Oh, crap. Tristero throws me into despair with this sad quote.
Science is a gift of God to all of us and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, arguing for the bill’s passage. “And that is the embryonic stem cell research.”
And here I’ve got a “Pelosi ’07” bumper sticker on my car. How could she say something so idiotic? None of the Democrats are meeting my minimal standards for competence so far.
I know we have a fair number of nerds here, so I thought one way to illustrate the situation in American politics is to use the D&D alignment system. This is a two axis scheme for describing the ethical worldview of the characters. They can play along the continuum from good to evil, which is obvious; there is also a second axis from lawful to chaotic, which describes a character as a “by-the-book” kind of person or “by any means possible” type.
I think we need a third dimension, from intelligent to stupid. Will the character think before acting and try to follow the most intelligent, sensible path to achieve his ends, or will he stupidly bumble along from minute to minute, with no consideration of long term consequences? We can use this new alignment scheme to determine the alignment of our political parties.
I’ve left out the lawful/chaotic axis because it would be too hard to draw, but I think they’re all pretty much in the self-serving category on that axis, with the Democrats maybe leaning towards lawful and the Republican aspiring to chaos. Otherwise, though, this table reveals the lack of balance in our political game.
| GOOD | NEUTRAL | EVIL | |
| INTELLIGENT | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. |
| MEDIOCRE | N.A. | N.A. | Libertarians |
| STUPID | Greens | Democrats | Republicans |
Our whole problem is the complete absence of Intelligent players in the game; the process of running our country looks a bit like Monty Python’s Upper-Class Twit of the Year competition in progress. I can almost sympathize with the popularity of the Republicans, because I remember from those late weekend nights years ago that the evil characters were particularly fun to play. Adding the Intelligent/Stupid axis changes everything, though: who would want to play the bumbling, sloppy Igor instead of the cold, cruel, cunning arch-mage who wants to rule the world, even if he has to reduce it to a wasteland to do it? We’ve got a president who set out to conquer an empire and tripped over his shoelaces on the way out the door. Boring!
I’m so tired of going to the polls to choose between blue stupid and red stupid. Can we please get an Intelligent Good party? Something where candidates are smart and educated and wonky and secular, and also committed to doing the right thing not just for the country now, but for our long term position in the world? If nothing else, getting the diametric opposite of the current Stupid Evil party would make for political battles that would mean something.
Was placing the Libertarians in the “mediocre” category a purely arbitrary choice due to a perceived need to put one group per category or am I missing something?
Ms. Pelosi was, errr, framing the stem-cell issue.
:-|
Where has our secular nation gone? Where, oh where?
You have sense of humor cancer, I’m sorry.
The trouble with good people is that they don’t understand human nature. They tend to think that society is composed of other good people who all want the best for each-other.
Republicans do understand human nature (unfortunately), but they use their understanding to the detriment of humanity.
Who do you think ultimately understands people better? Superman or Lex Luthor?
Warning to All Who Value Braincells: Do not read the comment thread to that post. The sheer amount of stupidity oozing at it’s seams is quite representative of what you’ll encounter, especially from a particularly annoying commenter going by the name of “Bugboy”.
Gerard will be ecstatic.
I wish it were otherwise, but it’s not: The moment Pelosi starts sounding like PZ’s ideal politician is the moment that the Democratic caucus ousts her as its leader and chooses someone else as speaker. Right now the Congressional Atheists Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives has only one member, Pete Stark of California. We live in a god-ridden society and not a got-rid-of-god society. Sad, but very true.
Pelosi supports embryonic stem cell research. That is what matters to me. She can give whatever reasons she thinks most people will find palatable. That’s how it works. Pelosi herself is a practicing Catholic balanced on the the brink of clerical sanction. Even if the Church takes action against her, she’s not likely to suddenly turn into a non-believer. It’s not in the cards.
For those who are curious about such things, I wrote about Pelosi’s precarious situation in The excommunication of Speaker Pelosi.
Kseniya: “Where has our secular nation gone? Where, oh where?”
Like it or not, Pelosi’s statement was hardly exceptional in terms of either past or present conventions of American political speech.
FDR’s D-Day Prayer, radio address to the nation:
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odddayp.html
“Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts. …
And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade.”
