Friday, December 7, 2012

"Where Are We?" "Oslo!" "Good, You're Getting Closer!"

I've got a scary/tragic deal going on over here (caring for my elderly - and now totally disoriented - friend/roommate/landlord) so, if my output seems light or "off" for some reason, that's why - sorry:

While discussing homeopathy, The Telegraph's Tom Chivers has some nice words for The Huffington Post, and our political parties, about their left/right but still collective hoo-doo fetish:

"The Huffington Post would be among the first crowing Left-liberal media outlets to leap on a Republican politician, say, who said that the world was 6,000 years old or that Darwin was wrong; they run, for instance, pieces by Chris Mooney explaining why the GOP denies science. And so they should, and so would I. But you don't get to pick and choose which bits of science you like, and you certainly don't get to claim that the Right are all crazy mad science-fearing God-bothering lunatics, while simultaneously claiming that some magic medicine that doesn't work works because of quantum."

Quite correct - it's exactly why I didn't vote for Romney - but I wonder if Tom Chivers knows who Arianna Huffington is, because he sounds pissed. If he did know, he wouldn't be surprised:

She's a bag of mixed nuts, and - "on a spiritual level" - housing them in a warehouse for wackos.

I know - few care - but that's just the way it is:

"Let's stipulate an ugly truth - sometimes, people are bad."-- Kennedy


  1. Isn't all liberalism contingent?- the sacred sexuality of Anita Hill, the lying whore Sarah Palin. The 1960s "ice age"; the 1990s global warming. Astrology and the occult as imaginative center of the counterculture, the Secret based on spirits speaking through a woman who preaches a prosperity theology. Creationism and the "wealthy" evil. The friend is always the attack on the enemy.

  2. Oreo cookies are of da debil!

    All right, they are highly delicious (to me at least) and thus very, very maybe just a little diabolic to one's waistline.
    Nutter Butters are worse though (so if they aren't depicted in that Mayan calendar I claim "bogus").


  3. You know I'm on your side in general on this, but to pick a nit: You do get to choose the science that you accept -- you do it yourself. There is an avalanche of data supporting evidence of an anthropocene era (if not an epoch), specifically in the category of disrupted climate.

    Yet ....

    Hope all is well

  4. Uriel Mastema,

    There's a difference between trusting in science and trusting in scientists. Sure, "there is an avalanche of data supporting evidence of an anthropocene era (if not an epoch), specifically in the category of disrupted climate," but there is also damning counter-evidence that we know does not, and has not, been allowed into the record by the global warming gatekeepers - many of whose leading lights have revealed themselves to be unethical.

    There's also the little problem within our shared field of fascination - "spirituality":

    This whole global population/energy/global warming/save the planet drivel appears to be the result of another 60's acid fever dream that - like the flawed benefits and history of recycling - hippies (yes, scientists can be hippies) have made manifest to feel good at any cost.

    In light of this, I think I'm being more-than consistent.

    Nice to hear from you, BTW,...