8.27.2006
Another Slate attack on Murray for no reason
Again, another article where a Slate writer with no credentials or books to his name attacks Charles Murray, a controversial libertarian thinker who at least has ideas. See it here if you're utterly bored and contemptuous of Slate - Charles Murray vs. Amazon. By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine.
Seriously, accusing Murray of being Chauvinistic because his list of the greatest Physicists is male-dominated and euro-centric? It's obvious to me and everyone not living under a paleo-conservative rock that women have been held down and repressed for most of civilization's history (excluding female-dominant civilizations, of which there are a few). So we have a syllogism:
Bemoan this fact you might, but you cannot change it by being politically correct. It's regrettable from an egalitarian ethical perspective, but most scientific advances were made by men, not women. Murray is not trying to hide this fact, and I doubt very much he has any anti-women crusade behind his work. Consider that he spends a good portion of "In our Hands" (his plan to replace the Welfare state) talking about how empowering it would be for women over truculent/bad husbands. Damn straight!
Slate: A note to your dimwitted authors. Read a man's complete work and understand it before judging him as a bad left-liberal, and therefore inferior. Idiots.
Seriously, accusing Murray of being Chauvinistic because his list of the greatest Physicists is male-dominated and euro-centric? It's obvious to me and everyone not living under a paleo-conservative rock that women have been held down and repressed for most of civilization's history (excluding female-dominant civilizations, of which there are a few). So we have a syllogism:
- Males have dominated power in civilizations that have made great scientific and technological advances and only within the past few decades has this started to change towards anything resembling equality. Duh-fucking-uh.
- There have been vast changes in science and technology since Plato.
- Conclusion: Maybe most of the advances in science were made by men!
Bemoan this fact you might, but you cannot change it by being politically correct. It's regrettable from an egalitarian ethical perspective, but most scientific advances were made by men, not women. Murray is not trying to hide this fact, and I doubt very much he has any anti-women crusade behind his work. Consider that he spends a good portion of "In our Hands" (his plan to replace the Welfare state) talking about how empowering it would be for women over truculent/bad husbands. Damn straight!
Slate: A note to your dimwitted authors. Read a man's complete work and understand it before judging him as a bad left-liberal, and therefore inferior. Idiots.
A review of a review of a review of a review
One of the hallmarks of academic liberalism is vigorous defense of any "intellectual" (read: left-liberal professor at prominent university such as Harvard) who calls a non-left-wing intellectual a racist. This takes various forms, and I wasn't around for the original "Bell Curve" debate of the early 1990s, but last year Slate publishes a terrible piece of tripe masquerading as genuine journalism, criticizing Charles Murray and Andrew Sullivan (two bete-noires of the left-liberal media/intelligentsia for years now).
The article - The Bell Curve revisited. By Stephen Metcalf - Slate Magazine - is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack on Murray, with sprouts of an assault on Sullivan for portraying himself as the intellectual minority in modern America. Sullivan plainly is in the minority - he is a gay punidt of the stripe of an conservative-libertarian admixture, and the people who agree with him can be counted on a stick. That is not likely to be the result of clever positioning on his part, as Stephen Metcalf alleges, since I've repeatedly watched Sullivan give the wrong, non-headline grabbing response to current events, when he could have gone for gold. But Metcalf snarkily implies Sullivan is simply that - a headline-grabber and not intellectually honest. Typical liberal-left punditry, I'm sorry to say.
I'm not necessarily a Sullivan fan, and I disagree with him on a number of things, maybe everything, who knows? I also like reading Slate, and tend to agree with moderate left-liberals more than moderate right-conservatives (whatever the latter means). I don't think I'm biased in saying that Metcalf's lack of intelligent criticism plus chutzpah makes his commentary almost worthless. But it gets worse when Metcalf starts attacking Murray as a racist, and "innocently" starts citing left-liberal academics to buttress his implications that Murray fudged data to present the black American as inherently inferior. His sheepish, shit-eating-grin (think of Tom Cruise) style "critique" of Murray is worth reading to see how easy it is for a liberal reader such as myself to just let myself be lulled into nodding along with a complete idiot. Murray isn't racist, and Metcalf cites zero proof that he is. But he implies it constantly, just barely dodging a good defamation lawsuit as only a snarky left-liberal pundit can. What a weak-ass performance. For shame, Slate.
The article - The Bell Curve revisited. By Stephen Metcalf - Slate Magazine - is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack on Murray, with sprouts of an assault on Sullivan for portraying himself as the intellectual minority in modern America. Sullivan plainly is in the minority - he is a gay punidt of the stripe of an conservative-libertarian admixture, and the people who agree with him can be counted on a stick. That is not likely to be the result of clever positioning on his part, as Stephen Metcalf alleges, since I've repeatedly watched Sullivan give the wrong, non-headline grabbing response to current events, when he could have gone for gold. But Metcalf snarkily implies Sullivan is simply that - a headline-grabber and not intellectually honest. Typical liberal-left punditry, I'm sorry to say.
I'm not necessarily a Sullivan fan, and I disagree with him on a number of things, maybe everything, who knows? I also like reading Slate, and tend to agree with moderate left-liberals more than moderate right-conservatives (whatever the latter means). I don't think I'm biased in saying that Metcalf's lack of intelligent criticism plus chutzpah makes his commentary almost worthless. But it gets worse when Metcalf starts attacking Murray as a racist, and "innocently" starts citing left-liberal academics to buttress his implications that Murray fudged data to present the black American as inherently inferior. His sheepish, shit-eating-grin (think of Tom Cruise) style "critique" of Murray is worth reading to see how easy it is for a liberal reader such as myself to just let myself be lulled into nodding along with a complete idiot. Murray isn't racist, and Metcalf cites zero proof that he is. But he implies it constantly, just barely dodging a good defamation lawsuit as only a snarky left-liberal pundit can. What a weak-ass performance. For shame, Slate.
8.21.2006
Google Maps + Google Video + Mashup - Claude Lelouch's Rendezvous
Google Maps + Google Video + Mashup - Claude Lelouch's Rendezvous: "Back to bhendrix.com
'On an August morning in 1978, French filmmaker Claude Lelouch mounted a gyro-stabilized camera to the bumper of a Ferrari 275 GTB and had a friend, a professional Formula 1 racer, drive at breakneck speed through the heart of Paris.
No streets were closed, for Lelouch was unable to obtain a permit.'"
'On an August morning in 1978, French filmmaker Claude Lelouch mounted a gyro-stabilized camera to the bumper of a Ferrari 275 GTB and had a friend, a professional Formula 1 racer, drive at breakneck speed through the heart of Paris.
No streets were closed, for Lelouch was unable to obtain a permit.'"
Mexican Fishermen lost at sea
Mexican Fishermen found after one year lost at sea, 5500 miles from home port!
This is crazy shit. I love it.
This is crazy shit. I love it.