If you can do math on a 3rd grade level you can see that she is going to need support from religious people to get elected, and that means talking about God a bunch. Politicians have zero ability to sway folks’ religious beliefs. That’s our department. Personally I don’t give a sweet goddamn if she gives credit to Nyarlethotep and Azathoth, long as I get my policies enacted.
D&D nitpick: Shouldn’t that be four 1s? You roll four die, and take the three highest scores.
In any case, I think I’d even take an intelligent lawful evil over what we’ve got now. At least then things would be really interesting.
No, things would just be Russia.
I would suggest that our problem with stupidity stems from the same cause as our problem with religion. The Democratic party has had intelligent candidates, and the electorate begins to get uncomfortable with the haughty way they sneer and make reference to having read books other than the Bible. I’ve heard enough jokes about Kerry and Gore being “too intellectual” to last a lifetime, and I can only guess that the electorate really just wants somebody just like them. Stupid.
I used to think I was of average intelligence. Most of my life leading to this point seems to have been a long series of disappointments and reality re-alignments as I was continually proven wrong. I still have to ask myself every so often… how is it that “intellectual” is a bad word? The day we clear that hurdle, I think Religion will have cleared up on its own.
Yes, any politician needs part of the religious vote. It seems to me that Kucinich does the best in avoiding pandering to it.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/139/story_13914_1.html
Obama also keeps a certain distance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062901778.html
Edwards though just wallows in religious nuttery.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/213/story_21312_1.html
You’ll never see an intelligent political party because… well… everyone intelligent is smart enough not to get into politics.
I’m closer to the White House than Kuchinich, and I’m not even in the race.
On the other hand you have Bill Clinton, the only 2-term Dem president in my whole life. Would have said the exact same thing as Pelosi.
PZ,
They used the original Unearthed Arcana method for rolling a wizard’s intelligence, and got 9 ones.
BTW, you need a Wisdom axis. From “quick on the uptake” to “immune to clues”. Or, in this case, ranging from “can’t understand why people don’t see things their way” to “I can see why my solutions won’t work for you.”
Sad indeed. Well, I don’t know if and when the electorate will actually go for someone in the Intelligent Good category, or anywhere near it – but the voters of Georgia are getting a chance to do so in the next round for their senate seat. Dr. Rand Knight, an ecologist with a Ph.D. in Ecosystems Analysis, and a member of the Ecological Society of America, has just announced his candidacy to challenge the sleazy Saxby Chambliss for the US senate next year! If you want to read a different kind of political statement, go read his announcement for candidacy – which has plenty of intelligence and nary a mention of god or religion. You should also read his issue statements for a refreshingly secular scientific perspective, e.g. on stem cell research, where you’ll find the kind of language you wish Pelosi had used, PZ. I have to wonder, though, if the Democrats in Georgia will even nominate someone like him for the election next year. What are his chances in the Dem primary?
I’ve LOLed. Thanks Dustin for brightening up my day!
Sorry, no. No you can’t vote for someone intelligent. This simply isn’t done.
There is a reason for this. Research and polls show that people tend to vote for other people, just like themselves. Since the median IQ is 100, people vote for other people who seem about as bright. A brain dead creo votes for someone just like himself, a brain dead creo.
It is not quite as bad as it seems. Intelligent people can and often do, make extremely stupid decisions. Like the neocons in their self described “think tanks”. Really should call them dumb tanks but the people in them are basically smart enough to fool some of the people all the time.
Bill Clinton’s genius was to appear to be a good old boy from some place no one ever heard of in Arkansas, for heaven’s sake. A just plain folks guy with a suit. Fooled a lot of people inasmuch as he is really very, very smart.
http://www.llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target4.html
worksafe
I think you are describing a predominantly American situation, raven. For I know absolutely nobody in Europe who would vote for a candidate best described as your “average Joe/Jane”. Most people here don’t vote for the candidates as persons at all, they vote for the party. And frankly, here no-one cares whether a candidate is pious or godless, has had several wifes/husbands or none at all. And of course nobody cares whether the candidate is gay or straight. That’s their private life and by no means related to their competence, or more importantly to their party’s competence.
Why, I wonder, is this so different in the US? Can somebody explain it to me?
