Impromptus with Jay

Okay...by now you all have to know my affinity for Jay Nordlinger. What I like about so many conservative writers is that the image of themselves that they project through their writings is so often the same kind of person that I hope to be, and Mr. Nordlinger is foremost among those writers for me. He had a couple of columns this week and I just wanted to include a couple items.

This first one comes from this Impromptus that was posted earlier in the week. I'll the quote speak for itself:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

And here is today's article. I just loved this one. It made me laugh out loud and clap my hands in amusement (incidentally, anyone know when or from whom I adopted the hand-clapping as my gesture of appreciation for great humor? From Steve Ridge from freshman year. I knew that it wasn't always my own, but I didn't realize who I stole that from until he came out for Greg's wedding a couple years ago).

I’ll relate something interesting from the Middle East Media Research Institute (and for the report I’m talking about, go here). An Egyptian cleric is on television. And he is pronouncing on divorce. I cherish the last line in particular. But you’ll want to read the entire chunk:

What’s the point of having an animal you can ride, if it drives you nuts? The distance it takes you you could cover in a bus for a quarter of an Egyptian pound, but you have to spend 100 pounds on this animal. Sell it, and get rid of it. Would anyone blame you for selling it? Would anyone say: “Shame on him for selling it”? It’s only an animal.

If a man is completely fed up with his apartment, because he has bad neighbors, and the apartment is falling apart, would anyone blame him for selling it and say: “Shame on you, how can you sell it? This is where you were born and raised.” This apartment does not suit him anymore. I have bad neighbors, and I don’t feel good in it.

The same goes for the woman. If a woman has such bad character that her husband does not feel comfortable with her, there is nothing to prevent him from divorcing her. What are we, Christians?!

What are we, Christians?! There are about a hundred things to say about this. I will confine myself to: I don’t think the good imam has checked in on Christianity—by which I mean, Christian-dominated societies—lately.

I just loved that punchline. Here is the last.

You want a taste of mail? Not everything that arrives in my inbox is a valentine, you know. In my January 26 column, I wrote,

The question was raised in our office late last week, “How long will the Obama administration be able to blame George Bush for every problem under the sun?” And the answer is, Indefinitely—because the media will permit it, and abet it: participate in it (given that so many in the media share the worldview and attitudes and style of the new administration).

Is that too dark and cynical a view? Well, I hope so. Maybe we should revisit this subject at regular intervals.

Anyway, a reader wrote, “Hey asshole, your grandchildren will still be paying for Bush’s greed in 2050 so GFY.”

I wanted to publish this letter mainly because I was tickled by that use of initials!

I just love his last line in response to that piece of mail. Can you not a get great sense of his warmth and humanity? That's what I admire so much about his politics and writing.