A Philosophy of Science

And NOW I'm caught up. I'll be away for the next week, but I will be checking in.  Hopefully I'll be posting some pics from the top of Flat Iron (3rd attempt) tomorrow night. Stay warm, everyone!

Four things...

The were a couple of items today on Media Matters that really got me thinking. I was tied up all day at work and didn't have the time to comment on them, but I'd like to do so here, because I think they are very indicative of how Conservatives thynk and what they prynciples are.

(See what I did there?)

The first was this item about the Federal ICE and Secure Communities Programs.  There's a lot of the same old bullshit... (They're not racists, they're just saying that every Mexican is a criminal!)  They lie about they're affect on our economy, and our tax base, and the job market.  But there's a sub-text buried in there, almost like an afterthought, that I found to be almost laughably profound:  They focus on California, and the fact that in opting out of these programs, they also want to opt out of federal cross-checks.  Or, at least... not perform them, per federal immigration law.

Now... they were hardly praising this move.  In fact, as I read it, they seemed to take rather serious issue with California's bucking federal law here.  Which got me thinking:

Aren't these guys supposed to be all about State's Rights and limiting the power of the Federal Government and letting States decide for themselves what laws to have and how to enforce them?

Well... They certainly TALK a good game there.  But it's clear that this principle only matters if those States choose to resits LIBERAL Laws (non-discrimination laws, hate-crime legislation, industrial and environmental regulations) and replace them with CONSERVATIVE ones (anti-abortion measure, union-busting, prayer in school, etc...)  Which means this whole, "States Rights" thing? Isn't a PRINCIPLE at all.  It only comes into play when  it serves their overall agenda - Which has nothing to do with States Rights.  In this case? It's just more blatant racism, using propaganda to refute reality.

The second thing, was this.  In their effort to vilify Planned Parenthood as nothing more than an abortion mill, dedicated to some kind of genocide, the National Review's Rich Lowry, when presented with actual, factual data on how much of PP's business is abortion services (3%) and how much of its revenue was represented by those services (15%) and the fact that no federal money was ever used to pay or or subsidize those services, he simply waved his hands and called the data, "Fake And Bogus."

I've said it before folks: The biggest different between how Liberals think and how Conservatives thynk is that Liberals evaluate the evidence and then form their position accordingly, whilst Conservatives form their position and then evaluate the evidence accordingly.

I've always known that to be true, but I'd never thought I'd see it proven so... clumsily!

The third was RW micro-hack Hugh Hewitt's advice for Sarah Palin to not participate in presidential debates that are organized by "traditional media" outlets, claiming that they were overwhelming opposed to the election of GOP candidates, and that she should expect them to ask the "gotcha" questions.  Like...

"[The] standard stunt questions on abortion in the event of rape or incest, weapons of mass destruction, evolution, global warming, or any of a dozen other dog whistles to the left designed to create the moment that replicates across the Web."

Anyone see anything wrong with this kind of thynking? 

Calling out the fact that they are so far to the right on abortion that they no longer support exceptions for rape victims (or as Keith Olbermann more aptly put it: supporting the rapist's Bill of Rights) is something bad, journalistically speaking?

Pointing out either the continued, absurd belief that Saddam had WMD's, or the utterly psychotic viewpoint that the war was even remotely justified without them (hell - it wasn't necessarily justified WITH them!) is information that the American People shouldn't have access to?

Teaching evolution in the classroom?  Believing in long and thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, and wanting to TEACH that to our children?  We shouldn't know (or care?) about that?!

Global Warming?!  Again with the thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, only this time they get to make money off of it, while slowly dooming humanity to a planet that can no longer support them?  This isn't something we should know about the candidate?!

Hugh... I've got a question for you: If you're so ashamed of you viewpoints, WHY DO YOU HAVE THEM?  If your positions on these issues make you so unpalatable to the American people that you can't even defend them in a simple interview, then WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTE FOR YOU['RE CANDIDATE]? 

Again... I always knew they only cared about winning, and about power, and couldn't give two shits about what's important to a super-majortiy of the American people, but still... 

They're usually better about hiding it!

Though... I still wonder why any politician, any Representative of the People, should hold a position that such an anathema to the people he represents, that he doesn't want anyone to know about it! That ALONE should disqualify ANYONE from holding a public office, no?

And the LAST THING, well... if you REALLY want to read some shit... ;)

Some people just make me sick...

I wrote something on Friday, posted it, and then took it down a few minutes later. I’m going to repost it here, as it was originally written, but I want to talk about some of the things that were driving it, other than me just being in a foul, pissed-off mood. Which I was, but… there’s more to it. And remember that all this came, at the time, on the heels of that fucking Phelps piece that I wrote, that I ‘m over NOW (mainly because of what I had writtenTHIS, even though I took it down), but which I was still bitter about come Friday morning when I woke up to THIS, on the radio.