Re 21:
Yes, I can.
Because England and the rest of Europe dumped their most extreme religious bigots over to the Americas, many of whom inevitably became tyrants the moment they were elected by other religious bigots.
“Who do you think ultimately understands people better? Superman or Lex Luthor?”
I don’t read a lot of literature in that particular vein, but I don’t think those two characters really represent what you’re describing above. A better question would be, “who understands the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ better: the one who betrays or the one who remains silent?”
Repeated or one-time?
Voter: Governor, every thinking person will be voting for you!
Adlai Stevenson: Madam, that is not enough…I need a majority.
(Even if this is apocryphal, it’s still great.)
Alan, don’t forget, the Wisdom score is a combination of Willpower and Intuition. So someone who is not very intuitive at all, but is bone-stubborn, like Bush, might have a decent wisdom stat.
Intelligence IS a gift from God. He would just prefer that we not use it.
OEJ
Personally, I’d swap the greens and libertarians on that chart.
The greens are all about heavy government interference, not personal freedom and choice. In a Green world, you’re told what to do and punished for not doing it. Except for their environmental angle, staunch Republicans would love the authoritarian spin.
The Greens are harsh, and I don’t think for a second that they’re not self-serving. They don’t care what’s best for you. They care that the agenda they think is best gets implemented, irrespective of who it hurts and how. It’s this very fact that keeps them from getting very far in US or Canadian politics. Electing greens would be like electing an overbearing mother-in-law.
Hardcore libertarians, on the other hand, don’t seem to see the big picture. They have your best interests in mind, but can’t see how some of their less-government ideas would negatively impact them. Their vision is as narrow as any republican or democrat.
Hence, I say swap the greens and libertarians :)
You need to let immigrants run.
I tried to address the comment over at Hullaballoo, and was informed that it was “insulting” to say “most scientists are atheists”. Of course, the same guy (apparently a scientist himself) then went down the usual tired path of saying that atheism is itself a religion. (That makes about as much sense as saying that the biology department I work in is a baseball team.)
I replied with a citation to the NAS study that polled its members, half of whom responded, 70% of whom identified themselves as godless and 7% of whom identified themselves as religious. That led to a neener-neener type of comment to the effect that he was a scientist and he had discussed the issue with his friends.
Always nice to see personal anecdotes trump hard data!
I’m not a big fan of the Dawkins-identified “belittle the opposition” approach to debate, but what else is there to do when somebody repeates one fallacious argument after another?
Evolving Squid: this bit is nutty:
I’m not a Green, but there’s not much to say in response to this other than that you are utterly wrong and that your allegations are completely without merit or support.
Have you been to Germany at all in the past ten years? Greens have a fairly significant presence there and do not act at all in the way you mischaracterize them.
Sounds more like a libertarian diatribe than anything else.
Christian Burnham said:
Who are these hypothetical “good people”? Are they, perchance, constructed of straw?
I’m looking forward to an englightened, superior understanding of human nature…
*slams head on desk*
At this point, any substantial change in the structure and function of society would negatively impact people, if only because they would then have to work to adapt themselves to the new order, the old methods and habits no longer being effective.
We’ve certainly become addicted to government. The question is not whether reducing its role would lead to withdrawal, but whether we would ultimately be better off for doing so.
Thanks Fatmop.
RickD wrote:
I think Evolving Squid didn’t aim for every Green party and especially not for the European ones. I guess he only commented on the American Greens. I don’t know anything about the American Greens but maybe his analysis has some merit regarding them. That’s at least how I read it.
America is suffering from the aftereffects of one of its religious memes: the one that puts its emphasis on wandering preachers and the common persons’ direct interpretation of scripture, discarding learned examination of religion and its works.
Combined with the common misunderstanding of “all people are created equal”, and the result is the rampant proliferation of blind faith and anti-intellectualism.
Sadly, no one is immune to taking things on blind faith, and few people are so fond of thinking that they’ll do it even when it’s difficult or inconvenient. As we can see from PZ’s comments.
Damn, sorry but my last comment seems quite f*cked up. Just imagine the quote stopped at “…anything else” and not two paragraphs above.
