Jim Croce anyone?

You don't tug on superman's cape / You don't spit into the wind / You don't pull the mask off that old lone ranger / And you don't mess around with Jim

I heard this guy interviewed on a local radio show

Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War by Wilfred Reilly

The podcast of the show should go up sometime today. https://www.iheart.com/podcast/preston-scott-show-23098185/

Ewww. And faster, please.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/nasty-3ft-long-parasitic-worms-are-on-the-cusp-of-being-wiped-from-the-planet/

Speaking of not thinking before acting - or, in this case, not thinking before speaking:

"Bishop Barron on The Childfree Life"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1buybmnQ0nQ

It's 8:19 minutes long and he talks about the TIME Magazine cover story from August, 2013.

What's amusing is when, starting in the last two minutes, he talks wistfully about how young adults used to think less in terms of privacy and more in terms of "what you can do for your country." (No, he didn't actually quote JFK.) BUT...he never took into account that plenty of famous childfree people, men as well as women, may well have decided that they could GIVE more to the world by forfeiting parenthood and focusing on their talents instead!

Examples: Emily Dickinson, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Pablo Casals, Louis Armstrong, Samuel Beckett, Grace Hopper, Rachel Carson, Linus Pauling, Tom Lehrer, Ralph Nader, and Jonathan Kozol just might not have benefited the world nearly as much had they had children. (OK, so maybe some of them didn't really plan it that way - but I do know that Nader, for one, said that it wouldn't be fair for him to marry or have children when he wouldn't have had any time for them.)

More examples: George Bernard Shaw, Simone de Beauvoir, Dolly Parton, John Waters, and Oprah.

(I don't include gay people born before WWII, since too many of them didn't really feel they had the option of adopting children anyway. Such as Maurice Sendak - he also kept his gayness secret from his parents until they died.)

Another reason why women outlive men:

https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1107373225758150656

Examples: Emily Dickinson, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Pablo Casals, Louis Armstrong, Samuel Beckett, Grace Hopper, Rachel Carson, Linus Pauling, Tom Lehrer, Ralph Nader, and Jonathan Kozol just might not have benefited the world nearly as much had they had children.

You're assuming all of those folks "benefited" the world.

Which didn't?

(Well, Carson.)

(Never heard of Kozol)

You're assuming all of those folks "benefited" the world.
____________________________________

Yes, I do. (For the record, I left out those entertainers who were/are mere actors and not great artists in their fields. We have too many of the former anyway.)

But I think it's fair to say that all of the above were forces for good at least HALF the time, whether one leans to the left or right. Even if you don't approve of Armstrong's unapologetic use of pot, who doesn't love him as a jazz artist?

And if Carson got some things wrong, well, I'd bet Freud got even more things wrong. But he still deserves credit for sticking his neck out and getting the ball rolling in his field. Without that, doctors might still be blaming schizophrenia on bad parenting, as they more or less did in the 1970s. (Too bad it took so long for THAT to change...but it could have been worse.) In the same vein, Carson got the ball rolling in her field, which was better than nothing, to say the least.

Btw, I met Kozol at least twice and I mentioned to him that I knew someone with friends in the Spartacist League. He rolled his eyes and said "those people are CRAZY!" (Not quite what one might expect him to say.)

If you like, here's a list. I just wish it were in chronological order, which it's not. Also, it was foolish for them to include anyone under 60, IMO - at least two people who need to be removed are George Clooney and Elton John.

http://www.childfreebychoice.com/history.htm

> well, I'd bet Freud got even
> more things wrong.

Lenona, c'mon, that's not how this is done.

(Well, Carson.) ~ Crid at March 19, 2019 2:04 PM

Mainly.

Nader, too. Although he did make people think about consumer safety, Nader destroyed the Corvair mostly to collect GM's scalp for his belt. While some of his criticisms were semi-valid regarding the '62 Corvair, by the '64 model, most of those had been corrected.

His hand in destroying nuclear power in the US should be lamented by environmentalists -- and birds.

