Monday, 31 March 2008
"Rebuttable presumption" is a technical term, used in law and in accountancy to mean something fairly specific. It is a presumption that something is true unless proved otherwise. An obvious corollary is that the presumption is based on experience - on facts. In accountancy there is a rebuttable presumption that intangible assets have a useful life of no more than twenty years. That's because most of them don't last any longer. This is what people have found, and it is a fair presumption. You would not, unless you didn't mind going bankrupt, presume they would last longer - your presumption might come back to bite you in the butt.
Talking of butts, Lawrence Auster is talking through his:
I hold no brief for Condoleezza Rice or Barack Obama, as my previous posts show. The former is wrong-headed in her policies and the latter has no policies. But, but, butt - what the hell has their colour or sex got to do with their lack of merit?
George W. Bush had stupid policies. What does that prove about white males? Everything, apparently, if you assume that one person of one particular sex and race creates "rebuttable presumptions" about all the others.
I would be interested to know whether, on Planet Auster, as in real life, race trumps gender. Is a black male rebuttably presumed to be superior to a white female or vice versa?
Margaret Thatcher, the greatest Prime Minister since Churchill, who saved Britain from the evils of Socialism, is....a woman. She's a lady too, but that wouldn't stop her telling Auster where to stick his rebuttables.
By the way, Obama is half white. How does the rebutting work? Just the one cheek?
Posted on 03/31/2008 6:26 PM by Mary Jackson
No comments yet.