Nuggets Vol. 7

Articles

Nuggets Vol. 7

By Frederick Smith
July 6, 2005

Here is Nuggets Vol. 7, a bit overdue. The last issue is here. In this issue, a special birthday, corrections, translations from conservanazian, nationalistic drool, battlefield: UK, and some quotes. Sections begin in bold face.

As Ken has told us seven times, July fourth was Mac's birthday. Happy Birthday, Mac! Despite our vast political differences, I wish you peace and long life, though I will continue to object to your ridicule of atheists, humanists, Liberals and gays.

Here is a correction for this piece – I mentioned, “IMD”, I meant to say, IMDB – the Internet Movie Database.

Here is some original text, in the language of Right-wingers known as, “Conservanazian”, from a piece by Michael John McCrae:

Here are some book titles you may want to check
out: “Slander”, “Treason”, “Bias” and “Arrogance”.
They’re on “Google” too.

I've taken the liberty of translating the words in quotes into the language most of the rest of us speak, English. They mean, respectively: free speech offensive to Conservatives, free speech really offensive to Conservatives, FOX “News”, that narrow slice of extreme Christianity that knows better than the rest of us what's best for us.

Ken had this to say:


America is without a doubt a contradiction in
humanity. We’re not a nationality, tribe, religion, or
any of the things that bind most countries together.
We are a diverse group with little commonality.
Singularly we’re a nation with little tolerance, we’re
bigoted, insensitive, biased and many other clichés to
numeral to mention. Jointly we’re hell on wheels,
attack one of us and you attack us all.

Well written, and, I agree. But contrast that with this, from the same piece:


Who among us believes Al Gore or John Kerry could have
convinced Al Qaeda to play nice and not murder any
more civilians, no more car bombs, no more suicide
bombers targeting civilians? 



I for one and I’m positive there are thousands perhaps
millions who pray everyday thanking God for the fine
generation of young men and women he sent to protect
us. I also pray he will instill a little more
intelligence and less stupidity in some of our Liberal
congressional representative.

We did all react pretty much the same way after 9/11. Liberals and Conservatives both wanted to respond, and both sides agreed on several courses of action, from legislation and financing at home, to the attack against the Taliban. Yet, Ken blames some Liberals for opposing an unrelated conflict, the war in Iraq. We were united, and the Conservatives blew it – they squandered away this unity. Not just Americans, they threw out the goodwill of the world, and saw fit to use the short lived unity of Americans to tackle an issue that Conservatives have wanted to deal with long before 9/11.

Supporting the troops is good. Finishing the war is now necessary, and many smart Liberals and Democrats agree. This doesn't mean we have to evaluate and lump Bush's entire foreign policy into one sack, and then cry when some disagree. Ken is not a patriot, he is a nationalist; his black and white view is dangerous and narrow. Ken believes that America is the hand of God. Just for kicks, I will agree. God is working through Democrats to rid the country of this silly nationalism - this dangerous emotionalism that's gripped what was once a party of pragmatists. If you pray, vote Democrat.

A real patriot would recognize that speaking out against the war is as American as apple pie.

For the record, I believe that Gore or Kerry could have handled the situation much better. Any president can be in office during a disaster and have his approval ratings skyrocket, but only a smart man can use international goodwill to achieve positive results.

Here is the Right-wing non-lie of the issue. All previous non-lies have been from Michael John McCrae, but since he had a recent birthday [on July the fourth, in case anyone missed the announcements], that honor will instead go to Ken Hughes. Here it is:

The festivities of the 4th of July have past. -- Ken Hughes

Thank you, and that was the Right-wing non-lie of this issue of Nuggets.

Battlefield: UK!

Everyone can recognize the difference between a childish baseless attack, and an article with a bit of color. The occasional ad hominem attack is fine, in my opinion, as long as it's part of a real rebuttal - something with meat and data. I'm sure that the editors would not allow a purely-personal attack such as we all get in email, as anyone who has ever ventured an opinion in public knows. I tend to read the back-and-forth pieces between Keyes and Siluk, Matt and Skip, Ron and Ken, Matt and John, Ron and Michelle. Did I miss anyone besides my own (Ken and Fred, Mac and Fred)?

We need to hold our audiences to a higher standard; they can tell the difference, folks. I think many appreciate a little bit of harmless “banter” ;) Anyone that writes a public piece exposes himself/herself to this kind of thing. As long as someone writes an honest piece, with opinions based on some real data, then he/she can come up with a reasonable defense. After all, we all say we dislike political correctness, right? PC doesn't favor one side or the other; when you remove PC from the equation, you are often left with competing statements which will insult someone. Further, much of this stuff comes ultimately from core philosophy anyway, and people will argue philosophy until the end of time. Writing is an art – if we just quoted colorless facts to each other, who would read the articles? Would Leno and Letterman be funny if they didn't insult politicians or celebrities? It's all good...

Now some quotes:

"It is obvious that elements of the comet's
orbit, and correspondingly the ephemeris, will change
after the explosion, which interferes with my
astrology work and distorts my horoscope,"-- Marina
Bai, astrologist, suing NASA for $300 million



“I maintain there is much more wonder in science than
in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure
this term has any meaning, science has the additional
virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being
true.”  -- Carl Sagan



“Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and
religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from
deep nonsense.”  -- Carl Sagan

------------

About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys.

Email: dahlek65@yahoo.com

Tell a friend about this site!

------------

All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal).