Andrew Sullivan Is Always Wrong

Part One in an Continuing Series

Jim Manzi at The American Scene has written an excellent post where he actually takes a look at the whole of the scientific evidence on race and intelligence, and comes away saying that these issues are so complex and that the data is so small and inconclusive that you would have to be a fool to draw any sort of definitive conclusions. Read the whole thing.

Andrew Sullivan, who is such a fool, reads Manzi’s post and is apparently not chastised. To wit:

I’ve read a lot about this over the years, but this is one of the best and fairest analyses of the debate I’ve come across. And it’s highly disappointing if you’re hoping for some sort of resolution.

Shouldn’t Sullivan be highly disappointed? He’s been writing about this research as if it’s Gospel truth since the mid-nineties. I’m sorry, but you can’t take back racist proclamations simply because you like Obama.

Stay tuned, this series should continue shortly. I’m just waiting for the next example of Sullivan disparaging other Christian beliefs as illogical and anti-scientific, while claiming his religious beliefs are the paragon of reason.

This never gets easier, does it?

While many social situations have gotten easier to handle with age, I still get as nervous calling a girl for the first time as I did when I was 14.  Case in point, I just got off the phone with a lovely young woman I met a two Saturdays ago (I didn’t wait this long to call, in case you’re wondering. I had called last week and gotten voice mail and the long holiday weekend threw a wrench into making plans).  I actually had to psyche myself up to overcome a vast collection of jitters, and even now with the deed done, my pulse is still racing.  And while I’ve decided to eschew the “meet-fuck-figure it out afterwards” model of initiating a relationship, I almost yearn for such a less mentally taxing method of going about these things.

Am I alone in displaying teenage-level anxiety in these matters?  Has anyone really become the cool, collected epitomy of suave in their twenties?  Share away.

Are you smarter than a bad blogger?

So I’ve been neglecting the blog again, for all the usual reasons (work, social life, laziness), and I’m sorry.  However, what’s the point of blogging if I can’t promote myself whenever possible?  Kevin and I will again be hosting trivia tonight at the Wonderland Ballroom in Columbia Heights.  All those who love the challenge of trying to use one’s brain while simultaneously sabotaging yourself with booze are encouraged to attend.

Wherein I succumb to peer pressure

After missing countless party invites from those who have eschewed email and Evites, I have finally decided to join Facebook.   I’m under the Washington, DC network, if anyone’s looking for me.  Some would say letting your ex-girlfriend set up your account is probably a bad idea, but I think Connie did a fine job.

I guess this is her acceptance speech

Not content to be obsessed with only one blogger’s body, Ann Althouse goes for the deuce and calls Kevin Drum a fattie. As Althouse has perhaps the largest yet most fragile ego on the entire web, one insult isn’t going to do it; she also notes that Drum is a Clinton sycophant. Apparently posting one item with positive mention of Hillary Clinton is enough to earn sycophant status these days. Who knew? More on this later.

Stay with me, readers, because we’re not even to the craziest portion of this post yet. That comes later on, as Althouse muses why Drum gave her the Golden Wingnut Award:

I understand that I ruffled some feathers with that harshly satirical post that took aim at Bill Clinton and a feminist who festoons her blog with images of breasts. You can hate that post all you want, but there’s nothing right wing about it. If it’s any wing, it’s left.

So I got to thinking that Drum must be one of those politicos who’s carrying water for HC.

…

But I don’t have time. Not to write a poem and not to solve the mystery of whether Drum is on my case in service to the Clintons.

Althouse apparently thinks the reactions to her posts on Jessica Valenti’s breasts were all about defending Bill Clinton. She also thinks that any such criticism is part of a massive conspiracy against her powered by the Clintons.

Let that sink in for a second.

Needless to say, both these notions are completely absurd. If anything, reaction to Althouse was focused on defending Valenti from Althouse’s attacks after simply looking like herself and being photographed. The nutty professor implied that Valenti was slutting it up for the presidental photograph, when in reality Valenti simply wore business casual clothing and (gasp!) had breasts. Althouse also tried to shame Feministing for the female silhouettes in its logo, because they too had breasts, shockingly enough.

This argument was idiotic and puzzling at the time, and this still holds true. There’s nothing that Valenti could have done to be outside of Althouse’s slut criteria short of not attending the luncheon or taping down her breasts, indeed it seems that her only crimes were standing next to Bill Clinton and being pretty. When this was pointed out to Ann, the brouhaha quickly centered around her truly unhinged reaction to all the criticism, best exemplified by her Bloggingheads TV spot with Garance Franke-Ruta.

As for the conspiracy theory, well, I did say she had a big ego.

That Ann Althouse still thinks she’s the victim of some sort of liberal persecution in this matter is maddening, and it’s a testament to her lack of intellectual heft that the best she can come up with is fat jokes and egotistical delusions. But I’ve got to hand it to her, this is by far the best acceptance speech for a Golden Wingnut Award that I’ve ever read.

Postscript: Althouse’s link to Drum’s post that dotes on Hillary Clinton (reproduced here) doesn’t actually take you to a real website, and a quick Google search of some the text she cites shows only her blog as a result. There’s a chance she made up the whole thing, which isn’t really surprising.

Update:  My use of the phrase “there’s a chance” is vindicated, as Matt Ficke finds the post in question.

Somebody’s cool all of a sudden

The blogfather himself has been invited to the cool kids’ table to give his thoughts on Susan Faludi’s The Terror Dream over at TPM Cafe.  One would hope he’d remember to come back to us nerds when he’s done, especially since he’s Dungeon Master this weekend, but I’m not betting on it.

Oh Jesus Fucking Christ

After years of silence on the issue, Thabo Mbeki is back to vocally being an HIV/AIDS denier.   I’d find this humorous if not for the fact that his views (and especially the views of his health minister) have most likely contributed to thousands of deaths in South Africa from AIDS over the years.  When is his term of office up?

HT:  Ben Goldacre

Mike Meginnis is mad as hell

…and he’s not gonna take it anymore.

Even as a Clinton-leaner myself (though still undecided between her and Obama), I have to say that I completely agree with Mike here (shocker, I know). It takes a special kind of hubris to think that the correctness of your opinions are so obvious that the only reason anyone could disagree is because they’re sexist/racist/a paid shill/in on the conspiracy/etc. The writers at The American Prospect Mike refers to would be well served to refrain from engaging in crank argumentation.

For those who would cry hypocrisy at the sight of me chastising those who would question motives so soon after calling PETA a bunch of liars, let me respond. One should assume another is arguing in good faith unless evidence tells you otherwise. There’s no reason for the Prospect writers to assume that those who back Obama or Edwards are sexist simply because they back those candidates. PETA (or global warming deniers, or alternative medicine advocates, or whatever other cranks I criticize) on the other hand, is denying objective reality as established by scientific inquiry. Taking this into account, the only logical assumptions are that they are ignorant, willfully delusional, or dishonest.

Speciesist and proud

Watching HBO the other day I saw a promo for an upcoming documentary on PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk. The HBO website has little right now on the film, titled I Am an Animal: The Story of Ingrid Newkirk and PETA, but the tenor of the trailer seemed to imply that the piece might be quite unflattering to Newkirk, or at least not completely sympathetic. As you can imagine, I find this quite agreeable, and am eagerly awaiting its broadcast.

The timing of this documentary couldn’t be better, as only a few weeks ago the home of a UCLA scientist was flooded by animal rights extremists (the scientist in question, Edythe London, defends her animal research here). Apparently the extremists of the Animal Liberation Front (the IRA to PETA’s Sinn Fein) planned on burning her house down but demurred in the face of the Southern California wildfires. How sweet.

Mark Hoofnagle at Denialism blog does a thorough review of the situation, noting again how PETA and its ilk continue to lie about the utility of animals in medical research. I’d like to take a quick look at a favorite accusation of the animal rights crew, namely that scientists like Dr. London and those that support them are speciesist. To which I say: but of course.

Speciesism is not like racism and sexism, no matter what Pamela Anderson tells you. The latter two prejudices are without any empirical basis, in fact such beliefs fly in the face of all we know about differences in skin color and gender. Additionally, racism and sexism claim differences where there are none, relying on only bias to posit disparities in intelligence, demeanor, and ability that science doesn’t confirm (Andrew Sullivan’s defense of bad science notwithstanding).

Conversely, speciesism is based off an undisputed biological fact: humans and animals are of a different class of organisms. I don’t need to hearken to Genesis to know that our species is set apart from all others on this planet. We’re the only ones who could even possibly debate this question, for fuck’s sake. Pure and simple, to advocate species equality is to devalue human life to a point where the life of a puppy is of equal value to that of an infant. Call me speciesist or what have you, but such a stance is morally abhorrent.