that he must be more careful than a small man in how he moves, to avoid breaking things around him.
Does this somehow make me feel superior to everyone around me? No of course not, but I do feel superior to those who believe they are not responsible enough to carry a gun, because I AM superior to them. I have control of myself, and I do not impute irrational properties to inanimate objects. I dont think that merely posessing an object will make me a killer.
Damn right I'm superior to those who do not have the moral courage to simply own an inanimate object.
Damn right I am superior to those who feel that since they aren't responsible, neither is anyone else.
Damn right I am superior to those who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety.
I am superior to them, because I am not dependent on them, or anyone else, to defend myself; and yes, I feel contempt for those people who do not have the will to do so. It's not about ability, its about will.
Saying you don't have the physical ability to defend yourself is nothing but an excuse, because weapons are the great equalizer. What you really don't have is the will necessary. You are saying that if someone tries to kill you, or rape you, will do nothing to stop them but flail your arms and scream. Worse, you are not only saying it isn't your responsibility to stop them, but that it IS everyone elses responsiblity.
Yes, I have contempt for you, and I pity you, because no matter what age you are, you have wilfully reduced yourself to no more than a helpless child.
To wit:
When you carry a gun you have in your hands (or on your hip), the ability to end any mans life. This is a massive responsibility, second only to that of raising children.
...
When I carry a gun, I accept the fact that I may kill someone. I don't ever plan on doing it, I hope it doesn't happen, but it may. I am prepared for this possiblity, and I accept the consequences should it happen
...
I carry a gun because it is my right, and because I am responsible enough to excercise it. I feel nothing but pity or contempt for those who are not.
Responses from the left have come in many varieties, most often I get the arguments "Why do you need a gun", "Wouldnt the world be a better place without guns", and "arent you worried you'll shoot someone". Further, many insults are directed my way, calling me immature, accusing me of needing a gun as a phallic replacement, saying that I was clearly psychotic, and asking how I can possibly have such a superior attitude because of something that is so obviously wrong (carrying a gun that is).
The basic thread running through all of this, is that there must be some special jsutification for having, owning, or carrying a gun.
Here's the thing, pro-gun and anti-gun people are arguing from a different set of first principles. There can be no useful debate betwen two people with different first principles, except on those principles themselves.
More in the extended entry...
ProGun people believe that the gun is a useful tool with no inherent motive, and no inherehnt dangers, excepting misuse. Additionally, guns are examples of elegance in mechanical engineering, which many take pleasure in. Finally they are a source of enjoyment through the practice of the skill of marksmanship. But guns are jsut inanimate object; dangerous if muisused, but so are knives, screwdrivers, chainsaws, cars.. well really just about anything. A gun is an inanimate object, just like any other two pound chunk of metal.
Anti-gun people operate from a completely different principle. They believe guns are inherently wrong. They equate guns with assault and murder, and conflate a causal relationship. They believe that if anyone would have a gun, they must have a valid justification for it, and that they (the anti-gun people) must judge the validity of this justification. They believe that the desire to carry a gun is in iteslf a pathology, and therefore no-one who wishes to carry a gun should be trusted to do so.
Personally I think this position is ridiculous. It's an inanimate object. It has not intent. It has no will. It has no magical properties. Picking up a gun does not turn you into Rambo, or Gary Gilmore.
I have asked a girlfriend to pick up a gun and hand it to me from my work bench, and they actually shrunk back from it, as if it would hurt them.
I carry a gun because I can, and because it is a useful tool. I never explicitly stated that a gun is a useful tool in my original essay, because anyone who isn't an idiot, or blinded by their emotional reaction to an inanimate object should be able to see that a gun is useful. I also carry a pocket knife, a flashlight, and a multitool, because I can, and because they are useful tools.
Does carrying a gun make me feel better? More secure? Absolutely. I know that no matter who might try to harm me or those around me, I have an advantage in stopping them. I know that I won't necessarily have to rely on the police, or the people around me to help. I know that by merely having a gun I am more likely to be able to stop an assault from happening because most defensive uses of guns do not involve any shots being fired.
Am I supposed to feel bad because carrying a gun makes me feel better?
Do I take pleasure in the fact that I can kill someone with it? Of course not. I can almost as easily kill someone with my bare hands, or a knife, or even easier with my car.
Only those that impute some mystical power to guns could ever make these arguments without realizing how ridiculous they are.
What I do appreciate, is that carrying a gun is a greater responsibility than not carrying one. I have a greater capacity for harm with less effort, (though no greater responsiblity to not harm), and should act accordingly. THis is no different than a large and strong man appreciating that he must be more careful than a small man in how he moves, to avoid breaking things around him.
