My pet troll has decided to take on Dan Ray on the subject of federalism, in response to a comment Dan left here earlier. He seems to think that Dan is a professor of "business and tech ed" from "Podunk U", when he is actually the director of the Paralegal Studies program at Eastern Michigan University. Even more amusing than the fact that he quotes from a Supreme Court decision that was overruled last year is the ending:
Also, professor Dan, as a professor of "Business & Tech Ed," you are in no position to judge Dr. Dembski's qualifications or mine, as we are far above you on the totem pole (no doubt you take a swipe at Dembski because you are an evolution enthusiast, but I doubt you know much, if anything, about it--you just believe in it because it is part of your uncritical, prepackaged beliefs).
How amusing. A naked appeal to authority by virtue of his undergrad degree in statistics while simultaneously arguing about constitutional law with a professor of law (not that appeals to authority matter in either case, but the juxtaposition of the two is hilariously hypocritical). Mr. O'Brien makes a brave leap in the dark and lands with a resounding thud. Keep up the good work, Robert. You're a fun troll.
- Log in to post comments
I don't know what O'Brien's beef is with sodomy not being a right. It seems to me that two men having butt-sex are in the pursuit of happiness.
1) Perhaps you can also refer to his wonderful example of projection? After all, a creationist saying "you just believe in it because it is part of your uncritical, prepackaged beliefs" is nearly as good as George McClellan referring to Robert E. Lee's hesitant nature.
2) Seeing as how his intellectual stock plummets every time he puts finger to keyboard, he should just be referred to in the diminutive - Bobby O.
This poor fellow is in well over his head, debating experts in the field about subjects he knows nothing about. He should stick to statistics and have a discussion with Britney Spears about bi-modal distributions.
Wow!! A two-fer. BOTH me and Ed managed to piss off a narrow minded simpleton. That clinches it, Ed, we're right.
It's awfully tough for me, way down here on the totem pole at Podunk U., to see with the depth and clarity of understanding as our Mr. O'Brien. Far be it from me to take on a statistics grad student at the University of Florida, and one with such keen insight into the law and critical thinking. Let's see if I can do so without engaging in any ad hominems like he did.
Mr. O'Brien doesn't seem to understand the difference between "law" and "not law." As Ed points out, he cites the overruled Bowers, although the reason for the citation is beyond me. The particular argument Mr. O'Brien quotes so admiringly is a glaring reductio, having nothing whatsoever to do with federalism. As Ed would say, "thud."
Mr. O'Brien manages to find his way to the federalism ballpark, sort of, when he quotes at length from New State Ice Co. While I'm impressed by his ability to locate Findlaw and retrieve a case decision, Mr. O'Brien's quote is from Justice Brandeis's dissenting opinion in that case. Sorry, Mr. O'Brien, that's not law, either. And unlike Bowers, it never was law. Double thud. And Justice Brandeis's brief federalism argument, the last in his dissenting opinion, was little more than a throwaway. Surely a self-professed federalism expert like Mr. O'Brien can do better than that.
If I might be permitted to offer some advice: when you look for case authority, Mr. O'Brien, you might want to try to find the majority opinion, or at least a plurality opinion. You see, we call that "law." If what you're relying on is from a "dissenting" opinion, that isn't "law." I'll bet more than a few of those "clueless undergrads" Mr. O'Brien has "to work with on a regular basis" know that much. But then I'd be willing to bet that some of those "clueless undergrads" have taken a con law course, or even a business law course, that would give them more than a junior high school level understanding of federalism.
While I'm way down on the totem pole at Podunk U., at least I'm smart enough not to go arguing with Mr. O'Brien about something like statistics that I know absolutely nothing about. He would do well to learn the same lesson. So what shall we take on next, Mr. O'Brien? Fourteenth Amendment? The Commerce Clause? We can hardly wait.
I agree with Reed, up to a point. When I was a kid in the 1960s, we were taught--in a way--that sodomy was the Catholics' version of birth control. And that wasn't just between two men.
Dan, don't be too concerned about statistics. Statistics is actually one of the simpler branches of mathematics. It's mostly a matter of counting. Statistics majors like to dress it up with a lot of jargon, but after you cut through the jargon, it's very easy to understand.
I'll show a bias here--from what I can tell, most mathematics was invented by scientists--not mathematicians--and primarily by physicists. (Physics was my undergrad and grad studies, hence the bias.) The mathematicians seemed to have grabbed hold of what the physicists invented, and run with it. The mathematicians didn't really add a whole lot to what the physicists did. And physicists still do mathematics in a way that would leave mathematicians apoplectic. But, what the physicists do works.
O'Brian is quite the flirt. He's skipped from Ed, to Reed, to Dan, and's moved on to Edarr last I saw. (I don't want to sound like a squeaky wheel but I'm gonna start to feel like the last kid who get's picked for kick ball teams if he doesn't say something insulting to me soon)
In fairness, there were a couple of posts I've seen on his Blog that weren't fringy or hostile.
