House of Eratosthenes

So says Jim. Yup, I got sucked into another one. And, I have every confidence there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, who would agree with Jim on that. Provided they would be compelled to become interested in the exchange.

Ed Darrell did debunk Dr. Sowell, very, very decently. I agree with that; if, by “debunk decently,” we mean “Ed handed down a list of rules that make sense to Ed, about what people should be reading and what they should not be reading.” Ed debunks lots of things this way. It is, for the most part, the only weapon in his arsenal.

Along the way though, the Larry-Moe-Curly triumvirate of Jim Nick and Ed, all communicated the thought with crystal clarity — and it is important to all three of them to get this across, so I have decided I will aid their efforts here. The right wing, which they all think so poorly of, indeed seems to be exempt from the definition of “everyone” as they labor to build the perfect society that welcomes & functions for everyone…gets into the trouble with them, by absorbing information. The left wing, which earns their accolades and adoration, does so by coming up with reasons and excuses not to absorb information. Nearly all the arguments from the friendly crowd at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, from what I see, essentially boil down to the statement of “you should not be reading this thing over here.” Whether it’s Dr. Sowell, or Anthony Watts, or Steven Milloy or Gov. Perry of Texas.

Which is, I think, a situation worth commenting on…since it is a situation much bigger than Fillmore’s bathtub. It stands in perfect contravention to the liberal-self-love theme of “our side isn’t afraid of information but those evil Republicans don’t know how to handle it.” For those who can pay attention to things and remember things long-term, that mindset remains valid until arguments are presented on both sides and then analyzed. And then a pattern emerges: Conservatives say “well, like this guy said” and liberals say “I have a pre-catalogued, pre-circulated, pre-rehearsed reason not to read or listen to anything from over there.” They’ve got this blacklist to which they’re steadily adding names of loathed people. Which, ironically, is supposed to be a major selling point, for their side, against the conservatives. It’s supposed to be the right wing that blacklists people.

Now liberals don’t have a monopoly on this. But it certainly has emerged as one of their defining traits. Prerationalism; yellow-light red-light. “I don’t read anything from there and you shouldn’t either, everyone who reads anything from there is less cool than anybody who doesn’t read it.” That’s yellow light. Right light is the tried-and-true “You are no longer of the community, you shall be shunned, whoever does not shun you shall be shunned, whoever does not shun he who did not shun you will likewise be shunned.”

Larry-Moe-and-Curly, in their rush toward prerationalism, missed a point about Sowell and my citation of his column: It needs no “experimental” support, since I did not cite Dr. Sowell because of his base of knowledge, but rather because of his skill with the written word. Sowell had made a good, and important, point.

One of the sad and dangerous signs of our times is how many people are enthralled by words, without bothering to look at the realities behind those words.

One of those words that many people seldom look behind is “education.” But education can cover anything from courses on nuclear physics to courses on baton twirling.

You have to be a subscriber, or some kind of regular reader, of Fillmore’s Bathtub to appreciate what really happened here. The focus of this particular blog is somewhat narrow. There is an occasional historical tidbit about Texas; a lot of sniping and grousing about Milloy’s blog and Watt’s blog; much alarmism about people walking around somewhere, thinking the wrong things, reading the wrong things, which do not service the interests of the democrat party in Texas or in the nation. Lots about global warming, much more about DDT and eggshell thinning. The balance of what remains, and what remains covers perhaps half of the total volume, perhaps more than that — is a lot of bitching about Governor Perry and other Republicans bringing harm to “education” by cutting a budget item, or making moves to cut it. Rest assured, Darrell does provide support for his claims. But you can forget about any balanced argument, any mention of why someone would think of cutting the item. You’d think it would be set up once in awhile to be made an object of ridicule, but I don’t see it happening much. Just — these evil guys who hate education are about to cut something, so help me hate them.

The word “education” is being used as a label which, on inspection does not seem to apply to what would be described by a reasonable person in such a way. And, if the method of argumentation is a model for what this is supposed to mean…well, it doesn’t come off as very educated.

By pointing out that the e-word is very often used to describe a spectrum of things that is so broad as to become linguistically unworkable, it is Sowell that has done a decent job of debunking Ed Darrell and his two lackeys. Reams and reams and reams of what they have had to say, in fact. With just three well-crafted sentences making up two short paragraphs.

The takeaway from all this is another recollection of Thing I Know #183:

When an education has given you the ability to dismiss ideas more quickly, it’s not really an education.

Which I suppose builds on Sowell’s point (before I heard of it). Too many people are living among us and making much out of a habit of blocking information out by means of something they describe with this word “education”; they seem to think of education as a process of essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la. You see them do this all the time, really — this awful loathed person over here actually paid attention to that awful loathed bit of information over there…therefore…he is uneducated…while, contrasted with that, me and my friends made a point of not paying attention to the awful loathed bit of information, therefore we are better educated.

Nevermind that this “in-crowd” is now thoroughly unable to describe the details of the information that was exchanged, which they then want to complain about. And they’re proud of not being able to explore it in detail, as they proceed to complain.

I don’t know about you. But that isn’t what I think of as “educated.”

By the way. The other article Sowell wrote, which got him on this Larry-Moe-Curly-McCarthy-blacklist thing, so that “educated” people prove their education by making sure they’re never exposed to what Sowell has to say…is here. It makes an important point: “[A] democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.” Many among those who claim to be “educated,” and to value something they prefer to call “education,” don’t seem to be in favor of this informed citizenry. This particular Sowell column is complained about a whole lot in liberal circles, especially on the web. Interestingly, you won’t find too many links directly to the column. Many more of such screeds will only point to other such screeds, and not to the source of the outrage.

Liberals do that an awful lot, I’ve noticed.

Update at 2010PDT Today: The trackback from this post has had an effect very much like tossing a lit match into a barrel of gasoline, as I knew it would. New life has been breathed into Ed’s post, and Larry Moe & Curly are now climbing all over themselves. Once again — it has degenerated into a jerk-off session which examines and re-examines all the things that make left-wing people more wonderful and awesome and decent than right-wing people. Mr. Darrell seems to have forgotten his original point was about the funding of public schools, and now wishes to examine the tragedy of all families in said schools not making an equal amount of money — his new lamentation is about the lack of funding to the households I think.

It’s not possible to determine that, of course. Here’s the thing about Ed Darrell: He goes on and on about such-and-such an opposing force having failed “to provide evidence for their claims” or “provide support for his claims.” But the targets of such criticism are one-up on him, because whether supported or not at least their claims are defined. Ed’s claims are not defined. He links to a page full of statistics and graphs and charts and data, pointing out this debunks something Dr. Sowell said. But there are no specifics. What is being debunked, exactly? I can’t answer that and neither can you, unless your name is Ed Darrell. But Darrell won’t.

But who cares. It’s all about those three being better people…than…whoever is on the other side of some imaginary fence. Makes this quote from Orwell’s 1984 seem apropos:

But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever. [emphasis mine]

This is why it’s important to discuss this. Nick Jr. typifies the cognitive dissonance. This is the guy who said:

What is the one thing in this country that can bring everyone together?

Government.

…and then self-corrected to…

Correction. That should “the one and only thing that can bring people together in this country.”

If you take the time to look (it’s a lot of looking, Nick’s posts never seem to stand on their own, he tends to post again and again and again, he’s a bit of a scatterbrain) you’ll see pretty much everything he’s had to say is that Republicans are worse people than…something. Liberals, democrats, Michael Moore fans, anarchists, something. It requires a great deal less courage, less intellectual fortitude, to oppose something than to build something.

Nick, whether he realizes it or not — and I think he does, but who knows — entirely lacks passion about the personal goals he has in mind as he has defined them, in writing. He doesn’t really want government, or anything else, bringing anybody together with anybody else. But the Orwell quote, along with Nick’s flip-flopping, really captures what applies to all three. A thrill of victory running in a vicious cycle. A boot stepping on a face, forever.

Again, there is nothing unique here. Nothing special about Fillmore’s Bathtub at all. This is a very big phenomenon taking place. It’s going on, right now, coast to coast. Our liberals are batshit crazy.

Ahhh, Marxists. They never go away, do they?

Riddle me this, hotshots: if your “education” is so allfired great, then why is 50-60% of the country still conservative? You’ve controlled the entire educational system, from pre-K to graduate school, for going on seventy years now. How have so many of us failed to see the light for so long?

Let’s assume that every blessed word Tom Sowell ever wrote was a lie, including the “and’s” and the “the’s.” Let’s further assume that every second of every “Faux News” program ever broadcast is also a deliberate, malicious, bald-faced lie.

Now: given that you all have been saying exactly that for lo these many, many years, and given your utter monopoly on the whole of the educational system… what gives? As far as I can tell — and remember, by definition I’m both dumb and uneducated, so bear with me — there are really only 3 possibilities:

1) we’re simply incorrigible, in which case “education” couldn’t possibly do us any good;

2) the Big Lie is so vast that it’s literally inescapable to minds like ours; in which case — again — “education” is wasted on us;

or

3) you’re just really, really fucking terrible at your job.

So: are you merely incompetent, or are you so dumb as to waste your time arguing with people who by definition will never see it your way? You must admit, guys, it ain’t pretty either way.

[Of course, there’s always option 4, which is that people actually reject Marxism on perfectly rational, empirical grounds. But I guess a moron like me would think that, wouldn’t he?]
- Severian | 05/12/2011 @ 09:46
Decided to weigh in out there….

Sowell is the law school guy; Williams is the economics guy.

Actually, they’re both economics guys.

Consequently, a rational person might note that his criticism is absolutely unrelated to the chart in the lead post here.

Mmmm, careful with that word “absolutely”

Even reputable colleges are increasingly teaching things that students should have learned in high school. — Sowell

Granted, his criticism is aimed mainly at curriculum choices in post secondary education, but he is also talking about the larger cultural picture, where we’re affluent enough to send herds of students through classes and programs entitled “__________ Studies”, most of which cultivate division and resentment, and none of which help us “compete with the Chinese”, and such classes and programs are extending downward into secondary education, taking time away from teaching things that actually would help us compete with the Chinese. If that’s even really what we want to do. I suppose we have to for the time being since we owe them so much money. Such is the position of sharecroppers. Hopefully we will eventually be able to buy our way out of it.

If education has slipped to mediocre levels, a valid line of questioning might be … when did that start? What have we been doing since then? Has it helped? Is there a correlation between what we’ve been doing and the results? Why might this be? These are the kinds of questions Sowell asks and attempts to answer — using actual data to back up his theories (if you read his books – there’s typically little room for this in a column).

Does funding correlate to quality? Now there’s a good question to ponder. Is there a point of diminishing returns? Do the returns ever go negative?

I just can’t help but notice how freely the name-calling flows from the left when directed at someone they disagree with, especially minorities they disagree with — whom they consider ingrates … and in the case of Sowell – a recovered Marxist – apostates or traitors.

This is the root of the left’s contempt. Sowell and Williams refuse to read from the left’s script. So in order to avoid being considered racist by the standards to which they hold the right (any criticism directed toward anyone from a blessed “victim class”), they do what they always do. Revise the data. Re-define them as white men in disguise. “Uncle Toms”. Problem solved.
- philmon | 05/12/2011 @ 13:27
A “The Nation” Article that re-enforces what Sowell said.

Basic physics in this country is all but dead. From 1971 to 2001, the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded in English declined by 20 percent, but the number awarded in math and statistics declined by 55 percent. The only areas of the liberal arts that saw an increase in BAs awarded were biology and psychology—and this at a time when aggregate enrollment expanded by something like 75 percent.

Granted from their point of view it’s a tragedy that there isn’t more demand for the PhD’s in Transexual Midget Studies, and this tragedy must, must, must be addressed.

It is a little weird to see progressives take Higher Ed out to the wood shed and paddle it thus, for …

What we have in academia, in other words, is a microcosm of the American economy as a whole: a self-enriching aristocracy, a swelling and increasingly immiserated proletariat, and a shrinking middle class.

I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that their habit of very public moral preening extends into their own world. Not only are they better than the rest of us, but they’re better than their peers at the faculty cocktail parties as well.
- philmon | 05/12/2011 @ 14:14
Now you get to meet the third one, Nick. Welcome to the party Phil!

I’ve settled on a formula with Ed’s blog: Nine out of ten of these discussion eventually get piped to a null device. They’re just making a show of talking to you (or me), all they’re really doing is showing off for other leftists with this pathetic, “please let me continue my membership in The Club even though I’m deigning to have conversations with this vile person over here” undertone. The tenth out of ten, I resolve to discuss over here, instead.

