Fueling conflict

Let's be fair. If the political left has lately become a bunch of name-calling bigots, it's largely in response to the robust infrastructure of similar sleaze long-established on the right.

Going back a bit further, the left engaged in all kinds of bigoted caricature and chop logic straw-manning in its heyday in the 60s, betraying the idealism of their substance with vulgar assault and simplistic petulance. The right responded in kind. It's just the way you get attention in a nation of distractible, disengaged, incurious bigots. Plenty of it to be found around across the political spectrum, opportunities and inclinations for pots to denigrate kettles, for Dum to dis Dee. Just check out this forum on any given day. It goes all the way back to the revolution and beyond.

The hard thing to do is make arguments, address arguments, and leave it at that. I like people who do that, whatever their position on the issues. Nothing I like better than an intelligent, rational, articulate person who disagrees with me, and knows how to explain it in respectable, compelling terms. Better than dumb, bigoted "allies" who cheapen the positions I hold dear any day.

August 31, 2010 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Actions vs. ideology

Yes and no. Salman Rushdie does move more freely, as the original furor has abated to a large degree, but many hard-liners still consider the fatwa binding. Here's a good sample from 2007 of the kind of rhetoric still in play:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comm...
Pakistan says Rushdie knighthood justifies suicide bombings
The Sunday Times, June 18, 2007

July 18, 2010 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Fact-based climate debate

Gerhard's "I'm a scientist, so lissen to me" article is a mess. Just one example: Can anybody here explain the difference between his third and fourth bullet points? Read them repeatedly and you will notice they say essentially the same vague thing, with the wording shuffled to look like separate remarks. Looks like freshman writing assignment padding. The whole piece is shot through with vague and unreferenced assertions, weasly words, irrelevant background facts (like the "water vapor is a nifty greenhouse gas" head fake). The man is a petroleum geologist (oil sniffer, retired) who has reviewed the climate science of the IPCC (whatever "reviewed" means). Real scientists are loathe to wade into areas outside their area of current expertise and training, especially when they are retired and out of the swim in general. Real scientists, and commentators of every kind, practice full disclosure of any associations or commitments that might give even the appearance of a conflict of interest. These are matters of professional decorum and integrity. Gerhard makes a feint at intellectual, impartial inquiry, then runs over it with his juggernaut of incoherent, unreferenced, murky and (from his other public commentary found on the web) politically biased propaganda points. There is no coherent scientific argument here -- just a bunch of disconnected pseudo-facts and meaningless assertions. And that final garbled sentence is a complete head-spinning non sequitur of rare absurdity. Still waiting for anything by a working climatologist, biologist in the field watching changing migrations, or anyone with a direct involvement in this work to appear in the Journal-World. What are the odds? With the scientifically illiterate editorship at the helm there, no such luck likely.

December 17, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Treading lightly on environment

George denies he is a denier. Then he claims to be a skeptic, which is what all armchair deniers do. Three years after he made a public clown of himself on this topic, he clearly hasn't learned one fact more than he had at his disposal then. He just wants to throw mud at the objectivity of Al Gore, even after I explained in detail (in this forum) virtually every point of Gore's arguments Gurley missed or misconstrued. He just repeats his silly Farmer's Almanac "common sense" folk science of the "I dunno, summer seemed pretty cool to me" kind, and his too cute labeling of the overwhelming consensus of mainstream scientific observation as closed-minded "fundamentalism." Nyah, nyah. George needs to step away from the keyboard and pick up a book -- a real science book, before he tries this gambit again.

You want to know what a real skeptic is, and how they evaluate facts? Read the views of former climate change doubter Michael Shermer, editor of "Skeptic" magazine and regular columnist for "Scientific American."

Like this, published a full month before Gurley's first fumbling bleat on the topic:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...

And, parenthetically, the Journal-World desperately needs some serious science-savvy writers and editors, to "balance" the steady drumbeat of science deniers, ghost chasers, pet acupuncturists, anti-vaccination hysterics, and fan dancing religious gabblers who get such free, unskeptical play in their pages. Dolph Simons is alway jabbering about how this or that vacant leadership position in the public eye needs a "top-flight" person to fill the bill, a no-nonsense professional with real qualifications, etc, etc. When his own paper exemplifies that level of competent leadership in matters of skeptical, dig-deep reporting (not the phony skepticism of deniers and conspiracy theorists) and giving the public real expertise on real things, he'll be more than a hypocrite pointing at everyone else's lesser failings.

