Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, May 1, 2012
2012 Stephen King on Mitt Romney
Posted by Paul Constant on Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Just when I think Stephen King is forever on my shit list (the one-two punch of Under the Dome and 11/22/63 was nearly enough to kill me) he has to go and write something awesome about politics:
I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, “I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.” Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money.
Go and read the whole thing.
2
Yeah, I get the impression that Stephen King is a nice guy but I've never dug his (fiction) writing. As a fellow son of Maine and University of Maine graduate, I feel a little traitorous for my lack of reverence - he is the most famous and probably richest person from the Pine Tree State.
That said, I prefer him to be outspoken in a politically admirable way and a lousy author than the alternative (i.e. a good writer with bad politics - like Frank Miller, maybe? Is he even a good writer?)
That said, I prefer him to be outspoken in a politically admirable way and a lousy author than the alternative (i.e. a good writer with bad politics - like Frank Miller, maybe? Is he even a good writer?)
4
Predicted (and predictable) conservative response:
"If Stephen King wants to pay more taxes, he should feel free to write a check himself"
They love hauling that tired, losing argument out every chance they get.
"If Stephen King wants to pay more taxes, he should feel free to write a check himself"
They love hauling that tired, losing argument out every chance they get.
5
lol the stand, pet semetary, needful things, and some of his short story collections are actually pretty good.
8
one problem here. Would Mitt Romney be where he is in life if his father had been, say, a line worker in the GM factory instead of President? Would working class Romney now be worth a quarer of a billion dollars? Some how I doubt it.
9
11/22/63 was AWESOME! I suppose art is subjective. Stephen King owns a big chunk of my heart. He's a good guy with a beautifully brilliant brain but even I don't love everything the man has written (I will never fully forgive him for Insomnia).
10
The shittiest part is that Stephen King is one of the (very) few who really is experiencing the "American Dream" - through talent and/or hard work, PLUS just plain dumb luck, he came from a modest background and made a kajillionty dollars. People like that tend to recognize how fortunate that makes them. And even though they have done something to "deserve" their success (although the proportion of reward to output is debatable), they often feel like they don't deserve it, because they know how many other people were as talented as them and worked as hard, but didn't get rich.
People like Romney, on the other hand, people who come from ultra-rich backgrounds, who may have also earned a great deal of money themselves but who would have lived lives of luxury even if they never "worked" a day, tend to think that they DESERVE every last cent of the money they inherited and refuse to give any of it to the benefit of the society that made their riches possible.
People like Romney, on the other hand, people who come from ultra-rich backgrounds, who may have also earned a great deal of money themselves but who would have lived lives of luxury even if they never "worked" a day, tend to think that they DESERVE every last cent of the money they inherited and refuse to give any of it to the benefit of the society that made their riches possible.
11
@#8
Well, without his Daddy Romney doesn't live in a palace in Paris; doesn't go to Harvard; his daddy's friends don't set up a venture capital company for him; he doesn't head the Olympics; and he isn't automatically plausible in Massachusetts politics despite never having expressed an interest and not having lived or paid taxes there for the preceding several years.
On the other hand, he's handsome, tall, and no dummy, so he'd probably have done OK. He'd be completely unrecognizeable, but OK.
On the other hand, the answer to where Barack Obama would be without the wealth, connections, and guiding hand of his father is obvious: he had none of those things to begin with.
Well, without his Daddy Romney doesn't live in a palace in Paris; doesn't go to Harvard; his daddy's friends don't set up a venture capital company for him; he doesn't head the Olympics; and he isn't automatically plausible in Massachusetts politics despite never having expressed an interest and not having lived or paid taxes there for the preceding several years.
On the other hand, he's handsome, tall, and no dummy, so he'd probably have done OK. He'd be completely unrecognizeable, but OK.
On the other hand, the answer to where Barack Obama would be without the wealth, connections, and guiding hand of his father is obvious: he had none of those things to begin with.
12
What's with the gratuitous slap at King's novels? "Under The Dome" and "11/23/63" were excellent — rich, robust, ambitious and crazy original. I'd rather read those than the arid, airbrushed, MFA-ey, every-sentence-is-its-own-shrink-wrapped-universe stuff on the Michiko Kakutani Fellatrix Circuit.
14
Ok, let's cut the bullshit and get down to it.
What "barrier" exists for a person to get an education at 4 year college, then take a bus to New York City and go to work on Wall Street, work his way up to even assistant broker and make six figures or more? Then, even with student loans you could pay them off in a few years or less.
I mean, half of those guys do it out of high school...
So, unless you can prove that only people of "royal blood" are allowed to work selling stock, then Romney wins.
What "barrier" exists for a person to get an education at 4 year college, then take a bus to New York City and go to work on Wall Street, work his way up to even assistant broker and make six figures or more? Then, even with student loans you could pay them off in a few years or less.
I mean, half of those guys do it out of high school...
So, unless you can prove that only people of "royal blood" are allowed to work selling stock, then Romney wins.
15
Is there some quote somewhere where Romney says he believes he would have ended up in exactly the same place if he had been born in Kenya? Because King seems to be arguing on the assumption that he has said something like that, and if he hasn't King is agruing against a straw man.
16
Like here...an entry level job that requires college, and maybe some experience working at a local bank:
Client Services Specialist Requirements:
Highly enthusiastic, Client focused, self motivated.
Experience in Cash Management at a big financial institution (branch banking experience a big plus).
Experience in managing a demanding client portfolio
Must be well organized and able to liaise and coordinate efforts at all levels.
Excellent communication skills (written& verbal).
Ability to multitask effectively.
College Graduate.
This Client Services Specialist contract position pays an annualized $54,000 ($26 per hour) and is expected to last at least 6 months.
http://www.wallstreetservices.com/entry-…
What's the big deal?
In 10 years you could easily make $140,000 or $250,000 at these places.
http://www.wallstreetservices.com/entry-…
18
@14 & 16: How many of those jobs do you think there are? #1, those places aren't hiring recent college graduates. They're hiring older people who have already been laid off somewhere else. #2, they already say the position is only lasting 6 months - 'at least' is a bullshit phrase to get hopefuls in the door. It's not going to come with probably any benefits, and at the end of the 6 month period you're back where you started, you and the thousands of other grads who applied and never got it in the first place. I work with a crazy smart kid, gotten good grades at a 4yr school, graduating with a business degree in May. He's kept a high 3.8 or so GPA, got tech experience and experience working in a ton of stores. He's willing to live in a number of places; here in MA, CA, NY, he's happy to move. He's personable, professional, a hard worker - and he's Asian American, so hey, that never hurts. Best job he's been offered after months of applying, going to job fairs, etc? A possible position at Rite-Aid as a part time manager. That's it.
It's not as easy as you think it is. It's not even as easy as it was 10yrs ago when I graduated from college.
and 11/22/63 was great. Wind Through the Keyhole is even better. King rules.
It's not as easy as you think it is. It's not even as easy as it was 10yrs ago when I graduated from college.
and 11/22/63 was great. Wind Through the Keyhole is even better. King rules.
19
@14
What "barrier" exists for a person to get an education at 4 year college,
Money.
then take a bus to New York City and go to work on Wall Street work his way up to even assistant broker and make six figures or more?
Ability, conscience, social connections, and math.
There might not be a powerful barrier preventing any particular person from being able to do that, but there are only so many six figure Wall Street jobs out there. It's like asking "what's stopping you from buying a lottery ticket and winning the jackpot?" Or "what's stopping you from being the next Stephen King?"
Life shouldn't be a winner-take-all lottery where you are either Stephen King or Mitt Romney, or you are starving in a gutter. The conscience-free might object to the "shouldn't" in there, calling me a socialist. But most people only really seem to like such a system as long as they're not the ones in the gutter.
But, when that's the equation, nearly everybody ends up in the gutter eventually.
Also, I liked 11/22/63 quite a bit.
What "barrier" exists for a person to get an education at 4 year college,
Money.
then take a bus to New York City and go to work on Wall Street work his way up to even assistant broker and make six figures or more?
Ability, conscience, social connections, and math.
