Monday, April 14, 2008

Libertarian Surge: Where There's A Will.....

George Will's column in Newsweek, about the Libertarian Party:

It has recruited 600 down-ballot candidates around the nation (including Michael Munger, chairman of the political-science department at Duke, who is running for governor of North Carolina) and expects to have 1,500 by Election Day.

George called me last week, and we got to talk for a second. He wanted to make sure I was really running, since it is "irrational."

I pointed out that, as a Cubs fan, George Will is just as irrational as a Libertarian, and maybe more so. He acknowledged that there is some truth in that.

ATSRTWT: A Libertarian Surge?

(Nod to Tim G, who has his own surge)

15 comments:

Dirty Davey said...

Mr. Will is also not much of a speller--there is no hyphen in "political science".

bioman said...

Is "political science"/"political-science" actually a scientific discipline, or a misnomer?

Angus said...

Ohhh, snap, bioman. very original and witty. please post your wise and wonderful commentary here whenever you can!

bioman said...

Sorry Angus,

I'm too busy engaging in abhorrent activities like "murdering" harmless rodents to find cures for diseases that kill humans. I know that makes me Loser of the Millenium in your removed-from-reality social "science" world.

Robert S. Porter said...

This thread just got interesting!

Mungowitz said...

I once said, at a gathering of faculty chairs, that "Any discipline with 'science' in its name is not one."

Thought I would get credit for self-deprecation.

But I was sitting next to the chair of...the computer SCIENCE department. He was a bit miffed.

Angus said...

bio-doofus: once again. I am not against all animal research, though I'm pretty sure I'd be against yours. If you want to defend a guy inducing brain damage in monkeys to see how they act when they see a snake. be my guest. but defend what I attacked, not a straw man.

br said...

Munger's got diplomacy skillz

bioman said...

Angus, my point is this: you were trained as an economist and not a basic scientist. It is unfair and closeminded to pass harsh judgement on the "value" of an experiment in a field that you do not fully comprehend. Many of the great medical discoveries of our time were the product of seemingly barbaric experiments on lab animals. Nobel Prize winner Alexis Carrel's pioneering work on surgical anastomoses of vessels and organ transplantation is but one of a thousand examples. More recently, the observation of seasonal changes in the brains of songbirds has placed scores of innocent avians under the scalpels of eager research scientists who hope to unlock the mysteries of Alzheimer's and other neurodegenerative diseases.

To a non-scientist, such work seems capricious and incomprehensible. But I'm surprised that an academician like you would be afflicted by an anti-science myopia that would make Pamela Anderson and other PETA-ites feel right at home.

br said...

Bioman,
What's your take on torturing prisoners? Certainly that has the potential to save a lot of lives, and we can't possibly know all of the potential benefits. Since none of us are military scientists, is your opinion that we should presume they know what they're doing and keep our mouths shut?

Angus said...

Biodoof: so I am too dumb to understand the article I read and have an informed opinion because I am not a "scientist"? Could you be any more arrogant? Have you actually read the article in question? It's not difficult to comprehend. You attack a strawman and not my position and when you get called on it, you act like I am a silly child. It's you who are not being "scientific" my friend. Get over yourself.

bioman said...

Oh great all-knowing Angus...I'll be the first to admit that I don't grasp the finer points of economics. You, however, are apparently a modern da Vinci with an encyclopedic understanding of molecular biology, neuroanatomy, evolutionary biology, etc, etc, to top off your PhD in economics. Humility clearly isn't your strong suit.

Angus said...

dude: why can't you ever stick to the point? you are all over the place. all i said was i read the article and understood it. I am not an expert in the sciences but I did understand that article. If you think I didn't tell me where I am wrong, don't just hide behind weird ad hominem attacks.I never claimed to be a genius or a polymath. you just make this stuff up to avoid the point. that guy's experiment sucked. doesn't mean they all do. never said they all did. look, either put up on the particulars or shut up, ok?

bioman said...

I'm just an "arrogant" "bio-dufus." Please lecture me on ad hominem attacks.

Angus said...

lol, whoops u did it again! I am done. have at me in peace.