Thinking Is Hard ... It's Hard Work!

With a title like that you might think I'm referring to the President, but no.  He's no brain trust, but even he isn't as goofy as some of the folks one can encounter online.  Right here in Montana, even.

I had some time last night and this afternoon, and wasted it (in every sense of the word) cruising around the parts of the Montana webtubes that are seriously thought challenged.  I just figured I'd share a few impressions with y'all.  'Hope you don't mind.

First, we have What's White in Montana (nope, no linky for you).  It seems that Eric, despite any attachment to morality or reason, was smart enough to jump ship and leave the site in the hands of 'Wildcatter78'.  Now, Wildcatter can at least show the pretensions of thoughtfulness, even if his gross biases bite him in the ass.  He posted a challenge for Montana liberals to defend the Governor.  Fair enough ... except that no one takes that website seriously any more, and no self-respecting proponent of the Governor would answer such a desperate cry for help.  "Oh Noes!  We have no content!  Save us liberals, save us!"

The comments are what is truly striking.  It seems that someone has decided to actually "poop" in the toilet of a website that they've built over there.  They have a comment spammer - serial pooper - comment troll absolutely going to town in their comment threads.  I can't say I think it's at all meaningful or useful, but it is kinda funny.  The only reason I mention this is because, apparently, some of those jack-asses still think it's me.  I am their great Boogie Man.  I really enjoy that I hold such rapture over their imaginations.  Uhhh, kids, do try to keep in mind that when I post a comment, it's as me.  I can't respect you any less, so I've no reason to hide my disdain behind "poop" comments.  'Glad we cleared that up, 'Kay?

So, let's travel on over and see what Not Farm Boy Ryan has to say.  It seems he wants to debunk global warming as the awful scientific conspiracy that 'common sense' tells us that it is.  Wow!  That's impressive.  What a fucking link-fest he's got goin' on.  He's got at least 4 links pointing to the same scientist (Timothy Ball) as if he were a whole bunch of different people.  Why would Ryan do that?  After all, Ryan's first core argument is that science has been manipulated by a cabal of get-rich-quick KILL-the opposition climatologist mafiosos.  Isn't that, dare I say it, hypocrisy?  Perish the thought.  Anyone who argues against global warming is buried, befuddled and disappeared, (according to the stable, rational folk who believe Ball).  So Ball just must be too potent to be able to actually stand firm against the Glacial Melt Conspiracy.  (Ryan, adjust your tin-foil hat.  That tilt makes you look gay, and we Global Warming Conspiracy Deniers don't cotton to such frivolous things.)

Ryan's big thesis is much ... BIGGER, though.  And that's that Al Gore hates people and wants consequences for doing something about what he thinks we've already done.  How stupid is that?  There shouldn't be consequences that will have consequences.  That's like admitting "cause and effect" is actually real!  P'shaw!.

Ultimately, Ryan falls back on the idea that freedom should be free (even though it's not.  It costs $1.05).  If we actually listen to the people who tell us that we're killing ourselves, well, we may not have the ultimate choice to kill others along with ourselves ... and that would just be wrong, God damn it!  Finally Ryan gives us an out.  Even if we are fucking the planet up beyond all rational belief, it's okay ...  man.  We can fix it.  Big umbrellas, man.  We can fix it, even though it isn't happening.  Let's move on, shall we?

And so we come to Andrew.  Andy is all verklempt that people don't see the Clenis as a greater horror than Bushco.  That's too bad.  I feel his pain ... except that he confuses Apples for Bananas, and miscounts them both.  First, more soldiers died by accident under Reagan (which Ryan seems incapable of spelling correctly) than died under Clinton.  One has to wonder what Andy's point actually was.  Okay, no we don't.  His point was that Democrats are worse for the military than Republicants ... except they aren't.  His own links prove that.  Thanks, Andy.

The second ENORMOUS mistake that Andy makes is to compare combat deaths to *all* deaths in the military, regardless of reason.  I'd call that shallow analysis, except that Andy was very deliberate in doing so.  He knows that he's comparing unlike figures; he just doesn't care.  He thinks us all stupid enough to buy into his bullshit.  Amazingly ... some folk are.

Problem the third, is that the statistics are inaccurate.  They only go up through 2004.  Allow me to interject.  This is the fricking information age.  The goddamned DOD can't provide up to date statistics, even to those of last year?  Bullshit.  They just don't want you to know.  It's your government, people.  Demand better.  Otherwise, dipsporks like Andy will continue to pretend that they have an argument.  They don't.

I'll just ignore, for now, Andrew's assumptions about the media.  I will point and laugh at his ridiculous assumption, but I won't take it task here.

But, Andy isn't done yet.  He wants to take Al Gore to task for being an Eco-waster.  It seems that a conservative shill think-tank pokes fun at Gore for not being the person that they expect him to be.  I really, REALLY, don't have to point out the stupidity of that, do I?  I guess I do.  Metafilter covered it thoroughly.  Al Gore doesn't run a palatial estate.  He owns a working farm/ranch.   Al Gore  doesn't bare  the sole responsibility for solving global warming.   He's doing his part.  That Andy doesn't think so speaks more to the silliness of Andy then it does to the facts of the case.

Keep in mind, Andy.  Your assumptions of motivation don't matter to anyone.  Al Gore isn't wrong just because you don't think he does enough to solve a problem.  That's like saying * you believe* that doctors don't really believe in adequate health care because they don't give it away for free.  That's like saying that people who *really* want roads for commerce  should be required  to pick  up a shovel and build one.  You're being communist when you promote such ideas.  You wouldn't do that, would you?  Wouldn't you have to call yourself out as a ... hypocrite?

Thus ends our tour through the deeply stupid.  I hope that you've enjoyed yourselves.   Please tip the waitress on the way out.

Comments

[Gee Guy]

We can debate global warming all day, Wulfgar. In fact, I think you and I have been doing just that for a couple years now.

But I am not sure why you are defending Al Gore on his hypocrisy (at least you're not using the whole carbon neutral, rich people should be allowed pollute argument). You are not a 'knee-jerk' liberal, so I am surprised you jump to his defense here.

First of all, I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that the Gores run much of a "working farm" in Belle Meade, Tennessee. Have you ever been there? I have. Let's just say it's more palatial estates than it is working farms.

And surely you can see that someone who is staking his whole next presidential campaign on being the climate change rock star is a little more exposed on the whole hypocrisy scale than the environmentalist who drives a Yukon. It's just the difference between talking the talk, and walking the walk.

And expecting someone who lectures me about my eco-unfriendly lifestyle to walk the walk is something different than saying anyone who wants roads should build them themselves.

By the way, your $1.05 pricetag for freedom is the funniest thing I read on the blogs today.

[Britt]

'Dipspork' ????

Where, pray tell, did you come up with THAT one???

You're the greatest Bud :)

El Britto

[Wulfgar]

I'd love to be able to take credit for either of those funnies ... but I can't. The "buck-o-five" schtick is actually from Team America, World Police. And dipspork I picked up from my friend, Jon. It's handy in a pinch, though.

Gee Guy, my response to your more substantive points is working itself into another post on the topic. Bear with me, please.

[Gee Guy]

Damn, I missed dipspork.

[Kit]

Wulfgar, can you please shoot me an email? I couldn't find contact info for you on your site. Thanks!

[john]

You nailed it. The impact of climate change overwhelms the claimed failings of the messenger. Gore could claim to rule the toads of the short forest and yet still be right about climate change.

The real question is whether we risk the consequences of gambling our sizable habitable environment for something smaller with an ever growing population.

Perhaps the lack of concern for the environment is linked to the lack of concern over population diminishing wars.