March 11, 2010

Men are more likely to be skeptical about global warming.

But why, exactly? Is it that women care more?

81 comments:

Mark O said...

"Care?" Does this mean I care more about algebra than those who understood it better?

David said...

What a silly poll.

Of course effects of global warming are occurring.

The earth has been in a overall warming trend since the last ice age. Oceans have risen. Climates have changed. Life forms have been affected.

Maybe women are just more sensitive to heat.

traditionalguy said...

More smoke and mirrors science. The question is not whether there is a warming. The question is whether risies in the % of the beneficial trace gas CO2 is causing any warming. This poll is only relevent in assessing mind control science...not AGW fake science invented from whole cloth by AlGore and the Hoaxers for their massive fraud.

Quayle said...

They want to take the whole big world and squeeze it to their plentiful breasts, and simply love nasty CO2 out of it.

Henry said...

Warmer weather means more bikinis.

edutcher said...

If you want me to say that men are more rational and women are more emotional, I will, but don't yell at me afterward.

Of course, men's rationality goes out the window once women start squeezing stuff to their plentiful breasts, but you already knew that.

Synova said...

I'm an unnatural woman and couldn't possibly say.

Sometimes I want to insist that women are not mushy headed emotionalists and I want to fight the stereotypes but then I remind myself that I'm not exactly representative and would far rather watch Spike or TNT 'sploding helicopters than Lifetime disease-of-the-week.

So in the end I have to admit that I just really don't know how women think or what is actually a gender trait and what is not.

madawaskan said...

The percentage for women according to Gallup is 56%.

The percentage for Democrats is 66%.

Since I take it that they did both of these questions with the same pool of respondents the distribution of female respondents most likely was disproportionately Democrat-which would not be an unfair representation necessarily because females trend more Democratic in the general population when compared to men.

madawaskan said...

The better Gallup poll lately is the one of Obama's popularity-that looks like it's about to cross the Rubicon.

The trend lines are about to meet up and diverge.

Synova said...

"...because females trend more Democratic..."

We're accustomed to and generally comfortable with the idea of being taken care of.

Or something.

madawaskan said...

Possibly.

Allan said...

My wife is skeptical about global warming
(actually she is a denier).
She also is a mathematics teacher.

Some correlation there?

Henry said...

Women are also far likelier to go to church.

madawaskan said...

Synova-

The possibly was in reference to the trend lines in the chart for Obama's poll numbers.

As to your question I really don't know why women trend more Democrat-could be the damn abortions for everyone crapola.

In other words just about anyone's guess is better than mine.

madawaskan said...

Henry-

Interesting-I did not know that.

John Stodder said...

blah blah blah the children blah blah blah.

NewHam said...

Larry Lindsyy would explain to you that women aren't able to do math and science (and he's from Harvard, so he knows).

It has to do with their smaller relative brain size and bitchiness during periods.

Women are about creating consensus amongst their fellow gatherers in the fields, and science isn't about consensus.

Women are good at their things, though.

Pogo said...

Women are also more likely to be socialists.

Almost Ali said...

Men were also more skeptical about Barack Obama.

Therefore, I agree with Ann Coulter who she said we should repeal the 19th Amendment.

paul a'barge said...

more gullible
less capable of scientific thought

kent said...

My wife is skeptical about global warming
(actually she is a denier).
She also is a mathematics teacher.


Some correlation there?

Mine is a geologist... and she, too, is a loud, in-your-face denier.

Women in the sciences rawk. ;)

former law student said...

Men have more to lose if global warming is true:

No mudbog racing.
No dune buggies
No cigarette boats.
No snowmobiles
No ultralights
No chainsaws
No jetskis

Basically, everything that goes "Vrrrroom!" will be sharply curtailed.

Women, OTOH, are happy driving New Beetles with flower petal wheel decorations.

Cedarford said...

The big difference for me in that poll was the jump in independents saying the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated. From 36% in 2008 to 52% in 2010. That dooms the cap and trade/carbon tax matter. That and India & China vetoing any destruction of their economies to please Euroweenies.
Those two factors matter far more than some childless woman or empty nester who sends 15% of her paycheck to "Save the Animals".

I was a skeptic about Algore and Global Warming Catastrophism before, but I am a skeptic of the other side as well - who maintain that 10 billion humans are great, and 20 or 30 billion would be even better and lead to "amazing economic growth" and Jesus or High Technology guarantee unlimited resources and "no bad environmental effects."

IMO, the true problem is that all signs do point to the Earth warming, that man certainly has a contribution to that - but all signs point to a minority, not driving - human contribution to the warming. And NO EVIDENCE that slight warming and removing the human part of it by draconian economy-destroying measures is even desirable.

Especially when we have great, near-term urgent problems:

Oil depletion.
Threat of loss of 30,000 species from habitat loss and human overpopulation.
Depletion of "mined fossil water" and population growth - that threatens the ME, Bangladesh, significant parts of the US agriculture base west of the Mississippi.
We have 6-11 "basketcase" nations - led by Yemen, Somalia, Mali and Haiti - that have wrecked their nations ecologies, can no longer grow the food to feed between 35-80% of their people even in drought-free 'good times'. And lacking the skills, ability to sell other things to trade for food - completely dependent on the permanent charity of wealthy Westerm nations to avoid a complete population collapse.

