Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community

(JavaScript Error)

linked to

Monday, October 31, 2005

Thinking They Are Thinking

We know these folks. We might work with them or even have them in our own family. We see them at the store or passing by us in the street. We see them on TV. We see them in the comments of this blog. - We see all of them draped in the bumper sticker flag of Bushian freedom. They are part of that 38% - the steadfast defenders of the Leader and the Party - never wavering in their support - faithfully repeating the word of the day, each and every day, day after day. Defiant of facts they repeat the repetition, sitting on conclusions without any regard to their support - simply repeating evidence-free fallacious arguments to prop up their prefabricated determinations.

We see the positions and they just don't seem to follow from the evidence or history or logic. Yet the beat goes on - persistent, ever mindful to stay the course - never surrendering - never conceding defeat - spinning any failure or defeat back upon their enemies. They march, as automatons, to the beat of a faux freedom drumroll of conformity - all the while the true sounds of liberty whither from the relentless attack upon logic and reason.

Somehow these folks, the 38%, must think differently - process information in some other way...Just how can they reach the conclusions they reach? Are they thinking at all?

In a reality based world evidence points the way to conclusions.

Philosoraptor states...

But--of course--this is not how those now in the White House think. They employ what a friend of mine calls "The Method of Inverse Criticism." The rational person inspects evidence and forms his opinions on the basis of that evidence--even if he doesn't like the opinion he is forced to accept. He who employs the MOIC inspects the conclusion first, determines whether he likes it or not, and then accepts or rejects the reasoning accordlingly. This reminds me of several people of my acquaintance who will accept any argument--no matter how patently fallacious--so long as its conclusion is 'God exists,' and who reject any argument--no matter how apparently sound--so long as its conclusion is 'God does not exist.' (I know atheists who do exactly the same thing--by which I mean exactly the opposite thing--of course.)

One is reasonable insofar as one can be moved by reasons--by evidence. But the remaining 38% of the population that does not think Bush is a terrible president is probably the 38% that simply cannot be moved by evidence on this point. I mean, what exactly are they waiting for? Laser base on the moon? Cheney stroking a white cat during the State of the Union address? The Republican Party changing its name to 'The Legion of Doom?'

What will it take?
Hazard a guess anyone?


Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Bushy Speaks

I'm listening to Bush speak today and I have to do a double take...

Think I hear him say this ....

"we weren't in Iraq in Sept 2001 and Al Qaeda still attacked us..."

Duh... the two weren't connected back then dipshit....

I gotta check the transcript... did he really say this?

Update: Yup he said something really close.

Some have argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001, and al Qaeda attacked us anyway.
I guess I missed the first part - the part where he claims that "some" folks say that just being in Iraq is what pissess al Qaeda off. um... who are these "some peoples" ? He talks about them all the time....)

I only heard the second part where Bushy puts Iraq and al Qaeda and 911 in a nice little package tied in a bloody slip knot.



Friday, October 21, 2005

I never thought...

Yup, I never thought I'd agree with anything that Krauthammer ever said... but today I found myself in agreement...EEEKKK

Miers should withdraw her nomination.

Krauthammer writes in the NY Times that the Miers nomination is a bust and shouldn't have been put forward in the first place. She should withdraw herself - she's a train wreck waiting to happen.

The omens are not good. When the chairman and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee express bipartisan exasperation, annoyance and almost indignation at her answers to the committee's simple questionnaire, she's got trouble. This after she confused Chairman Arlen Specter about her position on Griswold , the second most famous "right to privacy" case, and seemed confused when answering ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy's question about her favorite justice.

But it gets worse: There's the off-stage stuff. John Fund reports that in a conference call of conservative leaders, two Miers confidants explicitly said that she would overturn Roe v. Wade . The subsequent denial by one of these judges that he ever said that, and the subsequent affirmation by two of the people who had heard the call that he did say so, create the nightmare scenario of subpoenaed witnesses contradicting each other under oath. We need an exit strategy from this debacle. I have it.

He wants to save face for the Repugnics and sees their only "Exit Strategy"
It'll be an issue about records. The Senate wants more documents and the White House won't give them up - executive privilege ya know... Senate Repugnics meekly concur that more are needed and with an impass created Miers can appear to rise above the politics and then as chucky says

Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

I'd prefer the Repugs fall on their face... but if it'll derail Miers then they can save face by witholding more documents from the Senate...
They do it all the time... and it always looks bad for the White House.


Thursday, October 20, 2005

How to debate Intelligent Design

The Abstract Factory shows us the

"The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject"

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)


Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

...Continue Reading...

(Via Pharyngula)

Crossposted at The Liberal Avenger

Monday, October 17, 2005

Waiting for ....

Just waiting for Fitz...


Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Bush gives us Harriet

The Creeps - Social Distortion (1983)

I'll be vigilant, I'll be silent Yes, know one will know.
You want something for nothing,
A toast on your grave!!

"I just wanna give you the CREEPS!!"

Run and hide when I'm on the streets,
Your fears and your tears
I'll taunt you in your sleep!!

"I just wanna give you the CREEPS!!"

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Hell comes to your court...

I saw this Friday on the LA Times front page (above the fold no less) and then ran across it posted at the Talent Show.

World bursts into flames as Roberts takes seat on High Court.