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.

This is the polite (i.e. passive-aggressive) version of “SHUT UP, THAT’S WHY”.

Also, too: Who is this woman and why is she on my internets?

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.

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.

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.

Christopher Ryan, co -author of the bonobo book, concludes his comprehensive take-down of Megan with this comment:

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

If that’s really a picture of McArdle, she looks a lot better than the last time I saw her.

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).

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

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.

I came for the ridicule. I stayed for the hot bonobo on bonobo action.

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.

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

Isn’t Bonobo that front man for the band Youtube?

@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.]

“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.

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.

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.

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.

She should stick to things she knows, like economics…
…
…
Phglbt!!! Sorry, couldn’t do that with a straight face.

http://christwire.org/2010/09/gays-invent-new-wii-sex-toy-so-blacks-can-have-virtual-sex-with-white-women/

She should stick to things she knows, like economics…

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?

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.”

The most expensive athlete contract ever.

Ultra millionaire sponsorship deals such as those signed by sprinter Usain Bolt, motorcycle racer Valentino Rossi and tennis player Maria Sharapova, are just peanuts compared to the personal fortune amassed by a second century A.D. Roman racer, according to an estimate published in the historical magazine Lapham’s Quarterly…

Although other racers surpassed him in the total number of victories — a driver called Pompeius Musclosus collected 3,599 winnings — Diocles became the richest of all, as he run and won at big money events. For example, he is recorded to have made 1,450,000 sesterces in just 29 victories.

Struck calculated that Diocles’ s total earnings of 35,863,120 sesterces were enough to provide grain for the entire population of Rome for one year, or to fund the Roman Army at its height for more than two months.

“By today’s standards that last figure, assuming the apt comparison is what it takes to pay the wages of the American armed forces for the same period, would cash out to about $15 billion,” wrote Struck.

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.”

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.”

…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.

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.
~

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.

Indeed and exactly what I teach in my classes when we cover the topic.

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!”

This is central to her point.

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.

Because we’re not like _______.

Fucking scientific inquiry. How does it work?

Fucking scientific inquiry. How does it work?

We are not scientists, so we cannot compare ourselves to them.

Megan McGurgle can say what she wants because she can say what she wants!

Duh!

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.

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.

Oh. Also as well, too.

Trig is having a good day.

PERE! Yo.

So what are we insane irrational always-angry progressives angry about as of late?

My strawberries went missing. I suspect thievery.

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.

My strawberries went missing. I suspect thievery.

All part of G.B. Shaw’s nefarious plan.

Pere Ubu said,

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.
~

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.

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.

What happened? The surge is what happened. Contrary to what opponents of the surge said, the increased presence and aggressiveness of U.S. forces did not trigger a popular backlash because security visibly improved.

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 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.

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).

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”?

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.

Gosh, so now we should be concerned about how the Iraqis feel?

Only seven years too friggin’ late.

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.

Only seven years too friggin’ late.

Yeah, that’s what occurred to me too when reading the headline.

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.
~

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.

gocart mozart said,

September 5, 2010 at 15:28 (kill)

AWESOME.

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.

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.

The SURGE only worked because the Iraqis use plain multiple outlets without surge protection.

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.

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.

Millbank is a dick. Also, too.

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 prison a giant 9/11 amusement park to insure no liberals or Muslims tainted holy ground ever again.

they should be running a lot more articles about by Justin Bieber and Paris Hilton.

Fixt for great journamalism.

Millbank is a dick. Also, too.

Speaking on behalf of the dicks of the world, I would categorically state that Millbank is totally dickless.

Conservatives don’t give a shit about any women, and certainly not Muslim ones. And Sufi Islamist? Um, OK.

Thank you.

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.

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.

move on to words like Salafist or Sufi and you’ve lost them completely.

Think we should tell them about the Hashshashin?

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).

“SOOFI? Wasn’t he Charlie Brown’s dog? What the hell does he have to do with terrorists?”

S.O.O.F.I. also.

DrDick he sed:

n 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.

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.

.

Also welcome back Pere!

In other words, the surge worked because the surge worked!

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.

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.

Bonobos are not like humans.

Bonobos have not developed barbed wire, gas chambers, cluster bombs or white phosporous.

Also welcome back Pere!

All parties benefit from having moar farmacists.

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.

All parties benefit from having moar farmacists.

Well, I’m just a tech, but thank you anyway.

Now THAT’s what “begging the question” looks like.

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! Bonobo Brooks!

Show me what begging the question looks like!
(THIS IS WHAT BEGGING THE QUESTION LOOKS LIKE!)

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).

Why read a book when it’s so much more efficient to just grab some hearsay and run with it?

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.

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.

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!!!!

Better pictures of Mega Mcaddled.

Zerbrina the Pinhead! (Zippy’s wife).

Oops. Zerbina. There.

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????

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.

“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?

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

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?

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.

“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.

Ahh…. thank you Pupienus Maximus. My sanity is saved.

Blessed be.

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.”

That extraneous apostrophe was inserted by my iPhone. Maliciously and slyly. FY iPhone.

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!”

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).

Paging Dr Freud

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/paging-dr-freud

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.

if she knew the site was satirical

Satiriacal? Satyriacal?

I keep reading “bonobos” as “bonbons”, which is both amusing and confusing.

How does one miss an entire chapter in a book you’re writing about publicly?

That is sort of central to McMegan’s methodology.

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.

“What’s the writing equivalent of a slut?”

A journalist?

Strange Memeorandum hasn’t picked up on this laugher. But then, I’ve always been suspicious of Memeorandum.

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.”

“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.

I see that you liberals have still failed to address my point.

Isn’t it cute?

“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.

Wheee, a real troll! Here I thought they were just a mythical creature, like dragons or unicorns or Southern liberals.

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.

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.

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.

“You forgot “moderate” or “reasonable” Republicans. ”

We call those Blue Dog Democrats now.

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.

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.

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.

aw, damn, Steve’s comment got nuked, it looks like.

And I was so looking forward to his script for “The Eternal Je- Muslim”.

“moderate” or “reasonable” Republicans.

A myth.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

Better pictures of Mega Mcaddled.

Does she have some sort of bung plug stuck in her forehead?

Steve, please explain how a true Scotsman Christian would behave.

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.

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!

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)

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.

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.

“So, yeah, totally different.”

Yes, the Jews really are a bloody and violent race religion 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?

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?

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.

“They’re also ignoring the plainly evident fact that plenty of people read the Bible but not the Old Testament New 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).

Wheee, a real troll! Here I thought they were just a mythical creature, like dragons or unicorns or Southern liberals.

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.

“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).

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.

“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.

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.

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”!!!

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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

Some atheists misrepresent all religion in order to demonize it.

Indeed, especially we militant anti-theists*.

* Please note usage of the correct term.

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).

Merci, mon vieux!

Et aussi.

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.

I’m keenly interested in lore of the ancient Afro-Saxon kings: Parker, Coltrane, Young, et al.

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.”

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.

Steve, please explain how a true Scotsman Christian 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.)

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.

“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?

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.

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.

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.

I’ve really lost patience with Nice Catholic Girls Who Still Aren’t Comfortable With Sex Yet.

Obligatory

Obligatory

Indeed.

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?

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.

Bitch, slap, match.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

• “It reads like horsefeathers . . . like an undergraduate thesis,”
• “breathless rather than scientific”

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.

Re: Crusades. I just read Evan Connell’s “Deus Lo Volt” and highly recommend it both as experimental fiction and great history.

Bonobos count as black, I think. QED.

Bonobos is blacks? Well then…

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/37102_Todd_Palin_Pals_Around_with_White_Supremacist_Blogger

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.

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.

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 logic idiocy.

Well, they do see their god when they look in the mirror, so I hope you can understand the logic idiocy.

Of course. Even Only a kindergartner can figure that out.
Megalogical magic.

She’s right, you know. I’m fully bipedal (except when I’m hammered) and I can drive.

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.

I put the grape in ape.

Or cape on ape.

This is fun

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.

RESEARCH PROJECT!

REALITY TV!

RESEARCH PROJECT + REALITY TV
= MYTHBUSTERS EPISODE ! ! !

OMG, Smut! We just need to wrap a myth around it…

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.

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.

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.

I’m volunteering to be the dumbass who gets drunk and crashes the golf cart.

We just wanted to share. Booze hog.

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”.

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!!!

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!

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.

Hey, at least Megan didn’t make up some “hypotheticals” that support her thesis. I guess she realized people actually check up on those.

Also, horsefeathers: eohoopoes or equueopteryx?

Also, horsefeathers: eohoopoes or equueopteryx?

Horsefeathers are what you use to make horseflyswatters.

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.

I’m not a damn dirty chimp. Know how I know? Everyone thinks it’s “weird” and “inappropriate” when I fling my poop.

we’re just too close to warrant a separate genus

Closer than horses and donkeys, in fact.

Can I interest you in a turdbuchet?

I’m not a damn dirty chimp.

Therefore you are Charlton Heston.

Logic is a wonderful thing.

Horsefeathers are what you use to make horseflyswatters.

I thought it was what you filled horsepillows with.

Therefore you are Charlton Heston.

