What James Watson Has Learned

From article posted here.

Excerpt:

You explain things by way of ideas. Why do we have a government that is run by rich trash? Because they've used their money to buy the presidency. Bush is a tool for the people who don't want an inheritance tax. And Frist isn't an innocent bystander, with his own family fortune—hundreds of millions. The piece of shit, I hate him.

What an utterly incoherent mush of a statement. Bush is many things, but not merely a "tool for the people who don't want an inheritance tax." Such statements betray what's really behind the statement ... and in this case, apparently not much. I don't care that he did co-discover DNA. It's no excuse for stupid commentary like this. And the way he wrote of (Bill) Frist is merely the ramblings of a bitter old man.

I've seen no evidence of a god, so I'm not going to think about one.

You have your "god," sir -- it's called the idol you've created around this thing called DNA and your celebrity built on it.

Being raised nonreligious made you free. You could look at the evidence. Whether being nonreligious or a Democrat more important, I can't tell you.

More incoherent babble. Honestly, what possible connection is there between "non-religion" and the importance of "being a Democrat?" That's the kind of sloppy thinking you or I would get slapped silly for putting in print.

Example. Imagine I wrote:

Bill Clinton was a shameless pedophile! He was really just a puppet of Hillary anyway. And what about all those people he had killed? Like Vince Foster!

Now ... any sensible person would think me deranged for writing that.

Sheesh ... stuff like this makes me steam.

Update:

A reader e-mails John Derbyshire of National Review and offers this:

In that Esquire piece, Watson says: 'Why do we have a government that is run by rich trash? Because they've used their money to buy the presidency. Bush is a tool for the people who don't want an inheritance tax. And Frist isn't an innocent bystander, with his own family fortune—hundreds of millions. The piece of shit, I hate him.' But then about seven paragraphs later, he says: 'Francis Crick said we should pay poor people not to have children. I think now we're in a terrible situation where we pay the rich people to have children. If there is any correlation between success and genes, IQ will fall if the successful don't have children. These are self-obvious facts.'

So are 'successful' families like the Bushes & the Frists supposed to have children, or are they not supposed to have children?

... two paragraphs later, he says: 'Being raised nonreligious made you free. You could look at the evidence. Whether being nonreligious or a Democrat [is?] more important, I can't tell you.' So maybe there are two kinds of 'successful' families: the successful atheist democrat families, from whom we need more children, and the successful religious republican families, from whom we need fewer children?

That's what I'm talking about -- it's a logical deconstruction of a foolish rant.