Oh, you mean because it sounds like something a crazy person would say? Yeah. Those moonbats will be all over it.

Posted by: Joshua at October 14, 2004 12:03 AM

See, this is why I so often respond to you in ways that make you question my "social skills." If you made some statement that seemed open to interpretation and I responded with, "So, you think Black people are stupid?", or "So, you're saying overt expression of religious faith is crazy?", obviously the appropriate response would be, "Bite me, fan boy." Because not only is that not what you'd be saying, but it's an incredibly lazy rhetorical trap.

So no, I'm not saying that overt expressions of religious faith are crazy. Thanks for asking that unnecessarily provocative and loaded question.

What I'm saying is that the president expressed a belief in *telepathy* and that, in most circles, that would suggest a touch of mental deviation; he's not talking about a connection with God, which would be an article of faith. He's talking about a *mystical* connection with his fellow human beings that he experiences in an empirical fashion that belies actual FAITH. Which, while it's a nice idea, is not a basic tenet of Christianity. There's nothing about it in the Bible. Until recently it was the kind of thing that would get you burned at the stake. It's folk magic; up there with UFOs, sasquatches, and faith healers.

This is not to say that such things do not exist. Anything is possible, and I have personally used my blog to ask people to pray for friends of mine that were lost or injured. But if someone accused me of sounding like a crazy person, I'd certainly cop to it; a belief in practical mystical intervention is more than is reasonable to ask of most people.

Unless, evidently, you tie it to Jesus. In which case, a sizable percentage of the population will agree with you, and most people will at least let you off the hook for being a freak (as opposed to how they react if you tell them *aliens* are rebroadcasting guided prayer energy to you, like a celestial switchboard).

Posted by: Joshua at October 14, 2004 12:54 PM

I don't know that anyone (short of you) is equating what he said with telepathy - the "empirical fashion" you refer to.

I've never heard voices in my head saying "people are praying for you", but I've known it, and it's affected my outlook on things. Why should Bush be any different?

Posted by: mitch at October 14, 2004 01:17 PM

Mitch, if I, sitting in Seattle, think, "Please, I hope Mitch is doing well and that he and his family are healthy and safe," and you say you felt it-- that's telepathy. It doesn't have to be a "voice". You're saying that there is a mechanism by which I can transmit my thoughts in a way that is tangible to you from a great distance. Call it telepmathy if that seems more nomenclaturally appropriate to you. But you know those tinfoil hats you're always making fun of? Guess what they're for.

Posted by: Joshua at October 14, 2004 01:37 PM

"Mitch, if I, sitting in Seattle, think, "Please, I hope Mitch is doing well and that he and his family are healthy and safe," and you say you felt it-- that's telepathy. It doesn't have to be a "voice"."

Yes, but I don't say that, and either did the President. If fifty people scattered hither and yon between Seattle and Miami write, call or mail and say "I'm praying for you", I feel support. And if I know I'm involved in a struggle and that I know many people are praying for me, I feel the support then, too. Not in the Art Bell sense that you seem to be fixed on. Why would the Prez be any different?

" You're saying that there is a mechanism by which I can transmit my thoughts in a way that is tangible to you from a great distance. Call it telepmathy if that seems more nomenclaturally appropriate to you."

I never said or implied any such thing. Do telepathy, telempathy or other such things exist? Maybe, I don't know, it's never happened to me. Have I felt in my heart that people were supporting me by praying to the God we believe in? Yes. Do I believe there's a real power in prayer? Absolutely. Does it manifest itself in voices in the head? No, but nothing the President said had anything to do with that, except among - ta daaaa - the exact crowd I was referrring to in my orignal post, people so addled by hatred of the President, of faith (especially Christian) or both that they're incapable of interpreting the statement as anything but a presenting symptom.

"But you know those tinfoil hats you're always making fun of? Guess what they're for. "

And you know that "Jeez, Joshua, did you get a 'pointlessly abrasive' transplant" line I keep saying? Guess what that's for?

Posted by: mitch at October 14, 2004 02:13 PM

Mitch, the reason I'm "pointlessly abrasive" is that bald-faced intellectual dishonesty annoys me. What the president said was:

"I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, how do you know? I said I just feel it."

