I realize that stridency is the official M.O. for bloggers. I am no different. I tend to overtstate things on a regular basis, sometimes in an attempt at humor, sometimes in an attempt to make it clear how much a certain subject affects me. Nevertheless, I write things in a blog that I wouldn't have written as a professional sports writer, or as a paid writer of any kind. There's something to be said for professional honesty. Or, at least I thought there was.
Then, I read somewhere that some scientists think that disagreement should be grounds for taking away someone's ability to do their job. (First seen on: The Drudge Report)
The funny thing is that I can't say I'm against this kind of stridency in general. On a daily basis, I wish nothing short of a cruel, agonizing death for a few dozen people. My favorite web site is called Fire Joe Morgan, and there isn't an ounce of illegitimate sports commentary (such as the commentary that appears on this site) that doesn't usually involve pleas to take the livelihood away from those with whom we disagree. At this point, I'm convinced Justin would kill 30 12-year-old virgins if it meant Andy Reid were fired.
But, for chistssakes, that's fucking sports. You say dumb, indefensible things because at the end of the day, you probably wouldn't open Troy Aikman's throat with a rusted boning knife and lather yourself in his blood while fucking his mother, who you will subsequently kill with the same knife you used to smite her cocksucking cunthole of a son. Sure, it would be tempting, but then you'd remember that football is just a game, and that the three consecutive years of abject misery Troy Aikman put you through during your formative years helped build "character" and "abandonment disorder" and a "need for constant psychiatric attention." And that all means he shouldn't die, or at least not at your hands. But, for real, if someone else would be willing to step up, fucking sweet. E-mail with the details afterwards.
Anyway, I couldn't help but be a little shocked when I read this, because I thought scientists had some use for that thing called the "scientific method," which requires constant questioning and retesting of hypotheses and, in general, an adherence to the idea that, particularly when it comes to phenomena like global warming, there's no such thing as 100-percent verifiable fact. Is it a little ridiculous that some scientists are still willing to ignore that the earth is indeed warming, perhaps even at an alarming rate. However, for people to disagree as to the primary reason why is kinda what I look to science for. No matter what anyone claims, the argument that humans are the chief cause of global warming has not proven itself to be without faults, or immune to contradictory evidence.
Anyway, I hope everyone gets my point. The next post, I promise, will either be about Beckham or why NFL quarterbacks have a disproportionate number of retarded kids (hint: It's because god hates the passing game!).