Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘idiots’

There must be some kind of “Truther Industrial Complex” that gets to work whenever there is a big, politically inconvenient news event.  I don’t recall this getting into swing over Tim McVeigh, but for the 9/11 Hijackers and now the Tsarnaev brothers (and even the Aurora Colorado shooter), we already have people talking about “fake prosthetic limbs” and the massive set up that has taken place. 

Like the JFK conspiracy theorists, there is the slight problem that these guys got into a shootout with ordinary cops, just like Oswald did with JD Tibbett.

I would say conspiracy thinking is a waste of time, talent, and brains, but the one striking thing among all these people is how pseudointelligent they are.  The notion of logic, testable hypotheses, and nonselective reading of all the evidence is completely missing.  In other words, while very critical of officials, they lack all critical thinking.  They simply are results-oriented, stupid, and deranged, as well as possessing a flawed moral sense.  I think they are a sign of the tenuous grip on reality that is implanted in a great many people by our flawed educational system.

It also doesn’t help that you have US Presidents giving some of these idiots street cred.  I’ll never forget Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore side by side in a skybox at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  What a low point for the country . . . only to be outdone by some future atrocity, no doubt.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Andrew Sullivan, as usual, is confused and lets himself get carried away when it comes to homosexuality. He notes, “In 1994, just 19 Fortune 500 brands advertised in the gay press. Last year, 183 did.”

He concludes solemnly, “The private sector has long led the government in recognizing the simple reality of gay America.”

Umm, no. The government has always recognized this just fine when it is relevant, and it certainly can’t be said to have ignored gays in the bygone age of criminal sodomy laws. No, the government treats us all the same, except when we’re different in a relevant way. It doesn’t need to recognize the “gay reality” more than any other. The government and its laws rightfully do not care if we have long or short hair, or if we spend our money on books or on CDs, or if we are stylish or dull. A gay person’s legal reality is no different than anyone’s else. A gay person can call 911, file a lawsuit, and apply for a student loan. And, of course, a gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else. What Sullivan really is saying by innuendo is the theme underlying so much of his writing: since esteemed big businesses don’t seem to get hung up on gays, and indeed make money marketing to them, why can’t I and every other gay person get my surrogate daddy’s approval through government-recognized gay marriage? I hate to be so harsh, but this theme runs through his and all other gay people’s appeals to acceptance rather than mere toleration.

Of course, the difference between the government and the market is profound. It is the differences between law and its attendant social approval on one side and voluntary, private arrangements on the other. The government does sometimes care if we’re a man or a woman, or a citizen or a foreigner, or any number of other distinctions. In these areas, the law’s otherwise one-size-fits-all rules recognize that people are not equal in all respects. But these exceptions are exactly that: exceptional. For the most part, the law treats all of us the same.

Businesses are quite different, since there is a great deal of money to be made by appealing to niche markets. Thus, instead of one movie or one book or one type of car or one type of music, there are many examples of each. Unlike the laws, the market and its participants gain a great deal by recognizing our differences in finer and finer detail. This doesn’t prove that the business world is more decent than the government, but rather that it functions differently. It appeals to our voluntary choices, does not use force against us, primarily seeks to make a profit, and does not purport to codify our moral sensibilities.

Indeed, the behavior of businessmen historically shows that they are prone to avarice and indifference to the common good and should, therefore, be appropriately regulated to prevent anti-social activity. Businesses, after all, have sold everything from radar detectors and unsafe cars to Olde English 800 and security systems for drug lords. Various businesses might appeal to gays–gay people do, after all, have money–but they also appeal to everyone else: good, bad, and indifferent. Government, with an entirely different set of tools and concerns must keep people and their businesses within certain boundaries. It must bestow its benefits parsimoniously. And this means, at times, it must operate far behind the curve of social change, lest faddishness be enshrined in law, e.g., urban renewal, prohibition.

Sullivan’s lazy, hair-brained, and easily refuted blog entries are a real disgrace to his own intellect and an insult to his numerous readers. His latest example of sophistry is, sadly, just one of many.

Read Full Post »