Common Sense is Not Common

Lately conservative pundits are using the term "common sense" an awful lot, and the term is rubbing off on their followers. Recently I was debating the proper steepness of the "inequality curve" to provide necessary motivation to work harder and better. Slightly higher taxes on the wealthy will allegedly make them unmotivated.

The right-winger argued that the curve has to be pretty steep; that is, heavy inequality is necessary in order to provide sufficient motivation by his view. I argued that perception of social ranking is largely relative to position (ranking among near-peers) and thus a slightly shallower curve will not kill motivation. Observations of animal behavior tend to bear this out, forgive the pun.

The right-winger then said, "Well, it's common sense that you need a steep curve" (paraphrased). I then argued that it's not common sense. We really won't know for sure without some kind of careful study of human economic behavior. I cannot cite any clear-cut direct studies that back my position and neither could he. However, my point is that common sense is not sufficient to answer such questions. (I'm sure there are plenty of indirect studies that both sides could use as ammunition.)

Not having a definitive answer from science and statistics, I can at least agree to respect somebody with the steep curve opinion if they do the same with my opinion. However, this particular right-winger insisted that "common sense" backs the steep curve view and those who don't share it are somehow brainwashed by the "left-wing media" or "commie professors". In other words, exposure to these evil entities allegedly washed away my common sense.

It turned into the usual shouting match over who is more brainwashed. But in retrospect, I believe it to be yet another manifestation of the right's anti-intellectualism. Scientific and statistical studies and processes are not to be trusted by the right. Thus, common sense, or at least their version of it, is more reliable in their view, and thus given special rank. Who needs science when you have ol' Uncle Jesse to hand down "common sense"? Probably while cleaning his shotgun.

Palin Jumps the Occupied Shark

Quote from ABC News:

"I disagree with the Obama administration on that," Palin told Walters. "I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead...

So, if we in the US crank out too many kids and decide we all want to live in Canada, then we should be allowed to just go there and make it part of the US, regardless of what Canada wants, because we are making it "grow"???

Unfairly Blaming Obama for Deficit

A chart in a New York Times online article shows that Obama's policies contributed only about 12% to the current federal budget deficit. The rest, roughly 88%, is caused by a roughly-even mix of the recession itself (lower tax revenues) and Bush's policies. And this is ignoring the fact that a stimulus package was based on mainstream economic advice. (As I pointed out earlier, China has shown that sufficient stimulus plans work.)

Another break-down of the deficit can be found at Think Progress.

A Red on Blue State Blues

A conservative was bragging that the recession hit blue states the hardest, implying it was because liberals don't know how to run things.

I then pointed out that one cannot have a significant real-estate bubble in places where nobody wants to live. That quieted him up nicely.

Sex in the Bible City: Conservative Logic Misfire

I encountered a conservative the other day who was posting a printed rant about how an Obama appointee once approved "sexually explicit" books for school libraries. A companion then pointed out that the Bible also has some rather salacious passages, including rape and incest.

This caught the Con off guard. He was a deer caught in the headlights of the SUV of Logic heading straight his way. After fumbling around for a while, he finally came up with a half answer: "It's the context and intent that makes the difference. The Bible is to teach moral and spiritual lessons, and those sexual stories are part of those lessons."

I then replied, "But isn't it possible that library books you are ranting about also have moral lessons?".

He then stated, "I don't know, I didn't read them".

"Then how do you know they put sex in a poor context or have bad intent?" I asked.

He then mumbled something like, "If they were written by liberals, then they are probably of ill intent."

Thus, the truth comes out: conservatives don't want to necessarily ban sex from library books, but want to ban books written by liberals. This is done in the guise of "protecting the children from sex". It's liberals they want to protect the children from, not sex. Con moral platitudes are often a disguise for something else.