Does this somehow make me feel superior to everyone around me? No of course not, but I do feel superior to those who believe they are not responsible enough to carry a gun, because I AM superior to them. I have control of myself, and I do not impute irrational properties to inanimate objects. I dont think that merely posessing an object will make me a killer.
Damn right I'm superior to those who do not have the moral courage to simply own an inanimate object.
Damn right I am superior to those who feel that since they aren't responsible, neither is anyone else.
Damn right I am superior to those who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety.
I am superior to them, because I am not dependent on them, or anyone else, to defend myself; and yes, I feel contempt for those people who do not have the will to do so. It's not about ability, its about will.
Saying you don't have the physical ability to defend yourself is nothing but an excuse, because weapons are the great equalizer. What you really don't have is the will necessary. You are saying that if someone tries to kill you, or rape you, will do nothing to stop them but flail your arms and scream. Worse, you are not only saying it isn't your responsibility to stop them, but that it IS everyone elses responsiblity.
Yes, I have contempt for you, and I pity you, because no matter what age you are, you have wilfully reduced yourself to no more than a helpless child.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Homophobia is offensive
Homophobia - n.Homophobia is offensive.
- Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
- Behavior based on such a feeling.
Not the commonly accepted defnition of homophobia, but the word itself, and the concepts it represents.
Yes, the concept of hating or disliking, or disapproving of someone because of their sexual choices strikes me as silly, but that's not what I'm talking about.
The entire concept of homophobia is that people who don't like homosexuals, or homosexual behavior, are irrational, and that their only reason for that dislike is fear, or ignorance.
I'm going to say right now, that's bullshit.
More in the extended entry...
This concept assumes that if somehow people are more exposed to gay life, or if they are able to "get over their fear", then all will be sweentess and light, and everyone will accept gays.
The most vocal proponents of the homophobia concept also frequently espouse something that just about EVERYONE finds offensive. They often say that people who don't like gays feel that way because they themselves are gay, and they hate themselves for it.
Bullshit.
I hate communists. I loathe their ideas, I loathe what they say, I loathe what they do. If a communist tries to have any influence over my life I will strenuously resist, perhaps up to the point of violence; Does that mean I am commiephobic? I don't have an irrational fear of communists, nor am I ignorant of communists ideas. I have plenty of exposure to communist ideas, and I reject them utterly. Does this mean I'm secretly a communist, and hate myself because of it?
Of course not.
I hate communists because the ideas and goals they espouse are evil and wrong, as are the methods they use to achive them. Man should be free, and have control over his own life, and his own goods. Communists believe exactly opposite what I do, and so long as they attempt to act against my beliefs I will continue to hate them.
My point here is that I have both rational, and personal arguments against communism that have nothing to do with fear or irrationaility or ignorance.
The real purpose of the word homophobia, is to make gay people feel better about themselves. It paints their detractors as they would say their detractors pain them, as compulsive, out of control, mentally ill, irrational, or subhuman.
Only if you assume that homosexuality is a mental illenss, can you ascribe the counter position to a mental illness, which is what homophobia literally is. A phobia is a compulsive mental illness that should be treated.
Now let me clarify, I don't mean to say that in some people fear or ignorance isn't the primary motivator, and in others a subsidary motivator, but the ascription of this to the entire realm of dislike or disapproval or homosexuals, or homosexual behavior, is both offensive, and counterproductive. It doesn't help people to stop hating, disliking, or disapproving of gays to call those people mentally ill.
If you accept that homosexuality is either an inherent nature, or a choice (and I believe it can be either, or both, depending on the person), then you must accept that there are people who on the other side either are inherently anti-gay, or who rationally choose to be anti-gay.
In argument, there is a tactic that relies on a logical fallacy, the ad hominem circumstantial argument of undesireable motives, or appeal to motive. If you ascribe an undesireable motive to those that hold a position contrary to your own, you can then attack the person to undermine their argument, without actually attacking the argument itself. If you say that people who disapprove of homosexuality are operating from fear or hate, you are attacking the man, but not the message.
There are both personal, and rational motives for anti-gay positions.
Homosexuality is by all scientific measure a far more risky lifestyle than heterosexuality. The physical activity itself is riskier, as well as the social environment. Gays tend not to plan for the future. Gays tend to be more prone to depression, self destructive behavior, and suicidal tendencies (for many reasons).
Please note, I am not claiming these statements are universally true, only that they are stastically true.