There might not be a powerful barrier preventing any particular person from being able to do that, but there are only so many six figure Wall Street jobs out there. It's like asking "what's stopping you from buying a lottery ticket and winning the jackpot?" Or "what's stopping you from being the next Stephen King?"
Life shouldn't be a winner-take-all lottery where you are either Stephen King or Mitt Romney, or you are starving in a gutter. The conscience-free might object to the "shouldn't" in there, calling me a socialist. But most people only really seem to like such a system as long as they're not the ones in the gutter.
But, when that's the equation, nearly everybody ends up in the gutter eventually.
Also, I liked 11/22/63 quite a bit.
20
@14 I have a great idea... see this is what you do, instead of repeating demands for proof (from laymen) you go and see the proof for yourself? Its very easy and very accessible to everyone due to the magic of internet: google "sociology".
We can have like some kind exchange - you do that and the rest of us pick up your proof: Ayn Rands drunk ramblings.
Oh oh you can do the "sociologi is not a true science" thing though! Its a great last line of defense for those who really think "all men are islands". Its brilliant. Because all you have to do is plug your fingers really hard into your ears, walk up to sociologists, anthropologists, psychiatrists and social-economists and go "lalalalalala" really loud. Works like a charm.
Enjoy!
We can have like some kind exchange - you do that and the rest of us pick up your proof: Ayn Rands drunk ramblings.
Oh oh you can do the "sociologi is not a true science" thing though! Its a great last line of defense for those who really think "all men are islands". Its brilliant. Because all you have to do is plug your fingers really hard into your ears, walk up to sociologists, anthropologists, psychiatrists and social-economists and go "lalalalalala" really loud. Works like a charm.
Enjoy!
21
@10,
I dunno. My father was a "self-made" millionaire, started off with no support from his asshole parents, worked his way through college and law school, and worked his ass off all his life. His work hours even after he "made it" were never less than 60/week, and he always worked on his vacations. He was also the biggest Reagan fan you could possibly imagine. As the same opportunities available to him in the '50s and '60s were yanked away by Republicans, he became even more conservative.
It's entirely possible to forget your roots.
I dunno. My father was a "self-made" millionaire, started off with no support from his asshole parents, worked his way through college and law school, and worked his ass off all his life. His work hours even after he "made it" were never less than 60/week, and he always worked on his vacations. He was also the biggest Reagan fan you could possibly imagine. As the same opportunities available to him in the '50s and '60s were yanked away by Republicans, he became even more conservative.
It's entirely possible to forget your roots.
22
The top 1% of income earners paid 36.7% of all taxes in 2012. The top 25% paid 87% of all federal taxes. The bottom 50%? 2.3% of taxes. 41% of those who filed got more money than they paid in due to the insanity of EITC. That is, those of us who worked had our money stolen to reward 40% of our citizens who refused to do so.
So ya know what, King? Apart from being a hack writer of no talent, you have no understanding of what a fair share might be either.
Another thing, halfwit? The true fair share would be exactly equal for all citizens. We pay for a level playing field. We have no just right to penalize those who play well for the benefit of those napping on the sidelines.
So ya know what, King? Apart from being a hack writer of no talent, you have no understanding of what a fair share might be either.
Another thing, halfwit? The true fair share would be exactly equal for all citizens. We pay for a level playing field. We have no just right to penalize those who play well for the benefit of those napping on the sidelines.
23
Sorry, obviously figures aren't out for 2012 yet.
First sentence should have referenced 2010 tax returns.
First sentence should have referenced 2010 tax returns.
24
It takes him this many words to say he supports the millionaires tax? No wonder so many of his books are over 1000 pages.
25
Damn good opinion piece by Stephen King.
Thank you all for answering SROT's third-rate sophistry.
As for our other blustering contrarian, Seattleblues: The issue is not how much of the total government income comes from the wealthy, you silly. Of course it's a large chunk of the pie - they have nearly all of society's money to begin with!
The issue is that those barely getting by pay a much higher proportion of their income to society. This includes sales taxes, which is magnified in proportion in the lower and middle class, in comparison to the rich, because they have a lot less income. Furthermore, the current GOP-driven trend is to have the poor and middle class pay an increasing amount while the proportion the rich pay shrinks even more. At the same time, current political momentum is diminishing society's payoff to the poor and to the middle class. That is, government services and assistance are ALWAYS the first thing on the chopping block when we have to make ends meet because we have to subsidise the free ride we're giving to the filthy rich and to corporations. We're cutting school funding, healthcare funding, we're shredding the safety net, the Congressional Republicans want to drastically slash foodstamps - foodstamps! - all because this somehow represents Big Government. Getting a dignified response from the system you contribute to somehow "takes away our freedom". Meanwhile, it would be easier to walk from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest in a swimsuit and flip flops than to cut the government welfare we give to the people and cororations that don't need them. What do you think "austerity" is about? Who gets to live life in austerity?
Let's summarize: The more you have, the less you have to pay to society, the more you get from society. The less you have, the more you pay to society, the less you get from society. What the hell?
What the hell!
It's infuriating.
Keep it up, Seattleblues. Regular everyday Schmoes who never thought much about politics are becoming radicalized because the conservative policy to skew the game in favor of the rich at the expense of everyone else is beginning to bare fruit in real tangible ways. Regular people are finding that it's harder to make it through the week and that the old assurances from society are crumbling. Meanwhile, the Mitt Romneys of America are making off like bank robbers. We're sick of it and we're getting angrier and the GOP is eventually going to pay.
More...
Thank you all for answering SROT's third-rate sophistry.
As for our other blustering contrarian, Seattleblues: The issue is not how much of the total government income comes from the wealthy, you silly. Of course it's a large chunk of the pie - they have nearly all of society's money to begin with!
The issue is that those barely getting by pay a much higher proportion of their income to society. This includes sales taxes, which is magnified in proportion in the lower and middle class, in comparison to the rich, because they have a lot less income. Furthermore, the current GOP-driven trend is to have the poor and middle class pay an increasing amount while the proportion the rich pay shrinks even more. At the same time, current political momentum is diminishing society's payoff to the poor and to the middle class. That is, government services and assistance are ALWAYS the first thing on the chopping block when we have to make ends meet because we have to subsidise the free ride we're giving to the filthy rich and to corporations. We're cutting school funding, healthcare funding, we're shredding the safety net, the Congressional Republicans want to drastically slash foodstamps - foodstamps! - all because this somehow represents Big Government. Getting a dignified response from the system you contribute to somehow "takes away our freedom". Meanwhile, it would be easier to walk from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest in a swimsuit and flip flops than to cut the government welfare we give to the people and cororations that don't need them. What do you think "austerity" is about? Who gets to live life in austerity?
Let's summarize: The more you have, the less you have to pay to society, the more you get from society. The less you have, the more you pay to society, the less you get from society. What the hell?
What the hell!
It's infuriating.
Keep it up, Seattleblues. Regular everyday Schmoes who never thought much about politics are becoming radicalized because the conservative policy to skew the game in favor of the rich at the expense of everyone else is beginning to bare fruit in real tangible ways. Regular people are finding that it's harder to make it through the week and that the old assurances from society are crumbling. Meanwhile, the Mitt Romneys of America are making off like bank robbers. We're sick of it and we're getting angrier and the GOP is eventually going to pay.
26
Seattleblues, those statistics about 40-odd% of people paying little or no income tax include retired people living on Social Security. Hate to burst your bubble, but they are paying little or no taxes because they already paid, all their lives. The vast majority of those people you call lazy spongers helped make the society you live in now. It's true, you can look it up. Always look with a suspicious eye on statistics that appear ridiculous. They generally are.
27
@22: The top 1% pays 36% of the taxes, sure. They also control about 40% of the wealth in this country. They are paying LESS than their fair share.
But go ahead and pretend that if someone's poor it's because they chose to be poor and lazy.
But go ahead and pretend that if someone's poor it's because they chose to be poor and lazy.
28
One other thing that should be noted about Stephen King is that he's always put his money where his mouth is in supporting and promoting young and undiscovered authors. He's never adopted an "I got mine, screw you" attitude, and no matter how successful he's been, he's never stopped helping those who don't have much or are just starting out. Say what you want about his writing style, the guy's a gem.