“Petrol Bombs.” Sweet Jumpin’ Jesus Christ! I realize that these are the same people who started WWI and were so vicious in WWII that even the Nazi’s had to tell them to take it easy (not to oversimplify or generalize, mind you, LOL) but come fucking on! If your manhood is so threatened by homosexuality that you feel the need to throw flaming gasoline at people, then either you have some serious problems, or you’re gay yourself and well aware that your "FRIENDS" have some serious problems.

And that was followed up by a story about the same neanderthalism going on in New York. And later that day I caught wind of the remarks made by Carl Paladino, the closest thing we have to an outright thug in politics, now that Kwame Kilpatrick’s no longer in office. And the final tipping point, for me anyway, came when he had the audacity to suggest that someone owed HIM an apology over the remarks!

(I got your apology right here, Carl. And just to show you what a decent guy I am, I’ll let you know: It’ll be coming in high, from the right.)

Oh. My. God. We owe HIM an apology. Apparently because the folks at the church suggested he make the remarks. (1) I doubt that. If they DID suggest anything, I’m sure that what he SAID was not the precise wording they had in mind. (2) Even if they DID, does he repeat EVERYTHING some idiot suggests you do? That would certainly explain a lot, but it doesn’t strike me as being in his character. And I am completely fed up with the Conservative lie that teaching children TOLERANCE somehow serves to “brainwash” them or (infinitely more absurd) “recruit” them. Especially coming from an asshole that just got finished saying “I have nothing against homosexuals.” Yeah… except that you can’t abide spreading a message of TOLERANCE. Which means that you’re just fine continuing to let the LGBT community suffer ostracism, isolation, discrimination, abuse and outright violence. It's very simple folks: We’re all HUMAN. The LGBT community asks nothing more than to be treated LIKE HUMAN BEINGS. (At this point, I might remind them how utterly shitty most human beings actually treat each other; and that they may want to aim a BIT higher…) But a refusal to teach tolerance, and refusal to actually DO something to reverse the trends of abuse and violence, is an indication of nothing more than your feelings that these people are somehow LESS THAN human.  "Governor for all people." That's eay when you consider some people to be less than that.

You know who I think are sub-human? People who think that way.

So while the original post was just inspired by this one asshole, it seems like each passing day I’d get another reminder just how shitty we really do treat each other.
So with that in mind, I’ve decided to repost what I did in Friday. Here it is, as it was:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
You know, some people just make me sick. But go ahead and sign it, for all the good it'll do.



I usually get a pretty good response to my "Person A , Person B" / "Liberal vs. Conservative Resoning" analogies, so here's a pretty blunt one for you:


Person A is homosexual, or does not live their life according to the gender they were assigned at birth.


Person B feels threatened by this person's mere existance in some way and kicks the ever-loving shit out of them over it.


The Conservative sees this reaction as evidence that something therefore must be wrong with person A.


The Liberal sees this reaction as proof that there is something seriously wrong with person B.




Now... If you're Conservative, and you have a problem with this analogy? Look around you. Becuase the anti-LGBT discrimination, biggotry and violence sure as hell ain't coming from Liberals! Those white-trash, fire-and-brimstone, charlatanical pious frauds and the thousands of fainting sheep they're brainwahsing? That's your voting block. If you don't like that reality? Then CHANGE it. (Yeah, only problem is... CHANGE really isn't in a Conservative's nature, is it?)


And if you're Conservative and you DON'T have a problem with this analogy? Then my friend, YOU have some some serious problems.


.
.
.

(exhale)

There. I've used my powers for good and have made ammends for that hideous Phelps piece from the other day.

This house...
...is clean.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
LOL. A little bit over the top at the end, but what can I say? At the time it felt cathartic. LOL
But there it is. And should any of the regular Conservative commenters take issue with this (okie, I’m thinking of you), the sad fact is that THIS is why “Conservatism” has become. This is what it means now. I didn’t DO THAT, and nobody asked your opinon about it either, but THAT’S the reality as I see it. One Political School of Thought seeks to move us out of the darkness, out of the jungle. The other? The only other one that has a voice at the moment? Seeks to move us back in. 

(But... I’m going to use that email of yours in a future post, so we debate the details then, if you’d like to.)

Either way. ;)

10-Point Scale of Conservtaive Illogic

There were several items on MMFA today that motivated me to revisit one of the more popular pieces I've written.  Of course, brevity being the soul of wit I went and decided to make the new version two and a half times as long as the original.  LOL.  We'll see how it fares.  Please let me know what you think. :)




Level One (Megyn Kelly):


Person A is arguing a Conservative point. Person B is refuting it with facts, logic and reason.

