Sunday, May 01, 2005

Lynn Swann Continues To Stomp All Over Box Daddy

Posted by Lynn Swann

Box Daddy, pretending to be God as if this were all some infantile game, continues an uninterrupted streak of pomposity that is alternately self-refuting and vacuous.

When William "The Refrigerator" Perry makes a valid point and humbly points out that it is also an "obvious" point, Box Daddy counters that "'obvious' merely hides a deeply flawed worldview." Let's watch Box Daddy wax hypocritical:

At one point in time, it was "obvious" that women did not deserve to vote. Earlier, it was also once "obvious" that the crucial need of mankind was to appease various gods through ritual sacrifices. Just because something appears to be "obvious" does not make it the least bit true.

This is the same guy that dismisses viewpoints he disagrees with by simply declaring them akin to suggesting that we breathe helium rather than oxygen--in other words, it's so obvious to him that those opposed to him are wrong that he need not actually consider their arguments. It's as if they are suggesting we breathe helium rather than oxygen--it's obvious they're wrong!

But when someone else makes an appeal to an idea that is much less sweeping, more moderate, and more useful than Box Daddy's and points out correctly that it is an obvious idea...well, that's just out of bounds for ol' Box. On Planet Box Daddy, other people are not allowed to play the Obvious Card--only Charlie.

I would be remiss if I failed to also point out that just because all obvious ideas are not necessarily true, they are also not necessarily false.

Box Daddy suggests that Communism (or something not entirely unlike it) will eventually triumph, just not for another 500 years. Furthermore, he indicates that when it does triumph over capitalism, the world will be better for it. This is unprovable and an essentially religious prediction. It is inappropriate to use it, as Box Daddy does, to bolster arguments as if it were an empirical fact. It has not a shred of empirical evidence to support it. That doesn't necessarily make it false. But it sure doesn't necessarily make it true either. (Only a fool would try to predict what the world will be like in 500 years. Imagine a scholar/blowhard like Box Daddy in the early Sixteenth Century trying to make rather specific predictions about what the political and economic landscape of today would be like. Ridiculous! Yet Box Daddy would have us make current policy decisions based on his predictions.)

Box Daddy is more on-target when he points out that it is essentially a luxury of the affluent to be concerned about personal responsibility versus public interest. I would add that it is also essentially a luxury of the affluent to be an activist, an intellectual, and a blogger. I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from these observations. They are merely observations that I believe to be at least moderately interesting.

Predictably, he goes off the rails again, suggesting that somehow the world of today entails more "lawless global war" than the era that gave us Vietnam, Korea, the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan, sending tanks to crush uprisings in Eastern Europe, the United States acting in Grenada, Haiti, all over Central America, and so on. You know, I don't really know how you would quantify how much "lawless global war" is going on, but I think it is safe to say that we are not at an obvious peak given the history of the last century. (We are also not at an obvious ebb.)

Box Daddy also announces that capitalism is failing before our very eyes. Of course, according to Box Daddy, this failure will take half of a millennium to play out. Nonetheless, it's failure is, to him, obvious. But I think we've already discussed the Box Daddy Double Standard on things that are obvious.

0 Comments:

<< Home