January 14, 2005

A Weighty Analogy

The ancien regime of "Bush Lied" is back again.But then again they will always be back since, having been denied real power, they are -- for at least four years -- card-carrying members of the hard-core unemployed. Whether they are actually employable in the America that is now unfolding we will leave for another time. At present, however, we will be unable -- since so many of them are on the welfare rolls of MSM -- to avoid their fantasy reality.

Suffice it to say that we will be bombarded for the duration with a very limited stockpile of arguments. So limited that they become tedious. This week's stock of arguments past their shelf date include "Abu Ghraib, Man, Abu Ghraibi!" and the ever-popular "No WMD!" These gears will grind on until the last ding-dong of doom. But fortunately there is, every so often, a breath of sanity. In this case one Dr. Sanity, who disposes of the contemporary stains of American intellectual insanity with notable aplomb. As an example, here's something he baked up to work with the WMD delusionals.

Let's say that people in my neighborhood got together and voted (in the interests of neighborhood health) that I couldn't bake my "Death by Chocolate" cakes anymore (these cakes have been known to be lethally caloric). I reluctantly agree, and say I am complying with this order, but refuse to let anyone check by looking in my pantry.

Finally, tired of being manipulated by me, and concerned that I might go ahead and bake one of those destructively high calorie cake things, my neighbors force their way into the house and find THAT I HAVE NO CAKE SITTING ON THE COUNTER WAITING TO BE EATEN! How foolish they were to doubt my word! How stupid they were to imagine I might be up to my old chocolate baking tendencies!

On the other hand, they discover while carefully going through my pantry that there are 2 boxes of devil's food cake mix; chocolate bars, cake pans, pudding mix, flour and sugar, mixing bowls and a number of other questionable items. They even find a recipe book which includes several variants on the "Death by Chocolate" Cake theme--muffins, breakfast loaf, etc. And, on top of that, they have a video showing me carrying a cake-like item out of the house the day before they barged in to verify my compliance with their silly order. They suspect that I took one of the cakes to work to share with my co-workers. I calmly refuse to tell them anything.

So what is the conclusion? That I had no pre-existing cake, waiting to be eaten? Or, that I had all the ingredients to make that cake at a moment's notice, despite my having said I wouldn't; and that I even made one just before they came to check, but had taken it somewhere else to eat?

I don't know about you, but I think if you conclude that I haven't been making my famous "Death by Chocolate" cake because one isn't sitting out on the counter for you to find, then you are more foolish than even I could possibly have imagined.

Dr. Sanity: WMD and Death By Chocolate Cake

Should you feel that the swirling intellectual insanity all about you is becoming a bit too much, I suggest a session with the good doctor.


UPDATE: A reader in the comments protests, "That crazy chef did let people look in his pantry. That's why we know there were no ingredients for "Death by Chocolate" cake. The problem was the lunatic trying to lead the neighbors in a witch hunt when he realised Pantry Inspectors weren't finding anything."

To which we would reply that in the full post to which we linked, this objection -- oft repeated and repeated -- is false. Many many "ingrediants" were found and are listed at: AlphaPatriot: UN Admits Saddam Had WMD

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Posted by Vanderleun at January 14, 2005 10:08 PM | TrackBack
Save to del.icio.us

Comments:

AMERICAN DIGEST HOME
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

I know it's off point, but man, that cake sounds good.

Posted by: The Colossus at January 15, 2005 5:25 AM

So if Bush didn't lie about the WMDs, then at the very least he was woefully and tragically wrong, right?

(but he did lie)

(he also lied about a lot of other things: His drunk driving concvictions, his failure to fullfill his ANG commitment, and most recently about the state of Social Security. In fact, it looks like he has trouble teling the truth about anything that he does or has done. It all seems to add up to the conclusion that Bush is a lier.)

Posted by: jri at January 15, 2005 7:54 AM

It's 'liar'. Use a spell checker, a dictionary, or merriam-webster online. Otherwise it's doing a drive-by shooting, and leaving the safety on the pistol.

Posted by: P.A. Breault at January 15, 2005 9:04 AM

So could he have that cake baked and in the hands of the choco-fascists in 45 minutes?

Posted by: frameone at January 15, 2005 9:26 AM

This is a TERRIBLE analogy. First of all, it's misleading in saying:

"but refuse to let anyone check by looking in my pantry."

That crazy chef did let people look in his pantry. That's why we know there were no ingredients for "Death by Chocolate" cake. The problem was the lunatic trying to lead the neighbors in a witch hunt when he realised Pantry Inspectors weren't finding anything.

The 3rd paragraph just doesn't make sense. I can't really find much parallel between the analogy and what I understand as the facts in this situation. There's a couple references to the chef having baked a cake and passed it off to someone else? I don't recall any proof of something like that happening. Nor did we find MANY ingredients as demonstrated. As far as I know we found a questionable pan or 2 that COULD be perceived as cake pans, but are not of the right quality to make a cake. They're MUCH more likely used for making soup to keep warm.

This whole analogy is trying to justify someone irrationally striking out by arguing that it's ok becuase it's paranoia. That should be acceptable?? Getting REALLY paranoid and attacking. Not acceptable in my eyes.

Posted by: Losing Faith at January 15, 2005 10:44 AM

Ok, let's read this whole article:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wmdliesb.html

Now answer for me HOW we can trust these people? They're either liars or have REALLY bad judgment. I mean REALLY bad.

Posted by: Losing Faith at January 15, 2005 5:51 PM

Losing Faith,
That website you are referring to: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wmdliesb.html
is one established by a guy who is using misinformation to further his film career. If I were you, I'd read better sources.

Posted by: jedati at January 17, 2005 8:43 PM

Losing Faith, You might want to look at this:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
If Bush lied, then so did all the democrats, and numerous other countries leaders and intelligence services from around the world.

Posted by: jedati at January 17, 2005 9:01 PM

Whoa, just found this linked in a rarely used favs folder. I read the final comments and just had to reply even though it'll probably never be read. Oh well.

Who cares who established the website in this case? How is it not a "reliable source" when nearly the entire article is in the Administration's own words? The only part in the "author's" words is the analysis at the end. Are you saying he made all of these quotes up? I recall the majority of them from speeches and appearances and I'd be happy to point you to the White House's website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/) where you could search for a good number of them and find them in their whole context. That should be a good enough source for you I'd have to imagine. How can you consider truthorfiction a reliable source? Look at this:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/foxbat.htm

Ah yes very interesting. Of coarse, had they done any fact checking behind the "article" from Ken Cooper (if that is indeed where they got their info) they would have found the source article on the DoD website:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2003/n08062003_200308063.html

Notice there's no actual quantity quoted here? 30 - 40 is practically debunked by Rumsfeld, "It wasn't one or two." If it was 30 - 40 as was being reported at the time, Rumsfeld would have had NO problem latching on to that. All the other articles I've found on the web regarding this situation are all derivatives of this, all more fantastic than the actual reporting from the Military. I think this site shows the facts a bit better and they actually link to their sources so you can see them yourself.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_mig_buried_iraq6.htm

I know the Military rarely misses an opportunity to give themselves a little pat on the back, (they need it these days), so why would they pass up 30 - 40 or not even suggest that that might be about right? As far as TruthOrFiction crediting Ken Cooper with this info, I still can't find it on the website they list. He is a contributor there, but I can't find that article. I've sent an email to them just to verify. I will say that the link YOU sent for TruthOrFiction may all be true and all those Dems lied or were blind. What makes you think I'd care about Dems? You're assuming a bit. I happen to think the majority of both the Dem and Repub politicians are a bunch of corrupt hypocrites, so your attempt at touche is lost. Sorry.

Posted by: Losing Faith at January 26, 2005 5:57 PM

I wasn't attempting touche
I was just showing the belief was wide spread.
YOU were assuming a lot.

Posted by: jedati at December 26, 2005 3:59 AM
Post a comment:

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.










Remember personal info?