The Liberal concludes that person A is wrong.

The Conservative concludes that person B is Liberal.



Level Two (Gretchen Carlson):

Person A makes a factual misstatement in their argument. Person B points this out.

Since the argument was predicated on a falsehood, the Liberal concludes that the Person A is wrong.

Since the argument is being refuted by a Liberal, the Conservative concludes that person B is wrong.


Level Three (Brian Kilmeade):

Person A makes a statement in their argument that they know to be false.

The Liberal concludes that, since they have knowingly made a false statement, Person A being dishonest.

The Conservative concludes that, since they are Liberal, Person B is being dishonest.


Level Four (Steve Doocy):

Person A makes a statement in their arguments which is directly refuted and disproved by scientific evidence and research - which is brought up by person B.

The Liberal concludes that, since the Conservative argument is refuted by science, the Conservative argument must be wrong.

The Conservative concludes that, since the Conservative argument is refuted by science, science must be wrong.


Level Five (Bill O’Rielly):

Person A makes a statement in their argument that is refuted by well-respected Academics in the relevant field. (Economists, Climatologists, Historians, etc…)

The Liberal starts to think that Person A should have paid more attention in school.

The Conservative starts  to wonders if they should consider home-schooling their children.


Level Six (Karl Rove): (thanks, Bob!)

In trying to give an example where their argument would apply, person A reference a television program, movie or other fictitious work. Person B points out that this example is based purely in fiction.

The Liberal laughs, thinking that Person B just made Person A look like a complete fool.

The Conservative nods, thinking Person B just proved Person A’s point.


Level Seven (Newt Gingrich):

Person A strongly advocates for the Republicans doing something that he just got finished vehemently condemning the Democrats for doing.

The Liberal concludes that Person A is a hypocrite.

The Conservative concludes that Person A is principled.


Level Eight (Sean Hannity):

When Person B tried to point out the previous “inconsistency” on the part of Person A, either the program went to commercial or Person A just talked over them, in a much louder voice.

The Liberal sees this as evidence of bias.

The Conservative sees this as evidence of balance.


Level Nine (Rush Limbaugh):

Person A uses racial stereotypes, or plays upon racial fears in their argument. Person B calls them out on their use of racist tactics.

The Liberal concludes that Person A is a racist.

The Conservative concludes that minorities are racists.


Level Ten (Glenn Beck):

Person A rattles of a list of paranoid conspiracy theories, involving death panels, concentration camps, a police state and Nazi (or Fascist / Marxist / Sommunist) references to show why his country’s government can’t be trusted. Person B calls them out on the absurdity of this.

The Liberal wonders why anyone is still listening to Person A.

The Conservative wonders why Person B hates his country so much.

Four Levels of Conservative Reasoning

This week has had something in common with pretty much EVERY week since 1/20/09: Just when we think Rush Limbaugh can't stoop any lower or Glen Beck can't possibly get any more insane, the Right once again prooves us wrong, and shames us for underestimating them so.  At first, I was thinking that the lies, spin, slander and insanity that's come out in the past week (too much to even elaborate on - check out MMFA, and pick ANY ITEM at random for a perfect example) was somehow unique, somehow WORSE than it's ever been.  THEN I realized just how often it was that I've felt that way over the past 18 months!

So to help anyone out who just can't understand it anymore, I've identified four degrees of conservative reasoning.  Four levels that can help you gauge the exact level of insanity we've reached on any given issue or discussion...

Level One: Bill O’Rielly / John Boehner - Mitch McConnell

Person A tries to argue a conservative position. Person B refutes their argument with facts, research, evidence, reason and logic.

The liberal concludes that person A is wrong.

The conservative concludes that person B is liberal.


Level Two: Sean Hannity / Trent Lott - Tom DeLay

Person A, in attempting to defend the conservative position, is caught in a demonstrable lie by person B.

The liberal concludes that, as the argument was predicated on a falsehood, person A must be wrong.

The conservative concludes that since person A is conservative, person B must be wrong.


Level Three: Rush Limbaugh / James Inhofe - Jim Bunning

Person B further presents person A with strong, scientific evidence that his (conservative) position is wrong.

The liberal concludes that the conservative position is weak because it’s not supported by evidence

The conservative concludes that the evidence is weak, since it doesn’t support the conservative position.


Level 4: Glenn Beck / Michelle Bachman - Sarah Palin

Person A continues to spout falsehoods and starts displaying hypocritical, faux outrage over non-stories, made up allegations and paranoid nonsense. Person B continues to demonstrate that each point, in turn is becoming increasingly desperate and absurd.

The liberal wonders why anyone is still listening to person A.

The conservative wonders why person B hates his country so much.