"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:
[T]here are reasonable grounds for a rebuttable presumption that any black person harbors a profound anti-Americanism, and that a black person in high national office will use that office to undercut and put down America.
Similarly, as a result of Rice's endless glorification of her career success as the personal proof of American "progress" and "virtue" (meaning that America is only good because Condoleezza Rice is secretary of state), by which she makes own preening and smiling self, rather than America, the focus of admiration, there are reasonable grounds for a rebuttable presumption that a female in high national office will be motivated more by female vanity than by devotion to the common good.
From the above considerations I derive two practical proposals:
- In the future, any black person running for, or being considered for appointment to, high national office must be subjected to special scrutiny to determine that he is not carrying an anti-American animus, by which he will use his high office to devalue and attack America.
- In the future, any female running for, or being considered for appointment, to high national office must be subjected to special scrutiny to determine that she is not going to degrade her office into a stage for her female vanity.
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?