Derbyshire at National Review on Kitzmiller

| 46 Comments

The well-known liberal rag the National Review has a column from John Derbyshire on Kitzmiller plus one year. It’s worth a read:

Kitzmiller, One Year On. It was just a year ago this month, on December 20, 2005, that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III delivered his opinion in the case Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, a crushing blow to the Intelligent Design movement. The ID-ers have not forgiven Judge Jones, and have been smearing and vilifying him ever since. These people can’t do science, but they sure can do ad hominem. Federal marshals actually had to place the judge and his family under guard for a while, so threatening were some of the emails sent to his office by the ID fanatics.

This, by the way, was a judge whose appointment to the case had been greeted with rapture by the ID-ers since he was, as one of them put it: “a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks… appointed by GW hisself… Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies.” As it turned out, Judge Jones is a conservative in the right way, the best way: he respects the law, and the plain rules of evidence.

All the depositions and court transcripts in the case are now on the Internet [note: also here for much more], and very devastating they are to the ID cause. And as devastating as what is there is what is not there – the court testimony of leading ID-er William Dembski, for example. After much pre-trial bluster about how, in an open forum, he would shred the arguments of the “Darwinists,” when he was actually presented with a wonderful public opportunity to do exactly that in the Dover courtroom, Dembski declined to show up! The whole sordid story is told by expert witness Barbara Forrest in the Jan./Feb. 2007 issue of Skeptical Inquirer (not yet online… and I took that quote in the previous paragraph from Ms. Forrest’s article). [Note: Forrest’s article is actually online here]

I don’t see how anyone can read these transcripts, or Ms. Forrest’s account, without concluding that the whole ID business is riddled with dishonesty. Two of the [pro-ID] defendants in the case were actually discovered to have lied under oath when making their depositions, and were scolded by the judge for it. Lesser degrees of shiftiness, like Dembski’s as noted above, are all over the place. I daresay there are some honest and sincere people pushing the ID agenda; but taken as a whole, it is all a bit shabby and ignoble. Read those transcripts, or just Barbara Forrest’s article, and tell me I’m wrong.

None of that will make much difference to the ID-ers, of course. They will carry on merrily raising funds, organizing conferences, whizzing round the country on their junkets, preaching the True Word to receptive audiences, basking in the adoration of the faithful, collecting their book royalties, and disdaining to do anything as grubbily tedious as actual scientific research — behaving, in short, just as they have for the past several years. The Kitzmiller case does, though, at least advance the day when the rest of us will no longer need to pay any attention to the Intelligent Design buncombe and its shifty promoters.

46 Comments

The Derb, almost alone, shows there is some hope for a scientifically literate conservative intelligentsia.

He’s been fighting a pretty lonely fight, alas, agains the Coulters and Bethells.

I’ve debated Creationists on the web before who hate the ID crowd with a passion. Considering John still agrees with Coulter on Kwanzaa, I seriously doubt he is all that sane.

I admit I had no clue what Kwanzaa was all about, and I was most interested in Wikipedia has to say. It’s celebrated by an estimated 13% of African-Americans, and by (evidently) nobody else anywhere. It was dreamed up by someone 10 years ago, who just happened to be an ex-con convicted of torturing two black women. Let’s hear it for black unity!

It has nothing to do with anything celebrated in Africa, and no connection to any historical, cultural, or religious event. It seems to consist of a week of lighting candles, eating and (most of all) drinking a lot. Too bad it wasn’t tied in with watching bowl games on TV. At least then, it would have some cultural relevance!

I loved seeing the quote from DaveScot again; it also appeared in Pennock’s speech, and it was unattributed in both instances. I have to wonder whether DS was upset his “name” didn’t get mentioned in public, or whether he was relieved his handle wasn’t attached to such an idiotic statement. Given DS’s desire to build a Howard Stern-type persona for himself and his inability to be embarrassed by his litany of mistakes, I’d have to guess the former. Either way of course he loses.

Derbyshire’s piece was a great synopsis of KvD plus a year.

The DaveScot quote is a shining example of the self-absorbed lunacy that pervades the aviary of birdbrains called UD.

Derbyshire was the sixth person to sign the mission statement of Conservatives Against Intelligent Design(CAID, http://www.caidweb.org/blog/) and made the comment: “nice to have company.”

Other conservatives who have spoken out or written against ID include George Will and Krauthammer. Hard to believe, but even Rush Limbaugh has done so. Hopefully, other conservatives and libertarians will sign on to the CAID statement.

About Kwanzaa:

It seems to me that holidays are just days that a significant number of people chose to celebrate. If a large enough group of people choose to celebrate Kwanzaa then why not give them that? Does it really matter who suggested the holiday (even if he is an ex-con)? After all, was Jesus really born on Dec. 25? We certainly do not celebrate the same holidays we did 50 years ago.

And no, I do not celebrate this holiday myself.

IDers and other creationists operate on the assumption (unfortunately, usually correct) that their followers won’t bother to look at scientific articles, court documents or other long and difficult documents to discover the truth.

Nick, you’re right. Anyone who reads the Kitzmiller v. Dover transcripts cannot fail to come to the conclusion that the incompetence and arrogance of the Thomas More Law Center, the cowardice of ID witnesses, and the asinine and perjurious behavior of the defendants combined to create a perfect storm for Judge Jones’s decision.

No judge with any scruples could have decided otherwise. The wailing and gnashing of teeth on the ID side is the howling of an injured dog. They have nothing to say about science, and their entire approach is creationism disguised in a “cheap tuxedo,” in Leonard Krishtalka’s memorable term.

Bah. Humbug.

DeWolf says Jones’s ruling was “based upon evidence and characterizations of intelligent design that have been sharply contested by leading proponents of intelligent design.”

No mention of whether the characterizations are actually accurate, they’ve just been contested. Sheesh.

One could make a year’s supply of vinegar from their sour grapes.

Having read all of Derbyshire’s column, not just the ID part, I do have doubts about the integrity of Derbyshire’s overall intellectual weave, not to mention his goodwill. The sight of schoolchildren singing bogus Kwanzaa carols seems to drive Derbyshire slightly mad with hate. The expression “Happy Holidays,” too. But, as Mojo Nixon has pointed out in his usual colorful language, the history behind Christmas and Hanukha is no more pseudo than that behind Kwanzaa. (The chances that Jesus was actually born on Dec. 25th are about 1 in 365.) People make up their minds to have a celebration: it’s not based on hardcore, verifiable history; so what? Anyway, the provenance of Kwanzaa or any other holiday is irrelevant. The idea that humble or grotesque origins somehow discredit a practice or belief embodies no defensible logic.

The ID-relevant moral: beware of cranks bearing gifts. Derbyshire has a wild hair up his nose against ID, but he also denies that global warming is significantly anthropogenic (http://article.nationalreview.com/?[…]ODZhOGM5YjU=) and is eager to make straight the way of Bell Curve-esque conclusions about race, inequity, and the futility of egalitarian social programs by citing papers in Science that do not support such conclusions: “… if different human groups, of different common ancestry, have different frequencies of genes influencing things like, for goodness’ sake, brain development, then our cherished national dream of a well-mixed and harmonious meritocracy with all groups equally represented in all niches, at all levels, may be unattainable” (http://www.olimu.com/Journalism/Tex[…]fference.htm ). All, of course, in the name of not giving in to wishful thinking—just the facts, ma’am, just the facts! Scientific justification for capitalistic inequity? Would that scratch any itch for John Derbyshire? Perish forbid!

Derbyshire opposing ID is, I think, just the stopped-clock effect: even a professional reactionary curmudgeon is bound to despise the right thing once in a while. But it doesn’t mean much. In my opinion, Derbyshire finds evolution amiable because he believes that it puts his heart’s desire for trog/paleo/retro Social Darwinism on a scientific footing.

Regards,

Larry

Aaaaaah, Larry G?

I would suggest that your implicit assumption that everyone on this side of the ToE/ID fence shares your (politically motivated) contempt for The Bell Curve and the school of thought which holds that racial groups have identifiable heritable characteristics is unwarranted.

I find myself to be insufficiently egocentric to believe for an instant that I am the only adherent of the scientific method who finds the opposition to TBC and the research of Jensen, et al. to be as ideologically driven and anti-scientific - and bogus - as ID.

So sorry, but I would seem to have dashed off that last without including what I felt to be a pertinent quote:

The position of environmentalists that over the course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world evolved into ten different races with pronounced genetic differences in morphology, blood groups, and the incidence of genetic diseases, and yet have identical genotypes for intelligence, is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race. Or both.”

- from Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis

Any apparent similarity to the scientific community’s collective take on ID is in no wise coïncidental.

The position of racists that over the course of some 100,000 years some peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world somehow found an environment that did not reward intelligence with greater longevity for them and their children is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to declare the importance of race. Or both.