I call that telepathy and you say:

"Yes, but I don't say that, and either did the President. If fifty people scattered hither and yon between Seattle and Miami write, call or mail and say 'I'm praying for you', I feel support."

So now, as far as I'm concerned, we've crossed the line from simple misunderstanding to a calculated snow-job. The President didn't say he knows people are praying for him because they write, call or mail. He said, in fairly explicit terms, that he can "just feel it". PERIOD.

But rather than just saying, "Well, yeah, that's a little weird," you try and tell me the President never said any such thing. Which is great, but wishing doesn't make it so. And your *really clumsy and obvious* attempt to rephrase the record in a way that suits your intentions is just bizarre.

And THEN, after you've pitched that sack of crap at me, you start trying to cram me into some pigeon hole with "the exact crowd" you were (supposedly) referring to in your original post who are "so addled by hatred of the President, of faith (especially Christian) or both that they're incapable of interpreting the statement".

Which is just bullshit. I can point you to several posts on my blog discussing that very attitude, where I come down quite firmly on the side of people of faith. And the President? I was ambivalent enough about George W. Bush to vote for Nader in 2000. I wrote a post on my blog memorializing Ronald Reagan. And I've pointed up specific policies of the President's that I agree with in my blog. I still think he's been a terrible president but—sorry to disappoint you—that mostly has to do with his record *as* a President. Not his religion. Not his party. Not even him as a person. His presidency.

Now then— you try to stop telling big stinky lies, I'll try to be more polite.

Posted by: Joshua at October 14, 2004 03:24 PM

So I guess we're done now?

Posted by: Joshua at October 14, 2004 04:17 PM

Joshua,

The problem with trying to discuss anything with you is that you jam words into peoples mouths, and thoughts into peoples heads, with gay abandon - and then yell "woot woot! Look who's intellectually dishonest!"

For example:

"Mitch, the reason I'm "pointlessly abrasive" is that bald-faced intellectual dishonesty annoys me. What the president said was:

"I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, how do you know? I said I just feel it."

I call that telepathy..."

...and I say you're jamming words into the president's head. He didn't say how he "just felt it". I can *feel* love or hatred or any emotion at all without being told about it explicitly.

" and you say:

"Yes, but I don't say that, and either did the President. If fifty people scattered hither and yon between Seattle and Miami write, call or mail and say 'I'm praying for you', I feel support."

So now, as far as I'm concerned, we've crossed the line from simple misunderstanding to a calculated snow-job."

Of course you think that. I heard the President say something that I believe - and know from my personal experience - has nothing to do with your Art-Bell-like interpretation of what the President said. That's fine; people filter their inputs through whatever templates they've developed through their lives. You have yours, I have mine.

You heard the president say "telepathy", I heard him say "the mutual feeling of understanding, and trust in your fellow believer, that being in a community of faith gives you". You sneer. I ignore the sneer. Old people die, babies are born...

" The President didn't say he knows people are praying for him because they write, call or mail. He said, in fairly explicit terms, that he can "just feel it". PERIOD."

The president specified no mechanism for how he knows. You filled it in, based on your own presumptions and prejudices. PERIOD. (Irritating, isn't it?)

"But rather than just saying, "Well, yeah, that's a little weird," you try and tell me the President never said any such thing."

Because to my understanding he didn't. Which to most people means "Hm. We see things differently", and to you seems to mean "Woot woot! Intellectual dishonesty!"

" Which is great, but wishing doesn't make it so."

No wishing is involved. PERIOD! (I firmly believe in aversion therapy).

"And your *really clumsy and obvious* attempt to rephrase the record in a way that suits your intentions is just bizarre."

Er, yeah. If you say so. You're apparently clairvoyant? THAT is wierd.

"And THEN, after you've pitched that sack of crap at me, you start trying to cram me into some pigeon hole with "the exact crowd" you were (supposedly) referring to in your original post who are "so addled by hatred of the President, of faith (especially Christian) or both that they're incapable of interpreting the statement"."