(But those wealthy Western nations, evilly burning their carbon and borrowing money to sent shiploads of wheat and rice to noble Haitians and Somalis aren't so wealthy anymore!)/

My thoughts are there are other problems, and for too long, Algore and others have sucked all attention away from these dire matters to focus everything on the "CO2-doomed planet that requires a drastic change in everyone's lifestyle outside Ruling Elites in order to save it"

Ralph L said...

Look at how many women go out, get tipsy, and end up under guys they wouldn't give the time of day to when sober. If they're lucky, they just get herpes and a hangover.

Kirby Olson said...

Is it cooler to be lukewarm about global warming, or downright frosty on the topic?

THAT is the question.

bearing said...

Count me, a female with two engineering degrees, as a vote for "fewer women than men have studied hard sciences or had a technical job or hobby in which it was necessary to deal with how physical systems really behave."

ken in sc said...

I think women are more likely to accept the falsity of argument from authority. If you have the proper authority, they believe you.

c3 said...

Because they have more body fat and therefore always feel a bit warmer.

Duscany said...

Men I think are just more worried that carbon caps will knock the stuffing out of the economy and end up costing them their jobs. Also more men believe (perhaps erroneously) that they can cope with any global warming problems.

Women I think are more disposed to see the planet under attack by vast forces totally outside their control. Basically, I think, women are more security conscious than men.

Maguro said...

Women feel validated by holding and expressing respectable, mainstream opinions.

Once Tom Friedman and the rest of our opinion-makers dump warmism and move on to the next big thing, women will follow right along.

Synova said...

"Basically, I think, women are more security conscious than men."

This is a possibility. The more I think of it...

Women might react to being generally more vulnerable than men by favoring security and "better safe than sorry".

knox said...

Wait ... they have flower petal wheel decorations!?!?!

former law student said...

The proper term is daisy wheels, but that brings up a lot of ancient printer technology links.

The Crack Emcee said...

paul a'barge said...

more gullible
less capable of scientific thought


That's The Macho Response.

edutcher said...

knox said...

Wait ... they have flower petal wheel decorations!?!?!

Especially on their plentiful breasts.

Shanna said...

Women are more likely to be democrats, I think that's all that is. At that point, the herd mentality kicks in.

There may be something to the security conscious theory, but I don't think it's about science. The belief or disbelief in this instance is not really about science for most people. It may be about who they trust.

Paul said...

Kirby Olson said...Is it cooler to be lukewarm about global warming, or downright frosty on the topic?

"Frosty," says God.

Revelation 3:15-16
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

madawaskan said...

Ya that Ann Coulter really knows how to sell the Conservative brand.

Makes you wonder if she really believes in it.

Henry said...

@madawaskan -- I have some exposure to proselytizing religions and this is a real issue. You can convert the women more easily than the men.

I have no insight into motivation. Are women credulous or do they care more about the future? Are men skeptical or are they lazy?

I would add that laziness is not that far removed from patience and patience is a virtue.

jimspice said...

The sad part is the authors of the poll had the tools at their disposal to determine if the differences between the sexes, ceteris paribus, is in fact real. Just toss all that data into a multivariate regression analysis and see if the Betas achieve significance.

We could then do a poll about whether you believe the statistical analysis was real or not.

Michael McNeil said...

Of course effects of global warming are occurring. The earth has been in a overall warming trend since the last ice age.

No it hasn't. The height of warming during the present “interglacial” (between ice ages) era — until extremely recently, arguably as a result of AGW — was reached during what has been called the “Altithermal” in North America, more generally known as the “Holocene climatic optimum,” which occurred between about 9,000 and 5,000 years ago, when temperatures in the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere averaged a degree or so C (2 degrees F.) warmer than during the last couple of millennia of the pre-industrial epoch.

As for what it was like in North America during the Altithermal, archaeologist Stuart Fiedel noted in his very interesting Prehistory of the Americas that the Great Plains apparently turned into near desert, while the American bison retreated off the plains into riverside and eastern woodlands, during which period they evolved from the larger ice age species into the smaller modern form.

madawaskan said...

In 2008 58% of men and 64% of women bought the Global Warming argument-the margin of error is 4%.

Therefore there is no significant statistical difference between men and women-back in 2008 when people should have been naturally more skeptical not less.

2010 looks like a different story I don't know what conclusions you can readily draw from that. Men are more easily flipped from what they previously believed?

More fickle?

Heh.

madawaskan said...

Henry-

I have some exposure to proselytizing religions and this is a real issue. You can convert the women more easily than the men.

Wow interesting again...I wish this thread wasn't so late at night for me anyways-traveled all day...

Maybe overnight more people will check in and offer theories on that.

Why would that be?

I would think if you were looking at that from a historical pespective it might be because women died at younger ages...but why would that be true now?

Michael McNeil said...

Men have more to lose if global warming is true:

No mudbog racing.
No dune buggies
No cigarette boats.
No snowmobiles
No ultralights
No chainsaws
No jetskis

Basically, everything that goes “Vrrrroom!” will be sharply curtailed.


This is not at all necessary — except perhaps for a decline in snowmobile usage. It's entirely feasible (if we only make the decision to do so) to build dozens or hundreds of nuclear power plants (together with wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, etc., plants in any balance desired) which would generate electricity to replace the present fossil fuel and coal fired powerplants — together with synthesizing hydrogen, say, to fuel our automobiles and planes (which could even utilize internal combustion engines rather than fuel cells, very much like what are in use today, thus preserving the “Vrooom!”) — and thereby fully maintain the high-energy civilization we're used to, while minimizing greenhouse gas emissions.

EDH said...

Men are more likely to be skeptical of global warming. But why, exactly?


Two words: Hot Flashes.

Synova said...

"I have some exposure to proselytizing religions and this is a real issue. You can convert the women more easily than the men."

I had a course in college about terrorism back when terrorists were German and the instructor claimed that when the members of a cell were caught and imprisoned the women were more steadfast than the men, even if they joined because of the men. They wouldn't give up the cause.

I have no idea if this is because women are prone to be true believers, or if giving up the cause would have been an admission that they were weak minded and easily led.

I don't know if that has any relevance to religious conversion. I suspect that it doesn't have any relevance at all, but it sort of popped into my mind.

It might have to do with holding on to belief in AGW even in the face of mounting evidence that there never was much for evidence.

No one likes to admit that they were fooled.

Synova said...

" (...) — and thereby fully maintain the high-energy civilization we're used to, while minimizing greenhouse gas emissions."

There is so much that could be done that no "denier" would object to that I'm hard pressed to imagine any reason that these things have not been pushed aggressively except that it's really not about the supposed warming at all, but about pushing economic and social agendas.

It's not that we need an answer to the problem, it's that we need a problem for the preferred answer.

Because why else aren't we aggressively building nuke plants? Not that nukes are the only option... there's always fission and hydrogen and microwaves from space, etc., but none of those things are properly anti-technology and development... instead most of them demand full speed ahead (dare I use the word) progress.

Fen said...

the women were more steadfast than the men, even if they joined because of the men. They wouldn't give up the cause.

I have no idea if this is because women are prone to be true believers, or if giving up the cause would have been an admission that they were weak minded and easily led.


I think its because they displaced their maternal instinct into their "cause". I'll bet you'll find that they defended x with the tenacity of a lioness protecting her cubs.

When you have too many abortions, you must find Other Things to invest that energy in.

I would be curious to see the ratio of abortionists to AGW beleivers amoung women.

Dave Blake said...

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticize any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.


Corporate Furnished Apartments

Michael McNeil said...

Those are generally good points, Synova, but I have a few comments and quibbles….

Because why else aren't we aggressively building nuke plants?

Because of the hysteria and hoorah that so-called “environmentalists” (except for a tragic few such as James Lovelock and Stewart Brand) have raised over the last four decades to anything bearing the moniker “nuclear.”

Yet even the enormous Soviet Chernobyl catastrophe (arguably the worst nuclear disaster that could ever occur, and even it couldn't happen to Western nuclear plants, much less improved designs that have been prepared) killed to date a grand total of fifty people — compared with many thousands that die each year as a result of the terrifically dirty coal and fossil fuel powered powerplants. It's a completely absurd and insane situation but yet there it is.

Not that nukes are the only option… there's always fission and hydrogen and microwaves from space, etc., but none of those things are properly anti-technology and development… instead most of them demand full speed ahead (dare I use the word) progress.

In spirit I agree with the above, but in particular… fission is nuclear; hydrogen… well, there are no hydrogen mines, one must make hydrogen, using energy from somewhere, such as (ta da!) nuclear power; while microwaves from space (stations) may well be feasible, and I'm all in favor of investigating the possibility, but the only greenhouse-gas-free technology that's really ready for prime time at present is nuclear. Nuclear power plants (even though none have been built in this country — due to the aforementioned phobia and hysteria — for decades) still produce some 20% of the nation's electrical power (50% in Japan, 80% in France), and many more such plants could quite readily be built to eventually contribute virtually all the power (less such things as hydropower) in America.

Bruce Hayden said...

I do think that men are more willing to challenge authority, and the authority in this case was the "consensus". We see this throughout human civilization.

The more I heard about the "consensus" of expert scientists, and how only they were the only ones smart enough to understand the problem, etc., the more I doubted. It was almost visceral, and was pretty much automatic.

And, I am 40 years beyond my most aggressive attacks on authority. The bulk of men are between me and that point in my ancient past. It is just part of how men are wired, to challenge the male hierarchy in order to find one's place in it.

I think that on the other hand though, women may be far more comforted by authority. It provides them with security. In any case, you sure don't find them fighting it at the same instinctual level that men do, especially when young.

Hoosier Daddy said...

But why, exactly? Is it that women care more?

That and being more gullible.

The Crack Emcee said...

"It might have to do with holding on to belief in AGW even in the face of mounting evidence that there never was much for evidence.

No one likes to admit that they were fooled."


I'm suffering from this right now - or at least suffering from others refusal to admit it. From the anger at Bush to AGW, to so much more, the folks who went with the consensus were waaay wrong and, still, refuse to admit it - no apology, no acknowledgment of harm done, nothing - which drags the whole affair out even longer. These people deceived themselves, and then happily forced their delusions down our throats - they were proud of it - when deceiving others to the nature of truth is the ultimate betrayal.

Switching gears, yesterday Ann's buddy Glenn Reynolds (who probably watches her sleep because her every breath is so fascinating) said "If only taxpayers got as mad about being fleeced as government workers do about losing their gravy train. . . ." but I seriously doubt, if they did get "mad", he'd cover it. Anger is clearly suspect to GR, and he hasn't covered any of the scams - many government sponsored - that I write about:

Anger about scams - that's called being "mad about being fleeced" - but it's so below Reynolds, he gets away with merely saying he hopes it catches on. Hey Glenn, I've got three dead bodies over here because of all this shit, think you could say something on the issue - since you care so much about blacks, truth, and wanna see some anger?

Naw. I left my fucking ascot hanging on my other keyboard today, so Dr. Helen's husband don't care. Hell, Dr. Helen don't care and I'm her fucking case study!

Like I said, deceiving others to the nature of truth is the ultimate betrayal. And those who practice it are usually very good at it. A lie of omission is still a lie. Glenn's suggested no one's really mad at getting fleeced:

He's the liar - and he's not alone in not acknowledging it. Safety in numbers and all that.

What does Oprah think, indeed.

master cylinder said...

This is easy...more men identify with Republicans. duh.

kent said...

Required reading: The Hockey Stick Illusion; Climategate and the Corruption of Science

Turtledove said...

I'm a woman and I am a denier. I do not believe that taxing industry and paying Al Gore and his ilk, will do anything to lower the oceans even if they are rising. I also don't think a huge new government entitlement will lower health care costs. But that's just me.

Joan said...

Crack, you've gone around the bend or lost your ability to interpret the written word. Glenn Reynolds' comment on that item yesterday was, what -- hyperbole? satire? Whatever it is you call it when you say you wish something was happening and, hey, look over there! It's happening! He does it all the time.

No one is upset about being fleeced? Hello, hello? Anyone home up there? THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT. And well before that, Porkbusters, both of which Reynolds has covered extensively.

And do not, just don't, pull that "a lie of omission is still a lie" bullshit, either: its Reynolds blog and he can talk about whatever he damn well pleases.

I generally agree with you but today, man, you've just beclowned yourself.

Joan said...

Oh, on topic: I've always been a denier.

More women believe because most women want to believe. It was a mistake to give women the vote.

Bruce Hayden said...

More women believe because most women want to believe. It was a mistake to give women the vote.

The women in my life do not appreciate when I point this out to them, and that they were the reason we got a President in Bill Clinton who will go down in history as having been impeached for lying before a Grand Jury about his sexual conquests. A sexual predator who, at the time he was in office, no rational father would allow his daughter to be in an office alone with.

My theory, that none of these women seem to accept, is that women (on average) are just too emotional to vote rationally, so we got the sexual predator, and now we got Hope and Change.

Of course, now I am pointing out to the youngest voters that they were instrumental in electing a President and Congress that have beggared them for life for all the liberal politicians' wet dreams and to pay off all their political cronies and constituents.

These younger voters are no more happy with my pointing out that they elected Obama, as those women are that they elected Clinton.

madawaskan said...

More women believe because most women want to believe. It was a mistake to give women the vote.

Well ghee Joan and Bruce something you and the Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists can agree on!

Progress!

The Crack Emcee said...

Joan,

If you enjoy the spectacle of people screaming, "The horses! The horses!" after the barn door's flung open, with Obama's election, then have at it - I'm not impressed. Even Scott Brown's election to battle ObamaCare turned out as I've always said:

Defeat the Left and they'll be back - defeat NewAge and we're done with the lot of 'em.

And, lo and behold, they're baaack! Not only that but you've added another pro-healthcare RINO to the Senate. Thank you so very, very much.

Now, look at this: If Reynolds & Co. had done it my way and, say, discredited Oprah "homeopathy is medicine" Winfrey, Tom "bee pollen cured my asthma" Harkin, Jane "we're all energy" Fonda, Madonna "John McCain's a Nazi and let's put Kabbalah water in nuclear reactors" Madonna, Deepak Oprah, etc., then we would've eliminated Obama's goofy support - and there'd be no need for the Tea Party because Obami never would've got in to begin with - and (added benefit) tons of smaller, deadlier, scam artists and cults would've been put out to sea as well. Hell, James Arthur Ray's victims might still be alive and fine - but, nooooooo, it's much more important to cover comic books, Dana Carvey, Andrew Breitbart yelling at a liar (because the liar's black it's big news - to overly-sensitive white folks) Ann's comment on Al Franken being cool (Why?) the Oscars, flip cameras, and on and on and on. The most important blog on the internet? For what? Scams are being perpetrated everywhere, and people are dying - killing their own kids, stabbing themselves to death, suffocating in sweatlodges or what happened to me - at the same time the country's most influential law professors are discussing Corvettes that don't float and American Idol. (Has Megan McArdle influenced anything for the better with her observations?) Reynolds recently asked if there's a place for logic in law school. My answer: clearly not yet - nor is there a course in prioritization, because if there was, the scammers, killers, and other charlatans (all Obama supporters) would come before "Sous Vide: What Is It, And What's In It For You?"

