Cuz We Said So

It's All About the O So Strangely Fascinating Ad

I laughed aloud when I read today's installment of Slate's Ad Report Card, in which Seth Stevenson nails precisely my reaction to the cheesy-yet-compelling Overstock.com ad:

Admit it: You can't take your eyes off this commercial. I know that you can't, because I've read your blogs. The Web is overflowing with your rants: This ad is so annoying! This woman is so freaking hot! I can't stand this woman! What is going on with this ad? I am deeply confused! Please help me!

Okay, glad it's not just me. Stevenson also has the scoop on Sabine Ehrenfeld, the woman in the spot. And this funny line: "Ring ring. The 1980s called. They want their radically monochrome interiors back."

Reductio Creep Absurdum

David’s post about “reductio creep” fits in with a concept I’ve been toying with for a little while.

We seem, as a society, to hold one particular right very dear, even though it is not written down anywhere, nor is it discussed very often: the right to break the law.  I’m not saying people have the right to break the law and get away with it, I’m saying they have the right to break the law.

Simple example: the speed limit.  We have a maximum speed limit in this country of 70 mph.  Yet we make cars that can go 120.  If we, as a society, have a vested interest in keeping people from exceeding the speed limit, we should regulate that all civilian cars have a governor that keeps their speed under 70.  End of story.  This regulation would be easy, since it’s only one of a thousand safety regulations we already impose on car manufacturers.  This regulation would also eliminate one particular crime. 

(We’d also have safer streets, lower insurance rates (maybe), more efficient and cheaper cars and less reliance on oil.  The benefits would be significant.)

I’d be willing to bet that almost no one would support that regulation.  That reaction is, when you boil it down, based on a built in desire to either break the law (“I like to drive fast”), or at the very least, allow people the opportunity to break the law (“People should be allowed to drive fast if they want to”).

Now, that’s a ridiculous example, I’ll admit, mostly because many people would simply claim the law is stupid to begin with.  (Despite the fact that they have done nothing to remove the law from the books.)  But what about an example that’s ridiculous for an entirely different reason?

Imagine a time in the distant future when science can develop an implant that you could place in someone’s brain that would prevent them from killing another person.  You place this in everyone’s head, and you end murder. 

Now I’ll bet everyone is opposed to this.  Why?  Because free will is more important than anything.  Because the right to choose to kill someone is more important than not killing them.

In fact, I can’t think of a single crime that society would allow the government to proactively prevent, rather than reactively investigate and prosecute.  I’ll throw that question to the floor.

I’m not sure what this means, if it means anything.  It just seems odd to me.  Of course, maybe I’m wrong.  It’s certainly happened… on occasion… back in the mid 90’s…

Evil Dinosaur Bones

A response to David's post on evolution:

">Anti-evolutionists seem to be taking issue not with God's power, but with the interpretation of the Bible that says that He used that power to cause evolution.

For the record, we're a little off the point here. Anti-evolutionists aren't taking issue with anyone's interpretation of the Bible.  They're taking issue with an interpretation of physical evidence gathered by scientists, and how that information is transmitted to students -- in a science class.  I don't remember any anti-creationist asking for stickers to be placed in every Bible saying:

This Book contains material on creation. Creationism is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

But, if we want to discuss this as a matter of faith, rather than science, that's fine, too.

This calls to mind a broader question. Is not the basis (or at least a significant part of the basis) for the belief that Russell professes, that God has no limits, that the Bible says so?

I don't posit that God has no limits.  And neither does the Bibl--at least parts of it.  For example, the Bible says that God cannot look on sin.  It also says that He cannot remember transgressions that have been forgiven.  And Moses called God to the mat a couple of times for being too intolerant of the Israelites.  (I don't remember for sure, but he may have also claimed God was condescending.)  So, any literal reading of the Bible -- and I know many people who believe in just that -- must result in a view of God that is neither omnipotent, nor all-wise.  (Though it is theoretically possible that He might have become all-wise in the past few years, after trolling the blogs.) My problem isn't that anti-evolutionists see God as limited, but that they impose their own choice of limits on Him. Put it another way: they seem to believe that evidence of humanity's evolution is an affront to God.That He is somehow being denigrated, that He is being pulled out of the picture of creation.Remember, I was referring to people of faith who believe in a multi-billion-year-old universe.  They've already rejected a Bible-as-literal-Truth position.  Why is evolution such a problem for them? Likely it's because they see themselves as less holy, since evolution says they are made of the same rude matter as ocelots and coelacanths.  This isn't about faith, it's about ego.

And should the anti-evolutionists be similarly angry about, for example, a person of faith who makes room for the possibility of an all powerful God, yet denies that God has the power to, for some unfathomable reason, make the universe appear as if it were several billion years old, when in fact, it was created just as Genesis claims, some 5,000 years ago?

Despite the fact that I've already touched on the "all powerful" thing, I don't believe He's incapable of such elaborate deception, just that such an explanation puts God in a pretty bad light. (Hat tip: Rip.) ((That's a little poem!)) Not to mention being rather complex. (Hat tip: Occam.) Of course, I'm more familiar with people whose theory says that Satan, not God, planted all those evil dinosaur bones to test our faith. Because genocide and world hunger weren't good enough, seemingly.

"Post-Reductio America"

Radley Balko at TCS, via Reason Hit & Run:

In the world of debate, philosophy and law, there's a method of attacking your opponent's argument known as reductio ad absurdum. In this line of attack, you take your opponent's argument to its most extreme conclusion, you reveal the most absurd consequences that could come of his position, and oftentimes, in the process, you reveal the flaws in his reasoning. Recently, Reason magazine writer Julian Sanchez, who also maintains a personal weblog, coined the term reductio creep. Sanchez came up with the term to describe the age we live in, which he suggests is increasingly becoming an age where absurdity isn't possible anymore, particularly when debating public policy, and particularly for those who happen to advocate limited government. The reductio line of attack doesn't work anymore because we live in an era where the tentacles of government penetrate every nook of our public and personal lives, and for those who advocate this massive, expansive state, there's simply no policy too intrusive, no regulation too absurd, no attempt at social engineering too ambitious that it's beyond the realm of possibility. Not only does the reductio line of argument no longer work on these people, it gives them new ideas.

So sad, yet so true.

Der Spiegel asks...

...if George Bush might be right.

Little Green Footballs asks...

..."is the intifada truly over?" That would be something, wouldn't it?

Have the Palestinians finally had enough of the terror gangs? Palestinians Angry Over Tel Aviv Attack.

The really telling sentence is at the very end of the article:

In contrast to the dozens of previous suicide bombings, no celebrations were held in the West Bank on Saturday and militant groups didn’t hang the customary posters of congratulations at the bomber’s home.

I admit, I’ve been scanning headlines and photos for the traditional Palestinian celebrations of mass murder ... but they didn’t appear this time.

Here's to hope.

Sharon's Strategy

I remain in favor of a state for the Palestinians, for the sake of the innocent among them, who have been grossly betrayed by their leaders and by the terrorists in their midst. But I'm against any course of action that makes it appear as if the terrorism against Israel has rewarded those responsible. Ultimately, I believe that the war on terror must discredit terrorism as an effective strategy, which I think requires it become recognized as invariably counterproductive.

Given that, and the massive failure of the Oslo accords, I've been feeling very conflicted about any progress towards statehood that occurs while terrorism against Israel continues, and have not been sure what to make of recent developments in the wake of the belated death of Yassir Arafat.

An anonymous correspondent at Power Line offers an assessment of Sharon's strategy, which I like more if the assessment is correct:

Sharon's strategy, which can work with GWB's support, is pretty clear to me. And it reflects his military genius and confidence. It is oversimplification to say he is falling back to a defensible perimeter. ...He will allow for the creation of a Palestinian nation state precisely because, when it is created, it will be an entity against which one can wage conventional war. By explicitly creating its borders, Sharon is ensuring Israel's ability to defeat it in the event Palestine chooses to wage war. The only way to put an end to this nonsense of factionalization of Palestinian warmaking is to make it responsible for itself. Hamas can't get away with shelling Israel from a formal nation state. The day that happens, Israel can "go all out." Under current circumstances, Israel cannot truly defeat the Palestinians, it can only impose pain. However, if a formal nation state of Palestine engages in war with Israel, she can bring the full weight of military supremacy to bear - airpower. The day Palestine is formally consecrated is the day the bleeding stops -- that's the bet anyway.

Interesting idea.

A Few Thoughts on Evolution

Last month, in reply to the controversy raised by Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al. the case in which a US District Judge declared that evolution stickers placed in textbooks by a public school board are unconstitutional, Russell took issue with the anti-evolutionist position advanced by the school board in the case.

But what if they are people of faith who make room for the possibility of a universe that is several billion years old, make room for the possibility of a planet nearly as old, but who deny the very specific suggestion that human beings evolved from other species of animals? What then?

Then, what they are doing, quite simply, is putting limits on God. That's the irony of all of this for me. They're saying that God is incapable of fashioning a being "in his own image" through anything but the use of rabbit-from-a-hat magic.

...In short, this topic manages to anger me both as a scientist and as a person of faith.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me that the claim here is that God couldn't have created man through evolution--or, for that matter, that He couldn't have created the earth in two days, or ten days, had He chosen. The claim seems simply to be that He didn't. Anti-evolutionists seem to be taking issue not with God's power, but with the interpretation of the Bible that says that He used that power to cause evolution.

This calls to mind a broader question. Is not the basis (or at least a significant part of the basis) for the belief that Russell professes, that God has no limits, that the Bible says so? Is that not, indeed, the principal basis for believing in God as a being with the properties that Christians attribute to Him? The Bible also says that God created the earth and everything on it inside of a week. Yet Russell appear to allows for the possibility that this is either incorrect or is figurative in some way.

But if one grants that parts of the Bible are not literally true, could not the statement that God is all-powerful be similarly figurative? Or the very existence of God as a being, instead of a metaphor? Russell appears to take one of these three premises in stride, while rejecting at least one of the other two so vigorously that, as he says, it angers him as a person of faith. How are these three propositions different, except that one might be comfortable in believing one, yet not the others? And should the anti-evolutionists be similarly angry about, for example, a person of faith who makes room for the possibility of an all powerful God, yet denies that God has the power to, for some unfathomable reason, make the universe appear as if it were several billion years old, when in fact, it was created just as Genesis claims, some 5,000 years ago?

The Miata is Dead! Long Live the MX-5!

Autoblog links to AutoWeek's article on the third-generation Mazda MX-5, the car formerly sold in North America as the Miata. (It's always been called the MX-5 everywhere else.) There are pictures. I think they're pretty cool pictures. I was a little worried that Mazda would blow the update, like BMW did with the Z4 (and the 5 series, and the 6 series), but such fears were unfounded.

The car debuts next week at the Geneva Auto Show, and is planned for sale later this year. I'm looking forward to hearing more detailed info.

Eminent Domain Abuse? Well, Yeah

Jurispundit has coverage (here and from the main site link) of Kelo v. City of New London, a case argued in front of the Supreme Court. At question, as I understand it, is: "may the government take your property away using eminent domain to give to somebody else who will pay them more in taxes."

My answer, of course, is: "Hell, no." I'm offended the question's even at issue. "A moral outrage" indeed.