Speaking of pitching sacks of crap. Didn't cram you into any pigeon holes. I referred back to the "moonbats" in my original post, the ones that bay at the moon at any reference to faith. I don't know enough about you, Joshua, to pigeon hole you in re attitudes about faith.

"Which is just bullshit. I can point you to several posts on my blog discussing that very attitude, where I come down quite firmly on the side of people of faith."

Exactly. Hence, I dind't say "Joshua is a moonbat". I merely referred to those to whom I originally wrote the post. Clearly you don't consider yourself one of them. That's good - the fewer of them the better. I'd have no way of knowing one way or the other. I'm not clairvoyant - again, that'd be weird, right?

" And the President? I was ambivalent enough about George W. Bush to vote for Nader in 2000. I wrote a post on my blog memorializing Ronald Reagan. And I've pointed up specific policies of the President's that I agree with in my blog. I still think he's been a terrible president but—sorry to disappoint you—that mostly has to do with his record *as* a President. Not his religion. Not his party. Not even him as a person. His presidency. "

That's fine. No argument - well, huge argument, but again, it certainly wasn't my intention to pigeon hole you, personally.

"Now then— you try to stop telling big stinky lies, I'll try to be more polite. "

I haven't told any.

Posted by: mitch at October 14, 2004 04:25 PM

"The president specified no mechanism for how he knows."

Yes, he did. For God's sake, it's right there--

"Somebody asked me one time, HOW DO YOU KNOW?"

See, that question may be paraphrased as, "Say, Mr. President, by what mechanism do you know that people pray for you and your family?"

To which the President replies,

"I said I just feel it."

See? He just feels it. Just. Feels it. That's HOW he knows. That's the mechanism.

Whichever "filter" you're using, it seems pretty clear that if the President got up in front of a news crew and said, "I just banged a $2.00 hooker," you'd be trying to tell me it had something to do with fishing.

Posted by: Joshua at October 14, 2004 04:56 PM

Not to put too much thought into this, Joshua, but bollocks. "Feel" can mean "woooooo, call Rod Serling", and it can mean "that's what I believe, empirical explanations be damned", and it can mean "It's how I think it is".

You think you know what he meant. I think you're wrong. You have no way to empirically prove your side. Either do I. I know what I think he said, you know what you think he said. You'll waltz off and say the President belongs on the George Noury show (and everyone who doesn't think so is defective and impaired), I'll sit back and think "The President and I have one little thing in common".

You can cast that as "Stinky lies" or "Intellectual Dishonesty" if it makes you, er, feel better. But that's all it'll be. The universe may or may not be mechanistic, Joshua, but I doubt you're the mechanic.

Posted by: Mitch at October 14, 2004 05:04 PM

Yeah, Mitch. After all, what is the meaning of "is"?

Posted by: Joshua at October 14, 2004 05:17 PM

So you're omniscient?

Posted by: mitch at October 14, 2004 05:54 PM

No, Mitch. I speak English. Thus, when someone else speaks English and I hear their words I am able, through the power of language, to comprehend their meaning. Please note that this is different from telepathy in that data is conveyed through physical mechanisms.

As opposed to, for example, "feelings".

Posted by: Joshua at October 14, 2004 06:04 PM

"No, Mitch. I speak English. Thus, when someone else speaks English and I hear their words I am able, through the power of language, to comprehend their meaning."

And then, through the power of imagination or your own prejudices, impute your own meaning onto those words. Which may or may not match the meaning the speaker intended.

Or, to paraphrase, "It all depends on what Joshua's definition of 'is' is". You say you KNOW ABSOLUTELY what Bush meant. I'm pretty sure you don't, and that you're imposing your own ideas on his statement. Which is fine, but then acting as I'm a) a liar b) intellectually dishonest or c)somehow irrational for having heard something completely different based on my own experiences is as arrogant as...

...well, as we've come to expect from you!

Posted by: mitch at October 14, 2004 07:17 PM

Oh, Jesus wept.

Fine, Mitch. Up is down, weakness is strength, 2+2=5 and a person would either have to be omniscient or arrogant to argue the simple meaning of words.

That's... nice for you. Ding! Your President's second term is ready.

Posted by: Joshua at October 15, 2004 09:46 AM