Your posting has been included in the most recent “Smarter than I” carnival.

In reading blogs of varying idiotalogical persuasions it’s fun to see what they’re talking or not talking about. Your Lancet expose has provoked quite a response here at Chicago Boyz, and the issue even takes a pride of place spot at the top of the blog. The Simpson essay continues the saga with a dark and sinister reading of scientific crimes. Would it be fair to characterize this reading of the Lancet article as a literal reading, very insistent that it meet truth claims in a particular way? Would that be comparable to a fundamentalist reading of the seven day creation story as a seven day story?

My own reading would be more like a mainline protestant reading of the creation story as a myth. I look at the Lancet story, see a claim that a lot of families have been affected in bad ways by a war, and think, yes, that’s plausible. Liberal blogs seem to take the Lancet study pretty much at face value, and read it in an uncritical manner. This style of reading acknowledges human costs, but elides your concern about violating the canons of scientific research.

The literal, fundamentalist reading style is showing up on liberal blogs in their reading of the “smoking gun memo” from England that suggests the war was decided on, and then work on a politically palatable rationale for it began. They might see it as a violation of the canons of truth in public discourse. Other blogs might not comment on it at all, or read it more mythically as a minor episode in the heroic struggle to instill democracy in the Middle East. Would that be more of a mainline protestant “liberal” reading of the memo?

At any rate, thanks for an excellent essay—very thought provoking.

And this finding encourages elitism that expresses itself as disdain for those conventions that shackle the little people and an expectation that as a member of the elite they are immune to censure.

If a few of the masses die as a result of the action of an elite, it is the fault of the masses for misunderstanding their betters.

Membership in an elite can be given to new members only by existing members. There are no elections. Elites are dedicated to making the status quo work “properly” because they cannot agree on a common vision for the future that differs at all from the present.

The Newsweek article is a typical elitist criticism of Bush Middle East foreign policy. Bush’s policy repudiates the fundamental tenets of the Elitist Middle Eastern policy which has been maintained since the Crusades by a consensus of highly educated members of the elite who all have framed their diplomas and hung them on the wall (all earned, none honorary). Bush is not a member of the elite because his education is suspect, he has engaged in commerce, and he is a red-neck republican.

Because the elite know Bush’s policy is unquestionably wrong, it is acceptable to damn it with made-up factoids (after all, who has time to abandon valuable research to find true factoids that every one knows must exist.)

The same is true of
1. the lancet article
2. global warming
3. marijuana laws
4. driving “under the influence”
5. protecting endangered species
6. speed limits
7. gun control
8. out-sourcing jobs to other companies, cities, states, countries or continents
9. NEA control of public education vs NCLB
10. etc

But yes, Lisa does represent the post-modernist leftist mindset of “do good, or at least do the thing you think is good based on your naive assumptions”…

My favorite Simpson’s episode is the “Tomacco” one. Homer blends Tobacco with Tomatos and gets a new crop! All’s well until the local cows get into the field and get addicted. I forget if Lisa played the role of the anti-GM hippy on that one or not.

I’m a GM-technology supporter, but I still loved it!
-Steve

Thanks.

Wonderfully perceptive (in the broad sense – I’ve yet to see one Simpson episode so I guess I’m culturally illiterate). You’ve nailed that kind of “nanny state” approach.

The essense of post-modernism seems to be a refusal to submerge the ego, to let others be who they are.

This reminds me of the leftists I’ve met who argue that all citizens are legitimate targets of terrorism, because if they had ‘properly’ exercised their responsibilities as citizens of a democracy, then the government and society would not have done anything to provoke the terrorists. Oy.

Very good essay.