House of Eratosthenes

Some good stuff on House of Eratosthenes this morning.  On Hillary Clinton's strange testimony this week:
We have our Secretary of State . . . reminding us that the whole point is to find out what happened, and therefore “what does it matter” . . . what the h--- happened.  Sheer nonsense.
And on the weird treatment of science in political disputes:
But it bears repeating, science has nothing to do at all with what we “must” do.  Science is all about what is.  One steps outside of the domain of science, usually slamming the door behind him, and forgetting the key, the minute one starts pondering the thing-to-do.  With the climate change deal, a lot of people tend to forget that. 
[I]n classical times “science” was used to describe a process, and in more recent times it is used to describe an orthodoxy of institutionalized beliefs, and a coterie of elites maintaining them. 
. . . 
Time after time, I see lefties “proving” that they deserve to be the one Alpha Dog of the pack — and not taking the trouble to prove much of anything else.  They start babbling pure nonsense.  Like “It’s our job to find out what happened here so it never happens again, and what difference does it make who did this thing we’re trying to prevent from ever happening again, or why they did it.”  Arguing about security procedures and climate science . . . the way Arctic wolves would, if they could talk.


Grim said...

It's amazing to me that she got away with that. The audacity of it is what carried it off, of course.

The Senator who asked the question had to know that she would expect the question, and would have a response prepared. He probably put his staff on trying to figure out likely responses, and preparing counters and follow-up questions to those responses.

What he plainly did not expect was a rejection of the question as irrelevant. It was the single biggest question people have been asking for months. Who would suggest it didn't matter?

I haven't heard of this author before, and it may be that he makes too much of Sec. Clinton's status as a feminist icon. Still, he is probably right that a male politician would not have gotten away with the same claim. The norm against upsetting a woman further when she is plainly upset is one that she used to her benefit here. It allowed her to push her agenda and have the final word in the matter, and made him look like a bad person for having had the temerity to upset her in the first place.

E Hines said...

The audacity of it is what carried it off, of course.

Or the timidity, and the disorganization, of the Republicans.

Eric Hines

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I certainly take Eric's point, but tend to disagree. The imbalance in coverage continues to be an influence on how a shot can be played. She can be audacious because anyone who calls her on it, however accurately, will be made to look contentious, petty, small. This is not a balance scale where the press puts their thumb on one side. This is a hall of mirrors, where logical points are discarded and social ones - smirks, sneers, eye rolls - have weight.

You are attempting to look at this logically. I've warned you that this will make you unhappy in the end...

E Hines said...

The imbalance in coverage continues to be an influence on how a shot can be played.

This is certainly true. However, Republican passivity in talking to their--and to their Democrat neighbors'--constituents plays at least as big a role as does present media coverage.

When was the last time you heard your Federal congressman talking to you in your local paper, local radio, local TV? I never have. Maybe it's because I'm in deep red Texas, but even when I correspond with my Representative or Senators, I only get back form letters that only peripherally (if at all) mention the subject I raised.

This decision not to talk is a part of Republicans' timidity and disorganization.

Eric Hines

Texan99 said...

Ha. My federal congressman was until recently Ron Paul.

MikeD said...

The correct answer to "what does it matter" is, "Madam Secretary, is it your contention that THE government official (YOUR employee) sent to tell the American people what happened in Benghazi either LIED to the American people knowingly, or unknowingly at someone else's directive and that it doesn't matter? How dare YOU, Madam Secretary? It ALWAYS matters when the government lies to its people."

E Hines said...

"It ALWAYS matters when the government lies to its people."

A small quibble: "...lies to its employer." (As opposed to its owner.)

Eric Hines

MikeD said...

Granted. And happily so.