Huston Hears A Hoot
Posted on February 24th, 2008 by Gavin M.
Knock-knock.
Who’s there?
Interrupting walrus.
Interrup…
Sci. American uses all anti-Republican examples to show ‘how media messes with your mind’
Warner Todd Huston
February 22, 2008This report by Scientific American is a hoot for its blatant hypocrisy.
…ting walrus who?
Oh man, we totally fell for that.
Shorter Scientific American article:
I’m sure that Huston’s article is bad, but there’s no reason for SciAm to be running an article on The Straw Man and calling it news.
Using O’Reilly & Horowitz as an argiment against strawmen, that is just reaching. Even though I’m about 12 beers down the pike, and its 1am out here, it still made no sense. Its as if these fools just don’t care any more.
I’ll leave aside the fact that this no brain think he has one up on Scientific American… I mean really, they just dont care any more….
Yay, Scientific American! Maybe they can help Warney find his bukkit!
…Just skimmed Huston’s article.
Yup, it’s that bad.
I’m also eagerly awaiting the wingnut article on “Popular Mechanics and thier pro terrorist stance….”
Even better than O’Reilly & Horowitz as anti-strawman ammo is O’Reilly & Horowitz as evidence that the Scientific American article falsely claims to be about “the media.” ‘Cause, y’know, those guys aren’t the media . . .
Mr. Gill,
The news is that it’s working.. and on a significant number of people. Never mind that SciAm is not a news magazine.
Shorter Mark Huston, “Scientists, what do they know?”
There’s something about the name RenewAmerica that sounds like it would be geared towards folks with continence problems. It has just the right generic/meaningless ring to it while implying that your shitty previous existence (say, the last 7.5 years) is about to be wisked away to a happy place.
“I weep for you,” the Walrus said:
“I deeply sympathize.”
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.”
Bush’s attitude to the troops, via Lewis Carroll. God, I love that poem.
I has a bukit indeed.
Huston’s article is unreadable.
Also rather distracting are all the creepy ads along the sides of the page. Just how many Terri Schiavo books are there?
Speaking of cracked conservative notions of “science.”
All right! Who gave a copy of Scientific American to Warner Todd Huston?!?!
I wanna know and I wanna know NOW!
If I dont’ find out quick, I’ll have to punish the whole class!!
Ya hear?
I’m thinking of the crowd deliriously chanting RENEW!1!11!! in Logan’s Run as the poor souls are whisked away to their doom.
Well, of course the article is biased against Republicans; it was published by a magazine that has the word Scientific in its title, for christ’s sake!
I love this tag at the end:
Warner Todd Huston’s thoughtful commentary, sometimes irreverent often historically based, is featured on many websites such as renewamerica.us, townhall.com, opinioneditorials.com, and americandaily.com, among many, many others. (emphasis added)
Because, you know, if they don’t tell us he’s “thoughtful”, we won’t be able to figure it out…and it’s “often” historically based, meaning that the remainder of the time he’s just pulling it out of his generous ass.
WTF? Huston reading SciAm? Huston?!?!??!
I must cancel my subscription immediately.
Dentist waiting room. Nothing but Cosmopolitan, RedBook (too commie), Highlights, Ebony, and a lone copy of Scientific American. He searched for a good American Reader’s Digest, to no avail.
I looked at the picture again. Forget dentist, maybe the drug store waiting area.
Two observations:
1. Any web site where Alan “I mosh for blastocysts” Keyes is a featured writer is a priori whacko.
2. I forgot.
It was that memorable.
I can only assume that he visited a strange location – perhaps the home of a relative he was visiting, or a hotel, or perhaps he swiped a dog-earred magazine from a waiting room. Then he spent a lengthy time in a bathroom, and was able to read the entire article, and muse upon it. Probably the first time he’s ever read Scientific American.
All the examples in the article he cites are from 2005-2006 or earlier.
Just how many Terri Schiavo books are there?</i?
Hey, look – Mark “O.J.” Fuhrman wrote a Terry Schiavo book. Who knew?
I have, indeed, freed myself from the confines of the declarative and interrogative?
Warner has bravely sacrificed his manly yet sensitive facial hairs so you may better discern his disdainful sneer and furrowed brow under oily and portentous bangs.
Dentist waiting room. Nothing but Cosmopolitan, RedBook (too commie), Highlights, Ebony, and a lone copy of Scientific American. He searched for a good American Reader’s Digest, to no avail.