(Never heard of Kozol) ~ Crid at March 19, 2019 2:04 PM

I had to look him up.

City Journal called Kozol "America's Most Influential -- and Wrongest -- School Reformer," citing his position "that institutional racism, embodied in segregated schools and hateful white teachers, is the sole cause of the failure of black children ... not family breakdown and not underclass culture. Indeed, Kozol justifies the self-destructive behavior of black youngsters."

Oh, and who knows just how much gay people owe to Freud, judging from what he wrote in 1935?

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Letter_from_Freud_(to_a_mother_of_a_homosexual)

(I realize, of course, that HE wasn't CF, but that's not the point.)

Anybody remember Ultraman? The militant Ultra Defense Force or whatever drove a fleet of Corvairs. I'll never forget my brother cackling about that.

And I just found out there are web pages about it.

Did Ralph Nader ever entertain anyone with an absurdly inexpensive Sci-Fi children's show in LBJ-era America? No, I say.

First week I was in L.A. I saw a Corvair vanity plate reading "H8NADR."

Re Kozol, I'm sure he's made some foolish mistakes too. In the meantime, he didn't get all those book awards and grants for nothing.

From 1993 (a Newsweek Special Report about black families - no connection to Kozol):

https://www.newsweek.com/endangered-family-192864

"...Many black leaders rush to portray out-of-wedlock births as solely a problem of an entrenched underclass. It's not. It cuts across economic lines. Among the poor, a staggering 65 percent of never-married black women have children, double the number for whites. But even among the well-to-do, the differences are striking: 22 percent of never-married black women with incomes above $75,000 have children, almost 10 times as many as whites..."

But, IIRC, those rich black fatherless children don't grow up to be failures, as a rule.

Which brings me to this interview from Feb. 2018:

DB: One important point you make in Savage Inequalities is that we have to change the way public schools are funded. Schools are set up for failure from the get-go when so much depends on the local economic base. Is a lack of resources at the heart of the matter?

Kozol: These experts at the Hoover Institution and Heritage Foundation are always asking, “Is money really the answer?” Supposed liberals will look me in the face and say, “Jonathan, can you really solve the problems of those kinds by throwing money at them?” These are the same people who send their kids to prep schools that cost $60,000 a year. My answer is always: “It seems to work for your kids, doesn’t it?”

Here's the link for the interview:

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/05/connecticut-court-decision-highlights-u-s-educational-failures/

And if Carson got some things wrong, well, I'd bet Freud got even more things wrong. But he still deserves credit for sticking his neck out and getting the ball rolling in his field.

Freud's errors didn't condemn people to death, just therapy. DDT was highly effective at combating malaria. DDT is safe for humans and most animals, long-lasting, and, if applied locally, DDT does not harm wildlife, if it ever actually did. According to WHO, "in 2016, 445,000 people died from malaria globally," as Western aid agencies continue to resist the use of DDT in Third World countries due to political considerations back home.

No argument with Armstrong. I'm a fan. Although criticized by later jazz musicians as being an "Uncle Tom" for his widespread acceptance by white people and for playing in front of segregated audiences, his influence as a musician cannot be denied.

that's not how this is done.
____________________________________

What's "this"? You'll have to spell it out. I don't see the problem.

Good intentions aren't everything, of course, but even alchemists were essential to the development of chemistry as a science. (I've also heard that Aristotle got most of his science wrong - but that wasn't the same as his philosophies, of course.) So why not give credit for the good that famous people intentionally did?

Freud's errors didn't condemn people to death, just therapy.
_________________________________

Not exactly.

There's a better-than-average reason we refer to "survivors" of child molestation. (As anyone who's seen "Spotlight" knows, many of them committed suicide - in part because they were afraid they wouldn't be believed. Freud was partly responsible for that, if not necessarily mostly.

And I find it hard to believe that after almost 2/3 of a century (and chemical research), Carson is the only solid reason for the refusal to use DDT. Not to mention, how many lives have been saved from OTHER toxic chemical components because of her whistleblowing? We don't know. We do know she taught us not to take corporations or politicians at their word and to demand proof.