Despite all the media messages to the contrary, the primary vector for AIDS in the united states is still unprotected gay sex. The primary AIDS vector for straight people who don't use IV drugs, is unprotected sex with a bisexual person, or a partner of a bisexual person. This is especially true in the black and hispanic communities where secret homosexuality is far more common than among whites or Asians.
Note: Asians are statistically four times more likely to be openly gay than blacks. Asians are eight times as likely, and hispanics are more than five times as likely to be transgender than any other racial group. I have always wondered why that is, because social factors alone can't account for it.
The social enviroment of gay courtship is still, 25 years after the rise of AIDS, a very risky, and often hollow place. There are still many semi anonynmous relationships. Many men have dozens if not hundreds of partners. Many men still do not use condoms (do a search on any personal ads site for bareback if you don't believe me). Hang out with gay men for any length of time and you will hear them lament these very things. I'm not going to talk about the reasons behind this except to say they are many and varied, and they may not be so prevalent if homosexuality were more accepted in society, but we don't know.
What about the psychological health argument? How many truly happy gay men do you know? I have known hundreds of gay men, I know very few happy ones. I have known hundreds of lesbians, again I know very few happy ones. Without a doubt they are unhappier when they don't acknowledge their homosexuality, or worse, when they do acknowledge it, but hate themselves because of it, but even once they are open and accepting of their sexuality, rarely are they happy. Once again, the reasons behind this are many and varied, and they may ease if society becomes more accepting of gays, but maybe not.
Gay men and women also find it a hell of a lot more difficult to have and raise children than straight folks, and don't ever think that isn't a big deal to a lot of people. Whether motivated by faith, or by morals, or by science and demographics, theres a lot of folks who think that people should have kids. How many moms do you know who have adult children, and DON'T want to be a grandmother?
Again, I'm not saying these are universal truths, but they are generally and statistically true.
And then there is the argument of faith.
There are about 3 billion people in this world, who firmly and faithfully believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong from a moral standpoint; Ether as the explicit commandment of god, or as a behavior that causes damage to the soul. You may believe these peoples religion is stupid, irrational, wrong, or a symptom of mental illness, but it is very real for them.
Leaving the reasoning behind people positions aside, just because people believe that homosexuality is wrong, doesnt mean that they hate, or fear homosexuals.
My best fried is still a catholic, though I'm guessing the last time he went to church was about the same time I did. His youngest brother came out last year. The funny thing is, I knew the kid was gay from the time he was 7 or 8, and I think he probably knew too. Sure he tried dating girls, but he always knew it just wasn't right for him. The last people to figure it out were, of course, his family. They have a very major problem with his homosexuality. They believe that what he is doing is wrong, and that he is making himself unhappy (and he is, for whtaever reason). His parents want grandchildren. They worry about his safety. They worry about disease. They love their son, but they hate that he is gay. They do not fear him, or hate him, they are not ignorant of him or his feelings, or his life, but they hate that he is gay.
Of course the perfect kicker to this piece would be to announce that I am gay. Well, much to the disappoint of my friend Aiden, I am not, but I am also not one of those folks who belive that homosexuality is wrong. To my mind, someones sexuality has very little to do with what I think of them as a person, but their attidude, and their behavior certainly does.
I hate bitter angry queens. I hate people who thrust their gayness in my face and scream it in my ears. I hate people who tell me that I'm a bigot, or stupid, or unenlightened because I don't like their behavoir. I hate people who's gayness is the only thing in their life.
You know what I really hate? I hate this chant:
"We're here, W'ere Queer, Get over it"
Guess what, I got over it a long time ago, but obviously you haven't.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
The myth of having it all
Lileks is a genius!
But then if you're reading me, you probably already knew that.
Ok this is going to be a long one because, well, I'm both long winded and extremely bitter about this topic thankyouverymuch.
Gloria Steinem ruined America.
Gloria Steinem, and Helen Reddy, and Carole king, and anyone else who told women "Yes you really can have it all".
They convinced women that not only COULD they have it all, but if they didn't, there was something wrong with them.
They convinced women that they needed to have amazing careers, and amazing hsubands (who ALSO had great careers AND helped out with the housework), and great families, and great sex, and hell they could even get a little on the side 'cuz the men did it so why not them. They even convinced women that they could do everything in the military that men could.
BULLSHIT!!!
They were selling women a fairy tale no different from a knight in shining armor on a white horse.
Men have know for... well just about forever... that there are tradeoffs to be made.
There are three life areas, social and personal life, marriage and family, and work life. If you are going to be successful in any one area, you need to compromise on the other two. There isn't time enough in your life to be highly successful in your job, to raise two great kids and have a great marriage, and be a champion origami folder all at the same time.