#s 28 & 29: I would say that the Libertarians’ worldview is narrower than that of either Democrats or Republicans, in that they tend to see everything in terms of economics. The Greens, at least in theory, see everything in terms of ecology, and as such have a narrow worldview themselves. Part of this, I think, is because they are each (in the USA, anyway) new parties with little practical experience and small voter bases — not so small as to be truly one-issue parties, but not large enough to develop a mature, multidimensional worldview.
This suggests another axis for political parties, the Worldview axis. It should run from “narrow” to “broad”, or alternatively from “single-issue” to “comprehensive”. I would object to the Intelligence axis on the grounds that Intelligence is a stat, not an alignment, but I suspect that what PZ is meaning to indicate here is more perceived, or perhaps instead collective, intelligence than actual intelligence.
Meanwhile, Squid, “heavy government interference” is the sort of thing that (in my experience) only Libertarians and Republicans complain about. In the Nolan chart (another political alignment system!), this represents a concern about economics, which favours primarily corporate interests. I would suggest that, if we did away with “heavy government interference” in corporate matters, we would have heavy corporate interference in our lives (we already do, but we are not always aware of it). Either one is objectionable, but at the very least the government is supposed to be accountable and its actions transparent; I would choose that over market-controlled corporations any day of the week.
Finally, the Greens may be about limiting corporate behaviour, but they are also in favour of workers’, women’s and gay rights. I hardly consider this “harsh”! They may not be a practical group, but I would argue that they care about the right things, and at least try to have a long-term outlook on matters. Our culture is on the brink of some drastic ecological situations, and correcting our behaviour so as to avert catastrophe will require some substantial action by very inertia-prone institutions. If getting that done requires “harshness”, so be it. But in other respects, the Libertarians’ creed of minimal government oversight over anything and everything would lead to a rather harsh world as well: you could be fired from your job at any time and for any reason, for instance, and you would have no guarantees to (for instance) health care or education if you did. It is not an intentional harshness that the Libertarians advocate, but their refusal to consider some of the consequences of their actions is nothing but harsh.
But I’m not in Germany, and I think I’m entitled to react to Green policies here (Canada).
The Greens here want strict, punishing enviro-legislation, and don’t appear to care for how it affects people. They appear to want to do everything in their power to destroy what they perceive as an upper or privileged class.
If I lived in Germany, then maybe your comment would have some merit, but I don’t so what the German Greens do is utterly irrelevant.
The value judgement I was making was that Greens are less stupid and more evil than Libertarians on that chart at the top of this post. I stand by that. It is my opinion, that on pretty much every issue, Libertarians have the best interest of the people in mind much more than Greens do, but that Libertarians don’t always think things all the way through (particularly the more anarchistic libertarians).
Greens probably put more thought into it, but in Canada at least, Greens are all about an extreme, big-government, motherhood-state agenda.
My apologies for 3 posts in a row, I’m reading these linearly, which I probably shouldn’t do, but this will be the last one.
No, “heavy government interference” goes way beyond just economics. Where I live, the city regulates the shade of brown you can paint your house. There’s an unnecessarily heavy government interference. Certain firearms are banned because they simply look scary (I’m serious). That’s an unnecessarily heavy government interference (there’s far better reasons to ban a firearm).
I agree that Libertarians are generally viewed in terms of their economic ideas, but there’s more to it than that, just like there’s more to the Greens than hugging trees.
We will not have a viable third party in the U.S. until we change the Constitution to use the Condorcet or instant-runoff or similar election method. With our current first past the post system, a vote for a third party is all but guaranteed to be a wasted vote.
Electionmethods.org used to have a good explanation. (You can still view it via archive.org, circa 2004 or so.)
Or, you could convince a threshold number of voters to vote for a third-party candidate.
I’m going to have to put forward that the republicans are more on the lawful side than the democrats: The Republicans use the law to their own ends, becoming evil barons who uphold the traditional values of discrimination and reverse gradated income tax. The dems however, follow the law while it suits them, and when abortions are illegal a few of them pop out and do the work themselves.
#38: Libertarians do not see everything in terms of economics, of which most have little or no understanding. What Libertarians see everything in terms of is property, and that mostly on an atavistic, territorial level corresponding to little more than where they’ve sprayed their urine. That they sometimes attempt to bolster this apotheosis of selfish individualism with half-baked references to market efficiency just makes their cluelessness about the latter all the more obvious.
Impeachment is a gift of the founders to all of us, Nancy.
I’m putting Al Gore in the Good/Intelligent category because he did something very sane: he got out of politics and wrote a book that is going to help get us out of this mess we are in.
Hell is other people, eh.
And once again we see that the human propensity for cliqueishness and tribalism overwhelms good judgement.
The ability score rolling methods involving more than 3 dice (or dice other than 6-siders) were rare until the late 1970s. PZ is as Cthulhu, and therefor learned to play before such innovations.
In any case, today re-rolling 1s is probably as common as dropping the lowest die.
“Or, you could convince a threshold number of voters to vote for a third-party candidate.”
All you’d do then would be to displace one of the two existing parties. You’d still have a two party system; only the players would change. This is what has happened each time a third party has achieved power in American history. As long as we use a straight up first past the post method to elect our leaders, the best strategy for winning the game will be to assemble as broad a coalition as possible, which naturally leads to the consolidation of contestants into two parties.
If you would like to populate the rest of the grid, I’d put the “wobblies” in the mediocre good square.
This was an acceptable method for when you were playing with wussies that would cry if ANY attribute scored below 12. I’m joking; we used the 4-die method too. I had one friend that would put the dice in his mouth to “energize” them before throwing his attribute scores. It rarely worked of course and made for soggy character sheets. Long live Dragonlance!
I’d put the Libertarians, and their mirror image the Socialists, in the Intelligent/Evil slot. Both groups spin wonderful fairy stories about how wonderful the world would be if it wasn’t all full of nasty old Humans. Both have impeccably reasoned arguments from laughably false bases.
I tend to think of an “intellectual” as a person who thinks that flies have eight legs because Aristotle said so.
The needs to be a place for Spine in your matrix.
And of course Truthiness.
I think it was Robert Anton Wilson who said something like: “I’d be a libertarian, but I don’t hate poor people.”
You all are mistaken. The human subrace “politician” has a -15 adjustment to INT (minimum 3). This can be raised as characters level up, but most players choose to boost their charisma.
That said, may I offer a demotivational poster on this same subject?
Political dribble…
Should I vote left?
Should I vote right?
Damn! That’s the only choice in sight!
I’d like to vote intelligently!
I’d like to vote for… dirk gently!
but there’s no such guy (unfortunately!)
I’d vote for a gal who used her noggin,
Even if she was into floggin’!
A little s&m’s ok
So long as it ain’t pol-iss-ay!
I’d vote for green (or red or yella)
I’d vote for the local gay pride leada!
I’d vote for you with nary a quibble…
So long you show that you think – a little!
(No doggs were harmed in the making of this post)
“And once again we see that the human propensity for cliqueishness and tribalism overwhelms good judgement.”
That’s not fair. PZ didn’t say he would refuse to vote for any but atheists.
About Libertarians supposedly having the general good in mind…
Oddly, I’ve never met one who wasn’t confused on this point.
You know, I don’t really like pandering, but it is nice to see the Democrats back to playing the political game, instead of not, which has been there mistake for 6 years or so.
I think Recent comments by Pelosi and Obama show an interest in appealing to the Religious folk in our country like ‘See? We don’t mind our religion either. Plus we take a healthy dose of Science and Sanity with it.”
I just hope that it works.
That’s the problem with politics in general. Any of the macro-level parties/ideologies have good points and bad points. No matter which one you pick, you’re probably lending support to some kind of idiocy.
RE European Greens,
European Green parties tend to be more center left rather than radical left like the US party is. The difference is primarily due to proportional representation vs winner take all districts. The later only accomodates two coalition parties with radical parties exerting their influence as spoilers. In the former, small parties want to be ideologically close enough to be included in the ruling coalition and large enough that they would stand a chance of depriving the coalition of a majority if they leave it, so they will take a more moderate stance.
Consequently, refering to the European Green parties for insight on the views of the US Green party is mostly useless. They service different political niches and shape their policy stances accordingly.
Uh, MattXIV, the Green Party USA is the most conservative Green Party in the world. It’s seriously only radical in the sense that it’s a left-liberal party in a country dominated by a conservative party and a reactionary party.
