Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Balog on May 08, 2009, 01:38:20 AM
-
Hilarious. And even-handedly snarky. :) I enjoy the comments after the article; apparently this piece really vexes leftists.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/the-ditch-carp-of-democracy/1492879.aspx?storypage=0
The ditch carp of democracy
PJ O'ROURKE
22/04/2009 1:10:00 PM
We live in democracies. Rule by the majority. Rule by the people. Fifty per cent of people are below average in intelligence. This explains everything about politics.
Not that we'd want to live in a country ruled only by the best and brightest. That would be too much like being married to Cherie Blair.
So we have to keep supporting democracy. Even when democracy acts up the way it's done in Russia, Pakistan and the American presidential election.
Long term there's only one thing that gives me hope as a right-winger - the left-wing.
It's going to be hard to do a worse job running America than the Republicans did, but the Democrats can do it if anyone can.
The Left is the party of government activism - the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, slimmer, taller, and take a dozen strokes off your golf game.
The Right is the party that says government doesn't work. And then they get elected and prove it.
The US Government is going to take over the American car industry. I can predict the result - a light-weight, compact vehicle with a small carbon footprint using sustainable alternative energy. When I was a kid we called it a bike.
America has wound up with a charming leftist as a president. And this scares me. This scares me not because I hate leftists. I don't. I have many charming leftist friends. They're lovely people - as long as they keep their nose out of things they don't understand. Such as making a living.
When charming leftists stick their nose into things they don't understand they become ratchet-jawed purveyors of monkey-doodle and baked wind. They are piddlers upon merit, beggars at the door of accomplishment, thieves of livelihood, envy coddling tax lice applauding themselves for giving away other people's money. They are the lap dogs of the poly sci-class, returning to the vomit of collectivism. They are pig herders tending that sow-who-eats-her-young, the welfare state. They are muck-dwelling bottom-feeders growing fat on the worries and disappointments of the electorate. They are the ditch carp of democracy.
And that's what one of their friends says.
Also, a charming leftist president scares me because what if Barack Obama really does turn out to be a ''uniter, not a divider''?
This could mean an end to partisan bickering and result in politicians of all stripes working together to solve national and international problems. Then we're really screwed.
America needed a Republican president. Because America has a Democratic congress. Republican president, Democratic congress - this means gridlock. I love gridlock.
The worst thing in politics is ''bipartisan consensus.'' Bipartisan consensus - that's like when my doctor and my lawyer agree with my wife that I need help.
The global economic melt-down is bringing droves of these consensus-builders to office. (And I, for one, am over the age of consent.)
What does this busy-body type of politician intend to do with all the consensus that's being built?
And we have to remember that it's not just a financial crisis that we're facing. There's Iraq. And the war in Afghanistan. North Korea. Darfur. Pakistan producing more history than it can consume locally.
If Obama is anything to go by in the new style of crisis leadership, I am not reassured.
First, he appoints a Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who thinks ''foreign affairs'' means her husband is overseas.
So far, the best Obama has been able to do by way of an Iraq policy is to make what I think of as the ''high school sex promise:'' I'll pull out in time, honest, Honey.''
Obama has committed more troops to Afghanistan. But committed them for what? For whatever the NATO allies want, I guess. Great. Obama is going to decide what to do in Afghanistan by waiting to see what France does.
Although waiting to see what France does may not be such a bad idea.
Because France is a treasure to mankind. French ideas, French beliefs, and French actions form a sort of lodestone for humanity. Because a moral compass needle needs a butt end.
Whatever direction France is pointing - toward Nazi collaboration, Communism, Existentialism, Jerry Lewis movies, or running for cover in Afghanistan - we can go the other way with a clear conscience.
We'll need to watch what France does to stimulate its economy so we'll know what not to do.
My guess is that France will be relying on Muslim teenagers in the suburbs of Paris, Toulouse, and Marseilles.
Those kids had a great plan for stimulating car sales in France. Specialitie de la maison, Citroen flambe.
P.J. O'Rourke is delivering a National Press Club Address in Canberra today. This is an extract of a lecture delivered to the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney last night.
-
The Right is the party that says government doesn't work. And then they get elected and prove it.
Wow, that is a scream. :laugh: Dead right.
It's going to be hard to do a worse job running America than the Republicans did, but the Democrats can do it if anyone can.
When they said "Anybody but Bush," they really meant "Anybody, a-n-y-b-o-d-y but Bush."
-
When they said "Anybody but Bush," they really meant "Anybody, a-n-y-b-o-d-y but Bush."
lol except Ron Paul.
America has wound up with a charming leftist as a president. And this scares me. This scares me not because I hate leftists. I don't. I have many charming leftist friends. They're lovely people - as long as they keep their nose out of things they don't understand.
For the win.
-
The Right said "Anybody but Paul." :)
-
I like PJ. The thread underneath is funny though.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Castro, every single one of them a darling of the American left
(sort of true, although not everyone was capable of the self-deceit required and every single one of them an unrepentant mass murderer
true, but where are we going with this...?. Obama and his idiot minions in the US Congress are going to get thousands of innocent people killed with their bone headed ideas.
Ah here. Right off the deep end. Head first into "Obama is the root of all evil" territory. You almost made it all the way through a paragraph Bruce. Good try
-
The Right said "Anybody but Paul." :)
And some of us derive excellent ages of McCainenfreude from the results. :D
-
Obama isn't the root of all evil; more like the fruit of the poisoned tree.
-
(sort of true, although not everyone was capable of the self-deceit required
Is there more you wanted to say here? It seems to cut off in mid-sentence.
-
Interesting how this appeared in an Australian paper . . . it certainly hasn't appeared in our local (Austin, TX) rag.
-
With those two names in the title, I thought it came from an Irish paper.
-
Amusing, but a fair bit of it is a rehash of O'Rourke's earlier writings (everything before "The US Government is going to take over the American car industry", for example).
-
Fifty per cent of people are below average in intelligence.
I take it Mr. O'Rourke isn't good at mathematics.
-
I take it Mr. O'Rourke isn't good at mathematics.
HAHA I didn't catch that at first!
-
You realize it's humor, right?
-
You realize it's humor, right?
You do realize I don't seriously suggest Mr. O'Rourke failed high-school maths?
-
Then I guess I don't get what you're drivin' at.
-
Then I guess I don't get what you're drivin' at.
I'm joking at O'Rourke's expense.
...you know it's not that funny when I explain it. =D
-
I'm joking at O'Rourke's expense.
...you know it's not that funny when I explain it. =D
It was funny before you explained it? :angel: :laugh:
-
PJ O'Rourke has always been one of my favorites. And, I can't find anything in that article I disagree with.
-
I was told there would be no math.
-
When they said "Anybody but Bush," they really meant "Anybody, a-n-y-b-o-d-y but Bush."
Yes. This is exactly what they meant. A large number of Americans did not vote for "Hope and Change", they voted for "Not a continuation of Bush".
Some of us did try to raise the warning that the expansion of Executive power would eventually fall into different hands. At the time, I used the example of Hillary Clinton. "Would you trust Hillary with warrentless domestic wiretapping? What about national security letters?" For reasons beyond my comprehension, pro-Bush people and a lot of Repub politicians didn't get it. Ok, you trust Bush with some specific power. But do you trust your worst political enemy with it? No? Then don't pass laws granting said specific power or include strong sunsets.
Sigh. Not sure it'll make you feel better, but it's not likely the Dems are any smarter. Lot of people aren't happy with the bailouts. If they blotch the economic recovery worse than they have, they'll be tossed to the curb in short order.
-
Some of us did try to raise the warning that the expansion of Executive power would eventually fall into different hands. At the time, I used the example of Hillary Clinton. "Would you trust Hillary with warrentless domestic wiretapping? What about national security letters?" For reasons beyond my comprehension, pro-Bush people and a lot of Repub politicians didn't get it. Ok, you trust Bush with some specific power. But do you trust your worst political enemy with it? No? Then don't pass laws granting said specific power or include strong sunsets.
Maybe some of them find the laws to be acceptable use of power, regardless who's in charge? Just because you think it's a violation of civil liberties...
-
Maybe some of them find the laws to be acceptable use of power, regardless who's in charge? Just because you think it's a violation of civil liberties...
All laws not stuck down by the courts is exactly that. "Acceptable use of power"
Mind you, I was pointing out that one should think of worst case scenerios and potential unintended consequences before supporting laws. I wasn't, strictly speaking, saying I thought they were unconstitutional violations of civil liberties or whatnot. I will admit... I still am deeply entertained by folks shocked that the Patriot Act is being used on some 16 year old kid, that DHS is classifying veterans as extremists and potential terrorists, etc etc. ;)
-
I love PJ O'Rourke.
Everyone should read "Holidays in Hell" and "All the Trouble in the World"
-
I take it Mr. O'Rourke isn't good at mathematics.
That word, "average;" I do not think it means what you think it means.
From Merriam-Webster: "1 a: a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values."
Median is defined as: "2 a: a value in an ordered set of values below and above which there is an equal number of values or which is the arithmetic mean of the two middle values if there is no one middle number."
Thus, half (or half-1 if the number of values is odd, thus producing a true middle number) of the values in a set will be below the median of that set, and can be said (though, granted, only marketing typically uses "average" to refer to a median or mode without specifiying such) to be below average.
-
Well, what can I say. I know that some people use it this way, but that's not what it means on mathematics exams. :D Oh well.
-
Well, what can I say. I know that some people use it this way, but that's not what it means on mathematics exams. :D Oh well.
Clearly, you didn't benefit from having a math teacher who also taught English. (And physics and chemistry for that matter.) He would throw in things like multiple choice "find the average" questions where none of the possible choices was the mean, but one was the median or mode. The ability to discern how someone is justifying a claim like "above average" by using median or mode is a useful skill.
(For the record, whoever decided to lump mode in as a type of average should be beaten, ostracized and hanged. While mean is common and median is somewhat useful, I doubt anyone other than cryptanalysts and marketers can even make the connection between "mode" and "average" without having to stop and think about it.)
-
When last I did a mathematics exam, it was part of the GRE. There the instructions used "median" and "average" separately.
-
When last I did a mathematics exam, it was part of the GRE. There the instructions used "median" and "average" separately.
In both stats courses I took, "average" was a superset consisting of mean, median, and mode. Best practices required that one use the m-word, but context can also indicate the particular concept.
I would join KD5NRH in his beat-down of the "mode man."
-
Wait, weren't we talking about a PJ O'Rourke column? :laugh:
-
Wait, weren't we talking about a PJ O'Rourke column? :laugh:
The average post says yes.
-
Talking about statistics falls within the standard deviation of the usual PJ O'Rourke thread.
-
By "usual' do you mean average, mean, median, or mode?
-
By "usual' do you mean average, mean, median, or mode?
Yes, the average.
-
If we assume a normal distribution, then the median and the mean should be equal. (So should the mode.)
I thought IQs generally (were supposed to) fall into a normal distribution--a Gaussian centered at 100, with a standard deviation of around 10 points. At least, that's the way I've always heard it.
Though, I completely understand if someone wants to dispute whether IQ measures intelligence instead. Anyway, 50% of threads on APS have more drift than the median. :lol: