"No evidence is, in fact, evidence"
The expected and typical defense of the worse-than-useless “abstinence”
classes is that liberal society has so perverted these misguided kids,
*more* classes will needed. This means mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money
for these disgraceful and dangerous hacks.
The argument is reminiscent of Rummy and the neocons regarding WMD
evidence: no evidence of weaponry simply means the weapons are there,
somewhere. No evidence of abstinence program efficacy means more is
needed. No evidence of intelligent design means intelligent design is
there, somewhere. More bombings in Iraq means insurgents are in “the last
throes.” No evidence is, in fact, evidence.
When a need to provide actual evidence arises, it is manufactured fiction.
No evidence of voter fraud means it must be prosecuted. When evidence
arises that contradicts right wing lore, it is denigrated, downplayed,
ignored. You know this well from the various election fiascos.
This is becoming the standard right wing argument against observable,
quantifiable phenomena, whether it is WMD, intelligent design, abstinence
programs, election fraud. All of this is of a piece. The real world is
irrelevant to ideology.
The question is, how do to deal with these people. In more normative
times, voting would usually do the trick, which is exactly why right wing
fanatics are trying shut down that avenue of public rebuke. And that’s
just fine to the theocrats, who see democracy in contravention of God’s
These people are really pissing me off.
Ken in Baltimore