The Raving Loony - Blaming the Victim

Really, I think I've tapped into an inexhaustible source of idiocy, here.

Today, we get this gem from dear Justin: The Greatest Evil Ever Known.

And what, you say, breath bated, is this great, inhuman evil?

The greatest evil is not the driver of evil acts. The greatest evil is the power to stop known evils, and refuse to, whether the intentions for doing so are evil or good. Allowing a known evil to exist and grow when you have the power to stop it is more evil than the actions of the known evil.

For this reason, the most evil man in history can be named: Neville Chamberlain.

That's right. Neville Chamberlain is the Superdevil.

Now, I don't think Mr. Chamberlain is the brightest light who was ever lit. I think he was, historically, a bit of an ostrich. His policy of appeasement has been roundly criticized by historians, and the Munich Accord was inarguably a bad move.

However. He did lead England into World War II when Nazi Germany's aggressive actions continued. He was a prominent member of Churchill's War Cabinet. As a politician, he was talented.

He was also a man astride a very difficult position. By the time his policy of appeasement came into play, Nazi Germany had a full-swing military industrial build-up in place. There are those who argued that he should have done more to prepare England for war, but it's difficult to blame a man for hoping not to send thousands of his countrymen to die in a ghastly, total war. To hope not to have to annihilate cities, killing women and children in an attempt to stop the war from killing millions more.

All this, of course, is secondary to the enormity of Justin's statement: he's calling Neville Chamberlain the most evil man in history. No. No he is not. Not even close.

The theory that "Allowing a known evil to exist and grow when you have the power to stop it is more evil than the actions of the known evil." means that every one of the passengers on the 9/11 planes were guiltier of the attack than the terrorists. That passers-by when a robber runs out of a bank may as well have stolen the money themselves. That every German who didn't join a fifth column during World War II was more vile than Hitler or Goering.

I'm sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Chamberlain was perhaps guilty of being foolishly hopeful in the face of the evidence - again, it's hard to blame him, given the eventual death toll and massive property destruction that resulted. But worse than Hitler? The most evil man in history? No. Now go read history, Justin. You know. The subject you have trouble with.

The Raving Loony - Liberals and Physics

In the first of what will probably become a semi-regular series, this post will mock Justin, of the Raving Loony, a blog we've mocked before. Repeatedly. And then, unable to handle being called on his own ignorance or tendency to present bias and opinion as fact, he surrendered the field.

But some time ago, he returned. Given his sensitive feelings (and a disinclination towards shooting fish in a barrel), I've largely laid off so far. But then he went and tweeted, and right out in public, too:

Liberals do not understand basic physics. Energy input and output must be equal. This means that man made climate change is impossible.

Ah, finally, a denial that makes sense! Why didn't I realize this before? Clearly, all the energy in Earth's atmosphere comes from the Earth. Human fires, lightning, volcanoes. That's where it's coming from. It's not coming from that massive ball of fusion at the center of our solar system.

I mean, if it were, there'd be some sort of balance between the energy pouring onto the planet and the heat that radiates back out into space. Balance determined by the composition and thickness of the atmosphere. And if that were the case, if humans were to pour gases into the atmosphere that would make it better able to trap heat, we could well be responsible for the definite warming trend observed on our planet.

It's a good thing that the earth is a closed system, with no energy streaming in from any nearby solar furnace. Otherwise, Justin's tweet would make him look like an idiot.

---

In the future, Justin, do your homework before announcing your revelations. I know you have trouble with homework, but, you know, try.

Right, I Call Bull$%@&.

A few days ago, Justin the Raging Tory (sounds kinda like a kids' TV monster, doesn't it?) posted his swan song. While I wouldn't say I'm "jumping for joy", every time someone like dear Justin - people who mistake opinion for fact and confuse a personal lack of understanding with evidence of fraud - leaves the public forum, the world as a whole gets a little bit smarter, on average. So for that, at least, Justin, I thank you. Thank you for edifying the world by your own withdrawal.

Now, that aside, I call bull$%@& on Justin's chemical stifling of creativity. Do I doubt the mental health issues and medication? Of course not - I have no reason to doubt his word on that, and, in fact, have long suspected, even before he indicated it to be true, that Justin suffered from some mental health issues. However, I'm calling him on the creativity issue.

Why? Well, this, for one. This, for another. (In short, the articles indicate that Methylphenidate and its derivatives either have no statistically significant effect on creative ability, or actually have a salutary effect. The second article also indicates that most of the articles to the contrary are based on anecdotal evidence, or, in extreme cases, simple fear of medicines that adjust neurochemical balance.) So Justin may be feeling uncreative, but the most he can blame on his medication is the placebo effect combined with his own belief in its effect.

Lack of creativity or not, however, the removal of comments seems like simple revisionism (you know, the sort he accuses "leftists" of perpetuating). If he isn't feeling up to maintaining his blog, he could quite easily lock comments, leaving those that had been written visible to anyone who chooses to peruse his blog. I am (as one might expect, given the forum in which I write this) familiar with the Blogger control panel - and it is emphatically not necessary to remove all existing comments to lock posts to any future comments. So what it looks like to me is that in his dramatic departure, Justin is taking the opportunity to make it seem as though his opinions were unchallenged fact, and to erase the contraindicative evidence posted in response to some of his more egregious assumptions or biased comments.

If he ever reads this, he'll probably dismiss this as a "false and wild accusation", but his reason is not "100% true". I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that it wasn't an intentional lie, but he is wrong in his statement. Though, given the rest of his blog, I suppose we should all be used to it.

Farewell, Justin. You will not be missed.