In the '70s and early eighties women decided that they could have their careers, but more importantly they could be "personally fulfilled", and to "find themselves" over and above their families. Those women made the excerable Charlene song "I've never been to me" a number one hit, and then raised kids like me and my brother. I love my mother, but she was a horrible mother. She tried to be my friend. She read progressive books. She never punished us...
I could go on, but basically my mom was ms. new age mom, and it NEVER EVER WORKED. We, and many millions of people my age, never actually had parents.
Then in the mid to late 80's women started worrying entirely about their careers. Power suits, and BMW's and day planners and filofaxes. 80 hour work weeks. Divorces, cocaine, bad sex...
Yeah my mom went there too. Never saw her, she was working all the time. She would punish me when my younger brother got in trouble, because I was supposed to make sure he didn't.
Then the 90's come around and Martha Stewart and Lynette jennings become the superwoman icons.
Once again, I could go on, but we all know how it turned out. We get parents scheduling quality time, and play dates, and kids who have so many before school, and after school and during school, aactivities, their lives are scheduled down to the instant by their control freak career moms. We get kids injuring themselves just so they can take a day off from swimming lessons and dance lessons and horseback lessons and... and....
It's called projection BTW. Parents are feeling unfuliflled in their lives, so they project that feeling onto their kids and MAKE them "get the most out of life".
How about we let women be women, men be men, and kids be kids? Think that might work out? I mean it worked for thousands of years before the 1970's
More to come on this subject, but Im too irritated right now.
UPDATE: Let me just say, men don't get let off the hook with me either. I'm'na do a post on the little boys in mens bodies who dont know how to be dads, dont try, or at best mail it in. They're jsut as bad as the supermommies if not worse.
But then if you're reading me, you probably already knew that.
Ok this is going to be a long one because, well, I'm both long winded and extremely bitter about this topic thankyouverymuch.
Gloria Steinem ruined America.
Gloria Steinem, and Helen Reddy, and Carole king, and anyone else who told women "Yes you really can have it all".
They convinced women that not only COULD they have it all, but if they didn't, there was something wrong with them.
They convinced women that they needed to have amazing careers, and amazing hsubands (who ALSO had great careers AND helped out with the housework), and great families, and great sex, and hell they could even get a little on the side 'cuz the men did it so why not them. They even convinced women that they could do everything in the military that men could.
BULLSHIT!!!
They were selling women a fairy tale no different from a knight in shining armor on a white horse.
Men have know for... well just about forever... that there are tradeoffs to be made.
There are three life areas, social and personal life, marriage and family, and work life. If you are going to be successful in any one area, you need to compromise on the other two. There isn't time enough in your life to be highly successful in your job, to raise two great kids and have a great marriage, and be a champion origami folder all at the same time.
In the '70s and early eighties women decided that they could have their careers, but more importantly they could be "personally fulfilled", and to "find themselves" over and above their families. Those women made the excerable Charlene song "I've never been to me" a number one hit, and then raised kids like me and my brother. I love my mother, but she was a horrible mother. She tried to be my friend. She read progressive books. She never punished us...
I could go on, but basically my mom was ms. new age mom, and it NEVER EVER WORKED. We, and many millions of people my age, never actually had parents.
Then in the mid to late 80's women started worrying entirely about their careers. Power suits, and BMW's and day planners and filofaxes. 80 hour work weeks. Divorces, cocaine, bad sex...
Yeah my mom went there too. Never saw her, she was working all the time. She would punish me when my younger brother got in trouble, because I was supposed to make sure he didn't.
Then the 90's come around and Martha Stewart and Lynette jennings become the superwoman icons.
Once again, I could go on, but we all know how it turned out. We get parents scheduling quality time, and play dates, and kids who have so many before school, and after school and during school, aactivities, their lives are scheduled down to the instant by their control freak career moms. We get kids injuring themselves just so they can take a day off from swimming lessons and dance lessons and horseback lessons and... and....
It's called projection BTW. Parents are feeling unfuliflled in their lives, so they project that feeling onto their kids and MAKE them "get the most out of life".
How about we let women be women, men be men, and kids be kids? Think that might work out? I mean it worked for thousands of years before the 1970's
More to come on this subject, but Im too irritated right now.
UPDATE: Let me just say, men don't get let off the hook with me either. I'm'na do a post on the little boys in mens bodies who dont know how to be dads, dont try, or at best mail it in. They're jsut as bad as the supermommies if not worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)