Ted Nugent celebrates Black History Month by being an ill-informed douche.

Usually I ignore Ted Nugent's rants precisely because they are rants.  After I turned 20, I realized there is no point in reasoning with someone whose primary argument is that if you disagree with him you can suck on the end of his gun.

Nevertheless, recently Nugent strung a few words together in World Nets Daily (notorious conspiracy theory kooks) that included no discernible threats.  Instead, Nugent argues that his way of celebrating Black History Month is more respectful and more to the advantage of the black community than any Democratic policy has ever been.  I'll dismiss outright the argument that Obama is the best policy-maker for the black community because he is black--that is just silly.  Armed with a fact or two regarding unemployment among the black community, Nugent claims the failure of the New Deal and every other democratic policies intended to close the equality gap between whites and blacks in America.  Indeed, in some instances he may be right, though he offers no analysis, no statistics to support his claims.  I'd like to point out that that the Republican party went out of its way to exclude black and other minority voters in many states this election cycle.  I'd like to point out that certain Republican states are trying to repeal the  voting rights act, and that Mississippi (a predominantly Red state) just ratified the 13th Amendment a few days ago (in case you are unaware, the 13th Amendment outlaws slavery).  I'd like to point out these sorts of things, but I won't because they are not entirely relevant.  The best part of Nugent's article is his preferred way of honoring the black community during Black History Month--it's not to push legislation that will solve the economic or social gaps between the black and white communities; it's not a proposed fix to public education.  Nugent is going to honor the black community by playing black music.

I hope he has a great tour, and I hope he pays royalties...

Never Miss a Good Conversation.

David Frum has been Tweeting ideas in rapid succession this morning regarding solutions to gun-death problems in the States.

Indeed, this series (the list above is partial) represents ideas from his CNN column, found here.  Some of his ideas are interesting, several are new to me, others seem like they'd not work or would be impracticable.  Nevertheless, his Tweets should have started an interesting conversation.  Instead, they've started this:

Score for the day: F@cking cat memes:1 Reason: 0.

Reforming the GOP.

Ever since President Obama trounced (I say trounced simply because it was clear months in advance--and contrary to what Dick Morris and Karl Rove had insisted--that there was no way that Romney could win--just ask Nate Silver) Mitt Romney in the presidential race pundits on the right and the left have been looking at how the GOP can reform itself to take back the White House.  Many like Bobby Jindal have suggested different messaging.  Jindal has specifically (and literally) said that the GOP needs to stop being stupid.  However, he seems to mean that they need to stop expressing themselves stupidly, not that they need to stop maintaining stupid positions.  Jindal has been largely praised for what has seemed like a bold move.  And the message has been received--at the House Republican retreat in January, GOP congressmen were instructed not to talk about rape.  On the other hand, Karl Rove's SuperPAC (the same SPAC that spent incredible amounts of money on 2012 elections and saw little return on its investment) has started a new project to keep Tea Partiers like Todd Akin (also trounced by Claire McCaskill), Richard Mourdock (whom the Tea Party used to oust Dick Lugar, and was then defeated by Joe Donnelly) and Paul Broun (who serves on the House Science Committee despite denying the big bang, evolution and apparently the whole discipline of embryology)  from running against more moderate and, more importantly, electable GOPers.  What is most interesting is that, while Rove seems to be offering practicable solutions to a GOP problem (as compared to the "stop talking about rape" approach), he has been bashed by many in his own party.  Conclusion:  Bobby Jindal was right.

Here's John Dickerson's competent analysis from this morning.

The Godly Grammar of Theology.

I am not particularly fond of Bill Maher--not so much because of his opinions, but because of his 'shock-jockeyness'.  He seems to belong to the same school of thought as Neal Boortz and Michael Savage, who believe that the greater the number of your detractors the more correct your opinion.  Nevertheless, Maher's comments regarding today's Super Bowl led to a sublime exchange on Twitter.

In general, I agree with Maher's sentiment, though I think 27% is not nearly as impressive as Maher seems to think.  However, what is more interesting is Maher's evident orthographic error, which was noticed by very few to begin with.  Obviously "thing" should read "think", and there is a certain irony in making such a blatant error when calling someone stupid.  Maher could have been taken to task by the Twitterverse.  Instead, Maher's detractors doubled down.

Not only have these tweeps failed to identify the most obvious error in Maher's tweet, the supposed error they've 'corrected' is not an error at all.  The word god is a common noun, not a proper noun (like God Jones, or God Jefferson).

The Internet is a Beautiful Place.

Do you want to translate a Greek phrase?  The internet has got that covered.  Do you want help tuning your guitar?  There are thousands of Youtube videos to guide you (not to mention dozens of iPhone apps).  Do you want a great recipe for spaghetti squash?  No problem.  The internet is a repository of an incredible amount of information--more than any one person can handle alone.  It's also a repository of f@cking cat memes.  The internet is neither good nor bad; it's a matter of how you use it.  I hate cat memes, but not for their content.  As cat memes, they are relatively benign.  Nevertheless, wasting your time on cat memes is a little like admiring how clean the windows are at the Louvre--you're not only missing the point, you're losing out.  Other memes are more nefarious, largely because they pose as information when they are no more accurate than the idea that a cat "can haz a hamburger".  Case in point:

If you type "11 states have more people on welfare than employed" in Google, the first response is Politifact.com with an explanation of this chain mail meme. 

They give it their worst rating: Pants-on-Fire.  How did I know to look it up?  Easy--it smells like bullshit on the surface (do you know the population of California?).  Even so, I'd have looked it up anyway.  Why?  Because that is what the internet is for.

How and When to Use "Quotation Marks".

Punctuation is tricky.  For the most part, commas and periods are simply used to provide or indicate structure in a syntactic unit (end of sentence, here be a dependent clause, now begins a list of items, etc.).  Quotation marks (or, as I've been taught to call them, inverted commas) have some interesting uses quite outside the context of syntax.  One may assume on a priori grounds that quotation marks are used to indicate quotations--and they are.  Nevertheless, they also have rhetorical use that sometimes goes unnoticed.  When one uses inverted commas in writing apart from referring to a text, we call these 'scare quotes'.  They generally make a point--sometimes it is irony, sometimes satire or sarcasm.  "Oh sure, you're an 'efficient' worker", likely means you are not efficient, or you are efficient in a way that is irrelevant.  It is important for journalists, editors and bloggers to understand this important usage.  Think Progress understands this:

As does Breitbarts's John Nolte:

ABC News, however, demonstrates a failure to understand when it is necessary to use quotation marks.  It seems likely they are actually quoting Twitter engineers.  Nevertheless, no one would doubt the veracity of the statement to such a degree that he might feel it necessary to call a Twitter spokesman to confirm they they are working to "resolve issue"--notice that the quote makes it seem that Twitter is employing a team of Cro-magnon men in their engineering department.  Because the inverted commas seem so out of place, one would easily read them as scare quotes--in which case the real meaning of the ABC tweet is "Engineers at Twitter smoking a blunt and macking on cool Ranch Doritos while you swear at your computer screen."  Though I have to admit, that does seem more likely than that they employ Neanderthals.

One swallow does not a Summer make.

Clichés of this sort stick around for a reason--usually because they are based on a fundamental truth.  In the conversation about gun-control there are many fundamental, logical truths that are side-stepped (so to speak) by the participants.  I'd just like to point out a few from today.

 

The first fallacy is the simplest, and it is the one to which the title of this post refers.  It is absolutely impossible to solve the issue of gun control (whether for more regulation, as intended by the first tweet, or against, as intended by the second) by referring to one case or a small sampling of cases.  The argument over gun control must be concerned first (though not solely) with statistics and studies.  If you're not slinging numbers, take your sloppy shit elsewhere because you are just muddying the waters.  In case you are interested, this is an instance of Hasty Generalization.

 

Next up is a classic Red Herring.  Notice that no rational participant in the conversation is suggesting that new regulations can eliminate or stop gun violence altogether.  The tweep above is absolutely correct, it would be delusional to think this possible--that's why we don't think that.  Perhaps I smell a bit of Straw Man here as well?

If we remove some of these simple errors in thinking from the conversation, perhaps we'll make some progress.