And finally, as you and others online call me crazy, unhinged, whatever, I want you to remember that this is a one man jihad inspired by the death of my marriage to this nonsense and multiple murders. There's no "Macho Response" posse out there, defending me to the world - as a matter of fact, I've been a laughingstock, pin cushion, etc., from the very start and no one has a problem with doing it to me. But let my lone ass criticize someone, like Reynolds or Orac or anyone else who should be on this shit like white on rice - y'know, like protecting the little guy - and all of a sudden there's a crowd to say shut up and pretty much anything else. That's totally unthinking group-think to me. Glenn Reynolds has resources that boggle my mind - a huge blog, online TV, speaking engagements, POWER. I'm a single black musician with a laptop, a barely read blog, and three dead bodies there's been no justice for:

Good job, Joan, on making the powerful feel the heat.

You, and those like you, shame yourselves, daily, in my book.

The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joan said...

Good job, Joan, on making the powerful feel the heat.

You, and those like you, shame yourselves, daily, in my book.


I wasn't trying to make the powerful feel the heat -- not that you would notice that. I was trying to get you to get your head out of your ass.

I have nothing to be ashamed of, here -- and as a practicing Catholic, I have a very good handle on the whole guilt/shame thing.

You mystify me. How can the Left be "baaaack" when they've never gone? Who said that the Left has been defeated? Lord help us all, they're in control of all three branches of government and have a lock on the mainstream media and have saturated popular culture with their moral relativism and multi-cultural political correctness. This is an ongoing struggle, and Reynolds is helping. He may not be helping as much as you would like, or in the way that you would like, but it's still a free country, and you (again I say it) beclown yourself whining about what Instapundit is or is not doing -- when he's on your side, and is doing the thing you explicitly accuse of him of not doing. You can't go around calling people liars and expect it to go unchallenged.

Re the rest of your dissertation: Crying "the horses! the horses!" after the barn door is open is better than never noticing the horses have gone -- at least now we can round up some folks and go get them back.

If you don't understand the absolute miracle that Scott Brown's election in MA represents, you have your own delusions to deal with.

Obviously your life has sucked and you want to do something to change society. That's great. But sputtering about lies and liars isn't going to win you many allies, especially when you are so blatantly wrong.

The Crack Emcee said...

"I wasn't trying to make the powerful feel the heat -- not that you would notice that. I was trying to get you to get your head out of your ass."

Like I said, you really have your priorities in order. Glad to know I'm influential enough to warrant the attention. The powerful - whoever they are - get a pass, though. Makes perfect sense.

"I have nothing to be ashamed of, here -- and as a practicing Catholic, I have a very good handle on the whole guilt/shame thing."

As a practicing Catholic, you should. How's all that pedophilia working out for you? Surprised? I'm not. But then, you know all about my issues and how Glenn Reynolds is defending them.

"You mystify me."

Well, finally, at least you're honest.

"How can the Left be "baaaack" when they've never gone? Who said that the Left has been defeated?"

I heard that, after Brown's election (which looked exactly like the cult of personality that elected Obama) just as I heard conservatism is dead a few months ago. At some point you're all going to admit you're not engaged in politics but group-think. Then - and only then - will anyone be engaged in "my issues". And no, Glenn Reynolds ain't.

"Lord help us all, they're in control of all three branches of government and have a lock on the mainstream media and have saturated popular culture with their moral relativism and multi-cultural political correctness. "

With 100% no help from me, but a tepid wait-and-see attitude from your hero, who almost refuses to look crazy or unhinged because doing the dirty work of eliminating people like Van Jones must be left to (accused) nutcases like Glenn Beck, right? Law professors have no more important role beyond promoting the next episode of POLYWOOD.

"This is an ongoing struggle, and Reynolds is helping. He may not be helping as much as you would like, or in the way that you would like, but it's still a free country, and you (again I say it) beclown yourself whining about what Instapundit is or is not doing -- when he's on your side, and is doing the thing you explicitly accuse of him of not doing. You can't go around calling people liars and expect it to go unchallenged."

He's on my side? What are my issues he's addressing? Name one. And, boy, when people attack me, I defend myself. You though - the self-appointed defender of The Cult Of Glenn - can't even tolerate a lone dissenter without deciding it's your job to speak? Like those cultists in India who have to riot if anyone questions the guru, right? Anything but let the guru defend himself as I do. I mean, who are you to speak for him, Mrs. Instapundit?

[cont'd]

The Crack Emcee said...

"Re the rest of your dissertation: Crying "the horses! the horses!" after the barn door is open is better than never noticing the horses have gone -- at least now we can round up some folks and go get them back."

Let me explain this again, slowly, for your level of education: if you'd start listening to the people who told you not to do this to begin with, none of this other wasteful bullshit is necessary. "At least now we can round up some folks and go get them back." How many times you gonna replay that scene before you learn not to do it in the first place? And don't tell me you have: I just saw you do it with Scott Brown. You've learned NOTHING.

"If you don't understand the absolute miracle that Scott Brown's election in MA represents, you have your own delusions to deal with."

Ah, yes, a "miracle". You really are a Catholic, aren't you? Grow-the-fuck-up. There are no miracles. It's fucking politics and the only "miracle" is we're now stuck with another lamer with few convictions beyond getting his daughters married off.

"Obviously your life has sucked and you want to do something to change society. That's great. But sputtering about lies and liars isn't going to win you many allies, especially when you are so blatantly wrong."

You're an idiot who just can't help herself: I'm not looking for allies, Miss Group-Think - I'm looking for common sense. Rationality. Political maturity. I'm Einstein, working in the post office, while you and the others are at the big universities, working on being wrong - but feeling very smug because you're together in your wrongness.