In a vain attempt at clever repartee, you have somehow managed to thoroughly obscure any informational content you may have been seeking to convey. (Or, in the immortal words of Paul Rodriguez, “Could you be a little more vague?”)

The PC mob is known far and wide to be inordinately fond of the sort of Logic-Free Reasoning®™ that your post exemplifies, leading me to suspect that you may in fact be a member of said mob. The sly/snide introduction of the highly loaded term of opprobrium ‘racist’ is, to me at least, a reliable indication that the author’s reasoning has been suspended in favor of emotion, that scientific enquiry has become subordinated to political dogma. Kinda ironic, innit? I mean, for someone who carps about IDers when they do that thing…

Or am I wrong?

Have you quibbles about someone’s research? If so, could you be so kind as to elucidate, with some semblance of objectivity? Or is it to be a name-calling festival?

Ms. or Mr. LaurenTheFish,

You write,

I would suggest that your implicit assumption that everyone on this side of the ToE/ID fence shares your (politically motivated) contempt for The Bell Curve and the school of thought which holds that racial groups have identifiable heritable characteristics is unwarranted.

Here you attribute to me the assumption that everyone who is on “this side of the ToE/ID fence” shares my contempt for The Bell Curve. Since my post was largely devoted to pointing out that Derbyshire, although on “this side of the ToE/ID fence,” does hold “Bell Curve-esque” views, you are scolding me for saying the exact opposite of what I said. Your hatred for “the PC mob” has apparently got the better of your ability to construe English.

Speaking of Logic-Free Reasoning, attributing to me contempt for the view that “racial groups have identifiable heritable characteristics” goes beyond your evidence. I said no such thing. Everyone has “identifiable heritable characteristics.” If there are such things as “races,” they have them by definition (how else would one distinguish one “race” from another?). But I have great contempt, I admit, for nonscientific leaping from (1) the idea that “races” exist, distinguished by “identifiable heritable characteristics,” to (2) the assertion that a thing called “intelligence” exists and varies significantly, heritably, and nonremediably between racial groups, to (3) the belief (allegedly apolitical and reluctant) that the inequities of our present social order are caused by said heritable, race-linked, fixed “intelligence.” The last jump in that chain is so totally not-science, not-even-close-to-be-science, it ain’t funny.

You go on to quote a work called Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, which we are apparently to take as being free from the taint of political motivation. It’s curious, then, that Richard Lynn, the author, is a grantee of the Pioneer Fund, an organization founded in 1937 by a group of eugenicists and unabashed racists (e.g., Harry Laughlin, an advocate of compulsory sterilization who got an honorary doctorate from the Nazis in 1936 for his contributions to “the science of racial cleansing”). More currently, the Southern Poverty Law Center lists the Pioneer Fund as a hate group. Politics, sure, but politics running every which way, not attaching its sneaky little wires solely to the “PC mob” that so inflames your ire.

The claims that “intelligence” is a unitary characteristic and that “race” is a meaningful category, both (apparently) pushed by Richard Lynn, are far from universal or consensus views among scientists: see, for example, the position statements of the American Anthropological Association on “race” and “intelligence” (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm and links therefrom). And the relevance of “intelligence” and “race” to contemporary patterns of social inequity would be open to question even if those things were proved real.

Referring to a “genotype for intelligence,” as Lynn does, is also open to question, right down to the ground. There is no proof, that I know of, that such a thing exists. Data-free a priori arguments about how selection must have acted or be acting are notoriously dubious.

Sincerely,

Larry

Larry G;

In contemplating the most appropriate sort of response, I feel I should first suggest, as a gesture of goodwill toward the forum, that many regulars would justly regard continuation in this thread as a hijack.

Perhaps we could take it elsewhere, presuming, of course, that you are amenable…

The trouble with Lauren and other bell curve proponents is that they fail to see that they are at the wrong end of it. Perhaps you’d be wise to read some scientific literature on the subject rather than depending on pamphlets produced by barmy racists.

Anyway - I live in the UK -here’s to another 100,000 years of geographical isolation!

I always appreciate it when a leftist reminds me why I’m a conservative. Thank you, Larry G!

Damn those liberals at the National Review!

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 62, byte 62 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

The trouble with Lauren and other bell curve proponents is that they fail to see that they are at the wrong end of it. Perhaps you’d be wise to read some scientific literature on the subject rather than depending on pamphlets produced by barmy racists.

And an ideologue appears, opening with that old reliable standby, ad hominem. As I thought, an insult-fest is the order of the day.

No surprise here.

Also a standard feature is advice to read the scientific literature that they themselves can’t be bothered to examine themselves - since, exactly like IDers, they simply know that their viewpoint - whether sourced in religious or political belief - is the obviously correct one!

As predictable as the tides!

[creationist filter] Oh yeah, LaurenTheFish? Well if race determines intelligence, then why are there still stupid white people? [/creationsit filter]

Actually, I don’t really have a point for this post, and I certainly don’t have the time or knowledge to get involved in this discussion. I just thought the above caricature was funny.…

I always appreciate it when a leftist reminds me why I’m a conservative.

Larry turns you off to liberalism, but Ann Coulter doesn’t turn you off to conservatism. Makes sense to me.

Polarization always amuses me.

Coulter may be an amoral clown, but that in no way prevents her from occasionally (very occasionally) uttering a truth or two.

Substitute the name Al Sharpton for Coulter and the preceding statement loses not an iota of truth.

Neither side has a monopoly on either truth OR untruth. What each has is a mixture of fact and fallacy. As self-evident as that is (or should be), I am sore amazed at the number of individuals who make not the first attempt to winnow the wheat from the chaff of what’s flogged by the polar extremists, and instead blindly follow the party line on most-to-all of the issues.

Black-and-white thinking: it’s not just for prepubescent children any more!

I’d guess that NR might finally stick by honest science and honest judges. While it is said that the NR staff has no IDists or creationists on it, they have for too long waved with the wind of a strong but insubstantial conservative IDist breeze. Whose side are they on (vis-a-vis the right)? The winning side, of course, or at least they’ll suck up to the possible winners.

I’m hoping that Derbyshire’s their guy now that Kitzmiller has embarrassed and weakened the ID forces. These guys at NR are hardly science whizzes (back when I still read NR some, I remember Buckley arguing in favor of nuclear power because the same reactions occur in the sun), but even they’re going to see through the flim-flam of Behe and Dembski eventually. And their major donors aren’t likely to be keen on being seen with the likes of the IDists at this late stage of the game. If they were winning, well, why worry about IDists and their little scams? When they’re losing, IDists are just moronic losers with whom they’re not going to associate, at least not happily.

This is, I think, why we do this. We’re never going to convince IDists and creationists, of course (maybe a few young bright ones, but that’s about it). We can, however, demonstrate what embarrassing know-nothings they are, so that once again those having the power won’t sully their reputations by entertaining their pseudoscience.

Even Phil Johnson seems awfully quiet any more. I wonder what it’s like to be a respected legal mind (I’ve had a textbooks dealing with criminal law which quoted him authoritatively) who has formulated the concept that a conservative judge found to be a dishonest repackaging of theocratic buggery. Johnson would have died as a respectable, if fairly minor, figure on the legal scene, and now he’s going to be remembered primarily for a pseudoscientific assault on our government. Let others learn from his fate.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Neither side has a monopoly on either truth OR untruth. What each has is a mixture of fact and fallacy. As self-evident as that is (or should be), I am sore amazed at the number of individuals who make not the first attempt to winnow the wheat from the chaff of what’s flogged by the polar extremists,

When one says intelligent, correct things as incredibly rarely as Coulter does, it’s not really worth the investment of time to look for some nugget on the off chance it should drift by.

Better to look for wisdom from someone’s who’s, you know, not insane.

In retrospect, I seem to have celebrated Kwanzaa without even knowing it. I burned plenty of candles and did a LOT of drinking, for an entire week. I feel refreshed and ready to return to the salt mines, perchance to achieve! I’m already planning to celebrate Kwanzaa next year.

Re: the Coulteroid

“When one says intelligent, correct things as incredibly rarely as Coulter does, it’s not really worth the investment of time to look for some nugget on the off chance it should drift by.”

I concur heartily. Somehow your observation there conjured up a mental image of scuba diving in a cesspool in search of a cubic zirconia.

“Better to look for wisdom from someone’s who’s, you know, not insane.”

Personally, I don’t feel she has sanity issues, but rather a ripe mélange of rank stupidity and opportunistic sociopathy.

I admit I had no clue what Kwanzaa was all about, and I was most interested in Wikipedia has to say. It’s celebrated by an estimated 13% of African-Americans, and by (evidently) nobody else anywhere.

So?

It was dreamed up by someone 10 years ago

So?

who just happened to be an ex-con convicted of torturing two black women

Uh, so? What exactly can we conclude from the fact that Nelson Mandela served 27 years in prison?

Let’s hear it for black unity!

Just what does “black unity” mean to you? That they all look alike, think alike, celebrate the same things?

It has nothing to do with anything celebrated in Africa

So?

and no connection to any historical, cultural, or religious event.

So?

It seems to consist of a week of lighting candles, eating and (most of all) drinking a lot. Too bad it wasn’t tied in with watching bowl games on TV. At least then, it would have some cultural relevance!

Gee, I guess you found out what Kwanzaa is all about – or not. But do you know yet what John Derbyshire and Ann Coulter agree on about it?

It seems that Flint cribbed his post from the “Criticisms” section of the Wikipedia article:

Kwanzaa has been criticized because it is not a traditional holiday of African people, and because of its recent provenance, having been invented in 1966. The origins of Kwanzaa, however, are not secret, and are openly acknowledged by those promoting the holiday.[20] It was never advanced as an indigenous, African celebration.

Other criticisms center on Karenga’s criminal record, including having been convicted and jailed on charges of felonious assault and false imprisonment for the torture of two women. The women were themselves African-American, which some critics, among them Les Kinsolving, feel detract from Karenga’s claim that he created Kwanzaa to celebrate and strengthen the unity of black people.[21][22]

In 1999, syndicated columnist (and later White House Press Secretary) Tony Snow wrote that “There is no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent.”[23] and other conservative writers have remarked on the Marxist leanings of Karenga[24] and some of the seven principles of Kwanzaa, questioning whether Kwanzaa should be taught in American schools.[25]

Some Christians see Kwanzaa as an organized attempt to detract from Christmas.[26]

who just happened to be an ex-con convicted of torturing two black women

He also just happened to later earn two PhDs, and became chair of the Department of Black Studies at California State University, Long Beach. All of this, including his conviction and the crime he was convicted of, occurred after his founding of Kwanzaa – not that it’s at all clear to me how it would matter.

Coulter may be an amoral clown, but that in no way prevents her from occasionally (very occasionally) uttering a truth or two.

Substitute the name Al Sharpton for Coulter and the preceding statement loses not an iota of truth.

Only because the first statement doesn’t assert anything. Coulter is particularly immoral, and is not treated as a clown by the media. Sharpton is not particularly immoral, but has been treated as a clown by a frankly racist media. Sharpton has made errors, but has stated far more truths and far fewer untruths than Coulter.

I always appreciate it when a leftist reminds me why I’m a conservative. Thank you, Larry G!

Considering the rationality of Larry G.’s posts, it seems it’s the usual reason; to borrow from Lewis Carroll, your rudder is mixed up with your bowsprit.

Popper’s Ghost:

In answer to your repeated question (So?), let me repeat what I wrote, that you quoted, that apparent you didn’t bother to read. But hey, given a second chance (or is it a third), you might yet:

I admit I had no clue what Kwanzaa was all about, and I was most interested in Wikipedia has to say

Now, if you squinch your eyes and try real real hard, you MIGHT grasp that what’s going on here is, I didn’t know anything about the occasion, so I looked it up to see what it was.

I provided a link to Wikipedia so anyone who wanted to, could read the same information I did. You cleverly followed that link, extracted some material from Wikipedia, and regurgitated it here. Very good! I guess when YOU do it, it becomes relevant, but when someone else does it, you just can’t imagine any reason they might have done so. How very convenient for you.

Unfortunately, in your haste to find what you have ‘contributed’, irrelevant when done by someone else, you have found nothing particularly new or interesting to offer. The link I provided is still there and most people here know how to follow them.

If you have new information about Kwanzee in addition to what Wikipedia has to offer, by all means set it forth so that others can read it, learn perhaps something new, and respond by saying ‘So?’ so that you can know they don’t care what you have to say either.

let me repeat what I wrote, that you quoted, that apparent you didn’t bother to read.

Apparently your judgment is rather poor, because I read it just fine – as follows from my quoting of it. Your non sequitur doesn’t answer my questions. Why did you find the selected facts relevant and the non-selected facts not relevant? I think there’s an obvious reason.

you just can’t imagine any reason they might have done so

Oh, I imagine it just fine. Are you really so stupid as to think that “so?” means that I have no idea why you wrote what you did?

I’ll spell it out:

1) You’re apparently a racist. 2) You claimed to investigate what kwanzaa “was all about”, but your characterization was bit like stating the Christmas is all about wrapping presents. 3) You still don’t appear to know what John Derbyshire and Ann Coulter agree on about it.

Popper’s Ghost - I am game to discuss any valid criticisms people may have with the science. I will not , however, be lured into an absurd political flame war. This isn’t even the place for politics.

I thought I would make a (minor) point regarding the hypocrisy of people who can somehow identify ideologically-driven pseudoscience from “them” yet are utterly oblivious to their own identical hypocrisy. PCers differ not a whit from IDers in thumbing their collective nose at science that fails to validate their respective predetermined conclusions. PC simply substitutes political dogma for ID’s religious dogma, but they’re the same in their disdain for the unwashed who fail to recognize the obvious truth that they alone are bright enough to percieve.

The word ‘racist’ would appear to be a favorite of yours. Many years of experience have demonstrated to my satisfaction that people who bandy that term about as you do are invariably self-righteous politically correct ideologues. Every time, without exception. YMMD.

And again this is not the place for political back-n-forth. If you think you can improve on Gould’s specious hatchet job on intelligence/behavior heritability research, The Mismeasure of Man, by all means be my guest. Maybe you can succeed where all others have failed. I’m not betting the farm on it, m’sel.

Coulter is particularly immoral, and is not treated as a clown by the media. Sharpton is not particularly immoral, but has been treated as a clown by a frankly racist media. Sharpton has made errors, but has stated far more truths and far fewer untruths than Coulter.

Immorality is no more than violating moral standards; Amorality is pathological obliviousness to morals. I stand by my choice of terms.

Sharpton is a proven liar, a loudmouth phony, a race-baiting demagogue. He has parlayed “professional victimhood” into a lucrative career of pandering to black racists by blaming all black failings on the evil white man. “Frankly racist media.” Ya. I doubt you’ve been in a newsroom lately, if ever. The modern newsroom, due to affirmative action and corporate-mandated “diversity” is a shining example of modern multiracial, multinational, multigender, multicultural integration, as is the justice system that your cohorts also label “racist.” Black, Hispanic, female, Asian, GLBT, disabled reporters, editors, photographers & columnists, everywhere the eye can see, yet to hear you tell it, the NYT, CNN, the Post, the WSJ, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, are staffed by Nazis and Klanners. Exactly like all the multiracial, multicultural police officers, judges and juries who investigate, arrest, convict and incarcerate a highly disproportionate number of blacks, not because blacks commit disproportionately more crime (as the most cursory glance at the [diverse, multiracial] FBI’s stats will attest), but because they’re all lackeys of the White Racist Conspiracy. Ya. And The Decider & Uncle Dick plotted the destruction of the WTC, too. Ya.

In his rôle as enabler for those who rationalize and promote the violent, socially destructive so-called “culture” of the black underclass, Sharpton is one of American blacks’ worst enemies.

But you’re right, insofar as Coulter and Sharpton are indeed different: she’s a gleefully malicious sociopath but he’s nothing more than a slick self-serving bullshit artist.

Probably small of me, but of PG’s current set of, um, uh, debate opponents, if I get to choose only one–a false set of constraints, I realize, and nobody gave me a vote, other than this virtual one, I also realize–then I’d be fine with him passing on Flint-kwanzaa and RB-Dawkins, and focusing on the Fish (races, whatever they are, vary on intelligence, whatever that is) person.

I suspect that the Kwanzaa thing is a misunderstanding. The RB thing is a re-run, an oldie, maybe even a goldie, but not brand-new.

But LTF–nothing personal, but I just have a hunch that the Fish holds out the most in the way of potential entertainment/enlightenment…

Eh, not that we’re just here for entertainment, but there’s no reason not to go for the full-value package.

I second Steviepinhead’s vote!

And the motion carries.

Oh, all right.

It would appear that PG has discovered urgent matters elsewhere which simply must be attended to…

..or perhaps not.

Don’t worry LTF, he’ll be back.

I’m a fool. That’ll teach me to speak for another.

Well, and again, it wasn’t really my place to attempt to “arrange” a debate on a not-directly-related topic, having no idea of the temperament of the contestants, etc., etc.

So, whether PG appears or not means little, as he never agreed to do so.

Coulter may be an amoral clown, but that in no way prevents her from occasionally (very occasionally) uttering a truth or two.

hmm, must have missed that.

perhaps you could clarify for us which of the very occassional times she was correct about anything?

I sure didn’t see anything accurate in her latest book, though admittedly, I could only stomach reading small portions of it, so I certainly could have missed something.

Of course, as the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I can imagine that as she speaks, every once in a while by random chance something accurate might spew out.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on December 31, 2006 1:20 PM.

Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position was the previous entry in this blog.

“How Old Is It?” is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter