Tuesday, January 29, 2008

I had a remarkable dialog

Say hello to Jason Williscroft of the Dead Hand Journal! I had a remarkable discussion with him on the comment section of his blog. I think his final comment pretty much gives you the flavor of it. As usual, the link text is also quoted text, linking back to his blog.

I'm going to assume that you mean "amusing" in that particular GOTCHA fashion we reserve for people who comment about books they haven't read, right?

Sure, why not. Of course, as long as we're being very clear about our premises, here's another one: your amusement must also be predicated on the oh-so-common liberal assumption that no thing could possibly be related to anything else... at least not if it sheds a negative light on a nutty liberal idea.

Thus, we must extol the virtues of urban planning while carefully avoiding the demonstrable fact that the problems it purports to solve were all caused by... urban planning! We must take great care to limit our CO2 emissions, despite the fact that it's been conclusively demonstrated that global warming causes a rise in CO2 levels, not the other way around.

And, of course, we couldn't possibly operate under the assumption that the ideas in Albright's most recent tome are the same ones she has consistently espoused throughout her entire, lackluster career. That WOULD be amusing, wouldn't it?

I would have to study urban planning before commenting on it. Until then, I won't insist he extol it. Why would I? Nah, on second thought it might be fun to watch. Extol you must, as you say.

Did you say it's been conclusively proven a rise in CO2 levels did not cause global warming? I'd like to know where. I saw some research indicating temperatures had often risen in past eras before CO2 started to rise. It didn't purport to prove CO2 didn't and wouldn't cause global warming, but only that global warming from other sources often started the initial CO2 increase. You must have seen some different research than I.

Well, it's reasonably likely that Madeline Albright espouses the same ideas she has expoused previously, though it doesn't always happen. Myself I prefer to read books before commenting on them. At any rate I will try to read most of your blog posts before commenting on them. In case it turns out the ideas are pretty much the same as you've been espousing through your blogging career, I hope you'll at least bring out some of the wit you used against Mr. Torgerson on occasion, so there need be none of the accusations of lackluster you level against the hapless Albright.

1 comment:

Jason G. Williscroft said...


Thanks so much for the gracious intro! Your Torgerson comment proves that you HAVE been paying attention, and for quite a while, too. I always knew there was one of you out there. :)

The source for my comment on urban planning was Chapter 2 of Economic Facts and Fallacies, by the redoubtable Thomas Sowell. I'd just read it, so the topic was top of mind. You can start the CO2 evidence trail here. There are a number of well-understood mechanisms shereby temperature variations can drive CO2 levels; the reverse is simply not true.

Of course, these are just two examples of HUNDREDS of cases in which the liberal Establishment—as well as its main stream—support positions that fly in the face of reason, despite mountains of contradictory evidence. I wouldn't care, except that the same liberals are generally hell-bent on spending my money and killing my friends to support their ridiculous theories.

The bottom line: when Madeline Albright, Wesley Clark, Nancy Pelosi, or any of the rest of that crew publish a book that contains actual facts and reasons cogently about same, I'll read it and publish a serious review. But this is the real world, and that won't happen... after six decades, why should I suppose Albright has suddenly made the acquaintance of a fact?

When a reprehensible clown publishes a sanctimonious polemic purporting to advise the NEXT president on how to undo the damage caused by the CURRENT president, it's appropriate to laugh. When she does so in the middle of a primary season, and is actually permitted by the Fourth Estate to act as if her "advice" is... er... unbiased, what you OUGHT to hear is derisive hooting from sea to sea.

That we do NOT hear this is probably reflective of exhaustion among thinking people as much as anything else. But I think you'll agree that we at TDH do more than our share on that score.

Jason Williscroft