Just the type who needs allies.

I'll stand, alone if need be, with The Macho Response

The Crack Emcee said...

From Mickey Kaus - linked on Instapundit:

"The state of the art Democratic party has some positions that depart from common sense,..."

Now, when Glenn decides to pound that message home, he'll be defending "my issues".

A mere mention - including the phrase “I don’t have any particular beef with Barbara Boxer" - don't cut it.

The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...

From another link on Instapundit - which, I'm sure, he reads differently from me:

"Historic Western Civilization no longer exists but has perished or been transformed. This should make us think about how to understand our historical location and lead us to see past, present, and future in a new way."

Or, maybe, a new way of fighting politics? You know, go abstract, and hit the low-hanging fruit of their anti-Western Civilization NewAge supporters? NewAgers with millions of supporters - who vote? Hello! Make them defend homeopathy studies by NCCAM - that, alone, will take out Harkin, Hillary (Bill Clinton started NCCAM) and a host of others. Chase them down, whether they're politicians or not. They gave us Obama, now make them squirm with the results.

That's the opening we should be attacking because they have no - I repeat: no - defenses.

wv: muluto - a very mixed-up mixed breed.

The Crack Emcee said...

"Where are you going to find all this "common sense" if you can't get anyone to listen to you, much less agree with you?"

Joan, I've been at this almost 5 years now, so to say I'm a patient man is an understatement. I'm also a man who understands the parameters of reality - that it has boundaries - so as everything falls apart I expect people to "wake up" as you say. My crusade is to stop them from doing it to begin with. We're adults - not children - so this constant "Is he The One?" bullshit (which we saw with Brown) must stop. This is politics, not a high school clique, or some group-think cult.

"You say "we wouldn't be in this mess if everyone had listened to me sooner" -- but we are in this mess, and whining about woulda-coulda-shoulda is not part of the solution."

Bullshit. Accepting responsibility for the mess we're in is an important part of getting us out of it. Keeps us from doing it again, listening to those that got us in it, and restores integrity to those people (who admit to it) and the process overall.

"You're letting the perfect become the enemy of the good, or in this case, good-enough. Where's the common sense in that?"

It's called - for the millionth time - having standards. Good enough ain't good enough. If that's what we end up with, fine, but shouldn't be what we're happy with - ever. We're Americans, damn it.

"Progressivism, as far as I know, started well before all this New Age bullshit you have identified as the root of all our current evils."

Bullshit again. NewAge was New Thought, which was spiritualism, which was the occult, which was Paganism (Remember Newt's statement that we're dealing with more Paganism than he's ever seen before?) It's the Left's version of Right-Wing Christianity and, like Christianity, came long before progressivism. The difference between Paganism and Christianity: One has no ethical framework - as we can see in the behavior of the Left - and the other does.

The Crack Emcee said...

"New Age should be thoroughly discredited, but there are plenty of progressives who aren't New Agers, and they are every bit as much of a problem. "

Agreed, but this is politics: attack the NewAgers to discredit the others. And - I'll happily point out - Glenn Reynolds isn't discrediting NewAge at all, despite the fact it "should be", so let's not BS each other about him defending "my issues".

"It's his damn blog and he'll write about what he wants to, just as Althouse does here."

And neither of them is beyond criticism - just as I'm not from you - so we're back to my original question: if you don't like criticism, then who are you to be questioning me? It's rank hypocrisy - not that you'd ever admit it, which is my point about maturity. I've criticized Ann, and she handles it with the aplomb I expect. Glenn Reynolds has, too, so what you saying? Oh, I know: "Shut up." Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

"See, you really are looking for allies -- Reynolds, for one, and you'd be happy with Althouse, too -- but hectoring them about how irresponsible they are for what they choose to post about is counterproductive."

Joan, this is about IDEAS, not personalities. (That's where you get "personality cults" from.) Ideas don't need allies, they need acknowledgment and honest debate. You, obviously, have a problem with that, but your attitude is exactly the reason why good ideas so rarely take root these days:

You'd rather go on feelings, friends, and popularity contests.

We need none of them now. Now we need a ruthless honesty, clear-headedness, goals, and a plan for how to reach them. Tell me: what is the Tea Party going for when the Right regains power? They don't know. How do we fix the economy? They don't know. What's really wrong with it? They don't know. How do we regain our footing as a country? They don't know. What do they know? They don't want to be taxed. That's it.

Under the circumstances - since we're not fighting King George in England - that's as relevant (and mature) a political platform as "Hope and Change".

You can have it.

The Crack Emcee said...

Contrast and compare:

Instapundit - “[David Brooks] is turning out to be like Big Bird to Obama’s Snuffaluffagus! He’s the only one who can see the real Obama and nobody believes him.”.

Cult-watching sites - "[Scientologists] have more insane ideas that Hitler, and both groups put world domination at the top of the agenda, if they get political power they want."

Or

"George Bell III killed Spencer, his 28-year-old ex-girlfriend, in his mother's home between Sept. 10 and 11, 2007, just days after leaving [Scientology's] Narconon Arrowhead drug rehabilitation center in Canadian, Okla. He then kidnapped Spencer's roommate at gunpoint and took her to a house on Trawick Drive in northeast Jackson."

Or even

"Madonna’s Raising Malawi charity has a paper trail now that leads it right back to the Kabbalah Center cult in Los Angeles."

