5
The Greatest Argument Ever Made
The reason why Megan McArdle gets paid to blog at The Atlantic and I do not is that I am intellectually incapable of devising brilliant arguments like this:
For example, like a lot of evolutionary biology critiques, this one leans heavily on bonobos (at least so far). Here’s the thing: humans aren’t like bonobos. And do you know how I know that we are not like bonobos? Because we’re not like bonobos.
I was, at least until now, totally unaware that an accepted argument to prove a thesis is to repeat the thesis word-for-word in italics.
Megan is blogging about bonobos themselves, rather than her usual bonobo version of economic libertarianism, because she is reviewing a book — which she admits she hasn’t even finished — on sexual anthropology. The book, Sex at Dawn, has completely scandalized her, both because of all the wild monkey sex it describes and for its suggestion that humans might not be naturally monogamous.
The authors of the book, in a post deliciously titled “Megan McArdle Really Hates Sex at Dawn,” completely and hilariously destroy the last few desiccated scraps of McArdle’s credibility
[h/t M. Bouffant]
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge said,
September 5, 2010 at 13:05
This is the polite (i.e. passive-aggressive) version of “SHUT UP, THAT’S WHY”.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge said,
September 5, 2010 at 13:06
Also, too: Who is this woman and why is she on my internets?
N__B said,
September 5, 2010 at 13:06
Tintin – you don’t get paid to write at the Atlantic because you don’t get paid to write at the Atlantic.
Come on, it’s obvious.
Scott said,
September 5, 2010 at 13:12
I would really love to get to corner the Atlantic’s publisher sometime and ask why on earth they let that moron continue to stink up their company.
Tom M said,
September 5, 2010 at 13:14
To steal Roy Edroso’s line about Jonah this is the stupidest thing she’s ever written and will remain so until she writes something else.
She preceded this gem with this one.
Snorghagen said,
September 5, 2010 at 13:26
Christopher Ryan, co -author of the bonobo book, concludes his comprehensive take-down of Megan with this comment:
Sadly, no.
My thoughts exactly. They also need to figure out which idiot hired her in the first place and reassign him to five years of bathroom scrubbing duties for penance.
Scott said,
September 5, 2010 at 13:49
Replying to myself. Gaah.
I would really love to get to corner the Atlantic’s publisher sometime and ask why on earth they let that moron continue to stink up their company.
And I know the answer would be “Well, she brings in a lot of readers, and controversy is good for viewership.” Which is only a good reason if you’re trying to be Gawker. And if they were that interested in hits and controversy, they should be running a lot more articles about Justin Bieber and Paris Hilton.
dorkdish said,
September 5, 2010 at 13:53
(whispers conspiratorially) Pssst….it’s Sex at Dawn. (tiptoes away)
Megan McManiac’s just bitter because no one wants sex with her at dawn, morning, evening, suppertime, or anytime.
PopeRatzo said,
September 5, 2010 at 14:24
If that’s really a picture of McArdle, she looks a lot better than the last time I saw her.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 14:48
Other than the fact that we share a common ancestor no more than 5-6 million years ago and and share 98-99% of our genes, she is absolutely right, we are not bonobos. Human sexuality would make a bonobo blush and we are way to violent (much more like chimps in this latter).
owlbear1 said,
September 5, 2010 at 14:49
Bonobos don’t have mortgages* or car payments and they sure aren’t trying to be saved so it’s okay if they fuck like fiends. Or missionaries for that matter.
Humans have a responsibility to be as miserable as possible until they die. Sex is only for creating more miserable wretches.
Heaven, apparently, only welcomes miserable people.
* Death Pledges, eww
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 14:50
I would really love to get to corner the Atlantic’s publisher sometime and ask why on earth they let that moron continue to stink up their company.
But then he would have to ask which one.
vacuumslayer said,
September 5, 2010 at 14:51
I came for the ridicule. I stayed for the hot bonobo on bonobo action.
El Cid said,
September 5, 2010 at 14:52
I thought I was the only one using “McAddled”! Yay! I’m not alone! We will be freeeee!
Seriously, though, I detest this person, who entirely has a position in public life because her father was very rich and very well connected in New York construction (maybe even mob ties), and because of this silver spoon and peer group.
It was having to listen to her a couple of times on that ‘public’ radio show “Marketplace” that made me extra careful to always turn it off.
El Cid said,
September 5, 2010 at 14:58
Wait — wait — you know what this analogical reasoning is exactly akin too?
“The Holocaust could not have occurred in Italy, because Italians are not Germans.”
– Jonah Goldberg, Librul Fatcysm
Anonymous said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:01
Isn’t Bonobo that front man for the band Youtube?
Tintin said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:02
@PopeRatzo. It’s an old P-shop of Megan that uses an old photo of hers for the head. So that’s why she looks less awful. [I did this post on my iPad which doesn't work well for P-shop wizardry, meaning I had to pull a pic from the archives.]
TruculentandUnreliable said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:14
“I’m not familiar with Ms. McArdle’s work, but if she’s got a gig at The Atlantic, which is one of the most respected magazines in the country, presumably this is far below her usual intellectual standard.”
Oh, I guffawed so heartily at this that my mother thought my invalid self was choking and/or spilling hot coffee down my shirt.
I think she’s just taking this a little too personally because she just got married. Nobody wants to think that something they’ve invested a lot of emotion and daddy’s money into is destined to fail because people like to fuck more than one person.
El Cid said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:17
It’s funny, but when I first read this a few days ago, it was just sad. I don’t mean pathetic sad, but actually sad.
People shouldn’t have to expect that sincerely intellectual journals begin filling up with flat out stupidity, laziness, duplicity, and outright fraud.
TruculentandUnreliable said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:20
BTW, this book looks very interesting, and seems to address a lot of the ideas I’ve had about modern human suffering and unhappiness. Not just regarding sexuality, but also the structure of the modern family and how our lifestyles are isolating and contrary to our natures.
Thomas said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:24
She should stick to things she knows, like economics…
…
…
Phglbt!!! Sorry, couldn’t do that with a straight face.
gocart mozart said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:28
http://christwire.org/2010/09/gays-invent-new-wii-sex-toy-so-blacks-can-have-virtual-sex-with-white-women/
El Cid said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:29
It just depends on how you define “economics”.
If you mean something like the old, traditional definitions meaning a social science having to do with the movement, distribution, and patterned realities of the material wealth of a society or set of societies, well, no.
But if you mean something more like a set of writing and speaking done by a person of inherited advantage and promoted by peer groups which hold to standards of what that person prefers to think, well, yes, she actually is an expert in economics.
Which definition should we use? The old, archaic, boring one, with all its problems and so called ‘evidence’ and ‘math,’ or the newer, exciting, innovating one which only takes a brief statement or so and sounds vaguely reasonable if you choose not to think about it at all?
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:38
In fairness to McMegan, the authors of the book are wrong about a few things. Mostly it is their assertion that certain kinds of sexuality are only shared by humans and bonobos. Most of these are found among all primates to varying degrees. As the pioneering anthropological primatologist, Sherwood Washburn, observed, “Primate sexuality is not merely promiscuous, it is positively indiscriminate.”
El Cid said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:39
The most expensive athlete contract ever.
El Cid said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:42
No, this would be saying that “human sexual behavior shares many sexual behavior characteristics demonstrated by a variety of primates, and given the comparatively closer genetic and phenotypic structure between humans and other primates, this may inform us about human sexual behaviors.”
McAddled’s formulation would be “all that stuff in the quote above is crap because humans are not those other primates.”
owlbear1 said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:44
…or the newer, exciting, innovating one which only takes a brief statement or so and sounds vaguely reasonable if you choose not to think about it at all?
The ‘Let there be light, so there was light’ line of reasoning.
metaphysical truth ™³²®© said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:45
I would really love to get to corner the Atlantic’s publisher sometime and ask why on earth they let that moron continue to stink up their company.
And after he’s done explaining Jeffrey Goldberg, he can answer for McAddled.
~
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:46
No, this would be saying that “human sexual behavior shares many sexual behavior characteristics demonstrated by a variety of primates, and given the comparatively closer genetic and phenotypic structure between humans and other primates, this may inform us about human sexual behaviors.”
Indeed and exactly what I teach in my classes when we cover the topic.
El Cid said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:51
And the reaction you’d get from many of the people I’ve known would be “So what? I didn’t come from no monkey!”
El Cid said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:06
This is central to her point.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:07
And the reaction you’d get from many of the people I’ve known would be “So what? I didn’t come from no monkey!”
I suspect that some of my students feel the same way, but are too respectful to say so openly (or, more likely afraid for their grade). I also tell them earlier in my Intro class (though not other classes where I cover human sexuality) that we are not descended from apes, we are apes. Probably does not go down too well in some circles, but I think there is a high degree of self selection among my students since I have been teaching this for over a decade here.
Blinking Emoticon said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:20
Because we’re not like _______.
Fucking scientific inquiry. How does it work?
El Cid said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:23
We are not scientists, so we cannot compare ourselves to them.
Looch said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:27
Megan McGurgle can say what she wants because she can say what she wants!
Duh!
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:29
Yo.
So what are we insane irrational always-angry progressives angry about as of late?
I know I’m irrationally outraged (“GRRRRRRR!”) by Glennbeck, but that’s nothing new.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:29
We are not scientists, so we cannot compare ourselves to them.
And in the case of McAddlebrained, she really should not, since she lacks all possible qualifications.
Looch said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:30
Oh. Also as well, too.
Trig is having a good day.
N__B said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:34
PERE! Yo.
So what are we insane irrational always-angry progressives angry about as of late?
My strawberries went missing. I suspect thievery.
Looch said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:36
And in the case of McAddlebrained, she really should not, since she lacks all possible qualifications as a sentient organism.
Tightened that up a bit.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:36
My strawberries went missing. I suspect thievery.
All part of G.B. Shaw’s nefarious plan.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:46
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:29
Yo.
So what are we insane irrational always-angry progressives angry about as of late?
The Washington Poop has TWO editorials today defending asshat/Social Security hater Simpson today.
One from notorious asshat Fred Hiatt, the other form alleged liberal Dana Milbank.
~
El Cid said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:48
Personally I am ashamed of any thoughts I have, no matter how based on evidence and logic, which is not immediately helpful to Democratic politicians. These thoughts are badthink.
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:49
So what are we insane irrational always-angry progressives angry about as of late?
This morning, PJTV. Also nothing new.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/majority-of-iraqis-oppose-obamas-withdrawal/?singlepage=true
I perfectly believe that the Iraqis want us to stay and that they have more respect for us now than five years ago. Here’s the inevitable self-congratulatory bullshit part.
Increased aggressiveness and even presence had very little to do with it. Changes in strategy, such as the fact that American troops were being forced to protect Iraqi civilians for the first time, such as the fact that they were working with and offering amnesty to members of various Iraqi militias (former insurgents) are the reason the “surge” worked.
The affection and respect have nothing to do with the increased exposure to American troops and everything to do with the fact that those troops were being ordered in no uncertain terms to lock it up and treat the civilians decently (as opposed to the lax attitude that led to Abu Ghraib and Haditha).
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:49
One from notorious asshat Fred Hiatt, the other form alleged liberal Dana Milbank.
Can’t we sue Millbank and the post for false advertising for calling Millbank a “liberal”?
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:49
The troops have barely left and the history rewrite’s already under way. The truth is that the “surge” worked only because we abandoned every Republican principle, every one. We ordered our troops to police the cities instead of just killing people; we sat down and negotiated with our enemies and paid them to come over to our side; and we imposed rules of engagement like those that had them all baying for McChrystal’s blood. Now watch as the GOP turns all that into a vindication of the principles they had to abandon, and then goes into its next war having learned nothing.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:52
Gosh, so now we should be concerned about how the Iraqis feel?
Only seven years too friggin’ late.
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:52
Well, that and the latest “Muslims who love conservatives and hate Islam” trope. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/speaker-pelosi-stand-up-for-muslim-women-not-islamists-like-rauf/?singlepage=true. They’re having a good morning.
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:53
Only seven years too friggin’ late.
Yeah, that’s what occurred to me too when reading the headline.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
September 5, 2010 at 16:53
Can’t we sue Millbank and the post for false advertising for calling Millbank a “liberal”?
We should sue the WaPoop for calling itself a newspaper while we’re at it.
~
St. Kid from Kounty Meath said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:00
Are they sure they want to discuss popular opinion re: the Iraq War? I thought their position on how Americans felt about it was still that of Shotgun Dick, i.e. “so?” Oh, that’s right, American public opinion only counts when it’s how many Iowans are opposed to Muslims setting up shop in Lower Manhattan.
tigris said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:01
gocart mozart said,
September 5, 2010 at 15:28 (kill)
AWESOME.
El Cid said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:02
Also, launching the SURGE (hallowed be its name YOU WILL ADMIT THAT THE SURGE WORKED) at the conclusion of the violent ethnoreligious and successful cleaning of Baghdad and acting like the SURGE prevented the already accomplished ethnosectarian cleansing, that helped.
And then we reinforced this successful ethnosectarian cleansing by building concrete walls to prevent any potential re-mixing.
Victory!
It’s like arriving at the end of a gang shootout and declaring that the arriving police prevented bloodshed and your new awesome strategery was to get the credit.
N__B said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:05
The SURGE only worked because the Iraqis use plain multiple outlets without surge protection.
tigris said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:06
Speaker Pelosi: Stand Up for Muslim Women, Not Islamists Like Rauf!
Conservatives don’t give a shit about any women, and certainly not Muslim ones. And Sufi Islamist? Um, OK.
g said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:07
Oh, that’s right, American public opinion only counts when it’s how many Iowans are opposed to Muslims setting up shop in Lower Manhattan.
American public opinion only counts when it’s 27% of the voters opposing the passage of what 52% of the voters elected someone to do.
g said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:08
Millbank is a dick. Also, too.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:09
Oh, that’s right, American public opinion only counts when it’s how many Iowans are opposed to Muslims setting up shop in Lower Manhattan.
I have to admit I liked Tom Tomorrow’s take on the “9/11 MEGA MOSQUE” situation in “This Modern World” a couple weeks back when he suggested just turning the whole of Manhattan into
a giant prisona giant 9/11 amusement park to insure no liberals or Muslims tainted holy ground ever again.Mr. Wonderful said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:10
they should be running a lot more articles
aboutby Justin Bieber and Paris Hilton.Fixt for great journamalism.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:11
Millbank is a dick. Also, too.
Speaking on behalf of the dicks of the world, I would categorically state that Millbank is totally dickless.
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:12
Conservatives don’t give a shit about any women, and certainly not Muslim ones. And Sufi Islamist? Um, OK.
Thank you.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:14
And Sufi Islamist?
Conservatives have absolutely no idea what a Sufi Muslim is. In their world, Muslims come in two flavors: really, REALLY scary Muslims and even more REALLY, REALLY scarier Muslims.
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:18
Conservatives have absolutely no idea what a Sufi Muslim is. In their world, Muslims come in two flavors: really, REALLY scary Muslims and even more REALLY, REALLY scarier Muslims.
Bingo!
And that’s one of the biggest reasons for the “blame all the Muslims” campaign since 9/11; the average conservative simply doesn’t have the information to box Osama Bin Laden into a narrower category. They’re dimly aware that there are Sunnis and Shi’a, but they couldn’t begin to tell you the difference; move on to words like Salafist or Sufi and you’ve lost them completely. He’s a Muslim, end of story – let’s stick with what they can handle.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:21
move on to words like Salafist or Sufi and you’ve lost them completely.
Think we should tell them about the Hashshashin?
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:23
Ironically, of course, I’m sure most Repugs, particularly from the South here, could inform you in great detail the various divisions of the Christian faith (and why all but their version is WRONG WRONG WRONG).
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:24
“SOOFI? Wasn’t he Charlie Brown’s dog? What the hell does he have to do with terrorists?”
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:26
S.O.O.F.I. also.
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:35
DrDick he sed:
I no you u iz a scienterrific anthropolopogist and stuffs so I hezitaits to say dis but I thinks you iz rong.
That’s a mischaracterization of their assertion, I think. They say, for instance, that certain very specific traits and activities are found in bonobos and humans but only very rarely in other primates. That is, they don’t rule out such things in chimps, or the great apes or other primates, but those things are not prevalent to the extent they are found in both humans and bonobos.
.
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:35
Also welcome back Pere!
Johnny Pez said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:40
In other words, the surge worked because the surge worked!
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:42
That’s a mischaracterization of their assertion, I think.
Not really as I based that on the list of shared traits between bonobos and humans that they give at the link above. It is true that these behaviors are far more common in those two groups, but they really do greatly overstate the uniqueness of humans and bonobos in that regard.
Lawnguylander said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:45
Better pictures of Mega Mcaddled. Toggling between the two will show the range of intellectual rigor she can apply to any subject she doesn’t understand but makes her feel vaguely threatened. From complete ignorance to smug, baseless dismissal.
Too she rates for Kilkenny, feck them and up Tipp, also.
Major Kong said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:49
Bonobos are not like humans.
Bonobos have not developed barbed wire, gas chambers, cluster bombs or white phosporous.
guitarist manqué said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:50
Also welcome back Pere!
All parties benefit from having moar farmacists.
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:58
Not really as I based that on the list of shared traits between bonobos and humans that they give at the link above
So you haven’t read the book then. You know who ELSE didn’t read the book?
.
.
.
.
.
It’s a good read – neither so scholarly as to be dense and dull but not so popularlyish(wtf is the word I’m looking for?) that it lacks academic heft.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 17:59
All parties benefit from having moar farmacists.
Well, I’m just a tech, but thank you anyway.
digitusmedius said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:02
Now THAT’s what “begging the question” looks like.
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:04
But if you mean something more like a set of writing and speaking done by a person of inherited advantage and promoted by peer groups which hold to standards of what that person prefers to think, well, yes, she actually is an expert in economics.
That reminds me of someone … name of …. it’ll come to mind . . . .
Which definition should we use? The old, archaic, boring one, with all its problems and so called ‘evidence’ and ‘math,’ or the newer, exciting, innovating one which only takes a brief statement or so and sounds vaguely reasonable if you choose not to think about it at all?
Of course! B
onobo Brooks!Logician Street Protesters said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:04
Show me what begging the question looks like!
(THIS IS WHAT BEGGING THE QUESTION LOOKS LIKE!)
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:11
So you haven’t read the book then
No and I would not give a more extended critique because of that, but they do state that the list is taken directly from the book and the list is what I am responding to, as opposed to the book as a whole (about which I have no opinion at this point).
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:17
Why read a book when it’s so much more efficient to just grab some hearsay and run with it?
noen said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:23
DrDick, You might find this very interesting (or maybe not, but I do)
Prof. Robert Sapolsky on the Neurobiology of Primate Sexuality
“This is part 1 of a hilarious yet edifying talk on Sex given by Prof. Sapolsky to his Bio l50/250 Human Behavioral Biology class at Stanford in Spring 2002″
There are two parts.
He has another lecture on the origin of religion which is also quite good.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:24
Why read a book when it’s so much more efficient to just grab some hearsay and run with it?
If that is directed at me, I am referring to the list of common traits shared by humans and bonobos (and according to the authors unique to them) given in a post at Psychology Today responding to McMegan’s idiocy by one of the authors (so not at all hearsay) and linked to in the post at the top.
Jymn said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:24
Holy shit. The other most puritanical of nutty female wingnuts, Ann Althouse, rushes to McArdle’s defense. First line of her post is “Advantage McArdle!!!!! I kid you not. The right wing really does have a fear of sex, especially the passionate, unbridled of marriage kind of sex. It drives them nuts!!!!
Looch said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:31
Better pictures of Mega Mcaddled.
Zerbrina the Pinhead! (Zippy’s wife).
Looch said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:31
Oops. Zerbina. There.
noen said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:31
Re: “Gays Invent New Wii Sex Toy, So Blacks Can Have Virtual Sex With White Women”
That has GOT to be satire. How can we be sure that Tintin doesn’t also write for ChristWire?
Is ChristWire anything like The Wire????
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:34
Holy shit. The other most puritanical of nutty female wingnuts, Ann Althouse, rushes to McArdle’s defense. First line of her post is “Advantage McArdle!!!!! I kid you not. The right wing really does have a fear of sex, especially the passionate, unbridled of marriage kind of sex. It drives them nuts!!!!
As a proudly liberal friend once told me, no one who’s getting any pays that much attention to other people’s sex lives.
noen said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:36
“The Afro-Saxon community is not very good at building electronics or handling money, so they asked the homo gay agenda to develop the product for them.”
MY GOD.. I think I have reached wingnut overload.
IS THERE AN ANTIDOTE?
gocart mozart said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:37
Hear is the hard hiiting expose on Christwire by the NYT. Who says journalism is dead.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/us/04beliefs.html?src=me
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:39
Christwire is satire. It’s gone downhill from it’s early days – for a long time it was impossible to tell, a masterful demonstration of Poe’s law. Anymore, there are too many little winks and nods, know what I mean, eh? Know what mean?
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:42
If that is directed at me, I am referring to the list of common traits shared by humans and bonobos (and according to the authors unique to them) given in a post at Psychology Today responding to McMegan’s idiocy by one of the authors (so not at all hearsay) and linked to in the post at the top.
Actually, no offense, I was referring to Meggy – I had missed the mention that she was reviewing the book, even though she “hadn’t finished it”, which is meaningless because she may well have gotten burnt out in the first 20 pages and decided to watch “Jersey Shore” instead.
Me, I tend to finish books I criticize, unless it’s blatantly apparent the author’s going to be repeating themselves for 300 pages in which case I have better things to do, like waxing the cat.
noen said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:42
“Also, gays have a lot of money saved up because they work as bar tenders or florists and collect gay welfare at the same time. In return, the Afro-Saxon’s would make sure that each item that is sold, would come with a list of children in the buyers neighborhood.”
FUCK FUCK FUCK….
That simply has to be satire. No human, not even the most depraved conservative, could write that and mean it seriously. Not even that late and lamented blogger Jonathan Swift (peace be upon him) could have written that. It would have never occurred to him.
noen said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:44
Ahh…. thank you Pupienus Maximus. My sanity is saved.
Blessed be.
gocart mozart said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:44
Our old pal gets a shout out from the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/us/04beliefs.html?src=me
Marie Jon, who writes for the quite earnest conservative site RenewAmerica.com, used to allow her stories to be reposted to ChristWire. After I called her for this column, her editor at RenewAmerica wrote a letter to ChristWire asking that Ms. Jon’s writing — and her picture, which had run between photographs of men identified as “Jack Gould” and “S. Billings” — be removed. ”
Later, in another telephone interview, Ms. Jon explained why she had allowed the satirical site to use her words.
“I thought if somebody comes and stumbles upon my article and reads something that is actually the truth, maybe they will get a blessing from it,” she said.
I asked her if she knew the site was satirical, and she indicated that she had not really paid attention. “I might have mistakenly contributed in the past,” she said, “because I didn’t know the site, and then shrugged my shoulders because I didn’t know how popular they were.”
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:46
That extraneous apostrophe was inserted by my iPhone. Maliciously and slyly. FY iPhone.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:51
I asked her if she knew the site was satirical, and she indicated that she had not really paid attention. “I might have mistakenly contributed in the past,” she said, “because I didn’t know the site, and then shrugged my shoulders because I didn’t know how popular they were.”
What’s the writing equivalent of a slut?
“I contributed to the site, yeah, but it didn’t mean anything to me! It was just a one-time thing and besides they never called me afterwards!”
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:52
Me, I tend to finish books I criticize, unless it’s blatantly apparent the author’s going to be repeating themselves for 300 pages in which case I have better things to do, like waxing the cat.
Likewise, unless there are glaring errors of method or facts early on which clearly render the work useless. I read for a living and do not have time to waste on stupidity (other than grading exams).
gocart mozart said,
September 5, 2010 at 18:58
Paging Dr Freud
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/paging-dr-freud
Jymn said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:00
My favorite part of the Psychology Today takedown of McArdle:
Later in her comments, she writes, “If you’re going to use evolutionary psychology, you need to deal with human jealousy, which is indeed pervasive. You can’t leave it out just because it doesn’t fit your model.”
Chapter 10 of the book is called: Jealousy, A Beginner’s Guide to Coveting Thy Neighbor’s Spouse. How does one miss an entire chapter in a book you’re writing about publicly?
I’m not familiar with Ms. McArdle’s work, but if she’s got a gig at The Atlantic, which is one of the most respected magazines in the country, presumably this is far below her usual intellectual standard.
No, Psychology Today, it is not.
guitarist manqué said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:01
if she knew the site was satirical
Satiriacal? Satyriacal?
Bill S said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:02
I keep reading “bonobos” as “bonbons”, which is both amusing and confusing.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:02
How does one miss an entire chapter in a book you’re writing about publicly?
That is sort of central to McMegan’s methodology.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:03
Chapter 10 of the book is called: Jealousy, A Beginner’s Guide to Coveting Thy Neighbor’s Spouse. How does one miss an entire chapter in a book you’re writing about publicly?
I’m telling you, “she hasn’t finished it” means she got 20 pages into it and had to go sit down for a while.
I mean, here it had “sex” in the title and turns out it was about monkeys and stuff and she was VERY disappointed.
noen said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:05
“What’s the writing equivalent of a slut?”
A journalist?
Jymn said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:05
Strange Memeorandum hasn’t picked up on this laugher. But then, I’ve always been suspicious of Memeorandum.
Steve said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:06
I see that you liberals have still failed to address my point. That Islam is a violent barbaric religion merely following one of the main tenents of its faith, to spread their religion by the sword and wage “holy war” against Christians and Jews.
The Crusades were merely a reaction, a defensive war if you will, in response to the Moors invasion of Spain and to defend Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land who were being slaughtered by muslim bandits. For Islam to use the Crusades as the basis for its hatred of the West is to ignore the accurate events of history and deny their brutal occupation of medieval Spain and subsequent attempts to subjugate Christian Europe.
They attacked us on 9/11 because they of their so called “holy war” against Christians and Jews. They seek to establish a worldwide Caliphate were Christians and Jews are either converted, killed or brought into dhimmitude (aka slavery). It is written in the Koran to “slay the infidel wherever he is found.” This is not a religion that can peacefully coexist in Western society. Any muslim that is patriotic to their host country is going against the Koran. They cannot be loyal American citizens and good muslims, it goes against everything they believe in.
Now do you liberals really think that a “religion” such as this should be allowed to be practiced on American soil? This is far beyond just a religion, it is a political movement that seeks to replace its host nation. In order for a muslim to become a patriotic citizen they would have to ignore the central teachings of their “holy book.”
g said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:07
“You people are out calling us Nazis, saying we’re running around with Swastikas. We get tarred and feathered as Nazis because we don’t just bend over, grab the ankles and let you guys ram whatever down our throats you want.”
Rush? That’s not where your throat is.
g said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:09
I see that you liberals have still failed to address my point.
Isn’t it cute?
noen said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:15
“because we don’t just bend over, grab the ankles and let you guys ram whatever down our throats you want.”
That’s a rather odd place for your throat. Oh wait… sorry, I stand corrected.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:19
Wheee, a real troll! Here I thought they were just a mythical creature, like dragons or unicorns or Southern liberals.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:20
Now do you liberals really think that a “religion” such as this should be allowed to be practiced on American soil? This is far beyond just a religion, it is a political movement that seeks to replace its host nation.
e.g. kill about six million or so of ‘em and we should be safe.
Worked so well in 1943.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:21
Somebody seems to have forgotten the Inquisition, the Reconquista, the persecutions of heretics, forced conversions, the witch trials, and pretty much the entire history of institutional Christianity for the past 1500 years.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:23
Wheee, a real troll! Here I thought they were just a mythical creature, like dragons or unicorns or Southern liberals.
You forgot “moderate” or “reasonable” Republicans. They really are the best analogy here.
noen said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:25
“You forgot “moderate” or “reasonable” Republicans. ”
We call those Blue Dog Democrats now.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:28
e.g. kill about six million or so of ‘em and we should be safe.
Piker. This guy is going for all 1.5 billion of them.
Steve said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:30
What you fail to realize DrDick, as a supposed scholar I am surprised at you, is that the Inquisition, forced conversions ect. have no basis in the Bible whatsoever. If fact they go against everything Jesus teaches. They were acts committed by Christians to be sure, but those Christians had no Biblical basis for their acts.
Muslims on the otherhand are following the Koran word for word when they carry out their horrific acts. Mohammed was a murderer who commanded his followers to spread their faith by the sword. Jesus preached peaceful conversion by the preaching of the Word.
My point is, the Christians who committed those actions mentioned above had no Biblical basis for their actions, while the muslims are following the Koran in committing their vilest of atrocities.
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:31
Steve said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:06
Apparently, someone doesn’t remember the Levites murdering three thousand of their fellow Hebrews for worshipping a golden calf, on Moses’ orders. Someone also doesn’t remember the Hebrew God commanding a complete genocide, women and children included, of the Amalekites.
Various other parts of the Bible command stoning as a punishment for homosexuality (that’s an especially good one because it’s a line conservatives always use to show how barbaric Islam is), or that a rape victim must marry her attacker who cannot divorce her as long as they both shall live. There are other shitty parts too. The plain fact is that the Bible is not at all friendly towards enlightened modern Western values.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:31
aw, damn, Steve’s comment got nuked, it looks like.
And I was so looking forward to his script for “The Eternal
Je-Muslim”.g said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:32
“moderate” or “reasonable” Republicans.
A myth.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:32
the Christians who committed those actions mentioned above had no Biblical basis for their actions
Pfft, yeah, the Bible, specifically, say, 2nd Kings, has nothing about killing your enemies.
Steve said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:38
I’m not contributing anything to this society. I’m a leech and a parasite. I waste everyone’s patience and time to feed my own selfish narcissism.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:44
You know what? I’ve been going over past entries at my blog and I see I’m a damn fine writer.
Just thought I’d point that out.
noen said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:44
“Pfft, yeah, the Bible, specifically, say, 2nd Kings, has nothing about killing your enemies.”
Well, that’s the Old Testament. Christianity is supposed to be a new covenant and the teachings of Jesus are meant to trump Old Testament calls for violence.
Of course, how you choose to interpret a sacred text is going to be strongly influenced by your politics. As a Liberal I’m going to read the social gospels. A conservative is going to focus on other parts. Most religious traditions have built up layers of interpretation to insulate them from the worst parts of their holy texts. Fundamentalists, Christian, Jewish or Islamic, want to strip all that away. But that is itself a political agenda.
Snorghagen said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:46
Better pictures of Mega Mcaddled.
Does she have some sort of bung plug stuck in her forehead?
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:48
Steve, please explain how a true
ScotsmanChristian would behave.Nymstradamus said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:51
What you fail to realize DrDick, as a supposed scholar I am surprised at you, is that the Inquisition, forced conversions ect. have no basis in the Bible whatsoever. If fact they go against everything Jesus teaches. They were acts committed by Christians to be sure, but those Christians had no Biblical basis for their acts.
Muslims on the otherhand are following the Koran word for word when they carry out their horrific acts. Mohammed was a murderer who commanded his followers to spread their faith by the sword. Jesus preached peaceful conversion by the preaching of the Word.
My point is, the Christians who committed those actions mentioned above had no Biblical basis for their actions, while the muslims are following the Koran in committing their vilest of atrocities.
Shorter Steve: It’s not fair! the Muzzies’ god lets them do all the neat stuff!
Kill Nonbelievers said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:52
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 19:53
the teachings of Jesus are meant to trump Old Testament calls for violence
A peaceful attitude which starts with “I bring not peace but a sword” and finishes with several billion people dead from blood-water and open sores and earthquakes and suchlike, not to mention “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” and like that there.
So, yeah, totally different.
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:05
There’s two arguments you hear from conservatives when they’re trying to explain why Christianity and Judaism are good and Islam is bad;
1) OK, sure, there’s Christians who do silly things just as bad as what some Muslims do, but their holy book doesn’t tell them to do these things, so it’s all good.
2) OK, sure their holy book tells them to do silly things just as bad as what the Muslims are told to do, but Christians don’t actually do them (anymore), so it’s all good.
Those two statements are frequently used by the same people who alternate between them depending on how the argument’s going. You’re supposed to conclude from the outset that Islam is bad and Christianity/Judaism are good and then find arguments that support the conclusion, not actually look for a conclusion that fits the facts.
noen said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:06
“So, yeah, totally different.”
Yes, the Jews really are a bloody and violent
racereligion aren’t they?These Christian, Jewish and Islamic people are so evil and violent we’d be better off without them. Perhaps we need some sort of final solution?
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:06
There’s also 3) OK, sure, the holy book tells us to do silly things but then Jesus came and so we don’t have to follow Old Testament law anymore.
Except when we do, of course. (No one has ever explained to me why Old Testament laws about eating shellfish should be disregarded while Old Testament laws about same sex should not be).
They’re also ignoring the plainly evident fact that plenty of people read the Bible but not the Old Testament. Jews don’t follow Jesus, so all they get is the old nasty fire and brimstone God who told his people to kill their own brothers and sisters for worshipping a calf and to exterminate his enemies down to the last woman and child. Why isn’t their religion a problem, I wonder?
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:06
My point is, the Christians who committed those actions mentioned above had no Biblical basis for their actions, while the muslims are following the Koran in committing their vilest of atrocities.
Islam, unlike Christianity or Judaism, has a clear, strict edict prohibiting harm to or killing of non-combatants (it is in the Koran), as well as one against suicide. There is no Koranic justification for terrorism or suicide bombers, which you would know if you were capable of reading the Koran or anything else except RedState and other vile fascist swill.
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:09
“They’re also ignoring the plainly evident fact that plenty of people read the Bible but not the
Old TestamentNew Testament.”Fixed because I made a mistake and must now correct it. (Pay attention; this is one thing you’ll never see from a conservative).
Southern Liberal Unicorn said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:09
We exist! Not saying there are a lot of us, but we do exist. And we totally pwn pegasi, with their stupid wings and shit.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:12
“They’re also ignoring the plainly evident fact that plenty of people read the Bible but not the Old Testament New Testament.”
That is not quite true. They loves them some St. John the Batshit Crazy and Delusional, as well as selected bits and pieces of St. Paul the Hallucinatory Misogynist Bigot (neither of whom ever met or heard the Rabbi Yeshua in the flesh).
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:16
Islam, unlike Christianity or Judaism, has a clear, strict edict prohibiting harm to or killing of non-combatants (it is in the Koran), as well as one against suicide. There is no Koranic justification for terrorism or suicide bombers, which you would know if you were capable of reading the Koran or anything else except RedState and other vile fascist swill.
You need to read the secret Koran, you know, the real one with all the suicide bomber instructions and all that. It’s all part of the conspiracy.
noen said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:17
“There’s two arguments you hear from conservatives when they’re trying to explain why Christianity and Judaism are good and Islam is bad;”
How is “they are all bad for the same made up reasons” an improvement?
Conservatives misrepresent Islam in order to demonize it. Some atheists misrepresent all religion in order to demonize it. I’m not really seeing the difference.
I’m a liberal. I don’t believe in othering people so that I can feel better about myself. That’s what conservatives do.
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:26
Conservatives misrepresent Islam in order to demonize it. Some atheists misrepresent all religion in order to demonize it. I’m not really seeing the difference.
In fairness, I think there are plenty of things in religion that are worth questioning. But those things exist in all religions; singling out just one of them and attacking it for things that happen everywhere isn’t doing anything to solve them. Maybe we should talk about the place of religion in the modern world, but let’s talk about religion, not Islam specifically.
If we’re going to talk about how Islam inspires some people to launch religious crusades, let’s also talk about how Judaism inspires some people to seize land they haven’t held for 2,000 years and ending or ruining thousands of innocent lives in the process.
If we’re going to talk about how Islam inspires some people to oppress women in Saudi Arabia, let’s also talk about how Christianity inspires some people to oppress homosexuals in Uganda.
If we’re going to talk about how some mosques here in America are sending money to those fanatics in Saudi Arabia, let’s also talk about how some churches here in America are sending money, missionaries and inspiration for those fanatics in Uganda.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:31
let’s also talk about how some churches here in America are sending money, missionaries and inspiration for those fanatics in Uganda
but but but it’s “for the right reasons”!!!
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:34
If we’re going to talk about how Islam inspires some people to oppress women in Saudi Arabia, let’s also talk about how Christianity inspires some people to oppress homosexuals in Uganda.
How about how those same Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christiams would like to oppress women right here in the USA (and are working very hard to do so), as well as encouraging terrorist attacks against reproductive health clinics.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:37
How about how those same Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christiams would like to oppress women right here in the USA (and are working very hard to do so), as well as encouraging terrorist attacks against reproductive health clinics.
As well as helping to take away the choice entirely.
noen said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:42
“I think there are plenty of things in religion that are worth questioning. ”
Yes, Chris I agree completely. Maybe I am just grouchy and need to get away from the insane clown show on the internet for a while.
Nymstradamus said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:43
Conservatives misrepresent Islam in order to demonize it. Some atheists misrepresent all religion in order to demonize it. I’m not really seeing the difference
I speak as an agnostic and obviously not for all agnostics, but I don’t seek to demonize any faith. Still I cannot shake the belief that there exists a segment of the American Religious Right that views Islamic theocracies with more than just a touch of envy.
Enraged Bull Limpet said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:44
They also need to figure out which idiot hired her in the first place and reassign him to five years of bathroom scrubbing duties for penance.
After five years they give you a brush.
lurker mrk.5 said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:45
Saya melihat bahwa Anda kaum liberal masih gagal untuk alamat poin saya. Bahwa Islam adalah agama barbar kekerasan hanya mengikuti salah satu tenents utama imannya, untuk menyebarkan agama mereka dengan pedang dan upah “perang suci” terhadap umat Kristen dan Yahudi.
Steve sounds much better in Bahasa Indonesian
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:46
Some atheists misrepresent all religion in order to demonize it.
Indeed, especially we militant anti-theists*.
* Please note usage of the correct term.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:46
As well as helping to take away the choice entirely.
The part of this that really bugs me is that the Bible never once mentions abortion or birth control, though both were known and available (if not necessarily effective) to the ancient Hebrews. The closest it comes is a passage (in Leviticus or elsewhere in the Pentateuch dealing with the sacred law) saying that if a man strikes a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry, but not otherwise harming her then there is no injury. This quite clearly implies that killing of the unborn is not a sin or crime to God (and that personhood begins at birth).
M. Bouffant said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:49
Merci, mon vieux!
Et aussi.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:49
I speak as an agnostic and obviously not for all agnostics, but I don’t seek to demonize any faith. Still I cannot shake the belief that there exists a segment of the American Religious Right that views Islamic theocracies with more than just a touch of envy.
I am a radical agnostic (I neither know nor care whether there is a deity) and I endorse this message.
Enraged Bull Limpet said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:53
I’m keenly interested in lore of the ancient Afro-Saxon kings: Parker, Coltrane, Young, et al.
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:57
I speak as an agnostic and obviously not for all agnostics, but I don’t seek to demonize any faith. Still I cannot shake the belief that there exists a segment of the American Religious Right that views Islamic theocracies with more than just a touch of envy.
Two things.
“It’s no wonder, with that kind of intense training and discipling, that those young people are ready to kill themselves for the cause of Islam. I wanna see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people are to the cause of Islam! I wanna see them as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine and all those different places, you know, because we have… excuse me, but we have the truth! ”
- the crazy woman in Jesus Camp
“It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. Secret organizations set up to combat secret organizations give the same flattery. The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through “front” groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy. Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist “crusades” openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth.”
- Richard Hofstader, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.”
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:59
I’m keenly interested in lore of the ancient Afro-Saxon kings: Parker, Coltrane, Young, et al.
Let us not forget Mr. Johnson, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Waters, Mr. Hooker, Mr. Williamson, Mr. James, and Mr. Hopkins.
Blinking Emoticon said,
September 5, 2010 at 20:59
Steve, please explain how a true
ScotsmanChristian would behave.Or if you just want to stay the fuck away from a keyboard for the rest of your life, that would be fine too.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 21:01
Or if you just want to stay the fuck away from a keyboard for the rest of your life, that would be fine too.
In the hands of an imbecile, it can become a weapon of mass self-destruction.
Bilo said,
September 5, 2010 at 21:22
This afternoon, pondering how much money Megan makes to think in a mediocre way, compared to my kinda folks (youse guys), all I could think of was this now-old Randy Newman lyric:
Of all of the people that I used to know
Most never adjusted to the great big world
I see them lurking in book stores
Working for the Public Radio
Carrying their babies around in a sack on their back
Moving careful and slow
(Chorus)
It’s money that matters
Hear what I say
It’s money that matters
In the USA
All of these people are much brighter than I
In any fair system they would flourish and thrive
But they barely survive
They eke out a living and they barely survive
Smut Clyde said,
September 5, 2010 at 21:36
The increased exposure to American forces likely also led to a certain degree of affection and respect
I am sure that it was lack of exposure to American forces that led to bad feeling from the surviving people at Haditha.
Bilo said,
September 5, 2010 at 21:36
Uh, is Meggers Cath-o-lic? I couldn’t see anything on the wikip. entry for her. All I see is the “Mc” and smell a whiff of prudery and the gears in my head start turning. I’ve really lost patience with Nice Catholic Girls Who Still Aren’t Comfortable With Sex Yet. Especially if they were born or came of age after the bulk of the feminist progress was, you know, made. Other people won freedom for you. Bloody use it.
I think some others among them write for the Altantic, too. I don’t want to mention names. Let’s just say that my Atlantic subscription lapsed yeaaars ago. Sometime around the time they had high-class eugenicist cover stories.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 21:39
I’ve really lost patience with Nice Catholic Girls Who Still Aren’t Comfortable With Sex Yet. Especially if they were born or came of age after the bulk of the feminist progress was, you know, made. Other people won freedom for you. Bloody use it.
Well, cripes, she’s reading (?) a book with “sex” in the title! Give her time!
Smut Clyde said,
September 5, 2010 at 21:41
Are they sure they want to discuss popular opinion re: the Iraq War?
I endorse the idea of preceding any invasion of a country by a poll of its inhabitants to check that they support being invaded.
Bilo said,
September 5, 2010 at 21:41
Thanks, DrDick, for reminding your students that we are apes.
I have similar difficulties with many of my fellow sasquatch researchers. They’ve lately taken to debating around the campfire, “Is it a man or an animal?” I try to remind them that human beings are animals, apes, mammals, etc etc., but it just doesn’t bloody sink in for many of them. (Okay, it’s a volunteer organization, we’re doing the best we can.)
So it walks. All other data indicates great ape. Yawn.
(Hmmm, maybe I could take Meggers out in the woods some night and the hairy ape man could have his way with… naw… tall enough, maybe, but too ugly.)
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 21:45
I’ve really lost patience with Nice Catholic Girls Who Still Aren’t Comfortable With Sex Yet. </em.
Our Talibangelical girls are pretty good at the thing as well (I grew up in Oklahoma), though they tend to respond to their ambiguity by going full metal drunken slut on Friday-Saturday and repenting in the pews on Sunday (and if you have ever done a fundie service with a hangover, you know what penance is). The rest of the time they pretend like sex is icky and evil while looking for every opportunity to take a bit of the apple.
Smut Clyde said,
September 5, 2010 at 21:45
Ms McArdle is concerned about jealousy, which happens when one member of a relationship is feeling strongly monogamous and the other inclines more to polygamy.
Verrry interesting. Tell us more. Lock up your bunnies.
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 21:49
Ms McArdle is concerned about jealousy
[And I did too close the brackets on that last html tag!]
I think jealousy is McMegan’s basic response to anyone who seems to be having fun and enjoying life.
Chris said,
September 5, 2010 at 21:54
Our Talibangelical girls are pretty good at the thing as well (I grew up in Oklahoma), though they tend to respond to their ambiguity by going full metal drunken slut on Friday-Saturday and repenting in the pews on Sunday (and if you have ever done a fundie service with a hangover, you know what penance is). The rest of the time they pretend like sex is icky and evil while looking for every opportunity to take a bit of the apple.
I’ve heard hardcore Pentecostal acquaintances bitch about how much they hated our mid-Atlantic college (all those filthy liberals and their fucking immoral frat parties promoting unchristian culture), then boast about getting skunk-drunk, but DUIing through the streets of DC and – icing on the cake – pulling over for a puke within the grounds of the National Cathedral. No joke.
The hypocrisy in their “religion” is beyond parody.
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 5, 2010 at 22:05
I’ve really lost patience with Nice Catholic Girls Who Still Aren’t Comfortable With Sex Yet.
Obligatory
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 22:20
Obligatory
Indeed.
El Cid said,
September 5, 2010 at 22:49
Why are we supposed to give a shit that Western pilgrims were having a hard time visiting ‘the Holy Land’? Fuck them.
The Crusades weren’t “defensive” at all — fuck Christian authorities who thought they had some right to ‘retake’ lands that were lived in by others.
For that matter, why the fuck are we supposed to prefer the Christian barbarians throwing out the more civilized and scientific and peaceful Muslim rulers dominating some of Europe?
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 22:53
For that matter, why the fuck are we supposed to prefer the Christian barbarians throwing out the more civilized and scientific and peaceful Muslim rulers dominating some of Europe?
Because shut up, that’s why.
