XML FeedsSacredness, Demons, Football, Republicans, Moon State
By Burr Deming on Feb 4, 2012 | In Welcome | 2 feedbacks »
Vincent of A wayfarer's notes takes his recent speculation of what makes a sacred place and applies it to the world of books.
Why do we have to do this, Sir? begins with our erstwhile spiritual leader explaining why he imagines himself within biblical stories, trying to fill in the blanks. He treats us to the traditional story of Jesus and the demon possessed man and adds an unusual set of turns. This is a profoundly talented writer.
PZ Myers, writing for Pharyngula, celebrates the Super Bowl as an alternative to church. Then offers an unexpected alternative to football.
Betty Cracker, at Rumproast, finds a pithy comment from a former Supreme Court Justice Newt Gingrich, family values, and religion.
Michael John Scott in Mad Mike's America covers an Alabama politician who delivers the word Jesus: keep teachers in poverty. It's the will of the Lord.
Infidel 753 finds a satiric political ad for Rick Santorum. Unusual in that it is actually witty and makes its point.
Max's Dad offers examples of the sort of dog whistle politics that our occasional correspondent Heathen Republican disputes as non-falsifiable.
The Heathen Republican expands on his objection. Since dog whistle politics is a matter of opinion, being deniable by design, it doesn't happen. My take is that racism itself is largely unconscious. Few think of themselves as racists. Dog whistle politics is calculated, established by deliberate pattern. So the dog whistle is an appeal to, not always a reflection of, racism. And, yes, the dog whistle is meant to be deniable, not falsifiable. Debate about it tends to make it detectable, not provable. Still, the discussion that results is sometimes useful.
Chuck Thinks Right objects at news that a woman not proficient in English is suing for the right to run for elective office in Arizona. I dunno, Chuck. Seems to me it isn't her rights that are at issue as much as the rights of voters to elect anyone they want. The same issue Gingrich is arguing in Virginia.
Conservative James Wigderson reacts on behalf of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in her finger pointing confrontation with President Obama. As might be expected, my perspective is ... older.
Slant Right's John Houk greets with a mixture of sadness and glee the retirement from Presidential politics and intention to seek re-election to Congress of Michele Bachmann (R-Weird).
Tim McGaha at Tim's Thoughtful Spot has researched available methods for establishing a 51st state on the moon. Wonder what brought that grandiose idea to Tim's mind.
Tommy Christopher of Mediaite fame considers a recent Newt Gingrich campaign song controversy. Tommy Christopher sometimes cracks me up. To find out why, read the first paragraph and you'll know why.
Gwendolyn Barry with New Global Myth teams with friend and favorite Jack Jodell to list and describe every news and search source that exists on the web. Well, maybe not all, but enough to last until next week.
Jack Jodell, friend of the working blogger at THE SATURDAY AFTERNOON POST is also inspired by Newt Gingrich references to research and find inspiration in the life's work of Saul Alinsky.
Nancy Hanks at The Hankster offers a unifying definition of what makes Independent voters independent. Count me as skeptical but intrigued.
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
2 comments
Another way to put it is that the charge itself can be made against anyone anywhere, and since it is not falsifiable, the victim of the charge has no defense. The fact that the victim of the charge has no defense does nothing to suggest his guilt, as that type of charge can never be defended, by definition; therefore, the burden of proof cannot be upon the one charged with a non-falsifiable statement, and must be on the one making the charge.
Another way to put it is this: though the charge may or may not be true, if it is made, but not proven, it is, by definition, fallacious.
So to clarify another point you made, though the charge is fallacious, it may also contain some truth. How would we know unless we consider it?
I think most republicans are not any more racist than most democrats. Any prejudice they express is against the poor and those who benefit from entitlements. Of course, my belief is not falsifiable and not provable, so it just a guess.
Leave a comment
| « Pop Music in North Korea via Accordian | Tiny Spanish Village in Financial Straits Wins Big » |
