Download Our App

All posts tagged "Andrew Sullivan"

Measuring skulls

Measuring skulls

Andrew Sullivan is back at it again, kindly reminding us that despite his support of Obama, who he really is never lurks far from the surface. Yep, he's defending The Bell Curve again, relying on the same tricks---mainly leaning on the assumption that the audience doesn't have time to do the background research, which is true enough and a reason why journalists really shouldn't promote pseudo-science---and Ta-Nehisis Coates is pushing back, albeit in a way that far more generous than I could ever feel towards Sullivan's intentions. It's really upsetting to see these redonkulous theories of race and IQ continue to be trotted out 30 years after biologist Stephen Jay Gould published The Mismeasure of Man, neatly outlining the history of these kinds of studies, the arguments for what kind of scientific proof would actually be required (hint: much higher than need-to-believe sorts like Sullivan accept), and the real-life results of putting a faux scientific veneer on old-fashioned racist and classist arguments about how oppressed people aren't oppressed but simply inferior. (Forced sterilization is a direct example, but basically all continued institutional racist oppression is rationalized by the "it's not the oppression, it's that they're not good enough" argument). There was even a 1996 reprint that kindly put to bed The Bell Curve's attempts to update the hoary old IQ studies of old. Ta-Nehisi addresses the ahistorical aspects of Sullivan's.....I hate to call the "arguments", so I'm going to say evidence-free whinings about the P.C. police preventing scientists from demonstrating what he clearly thinks they could, which is that black people are inferior as a group. 

Religious claims don't belong on news shows

Religious claims don't belong on news shows

[rebelmouse-image 24750058 original_size="321x314" expand=1]I was mildly surprised to see some people react negatively to my post yesterday making fun of Chris Matthews and company for "debating" the existence of hell on what was supposed to be a news show. To my mind, it was just clearly just a joking post that was aimed mainly at Matthews for having this discussion and for the panelists for refusing to denounce it as the waste of time and effort that it was.  But apparently, what caught people's eye was my heavy use of the word "bullshit", and there were many concerns expressed that I'm far too skeptical that religious people believe their own fictions.  A typical example is here, and a discussion that erupted on Twitter between many people, but mainly between myself and Jamelle Bouie based off this post.

What atheists hear when people "debate" theology

What atheists hear when people "debate" theology

I love Nicole's take on how ridiculous it was that Chris Matthews had a round table to debate "what if there was no hell?*": "This is why we can't have nice things."  Debating whether or not there is a hell on national television is one of those things that makes me wonder if we, as a nation, are collectively five years old.  SInce this is a claim that can't really be dealt with on evidence, all the arguments basically fall along the lines of, "I believe X because I want result Y." 

The populist right isn't really any dumber than the intellectual right

The populist right isn't really any dumber than the intellectual right

[rebelmouse-image 24749830 alt="Found on Limbaugh's website" original_size="500x378" expand=1]Andrew Sullivan is (rightly) up in arms about Rush Limbaugh posting this racist image on his website, and issuing a racist dogwhistle rant to go along with it on his show. Digby points out that this is hardly that shocking for Limbaugh; he usually tops this kind of racism on a daily basis. She wishes the story was less, "Oh my god, someone stepped over the line today!" and more, "Right wing talk radio is a non-stop hatefest," which is more accurate. The fact that any liberal who brings this up is immediately pounced upon, often by other liberals, as a race-baiter who is trying to tar the Tea Party unfairly is a major problem, and it stems less from the pouncer's grasp of reality and more from the pouncer's wishful thinking. Digby sez: