Carpe Datum

Nutball Update

Here's How Bush-Supporters React
to a Liberal Excercising His Constitutional Rights

They say a leopard can't change his spots, and my favorite right-wing nutball is once again showing his true nature. I'm telling you, this guy epitomizes everything anti-American about right wing Bush-supporters these days, so I like to link to him occasionally as an alternative way of getting my main point across.

Want to criticize the Boy King, like Michael Moore did in "Fahrenheit 9/11"? Let's publish Moore's home address in a fanatical newsletter (yes, really happened), and hey, if something should happen to him or his family ... well, them's the breaks, eh? Life's tough, ain't it?

Want to criticize the nutball himself? Well, then, here come the death threats (followed closely by fake apologies and other embarrassing nonsense). It's so ironic that people like this will foam at the mouth at the thought of suppressing their second amendment rights (even more ironic that people who throw around death threats in a political discussion are among the *last* people you want armed in our society).

But then they're all perfectly A-OK with trying to suppress your first amendment rights to free speech and free expression when you disagree with them. If you want to get picky, oh yes, I banned him from commenting here (I do not suffer fools ... or trolls ... gladly), but that's not quite the same thing as him threatening my life and trying to shut down my blog. Know what I mean?

I've really had fun picking this guy apart in the past. It has been all the more fun because he vowed to "inundate me with facts and logic" or something like that, then he tucked his tail and ran while shouting the equivalent of "I'm gunna git you!" over his shoulder like a schoolyard bully whose bluff has been called. The poor fool never responded to a single argument I raised, which was, frankly, a real disappointment since when he does actually try to express his political philosophy (or, more generally, his prejudices, some of which are apparently racial), it's like watching a train wreck. I like to keep up with his blog because it is a good representative sampling of what the average nutball is focused on these days, and it looks like Air America and Al Franken is really getting under their skin.

Well, crap, dude. Welcome to my world, where Rush, Sean and the other conserva-Borg dominate talk radio. Nice to have an alternative voice on there, to be honest, but for a nutball, "fair and balanced" = "100% conservative". Anyway, they do anything they can to attack Franken (I talked about this a few weeks ago ... even their "Franken Watch" websites are riddled with the same kind of ridiculous, sophomoric errors as books by Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc).

One article goes after Franken for trying to prank John Ashcroft. Ironically, the source material for the attack article is Franken's own book (Franken has spent more time in Iraq than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld combined, by the way, and he describes his popular USO tour in his book, too). Franken *admits* his mistakes and even apologizes for them. I know, it's a crazy-sounding idea what with the current "Mission Accomplished" leadership and all, but there are people in the world who actually assume responsibility for their own actions. They're called grown-ups!

Some of the latest clap-trap on his blog was on sex education, and it reminded me of a resource I use in my class on a regular basis, a great book by Roland Pine called "Science and the Human Prospect" (you can read the whole thing online). If you read the typical conservative quote from Pine's article, it's pretty similar to the what conservatives say these days about sex education and abstinence education. The difference is how conservatives deal with things and how grown-ups deal with things:

Consider the following letter to the editor in a daily newspaper:

Just why is everyone pushing this sex education in schools? Why is it necessary? The worn-out reason is that a lot of parents do not talk about it at home, therefore it must be taught in school. Yet, since this trend started, VD and pregnancy among teenagers and even preteens has sharply gone up. Why then? I thought sex education was supposed to reduce it, not increase it. The answer is that it is a "how-to-do-it" course, nothing else. That is why the dirty books are being pushed in schools now to go with it. Sex education is bunk.

Suppose the observation is accurate. There has been a significant rise in venereal disease and pregnancies among teenagers simultaneous with the introduction of sex education courses in public schools. Even so, what for this person is proof that there is a causal connection between sex education in schools and a recent rise in venereal disease and teenage pregnancy is only an observation of a possible correlation from a scientific point of view.

It is important to note that what for most people is the conclusion of an investigation is only the beginning of an investigation for science. Many other factors could cause the rise of teenage VD and pregnancies. A rise in the population of teenagers is possible, causing everything that teenagers do to go up: automobile accidents, the purchasing of particular types of clothing, music CDs and tapes, and acne lotion for example. Few would claim that teaching sex education in schools has been the cause of increased purchases of acne lotion.

There also could be an increase in the population of particular types of teenagers, those in an area of the country where sex education is not taught or where early sexual experimentation is encouraged by various social or family pressures. Correlation does not prove causation. A correlation between sex education and teen sex problems does not prove a causal connection, and by itself, it does not give us a clear indication in which direction there may be a connection. Knowing only the basic correlation, it is possible that an increase in teen sex problems caused an increase in sexual education classes!

Just for fun, I should note that Pine's book is now over 10 years old, but if you read that "typical conservative" letter above, it sounds almost exactly like the columns that are published today. It's like a broken record, with the same already discredited thoughts regurgitated year after year. I'm sure Pine's book will remain relevant for decades thanks to this kind of nonsense.

Pine goes on to elaborate further on this hypothetical study and how science works in practice. This is in Chapter 2 of his book, which is required reading for all of my students. Why? Well, because I teach a survey course in science, that's why. What point is it giving them a bunch of facts to memorize with no context? I try to teach them to think like scientists. That means to be intellectually honest, to look at both sides of an issue, to look for ways you could be wrong, to be open-minded. "What for most people is the conclusion of an investigation is only the beginning of an investigation for science." That kind of open-minded. You know, all the things that are the antithesis of the typical nutball Bush-supporter.

This is one reason I love my job. Not only do I get to teach, which is always a blast on any level, but I get to really introduce people to a way of thinking. In the best cases, I get to open their minds to make connections between science and the real world. Maybe they'll think twice when they're being lied to. Even in the worst cases, I can at least get them to admit that both sides usually have a point that needs to be heard. This means the bleeding hearts in my class are pretty disappointed when I bring up an issue like, say, global warming, because I look at it skeptically and talk about why both liberals and conservatives have good arguments to make that are hard to counter. I think that's the way a political debate should be: present the best possible construction of the philosophy of each side on the issues, do your best to educate voters honestly, and then let them choose.

Which leads me to my problem with many conservatives. It's not that I think they're stupid. Even though I poke fun a lot, I do not think Bush is truly stupid, and I'm sure there are as many stupid liberals as stupid conservatives, but you'll have to look elsewhere for a valid list of "stupid liberal myths" as I've got enough fish to fry. On the contrary, I think the conservatives who come up with opinions like this (on sex education, for example) and feed them to the average Moron American are quite intelligent. The conservatives, often in the mainstream media, know they are being dishonest. Take Steno Sue Schmidt, for example, at the Washington Post: her latest on Wilson was really embarrassingly bad, even for her. But to hell with the objective facts, they decide the manipulate the rubes anyway.

My favorite part is when they then accuse liberals of some kind of "elitism". Again and again, I ask thoughtful conservatives the following (and still no answer): If the case for conservative government in America is so strong, the case for deep upper class tax cuts, the case of war in Iraq, etc., then why must you be dishonest to make your case? As Feynman would say, if you want to be intellectually honest, you put the facts out there, explain them to the layperson in the most honest, objective way you can mange, and then let them decide how to vote.

When conservatives want to start being intellectually honest (and that includes an end to form letters from "soldiers in Iraq" showing up in comments), I'll stop saying things like "Boy King" or "nutballs". Until then, don't pretend you are interested in a real debate, you fucking cowards.

Posted by Observer at July 19, 2004 06:40 AM