29
To everyone arguing against Seattleblues, keep in mind this is a person who thinks that the actions and motivations of his dog are unexplainable through any amount of scientific inquiry.
I would not hold out much hope that he understands statistics or logic either.
Also, he will just completely lie. How is that fake villa in Italy treating you Seattleblues?
I would not hold out much hope that he understands statistics or logic either.
Also, he will just completely lie. How is that fake villa in Italy treating you Seattleblues?
30
Seattleblues, Is it fair to pay a person a million dollar for farting inside an air-conditioned cabin through out the year? And it is unfair to pay $100 to a person who sweat it out under the scorching sun?
You should correct your statistics. You should correct your skewed belief that being poor is a sin.
God bless you.
Khanbihari@gmail.com
You should correct your statistics. You should correct your skewed belief that being poor is a sin.
God bless you.
Khanbihari@gmail.com
31
@29
I don't have a villa in Italy. Nor have I ever claimed to do so. I have a small house in a small village far from the expensive tourist regions. And here's the thing liberals with their distorted infantile worldview never seem to get. That house doesn't rely on your acceptance to partake in reality.
The reason I pay for private education for my kids is so that they won't be as badly educated as people like you or VL or Lissa. Try to follow this, all right children? The totality of traits my dog, or something as base as you even, possess can't be explained by science. Never will. You and VL and the rest are scared little kids. Instead of standing in awe of the created universe, you fear the immensity of it. So you attack it with scalpels and particle colliders and all the rest, and you think you have a grasp on the reality of the universe. Only in your fear you ignore what makes the combination of traits in a dog or a tree or a human being worthy of awe. You stare fixedly at twigs and think you have a grasp of the forest.
Then you have the sheer nerve to call those who are willing to see scientific endeavor as an immensely valueable, but still limited, tool the ignorant ones. You call them close minded, when you see less than half the created universe through your own willful blindness and dogmatic insistence on a single approach to understanding. You call them stupid, when they weigh the inane mouthings of morons with degrees and decline to accept that black is white simply on the say-so of those morons.
It's understandable. Your entire worldview relies on unreality. From history to philosophy to religion to economics you've built up a pretty little dream about how things work, that simply doesn't exist in objective reality. So anything with a real chance of getting at what reality might actually be must be tremendously terrifying to you. Frightened children hiding under the bed, is basically what you and your lot are.
More...
I don't have a villa in Italy. Nor have I ever claimed to do so. I have a small house in a small village far from the expensive tourist regions. And here's the thing liberals with their distorted infantile worldview never seem to get. That house doesn't rely on your acceptance to partake in reality.
The reason I pay for private education for my kids is so that they won't be as badly educated as people like you or VL or Lissa. Try to follow this, all right children? The totality of traits my dog, or something as base as you even, possess can't be explained by science. Never will. You and VL and the rest are scared little kids. Instead of standing in awe of the created universe, you fear the immensity of it. So you attack it with scalpels and particle colliders and all the rest, and you think you have a grasp on the reality of the universe. Only in your fear you ignore what makes the combination of traits in a dog or a tree or a human being worthy of awe. You stare fixedly at twigs and think you have a grasp of the forest.
Then you have the sheer nerve to call those who are willing to see scientific endeavor as an immensely valueable, but still limited, tool the ignorant ones. You call them close minded, when you see less than half the created universe through your own willful blindness and dogmatic insistence on a single approach to understanding. You call them stupid, when they weigh the inane mouthings of morons with degrees and decline to accept that black is white simply on the say-so of those morons.
It's understandable. Your entire worldview relies on unreality. From history to philosophy to religion to economics you've built up a pretty little dream about how things work, that simply doesn't exist in objective reality. So anything with a real chance of getting at what reality might actually be must be tremendously terrifying to you. Frightened children hiding under the bed, is basically what you and your lot are.
32
@27
Maybe. But we don't tax wealth in the, ummm what's it called again... INCOME TAX, you moron.
We tax income, and while the top 1% paid 36% of taxes, they earned around 20% of the income. The disparity grows as you approach the 25% who pay the lions share but make considerably less than the lions share of income.