More than Intelligence, I wish our pols would re-roll for Wisdom. (And yet not choose to be clerics).
Except that our society runs on the core concept the Libertarians embraced and the Socialists rejected.
Well… not so much, anymore.
Djur,
I was explaining it relative to the political centers and issues addressed in the countries in question to explain the relative priortization of different issues between the Green parties in different countries. The US Green Party’s conservativism is a matter of how you slice the issues – they’re more pro-tax increase than many Green Parties (although they’re off their ’00 peak when they wanted a wealth tax and an income cap) but don’t go as far in their environmental/animal rights/health issues rhetoric.
You do know there is already a “Lawful Stupid” alignment, right? I refer, of course, to the Paladin variant of Lawful Good.
I would dispute your conclusion that the Republicans skew Chaotic. I’m fair certain they skew Lawful Evil, they just have a different set of rules than you do. I’d argue that both parties are closer to neutral on that axis, though. Also, I’ve always felt politicians are more likely to be NPC’s, so they would only get three dice. In all honesty, almost everyone is an NPC, so we all only got three dice for our ability scores.
In a Green world, you’re told what to do and punished for not doing it
Just like that damned criminal code we’ve got here in the US. Can you imagine, if I poison my neighbor so I can rape his wife, I’ll be punished for it. Can you imagine how hard it is to exist in a world like that?
You do know there is already a “Lawful Stupid” alignment, right? I refer, of course, to the Paladin variant of Lawful Good.
very high charisma, though.
;)
Err, no. I actually defined a “Lawful Stupid” alignment quite some time ago, along with Neutral and Chaotic Stupid. :)
I’m pretty sure that Neutral and Lawful Stupid are the most prevalent alignments in the US, and that this explains a great deal about our political situation. <_<
Chaotic Stupid characters hate order, rules, and regulations of any sort, whether they are harmful or beneficial. They refuse to consciously surrender control of their lives in any way, shape, or form, regardless of the benefits organized society and just laws provide to them or others.
sounds like a definition of a libertarianism, methinks
errata: definition OF libertarianism
Maybe, but I think Libertarianism is better defined as “The fantasy that society can exist, and people maintain a desirable quality of life, without government except in the manifestations thereof most personally convenient to the fantasizer,” as opposed to Anarchism, which eliminates “except” and everything following it.
PZ: So being on the cutting edge of 18th century economics and politics makes one “mediocre”? Eegads, our standards have fallen. With that bar, socialists and even communists must be intelligent. They make it all the way into the 19th century.
And anyone who has read a little von Neumann is a veritable genius!
I just have to laugh. So much time is spent bashing Republicans for their belief in their invisible friend, and it turns out that invisible friend belief is prevalent on both sides of the aisle. Tee-hee!
You must be a Democrat, because this post was Neutral Stupid. Honestly, I expect a lot better from this blog. You’re normally pretty intelligent. And what’s with calling the Libertarians evil? They’re generally in favor of liberty (hence the name). Surely you don’t have a problem with liberty?
Well put, except I still don’t understand why Putin keeps getting upset at NMD. Hasn’t he noticed that it doesn’t work and is nothing but a waste of US tax money?
Eh, that’s because we can. In order to get a new government, we elect a new parliament by voting for a party. Americans have to vote for president to get a new parliament. Presidents in Europe are elected on personality issues, too, but most of them are just too powerless to turn their elections into emotional battles.
There are such people, just fewer. But nobody expects a candidate to mention in public how pious or not they are. Religion is a private affair. It’s not something you talk about without having been asked, and it’s not a polite thing to ask either.
Very well said.
I, too, don’t know enough about Greens outside Europe, but libertarians have their own best interest in mind. The good ones believe that this is everyone’s best interest (“invisible hand”); the evil ones don’t care; the outcome would be the same. If the US Greens are as leftist as I read in this thread, they certainly have everyone’s, not just their own, best interest in mind, though of course they might still be mistaken on just what that is.
Hmmm…
You know, when we here read things like this, it just reinforces our latent antiamericanism. It doesn’t lead us to yell out “stupid socialists”, somehow.
Is it Calvinism, or why are such stupidities concentrated in the USA???