The Jewish origins of most Western people's skepticism about homosexuality:

Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

(Not anti-Semitic; written by Dennis Prager, a conservative Jew.)

> I don't see the problem.

It's called the Inductive Fallacy of False Analogy.

It makes you seem desperate, and busy beyond the edges of your clarity... As does "of course" in each of consecutive sentences.

Well, at least this fella's healthy:

Beto O’Rourke Runs St. Patrick’s-Themed 5K in Iowa

The Onion isn't pulling any punches, oof.

In an effort to better integrate its values into the heart of its brand, the Walt Disney Company announced Tuesday it had decided to rehire writer–director James Gunn to helm Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3 as part of a company-wide push to embrace pedophilia. “Pedophiles have always had an important role to play at Disney, but now more than ever we want to put people who have sex with children front and center,” said company spokesperson Eloise Andrade, who explained that the decision to fire Gunn from the Marvel franchise had come only after the filmmaker angered Disney executives by apologizing for his 2009 tweets about enjoying pedophilia.

https://archive.is/8NQaL

I'm using the archived link in case Disney's merry band of lawyers take the page down.

“We don't know. We do know she taught us not to take corporations or politicians at their word and to demand proof.” ~ lenona at March 19, 2019 4:16 PM

But we’re to take her at her word?

Because she’s an activist and not a corporation? Makes her inherently honest?

Conan, see what I said regarding the last 50-plus years (yes, I admit I shouldn't have said "almost 2/3 of a century" - I messed up my math).

Everyone SHOULD know, at least, that science keeps changing, based on new discoveries. When it doesn't, there are usually good reasons for that. Take the germ theory, for one - it took about 45 years for all DOCTORS to agree to wash their hands (by the 1890s), but today, even all the screaming, protesting toddlers (and older kids) in the world can't force adults to change their minds when they say "you have to wash."

And Crid, I thought it was clear that if even Freud deserves a certain amount of praise and credit, so does Carson.

And I find it hard to believe that after almost 2/3 of a century (and chemical research), Carson is the only solid reason for the refusal to use DDT. ~ lenona at March 19, 2019 4:16 PM

Carson's book is still cited by environmentalists and anti-insecticide activists today. It's still the bible of the movement. So yes, she is, in effect, the sole reason NGOs are still reluctant to use DDT. Why they can't use quinine, I don't know.

And I have no problem with you calling 50+ years "2/3 of a century."

How do you know she's the SOLE reason?

> if even Freud deserves a certain
> amount of praise and credit

That's a lunatic sentiment, as ignoble as any of the SJW tripe.

"A certain amount of praise and credit".

People are butthurt about Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)...

Do they sniffle & peedrip over Gregor Mendel as well? Howzabout Charles Darwin?

"A certain amount of praise and credit".

That's the blog's most compelling locution since Raddy's "unplanned legal issue" (19 March 2019).

Whoops! It was the 17th.

Raddy held the Championship for only seventy hours!

That's a lunatic sentiment,
____________________________

Why?

Because the entirety of your conception of the interior life is historically dependent on Freud's transformative insights. His work changed civilization, no matter how much he got wrong, and no matter how badly he was served by weak students. A century+ later, you disagree with him about stuff, and are pleased that there's been further progress. So what?

SJW butthurt is not the best lens for viewing figures of his magnitude.

His work changed civilization, no matter how much he got wrong,
___________________________________

So did Carson's. She got far more people than before to care about the long-term effects of pollution - and many people had never realized (or cared) that there WERE long-term effects. Not to mention, she made people realize that if you don't understand science very well, it's time to change that, because what you don't know can hurt you, big-time. I.e., ignorance isn't bliss, it's dangerous. (Same goes for not understanding how government works or letting corporations do as they please, whether out of awe or cowardice.) All of that is hardly trivial, even compared to Freud's work.

You'll have to be more specific.