<< HOT BLOGS ~ MAIN ~ PEOPLE DEAD; BIG DEAL >>
BRAINY PIE-CHUCKERS
Forced to select between ideas and pies, leftists are prone to opt for the latter:
Liberals enjoy claiming that they are intellectuals, thrilled to engage in a battle of wits. This, they believe, distinguishes them from conservatives, who are religious fanatics who react with impotent rage to opposing ideas. As one liberal, Jonathan Chait, put the cliche in The New Republic: Bush is an “instinctive anti-intellectual” and his administration hostile to “fact-driven debate.” In a favorable contrast, Clinton is “the former Rhodes scholar who relished academic debates.” Showing his usual reverence for fact-checking, The New York Times’ Paul Krugman says the Republican Party is “dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research.”
I’m not sure how these descriptions square with the fact that liberals keep responding to conservative ideas by throwing food.
Ann Coulter is being a little unfair. Michael Moore has never thrown food.
The most mysterious Ann Coulter line ever, on leftist food throwing : If you close your eyes, it’s almost like you’re listening to Ludwig Wittgenstein!
On what one cannot speak, one must remain silent? If a lion could speak, we could not understand him?
Food, food, food. There must be something.
Well, there is a story that when the maid asked Wittgenstein what he would like served for lunch, Wittgenstein said that he didn’t care, so long as it was the same thing every day.
But the leftists have thrown both pie and salad dressing! It’s not like it’s always pie.
Lions do speak and we do understand them, by the way, or at least trainers do. Wittgenstein’s lion was himself. <a href=“http://home.att.net/~rhhardin6/vickihearne.lion.txt”> http://home.att.net/~rhhardin6/vickihearne.lion.txt </a
I think this is one of the consequences of the academy being so completely leftist. I often get copied on a mass email from one of my friends making some claim—the Patriot Act is outlawing libraries, Bush is forcing soldiers to eat plastic turkeys, the Pope is personally responsible for every case of AIDS in Africa, whatever. I respond with something which is both factually based and, to my mind, at least a tiny bit witty. (For instance, to some rant about the Pope and condoms, I responded with some facts about the successful Ugandan anti-AIDS program which stresses fidelity, and then said, “All this anguish about the Pope on condoms is predicated on the dubious idea that people who ignore the Pope on WHETHER to have sex with the village prostitutes then follow the Pope exactly on HOW to have sex with the village prostitutes.”)
The response, invariably, is something like this: “WELL! I guess you think it’s okay for orphans to die of AIDS! That’s typical Halliburton thinking for you!”
It’s really gotten dispiriting that the liberal side—my side until quite recently—has such poverty of arguments. The problem of Saddam? Well, we created him! Yes, but what would you have done about him? Given sanctions time to work! 13 years was not enough? Real inspections! (Whatever that is. It certainly isn’t something that they would back up with force.)
What about Osama? Well, we created him! And we’re just creating more terrorists! Really? Is that why there hasn’t been another big attack on the US since 9/11? Halliburton! So a little corruption invalidates any human endeavor? The freeing of the slaves is invalidated by the fortunes that J.P. Morgan and the Armour meat people made off it with shoddy goods? Bush is a moron! Well, what does that make your side who he keeps whipping like a sick dog?
If there was real argument going on in their world they might have some answers. But there’s only groupthink, and so they go into a gunfight armed with a “Somewhere In Texas a Village Has Lost Its Idiot” bumper sticker.
Mmmm. Food and politics. Reminds me of The Last Supper.
Bush is an “instinctive anti-intellectual� and his administration hostile to “fact-driven debate.� In a favorable contrast, Clinton is “the former Rhodes scholar who relished academic debates.�
Yes. And one other difference. Clinton talks about wanting to solve a problem. And Bush goes out and solves it.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 04 14 at 03:37 PM • permalinkMichael Moore — well, there was the time he ate the furry pizza from last month… but he didn’t throw that with his hands, if that’s the criterion…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 04 14 at 08:46 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Better meringued than harangued?