December 6, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

20-year-old Lawrence woman dies after apparent hit-and-run

What Lawrence needs to implement, if we want to get beyond terrible tragedies like this with some sense of hope and control:

Realistic accommodation for cyclists, not appearing and disappearing curbside lanes like the absurd, fragmentary, token strips on repaved 9th Street, which actually increase confusion and hazard. To pretend that your average casual bicyclist can just sally out into traffic and try to operate like any other vehicle is a dangerous fantasy. To leave them constantly guessing and changing where they are expected to cycle, and motorists guessing with them, is insane.

Hard penalties for driver behavior that clearly endangers a pedestrian or cyclist. "Vehicular assault" needs to be a publicized crime, commonly prosecuted, and not just when actual injury occurs. People who use their vehicle as a threatening weapon need to be shut down, without excuses, just like someone who walked down Mass Street swinging a baseball bat past people's heads would be stopped, arrested, and either diagnosed or disgraced.

Cyclists who ride without head protection should be stopped and ticketed, regularly. Cyclists who ride at night without lights and reflectors as well. These omissions should be enforced with the same priority as any other traffic safety-related laws, such as use of turn signals and obeying signs and lights, which of course also must be taken seriously.

All KU students should be required to attend freshman "community ethics" classes, with warning instruction on public drunkenness and disturbance, vehicular and pedestrian laws and etiquette, and clarifying their general rights and responsibilities as tenants and temporary citizens of this community. Serious violations of a new "KU Code of Community Ethics" should entail serious penalties. Principles of good citizenship ought to be an integral part of any undergraduate education, and a requirement for continued enrollment.

Driver education should include training in, and require demonstrated understanding of the rules regarding non-motorized traffic on our streets. There is too much folklore, vagueness, and guesswork out there among drivers. The Journal-World could proactively do a lot in this by creating an educational series of tear-out articles and guides.

Enough hand-wringing and finger-pointing already. Let's act like a community for a change.

October 17, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

In the world of online comments, there are plenty of opinions, but few names

So Marion is the official poster child for the New Non-Journalism, the apotheosis of the slapdash citizen pundit with nothing better to do than troll through his day making random remarks about random news items, a sample of the level of discourse the new media have encouraged and hope to build their future on.

A shallow article about meaningless numbers and a trivial issue, given big play on the front page. Almost as enlightening as the astrology column in the "Go!" section. This is how newspapers are committing suicide, by trying to morph into the print version of "reality" TV. Will Bozo get voted off the blog? Will Marion post in the nude? Stay tuned!

The photo illustration couldn't be more apropos of this cheap breed of ersatz celebrity and peek-a-boo reporting. Marion gets his fifteen minutes in the spotlight, over and above that of the anonymous posters only because he is willing to be an overt knucklehead instead of a covert one. What a role model. Maybe he could get a fan base and start tweeting instant impressions of his current online snark-fests. Next sideshow. Bring on the bearded lady...

July 23, 2009 at 8:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

More Paine

devobrun:
"Overwrought maybe, Mr. Paine?"

Perhaps, but are you making the case that it is overwrought based on a familiarity with the extent and influence of this Christian Nation movement, or do you just reflexively dismiss concerns about growing, misplaced power that seeks to marginalize and disenfranchise large categories of people -- in this case nonbelievers, non-Christians, and doctrinally incorrect Christians? Would you be similarly blase about an ad promoting the view that women or black were not meant to be the dominant group in the founders' thinking, and that we should remember that "heritage" and support it today? Would the Journal-World run such an ad?

You say you are interested in the principle of freedom, above all, but apparently show no interest in a movement that seeks to impose its values on nonbelievers like you and me, and define by biblical standards what your freedom means. Inconsistent maybe, Mr. Devobrun, or just too indifferent to dig into the matter and come to an informed conclusion for yourself, before suggesting I'm overwrought? I recognize lazy argument, certainly, and an effort to ho-hum away anything you aren't already inclined to pay attention to.

"What about environmental dominionism?
For the same reason Al Gore can legally raise $300 million to promote global warming scares and environmentalist remedies, Hobby lobby can raise a few tens of thousands of bucks and run some adds in the paper regarding their view of principles of the founders."

Ah, now I see you want to drag in an unrelated hobby horse of your own, and add to the tangential tack this topic has taken under Miller's confused gyrations. Now who is overwrought. I at least am familiar with Gore's arguments and agenda. Can you say the same about WallBuilders? You haven't indicated.

"Don't agree with one or the other? Raise your own money and run your own ad."

Excuse me -- how is that better than writing, say, an LTE or forming an organization to counter views you oppose, or simply calling out the true agenda of Hobby Lobby in whatever forum you can? Is a paid ad somehow the price of admission now for participation the public discourse? Your point with this remark is impossible to discern.

The rest of your comments digress into an incoherent, quasi-libertarian, ramble with no apparent direction or point, but as near as I can tell your views are:

Lying? Sure everyone does it -- join the fun!

Getting a screwing from people with millions or billions to throw around? Well, go out and get your own millions to buy a seat at the table and quit yer whining, pansy-boy!

Is this about right, Mr. Devobrun? Is "cynical indifference" a fair summary of your argument?

July 17, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

More Paine

All of your observations touch on interesting questions, but the problem is they veer distractingly away from the important point where this entire letter exchange began.

Hobby Lobby, a very successful chain of craft supply and decorative item stores, is run by a conservative evangelical family that uses their money and connections to help spread what is called a Christian Nationalist view of America, a view which is counter to the most basic principles of freedom, equality, and secular government which emerged at the founding of our country. Their filtered and distorted historical quotes, compiled with the help of the dominionist propaganda organization WallBuilders, are meant to spread this mythology of Christian supremacy in our political life, and their July fourth ad in papers nationwide is a blatant promotion of this bigoted view. This myth of official Christian privilege has become widespread, powerful, and threatens the core of our national life.

If you do not have a clue about WallBuilders, the movement they promote and the role that corporate Christian dominionist stalking horses like Hobby Lobby play in that unAmerican agenda, you should get a clue. Unless you just don't care about the question, as so many in Lawrence and elswhere seem not to do. Certainly any left-leaning person who complains loudly about "the last eight years" needs to wake up and recognize the role that this dangerous mythologized history played in making those eight years possible.

But Christians should worry too, because if "Christian" principles are increasingly shoehorned into the public business, any believer should ask which Christians will be defining and parsing those principles. Christianity is hardly a single, clear, harmonious set of ideas that can be imported into law, without various sects reviving the implacable sectarian battles that plagued the colonies before the revolution, and that the founders were keen to neutralize. Be careful "Christians" what kind of society you try to set in motion, because there is no guarantee that your fellow believers won't decide eventually that you are the enemy, over some small or large matter of doctrine.

As you say, Mr. Miller, read our history. Not WallBuilders' version.

July 17, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

More Paine

Mr. Miller, your purposes become increasingly unclear, as you go further out on tangents to the issue that began all this exchange.

Are you suggesting that Paine's early association with Christianity, a common characteristic of even the most adamant atheists raised in America, somehow overrides his later complete rejection of Christian dogma, and warrants thinking of America as a specially Christian nation, wherein, although everyone is "equal," Christians and their heritage are somehow *more* equal?

That is the premise of WallBuilders, Hobby Lobby, and the whole Christian dominionist propaganda subculture, which was the driving impetus behind the July 4th ad.

Do you, or do you not, share WallBuilders' view of religious "freedom" in America?

July 16, 2009 at 7:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Deist myth

LarryM:
"cool, I;m starting to see people go beyond the “whack a quote” thing and actually start to research the subject."

Then I assume you will follow your own advice and look into one or more of the sources I referenced in a posting above? I assure you that they are from serious, mainstream scholarly sources, and not by slanted apologists for either a Christian dominionist or radical anti-religion agenda. The first title is especially germane to the debate that began all this.

Then tell me if you think Hobby Lobby/Wallbuilder's version of history is informed and honest, or the product of a right-wing history skewing propaganda machine. You may wish to do independent investigation into the credentials and explicitly stated agenda of David Barton, WallBuilders' guiding personality.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a very long-standing organization that is committed to defending the principle of church/state separation and that has many religious believers in its membership, happens to have a cover story on Barton in it's current issue of Church & State.

http://www.au.org/media/church-and-st...
"Religious Right Cowboy David Barton’s Fixin’ To Rewrite The Social Studies Textbooks In The Lone Star State (And Maybe Your State Too)"

July 14, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )