We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, December 19. 2014
No problem with hate, because many things and people deserve it but I sure don't.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
It's an etymological confusion.
Outrage comes from French outre, beyond what is proper.
Made into a noun with -age, English sees "rage" and decides that what is beyond what is proper deserves rage. The word itself says so.
This doctrine was so useful that the word was reimported back into French.
You can still distinguish the two meanings - the act and the reaction to it - but you have to work at it.
That the meld together is the point of the confusion.
And so the left is outraged at everything.
I find it's almost impossible to discuss anything with the perennially aggrieved - whatever end of the political spectrum they might inhabit.
I too find it difficult to have discussions with them. The response to any logical point is to change the subject and emote more concern (that can only be fixed with massive government intervention).
I agree with Spengler that they hate us, but I disagree with his view that it is silly and they know it is silly.
I truly believe their hatred is malignant and they would kill or imprison all of us on the Right if the opportunity arose. After all, what other options would they have for people that they HATE HATE HATE with every fiber of their being and have no chance to re-educate? In their view we are the obstacle preventing them from creating heaven on Earth. If we were just out of the way, all would be well.
They HAVE killed and imprisoned us.
It is this exact mindset that gave us Robespierre and the Reign of Terror, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and their mountains of victims.
I don't think he meant that they are a necessarily a reason for jocularity but that anybody who is as intellectually dishonest as they or have goofy ideas like you can choose or define your own gender (can we also choose or define our own species?) cannot be reasonably be afforded intellectual seriousness.
It is not that they are not dangerous (they are and they can be lethal) but that those who can laugh at and expose their idiocy are a bigger danger to them than those who fight then.
I don't hate liberals. They just exasperate me with their unwillingness to listen or hear an opposing viewpoint. I have many old college friends who turned out to be raging liberals; not sure why, but that was just what happened. I am told consistently that I 'hate' people (blacks, gays, etc.) and that I am stupidly ignorant of 'science.'Any rebuttals with citations that go outside of their approved sources gets laughed at.
I am patronized and reminded of how backwards I am in my thinking.
I have told my children repeatedly that I don't hate people who disagree with my opinions. I realize that many liberals are soft-hearted people who truly want to help everyone. But they don't seem to have the capacity to use reason the way I do, so I will just have to 'agree to disagree.'
Liberals never seem to do the same for me.
Benjamin Franklin belonged to a group called Junto. The purpose of the group was to become better informed and better members of society by freely discussing politics, social and business issues. The point was to meet for a civil discussion, not to harangue or be harangued by each other. To that end, members were not permitted to swear or raise their voices or they would be fined.
There are modern day Junto clubs. Not in Portland, though where disagreement is not tolerated. Here, I've learned the easiest way to clear a room is to say (politely), "You know, I have a different point of view."
The News Junkie: So much hate and anger that you can hardly have a civil chat or a civil debate.
You're right, but keep in mind that the political right has been explicitly egging on hatred for decades, such as through talk radio and Fox News. The divisiveness is extreme. There is plenty of blame on both sides, but the the hard right has far more political influence than the hard left. Gee whiz, they're still arguing about evolution in the schools.
David P. Goldman: In fact, they have their reasons to hate us. They are being silly. We know they are being silly, and they know we know, and they can’t stand it.
People on the left see the right as advocating imperialist wars, torture, continued unmerited inequality, and environmentally destructive policies, any one of which is sufficient to cause outrage when dwelled on for too long. Those are hardly silly concerns, even if you think they only represent part of the balance of considerations.
Posted on Saturday morning links of this blog:
Ace: What Exactly Has North Korea Done That Progressives Don't Do Every Single Day?
Irony is not the strong suit of the political right.
I'll see your "evolution" and raise you "global warming". The science and the facts support evolution and not the biblical version of life. It is a religious belief which like many arcane religious beliefs most intelligent and educated religious people merely tolerate but don't embrace. AGW global warming is the arcane religious belief of the left. It wasn't formualted as a "religious belief" it was and is a scam. The religious aspect (97% consensus) was formed later as a way of avoiding the necessity of proof, i.e. it is true and you canot question their authority for that would be blasphemy. Global warming is cyclical just as global cooling is cyclical. The scientists know this but it is justtoo good a scam to give up. literally billions in funding has been given to scientists because of the AGW scam. Trillions have been taken by governments because of the AGW scam. They AGW movement was co-opted by socialist/communist years ago and now it is a political movement to destroy democracies. The AGW scam is collapsing around the world but the hardcore socialist and crooks are holding on to it. There is too much money and power at stake to give up a good fraud like this.
