As a schadenfreude, I don’t think this is helpful… 

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/22/family_values_creeps_have_a_tough_week_josh_duggar_bill_oreilly_the_sickening_hypocrisy_of_the_sanctimonious_right/ This is actually ripe for all kinds of hypocrisy discernments.  Now it is kinda the evangelical right who has established puritanical sexual morality as a premise and then defended it.  So, hence the opportunity for [excessive] liberal schadenfreude with an observation of hypocrisy.  As to the ‘crimes’.  Ya know, there’s a danger of minimizing real discomfort that was afflicted and endured, but the acts here don’t sound extraordinary.  They were afflicted and endured by pre-teens and teenagers.  On the whole, these ‘acts’ are kinda typical of things teenagers experience during those years… and they recover from them and ought to generally.  And, teenagers are not asexual in the first place, that’s not something that should exist as an assumption, and it’s not obvious the maintenance of asexuality in the teen years should be thought of as ideal…  I’m not radical on this, I just figure it used to be different, IE, in the days when teenagers had sex and kids normally as a function of everyone’s much shorter lifespans, and there was no moral judgment to be made about it…. Cuz its basic human sexuality….That actually ought to be intuitive to Salon liberals, who probably have more exposure to undergrad and grad level human sexuality courses.  Thing is to have a schadenfreude orgasm over Duggar is accomplished by being somewhat purposefully oblivious to this understanding… which is also hypocrisy.  Other thing… ya know where there’s palpable teenage sexual dysfunction?  The black underclass.  Now maybe the black underclass is not hypocrites about it, but it’s fair to say Salon liberals would look on these dysfunctions more sympathetically, and be receptive there to normal anthropological explanations for it.  Just to say… I just don’t think calling out this hillbilly is all that helpful to the establishment of a greater wisdom.

Jots w/ dots 5/22

Fake irony spotting:  http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2015/05/minnesota_ex-cons_can_have_guns_with_silencers_but_no_votes.php  Insofar as we’re going to have suppressor legalization, ex-cons aren’t going to be eligible to buy them as they aren’t eligible to buy other firearms.  And, it’s not really surprising that the firearms lobby is more powerful than the felon lobby.  So no irony there reporter Du.  The Zingy position on felon voting is, yes, we oughta lighten up on that, not a big deal to have them vote.  Though, it’s not obvious that what we do now, allow them to vote after their probation is up, is all that unreasonable.  Thing is you have these extraordinary lengthy probation periods, like 10 more years with the quoted professor there.  No need for that, and it would be solved by sentence reform, which is also the answer to a couple other problems. Hey felons: psst, if you went and voted, no one would really be the wiser, I really doubt anyone checks that stuff.

Actually, in granting the Arctic permits it’s that the President shows a serious understanding of energy  http://theweek.com/articles/556196/president-obama-says-climate-change-national-security-threat-bad-doesnt-act-like  Ya know, trying rilly rilly hard is not an engineering principle, and thus trying rilly hard, as Cooper would advocate, is not going to allow for creation carbon-less energy in amounts that exceed the natural structural limitations that prevent its abundance in the first place….  So for the President to act as if he understands that, I have to say that’s serious.

The limitations of peer review:  http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-21/a-messy-answer-beats-too-good-to-be-true-  the lesson is, if you understand the tribal knowledge / group think of the tribe… which are in this case other academics… you can solicit their confirmation bias.  Thank gaia global warming research is somehow not susceptible to that!

Yeah, I bet climate change is going to be exactly like this… http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/mad-max-accurate-take-on-climate-change  But I’m the one with no appreciation for ‘science’.  I saw the movie.  I thought it was good.  Ya know, it’s all CGI and fantastical.  I keep telling people, kinda dryly, that I thought it was unrealistic in spots.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s