Personally, I would rather be a chimp.

horsepillows

And we now have yet another BOOB synonym.

Everyone thinks it’s “weird” and “inappropriate” when I fling my poop.

You might just not be a Teabagger.

What DrDick said.

Personally, I would rather be a chimp.

What was missing from PotA.

“Everyone thinks it’s “weird” and “inappropriate” when I fling my poop.

You might just not be a Teabagger.”

Tee hee!

And we now have yet another BOOB synonym.

You know what happens when they start hanging out with horses, don’t you?

You know what happens when they start hanging out with horses, don’t you?

First gay marriage, then human-donkey hybrids.

First gay marriage, then human-donkey hybrids.

We already have the latter. They either watch or work for Faux Spews.

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.

Some people are sick and tired of being told they come from monkeys.

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.

Some people are sick and tired of being told they come from monkeys.

The monkeys have some issues as well.

The monkeys have some issues as well.

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.

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?

I never came from a monkey. Not that I can recall.

I never came from a monkey. Not that I can recall.

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.

Hot bonobo sex talk:

Put your stinking paws on me, you damned dirty ape!

If monogamy were natural we wouldn’t have a history of men in black enforcing it.

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.

<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.)

I never came from a monkey. Not that I can recall.

Me either. I swear. I was already done when the monkey got there.

BTW, WTF is a Kardashian? Izzat from Star Trek or what?

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’.

BTW, WTF is a Kardashian? Izzat from Star Trek or what?

You’re going to be so sorry you asked that.

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.

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!

Appeals to authority are wrong because Ayn Rand said so.

Also, horsefeathers: eohoopoes or equueopteryx?

Nice!

BTW, WTF is a Kardashian? Izzat from Star Trek or what?

It must be, because apparently the Kardashian Empire is unstoppable.

Megan McArdle: William Kristol with BOOBS … or Jonah Goldberg with smaller BOOBS?

The Debate Rages On!

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.

Why did the chicken cross the road? Because it didn’t.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Because it was lodged in JoGo’s gut.

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.

Because it was lodged in JoGo’s gut.

I imagine he has account at Popeye’s.

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

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.

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.

Someone earlier inquired, who is Megan McCardle and why is she on my interducks? The proper question to me seems, Why is Megan McCardle?

Why is Megan McCardle?

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.

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.

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.

</blockquote.

As stated earlier, an Empire which apparently is unstoppable.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Greek-inspired burgers

Just watched 300. Toasty buns.

Box red wine and Sprite zero, with popcorn and downloaded movies.

Ann?

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.

My calculations show that my glass is only 10% full so I could not possibly get drunk.

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…

The reason we cannot be anything like drunks is that we are not drunks. Wait…

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…

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?

Oh yeah. Some of the bendy straws for Sarah.

Can I interest you in a turdbuchet?

This word is going to find its way into my regular rotation somehow.

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.

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.

Speaker Pelosi=Bean Talk

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.

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.

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?

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…

Wine in a box and Kraft singles, what else would you need to bring to a wine-and-cheese party?

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.

poonagers

Poon-agers?

No thanks

I myself am not so afraid of all these anti-American busty realities.

Good ole extra sharp cheddar is a pretty fine cheese.
~

”
Can I interest you in a turdbuchet?”

Oh yes! Always liked that font.

Anti-American busty reality?

http://kroq.radio.com/2010/04/23/is-this-woman-too-busty-to-be-on-your-tv/

Are we not men?

We are BONOBO!

B-O-N-O-B-O!

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.

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?)

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.

“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!!!

Aw, bless her sad little blood-pumping organ.

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.

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.

Ooh!
New thread!
—>

Yet prick us, do we not bleed? Tickle us, do we not laugh? Wrong us… shall we not revenge?

If you scorn us, do we not fling poo?

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.

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.

sorry, my superscript tag for TM only worked in the preview!

Ooooh, PsychToday destroyed her?

What will Arnold Alkon think????

Proof by italics is a perfectly logical argument. The only thing that trumps it is PROOF BY ALL CAPS!

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?

So A=A, because A, which equals A, is the moral of this post.

Proof by ALL CAPS is okay, but it’s no argumentum ad vim,which is probably the strongest argument there is.

That looked much bigger in preview (VPR,FYWP).

No, A = Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

Oh, yes, and there are a couple of good boxed wines: Yellow+Blue Malbec (and probably some of their others), for example, is great.

Of course we’re not like bonobos. We haven’t reached our full evolutionary potential yet.

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.

Oh, yes, and there are a couple of good boxed wines: Yellow+Blue Malbec (and probably some of their others), for example, is great.

For “everyday” drinking, Target’s line of boxed wines are quite good.

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.