Dot said,
September 5, 2010 at 22:54
Bitch, slap, match.
g said,
September 5, 2010 at 23:03
The Crusades weren’t “defensive” at all — fuck Christian authorities who thought they had some right to ‘retake’ lands that were lived in by others.
The First Crusade wasn’t started about “the holy land” anyway – it was about defending Constantinople from the Turks. But they went to Jerusalem eventually, and massacred as many Jews as Muslims.
Let’s also not forget that the Crusaders also decided that they had to take lands and property from other Christians as well, because they didn’t happen to be the right kind of Christians.
tsam said,
September 5, 2010 at 23:04
Your rotten core is showing, Meg.
Seems like it would be a difficult and unfulfilling life spent trying to prove things that aren’t true just to save face with a horde of elitist fucking pricks who value money more than human life. Or for some group trying to constantly amend an ancient fairy tale to justify their hatred. I think I would rather never speak again than be a walking gunny sack full of contradictions, hubris and outright bigotry.
This got me thinking about something else today. Meg’s audience, Atlantic readers, by and large probably think “duh, cuz we aren’t monkeys, look in the mirror” is a valid, acceptable and compelling argument. I compare their writing and ranting to children’s television. Kids love Muppets, fantasy, cartoons, things that aren’t real. They love monsters and magical ponies and plastic babies. Put a kid in front of a serious news show and you’ll see the true nature of what ADHD means. These people have the knowledge and comprehension and critical thought skills of kindergartners. No wonder they choose people like Megan and Jonah to speak to them. All of our pointing and laughing is sort of an act of vanity. They don’t give a fuck, and they have no concept of truth, reality, ethics or logic. They just want their goddamned cookie right now.
tsam said,
September 5, 2010 at 23:08
For that matter, why the fuck are we supposed to prefer the Christian barbarians throwing out the more civilized and scientific and peaceful Muslim rulers dominating some of Europe?
Because history books were written by liberal professors who smoke pipes and have patches on the elbows of their sportcoats.
Shit–John Rambo isn’t even MENTIONED in any history book covering Vietnam. WTF?
DrDick said,
September 5, 2010 at 23:20
The Crusades weren’t “defensive” at all
Nope, they were all (and for most participants only) about looting and pillaging. T his is clearly seen in the large number of crusaders who never made it to the Holy Land, but contented themselves with looting and pillaging various cities in the Byzantine Empire (which regarded them as a plague upon the land). even those who made it to their purported objective frequently helped themselves to quite a bit of riches on the way there.
Pere Ubu said,
September 5, 2010 at 23:22
Shit–John Rambo isn’t even MENTIONED in any history book covering Vietnam. WTF?
All part of the evil progressive plot to re-write history and hide the truth from the American people.
Smut Clyde said,
September 5, 2010 at 23:29
Nope, they were all (and for most participants only) about looting and pillaging.
I thought the whole point of the first few crusades was to find something to do for the younger scions of the various feudal nobilities, to stop them spending all their time looking for excuses to wage war on the kingdom next door.
———————————————
Went to read the riposte to the book review (against my better nature, since Psychology Today itself has a high proportion of lazy-minded bullshit and tends to stain the computer). The authors quote McArdle:
Heh. The book was not written like a scientific tome because it was not a scientific tome.
They begin with some general observations:
The trick is to learn not to take any of it personally, because they’re not really talking about you, or your book. They’re talking about themselves, often quite revealingly, at that.
In their place, I would be tempted to draw a link with McArdle’s issue about jealousy, but that’s because evolutionary psycholgy designed me to be a bastard.
guitarist manqué said,
September 5, 2010 at 23:54
Re: Crusades. I just read Evan Connell’s “Deus Lo Volt” and highly recommend it both as experimental fiction and great history.
Alex said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:00
Bonobos count as black, I think. QED.
Anonymous said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:15
Bonobos is blacks? Well then…
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/37102_Todd_Palin_Pals_Around_with_White_Supremacist_Blogger
Ezra said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:15
Full disclosure time for E$…..
Back when your boy E$ was hitting Meggerz, she walked in on an awkward sitch. E$ had been out that night, posse in effect, and picked up a couple of proggie pussies at a Comme des Garcons boutique where I was trying out some of the new Vogon Poetry Slam fragrance. So natch I take the ad hoc prog girl pussy posse back and treat them to a ride on the E Train. When Meggerz walked in there was a girl on my nuts, a girl on my nips, and Fatty MattY in the closet working the camera blubbering out justifications for posts he made like years ago (chill the fuck out, homey, rollin’ with E$ means never having to say you’re sorry). She’s standing there, mouth wide open but no words coming out so E$ says “Hey come on in or go out bitch but shut the door, there’s a draft.”
So this is a personal point for Meggerz. What made it even more awkward was that it was her, or her dad’s, bedroom.
Dubious said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:21
Silly Dr.Dick- Islam is a dangerous and violent religion because Islam is a dangerous and violent religion!
Ah, yes, I see how that works now.
Tom M said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:21
Meg’s audience, Atlantic readers, by and large probably think “duh, cuz we aren’t monkeys, look in the mirror” is a valid, acceptable and compelling argument.
Well, they do see their god when they look in the mirror, so I hope you can understand the
logicidiocy.tsam said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:31
Well, they do see their god when they look in the mirror, so I hope you can understand the logic idiocy.
Of course.
EvenOnly a kindergartner can figure that out.Megalogical magic.
tsam said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:33
She’s right, you know. I’m fully bipedal (except when I’m hammered) and I can drive.
tigris said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:33
In their place, I would be tempted to draw a link with McArdle’s issue about jealousy, but that’s because evolutionary psycholgy designed me to be a bastard.
They probably weren’t aware she just got married.
Meg’s audience, Atlantic readers, by and large probably think “duh, cuz we aren’t monkeys, look in the mirror” is a valid, acceptable and compelling argument.
Hey, now, I think that, too, but we do put the GREAT in great ape. And as for the whole “bonobos ain’t peeples” thing, there are those who think either chimps and bonobos should be Homo or we should be Pan, that we’re just too close to warrant a separate genus.
tsam said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:35
I put the grape in ape.
tsam said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:35
Or cape on ape.
This is fun
tigris said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:36
I’m fully bipedal (except when I’m hammered) and I can drive.
Susan Savage-Rumbaugh has a couple bonobos who can drive golf carts, FWIW. Don’t know if she’s ever gotten them hammered.
tigris said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:37
RESEARCH PROJECT!
Smut Clyde said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:44
REALITY TV!
Smut Clyde said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:45
RESEARCH PROJECT + REALITY TV
= MYTHBUSTERS EPISODE ! ! !
tigris said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:48
OMG, Smut! We just need to wrap a myth around it…
Pere Ubu said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:49
Oh, are you guys actually suggesting abusing some poor chimps, getting them drunk & seeing if they can drive their golf carts DUI?
Cripes, have some humanity and at least use a Kardashian or something.
Smut Clyde said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:51
Oh, are you guys actually suggesting abusing some poor chimps, getting them drunk & seeing if they can drive their golf carts DUI?
I was merely volunteering to be the Pan sapiens control.
tsam said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:52
Oh, are you guys actually suggesting abusing some poor chimps, getting them drunk & seeing if they can drive their golf carts DUI?
Why do you say that like it’s a bad thing? If someone else was funding the research, I would be all over this like white on rice.
Kardashians are for firehose and tear gas practice. They already act like drunken monkeys.
tsam said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:53
I’m volunteering to be the dumbass who gets drunk and crashes the golf cart.
tigris said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:55
We just wanted to share. Booze hog.
Smut Clyde said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:56
They probably weren’t aware she just got married.
However, I imagine that they were aware that she writes “like horsefeathers . . . like an undergraduate thesis”.
tsam said,
September 6, 2010 at 0:58
Incidently, the bean soup I made under the tutelage of all of these fine people here was perhaps the best bean soup in the history of soup. It was a huge hit with the kids and I have lunches for a week for about $15.00 total.
THANK YOU!!!
tigris said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:07
However, I imagine that they were aware that she writes “like horsefeathers . . . like an undergraduate thesis”.
They are now, at any rate.
And you go, tsam!
N__B said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:08
I just read Evan Connell’s “Deus Lo Volt” and highly recommend it both as experimental fiction and great history.
Great book. You can’t go wrong with Connell.
The Frito Pundito said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:09
Hey, at least Megan didn’t make up some “hypotheticals” that support her thesis. I guess she realized people actually check up on those.
tigris said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:12
Also, horsefeathers: eohoopoes or equueopteryx?
N__B said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:13
Also, horsefeathers: eohoopoes or equueopteryx?
Horsefeathers are what you use to make horseflyswatters.
Smut Clyde said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:17
at least Megan didn’t make up some “hypotheticals” that support her thesis.
She also deserves credit for not overestimating the number of pages and chapters in the book by a power of 10.
vacuumslayer said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:17
I’m not a damn dirty chimp. Know how I know? Everyone thinks it’s “weird” and “inappropriate” when I fling my poop.
DrDick said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:18
we’re just too close to warrant a separate genus
Closer than horses and donkeys, in fact.
Smut Clyde said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:19
Can I interest you in a turdbuchet?
N__B said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:19
I’m not a damn dirty chimp.
Therefore you are Charlton Heston.
Logic is a wonderful thing.
Pere Ubu said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:20
Horsefeathers are what you use to make horseflyswatters.
I thought it was what you filled horsepillows with.
DrDick said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:20
Therefore you are Charlton Heston.
Personally, I would rather be a chimp.
N__B said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:21
horsepillows
And we now have yet another BOOB synonym.
Pere Ubu said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:21
Everyone thinks it’s “weird” and “inappropriate” when I fling my poop.
You might just not be a Teabagger.
vacuumslayer said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:22
What DrDick said.
N__B said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:23
Personally, I would rather be a chimp.
What was missing from PotA.
vacuumslayer said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:25
“Everyone thinks it’s “weird” and “inappropriate” when I fling my poop.
You might just not be a Teabagger.”
Tee hee!
DrDick said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:25
And we now have yet another BOOB synonym.
You know what happens when they start hanging out with horses, don’t you?
N__B said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:27
You know what happens when they start hanging out with horses, don’t you?
First gay marriage, then human-donkey hybrids.
DrDick said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:28
First gay marriage, then human-donkey hybrids.
We already have the latter. They either watch or work for Faux Spews.
tigris said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:29
And we now have yet another BOOB synonym.
Just cuz the ladeez always say “nay” to sharing a pillow with you doesn’t make us night mares.
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:30
Some people are sick and tired of being told they come from monkeys.
N__B said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:31
Just cuz the ladeez always say “nay” to sharing a pillow with you doesn’t make us night mares.
I was paying you all the compliment of comparing you to Houyhnhnms.
DrDick said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:33
Some people are sick and tired of being told they come from monkeys.
The monkeys have some issues as well.
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 1:38
Most of the monkeys I have known have had issues. However, it is not possible for monkeys to have issues because monkeys are not issues. This is central to my point, because Italians are not Germans.
Pere Ubu said,
September 6, 2010 at 2:18
This is central to my point, because Italians are not Germans.
Neither are plums nectarines, and grapes are most assuredly not durians. And if you take raspberries and stew them like prunes they definitely taste much more like applesauce than rhubarb does.
Where’s our fricking checks, Atlantic?
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 6, 2010 at 2:21
I never came from a monkey. Not that I can recall.
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 2:28
That’s the thing about monkeys. Some of them are stealthy, you never know when they’re coming. Sometimes you don’t know when they aren’t.
Bilo said,
September 6, 2010 at 2:46
Hot bonobo sex talk:
Put your stinking paws on me, you damned dirty ape!
xerashark said,
September 6, 2010 at 2:54
If monogamy were natural we wouldn’t have a history of men in black enforcing it.
Megan McArdle, at the Improv said,
September 6, 2010 at 2:55
Why is it that you park in the driveway, but you drive in the parkway? Because you park in the driveway, but you drive in the parkway.
tsam said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:00
<em?Everyone thinks it’s “weird” and “inappropriate” when I fling my poop.
Busted! Everyone except you thinks it’s weird and inappropriate. (I can tell by the sneery quotations.)
tsam said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:04
I never came from a monkey. Not that I can recall.
Me either. I swear. I was already done when the monkey got there.
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:05
BTW, WTF is a Kardashian? Izzat from Star Trek or what?
tsam said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:05
Neither are plums nectarines, and grapes are most assuredly not durians. And if you take raspberries and stew them like prunes they definitely taste much more like applesauce than rhubarb does.
Where’s our fricking checks, Atlantic?
Tie that in to how liberals are the real racists and the checks will come a rollin’.
tsam said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:07
BTW, WTF is a Kardashian? Izzat from Star Trek or what?
You’re going to be so sorry you asked that.
Megan McArdle, at the Improv said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:11
Tie that in to how liberals are the real racists and the checks will come a rollin’.
Liberals are the real racists. You know how I know that? Because liberals are the real racists.
B^4 said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:12
I’m not familiar with Ms. McArdle’s work, but if she’s got a gig at The Atlantic, which is one of the most respected magazines in the country, presumably this is far below her usual intellectual standard.
Sadly, no!
Megan McArdle, at the Improv said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:12
Appeals to authority are wrong because Ayn Rand said so.
B^4 said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:19
Also, horsefeathers: eohoopoes or equueopteryx?
Nice!
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:22
It must be, because apparently the Kardashian Empire is unstoppable.
jim said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:22
Megan McArdle: William Kristol with BOOBS … or Jonah Goldberg with smaller BOOBS?
The Debate Rages On!
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:22
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because it didn’t.
N__B said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:30
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Because it was lodged in JoGo’s gut.
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:32
I have looked quickly at Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species and I think this whole idea is silly. He doesn’t even write about why all these birds look different. And did he even think that sometimes people breed animals for different characteristics? If animals came from earlier animals that were different than we should be able to tell by looking at animals, and we can’t.
B^4 said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:44
Because it was lodged in JoGo’s gut.
I imagine he has account at Popeye’s.
Euripides said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:45
LOGOMACHY, n. A war in which the weapons are words and the wounds punctures in the swim-bladder of self-esteem – a kind of contest in which, the vanquished being unconscious of defeat, the victor is denied the reward of success.
‘Tis said by divers of the scholar-men
That poor Salmasius died of Milton’s pen.
Alas! we cannot know if this is true,
For reading Milton’s wit we perish too.
THE DEVIL’S DICTIONARY
AMBROSE BIERCE
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:48
It’s pretty bad when your argument is compared negatively with Jo’berg Goldbutt’s Librul Fatcysm: From Moose’s Beanie to the Politics of Steaming.
B^4 said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:50
It’s pretty bad when your argument is compared negatively with Jo’berg Goldbutt’s Librul Fatcysm: From Moose’s Beanie to the Politics of Steaming.
The “rooter to tooter” approach to writing.
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 6, 2010 at 3:58
Someone earlier inquired, who is Megan McCardle and why is she on my interducks? The proper question to me seems, Why is Megan McCardle?
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 4:01
Partly because she’s not merely transiting via the series of tubes. She’s often a sage voice of nonsense on radio and TV as an incredibly brillianting commentatorizing about issues relating to the economicableness.
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 6, 2010 at 4:03
The Ho has informed me that the Kardashians are a reality TV thingy, the kind of women who like to flash their cooters when getting out of cars. I am sorry indeed for having asked.
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 4:05
Pupienus Maximus said,
September 6, 2010 at 4:13
Also, nothing special: butter lettuce, red onion, heritage tomato and maybe some other shit salad with homemade croutons and my secret fat free green goddess dressing. Garlic crostini. Grilled ribeye steaks with a kick ass Bearnaise and baked spud with sour cream and chives. Homemade toasted almond chocolate ice cream for dessert. Cheap California cabernet. Sex and/or hilarity is sure to ensue.
Carl Lazlo said,
September 6, 2010 at 4:16
The Kardashians are modern celebrities. They are famous for being well-known.
Now, if you’re interested in big back porches, as your attorney I suggest you start googling.
B^4 said,
September 6, 2010 at 4:17
I just picked up a slice of broccoli rabe and sausage pizza before showing up to work an event. The caterer gave me cupcakes, though.
Eh! Steve! said,
September 6, 2010 at 4:51
Eh! Steve!
Megan McArdle, at the Improv said,
September 6, 2010 at 5:01
Why did the chicken cross the road?
According to my calculations, the chicken only got 10% of the way across the road, which is not a significant-enough amount to make a difference in real terms.
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 5:42
The problem is that no market forces asked for this ‘road’ in the first place; this is what happens when so-called ‘well-intentioned’ interventionist social good liberals place a road in front of consumers, i.e., chickens, whose market involvement didn’t support the formation of the ‘road’ in the first place.
g said,
September 6, 2010 at 6:12
Greek-inspired burgers with a stuffing of feta cheese and herbs, served with pita bread, chopped heirloom tomatoes and baby greens, with a yogurt/garlic/herb sauce. Served with potato salad.
Dessert? Fresh homemade peach pie.
Substance McGravitas said,
September 6, 2010 at 6:22
Just watched 300. Toasty buns.
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 6:22
Box red wine and Sprite zero, with popcorn and downloaded movies.
Substance McGravitas said,
September 6, 2010 at 6:30
Ann?
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 6:38
Ain’t nuthin’ wrong with wine in a box. 3 liters for $15 at CostCo. Sometimes the priority is quantity more than quality, and it’s still better than the miserable dreck in the gallon jugs of Ernest and Julio’s Special Trash Produced Wine.
Smut Clyde said,
September 6, 2010 at 6:58
My calculations show that my glass is only 10% full so I could not possibly get drunk.
t4toby said,
September 6, 2010 at 7:03
Holy shit that linked blog post is a thing of beauty. Sometimes I forget how strange these creatures must seem to those who are less familiar with their various schticks…
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 7:07
The reason we cannot be anything like drunks is that we are not drunks. Wait…
t4toby said,
September 6, 2010 at 7:18
I find myself stunned by the low level of basic cognizance displayed in our public discourse, and the I remember the Golden Rule:
St00pid Sellz…
Anonymous said,
September 6, 2010 at 8:21
Ain’t nuthin’ wrong with wine in a box. 3 liters for $15 at CostCo. Sometimes the priority is quantity more than quality, and it’s still better than the miserable dreck in the gallon jugs of Ernest and Julio’s Special Trash Produced Wine.
Wine in a box and Kraft singles, what else would you need to bring to a wine-and-cheese party?
Maybe a few bers?
Anonymous said,
September 6, 2010 at 8:22
Oh yeah. Some of the bendy straws for Sarah.
justme said,
September 6, 2010 at 8:34
This word is going to find its way into my regular rotation somehow.
justme said,
September 6, 2010 at 8:38
Also, too. All that bean talk in the other thread made me put the bag of red lentils that has been staring at me in the kitchen for far too long to good use. Red lentil soup is yummy.
St. Trotsky, Pope-in-Avignon said,
September 6, 2010 at 9:13
The increased exposure to American forces likely also led to a certain degree of affection and respect as the anti-American myths were busted by reality.
There’s a word for this in hostage situations.
Anonymous said,
September 6, 2010 at 9:19
Speaker Pelosi=Bean Talk
Smut Clyde said,
September 6, 2010 at 10:48
as the anti-American myths were busted by reality.
I get the impression that many people are now acquainted with a reality of heavily militarised police, in which the costs of developing new weapon systems have been covered by selling them to police forces, so the average Arizonan constabulary now has access to the kind of fire-power that was previously the domain of SWAT. The phrase “busted by reality” conjures up a mental image of the gun-brandishing night-goggle-clad forces of Reality busting down a door in the middle of the night and surging up the stairway to secure the premises from the terrified occupants, gunning down dogs and any occupants who took on board the 2nd-amendment message of self-defense, while a gunship helicopter hovers overhead.
I’m not sure if this was the message intended by the author.
Smut Clyde said,
September 6, 2010 at 11:04
Can I interest you in a turdbuchet?
This word is going to find its way into my regular rotation somehow.
We also offer poonagers and P00Pgonels.
Strangefate said,
September 6, 2010 at 11:29
This is why people hate liberals. You think you’re so smart. Well, you know why you’re not smart? [i]Because you’re not smart![/i]
Is that how that works? Did I win? Am I ready for the big time?
Strangefate said,
September 6, 2010 at 11:30
Oh, man. Those tags didn’t work?
Sadly, I guess I answered my own question. Clearly I’m not even close to the McArdle standard. Sigh, maybe one day…
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 14:18
First, don’t mistake the aim of ‘box wine’. It’s about quantity with decency — i.e., the sort of wine you’re not looking for either $12 / 750ml quality, but you ain’t looking for kool-aid. Chill both, add diet ginger ale or whatever, and, bang, instant bulk home-mixed wine cooler, because sometimes you want a switch from beer. (It happens.) I’ve served it at parties when it’s people who don’t really give a shit about wine but just like the idea of, yes, wine & cheese, and since it’s more ecological than glass bottles, you can put something acceptable in there.
You don’t pull that shit out when you want a nice bottle with a dinner.
And as for American cheese? It’s got its uses, too. Not many, but it’s easy in a few. Great in scrambled eggs. Great in the more Southern type of mac & cheese, or as one of the cheeses. Pretty good in grilled cheese. Not good in anything where you’re supposed to be actually tasting a slice of cheese. I would completely not be happy with this “wiz wit” where you’re to get a Philly cheesesteak with that shit, although John Kerry was a fucking French-looking faggot for asking for provolone or whatever super-fancy la-di-da ay-leet cheese he liked.
exford legs said,
September 6, 2010 at 14:18
poonagers
Poon-agers?
No thanks
El Cid said,
September 6, 2010 at 14:29
I myself am not so afraid of all these anti-American busty realities.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
September 6, 2010 at 14:40
Good ole extra sharp cheddar is a pretty fine cheese.
~
vacuumslayer said,
September 6, 2010 at 14:49
”
Can I interest you in a turdbuchet?”
Oh yes! Always liked that font.
gocart mozart said,
September 6, 2010 at 15:05
Anti-American busty reality?
http://kroq.radio.com/2010/04/23/is-this-woman-too-busty-to-be-on-your-tv/
Mark Mothersbaugh said,
September 6, 2010 at 15:06
Are we not men?
We are BONOBO!
B-O-N-O-B-O!
gocart mozart said,
September 6, 2010 at 15:11
This is what you find if you Google “ant-American” + “busty”
http://www.jnoubiyeh.com/2008/11/busty-bimbettes-bombs-and-brand-obama.html
Caution: Contains quote from Chomsky on boobies.
Megan McArdle, at the Improv said,
September 6, 2010 at 15:33
Libertarianism cannot fail; it can only be failed by the laws of arithmetic. (Speaking of which, why do we even have the number 0? Why do we reward worthlessness and lack of production with its own special symbol?)
Jennifer said,
September 6, 2010 at 15:45
You know, McMegan is so homely that if she weren’t also such a snivelling elitist brat convinced of her own superiority, she’d be the type of girl for whom the phrase “bless her heart” was invented.
In her case the phrase is inoperative, because it’s not at all clear that she has one.
Bilo said,
September 6, 2010 at 15:49
“Sexy actress”? That’s as close as Unca Noam gets to talking about boobies?! Curse you, Gocart!
From that link, Neil Postman quote:
“The truth or falsity of an advertiser’s claim is simply not an issue. A McDonald’s commercial, for example, is not a series of testable, logically ordered assertions. ”
Oh, Jebus, sometimes libs really are the caricature. NERD!!!
tigris said,
September 6, 2010 at 15:53
Aw, bless her sad little blood-pumping organ.
Anonymous said,
September 6, 2010 at 15:54
McMegan is so homely that if she weren’t also such a snivelling elitist brat convinced of her own superiority, she’d be the type of girl for whom the phrase “bless her heart” was invented.
The type whose parents could afford to tie pork chop around her neck just so the dogs would play with her.
FrJackHackett said,
September 6, 2010 at 16:07
A tutorial for Logician Street Protesters: begging the question is the logical fallacy in an argument in which the conclusion is the also premise.
Case study:
“Here’s the thing: humans aren’t like bonobos. And do you know how I know that we are not like bonobos? Because we’re not like bonobos.” Students, please note that the conclusion is simply a restatement of the premise with no attempt to offer any kind of support.
Other terms for begging the question are “circular argument” and petitio principii, (“assuming the initial point”). Class dismissed.
Bilo said,
September 6, 2010 at 16:15
Ooh!
New thread!
—>
Bonobos of the world said,
September 6, 2010 at 16:16
Yet prick us, do we not bleed? Tickle us, do we not laugh? Wrong us… shall we not revenge?
Bilo said,
September 6, 2010 at 16:44
If you scorn us, do we not fling poo?
Linnaeus said,
September 6, 2010 at 21:25
Because history books were written by liberal professors who smoke pipes and have patches on the elbows of their sportcoats.
As an historian, let me state that it’s English professors who do the patches-on-the-elbows thing. Don’t confuse the two.
Tehanu said,
September 6, 2010 at 22:25
She should stick to things she knows, like economics…
Meggsy doesn’t know poop about economics. It’s all econobonics [TBoggTM] — or possibly bonobobonics — with her.
Tehanu said,
September 6, 2010 at 22:26
sorry, my superscript tag for TM only worked in the preview!
actor212 said,
September 6, 2010 at 23:37
Ooooh, PsychToday destroyed her?
What will Arnold Alkon think????
Tom Allen said,
September 7, 2010 at 14:20
Proof by italics is a perfectly logical argument. The only thing that trumps it is PROOF BY ALL CAPS!
actor212 said,
September 7, 2010 at 15:15
Because history books were written by liberal professors who smoke pipes and have patches on the elbows of their sportcoats.
As an historian, let me state that it’s English professors who do the patches-on-the-elbows thing.
Am I wrong in remembering that Indiana Jones wore a Harris tweed jacket when teaching, which means he’d have patches?
actor212 said,
September 7, 2010 at 21:17
So A=A, because A, which equals A, is the moral of this post.
Doctorb said,
September 7, 2010 at 21:51
Proof by ALL CAPS is okay, but it’s no argumentum ad vim,which is probably the strongest argument there is.
Doctorb said,
September 7, 2010 at 21:52
That looked much bigger in preview (VPR,FYWP).
actor212 said,
September 7, 2010 at 21:58
No, A = Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!
Doctorb said,
September 7, 2010 at 22:03
Oh, yes, and there are a couple of good boxed wines: Yellow+Blue Malbec (and probably some of their others), for example, is great.
Jamey said,
September 8, 2010 at 1:55
Of course we’re not like bonobos. We haven’t reached our full evolutionary potential yet.
Linnaeus said,
September 8, 2010 at 2:36
Am I wrong in remembering that Indiana Jones wore a Harris tweed jacket when teaching, which means he’d have patches?
You may be right that he had a Harris tweed jacket, but let me add that:
1. Indiana Jones is an archaeologist, not an historian. Yes, the two fields are closely related, but are distinct disciplines.
2. I own a Harris tweed jacket that does not have elbow patches.
Linnaeus said,
September 8, 2010 at 2:48
For “everyday” drinking, Target’s line of boxed wines are quite good.
Paul Luscher said,
September 9, 2010 at 21:27
Well, the photo explains it all. THAT’S why so much of her stuff sounds like it emanated from the mind of a particularly slow fifth-grader.