Why liberals are condescending

In my latest for the Guardian, I find myself agreeing with Gerard Alexander’s essay in the Washington Post that liberals are condescending. But it’s hard not to be when many on the other side reject evolution, think global warming is a hoax and believe President Obama was not born in the United States.

79 thoughts on “Why liberals are condescending

  1. Read you article, and concluded that you are precisely the condescending liberal you describe.

    Tip off. Criticizing Sarah Palin for saying that the goal of foreign policy and war is to simply win.

    She’s right. You’re wrong.

    If you can’t grasp this… and it’s apparent that you can’t… then what are we to make of your intelligence.

    Ronald Reagan is actually the author of those sentiments.

    Brain dead appeasers like you argued for decades that no sane person would argue that the Soviet Union could be defeated in the Cold War. The argument was that we had to learn to live with the Evil Empire.

    You were undoubtedly one of them. You lost that one and you still haven’t learned the lesson.

    Your nuanced, clever outlook is in fact, plain, ordinary ignorance.

    What’s really hard to understand is causes you to be so condescending. You’re not very bright.

  2. Steve Stein

    Media Matters notes that the WaPo actually solicited that piece.

    As Jamison Foser says “I wonder when we’ll find out that a Washington Post staffer is actively seeking out a similarly disparaging column about conservatives?”

  3. ben starr

    Hate to agree with Stephen Thomas since I probably don’t agree with him on many other issues but there are countless positions that those on the left take that seem as ridiculous as those you reference from the right.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Ben: If it’s so self-evident, why don’t you try naming a few of those positions, as well as prominent, mainstream Democrats who hold those views? That, I would suggest, is the real different between right and left. There are all sorts of nutty positions held by fringe, far-left people. On the right, though, the crazy has infected the mainstream.

  4. And, Dan, global warming is a hoax.

    It’s not just a hoax, it’s a criminal conspiracy.

    Lest you think I don’t know this business… one of my clients is a global warming hysteric. (I don’t care what my clients do, so long as they pay me.)

    You’ve got problems with delusions of grandeur, a belief in your own sainthood and a confused desire to play Jesus Christ.

    You’re experiencing normal human emotions and desires, and doing all the wrong things in response.

    The world doesn’t need you to save it. It will get along fine with you just doing your job.

    I’m 60 years old, and I’ve lived through dozens of wildly publicized eco-catastrophes. These hysterias are boring. They’ve gone full circle in my lifetime. 40 years ago, it was global cooling. Paul Erhlich was predicting global famine and riots.

    What’s really going on here is that people, like you, are displacing your own spiritual and emotional struggles into grandiose end of the world fantasies.

    You need to get a grip. We don’t need you to play Jesus Christ. Everything will be fine if you just go to work in the morning and do what you have to do.

    And, if you really need to find emotional and spiritual meaning, I’d suggest going to church. It makes a lot more sense that casting yourself as our Savior.

    To put it as bluntly as I can, you’re struggling to deal with the normal human psychological response to mortality by casting yourself as a superhero determined to save humanity from evil.

    It’s nuts, Dan. You need to get a grip. The world will still be here, in better shape than it is now, when you and I depart this vale of tears.

    Alternatively, you’d be more entertaining if you’d join some loony end of the world religious cult. They’re more fun. Here in Woodstock, NY, where I live, the Rajneeshies were very popular for quite a while. They believed that orgies were the way to fend off the end of the world. I don’t think they’re around any more, but I guarantee you, you can find another loony cult out there. Have a little fun while you’re waiting for the end of the world,

    You’d be a lot easier to take, and much more likeable, if you were working out your emotional and spiritual problems in some loony cult, instead of telling us that you’re really acting on scientific certainty.

  5. BP Myers

    “[W]hich group is more likely to believe that the Bush White House had advanced warning of al-Qaida’s attack on the US?”

    Err . . . they did. It was in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S.” which mentioned something about airliners crashing into buildings.

    Who is being condescending to who, again?

  6. Bill Duncliffe

    There is a serious debate about global warming science going on, Dan, which you have obviously missed. Although the New York Times has not. Much as you want to do your typical straw-man definition, it’s not a fringe position.

    Denying evolution and the Obama birther movement are not mainstream positions. Your straw men blow apart under any kind of inquiring wind.

    We can play far left fringe theories – President Bush (43) blew up the levees, the CIA killed Ron Brown, how about 9/11 being a government plot (President Bush was apparently very, very busy).

    But what I won’t do, and you should resist doing, is positing where they sit on the liberal thought spectrum for purposes of my self-serving argument.

  7. Aaron Read

    Y’know, I had an argument I was going to make with Stephen here. But then I decided that it would be like arguing with the kitchen table; I have no interest in it.

  8. Christian Avard

    Dan, this may be off topic but your article reminded me of Roger Ebert’s article on Sarah Palin just before the 2008 election. IMO, Ebert is one of the more underrated political commentators out there. He’s got a real passion for politics. He’s also on Twitter and he was tweeting Palin’s address to the Teabagger conference. He was VERY funny and spot on.

  9. Ben Starr

    @Dan — some of the positions taken by leaders on the left that seem equally ridiculous to relatively clear thinking folks on the right (many of whom believe in evolution, global warming and Obama’s citizenship) would include the notion that healthcare is some sort of right under the rules that govern this country (stated often by democratic leaders as if this moral right is also a Constitutionally stated right), govt. benefits (drivers licenses, student loans, etc) to those who are in this country illegally, the banning of guns by any route other than a Constitutional amendment and, most importantly, the notion that life does not begin at conception.

    I think you are focused on science vs. anti-science battle as being on a higher plane while those on the right see the broad interpretation of the Constitution the same way you view the anti-science crowd. While I agree with your positions politically, I can accept that I am biased.

  10. Bill Duncliffe

    Dan, only you could conclude that an article about the scientists behind the global warming hysteria behaving badly is somehow not about global warming.

  11. BP Myers

    “relatively clear thinking folks on the right (many of whom believe in evolution, global warming and Obama’s citizenship)”

    You begin with the unquantifiable subset “clear thinking folks on the right” and then create a subset of those you call “many.”

    Let’s use a subset of the right we can quantity, self-identifying Republicans:

    68% do not believe in evolution
    57% say there is no solid evidence of global warming
    58% say that Obama is not a citizen or they are not sure.

    If you’ve got a broader definition of the “right” with different numbers, I’d be happy to see them.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @BP: We still have a sensible Republican Party in Massachusetts. Brown was to the right of most of the Republicans in the Legislature, for instance. Nationally, though, I think “relatively clear thinking folks on the right” are pretty much limited to conservative Democrats and some independents.

  12. BP Myers

    Agreed, Dan, though how much longer Massachusetts (and Northeast) Republicans will be allowed to stray from ongoing party purity tests, I do wonder. But they haven’t found me yet, and as of now, my voting card retains an “R” designation.

  13. Sean Griffin

    I think Stephen Thomas’ comments have put to rest the belief that only “Liberals” are condescending.”

  14. I may be condescending, Sean, but I’m not suggesting that:

    o Every citizen of the world should pay taxes to support my end of the world hysteria

    o I alone know what the future will bring

    o Those who disagree with me threaten humanity and the natural world with extinction

    o We should regulate every business in the world to enforce conformity with Dan’s great end of the world vision

    Quite a difference, huh?

    I’m for leaving people alone. Dan wants us all under his thumb, because (of course) he’s so damned scientific. Compared to Dan’s megalomania, I’m humble.

    Dan’s not only condescending, he’s got a plan for Saving the World. This makes him dangerous, as well as stupid.

    Liberals like Dan sort of missed the great moral lesson of the 20th century. You know, the one about how the great dream of Utopia actually, in practice, lead to the Soviet Union and the Gulags. Small omission on his part, I guess. Otherwise, he’s incredibly smart.

  15. Bill Rirchotte

    “…How’s all that Hopey-Changey workin for ya…”

    -Sarah Pailn

    If that is not the definition of condescending, nothing is.

  16. BP Myers

    “Dan’s not only condescending, he’s got a plan for Saving the World.”

    If he’s got a plan, I have yet to hear it. Do you have a link?

    And might I suggest that you are reading too much into what Dan has posted, specifically with regard to climate change?

