Mailvox: I so don’t care

I’m officially taking a sabbatical from tolerating empty idiocy. I realize that one is supposed to be polite and respectful of one’s readers and all, but you know, I just don’t care any more. The entirety of BD’s email is as follows:

Re: “Lessons of the Crusades” – Ridiculous: you clearly demonstrate that you have no clue.

Wow, that rebuttal is deeply convincing. Of course, you forgot to add: “and you have sex with goats”. Perhaps that would have clinched your case. But “You have no clue… ” what are you, a seventh-grade girl? If you’ve got a case, then bring it.

I am getting so tired of the same sort of nonsense perpetrated by these little minds that are completely incapable of defending their own strongly held opinions, whether they are dishonest atheists shamelessly lying about every little thing, idiot Republicans shrieking “we are at war” like frightened little girls whenever George Bush wants to attack another American liberty, foolish Democrats fainting over empty suits, or the financial media painting a picture that has next to nothing to do with the verifiable reality… it’s a madhouse.

I had drinks with two friends this evening, both top executives at massive international corporations with revenues in the billions. Plural, not singular. One of them just got back this morning from a week of board meetings in New York and another U.S. city and he was shaking his head over the total disconnect between American perception of the current politico-economic situation and the reality. “They’re just totally f—– and they have no idea whatsoever.”

So, Washington might as well keep cutting interest rates and printing dollars and invading foreign nations. Sooner or later, it’s not going to matter much what it does, like every overstretched empire, it will collapse of the weight of its foolish ambitions.

UPDATE: BD writes back:

Besides having no clue, you’re a jerk.

Oh dear, I hope I can sleep through all the tears tonight. You apparently have me confused with someone who cares even a little bit about what you happen to think, assuming that we stretch the concept enough to encompass what passes for your mental processes. Either make a case or shut up, I really don’t care which.

Seven questions for Sam Harris

Having written to Mr. Harris and later receiving a clarification of one of his controversial positions, I wrote him another email with a few more questions this time. It’s probably unlikely that he will elect to address them, but unlike Richard Dawkins, there is at least a non-zero possibility that he will choose to do so:

1. When you wrote the Red State/Blue State argument quoted by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, were you aware that the electoral data for the various counties in which the various cities mentioned are located was available? If you were not, are you willing to concede that the more accurate county data supports a conclusion that is the precise opposite of the one you reached in Letter to a Christian Nation?

2. Are you willing to admit that religion is not the explicit cause of more than 90 percent of the war throughout recorded human history? Are you also willing to admit that religious faith is not a significant aspect of military strategy, tactics, recruitment or discipline?

3. Were you aware that the professional historians’ estimated bodycount of the most deadly Inquisition, the Spanish, was less than 3,000 deaths over 345 years when you described the inquisition as one of the two “darkest episodes in the history of faith”?

4. How does your long-term vision of world government differ from Bertrand Russell’s? Why are you opposed to American national sovereignty?

5. Are there other forms of “unjustified belief” or “an absence of rationality” than religious faith?

6. Did you forget that you had defined Buddhism as not being a religion of faith when you compared the societal health of the U.S.A. to that of “the least religious states”?

7. If the world is genuinely imperiled by nuclear weaponry in the hands of religious individuals, isn’t it true that science is as much to blame as religion? And if the peril is both imminent and genuine, wouldn’t it be more practical and far less costly in terms of human life to end science rather than religion?

I have many more questions, of course, but too many of them are the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t variety better reserved for debate and I think it’s always best to offer an opponent the chance to clarify or concede a point rather than always trying to pin them to the wall.

Shooter sure love their Nietszche

I don’t know if the NIU killer was an atheist or not, but let’s face it, despite the statistical unlikelihood, it wouldn’t be any more surprising than the fact that he wore black or just happened to be on anti-depressants:

Since Thursday, Baty said authorities have intercepted several packages Kazmierczak sent her, including several items such as: the book “The Antichrist” by Friedrich Nietszche; a textbook for her class about serial killers; a package with a gun holster and bullets; a new cell phone that she had told him she wanted and about $100 in cash.

Godless secular culture is not only suicide for the society, it’s all too often literal suicide for the individual. It’s interesting how so many of these would-be Uebermensch can’t figure out anything more intelligent or creative than simply attacking the lesser beings that surround them.

Mailvox: two questions on the column

VD’s new column is up and interesting to say the least. I have one Question VD: “but rather a Christian reconquista of what was once Christendom.”

Are you suggesting we invade Germany, Holland, Perhaps France?

Well, we did it twice alread, didn’t we? It’s hardly unthinkable, in fact, the concept may be redundant since we’re already occupying large chunks of it. The Fourth Reich isn’t all that different than the previous three, its merely more patient. But actually, I had in mind an invasion of missionaries rather than military forces. The reconquest will have to be in the same cultural mode as the conquest, as the jihadist invaders have also recognized.

bin Laden is dead? What? Where have I been? Under a rock? Or is this just the only logical conclusion?

Operating on the assumption that bin Laden isn’t a CIA creation – in which case he’s living in comfortable retirement under the name Olivier Benladier in the south of France – the most logical conclusion is that bin Laden has been dead since the invasion of Pakistan. The entire scenario is simply reminds me too much of a science fiction short story wherein a man intentionally immolates himself in order to ensure that he remains an elusive figure capable of inspiring action from beyond the grave.

And since it’s too the neocons’ advantage to push him as the leader of a dire “threat” to America despite the fact that illegal immigrants have been proven to be far more dangerous to Americans, bin Laden is an important bogeyman for both sides attempting to make use of the American military for their own purposes. I’d be shocked if any definite proof that he is alive ever surfaces.