Now, that's the tax code, and it isn't going to change. When nearly half our citizens pay nothing for that citizenship while consuming far more government resources, the electoral support for change is in scant supply. More than that, when you need money to pay for an over-reaching government far exceeding it's legitimate authority you go where the money is to get it. That is, you steal from those who did well to support those who refuse to do at all.
Only don't insult the intelligence of the mugged by claiming that the mugging is done on principles of fairness, M'kay junior?
Maybe. But we don't tax wealth in the, ummm what's it called again... INCOME TAX, you moron.
We tax income, and while the top 1% paid 36% of taxes, they earned around 20% of the income. The disparity grows as you approach the 25% who pay the lions share but make considerably less than the lions share of income.
Now, that's the tax code, and it isn't going to change. When nearly half our citizens pay nothing for that citizenship while consuming far more government resources, the electoral support for change is in scant supply. More than that, when you need money to pay for an over-reaching government far exceeding it's legitimate authority you go where the money is to get it. That is, you steal from those who did well to support those who refuse to do at all.
Only don't insult the intelligence of the mugged by claiming that the mugging is done on principles of fairness, M'kay junior?
33
@26
Sorry but you're wrong.
The income on which I pay federal income tax excludes FICA contributions. That is, when a person collects Social Security, they're paying taxes (when they do) on income that has not yet been taxed. You see it with an IRA or other pretax investments, and for the same reason. Basically, if the retired person is earning an income, they should be taxed on that income just as I am. That the source is money extorted from me my entire working life for a very poor investment vehicle run by a bunch of clowns that can't even balance an annual budget really doesn't play into it.
Sorry but you're wrong.
The income on which I pay federal income tax excludes FICA contributions. That is, when a person collects Social Security, they're paying taxes (when they do) on income that has not yet been taxed. You see it with an IRA or other pretax investments, and for the same reason. Basically, if the retired person is earning an income, they should be taxed on that income just as I am. That the source is money extorted from me my entire working life for a very poor investment vehicle run by a bunch of clowns that can't even balance an annual budget really doesn't play into it.
34
@31: You keep saying that there are things about dogs that science cannot explain. NAME ONE. NAME JUST ONE.
Just one solitary aspect of caninity that science today has no handle on. If such aspects existed, it should be easy for you to give one as an example, right? But since you are unwilling or incapable of doing so, we can tentatively conclude that dogs CAN be explained by science and that you're full of shit.
Just one solitary aspect of caninity that science today has no handle on. If such aspects existed, it should be easy for you to give one as an example, right? But since you are unwilling or incapable of doing so, we can tentatively conclude that dogs CAN be explained by science and that you're full of shit.
35
@34
I'm genuinely curious, do you have poor aptitude for reading comprehension? No shame in it. I myself don't care for Calculus, and never will. Once mathematics left the practical in Geometry and Algegra, I lost interest. But your posts seem to indicate either willful ignorance of what's written or inabililty to comprehend it clearly.
So here goes again, Junior. I never claimed that scientific endeavor couldn't explain the shape of a dogs nose or the variations of bark sounds any one dog makes. I claimed, and stand by it, that what binds those traits into the individual, canine or human, is above a scientists pay grade. Take apart an engine, and you can say with certainty what each part does and how the engine will or won't function without it. Dismantle a human being or dog into the component psychological parts and you can't.
That is to say, anybody but a dogmatist of science would recognize that. People like you, it's worth repeating, in your fear ignore what makes the combination of traits in a dog or a tree or a human being worthy of awe. You stare fixedly at twigs and think you have a grasp of the forest.
I'm genuinely curious, do you have poor aptitude for reading comprehension? No shame in it. I myself don't care for Calculus, and never will. Once mathematics left the practical in Geometry and Algegra, I lost interest. But your posts seem to indicate either willful ignorance of what's written or inabililty to comprehend it clearly.
So here goes again, Junior. I never claimed that scientific endeavor couldn't explain the shape of a dogs nose or the variations of bark sounds any one dog makes. I claimed, and stand by it, that what binds those traits into the individual, canine or human, is above a scientists pay grade. Take apart an engine, and you can say with certainty what each part does and how the engine will or won't function without it. Dismantle a human being or dog into the component psychological parts and you can't.
That is to say, anybody but a dogmatist of science would recognize that. People like you, it's worth repeating, in your fear ignore what makes the combination of traits in a dog or a tree or a human being worthy of awe. You stare fixedly at twigs and think you have a grasp of the forest.
36
@35: Calculus is a sight more practical than you give it credit for.
You admit that science can understand the component parts and characteristics of a dog, but not the whole? Am I correct in my interpretation of your statements?
Unfortunately for you, we do have a pretty good understanding of how a dog's mind works. There's a whole field dedicated to such studies; it's called "animal behavior".
Name one psychological characteristic of a dog that science cannot explain. Just one.
You admit that science can understand the component parts and characteristics of a dog, but not the whole? Am I correct in my interpretation of your statements?
Unfortunately for you, we do have a pretty good understanding of how a dog's mind works. There's a whole field dedicated to such studies; it's called "animal behavior".
Name one psychological characteristic of a dog that science cannot explain. Just one.
37
@36
You're being rather dogged about this.
I mean, doggone it, I get that from your sad little perspective the world is a flat gray wonderless place your petty academics can categorize, tag and put away neatly in some book.
But dog my cats if I want to close my eyes to everything but the simple mechanics of the created universe. I mean, you're basically missing the painting for examing the brush-strokes, but if such a sadly limited reality is your preference, that's your perogative.
I suppose for you taking after this subject like a dog with a bone replaces having to answer my points at 32. Oh, forgot. You can't, since there really isn't a valid refutation.
Well, the dog days of summer will be here soon, so I've got some gardening to do to get ready for them.
You're being rather dogged about this.
I mean, doggone it, I get that from your sad little perspective the world is a flat gray wonderless place your petty academics can categorize, tag and put away neatly in some book.
But dog my cats if I want to close my eyes to everything but the simple mechanics of the created universe. I mean, you're basically missing the painting for examing the brush-strokes, but if such a sadly limited reality is your preference, that's your perogative.
I suppose for you taking after this subject like a dog with a bone replaces having to answer my points at 32. Oh, forgot. You can't, since there really isn't a valid refutation.
Well, the dog days of summer will be here soon, so I've got some gardening to do to get ready for them.
38
@32: How much of the total capital gains is made by that top 1%? And how are capital gains taxed compared to the income derived from actually GOING OUT AND WORKING?
We should be rewarding people who work, not those who sit on their money and live off the interest.
@37: Happy now? Of course, you're the last person to be getting on anyone's case for leaving an argument unanswered.
I take joy in the wonderful complexity of the universe, and I quietly thank God every day for allowing such an amazing thing to come into existence. Of course, I can understand something through science and still feel wonder. I know why I can take a seashell out of 300 million-year-old rock and it can still look like it washed up yesterday. And yet I still marvel at how beautifully preserved such things are. I can tell you why mammatus clouds might form and go over the several hypothesized mechanisms for their distinctive appearance. And yet I still titter gleefully at their resemblance to giant sky boobs.
In short, willful ignorance is no substitute for a genuine sense of wonder. Are you really so dull and small-minded that things instantly become boring to you once you know what their deal is?
(Also, you forgot to use "doggerel" in your post.)
We should be rewarding people who work, not those who sit on their money and live off the interest.
@37: Happy now? Of course, you're the last person to be getting on anyone's case for leaving an argument unanswered.
I take joy in the wonderful complexity of the universe, and I quietly thank God every day for allowing such an amazing thing to come into existence. Of course, I can understand something through science and still feel wonder. I know why I can take a seashell out of 300 million-year-old rock and it can still look like it washed up yesterday. And yet I still marvel at how beautifully preserved such things are. I can tell you why mammatus clouds might form and go over the several hypothesized mechanisms for their distinctive appearance. And yet I still titter gleefully at their resemblance to giant sky boobs.
In short, willful ignorance is no substitute for a genuine sense of wonder. Are you really so dull and small-minded that things instantly become boring to you once you know what their deal is?
(Also, you forgot to use "doggerel" in your post.)
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Should I Buy One of These? by Goldy
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (38) RSS