    In the posts about the sugar maple, the disappearance of flora from Concord, the islands disappearing off the coasts of Bangladesh, etc. Dan has presented only the facts, facts that nobody has successfully challenged.

    What conclusions to draw from those facts are up to the individual, hopefully using rational thought and logic.

    Or, you can rant and rail, impugn someone’s motives, call them stupid, accuse them of megalomania, and belittle their choice of eyewear.

    Your choice.

  17. Bill Duncliffe

    BP says…”In the posts about the sugar maple, the disappearance of flora from Concord, the islands disappearing off the coasts of Bangladesh, etc. Dan has presented only the facts, facts that nobody has successfully challenged.”

    Where we differ on this, BP, is we don’t say “I found a toenail here, a piece of ivory over here and some tail hairs over here. Voila, there’s an elephant here!”

  18. BP Myers

    “Where we differ on this, BP, is we don’t say “I found a toenail here, a piece of ivory over here and some tail hairs over here. Voila, there’s an elephant here!””

    No, but throw in a huge pile of dung and some footprints in the mud and one might reasonably conclude that an elephant recently passed by.

    I understand and appreciate you perhaps maintain an open mind on the subject and are simply waiting for more evidence.

    However I firmly believe that for some, no evidence will ever suffice.

  19. OK, the global warming eco-hysteria is dead, folks.

    The “scientists” cooked the books.

    Only one question remains. What will be the next eco-hysteria? There’s always another one.

    So, Dan, got any ideas? We’ve got to save the world!

    The grand global warming campaign, well, it’s dead in the water. We’re on to you. That one’s become a stale joke.

    So, what’s the next act? What’s your next plan for taxing everybody, regulating behavior and business, and exploding government into an all-consuming octopus? And why do all your eco-hysterias end up in the same place… taxing, regulating and expanding government?

    You’re really smart, Dan. I’m sure you can come up with something.

    How about increasing levels of salt in the ocean. Global salinization!

    We need a new eco-hysteria, Dan! The old one’s dead. Not to worry. In my lifetime, we’ve been through at least a 1,000 eco-hysterias.

  20. Tom Underwood

    I guess I’d better go see a shrink because I didn’t realize I have a Jesus complex. Thanks for the help Stephen.

    I thought I was just concerned that maybe, just maybe, the planet is experiencing potentially long-ranging environmental destruction caused by the 6 billion people inhabiting it. And, that making some changes might be a good thing.

    I hope that I can find a way to adopt your philosophy and no longer give a crap. My kids and their kids can fend for themselves.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Tom: I’d like to think I’m the Jesus of Cool, but that was Nick Lowe. I must say, I haven’t seen anything quite like Mr. Thomas’ contributions in quite some time. I did a little bit of due diligence, and that does seem to be his real name.

  21. Tom,

    I’ve raised two daughters through 1,000 previous eco-hysterias.

    The world didn’t end as a result of any of the previous eco-hysterias, every one of which was touted to be as serious as global warming.

    My daughters both have masters degrees and children.

    The “We’re doing it for the kids” mantra has always been one of the cheesy methods of the eco-hysterics. It’s the predictable tactic.

    Do you know anybody who hopes the world is an awful place for their kids?

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Stephen: Could you list the previous 999? Actually, five will do. I have a feeling I know what you’re going to say, and I’m looking forward to it.

  22. Tom Underwood

    The “We’re doing it for the kids” mantra has always been one of the cheesy methods of the eco-hysterics. It’s the predictable tactic.

    Not a tactic, Stephen. Just something I happen to believe in.

  23. BP Myers

    “1,000 previous eco-hysterias.”

    I too am waiting to hear of the other 999, because unless you can provide them, you’d be guilty of . . . exaggerating.

    And I’m certain that one who accuses others of exaggerating things, like the danger of global warming, would never engage in such behavior themselves.

  24. OK, Dan, I’ve got an assignment for you.

    Under what circumstances would you resign your mission to Save the World and simply leave people alone to conduct their business without governmental interference?

    Every communist, socialist and Utopian before you has claimed, just as you do, that we live in the midst of a crisis so severe that government must control every business and punitively tax every citizen. You’re no different. The original manifesto of the eco-hysterics was Robert Malthus’ “Principles of Population”, published in 1798. His arguments, in fact, mirror yours precisely. Too many people, degradation of nature, the whole bit.

    So, when, or if, the global warming hoax fades away, will you just go on to the next eco-hysteria? Or will you admit that the real issue here is your personal, spiritual, psychological and emotional issues? If you’re just dead wrong, will you give up trying to regulate the lives, and freedom, of other people? Or will you just search for the next cause that allows you to interfere in the lives of other people?

    I’ve made serious, if humorous accusations against you, Dan. I’m accusing you of trying to limit the liberty and economic freedom of other people to serve your own vanity. Once again, Dan, are there any circumstances that would cause you to abdicate your mission to save us?

    The answer to that is, I believe, obvious. I await your answer.

  25. BP Myers

    “The answer to that is, I believe, obvious. I await your answer.”

    I’m still awaiting the link supporting your claim that “Dan has a plan to save the world.” Please add to that list supporting links showing where he has a) tried to regulate the lives and freedom of other people, and b) where he has tried to limit the liberty and economic freedom of other people.

    PS: You should use the term “eco-hysterics” and “eco-hysteria” more. I think it really might catch on.

  26. In the 1970s, our eco-hysterics in Woodstock decided that we had to build a new, completely ecologically friendly sewage system to replace our “conventional” sewage system.

    I can barely remember why this was so important now, but I recall that we were trying to avert total ecological disaster in Woodstock. (I no longer even remember what disaster we were avoiding.) We were also going to produce “green energy.”

    The town hired one of the most trendy, ecologically advanced architects that it could find. He designed a new, improved sewage system. This system was guaranteed to eliminate sewage problems in the town, and on top of that, it was going to terminate in an advanced center where the sewage would be used to produce biomass for the production of energy for the town.

    The system cost a fortune, and it failed completely. So completely in fact, that the entire installation had to be abandoned, dug up and replaced with a “conventional” sewage system.

    The bankrtupcy of the sewage system destroyed quite a few businesses in town… in particular restaurants and bars. Water bills multiplied to 1,000 times what they had once been. The federal government had to step in and provide the town with financial relief.

    For those who live in the village, this eco-hysteria continues to cost them in excess taxation. Many business owners simply had to leave town.

    In the end, the town wasted millions of dollars and ruined the financial lives of dozens of people to serve the fantasies of our eco-hysterics.

    I’ll give you another in just a moment.

    Don’t forget… I live in Woodstock. A new, local, eco-hysteria emerges every few years.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      Don’t eat the brown acid, @Stephen. That may be the single most amusing attempt to draw an analogy to global warming that I’ve ever seen. Please, keep them coming. We can’t wait.

  27. The greatest eco-hysteria of my life was, of course, the publication of Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb,” which promised that basic commodities would become so scarce that we would see food riots.

    This pile of BS was taught in every Freshman rhetoric class throughout the 1970s and 80s.

    Ehrlich was 100% a Malthusian… just like you Dan.

    The famous Simon-Ehrlich bet that demolished Ehrlich’s argument is summarized at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager.

    Want me to keep going, Dan?

    Once again, I await your answer. My argument is that you have the mentality of a tyrant. Your real motivation is to control the economic lives of other people and to deprive people of their individual freedom.

    Your motivations are personal aggrandizement.

  28. Tom Underwood

    “Or will you just search for the next cause that allows you to interfere in the lives of other people?… I’m accusing you of trying to limit the liberty and economic freedom of other people to serve your own vanity.”

    Well, Dan, know that you’ve gotten Stephen’s attention…

    “Or will you admit that the real issue here is your personal, spiritual, psychological and emotional issues?”

    Looks like you might want to see a shrink as well.

    “Once again, Dan, are there any circumstances that would cause you to abdicate your mission to save us?”

    And here I was thinking that I was just reading a blog by a local college professor who sometimes appears on local television.

    In the meantime, for what its worth, I’ll wait to see if Stephen can help us remember the multitude of “eco-hysterias” that have all proven to be unfounded.

  29. BP Myers

    “Don’t forget… I live in Woodstock. A new, local, eco-hysteria emerges every few years.”

    Pity you don’t hail from Love Canal or Woburn or any of a thousand other places where sometimes, eco-hysteria is real.

    But I suspect you’re the type that if something hasn’t happened to you, it hasn’t really happened at all.

  30. I notice that you don’t have an answer now, Dan.

    You’ve failed even to address what I’ve said. Respond to the eco-hysterias I’d detailed so far.

    Even tyrants feel sentimental about their own motivations, Dan. The fact that you feel so sentimental about yourself really doesn’t mean anything.

    Let’s hear you answer the very serious accusation I’ve made against you. I am accusing you, once again, of attempting to limit the economic and personal freedom of other people to serve your needs.

    You are a very deluded individual, Dan. Your motivation, once again, is the same as all the other tyrants. You want to control the personal and economic lives of other people.

    I’ll be back with more eco-hysterias tomorrow, Dan.

    I have a serious life. I take of my spiritual, personal and religious problems without attempting to strong arm other people.

    While I don’t sentimentalize myself the way you do, I leave other people alone.

    As an older man, I’d strongly suggest that you try this. You’re a very foolish young man.

  31. You pointy-heads on the lunatic left are always going after our wimpiest conservative apologists; like, for instance, poor Gerard Alexander, the American Enterprise Institute visiting scholar, just because he got published in the self-loathing liberal mouthpiece, WaPo. Why don’t you take on one of our real intellectual giants like um…, like um… (Bill Buckley, help me out here!).

  32. I’ve got other things to do with my life, Dan.

    But I’ll come back to argue with you again at another time.

    Arguing facts with you is a waste of time. The real issue here is the emotional, psychological and spiritual problems confronting you.

    You’re failing to adequately address these problems and you’re diverting those problems into these grandiose world saving schemes.

    You’re not dealing rationally with anything, although you think that you are.

    The issues you are struggling with are best dealt with in church and through mediation with God.

    You need to find out what interfering with the personal and economic lives of other people consumes you.

    That would be a much more useful way for you to spend your time.

  33. BP Myers

    I fear that next, Dan, you’ll be accused of trying to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. And there’ll be as much evidence for that as anything else you’ve been accused of here.

  34. Bill Duncliffe

    Stephen – Welcome to DanWorld where reasoned discussions that oppose Dan’s view are met with, well, how does one describe met with avoidance like “Don’t eat the brown acid, @Stephen. That may be the single most amusing attempt to draw an analogy to global warming that I’ve ever seen. Please, keep them coming. We can’t wait.”

    Or mis-characterizations of your argument with inanities like “Pity you don’t hail from Love Canal or Woburn or any of a thousand other places where sometimes, eco-hysteria is real.”

    This whole thread is somewhat humorous. Anyone with a modicum of years spent as an adult would surely admit, more than anything else, one never knows as much as one thinks one knows.

    Only an unknowing person would claim they know enough to be condescending. Everyone else admits they can always learn something.

    Guess what category Dan falls into?

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Bill: I didn’t write the comment about Love Canal and Woburn. But I covered Woburn for many years. I am friends with Anne Anderson, who lost her son James to leukemia. There was overwhelming evidence that toxic waste was responsible for Woburn’s leukemia cluster, but the families were never able to prove it in court. I’m not even sure they sued the right parties, but that’s another discussion. Your dismissal of such stories as “inanities” is offensive in the extreme.

  35. Tom Underwood

    “Welcome to DanWorld where reasoned discussions…” – Bill

    “The issues you are struggling with are best dealt with in church and through mediation with God.” “Your motivation, once again, is the same as all the other tyrants. You want to control the personal and economic lives of other people.” – Stephen

    How do you define “reasoned discussion”, Bill?

  36. Bill Duncliffe

    Dan – What’s inane is proposing that Stephen Thomas’ argument had anything to do with true tragedies such as Woburn. Your interpretation that I meant the Woburn tragedy itself was inane is misguided and frankly, given that I stated that BP’s rebuttal was a mis-characterization of Stephen’s argument, unwarranted.

  37. Bill Duncliffe

    Surely, Tom, you can agree that there are many in the AGW community who advocate the issue w/a fervor that can be fairly characterized as religious. Was it not Al Gore who said in his VP acceptance speech at the 1992 Democratic Convention that his religion taught him that he must be a steward of the environment?

    Have we not been told many times over the years when referring to evangelical Christians that the desire to see their beliefs imposed on society is tyrannical?

    If so, why is it not a reasoned argument that the advocacy of AGW and the recommended societal and economic strictures with it constitute the advocacy of tyranny.

    It may be a tyranny you agree with but that is a different story.

  38. So, Dan, I await your response to the story I told you about Woodstock. It’s a cautionary tale that should cause you to seriously rethink what you propose on a global scale. (Of course, I know that in your universe real-world experience is nothing compared to grand theories. So, I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to respond to a real-world example of what can go wrong.)

    First, let’s disabuse you of the notion that I’m a right-wing ideologue who doesn’t care about the environment. I live in one of the most liberal towns in the world. I was completely indoctrinated in environmentalism at any cost, just like you. My perception of cost vs. benefit results from experience, not from ideology.

    You’ve dismissed completely the people who were ruined financially by the great ecological scheme of Woodstock’s environmentalists. Do they not matter? You’ve failed to even respond to the financial burden that Woodstock carries to this day to pay for this fiasco.

    The Woodstock environmentalists who advocated the great “green” sewage system were convinced that there was no downside to their great save the world project. Only “right-wing” zealots could possibly oppose something that was so self-evidently right and good. Cost wasn’t even to be considered.

    And their new system had to work, because in the abstract it was so intellectually superior to a boring old “conventional” sewage system.

    The failure of the “green” sewage system completely disrupted the economy of Woodstock for several years. The streets were torn apart once to install the “green” system, then again to re-install the “conventional” system. Businesses went bankrupt. People lost their life savings. Restaurants couldn’t offer their customers a glass of water. Tourists, the economic life-blood of Woodstock, couldn’t find a place to take a crap.

    What happens if your great, totally self-assured global warming campaign is just a load of bunk? What will you say to the people whose economic lives are destroyed through taxation? What will you say to the businesses that are bankrupted?

    You are proposing to completely re-arrange the economic structure of the entire globe. And, you are so assured you are right. What, pray tell, if you are completely wrong? Couldn’t happen, right?

    I await your incredibly scientific, rational reply. Perhaps, this time, you can actually respond to the human costs that we’ll incur if your grand save the world scheme turns out to be so much bull.

    Perhaps, since you are only proposing to re-structure the entire global economic and business structure, a modest undertaking indeed, you can take a moment to explain how you propose to repair the damage if you turn out to be a blowhard panicked by your own self-serving rhetoric.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Stephen: A sewer project went bad in your town and I’m supposed to (a) comment on it and (b) draw some larger meaning from it? Sorry, that is not going to be happening.

      I’ll give you Ehrlich. He was wrong.

  39. No, Dan, what you’re supposed to reflect upon is your arrogant intellectual certainty.

    I can understand why you are avoiding answering this like the plague.

    It’s the voice of experience and age telling you that you might want to stop for a moment and reconsider your arrogant certainty.

    You are an incredibly stupid young man. You refuse to even consider the effects of your global reorganization plan. Your arrogance and stupidity is preposterous. Let it be noted that the Great Potentate, Dan Kennedy, knows how to restructure the global economy and doesn’t even need to consider what might happen if he’s dead wrong.

    I’ll quote may favorite author, Henry Miller, although I’m too lazy to look up the quote and give it to you verbatim. I promise you, I’m mighty close.

    “We watch the young making the same damned mistakes we made, and we are stricken with the desire to do something about it.

    But it is hopeless. Against stupidity we are helpless.”

    You have a great way with words, and a talent for constructing argument, Dan, but you are hopelessly stupid and proud of it.

  40. Mike Benedict

    Per Stephen Thomas’ logic, one could make the case that any regulation would be a potential disaster. Then he so eloquently calls those who disagree “stupid”; maybe that’s his idea of supporting documentation?

    I’m embarrassed that we apparently went to the same university. Of course, I graduated, so …

  41. Steve Stein

    Walter Russell Mead makes a good point in this article “Global Warming Movement Wasn’t Ready For Prime Time”:

    The problem isn’t that the global warming movement took global warming too seriously; it’s that so far they haven’t taken it seriously enough. They believe that the world is threatened by an imminent danger, yet they haven’t bothered to think through a comprehensive political strategy or developed a competent and reliable institution to persuade what must inevitably be a skeptical world opinion that they are right.

  42. Steve Stein

    In an apparent bid to sew up the Most Ironic Comment Of The Year competition, Stephen Thomas says:

    what you’re supposed to reflect upon is your arrogant intellectual certainty.”


    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Steve: Hey, I’ve got my orders. I’ve reflected. And I’ve concluded that I know nothing about how to install a municipal sewerage system.

  43. Steve Stein

    Well then, for heaven’s sake, Dan, don’t try it! In Acton, we might know how to install a municipal sewage system (the jury is still out), but we have no idea how to pay for it.

  44. Dan,

    How do you hold on to a job?

    So, you have no answer to a micro example of just how things can do wrong, but you know how to reorganize the global economy. That’s reassuring.

    You continue to refuse the answer my question. An admission of defeat.

    So, I’m arrogant… but, Dan, I’m not advocating taxing every human on earth and reorganization the world economy.

    I have nothing to prove because I’m for leaving people alone to do business as they please.

    As I said at the top, global warming isn’t just a hoax, it appears to be a criminal conspiracy.

    Dan,BP, Steve, you are terminally stupid. But, of course, you do know how to reorganize the world economy.

    Do you have any idea how ridiculously stupid this is?

  45. Debating with such utter morons is obviously a waste of time, but I’ll try to summarize the problem here for sentient readers.

    These boys are theoretical geniuses. They’ve got a plan for global reorganization of the economy and regulation of every business on earth.

    They can’t answer for the failure of a single small scale example of how their great theories might fail, nor do they care to explain what they would do should their great theories fail.

    What utter, abjectly pathetic fool these are!

    And yet, these fools tells us that they are “scientific” realists.

    Mind numbing, isn’t it?

    Dear readers, would any of you turn over the keys to the global economy to these fools?

  46. So, dear reader, since Dan refuses to even consider my questions about his potential fallibility, given that he is a theoretical genius capable of restructuring the global economy, let me summarize his answers to my actual questions, as opposed to the questions he pretends that I asked, so that he can avoid answering them:

    Q: What if you are wrong?

    Dan: No way. I’m a genius.

    Q: What if your great theory destroys the lives of individual people?

    Dan: I don’t have to answer for that. I’m a global theoretician.

    Q: Here’s an example of a grand environmental project that went desperately wrong. Could this possibly be the outcome of your great global reorganization?

    Dan: I won’t even consider that. I only theorize on a global level. And I can’t possible be wrong.

    Q: But, I’ve experienced an actual real world event in which people who share your world view, and who were just as certain that they were absolutely right, failed completely.

    Dan: That was just a local sewer project. I’m talking about reorganizing the entire global economy. That’s much easier to do. I can’t possibly fail.

    Q: The Woodstock environmentalists who foisted this project upon the town were equally convinced that they couldn’t fail, and that opponents were unscientific, old fashioned, backward Republicans. Yet, their project bankrupted businesses and individuals, placed long-term financial burdens on the town and disrupted business in the town for years. Could the same thing result in the global economy if you just happen to be wrong?

    Dan: I don’t know anything about sewer projects.

    Q: I’m not asking you about your expertise on sewer projects. I’m asking you whether you have a plan for dealing with the potential for catastrophic failure of your global economic reorganization project.

    Dan: I don’t know anything about sewer projects. Small scale things don’t interest me. Since I am a universal, global theorist, the things that happen on a small scale can’t possible happen if my theories are implemented.

    I could go on an on all day with this. As you can see, Dan’s “scientific” method is simple avoidance of any issue that I actually raise. His real, and only argument for reorganizing the global economy to abate a purported environmental hazard is that he is a theoretical genius on a global scale.

    Here in the U.S., we sort of expect low intelligence in journalists. That’s part of the reason that the web is killing the old media. We also know that journalists received little training in actual journalism in college, and that instead they were indoctrinated in leftist activism. Obviously, the situation is no different in the U.K.

    I’ll leave this debate now, since Dan is obvious incapable of any substantive response other than that we must trust his genius in global economic theory.

Comments are closed.