GoneWithTheWind: AGW global warming is the arcane religious belief of the left.
Sorry, but the cases are very different. Anthropogenic climate change is strongly supported by the scientific community, so whether they are right or wrong, it is reasonable for laypersons to tentatively accept the findings. Evolutionary theory is also strongly supported by the scientific community, but the political right rejects their findings without foundation.
I expected nothing less from you. In other words "my religion is the true religion while yours is blasphemy". The funny thing is you don't see it.
There is no 97% consensus on AGW and never was. The warming and cooling cycles occur without and in spite of humans.
The IPCC has invented data to support the myth/fairy tale because they are part of the great fraud.
The so-called experts in climate science have consistently been wrong.
The fraudsters have changed the data because quite simply the data for the last 20 years refuted their arguement.
There is no 97% consensus. Most scientists who are counted in this have simply said that they believe human activity may have contributed in some way to climate. That could be a 1% contribution or a .001% contribution and certainly doesn't equate to "cause". The fraudsters have conflated most of this and notable climate scientists have refuted what the IPCC and NOAA have published.
I doubt you will look at these links. I am sure I know what your response will be. My point has been that your belief in AGW is your religion and you take it on faith and cannot be talked out of it by facts.
Wow. Lots of links to a "Steven Goddard" to show that there is no scientific consensus. Here is a somewhat more substantive appeal to authority:
“Climate change is real… It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.” — National Academies of Science; Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, U.K., U.S.
That doesn't mean the scientific consensus is necessarily correct, but it is reasonable for laypersons to tentatively accept the conclusion. Returning to the original point, you will not find a similar statement contesting evolutionary science by the national academies, so there is a distinction between the two positions on the political left and the political right.
Our current global warming cycle began about 1850. It has been a very modest warming cycle far less warming then the previous two cyclical warming cycles; the medieval warming cycle which began about 950AD or the Roman warming cycle which began about 250BC. What sets off this warming cycle is that the intervening cooling cycle, the medieval climate optimum beginning around 1250 AD was both well documented and quite cold. What that means is that because it was so cold even a return to normal temperatures could easily be spun as a warming or if there were political motives as a AGW. Second because it was well documented we have paintings, stories, and left over glaciers that can be used to clearly show that the earth has warmed.
But here is where the fun part comes in: At first global warming as we knew it began around 1850 after the mini ice age. But that simply didn't work for the Marxist socialist who needed it to be caused by humans and in particular by capitalism. So the starting period was ignored and the great warm period around 1934 was highlighted and fossil fuel was the cause. Again, that was a colossal fail because the earth inconveniently cooled during the 50's and 60's. So much so that climate hucksters back then claimed we were destroying the planet with fossil fuels which caused global cooling and a return to the ice age, LOL. It never seemed to gain much traction, a combination of easily refutable claims and lack of funding for scientists who would climb on the clobal cooling bandwagon for fun and profit. Then came another warming period which may have peaked in 1997. This allowed the chart genies to create the famous hocky stick because they could begin from a cool period and end at the peak of a warming trend. Sadly for the warmies the climate turned traitorous and has literally done nothing for the last 20 years. No warming, no cooling, nothing. So the "scientists" have taken to changing the prior years temperature subtracting as much as two degrees from prior data and adding a half degree or so to recent data. That is the great scam of the AGW crowd. Honest people will recognize and acknowledge it and dishonest people will not.
So, is there global warming? Yes, this is the 33rd warming cycle since the last great ice age. Is it caused by humans and more to the point by CO2 from fossil fuel? No, if you look at the evidence increasing CO2 is 100 times greater then can be explained by burning fossil fuel. The increase in CO2 is the result of greater volcanic activity and by lower CO2 absorbtion by the ocean. Increased CO2 most probably doesn't cause global warming and historically it is the result of both cyclical warming and increased volcanoe activity. CO2 is a very poor greenhouse gas and may account for less then one percent of normal warming with water vapor accounting for 98%. In short the AGW scam is a scam. It was originally a scam for more fundng for scientists and then coopted by politicians for higher taxes and more regulation and now is embraced by 3rd world nations as a soruce or "reparations" and embraced by communist nations as a medium of converting democracies to communism. What is your specific reason for pushing it. Are you a scientist seeking free stuff or a budding socialist/communist seeking revolution?
GoneWithTheWind: Our current global warming cycle began about 1850.
We pointed out that the political right still has prominent politicians trying to suppress the teaching of evolutionary theory or to impose creationism onto the teaching of science to children. Every major scientific institution supports evolution as a fundamental theory of biology.
You point out that the political left generally supports anthropogenic climate change as a parallel example. But they are not parallel. Climate change is largely supported by the scientific community so it is a reasonable position for a layperson to take. This is exactly the opposite situation from evolution. In both of these cases, the political left is generally aligned with the scientific community.
GoneWithTheWind: Sadly for the warmies the climate turned traitorous and has literally done nothing for the last 20 years. No warming, no cooling, nothing.
"The most recent 12-month period, November 2013–October 2014, broke the record (set just last month) for the all-time warmest 12-month period in the 135-year period of record"
It is immaterial unless you are trying to claim that fossil fuels is the cause of global warming.
You still are unwilling to see the similarity between religious belief in intelligent design based on faith and the left's belief in AGW based on faith. OK, !'ll concede that point because the religious group really beleive it while the left warmies are knowingly commiting fraud.
The most recent twelve month period broke all records providing you only use the cherry picked data that NOAA and IPCC has altered to make that possible. In fact Arctic ice is approaching an all time record and there were ten times more record cold temperatures throughout the world this year then record warm temperatures. In my humble opinion the warmies are desperate, they see the handwriting on the wall, the scam is crumbling in front of their eyes, their fraudulent altering of historical data is there for all to see. Many, (not 97%) of the world's climate scientists actually are predicting that we are entering an ice age. I don't honestly know if we are or not but what I do know is that even if there were a true (as opposed to a fraudulent) warmng this year it proves nothing. Just as the first year of no increase in warming proved nothing and the second year and third year but now with 20 consecutive years of no statistical waring or cooling there is a trend. Hence the desperate need by the NOAA to change historical data (and current data) to "prove" AGW. It is a little like watching the North Korean propaganda machine desperately denying what we can all see is happening. At this point I suspect that even the warmies all know the jig is up. Without some significant warming in the next few years the lies and theories will collapse under it's own weight. So I think they are holding on, just to get one or two more years of multi-billion dollar funding, just two more years of EPA out of control regulations, just a few more unilateral anti-American treaties with communist nations, and two more years of terrorizing the American economy.
GoneWithTheWind: It is immaterial unless you are trying to claim that fossil fuels is the cause of global warming.
Our claim is that there is no symmetry between those on the political right who reject evolution and those on the political left who support anthropogenic climate change. The political left in both cases is generally aligned with the scientific community, while the political right rejects the conclusions of the scientific community.
I'm guessing you are uninformed. I am politically on the right, tea party, constitutional right. I am pro-gun, pro-military, pro-police and pro-America. I believe in evolution and I believe in science and the scientific method for understanding our world. I know of a lot of people who believe in the same things. Not everyone on the right fits your preconcieved stereotype.
GoneWithTheWind: I believe in evolution and I believe in science and the scientific method for understanding our world.
And IDers claim the mantel of the scientific method too.
While not everyone on the political right is trying to force public schools to teach creationism to children in public schools, there is significant political pressure from the political right to do so. That doesn't condemn everyone on the right, but the hard right has more political influence than the political left. It's been quite some time since the hippies thought to create a leftist utopia at Maggie's Farm by growing turnips.
"Force" public schools to teach creationism! Do you mean just as the left wants to force common core on all public schools?
A lot of things are "forced" on students in public schools for political reasons. A lot of things are "forced" on citizens by an out of control federal government. Bring back local control to schools and end rampant federalism. Reign in the federal government and require it to live within the constitutional limits the founders intended.
GoneWithTheWind: Bring back local control to schools and end rampant federalism.
You keep changing the subject. There is a strong anti-science current on the political right, so much so that they there are efforts to undermine the teaching of evolutionary theory.
I think you are wrong. I will agree that most of the people who want to stop teaching evolution in school lean to the right politically. But I think those people are a very small percentage of those on the right, perhaps 1 percent or so. Most people on the right are educated and believe in science.
GoneWithTheWind: I will agree that most of the people who want to stop teaching evolution in school lean to the right politically.
Thank you for addressing the point we raised.
GoneWithTheWind: But I think those people are a very small percentage of those on the right, perhaps 1 percent or so.
They are a small, but vocal and influential percentage of the political right.
Nothing wrong with people expressing their point of view, however, our original point stands. The hard right has more political influence than the hard left, as exemplified in the anti-science wing of the political right.