First, the good news for Kansas from Tuesday's election. Janet Waugh defeated a strong opponent in the Kansas Board of Education race, retaining her seat and protecting the pro-evolution majority.
That's it.
Sam Brownback is now the Governor. The theocratic, Jew-baiting, creationist, manimal-obsessed wingnut is in charge, and he's got bigger majorities in the legislature, so expect Kansas to go full teabag.
Dennis Moore decided not to run for re-election some time back, then his wife announced plans to run for his seat. She was beaten handily by state legislator Kevin Yoder, taking away the only Democratic representative in the Kansas Congressional delegation. It's a loss for Kansas, and frankly for the nation. Dennis Moore, while too conservative for my tastes, never sold out his values to hold his seat. His moderation was not an affectation, not a mindless tacking to the ever-shifting center. Blue Dog Democrats are getting a lot of criticism of late, but Moore stood with the President and the party on critical votes, and he worked across party lines when possible to ensure good policy. He, and many like him, will be missed in the next two years.
Meanwhile, former Moore challenger Kris Kobach was elected Kansas Secretary of State. That puts the author of Arizona's racist "papers, please" immigration law in charge Kansas elections. I'd hate to be a Latino voter in Kansas. And for a sense of his attention to detail, Kobach held a campaign event alleging that dead people are voting in Kansas. He listed only one name of a supposed zombie voter, but it turns out that the 78 year-old voter is healthy and spry, and none too pleased to have been killed off in Kobach campaign literature. And never mind Kobach's long-standing ties to hate groups.
Stay strong, Kansans! A new wind will soon be blowing.
- Log in to post comments
Shouldn't you be appealing to the shared values you have in common with Sam?
quoting your words gets me moderated (automatically I suppose).
Deepak: No. Connecting via shared values is useful for people you think you can sway. Brownback won't sway.
sure. But would you say the same if it was The Reverend Sam Brownback?
Stay strong? A new wind will soon be blowing?
We're Kansans - "People of the South Wind." We're used to wind. How about a nice quenching rain to drench the fires of fundamentalist fear-mongering?
What should we have done differently?
- What should we have done differently?
Sadly, I've talked with several dozen tea partiers, "libertarians," and hard-line Republicans in Kansas, and I'm forced to say, "I don't know."
The tea-party crowd seems to carry around a mindset of perpetual fear that deadlocks their cognition. In this scheme, everything, every issue, every bullet point on every agenda, is a matter of impending salvation or inevitable doom. For them to yield on any point is for them to cave to the omnipresent (though ill-defined) Conspiracy for Socialism/Secularism/Islamism, which is (and always has been (but never more alarmingly than now)) on the verge of totally eradicating the American Way of Life [capitalization audible]. America simultaneously is the only viable role model for the world and is itself exempt from comparison to any other nation, regardless of any apparent similarities between our situation and theirs. The Founding Fathers are deeply revered, but less as accomplished statesmen and brave individuals than as prophets of the nation-on-a-mission to come. Their advocacy was apparently less notable for its legislative reforms than for its creation of a nation in which Christianity could flourish. Prima facie, all issues are packaged in a cellophane-thin covering of free-market economic platitudes. These almost always shred away with meager effort to reveal an underlying desire for a re-engineering of society to protect their freedoms from whatever "others" the speaker most fears, be it socialists, secularists, blacks, browns, or what-have-you.
Additionally, the Tea people I've spoken with are adamant in their trust of their media. Fox News (or Michelle Malkin, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck, or the Drudge Report) are always touted as the last remaining bastion of Real Americanism, and are beset on all sides by those who would extinguish them. They make no mistakes. Repeat that, they make no mistakes. Any perceived mistakes are the result of aggressive liberal bias in reporting, quote-mining, or are themselves the forgivable result of blatant lies by their opponents. These sources do not espouse racist views; indeed, they are themselves the victims of the racist tyranny of the minority. I've actually had people flat-out shake their heads when I've dug up minutes-long archival segments of their favorite personality going on a hateful rant about some group of people, sometimes even within the last week. They do not acknowledge it; it didn't happen. Even if I can get them to admit that it did, I apparently don't understand the context (as if a commercial-break-spanning tirade on "filthy wetbacks" or "black welfare queens" can be construed in some non-offensive way). It's apparently absolutely irrelevant that ACORN was cleared of charges; that's pure liberal spin. It's irrelevant that they were set up on demonstrably fraudulent charges; it's all spin, ****it, and we're all better off without ACORN anyway, and it's a wonderful thing that Mr. Kobach is here to put an end to that kind of problem...
*ahem* I could go on for an hour this way, but the short version is this: something nasty has gotten into our electorate, and it's going to take stronger medicine than I've found to alleviate the symptoms. For now, I think it's desperately important that those of us who don't share the Tea Party mentality inoculate ourselves against irrationality in general, regardless of what other actions we take. In my case, my tincture goes something like this: "I could be wrong about anything or everything I say. Yes, I'm open to arguments that this election cycle took us in a positive direction, but I won't take it on unjustified authority, and I won't sit back and ignore what our politicians and opinion leaders are really saying and doing. I will not pre-judge people. I will not pre-judge people. I will keep talking with people I don't agree with, and I will not mentally de-humanize them or speak down to them, nor will I assume they are wrong. I won't succumb to despair, however bad things get." For now, that's all I think I can handle. It may well be more than I can manage, but I'm damned well going to keep trying.
This kind of right-wing paranoia is nothing new:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/paranoid-patriotism…
"Sam Brownback is now the Governor. The theocratic, Jew-baiting, creationist, manimal-obsessed wingnut is in charge, and he's got bigger majorities in the legislature, so expect Kansas to go full teabag."
Deepak Shetty beat me to it Josh, but isn't this exactly the kind of language you say is unnacceptable when used by NA's? I wonder why you make such a distinction? What's the problem with just being honest and telling the truth?
This is one of the better posts you have made...pity you don't behave consistently. It's not as though there's a mountain of evidence supporting the virgin birth.
Barry: WTF has the virgin birth got to do with this? I'm not saying Brownback is bad because he believes certain unfalsifiable things, I'm saying he's bad because he's a horrible human being and he supports policies that are harmful. I've said the similar things about plenty of other people, especially creationist candidates for educational boards.
My problem is not with anyone saying anything mean about anyone. That'd be dumb. My problem is that a) there are systems in place in the media (including the blogosphere) that amplify and reward the mean over the thoughtful and b) NAs antagonize religious people for being religious, as if religious belief were inherently discrediting.
What you quoted is not just name-calling, nor is it an attack on religion or religiosity. It's a bill of policy-based reasons not to vote for Sam Brownback. His actions and his policies are bad, and he doesn't deserve the Governorship. There are few people who think theocrats, Jew-baiters, creationists, or manimal-obsessives deserve to be in government, so it suffices simply to mention that these all apply.
OTOH, saying someone is religious, or that they believe in the virgin birth, or that they believe in some form of deity, is not inherently discrediting. If one thinks it is, then one has to do more than say "it's irrational," because lots of things, from sports fandom to choice of political ideology are also irrational. The question is whether one's actions and policies are guided by empirical reality, or are at odds with it. Brownback's are. Other Catholics' policies and actions are not. Ergo, my problem is not with Catholicism or Catholics, but with Sam Effing Brownback.
"WTF has the virgin birth got to do with this?"
You are attacking Brownback because of what he believes, not just his policies, assuming the two can be separated. What he believes informs his policies.
"b) NAs antagonize religious people for being religious, as if religious belief were inherently discrediting."
But it is "inherently discrediting" from a scientific perspective. Belief in the virgin birth is strong amongst the moderately religious...the folk you don't tell all the truth to. I guess "sophisticated theologians" (the ones you seem to like better than NA's) are able to contort themselves into believing in the virgin birth, but don't see problems in condom use in Africa. Legitimizing belief in the virgin birth (as an example of only one completely unevidenced belief) enables far many others to extend this into unnacceptable policies ranging from opposition to stem cells to abstinence-only education. You think this is just a policy difference.
I've told you before that you are fighting battles one at a time and completely missing the war you're in the midst of. I'm a little surprised when you claim that other Catholics' policies and actions are not at odds with empirical reality. I tried to put together my list of "Catholic policies" that might qualify and drew a complete blank. But what would I know?
What he believes certainly informs his policies, but it's the policies, not the beliefs, that I object to, and am attacking.
Also, note the odd shift from "Catholics' policies" to "Catholic policies." One refers to policies that certain Catholics adopt, while the other refers to policies of the Catholic church. Not the same thing.