He would have picked Highlights, but Goofus and Gallant has a liberal bias.
Also on sale:
“The Bush Boom”
“How a ‘Misunderestimated’ President Fixed Our Broken Economy”
By Jerry Bowyer
This is central to “Scientific American’s” point.
I’m trying to visualize a world in which this sentence makes any sense. I think that “initial three paragraphs” would have to be some bizarre euphamism for dandruff.
But, but, but we KNOW that bush political appointees muzzled scientists, edited papers, refused to let them present papers, I mean, this isn’t some weird suspected fringe event.
We KNOW it. They told us. Oh, sure, they made up stupid excuses, but they told us what they did.
How can anyone debate any of the anti-science bias of the republican party?
mikey
McCain/Schiavo 2008!
-GSD
Nearly all the examples of “lies,” “misleading statements,” and “straw man arguments” are from Republicans and/or conservatives.
Thunderbolt! How could this be?
Thunderbolt! How could this be?
Raw meat just doesn’t taste as raw now.
How can anyone debate any of the anti-science bias of the republican party?
Why, by calling pro-science liberals heretics of course…
Heathens…
“McCain/Schiavo 2008!”
aka
Pinky and the Brain
eeew
Alan “I mosh for blastocysts” Keyes
Niiiiice.
Shorter Huston: “The hypocrisy is so thick in this piece it almost seems to have been penned for a Comedy Central late night TV show.” Except that I don’t think his piece rises to the level of even the worst Comedy Central show. He correctly quotes “Statements made in the media” … and somehow reads that (I guess) to be “by the media”. What an idiot. Who’s being misleading?
I thought pro-science liberals were fascists. They’re heretics, too? Fuck Huston. For that matter, roger Huston.
Just how many Terri Schiavo books are there
Amazon lists at least 9 of them. There’s probably more, but I was floored by the fact that there was enough ground to cover in that whole debalce to fill 9 pieces of wingnut welfare.
That crash you just heard is the shattering of my respect for fellow literate human beings….
It’s too bad Scientific American didn’t explain hasty generalization and appeal to authority (which is pretty funny when the authority is Horowitz).
Shorter Andy McCarthy: All our dire warnings failed to materialize so you should listen to our dire warnings. Indeed, that is central to our point.
Shorter Woger Huston: Pwopaganda Weview weely weely wotten.
BTW, I want to say thanks to all of the Sadly, No community. I’ve been a reader for about a year, and truly enjoy the commentators, although I never really participate. I’m in Ireland for 6 months as my wife completes an overseas assignment, and Sadly, No has provided me my political fixes. I raise a Harp in your honor.
JAML
I have so many questions about living in Ireland, but I won’t bother you with all of them. Can you get through days, weeks without hearing anything about the silliness of the Bush administration? Are there periods of time where you just find yourself enjoying life and not suppressing the need to scream in frustration?
Miss us much?
Mr. Dilapidus:
We have detected two general types of fallacies—one of them well known and the other newly identified—that have permeated discussion of the Iraq War and that are generally ubiquitous in political debates and other discourse.
This is not news, but they are portraying it that way.
Miss us much?
The guy has access to some of the finest beer and whiskey in the world. A press that probably isn’t insane and a country that doesn’t have a negative GDP or is going broke. My guess is not that much.
I just sent him this emailL
He wrote back immediately:
I realize this is hideously off-topic, but you guys have got to see this.
http://www.superdickery.com/oneshot/44.html
I now submit myself to the consequences of threadjacking. But it’s worth it.
Though, I’m not sure I can help you if you write with a big crayon like I suspect you do.
Adam, you have to show me how to write emails in crayon.
‘Renew America”? ‘The Grass roots at work’? The poor ‘rooters’ on the conservative side! Imagine the disappointment of after spreading the Bush excrement on their lawns for 7 years now, to wake up and find there are only weeds! Poor things
‘The Grass roots at work’?
I always get a kick – or a hoot – out of the idea of movement-conservative grassroots. The Masses, taking it into their own hands to breathlessly await orders from on high.
Adam Stanhope, you need to write him back and request that he make his email reply more coherent and readable.
Oooh Adam! I’ll bet you’re still smarting from that way-snappy comeback, huh? Which by the way, does that mean he’s saying he’ll fake it but only if he gets paid first?
Anyway, here’s my favorite part. First, Scientific American is all
…[Horowitz] used the example of [Ward] Churchill … to argue that “tenured radicals” have made universities into leftist political institutions … thereby failing to acknowledge the presence of more highly regarded and politically mainstream scholars in academia. (emphasis added)
Then Huston goes
This by Sci. Amer is really dishonest. To act as if David Horowitz has never found any example of leftist professors in our Universities except Ward Churchill is completely untrue.
Yeah! Take that, purposefully misleading media!
Ooh, I like the SuperReagan comic. He has the pompadour of steel!
You know, for somebody who clearly doesn’t know how to read (And who has that beard), Huston writes with surprising clarity.
I mean, he’s either an idiot or intentionally mischaracterizing every argument that the Scientific American article makes, but I was expecting more of a Doug Giles/Dr. Mike Adams flavor of incoherency and poor metaphors.
Incidentally, I too found that SciAm article to be fairly uninformative and not very well written.
That’s what makes it so funny that Huston can’t manage to effectively rebut or criticize a single thing about it.
Goat or Panic,
I never understood the visceral reaction people had to Clinton. Then Bush got the nomination, and it was an ephipany. It was hate at first sight. I have always hated his frat-boy humor and smug smirk. So, I keep an eye on his antics, but am embarassed by Bush’s representations to the world. Maybe I can convince people I’m Canadian (being from Indiana, I like to believe I have no discernible accent).
I’d love to stay in Ireland if McCain (assuming he gets the nod) is elected, but will be back in June. McCain seems personable enough, but after 8 years of Republican mistakes, I can’t even vote for some one like Lugar any more, because of the R appended to his name.
Not missing things, in other words.
Now you’ve done it, Flying Fox. You’ve invoked the comix. I have no choice but to retaliate with unintentionally sexual comic book covers.
I never understood the visceral reaction people had to Clinton. Then Bush got the nomination, and it was an ephipany. It was hate at first sight. I have always hated his frat-boy humor and smug smirk.
I think you just explained something, in a tangential way, that I never understood. I never could wrap my head around anyone who wasn’t turned off by the frat boy humor and the smirk. But now I see it’s elementary: they either didn’t go to college and so had no experience with the type, or they did go and were the type.
The fact is, Horowitz has dozens of such examples, and has made a crusade out of highlighting them and exposing these examples of leftist bias in our educational system, which means the claim that he is basing his critique of campus leftism on one example is a lie. Sci.Am. should have used the much more numerous examples of liberal lies and misinformation, now they appear to be biased and irredeemible.
JAML: The difference is that Clinton was actually a pretty good president, and quite moderate.
Which I would think would mitigate any irritation caused by his affect.
I, too, have always disliked Bush’s affect (Seriously, who’d want to have a beer with him? He’s surly, self-centered, and makes fun of people lower on the social ladder. I think beer would only intensify his awful personality), but that didn’t turn into outright loathing until it became clear that he was one of the worst Presidents ever and his incompetence and arrogance killed hundreds of thousands of people.
In the first couple of years of his presidency, I simply thought he was a run of the mill crummy Republican president, rather then Satan incarnate.
Of course, now I know I was wrong, but it’s for the evil things he’s done.
that email reply stuff was good if real. I like how the first thing he did was beg for some money. Some productive capitalist he must be!
The fact is, Horowitz has dozens of such examples
Wow, no shit Gary? DOZENS? Like, I dunno, fifty or sixty?
Out of how many academics with tenure in America today?
Wow. That’s some powerful bias right there. I totally see your point…
mikey
That little thing about stealing an election he LOST kinda got bush started off on the wrong foot.
Something about a bloodless coup tends to turn off a segment of the population…
mikey
…and in my bukit I haz a Tommiss Koon book!!
The fact is, Horowitz has dozens of such examples…
Name 24.
No, name six.
Three?
The article’s supposedly about misleading statements in the media, but then all the examples are of misleading statements made in the media, not by the media. Unless of course you count commentators, which is to say people who work in the media, as members of the media.
We post facts, why won’t the wingnuts post facts? Real facts, that is, not unsubstantiated numbers and opinions cobbled together from dubious sources.
Dumbass needs to learn the difference between ‘in the media’ and ‘BY the media.’
Normally I find discussions with the various trolls here really boring, but I think it’s worth pointing out that Gary’s argument is exactly the one that Huston uses.
Yeah, if you only have one radical example out of thousands of people, that’s a weak man argument. If you have 50 or 60, though, that’s clearly the majority.
Somebody funnier then me should take apart Huston’s article, because like I said, he can’t come up with a single convincing rebuttal. It’s amazing how ignorant of basic logic he is.
but that didn’t turn into outright loathing until it became clear that he was one of the worst Presidents ever and his incompetence and arrogance killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Me? I was at outright loathing during the 2000 campaign — the combination of unjustifiably smug face and fake-accent voice did it for me very quickly. (Of course, I moved to China when Reagan won a second term because I literally couldn’t stand having to see/hear him on a daily basis anymore, so I have a kinda low threshhold.) The abuse of office and destruction of the country stuff that followed (back to Bush now) moved my loathing into despair and occasional apoplexy. I never used to be this bug-eyed, y’know? I mean really, you should see me.
Name 24.
No, name six.
Three?
I dunno, I kinda like the sound of crickets chirping.
I’m getting the distinct impression that “Gary Ruppert” and “Hypocritical Leftist” are the same person. I do miss HL though….(sniff)
Wikipedia’s fallacy page is a decent directory of wingnut argumentation, though they don’t mention wingnuts in particular.
Consider this one the entry for the Doughy Pantload’s book-like excretion.
Very few people really have any understanding of logic, believing it means “if you just really think about things, you’ll see I’m right.” The ‘nuts are especially proud of that and all their other ignorances.
And rock on Mikey!
tontocal said,
February 25, 2008 at 0:36
I’m getting the distinct impression that “Gary Ruppert” and “Hypocritical Leftist” are the same person. I do miss HL though….(sniff)
Fake Gary St. Chris Booger Saul is the Highlander* of trolls.
*There can be only one.
Very few people really have any understanding of logic, believing it means “if you just really think about things, you’ll see I’m right.”
I think it’s even simpler/worse than that, Sam. I think they get that thinking is what defeats them. Feeling is where it’s at for these guys — so it’s more like “If you would just surrender to the combo patriotic fervor and white-hot loathing of others then you’d see I’m right.”
Mortician – you’re right. But I believe many ‘nuts consider surrendering to jingo-fever and hate to be the same thing as thinking.
Colbert and his gut feelings over facts; he has these guys down to a science.
Well, actually, Horowitz published a book naming 100 professors he disapproved of. He even got that wrong — he called his book “101 Professors” and he only had 100 listed.
I am honored to know one of them personally, and I just have to say – Horowitz is reaching.
As far as I know, the effect of Horowitz’s crusade is neglible – all it really accomplished was putting money in Horowitz’s pocket by selling the book and tickets to his speaking engagements to gullible idiots like Gary.
Horowitz published a book naming 100 professors he disapproved of.
But did he include BILL AYERS!?
[/spittle]
Here’s a list from wikipedia, ifyou don’t want to give Horowitz any clicks.
Our friend Michael Berube is on it, and some of the obvious suspects, like Noam Chomsky, Todd Gitlin. And of course he lists (shhhh! whisper it so HL won’t hear) Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.
Flying Fox of the Yard:
superdickery is always welcome.
Not enough psychologists or physicists on that list. Are we not dangerous?
g – thanks. I’m sad to say I don’t know any of the Most Dangerous Academic Boogeypeople personally.
Maybe if I study really hard and really really refuse to wear a lapel pin I’ll be on the list myself one day.
I’m sad to say I don’t know any of the Most Dangerous Academic Boogeypeople personally.
And you think this absolves you of responsibility for their abhorrent thoughts and actions?
And you think this absolves you of responsibility for their abhorrent thoughts and actions?
As a liberal fascist I disavow any responsibility for anything bad ever, even though I’m responsible for all of it.
Michael Bérubé said,
February 24, 2008 at 17:43
I hear that Hitler also wore hats!
Perfessor Bérubé is wanna them hockey terrarists.
Oh, pshaw, Mikey! It’s not like Dubya had done something really significant, like help Bill Belechik video opposing teams’ practice drills! Because getting to run the Greatest Country in Teh World(tm) is just another form of professional entertainment, whereas getting a Superbowl ring lasts *forever*!!!1!1! (/lazy tube-besotted morons)
OK, I read the Huston… “column,” I guess, for lack of a better word, and I thought, well, maybe he has some semblance of a point if the Sci.Am. article really did use a huge number of Republicans and Conservatives as examples, and only the one Bill Clinton example. So I clicked through to the Sci.Am. piece, expecting to have to count up the examples and figure out which ones were “anti-Republican.” Remember, his title was “Sci. American uses all anti-Republican examples to show ‘how media messes with your mind’.” (My emphasis) And here were the examples in the Sci.Am. article:
Bush 2005 – straw man.
Clinton 1996 – straw man.
O’Reilly – weak man.
Horowitz – weak man.
That’s it. Huston cited every example from the Sci.Am. article in his piece, three of which are arguably “anti-Republican” and one of which is equally anti-Democrat. He dismisses the Clinton example as an attempt to cover up the anti-Republican bias, but it is 25% of the entire universe of data for his proposition that all of the examples were anti-Republican.
Goo goo goo joob.
Bush 2005 – straw man.
Clinton 1996 – straw man.
O’Reilly – weak man.
Horowitz – weak man.
Actually, you could call Bush a Republican and Clinton a Democrat, but I don’t think Horowitz calls himself a Republican, and Bill O’Reilly, if you you believe his own press, Bill O’Reilly is “fair and balanced.”
So the Scientific American article actually does choose a rather balanced slate of people to compare.
Of course, you would have to overlook the obvious bias of 2 self-proclaimed objective parties.
Thinking of Horowitz’s
crusadecareer, The Great Gazoogle informs me that Horowitz is invariably described in terms of “a road-to-Damascus conversion”.When you consider the nature of early (pre-Paul) christianity, compared with christianity after Paul converted and managed to co-opt it, it always seems odd that people talk about “a road-to-Damascus conversion” as if it were a good thing, rather than a sign of cynical opportunism.
It should not be confused with the “Damascus-to-carpark conversion” advocated by some commentators.
The fact is, I am well and truly an annoying dung-beatle, dear me.
When you consider the nature of early (pre-Paul) christianity, compared with christianity after Paul converted and managed to co-opt it
When I was a young closeted fundie lad, I used to read this well-know passage from 2 Corinthians over and over:
Back then I was convinced that the “thorn” that he complained about was homosexuality, and that it meant that God could use me for big things too, even if I was a filthy sodomite. I still think that by “thorn” he meant “big fat cock”, but now when I reread that passage I just see the ramblings of an arrogant hypocritical asshole. Ted Haggard’s only problem is, he was born too late.
Holy crap… just caught this at FreeRepublic. Apparently one of the Freepers wrote and directed “Witless Protection” – the new Larry the Cable Guy movie. It is claimed to be witty political satire.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1974646/posts
Republican party diagram
Everything makes sense, now.
thunder – thank you! I will be stealing this!
Kind of like a circles of hell deal, but there are only four levels here instead of nine. I wonder where are favorite wingnut provocateurs would place on this chart. Actually, come to think of it, SN! is kind of like Dante’s Inferno with Brad et al playing the part of Virgil…
Jonah Goldberg is definitely Gas
While the Oscars were on this story ran on 60 Minutes about Former Governor Don Siegelman who was railroaded into federal prison by the Rove machine.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830.shtml
Maybe some of them are covert psychologists or physicists, secretly teaching late at night in abandoned warehouses down on the waterfront.
There are about 615,000 college professors in the United States employed full-time. Add in the adjucts and part timers and you have a little over a 1,000,000.
On his best day, Horowitz came up with 100. Check my math, but I’m thinking that is 0.0001%. Which Pinhead Warner thinks “proves” that there is leftist indoctrrination on campus. And Warner thinks he has really caught the SciAm out on this one. To quote Lex Luthor, “It is amazing that brain can generate enough energy to keep those legs moving.”
The fact is you aren’t because dung beetles are useful. I suggest you might be a tse tse fly.
Has anyone told Huston that a muskrat is sitting on his face?
I’m just a-wonderin’, is all.
If only we could stop our a-feudin’ and a-fightin’!
Or maybe that wide-eyed kid. The one you could never teach anything to, because everything was always new to him. Every time. You couldn’t tell him what to do, because he couldn’t integrate it. One firefight didn’t look like another. Oh, he WANTED to help, but he never saw any patterns. You’d get pinned down, guns and rockets raking your column. He’d look over at you with this happy puppy look on his face. He SO wanted to be like everybody else. Incoming rounds, move, set up, get the wounded back, fix the enemy positions, call in supporting fires. It was really simple, and always the same.
But if the trail was uphill instead of downhill, if it was paddys instead of forest, instead of triple canopy, he just couldn’t make the connection. So he stood still, waiting for someone to tell him what to do.
And that’s the sad thing about these wingnut asshats. They just can’t recognize the world around them. It doesn’t integrate. So they raise their heads and look for somebody, anybody to tell them what to do. And when the fax machine buzzes, they heave a deep sigh of reassurance and go forward, comfortable in the understanding of what is expected of them, and what they believe…
mikey
Sometimes a thorn is just a thorn. Rather than the faith-based first-aid, Paul should have used a bit of initiative and extracted it with a pair of tweezers.
Really. Can you imagine trying to drag Paul around on an eight day op?
Gawd help us all if he was a medic…
mikey
is it me or this Huston guy a chunk a chunk of burnin’ love? dude must get laid every hour on the hour.
Gawd help us all if he was a medic…
Here ya go. The 14th Legion soon regretted their decision to accept the offer of medical assistance from Saul of Tarsus.
There’s a major difference between that kid and your average wingnut. A wide-eyed kid has a sweetness to him. Wingnuts are know nothing know-it-alls who, like nate the neoconservative, wreak havoc and destruction with the utmost self-assuredness. When it’s all over, they step over and away from the mess patting themselves on the back.
There’s nothing remotely sweet about them.
I think the wingnuts might be right about Obama’s parents being Communists. According to Vanity Fair, Obama’s father and mother met in a Russian-language class at the U. of Hawaii in 1960. The only reason I can think of for learning Russian in 1960 was so you could communicate better with your handlers.
The only reason I can think of for learning Russian in 1960
Yes, nothing of interest to anybody prior to 1960 ever happened in Russian.
Huston doesn’t have the stare.
Kevin Major Howard: The stare?
You know, the thousand-yard stare. Like when you really seen beyond.
Matthew Modine: Don’t listen to any of Payback’s bullshit, Rafterman. Sometimes he thinks he’s John Wayne.
If you’re nervous, count your toes. I’ll do the mastermindin’ around here.
Also, it’d kind of defeat the purpose of being handled by Soviets if you married each other. Both of you get captured by the CIA and get cracked because of fears of what they’ll do to the other one? You think the KGB was stupid?
If I were a communist spy in the 1960s, I’d marry a nice right-wing harridan pump out a bunch of flag-waving silent majority kids who all went and died in a stupid war to keep Vietnam French, and then blame the left-wing psychopaths at home for stabbing America in the back. Perhaps even work long and hard to quash civil rights movements or women’s lib.
I wouldn’t even put it past me to get into American politics and play Communist witch-hunts just too keep everybody on their fucking toes.
Not that I’m suggesting anything about the fine 1960s right-wing blowhards. I’m sure all of them were fine patriots. To somewhere.
I suggest you might be a tse tse fly.
Certainly puts me to sleep. Hey-ow!
o/t, but if you need a good laugh this afternoon, here is pantload and Hugh ‘kill all the sand niggas’ Hewitt discussing LF. They just dont write comedy like this anymore…
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=8076ffd8-c377-49fd-ac07-31ad2ba6b942
“fardels bear said,
February 25, 2008 at 5:57
There are about 615,000 college professors in the United States employed full-time. Add in the adjucts and part timers and you have a little over a 1,000,000.
On his best day, Horowitz came up with 100. Check my math, but I’m thinking that is 0.0001%. ”
Actually, it is 0.001%, but it is in within the parameters of “not significant fraction”, so your claim holds water despite your minor calculation error, atleast for this part.
Hey, if all the great minds here at S,N! will work with me on this idea, I think we can put together one of those e-mails of the type that my Republican relatives so enjoy sending around.
Can you guys add to my list?
*******************************
George Washington: threw a silver dollar across the Potomac River.
George W. Bush: threw a trillion dollars across the Tigris. Then another trillion across the Euprates.
****************
George Washington: admitted chopping down the cherry tree because he could not tell a lie.
George W. Bush: wouldn’t admit cherry-picking intelligence accusing Iraq of having WMD’s. Accused of lying, Little Georgie admitted to “sixteen words”.