But none of that's as important as political Sesame Street references, right? Of course not.

Glenn Reynolds: He's really helping us out of the nonsense.

A.W. said...

Well, its a 14% gap, and I think it can be explained by this. Women have achieved a lot in recent years and come a long way, but women were for a long time put in a much less serious position in our society than men. So men were required to be hard-nosed and factual and women were not. That is the female subculture, at least in America, that existed at least until fairly recently and even today you have modern feminists who embrace that kind of crap and thing its what women really should be like.

I mean I want to be very clear, we are talking upbringing, not ability. When women are logical, they can be… pretty much just like men. The problem is developing that in women. And a lot of that is solved, but not so much that we can’t expect a 14 point gap. So that is a part of it.

Second there is a traditional appeal of the democratic party to women, in part based on issues like equal rights and abortion. Not that all women are democrats, but there is a statistical bump. That takes many women completely out of the lines of communication with conservative news sources, and then even if they do hear about it, its likely to be through some filter.

But let’s face it. Global warming has utterly failed to carry its burden of proof. These days the belief is sustained as religion rather than science. Rational minds have nailed that fact for years and a few brave whistleblowers have torn the whole edifice down.

Fwiw, that is my theory. And bluntly I don’t care about a gender gap. Truth is truth, period. Popularity, including popularity among certain demographics, has nothing to do with it.

Joan said...

if you don't like criticism, then who are you to be questioning me?

When have I questioned you? I have pointed out that I think your whining is counterproductive, and telling people what to write about on their blogs is simply rude. I have never told you, or anyone else online, to shut up, ever. (And since I was a USENET junkie long ago, my history goes back a ways.)

Joan, this is about IDEAS, not personalities. (That's where you get "personality cults" from.) Ideas don't need allies, they need acknowledgment and honest debate. You, obviously, have a problem with that, but your attitude is exactly the reason why good ideas so rarely take root these days:

You'd rather go on feelings, friends, and popularity contests.


Bullshit. Ideas do need allies -- or maybe a better word would be advocates, people who will speak up and defend them. If you're trying to advance an idea or set of ideas, then you'd do better if you didn't alienate the people you're trying to persuade by shouting, repeatedly, "No, no, no! You're doing it wrong!" Neither Reynolds nor Althouse needs my defense, and I didn't speak up today to defend them so much as to get you to consider that your methods could use refinement. (OK, I did bust your chops at first for totally misinterpreting Reynolds -- will you admit you were wrong in your interpretation?)

I don't know where you're getting this "feelings, friends, and popularity contests" idea from, either -- nothing I've said has anything to do with that, other than noting that whining gets on a lot of people's nerves.

Stop trying to lump me in with some idea you have of the great, ignorant masses just waiting to be enlightened. I rejected homeopathy and New Age back in the early '80s when a (former) friend from high school tried to get me into it, and I've consistently continued to do so.

It's too bad that you can't see that we actually want the same things. The difference between you and Reynolds/Althouse/me is that we have lives outside our interest in politics, and they present legitimate topics for discussion. Whether or not you think those topics are important is irrelevant. It's not up to you to decide for us. Howl away at the squandered opportunities -- we will continue to note that you should, perhaps, get a life.

Yes, I believe this is an existential struggle. What I am unable to do is sustain an attitude of rage about it. I'm raising 3 kids and teaching and doing all kinds of stuff. My life is simply not compatible with that attitude.

The Crack Emcee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...

BTW - getting back on topic - yes, I'm a man, and I'm not only skeptical of AGW but your political ambitions, too. You don't really care about anything important like righting the world's wrongs - which I expect from NewAge Boomers - but, instead, you want entertainment!

Sorry to bust your bubble with real life, death, and the cultish idiocy you've left in your wake.

I can listen to all your bullshit - Oh, how you care so much about black people, except for the problems of the one you know - but attacked for not believing you. Well, I don't. You're full of shit. Just waiting for a chance to scream "I'm nbot racist!" but doing nothing when confronted with one saying "Help me - this is real serious shit I'm dealing with." Anybody else here dealing with multiple murders? Nope. No matter. You've got more important things to deal with, like what's "our Hillary" doing in that photo with Michelle?

Sorry but you're all full of shit. I don't think you care about black people, beyond how it reflects on you, and I don't think you care about murder - unless it's on some crappy TV program featuring people no one should trust or even like. You're liars. You care about one thing: yourselves.

And my case is the proof.

Joan said...

You're too busy with American Idol.

Thanks for clearing that up. I have a lot more respect for y'all now.


Liar liar pants on fire.

FTR, I don't watch American Idol.

But that's not the point, is it? What am I supposed to do about those murderers walking free? I have no information about the case. I have nothing to do with it. If you have evidence and have brought it to the attention of the appropriate authorities, and they're ignoring you, then you kick it upstairs as far as you can. Get local news coverage, see what can be done. There's a system and you know you have to work it. Maybe the system is broken in a lot of ways, so you have to shine light on that, too. You're the one who has this knowledge, so it's your crusade. You are the only one who can do anything about it. Key word: you

I note that now the focus is back to your personal horrific experience rather than our great societal existential conflict, which indicates to me that you really have no reply to the points I've made.

The Crack Emcee said...

Oh, and one more thing:

I am black. I may not want to talk about race but I am.