And now he's taking on and insulting Paul Gross and Barbara Forrest. The thing that I find most amusing is that he seems to love blatant appeals to authority, witness his "you're lower on the totem pole than I am" remark to Dan and his amusing claim that Fritz Schaeffer authored 750 papers (he can't even repeat the ID propaganda correctly, it's actually over 1000 papers - though anyone who think he actually authored more than a tiny percentage of those papers is a candidate for the Robert O'Brien Trophy). But while his first, and sometimes only, line of defense is the appeal to authority, he simultaneously has no problem insulting those with far better credentials than he in other fields. Appeals to authority, it seems, only work when he thinks that he is the authority; if anyone else is the authority, then that just doesn't matter. What makes it all the more amusing is that he actually is so glazed over with his fanatical desire to play "gotcha" that he doesn't even recognize that he's being contradictory and looking pretty foolish because of it.
Appeals to authority, it seems, only work when he thinks that he is the authority; if anyone else is the authority, then that just doesn't matter.
Well stated. That is definitely one of his best inconsistency shticks so far.
The same goes for statistics and biolgists. Fisher developed modern statistics because he needed it to study evolution.
Now that the position of pet troll has been so ably filled, do you have any openings for pet sycophant, Ed?
Is this guy the creationist who thought that evolution explained increased complexity?
Now that the position of pet troll has been so ably filled, do you have any openings for pet sycophant, Ed?
LOL. Well according to my pet troll, everyone who posts here is an "obsequious follower". But then he seems to just throw around insulting phrases without regard to whether they make any sense. He described raj as a "groveling worm" who "does not know his betters". One would think that a groveling worm does know his betters; after all, they grovel before them, don't they? It seems our pet troll just throws words together at random without trying to make any sense.
O'Brien's latest pearl of wisdom:
And my nice response.
Reed-
Yeah, I saw that one and knew you'd have a field day with it. This guy is a one-man comedy show.
I wonder if he exists to support the work of Kruger and Dunning.
Do you have to feed pet trolls Science Diet, or is the generic stuff ok?
O'Brien still thinks he use Bowers the challenge the logic of Lawrence. I shouldn't be suprised since such a mind set is similiar to creationists who think that objective scientific evidence can be challenged by their interpretation of scripture.
Well, speaking as a lowly MFA Screenwriting student -- and I hesitate to do so as, lacking a science degree, I'm not even fit to smell the odor of the feet of the lowly "business and tech ed" from "Podunk U" folks by extension of some postings on some blogs -- if I wrote a character with views as narrow and vacant as Mr. O'Brien's, I'd be accused by my peers of failing to create anything more than a stereotypical portrayal of the clueless Fundamentalist with inferiority issues.
Life always trumps Art, in the end.
Reid was probably terribly unfair to Thomas. I haven't done an exhaustive study of opinions of any Supreme Court justice since I left law school 30 years ago, but, from what I have read, Thomas's opinions aren't particularly embarrassing. His opinions are certainly no worse than those of Potter "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it" Stewart. Or those of Whizzer White, for that matter. On the other hand, it's unfortunate that, in his dissenting opinion in the Lawrence case--which I liked, in a way--he was unable to at least see the equal protection issue in regards the Texas sodomy law. Even O'Conner, in her concurring opinion, was able to recognize that issue. (Scalia lambasted her for that, but what would one expect from the justice who apparently views himself as the Vatican's representative on the Supreme Court?)
On the other hand, with regards Thomas's suitability as chief justice, quite frankly the quality of his opinions isn't particularly important. As Jack Balkin has noted on his blog, the position as chief justice is largely a managerial one, and query whether Thomas can provide the leadership necessary. Although I don't particularly care for Rehnquist from a doctrinal standpoint, it appears that he has been a decent chief justice from a managerial standpoint.
That said, I do have to wonder about Thomas. The issue I have isn't that significant, but from reports I have read, during one argument he uncharacteristically made comments apparently waxing eloquent about the plight of black people under segregation. I don't know the details, but I wondered whether the facts that he was purporting to describe were in the record in the case. Or whether he wanted to suggest that the court should take judicial notice of his meanderings.
Sorry, wrong thread. What should be here is:
He described raj as a "groveling worm" who "does not know his betters".
He did? ROTFL. If this guy is merely a grad student, it's highly likely I have more college degrees (4) than he does. And none of those degrees were from "party schools." Moreover, I placed out of the first year in college via advanced placement. All of first-year calculus (there weren't a lot of people who, as I did, received a "5"--the highest score--on the AP math exam in 1967), chemistry, and english.
Reading Reed Cartwright's page, one wonders whether O'Brien believes that the study of genetics ended with Mendel. I haven't done much biology since I was a freshman in high school--1963-64--but from what I have read genetics has extended far beyond Mendel. Mendel might have pointed the way, but I seem to remember something of the work of--oh--Watson & Crick. I'm sure their names will ring a bell with our statistics grad student.
Well, speaking as a lowly MFA Screenwriting student -- and I hesitate to do so as, lacking a science degree, I'm not even fit to smell the odor of the feet of the lowly "business and tech ed" from "Podunk U" folks by extension of some postings on some blogs -- if I wrote a character with views as narrow and vacant as Mr. O'Brien's, I'd be accused by my peers of failing to create anything more than a stereotypical portrayal of the clueless Fundamentalist with inferiority issues.
LOL. What a great line, and undoubtedly true.