And this one was going to be in the nine that get piped to null…until they relied overly much on this “I’m better educated than you are, because you’re reading Thomas Sowell and I’m not.” This idea that you can be smarter by not being exposed to something, is a peculiarity of theirs that warrants discussion.

When some 40% of your country’s population is going insane, it takes a lot of restraint to ignore the situation, and for good or for ill I don’t have that kind of restraint.
- mkfreeberg | 05/12/2011 @ 14:29
Oh, someone replied? I hadn’t noticed. Nor did I ever intend to try. 🙂

Yup, I think you have them pegged.
- philmon | 05/12/2011 @ 17:47
Phil,

yeah, they replied.

I briefly perused that comment thread. I think I can summarize it for you )scrolling up from the bottom):

— Republicans did / said / proposed some stupid shit. And boy, is he sure right! At some point, people really have made enough money. Everyone in all 57 states knows this.

— Prof. Sowell is more properly called “Uncle Tom” Sowell (I quote: “The man IS an Uncle Tom.”). Gotta love liberals and their ever-tolerant tolerance. Racial slurs aren’t racist when the target really, really deserves it, apparently.

— Republicans like Sowell present “no alternatives” to the current educational dilemma. “The free market” isn’t an alternative, because…. well, just because. Take that, wingnut haterz!!!!

— “For each man [Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams], generally one may take the position of most thinking African Americans, or the consensus of America’s black population, and one may safely assume that Williams and Sowell will both take the opposite view.” Gotta love that “thinking” bit. Again, racial slurs aren’t racist if you really, really don’t like what someone is saying. [Hey, playing the race card is kinda fun!!!]

— Boooosh!!! is teh stoopid, and so are you: “Yes because God forbid that we learn things about cultures that aren’t from Europe or about people that *gasp* aren’t white. It’s far better to be ignorant about what motivates other people and the differences in their cultures just like our former President who didn’t know there is a difference between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims.” Please, dear, do explain them to us. With footnotes. Based on your extensive experience in the Middle East, which you so totally have, I’m sure.

— “Republicans prefer tax cuts for oil companies over jobs for Americans.” He’s got me there. Because fuck Americans, that’s why. Let ’em starve. I’m the CEO of Exxon, after all.

— Republicans are Nazis: Hm…I seem to recall a certain political party in another country also painted everything as “us versus them.” And they also spouted that some ethnic group or another was to blame for that country’s problems…..”

— Stoopid RethugliKKKan think Obama is a Muslim. “And oh yeah…your party trying to paint the President as secretly a Muslim. Gee..I wonder how you can explain that as not attempting to divide the country. “ Would that be a Shia Muslim or a Sunni Muslim? Based on your extensive experience, of course.

— Morgan sucks: “You are a pathetic paranoid waste of a human being.”

— Michele Bachman sucks.

— Texas Republicans are subsidizing Formula 1 racing: If Texas is run by such intelligent conservatives…then why are those conservatives preparing to spend $25 million dollars a year on Formula 1 racing? Which, in addition to being un-cited, seems to have next to nothing to do with education. Maybe if we used ’em like flash cards to explain the differences between Sunni and Shia?

— Republicans are whores: Funny how your party just loves to be bought and paid for like prostitutes.”

So, to recap, we have: ad hominem, ad hominem, unsupported assertion, ad hominem, ad hominem plus unsupported assertion, unsupported assertion plus ad hominem, Godwin, ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem, unsupported assertion plus ad hominem, ad hominem.

Jesus, Phil, they really took you behind the woodshed, didn’t they? I bet you feel tres idiotique right about now….
- Severian | 05/12/2011 @ 21:07
Actually, I went from feeling like I probably wasted my time to knowing it for certain. Thanks for the summary. Now I’m even less compelled to waste further time investigating their predictable reaction.

Just occasionally, I like to play some decent jazz in the middle of a scene bathed in hip-hop or whiner death metal … just to make it known that something besides what they bathe in day in and day out exists, and can be stated without descending into cursing,, piety, or name-calling. If they reject it, I shake their dust from my feet 🙂

F*ck ’em.

I played my lick, and I liked it. On to the next town.
- philmon | 05/14/2011 @ 18:19

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“I Thought Ed Darrell Debunked Thomas Sowell Decently”Thursday, May 12th, 2011

“I Thought Ed Darrell Debunked Thomas Sowell Decently”
Thursday, May 12th, 2011