You mean communists, not socialists. Though, few communists today are really evil; most simply believe in the laughably false bases.
Well put, except I still don’t understand why Putin keeps getting upset at NMD. Hasn’t he noticed that it doesn’t work and is nothing but a waste of US tax money?
Eh, that’s because we can. In order to get a new government, we elect a new parliament by voting for a party. Americans have to vote for president to get a new parliament. Presidents in Europe are elected on personality issues, too, but most of them are just too powerless to turn their elections into emotional battles.
There are such people, just fewer. But nobody expects a candidate to mention in public how pious or not they are. Religion is a private affair. It’s not something you talk about without having been asked, and it’s not a polite thing to ask either.
Very well said.
I, too, don’t know enough about Greens outside Europe, but libertarians have their own best interest in mind. The good ones believe that this is everyone’s best interest (“invisible hand”); the evil ones don’t care; the outcome would be the same. If the US Greens are as leftist as I read in this thread, they certainly have everyone’s, not just their own, best interest in mind, though of course they might still be mistaken on just what that is.
Hmmm…
You know, when we here read things like this, it just reinforces our latent antiamericanism. It doesn’t lead us to yell out “stupid socialists”, somehow.
Is it Calvinism, or why are such stupidities concentrated in the USA???
You mean communists, not socialists. Though, few communists today are really evil; most simply believe in the laughably false bases.
I, for one, have a problem with a) a pathological lack of empathy (“I got mine, fuck you”), b) a refusal to consider one’s own best long-term interest, and c) the belief that competition doesn’t stop (leading to monopolies) if you leave it alone.
I, for one, have a problem with a) a pathological lack of empathy (“I got mine, fuck you”), b) a refusal to consider one’s own best long-term interest, and c) the belief that competition doesn’t stop (leading to monopolies) if you leave it alone.
I just have to laugh. So much time is spent bashing Republicans for their belief in their invisible friend, and it turns out that invisible friend belief is prevalent on both sides of the aisle. Tee-hee!
unfortunately for this argument, in your glee to assume that the devil favors both sides, you forget to take it to the next step, and ask yourself which political party actually ends up producing religious propaganda as bill material.
I got a clue for ya:
it ain’t the dems.
who started the “moral majority” political movement?
not the dems.
who tried to add religious riders to the NCLB act?
not the dems.
why not try tracking the actual legislation introduced, and THEN see where the religious ideology lies, eh?
#26. Samantha,
later in another game Col. Pladoh split Wis. in two under the Spiritual Trait. These being Metaphysics – one’s understanding of the world, and Psychic – one’s connection to the world. The former being a learned quality, the latter an innate one. Though both can be improved.
Think of someone with a high Spiritual-Psychic rating as being able to catch on quick to implications and consequences. He may not have much in the way of formal education, but he can recognize when something means something. With a high Spiritual-Metaphysical rating he has learned much of how and why the universe is the way it is. Here the understanding is more reasoned than instinctual.
Just to get back to original point, I can’t see how it is stupid to choose to phrase things so you get elected, as against phrasing things so you don’t. It is not all clear to me that experience suggests that complete honesty works in politics. I don’t see how anybody could seriously regard Bill Clinton (Rhodes Scholar) as stupid.
Too many people have single issue mania and will vote on the basis of that one issue and in any given speech there is a great danger of hitting too many peoples buttons. This is particularly a danger for the Democrats because the Republicans are the party of reaction.
Hey, Reason. Regarding Bill Clinton being a Rhodes scholar:
Fact: He was a Rhodes Scholar
Fact: “Rhodes’ legacy specified four standards by which applicants were to be judged:
* literary and scholastic attainments;
* energy to use one’s talents to the full, as exemplified by fondness for and success in sports;
* truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship;
* moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one’s fellow beings.
Fact: Bill Clinton demonstrated a lack of “moral force of character”.
Conclusion: Rhodes Scholarship is not proof of possession of the qualities the scholarship is supposedly given for.
Therefore, Bill Clinton being a Rhodes Scholar is not proof of his intelligence.
Anecdotally, some of the dumbest people I’ve ever worked with have had a “PhD” affixed to their name.
