Monthly Archives: November 2014
Did you hear the one about the baseball writers talking about evolution? This is a good one. A couple of weeks ago, ESPN analyst Curt Schilling began using his Twitter account as a platform to talk about the many failings of the theory of evolution. Unfortunately for Mr. Schilling, his tweets revealed a complete lack of understanding as to what the theory of evolution actually is and what sort of data would damage the theory. At the risk of editorializing (a risk I’m always willing to take), his tweets read like what you’d expect you’d expect your uncle to write after downing a case of Milwaukee’s Best.
It’s kind of sad to read them, isn’t it? He clearly doesn’t have the fainest notion of what he’s talking about. The trolls obviously had a field day picking him apart and you never really gets the sense that he understands that he’s the butt of the joke.
Now, on the opposite end of the spectrum, you’ve got Keith Law, another ESPN analyst. If you’re not reading Keith Law, you’re missing out. He’s a baseball writer. He’s such a good baseball writer that he is literally the only reason I’ve maintained an ESPN Insider account. Keith is also an interesting blogger outside of the baseball world. He focuses on music, food, books, and board games (especially those for the whole family).
Mr. Law is also one of the most rational people you’re likely to meet. He knows his logical fallacies and he’s not afraid to call people out for using them. His writing is sharp, incisive, thoroughly reasoned, and utterly unsentimental. I’m guessing most of you already know where this is going.
Law tweeted corrections to Schilling’s mistakes and, in the process seems to have angered his employers. In response, ESPN suspended Law from Twitter. We don’t know exactly which of Law’s actions drew this response, but ESPN has said that it wasn’t because of his defense of evolution:
Keith’s Twitter suspension had absolutely nothing to do with his opinions on the subject.
That’s a suspicsiouly narrow statement (not to mention it seems to imply this was a difference of opinions, not fact). Whatever.
While not every cloud has a silver lining, this one might. There are probably literally several of people who had never heard of Keith Law who now have. Please give him a look. He’s a terrific writer who keeps himself focussed on interesting subjects and he has level of bullshit which approaches zero. His blog can be found here. Joe Bob…er, Uncle Pancakes says “Check it out.”
You’ve probably seen one of the many, many articles which list ways in which President Obama has governed to the right of President Reagan. This point of view is a little skewed in that what qualifies as the center in American politics has moved so far to the right over the last 30 years that an absolute comparison like this doesn’t tell the whole story.
On the other hand, though, it’s hard to argue that the policies espoused by President Obama are really so different than those embraced by the American right, or, at the very least, by President Bush. So, while I think it’s a little disingenuous to argue that Obama is right of Reagan, I think it’s fair to say that he’s governed from a center-right position.He’s not a liberal. He’s certainly not a radical. He’s about as far from being a Marxist or even socialist as you can get.
The incoming Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) had this to say about our center-right President:
You know Mitch, I totally agree with you. I would love for President Obama to move to the left of where he’s been been his first six years. Nothing would make me happier than to see Obama stop offering up conservative policies that McConnell’s party has opposed on the principle of “we have no principles” and instead move to the center (or even, *gasp*, the left!).
But, ya know, after six years? I’m not holding my breath.
“Net Neutrality” is Obamacare for the Internet;”
-Senator Ted Cruz, noted technologist
I know he’s received a lot of stick for it, but Ted Cruz’ already-infamous tweet about Net Neutrality is actually remarkably on point. How so? Glad you asked!
Like Obamacare, Net Neutrality is a timid step in the right direction. Obamacare is merely the first cautious step on the road to a single-payer system that will finally bring America’s health care system up to something resembling a “first world”* system.Similarly, Net Neutrality laws are just the first move towards nationalizing the internet.
The U.S. currently suffers from extremely slow and expensive internet access because it is regarded as a part of the private sector despite the fact that it was developed by the public sector and the backbone is still primarily publicly owned. Additionally, networking is extremely similar to water and electricity in that there’s no reason to run more than one connection to each location. Because of this, internet service does not, and never has, operated like a competitive market. It’s always been a utility; we’ve just been pretending otherwise.
Net Neutrality will reduce the price gouging that is currently a feature of the American system, but to truly fix it, the best answer is to simply provide it as a service that is paid for by tax dollars, just like a single-payer health care system. Problem solved!
Now, I suppose that it’s possible to read Cruz’ tweet as a condemnation of Net Neutrality and a defense of government protection of a company’s right to use public resources to gouge their customers. By all accounts, Ted Cruz is not a stupid man and he would have to be profoundly stupid to espouse that view. Surely he wouldn’t...
EDIT: Please raise your hand if you saw this one coming. I expect to see a lot of hands.
* “First world” and “third world” don’t mean what you probably think they do. “First world” originally meant “aligned with the U.S. and N.A.T.O.” “Second world” referred to the communist bloc. “Third world” meant “any country not aligned with the first two.”
Sorry to shoot this one your way on a Sunday morning, but if I’m going to be made ill by the news, then so are you.
In the United States, pregnant women have fewer rights than the fertilized cells they’re carrying. Don’t believe me?
Based on the belief that he had an obligation to give a fetus a chance for life, a judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a critically ill 27-year-old woman who was 26 weeks pregnant to undergo a cesarean section, which he understood might kill her. Neither the woman nor her baby survived.
If this were a single story, it could be dismissed as a horrifying one-off and a criminal lapse of judgement by the judge. I wouldn’t be writing this if that were the case.
No, instead, the U.S., and many southern states in particular, have created laws declaring that “unborn persons” are the same as actual children. No one really believes that fetuses are children; they’re just trying to outlaw abortions without violating Roe v. Wade. For example, while harming a fetus is a criminal act, I wouldn’t recommend trying to declare one as a dependent on your taxes.
There are consequences to writing untruths into law. Women have lost autonomy over their own lives and bodies due to this fiction. If I were cynical, and I am, I might go so far as to suggest that these laws are about trying to roll back women’s rights than about protecting the unborn. After all, once they’re born, no one seems to give a damn about them (and yes, every word is a different link).
I always thought people were essentially bright. Distracted, sure, and weak, and beaten, but never stupid. And then you show them, here’s the two people who want to be president. One is evil, but you can deal with him, because he actually harbors beliefs. The other one will tell any lie, wear any mask, to become president, and not only that, he fucking hates you, and he’s doing this just so he can make your lives hell. And who do you think they vote for? Stupid.
-Spider Jerusalem, Prophet of Our Times
(note: If you haven’t read Warren Ellis and Darrick Robertson’s Transmetropolitan, please do so)
I’m sure you’ve all see that one before, but it’s a gift that keeps on giving, isn’t it?
I’ve been discussing “Obama’s legacy” with a friend of mine of the last few weeks. Given that the Democrats will likely lose the Senate in a big way and the Affordable Care Act will be gutted like trout, it’s no easy thing to figure out exactly what he’ll be remembered for other than “the first black President.”
The best I’ve come up with is this: Obama’s legacy is teaching a generation of enthusiastic young people that voting doesn’t work.
Here’s my thinking: Obama campaigned as a reformer who would reverse the course of the George W. Bush. This was a very popular position and he was swept into office in no small part by enthusiastic, idealistic young people who craved a leader who would “make a difference.” This was a successful marketing strategy for candidate Obama, but it came with risks.
President Obama shed his campaign skin almost immediately and navigated his two terms as a calculating centrist. He steered the ship of state on almost exactly the same course as his predecessor which, again, was worked well for the President as he won re-election without much difficulty.
But, what works for Obama was a disaster for the American left. By running as far to the left as he did, by promising change, and by, frankly, being Obama, whatever position he took was regarded as the de facto far-left position. The fact that he actually espoused center-right policies just meant anyone who was to the left of Obama was labelled a “kook” and the political center moved even further to the right.
Even worse, by energizing voters with promises of change and then resolutely defending the status quo, he left in his wake a generation of disillusioned voters who now see no real difference between the two parties and can’t be counted on to bother voting when the result is going to be the same regardless. This is Obama’s legacy, in my none-too-humble opinion: Voting doesn’t matter. It’s a good lesson, I guess, but it’s a harsh way to teach it.