Wow. PZ Myers is one hell of a bastard. Before even discussing the latest submissions on elitism in politics, science, and the rest of the world, PZ insulted all of us contributors. Now THAT’S elitism.
Blissfully, his insult on my addition came in the form of a backhanded compliment: I’m guilty of “serious” and “sensible” political punditry. Praise from Caesar!
But seriously, folks, I think it’s time that we reflect on what Dana Hunter hath wrought with “Carnival of the Elitist Bastards”: in just three editions, Dana’s shot to the veritable top of science blogs readership by gathering the explicit endorsement of one of the community’s most (in)famous members. It’s clear to me that she’s tapped in to a strong undercurrent: intelligent, outspoken individuals upset about the sidelining of intelligence in American society. While a revolution in the blogs does not a revolution on the ground make, it’s certainly a great first step for intellectual allies to turn, recognize each other, shake hands, and start talking, which is what Dana has given us. Thank you, from one concerned citizen to another.
On elitism generally, it’s a telling fact that, while we may finally see a return of intelligence to the White House in 2008, we’ll only see it return upon the wings of popularity. Intelligence itself, alone, just isn’t that damn popular. Gore’s intelligence in 2000 made us “suspicious” of him, as if his extra brainpower just meant more opportunities for mischief (idle brain cells are the devil’s playthings!). This country was built by leaders who politely tricked voters, and themselves, into believing that they were simply humble farmers: now that we’re in a world of telecommunications, where all information is available to everyone at any time, it’s time to disabuse ourselves of that little image pattern, wake up, and realize that America is, was, and must be built upon intellectual capital, not bumbling, empty rhetoric.
As my brilliant girlfriend (like, “could kill you with her mind” brilliant: if you know her, you’ll agree) pointed out, we even like our celebrities dumbed down. Some even become famous just because they’re dumb. After all, why feel inferior listening to a quality singer when Paris Hilton can croon out “Stars Are Blind,” and make us feel good about our shortcomings? Politeness, humility, and the need for self-confidence can’t be allowed to trump the importance of the human quest for knowledge.
That’s why, now more than ever, this election needs to be about intelligence more than experience. We need a President who can make it cool to be smart again, and we need a man (since it is down to two men, now…) who demonstrates the intelligence to deal with an evolving world, rather than the experience to deal with an evolved world. And I think I know who that man is.
… in just three editions, Dana’s shot to the veritable top of science blogs readership by gathering the explicit endorsement of one of the community’s most (in)famous members.
For Dana’s sake let’s hope his (in)famous coattails continue to have room on them for anything besides his ego.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | July 28, 2008, 11:41 amI concur on that. Did you see the final denouement on the cracker incident? Unimpressive. The ‘nothing can be sacred” message is important but poorly executed. Grr. Though I do think PZ is still, in the majority, a force for good.
Posted by Ames | July 28, 2008, 11:49 amI did see it. I’m not offended by what he did. I see the communion wafer for what it is, a symbol. I don’t think it’s sacred, but I DO think a little respect for beliefs is a good thing for our culture. I think he has good intentions, but I remain convinced he is caught up in his own PR.
I used to like Dana’s stuff but not it seems like she often is writing for an audience of one. I don’t think PZ is the final word on the role of science in our culture.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | July 28, 2008, 12:35 pmIf Dana has to turn towards that one fellow, I think she’s (1) obligated to, at least at first, to build momentum and recognition, but (2) checked that box and can now move on. The fact is that Pharyngula has a vast audience of fans and foes, and it’s a good way to get the word out, so long as you don’t have to sell out your ideals to get there, and I don’t think she’s done that at all. Dana has her own unique voice, for sure; if it has to be obscured temporarily to get sponsorship, so be it, especially since she’s free now.
Posted by Ames | July 28, 2008, 1:33 pmMy biggest problem with any endorsement from PZ is that so many of his . . . . followers . . . . minions . . . . fellow travelers . . . are so close minded. They can’t accept anything that doesn’t walk, talk or look like the duck PZ describes to them. It’s such a shame too, because he does make good points. It’s just their response makes them so . . . . elitist . . . . and it’s no wonder so many on the other side of issues PZ highlights tune him out.
Posted by Philip H. | July 29, 2008, 11:22 amThat’s true too. Science etc. are supposed to be about rationalism: just so, rationalism imports fair mindedness and compromise, rather than dogmatic adherence to any philosophy. As PZ said, “nothing must be sacred”… not even atheism.
Posted by Ames | July 29, 2008, 11:29 amAmes: aw, shucks, man, you make me blush! Twasn’t me that catapulted this carnival to the attention of PZ Myers – ’twas the idea itself, and all of the folks who sweated blood to make that idea live. But thanks for the credit anyway!
@PC – You misread me badly, sir. Those are my ideas, presented in my forum, and the reason they mesh so well with PZ’s is because I bloody well agree with him 98% of the time. So sorry you misconstrue that as an attempt at my part to demonstrate slavish devotion.
Posted by Dana Hunter | August 4, 2008, 3:01 am