The Great Doughnut Debate

It's pretty darn obvious that the world moves a lot quicker than my modest mind allows so I probably don't need to tell you all a story that showcases that trait. But since it leads me to an opportunity for some moral grandstanding there was no way I could help myself.

A couple of months ago I immersed myself in a total doughnut experience at a pastry-inspired art show at Sublime Doughnuts. As it was a Sunday I reveled in the opportunity to trade the loud, abbreviated soundbites of weekday radio for the well-spoken, full-length, but often equally insipid interviews that the weekend provides. I heard a few minutes of an interview with liberal firebrand James Carville. He used his appearance time to argue that, without question, the Democratic Party would "rule" government for the next 40 years. He offered this following his argument that economies were most prosperous under the administrations of liberal presidents. That is a potentially accurate claim presuming sufficient evidence is presented that could verify the required components and meanings of that claim. But rather than supplying sufficient evidence Carville compared the argument to the evolution vs creation argument and stated that the economic superiority of liberals was just like evolution and they are both [and here is where my memory is sorta, basically, almost exactly accurate] "not open to debate" and that "there is no debate."

What does he mean by "no debate"? Just because we have literally millions of astronomical and fossil artifacts to verify the age of both the planet and the life on it and just because DNA offers us the physical and chemical diagrams of the history of evolution and the development of species that does not mean that the debate does not exist. There are some people who offer factually unsubstantiated explanations of the origins of the universe but that doesn't mean they aren't invited to the debate. Personally, I think those are the first people you invite to a debate because they offer the people with correct explanations to learn the thinking patterns of those who disagree. I want them there because critical thinkers may hear things that either challenge or fortify their own premises but mostly because I love seeing religious dumbasses get served.

So if evolution is open to debate why wouldn't Carville's claims about liberal presidents and periods of liberal "rule" also be open to debate. And if their claims regarding both the future and past are contestable then so are his claims regarding policy and society. And who knows, he may be right. But if he wants me to believe me he can't hit with me with the same authoritarian tone that a gospel drooling preacher he's going to have to back it up with facts. Debate is absolutely necessary when it comes to addressing issues. The absence of debate is completely oppositional to the free market of ideas that was held in such esteem by men like Jefferson and Adams (it's still 4th of July month so I get to milk their names). The beauty of life is that no person is always right all the time and thus no one dogma can be right all of the time either. If you stake an emotional claim into something even the most critical of minds might allow a few laundered facts. As for me, I err to the side of personal liberty. And especially the liberty to eat doughnuts.
...and so I used that liberty to go to Sublime Doughnuts and eat awesome doughnuts. I'm standing firm on this, by the way, if anyone, and I mean ANYONE, campaigns on an anti-doughnut platform they can kiss my vote goodbye.

(Just to further illustrate the point that my mind's clock isn't operating with the rest of the world get this: I opened a couple of tabs in Firefox to research the events of my story. Apparently the doughnut show was May 17th and the interview with Carville was the 7th, a full 10 days apart. So clearly I'm a liar, a cheat and a scoundrel who will bend the truth for a good story.)