(a poem mostly cribbed from the writing of Hogan, at Redstate, as a followup to Epistemic Closure)
I frankly don’t know,
Don’t know,
Conscience, conservative, statistic, number.
Correct or not:
Goldwater, Reagan,
I DON’T CARE.
The facts were in the ballpark,
The principles were
Timeless and correct.
The facts were in the ballpark.
I have read.
Good book,
Good citations,
Good facts.
Reality-based,
In the ballpark.
Advertisement
26 comments
April 28, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Elliott
I feel alot of my criticisms of history books I have read come down to that: “Well, the author gets alot of stuff wrong… but on the level, the book was pretty alright, and it said some important stuff.”
Buutttttt… this is just a hunch, now, but I don’t think that’s the point of your awesome poem.
April 28, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Charlieford
Very much an improvement on the original. You’re a braver man than I, visiting places such as that.
April 28, 2010 at 6:04 pm
silbey
Very much an improvement on the original. You’re a braver man than I, visiting places such as that.
I try not to make a habit of it, as I have heard that repeated exposures have serious medical effects. But very rarely…
April 28, 2010 at 6:15 pm
jvhillegas
This is great, silbey, thanks for bringing it to our attention.
I put the organic filter on my respirator and went over to RedState — first time for me! — and was presented with yet another example of an ideology I can’t comprehend.
hogan (whoever the heck s/he really is) is an example of someone with a lamentably (and lamentably self-inflicted) case of ossified brain syndrome. Oh no, wait, I’m wrong: he’s just a “regular-old American.”*
You rhythmically characterize his ideology-driven closed-mindedness in your stanzas. Another example, in his own words:
“The entire global warming debate is one of hysteria and deserves the mocking it gets from Mark. It’s filled with lies and scare-mongering, resulting in less freedom, higher taxes, more expensive energy, a worse economy and a lower standard of living for tens or even hundreds of millions of people – for absolutely no good reason.”
Followed, of course, by the standard refrain of the privileged oblivious ignoramus:
“Come 2014, I will continue to use the stockpile of incandescent bulbs I plan to amass in the coming 4 years – and will gladly pay the electric bill so I can have the light I prefer to have. Forgive me for wanting the freedom to have a frigging light bulb of my choosing. I will continue to drive a gas-guzzling Jeep Wrangler if I have to hand-build an engine to replace it, because I freaking like to drive it. I will continue to flush my toilet however many times it takes to get the job done – and I will continue to take a long hot shower.”
. . . because rogan is the only person in the universe, and he happens to be a credentialed physicist, atmospheric scientist, environmental historian, logician, policy analyst . . .
Are all conservatives morons, or do I somehow only hear about the moronic ones?**
–
* I’m assuming white male here, strictly based on the blithely self-assured lack of awareness-beyond-one’s-self exhibited in this single post. I’m happy to be wrong
** Do I need to get out of my bubble more often?
April 28, 2010 at 6:19 pm
jvhillegas
quick follow-up: hogan’s profile at RS shows him to be so confident in his interpretations and so open to honest discussion that he eschews identifying himself or his credentials. Surprise!
April 28, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Elliott
quick follow-up: hogan’s profile at RS shows him to be so confident in his interpretations and so open to honest discussion that he eschews identifying himself or his credentials. Surprise!
But… it’s the internet! I mean, I do it, you do it, we all do it – to be fair, you and I actually, you know, use our real, full names, but hogan’s profile strikes me more as a “posts by” than a “this is who I am.”
Just trying to be fair.
April 28, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Charlieford
Following jvhillegas, has anyone else noted how often conservatives )bloggers and especially the commenters) just revel in damaging, or at least not respecting, the environment/nature/creation?
On earth day I found myself getting pointed to all these sites and it was pretty startling how violent the sentiments were.
Now maybe this is just rhetoric: for some reason, conservatives since Goldwater have gotten a major proportion of their jollies out of simply annoying liberals (and assorted fellow-travelers).
And I knew one or two people for whom Sarah Palin was a major attraction simply because she got cosmopolitan types so enraged.
But is that all there is?
Sometimes I wonder if there isn’t a distinct rural ethos of “damage stuff.” “Kill animals.” “Trash it up.” And that that’s the old, American tradition, and all these effete modernizers have come along–Whigy type people–and want all those people to “improve,” and they resent that, of course, but there’s also just a distinct, and ancient, lifestyle choice here that’s the complete opposite of those who want to conserve, protect, enjoy.
April 29, 2010 at 4:34 am
kevin
Truthiness tells us
Facts have a liberal bias.
Listen to your gut.
April 29, 2010 at 4:43 am
pv
Charlieford, I think the same thing when I see t-shirts/bumper stickers (surprisingly often) saying “People for the Eating of Tasty Animals” or some such thing. I think, really? This is how you’re responding to the complex question of how humans use other living creatures? Gleeful mockery?
And I think there is a common thread between gleeful destruction of earth: defensiveness. I think conservatives (or non-environmentalists) hear environmentalists as preachy, superior, and moralistic, and thus get defensive about their own behavior, and over-respond.
April 29, 2010 at 4:51 am
kid bitzer
extractive economies. claim it, clear-cut it, strip-mine it, sell it, move on. what’s left behind is trashed, depleted, ruined, and worthless, but fuck it. we’re on to the next job.
they were already that way before there was any eco-enviro movement to respond to.
April 29, 2010 at 5:26 am
pv
kid bitzer, no doubt, but I don’t know if the same joyous mockery came about until there were a bunch of people to point out that the realities of these extractive economies were a serious problem. In other words, some people and their supporters went from callously destroying the earth for profit to callously destroying the earth for profit and joyously pointing out that’s what they’re doing. I could be wrong.
There’s a line from Jonathan Safran Foer’s “Eating Animals” regarding factory farming:
“We can’t plead ignorance, only indifference. Those alive today are the generations that came to know better. We have the burden and the opportunity of living in the moment when the critique of factory farming broke into the popular consciousness. We are the ones of whom it will be fairly asked, What did you do when you learned the truth about eating animals?”
If I can borrow the idea, those who perform and defend acts and policies that destroy the environment can no longer claim ignorance. But they usually respond with either “We don’t believe you” or “Ha ha ha! We don’t care!”
April 29, 2010 at 6:10 am
Walt
I think it is defensiveness. For example, the reaction of most people to Foer’s argument, the first time they hear it, is to want to punch Foer.
April 29, 2010 at 6:57 am
baa
to want to punch Foer.
To be fair, this is a more general sentiment.
April 29, 2010 at 7:07 am
Charlieford
More general yet: to want punch.
April 29, 2010 at 1:27 pm
jvhillegas
Elliott: Actually, your links proved the point I was trying to make.
Following the link to hogan provides us with nothing at all about him, his work, his credentials. Following the link to your “about” lets us know that you’re a grad student at UC Davis studying South Asia and that you respect the works of these fine professors. Following the link to my Blogger profile doesn’t provide much, but reading about me on the blog itself (“More About the Parent of this Blog . . .”) provides quite a bit of information — more than enough to understand generally where I’m coming from (geographically and intellectually).
Part of what I was reacting to in the case of hogan is that I find it hard to have respect for people who don’t exhibit integrity in the form of aligning themselves explicitly with the viewpoints they espouse. There may be compelling reasons why whistle-blowers, Deep Throat, authors of the Federalist Papers, etc., need not be identified explicitly (or at least immediately), but for run-of-the-mill political screed it just seems immature to me for authors to do this.
I interpret this propensity among hogan and his fellow screed-writers as implying that they’re so very passionate about the topic and believe that they’re so very correct in their interpretations that they just need to tell the world!!!! . . . yet they’re somehow not adult enough to associate their physical selves with what they’ve written.
The Internet facilitates anonymity but it seems to me that fostering this anonymity is often a weakness of the technology (and/or use of this technology). Sometimes, of course, it’s a strength. (We take the good with the bad, I suppose.)
In conclusion, hogan is wrong AND he’s a coward.
April 29, 2010 at 8:26 pm
TF Smith
Perhaps so, but is sniping at some anonymous poster on a commentary blog he/she/it/them may or may not know even exists really much of a profile in courage?
A debate sort of requires that the proponents of both sides of a given proposition know there is one scheduled.
April 29, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Elliott
In conclusion, hogan is wrong AND he’s a coward.
There was a time that keeping one’s name off the internet was considered prudent, not cowardly.
April 30, 2010 at 9:02 am
jvhillegas
TF Smith, Elliott: Good points . . .
However, TF: Isn’t it a given that one who commits thoughts to digital format and uploads these thoughts to the Internet by definition joins in the larger discussion? Certainly, some blogs/websites have more visitors than others, but anyone putting stuff up on the Internet these days cannot plausibly deny an intention to join in some debate or discussion of one kind or another. Maybe that notion held water in 1998, and maybe it still pertains to Internet users under the age of 14, but otherwise it doesn’t seem valid.
Also, the fundamental motivation for my “sniping” is simply the fact that hogan doesn’t have the courage to back up his words with some idea of who he is in real life. If he’s so sure of the universal Truth of his point of view, why skulk in the shadows of anonymity? To speak very broadly, I don’t see this kind of behavior as aiding in the quest for truths or conducive to the democratic process.
However, Elliott: My position on prudence and Internet posting starts from the proposition that anonymity for whistleblowers would be prudent, anonymity for ill-informed vitriol is cowardly, and between these poles are shades of grey.
April 30, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Vance
I think there are plenty of good reasons one might not wish to use one’s real name; yet with good-faith pseudonymity, one’s words can be one’s bond, so to speak — if one’s consistent about one’s position, one can argue it pseudonymously to good effect. (This has been true for two decades on the Internet, and I don’t see what has changed it.) And using one’s real name doesn’t prevent one from making slippery moves (like substituting “anonymity” for “pseudonymity”).
hogan’s arguments are ridiculous, but the obscuring of her real-world identity is neither here nor there.
April 30, 2010 at 6:33 pm
TF Smith
Well, sure, but if Silbey or whoever really wants to engage Mr./Ms/? Hogan, they probably should go post a comment on Hogan’s blog….otherwise it is preaching to the choir, so to speak…
May 1, 2010 at 5:10 am
silbey
Well, sure, but if Silbey or whoever really wants to engage Mr./Ms/? Hogan, they probably should go post a comment on Hogan’s blog…
(Note that I’m not criticizing Hogan for his/her anonymity.)
If I’d wanted to engage Hogan, I would have posted a comment over there.
May 1, 2010 at 9:06 am
tpb
Red State bans commentators who criticize very quickly. It is, in other words, extremely difficult to engage them in debate because they see debate as, it would seem, an attack.
May 4, 2010 at 9:33 pm
TF Smith
Okay, but other than ridiculing an idiot, what exactly are you doing by posting about it here?
Entertainment?
May 5, 2010 at 10:09 am
silbey
Okay, but other than ridiculing an idiot, what exactly are you doing by posting about it here?
There has to be another reason?
I was, in fact, ridiculing an idiot.
May 27, 2010 at 1:13 am
jvhillegas
Quite belated . . .
hogan’s arguments are ridiculous, but the obscuring of her real-world identity is neither here nor there.
If this is true, then that’s great! We can all have one life in the analog world and an infinite number of lives in the virtual world! Huzzah! And these lives need not correlate in any way! Fabulous! This means that we can make the conscious choice to expend our limited time and energy to spew ignorant vitriol in any number of Internet forums without any notion of having any kind of responsibility to the larger community! Fabulous! We can help undermine the sense of (local, regional, national, global) community even further! Congratulations!
Patronizing aside, my point is, precisely, that real world identity for people who spew nonsense is both here and there. I will consider it a significant evolutionary step when our culture no longer deems such actions as par for the course. Our [dominant white Euro-American Protestant] culture shields itself too much with unexamined ignorance framed in various passive constructions. Anonymous nonsensical Internet vitriol is one example of this.
For those of you who would care, I just tried to call hogan a coward to his virtual face.
May 27, 2010 at 6:28 am
Vance
Seriously, jvhillegas, isn’t it enough to argue that hogan is wrong? Why must you also know “who he is”? I don’t see that the pseudonym inhibits discussion. And I hope the accusation of cowardice is not a threat.
FWIW, I’m the Vance Maverick on the masthead. At times I’ve preferred that my comments here not be the first thing that comes up when a prospective employer google me, but I haven’t tried hard to construct a consistent alternate identity.