Keep that in mind the next time y'all want to go off on your (extremely vague and pointless) concern for my and my people's welfare. You ain't done shit for me - the only black here - and all I'm asking for is the very-serious and deadly topics that overwhelmed my life to be taken seriously by the larger white society.

Sorry but I don't buy your concern for "black people" if the one in front of you is too much to handle. Better get back to supporting Obama to make your support for "black people" clear because you definitely wouldn't care for me and my friends.

We're too feisty for your refined tastes in people.

The Crack Emcee said...

Joan,

At this point I don't even know why you've spoken to me - you don't read my blog, because you don't know what I've done.

And I love the idea that there's been multiple murders and your best response is "What am I supposed to do with it?"

As your hero, Glenn Reynolds, says, "We're in the very best of hands."

I hope your children never have to endure what I have - including your ridicule - because everyone deserves better than the likes of you.

Joan said...

Dearest Crack, if you think I have ridiculed you... I haven't.

I know you're black. I've read your blog -- maybe not the whole thing, I admit, because usually you just find a picture and link to a story from which you pull a quote, and there's not a whole lot of other content you yourself write. Maybe I've just missed the days when you've expounded at length on any particular topic, but I haven't seen it.

I don't care what color you are.

I can see your frustration. I spoke up because I thought, maybe, you could hear someone saying to you - "Hey, maybe this isn't the best way to go about what you're trying to do." Maybe I was too harsh, maybe I could have been more gentle in the way I expressed myself. But that's the impulse I started with, and the one I'm finishing with, as well.

But you don't want to hear it -- and you accuse me of being deaf at the same time.

Everyone deserves better than the likes of you.

You know, that's a damned horrid thing to say to a person. I haven't attacked you as a person or insulted you -- I've questioned your methods and your obsession, and the closest to an insult I've come is suggesting that you get a life while explaining that I can't sustain the kind of rage you constantly display.

(Of course, that's subject to interpretation, but that's the way I see it.)

The fact is, you don't know a thing about me. You could read the millions of words on my blog and get some insight, but I don't expect that. Just reading the thousands I've posted on comments here could give you a clue. The fact that you're willing to so thoroughly condemn me, a woman who wants the same outcome that you do, and who is actively working, in her own way, to bring it about, speaks volumes.

The Crack Emcee said...

Dear Joan,

This is my final post on Althouse. I wanted to do one more so the people that know me here don't think my previous ones on this thread were a mistake: they weren't. As a black man I am sincerely sick of being loved in the abstract and patronized in the personal. I have asked Ann a billion times to not keep posting on race, but nothing will stop her, so fuck her for being so callous. Like I said, I'm sick of being discussed in the abstract - like I'm not here and/or black - being discussed by white folks with no clue they still treat my kind as less than human. Such behavior, when done by whites or blacks, is dehumanizing and harmful and should end now. I want no part of it and the only way to make that happen, even a little bit, is just to leave. So that's what I'm doing.

As far as the rest, my wife and a crazy quack killed three people and destroyed my life. Now I am like a war vet returning to society only to discover you're all a bunch of pussies who didn't deserve my sacrifice. Very few that I've met online react to murder, cultism, or the concepts of right and wrong in any manner that I can relate to - they strike me as merely odd, craven, and shallow - not nearly the people I've been in my life: saving women when attacked, feeding the hungry, comforting the sick. I thought murder - not to mention multiple murders - would be enough to spur Americans to action, but I forgot about the nature of these NewAge Americans: they care little for anything beyond themselves and being entertained. Especially not anything serious. Serious to these no-nothings is Scott Brown. As someone who saw his first dead body before the age of five, there's just no comparison - no place to relate - so I'm no longer trying. I'm done. My black friends have been laughing at me for years, saying white folks will never give a damn about anything beyond their own noses and comfort. I now agree. And I'm joining them. It's almost comforting (and I suspect will become moreso in time) to say "I don't care" as so many have told me. I've mentioned I will never again interrupt a boy/girl fight but, even more than that, I don't think I will ever again care about anyone else. And, in that, I'm now as free as any white person.

As those here know, I like myself quite a bit. I am a good man. I've always valued integrity and speak about it often. And when a man of integrity asks for help, it's my view people should do just that. Instead, you gather around the liars, the charlatans, the politicians and quacks. Fine. I shit on you all. I don't care any longer to what degree you do or don't agree with me. I've learned all the lessons you chose to teach me and the main ones are talent doesn't matter, being good is worth even less, and being in pain is the worst. All are to be laughed at, challenged, and discarded. So discard them I have. I will now live as you do: without a clue, a care, or a cause.

Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds are law professors, and I've learned their lessons well:

There is no law but what one can get away with, and, as long as the topics are race and religion, anyone can get away with murder.

I am now joining the rest of you in letting them.

Goodbye.

The Crack Emcee

P.S.

Since you didn't read my blog, Joan, here's the post from the day I was contacted by the French medical authorities asking for my help - over two years after I told them there was a killing - and when they finally clocked the quack involved. I've still heard nothing about a trial, or prison, or anything else occurring. This isn't unusual, when religion/spirituality/cultism is involved, to all of our eternal shame.

jamboree said...

I used to leave it alone either way until I took a refresher physics course (webcast from my alma mater) that dealt specifically with the situation.

Now I'm highly skeptical and I can back it up.