@Wolfger:
I do have a problem with “liberty” when it is defined so narrowly as to in practice deny most people any real liberty. When you use “liberty” as an ideological premise to actually deny people any real liberty, you are evil. Just like the communists used a narrowly defined “liberty” (defined by class interests) to actually deny everyone but an elite any functional freedom, libertarians narrowly construe “liberty” as property rights, which will in effect deny everyone but the wealthy any functional freedom.
And don’t retort with that stupidity about “positive” and “negative” liberty. I think PZ was much too kind to call “libertarianism” intellectually mediocre. It’s downright stupid, even if wrapped up in all kinds of pseudo-intellectual argument. It worships 18th century ideas and ignores the vast development in political theory since the 1780’s. That’s stupid! Even Hayek would be perturbed by Libertarianism, recognizing that a wealthy state could and should create an economic baseline from which merit could actually be judged – that some minimal equality is required for competition to be meaningful.
Wolfger: ‘Bill Clinton demonstrated a lack of “moral force of character”.’
Got a bit of Clinton Derangement Syndrome there? Give us actual evidence that he lacked “moral force of character,” insofar as it actually distinguishes him from any one who is politically active. And no, a blowjob is not “a lack of moral force” for anyone with a morality more developed than a seven year old.
Ain’t it unsurprising that a vulgar “Libertarian” would show about the same moral development as a small child?
Is wolger for real, or is he putting us on? “Fact: Bill Clinton demonstrated a lack of “moral force of character”.”
What “lack”? WTF is “moral force”?
Is that what drunk, cocainemaniac George Bush shows?
Bernarda: Your right-wing libertarian types attract folks who believe that morality (and society) can be reduced to a simple algorithm. Just like your classical communists would reduce everything to class conflict, they reduce everything to property rights in society. They do no different with morality. They’re not just stupid, they’re dangerous.
Of course, that leads to rationalization of everything they desire. It’s almost like astrology: you grab an algorithm and see everything through that lens, pretty soon you’re simply looking at your own sub-conscious. And that’s what we’re getting out of the right – an oversimplified world-view that in the end simple acts as a cover for infantile projection.
So the name *is* the referent now?
I would have thought that entities like the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” and “Forthekids” would have disabused you of that notion.
@Frog
You’re pretending that Libertarians ignore social liberties. That may be true of some, but certainly not all
@Bernarda
I am for real. Clinton cheated on his wife, and lied about it. That’s two counts of lack of moral character. As for “moral force of character”, I’m just quoting the requirements of Rhodes Scholarship per Wikipedia.
@Frog again
Insofar as it actually distinguishes him from any one who is politically active? Well, hell… if we’re going to lower the bar that far, may as well call the lot of them saints! Saint George Jr. Ha! Okay, granted, Bush is one of the worst of all time, even compared to the other scoundrels who hold office. Clinton may simply be “on par”, but he’s hardly virtuous by any sane standard.
Trying to oversimplify the 4 major-ish political parties to a 3×3 grid, or even a 3x3x3 cube is moronic. There are smart and stupid people in every political party. There are evil people in every political party. There may well even be at least 1 good person in every political party (though that’s a stretch).
How did you vote in the last election? If you voted a straight ticket for any one party, I say you simply didn’t think. Putting faith in one party is little different from putting faith in one religion.
In my last election I voted for 3 (or maybe 4) Libertarians, 3 Greens, 1 Independent, 2 Democrats (1 of those only because she was the least objectionable of the lot), and 1 (gasp) Republican. Because I take the time to find out what the individual’s positions are, and I vote for whoever is most closely aligned with me. I couldn’t care less what party they are from, really.
RickD: That depends crucially on your patience and what else is at stake in the debate, I think.
With the exception of a few individuals, people here aren’t offering reasoned, rational argumentation. You weren’t reasoned into your positions, you don’t use reason to defend them, and you won’t be reasoned out of them. You’re defending ideologies.
Scientists cannot afford to have ideologies. By permitting your political views to conform to such systems of thought, you’re abandoned the practice of science and reason.
@RavenT
Here’s one example of a Libertarian fighting for liberty:
http://reason.com/news/show/120676.html
Evolving Squid said:
That may be the most hilarious thing I’ve read in weeks.
Wolfger, you nominalist you, I’ll see your Cato Institute and raise you Libertarians For Life.