There are plenty of Catholics, Catholics who believe in the virgin birth, etc., who support stem cell research, and indeed who are pro-choice, pro-evolution, etc., etc., etc. I support those policies, while rejecting belief in the virgin birth.
Because attacking symptoms is better than attacking the cause?
"There are plenty of Catholics, Catholics who believe in the virgin birth, etc., who support stem cell research, and indeed who are pro-choice, pro-evolution, etc., etc., etc. I support those policies, while rejecting belief in the virgin birth."
And I'd be fine with that Josh if that's what you actually told them. But you don't. You dance around the "virgin birth" nonsense in order not to offend them.
To repeat my earlier point, you'll be doing battle all your life and losing the war. The fact that a tiny number of catholics support stem cell research doesn't conceal the fact that most of them don't.
Barry, the issue is that no one should say that they disagree about the virgin birth or whatever. But people want to treat Ken Miller (say) as anti-science because he believes in the virgin birth, and that makes no sense to me. It's one thing to disagree about an untestable claim, that's what makes sports rivalries fun. It's quite another to insist that someone who believes something untestable ought to give up that belief (or must give up that belief in order to be a good scientist). Insisting that those beliefs are the real problem, rather than behavior predicated on wrong or untestable claims, seems unjustified.
And honestly, dude, you need to do a little research before mouthing off on public opinion. A survey last month found 69% of Catholics support stem cell research, and 16% oppose it. Which of those is "a tiny number" and which would be "most of them"?
In my opinion, people who make untestable claims that might be wrong are significantly preferable and indeed more science-friendly than people who make empirically false claims about the world in order to advance their own agenda (whether it be philosophical, scientific, political, or whatever). Sorry.
No, because other people with the same (or at least similar) religious beliefs (and different political beliefs) have different policies. That makes me think the underlying cause has less to do with religion than politics.
What on earth are you talking about? Josh blogs about being a non-theist and a cultural Jew. Do you really think that a lot of moderate believers mistakenly believe he's a Christian?
The nice thing about liberal religious people is that we don't have to dance around rejecting their beliefs. They know we think they're wrong, and we know they think we're wrong, and we can all still work together on policy matters and hang out socially. It's a refreshingly adult dynamic.
Amen to that!
Nice to discover this blog (but sorry to read about the election results). It's been a long since I've been in KS & KU, from which I graduated. I've since lived in another part of the world (Eastern Europe).
How much I've forgotten a kind of Midwestern type of conflictual thinking: (on the one hand) by those who are so overcome with (and on the other) those who are so influenced by religious notions. Even here in EE religious thoughts hardly overlap or intermingle with politics, economics or science etc. (Except in the most extreme - and non-popular - enclaves.) I can't help but laugh: "... I'm saying he's bad because he's a horrible human being ..." And, the discussion about the opinion of Catholics?
Here, Christian Orthodoxy (even!) doesn't seem to have much problem with whatever scientific or political notions float around in the public. And, if they occasionally do, it's mostly a matter concerning religious clerics and elderly (women - dare I say). If others get involved, it seems the general opinion is: well, that's their problem. Christianity here seems to stay, more or less, within the spiritual realm - yes, I know, whatever that is. And, politics? If it favors and helps out the public, then it's "good." But, generally the opinion is all politicians are "corrupt" - usually defined as matter of economic and/or political self-interest - it's only a matter of degree.
God, if there is one, bless KS!
For surely He knows Kansans need all the help they can get.
@Josh
Just as people with the same (or similar) political beliefs (and different religious beliefs) have different policies.
That should make you think the problem is with religion no? (by your own reasoning).
Politics and Religion seem to be correlated and its silly to dismiss one as the cause over the other.
But people dance anyway.
Someone somewhere does, I'm sure.
"In my opinion, people who make untestable claims that might be wrong are significantly preferable and indeed more science-friendly than people who make empirically false claims about the world in order to advance their own agenda (whether it be philosophical, scientific, political, or whatever). Sorry."
Josh, it's embarrassing when you get these things so badly wrong. An "untestable claim" can neither be wrong nor right...just unscientific. Your preference to support the unscientific by claiming them to be "science-friendly" is perverse. And thank you for your sincere apology. It's a pity the Harris Poll didn't separate church-going catholics from those who claim to be catholics but either attend little or not at all. Both Gallup and Pew show minorities of regular church goers supporting federal funding of stem cell research. I might be guilty of imprecision in choice of language but my claim is not "empirically false". And I guess when we consider US Catholic Bishops..."In the last vote of the public session of their June 12-14 spring general assembly in Orlando, the bishops voted 191-1 in favor of the document titled "On Embryonic Stem-Cell Research: A Statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops."" I'm not "empirically false" either. http://www.americancatholic.org/news/stemcell/
And I'd rather be guilty of language imprecision than to knowingly not tell the whole truth, which is the standard you choose to live by.
I expected you to duck the issue I raised and twist the meaning. "...the issue is that no one should say that they disagree about the virgin birth or whatever. But people want to treat Ken Miller (say) as anti-science because he believes in the virgin birth, and that makes no sense to me. It's one thing to disagree about an untestable claim, that's what makes sports rivalries fun. It's quite another to insist that someone who believes something untestable ought to give up that belief (or must give up that belief in order to be a good scientist). Insisting that those beliefs are the real problem, rather than behavior predicated on wrong or untestable claims, seems unjustified."
Who said Ken Miller was anti-science? I was simply pointing out that you would dance around this issue in order not to cause offence. Am I wrong? How does a belief in the virgin birth stand up to scientific scrutiny? How would a scientist approach such a claim? The fact that Ken Miller isn't using his belief in the virgin birth to cause problems for science is no reason not to point out the inconsistency of him believing something that wouldn't stand up to empirical testing. You're not even prepared to do that.
Anton: "What on earth are you talking about?"
I'm talking about Josh admitting that he doesn't tell the whole truth when dealing with religious believers who might be sympathetic to science.
"The nice thing about liberal religious people is that we don't have to dance around rejecting their beliefs. They know we think they're wrong, and we know they think we're wrong, and we can all still work together on policy matters and hang out socially. It's a refreshingly adult dynamic."
The "adult" thing to do in this situation is confront the disagreement. Unless there is direct engagement with the disagreement you are dancing around the issue. I'm struggling to see what is "adult" about not telling all the truth.
Barry,
Is this claim testable?
Ah, yes, the folks who don't attend weekly aren't true Catholics, even if they actually make up the majority of the US Catholic population.
Which Gallup poll do you mean? Even among regularly attending Catholics, Gallup found that a slim majority considered stem cell research morally acceptable.
And Pew found 60% support for federal funding among Catholics as a whole.
No, your claim is still false. The vast majority of Catholics are, well, not bishops.
It is impossible to tell the whole truth. You and I are not immortal and neither are our audiences. On the other hand, it's often possible to avoid making statements which are obviously false--excuse me, "imprecise."
Inconsistency with what? Miller has never claimed that you shouldn't hold untestable beliefs, AFAIK.
Again, no one tells the whole truth. Neither do you; I know, because you have a limited lifespan.
You disagree with any other given person on thousands of factual questions. Adults generally value things like tact, relevance and concision, and refrain from confronting most of these disagreements during any given conversation. Necessarily, this means that you do not tell all the truth.
Anton, thanks for being so scintillatingly evasive. So now nobody tells the truth, ever. Where does "intent" fit into your truth model?
If something I said was unclear, please let me know and I'll try to be more direct.
No, people tell the truth all the time. What I said was that nobody ever tells all the truth. Which is what Josh said earlier. Which was the point of the Hitchhiker's passage he quoted.
Well, if by "tell the truth" we mean "tell what you believe to be the truth", then intent seems pretty important. If you intentionally mislead your audience with technically true statements, you're not really telling the truth. (This can be done by leaving out important facts, but also by including facts which will confuse, distract or turn off your audience.)
Conversely, if you intentionally inform your audience with technically false statements, I would say that you are really telling the truth. (This is how metaphors work, after all, and slang, and a lot of teaching in introductory classes.)
OTOH, if by "tell the truth" you mean "say that which is objectively true," then intent seems pretty much irrelevant.
Anton: "If something I said was unclear, please let me know and I'll try to be more direct."
I didn't say you were unclear...just evasive. So when Josh says he doesn't tell all the truth as an intentional strategy to win the support of religious moderates, does that equate, in your view, to someone intending to describe what they believe to be objectively true?
Ah. Perhaps you should restate your question?
Josh did not, of course, actually say this. He said that telling all the truth is impossible: leaving stuff out is not a strategic choice, but a logical necessity. And he said that his choice of which truths to cover is an intentional strategy to educate his audience--that is, to make their beliefs more correct--not merely to win their support.
But yes, Josh's strategy certainly equates to telling the truth.
"Josh did not, of course, actually say this. He said that telling all the truth is impossible: leaving stuff out is not a strategic choice, but a logical necessity. And he said that his choice of which truths to cover is an intentional strategy to educate his audience--that is, to make their beliefs more correct--not merely to win their support.
But yes, Josh's strategy certainly equates to telling the truth."
That's an interesting interpretation. So, did Josh say that "telling all the truth is impossible"? No. What he said was, " it's impossible to constantly be telling "the whole truth," and no audience really wants you to do that". The word "constantly" gives lie to your interpretation. He doesn't say it is impossible to tell the whole truth...rather, it is impossible to do this "constantly". And clearly he is using his audience as his guide as to which "truths" he selects to tell. We call this lieing where I come from, although you think it equates to the truth.
Josh also said "Omitting parts of the truth that will drive your audience away (or insane) is not dishonest, and may well be the best service you can do for the truth." So here we see his intention to mislead an audience. The fact that he claims it is not dishonest does not absolve him from dishonesty. As far as a high intellectual and moral standard goes, this is the equivalent to ethical limbo dancing. What a picture...you and Josh in competition to see how low you can really go.
Barry,
But they're the same thing. That's the whole point of the Hitchhiker's passage he quoted: "the whole truth" is very, very long. The only way to even try to tell the whole truth is by telling it constantly, and forever. Like Prak. And you'll still never finish, because the whole truth is infinite.
Then you come from a magical land of unicorns and hypocrisy, because everyone does this all the time. In fact, you're doing it right now. There's all sorts of truths you could be telling me about your sex life and your credit card numbers and your family members' drug problems, but you're not doing that because they aren't appropriate for this blog's audience.
Why, you're shielding us from the truth, you nefarious liar, you.
So unless your audience flees or goes mad, you've misled them? What is this, Cthulhu's Tips for Effective Public Speaking?
If I realized your source on truth was HHGTTG, and your literalism so pedantic, I would have conceeded no point worth discussing here. And that is what you are doing...applying such a meaningless, literalist position.
"the whole truth is infinite"
On a given point, like whether to point out the logical inconsistency between believing in the ressurection AND evolution, the truth is very clear. No end of sophistry on your part changes the very clear intent to deceive for a perceived strategic gain (a gain for which there is zero evidence of effectiveness).
"Then you come from a magical land of unicorns and hypocrisy, because everyone does this all the time."
You've got it absolutely right. That's where I live. And the really funny thing is that everyone there knows the difference between someone who deliberately misleads (as Josh does) and someone whose intent is to be honest and tell the truth (accepting that it is the truth that they claim to know). Clearly the "reality land" inwhich you live can't even get to that point of understanding.
"So unless your audience flees or goes mad, you've misled them? What is this, Cthulhu's Tips for Effective Public Speaking?"
If the only way to keep your audience is to intentionally lie to them...you don't really have an audience. I would have thought that was obvious.
Barry,
If you'd realized our source was HHGTTG, it would mean that you'd actually read Josh's post.
That's both wrong--evolution and the resurrection are logically inconsistent? what?--and irrelevant to Josh's point. Lots of crystal-clear truths are still not appropriate for a given conversation with a given audience. It is very clear that general relativity predicts planetary motion better than Newtonian mechanics, but that doesn't mean you should lecture on the subject in an 8th grade science class.
I take it you've given up on actually trying to support your claims of dishonesty, then, and are just going to keep repeating them instead?
Ah, that answers my question.
Anton
"I take it you've given up on actually trying to support your claims of dishonesty, then, and are just going to keep repeating them instead?"
I gave specific references to my claim. I only repeat my statement because you haven't responded to it..."everyone there knows the difference between someone who deliberately misleads (as Josh does) and someone whose intent is to be honest and tell the truth (accepting that it is the truth that they claim to know)."
I used Josh's own words to point out this very issue. But carry on ignoring it.
What's there to respond to? You claim that Josh deliberately misleads his audience, but nothing he says in that quote has anything to do with misleading them, and in fact he explicitly signals his intent to be honest and tell the truth. So yeah, your claim remains supportless.