***************
George Washington: “First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen.”
George W. Bush: “First in the Texas Air National Guard, first to disturb the peace, first to achieve nineteen percent popularity rating in the hearts of his countrymen.”
***************
George Washington: personally led his troops in a boat across the Delaware in midnight attack on mercenary soldiers.
George W. Bush: personally wore a flight suit on a boat for photo-op beneath “Mission Accomplished” banner. Personally sends mercenary soldiers to fight country’s wars.
*************
George Washington: “the president on the dollar”.
George W. Bush: “the president who sank the dollar”.
*************
Occasionally the Horowitz types will give an off-the-cuff estimate of how many impermissibly and ideologically wrong professors they are, as a “1 out of” or percentage estimate.
And then, after having suggested that a tiny fraction of the academy have views with which they disapprove, this is then argued to be horribly too many.
Simultaneously, they will scream how committed they are to academic freedom, Western values of enlightened humanism, and Greek tradition of reasoned philosophy.
Unless, of course, there exists some tiny fraction out there which disagrees with them, in which case it’s whiny time.
George Washington: Unanimously Elected
George W. Bush: UN-elected.
The fact is, you liberals are just hmpf. You can’t see reality. You don’t know what logic and facts and reasonsed discourse is. You don’t have anything but bias for the enemy and against America. You hate yourselves and therefore hat our freedom and the free market. What is wrong with you?
“The only reason I can think of for learning Russian in 1960”
As opposed to learning it in the 70’s, like CONDOLEEZA RICE (cue tbogg’s hamster).
*************
George Washington: “led the country to Independence from Britain”.
George W. Bush: “the president who shredded the Constitution”.
*************
The fact is, the Hollywierd hate USA left voted for Tax To The Dark Side as best documentary, even though the theme is anti-USA biased and full of lies.
Liberals. Mfft!
Dagoril said,
“Huston, the muskrat has landed.”
George Washington: warned against entangling alliances with Europe
George Bush: destroyed the trans-Atlantic alliance.
I’ve been scrolling back through days-old posts looking for a link someone posted somewhere that was about humorous child-rearing cards. It was in Spanish. Showed “right” and “wrong” ways to feed a baby, etc. Anyone remember that? Seems like Lesley or g or someone posted it. Anyway, I shoulda bookmarked it cuz I want to send to my daughter who’s in early childhood ed. Anybody remember? Anybody? Pleeze hep ma!
Hm. Comment eaten for containing a link? Anyway, MzNicky, Lesley posted them. They can be found here:
http://www.makememinimal.com/2008/instrucciones-para-cuidar-un-bebe/
George Washington: Used his first veto, against the Apportionment Bill of 1792, to uphold the Constitution.
George W. Bush: Used his first veto to block research on lifesaving technology.
You … hat our freedom and the free market.
But they look so sweet in their little hats, can you blame us?
You … hat our freedom and the free market.
But they look so sweet in their little hats, can you blame us?
Know what I hat? Badgers.
*winks conspiratorially*
Yesterday my badger Fancy was killed. She was adorable and naked.
O Smiling Mortician! That’s it. Le offspring will get a mighty chortle out of it. Thanx!
George Washington: Punished the American troops who tortured prisoners of war.
George W. Bush: Rewarded the American officials who came up with new ways to torture.
Paying taxes is same as having your legs cut off.
Yesterday my badger Fancy was killed. She was adorable and naked.
Fancy Naked Badgers = excellent band name.
I imagine it’s because we’ve all been ‘co-opted’ by Bill Ayers?
Although we do know how to make subjects and verbs agree.
So Bill Ayers is the St. Paul of godless liberal humanism? I hope he gets the thorn out.
You don’t know what logic and facts and reasonsed discourse is.
Listen, troll-boy, I learned logic and discourse from an honest-to-god philosophy professor. He was so much of a philosophy professor that he could blow smoke rings that would sail along the top of a table and flop over the edge. He smoked a pipe, of course. I don’t even need to mention the beard and the tweed jacket with elbow patches.
To what greater authority could one appeal?
One day I asked him “O wise and learnéd professor of philosophy, what is logic and facts and reasoned discourse?” After correcting my grammar and harrumphing at my sycophancy, he told me. So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.
I looked at the picture again. Forget dentist, maybe the drug store waiting area.
Urologists office.