atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#1661: Arrogant?

Talking about Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors yesterday I said I know a lot more about nuclear power than "the average bear" so I can look at the .PPT cold and understand what's going on. Your mileage may vary.

Reading that today I realized it comes off as a bit snooty: I'm smarter than you are!

The truth is it was honestly meant to serve as an indicator of how much the typical reader of the Fungus would get from reading only the .PPT and not watching the presentation. I'm a physics geek; because I spent too much time studying science (as opposed to doing things like dating and playing football) I have sufficient grounding in physics to interpret what is on the PPT slides and don't need to listen to the guy explaining "this is a neutron, this is a beta particle, and a beta particle is just an electron moving at high speed...."

Not everybody knows this stuff. There are plenty of things out there I don't know squat about, but I don't write about those things here and pretend to know what I'm talking about. If someone comes to me and tells me he knows more about early 20th century impressionism I accept that as a matter of fact because I don't know dick about that crap.

I think the largest problem is that ignorance has somehow become synonymous with stupidity, and that's not so. I am ignorant of a large number of subjects but I am not stupid. Ignorance is unfortunate but not shameful. (Stupidity? That's another story, but a discussion of which kinds of "stupid" are shameful is beyond the scope of this document.)

When I tell other people they may not know as much as I do about something I am not accusing them of stupidity. I am merely pointing out that I know a lot about that particular subject, which most people do not. And my personal experience has taught me that, no, most people do not understand nuclear physics as well as I do. (There are plenty of people who know a hell of a lot more about it than I do, thank God. But I doubt many of them read the Fungus.)

So maybe it's not really arrogance after all. I do know that whenever I want to talk to someone about nuclear power I spend a hell of a lot of time explaining the basic concepts so that they can understand why X or Y is true. This isn't a failure on the part of my victim; it's a failure on the part of the school system which educated him. This stuff is not that hard to understand and it is only the fact that our school system sucks canal water which leads to this abysmal ignorance.

* * *

Boortz today lists 10 things the media won't tell you about socialized medicine.

* * *

Liberals are butthurt over the Obama-Joker posters. They're even saying that these posters are "racist". :rolleyes:

As the Anchoress points out at the above link,
We just went through 8 years of President Bush being called Hitler and photoshopped as Hitler, as Mussolini, as Saturn Devouring One of His Own Children.

Obama’s predecessor endured 8 Years of Assassination Fascination. Actually, the “Assassinate Bush Chic” began even before the 2000 election, when Craig Kilborn flashed “snipers wanted” under a picture of Bush. So-called “newsmen” like Keith Olbermann repeatedly called the president “a fascist” and “a terrorist.” And Obama supporters can’t handle The Joker and the word “Socialism”?
No, they can't, Ms. Scalia.

I realize you know this already, but allow me to emphasize it:

All that stuff that was aimed at Bush was "dissent".

Similar stuff aimed at Obama is "treason".


Michelle Malkin on the exact same issue.

Democrats don't care if they look like hypocrites; the press never points out liberal hypocrisy. Ever.

Well, for one thing, it's not newsworthy. "Newsworthy" generally includes "novelty" and hypocrisy has been part of the Democrat playbook since before the Civil War.

* * *

Somewhere in Illinois, a village is missing its idiot.

We found him! He's in the White House! Come get him! PLEASE!

* * *

Michelle Malkin linkfest time!

Obama lied, transparency died. He ran on having "the most transparent administration" and it's not.

You know, here's something: while browsing an antique shop last week I saw a commemorative tile from the 1992 campaign season with Clinton-Gore on it...and what was the campaign slogan? "BRINGING CHANGE TO AMERICA".

Clinton also ran on promises of making government more efficient and cleaner and... And instead we got stories about him getting BJ's and putting cigars in Monica's oval orofice.

In other words Obama used the exact same playbook Clinton used with only minor changes. "Change" apparently goes over well with the focus groups.

Oh well.

Link number two: White House unloads on internet critics.

Michelle says it's "the smell of desperation". I hope she's right.

Link number three: Is this the beginning of pushback? It'd be nice if Congress would assert itself and retake some of the power Obama has arrogated for the Executive Branch.

Furthermore, light must be shined on the corruption which Obama is perpetrating. It's not going to happen unless the Republicans make a big noise about it, and right now most D.C. Republicans are more worried about being liked by the press (which will never happen) than they are about regaining power or doing anything to stop the Democrats from utterly screwing up our economy and medical system.

* * *

So my fiancee is going to New Mexico for a week, with her mother, to visit her sister and brother-in-law. Her brother-in-law works at Los Alamos.

I asked her if she'd ever gone to the Trinity test site. She hadn't.

Here is a site with information on visiting the Trinity test site. It's only open twice a year, dang it.

I'd love to go to the thing and I'm not worried about the radiation exposure.

Oh well. Maybe someday I'll get to see it.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments