another TV recomendation
David Buchner
here would enjoy it, and I'd hate for you to miss out.
It's _Firefly_, the tragically short-lived Joss Whedon (Buffy the
Vampire Slayer) series about the crew of a spaceship-for-hire on the
fringes of colonized space.
We're currently watching the last disc of the 4-disc set, rented from
Netflix. There's a movie coming out in September.
http://tinyurl.com/3vp9d
If you haven't seen it, I recommend it highly. Back when it was airing,
a common complaint from prospective viewers was that it was confusing
and hard to get into. This might have something to do with the fact that
Fox in its brilliance didn't show the 2-hr pilot till after the decision
to cancel the show. Not a problem with the DVD's.
It's like lots of Whedon's other creations: clever and funny,
masterfully done. And a flavor that's somehow -- dare I go out on a limb
and make the comparison -- Heinleinian. It's a lot of damn fun.
fred...@papertig.com
>Vampire Slayer) series about the crew of a spaceship-for-hire on the
>fringes of colonized space.
I haven't yet seen it myself, but I've heard nothing but good things
about it.
Somewhat along the same lines, you might want to check out The
Incredibles, the highly successful new animation which apparently is so
explicitly Objectivist, it couldn't be coincedental (although I also
understand it is not always consistently so).
Then there is Michael Crichton's new novel, "State of Fear", which has
been openly compared to Atlas Shrugged, though the comparison I gather
is somewhat thin. It is however explicitly anti-environmentalist in its
theme and is driving lefties crazy. One review I read, by something
like a Cat-Toy alter ego in both style and content, was almost
literally frothing at the mouth.
Speaking from my own personal viewing, I thoroughly enjoyed a movie now
showing on cable. Here's the plot summary from one site:
"A comedy about bending the rules to reach your goal, Bend It Like
Beckham explores the world of women's football, from kick-abouts in the
park to freekicks in the Final. Set in Hounslow, West London and
Hamburg, the film follows two 18 year olds with their hearts set on a
future in professional soccer. Heart-stopping talent doesn't seem to be
enough when your parents want you to hang up your football boots, find
a nice boyfriend and learn to cook the perfect chapatti."
I'd describe it as more drama/comedy, than just comedy and the fact
that one of the girl's parents are traditionalist Indians (Sikhs) is an
important element in the story. The other girl, played by Keira
Knightly, is a very cute spunky blond.
Knowing how you like food and if you like Indian cooking, some of the
scenes are down-right mouth-watering. Indian bread in particular makes
me go weak at the knees.
And as for the "bending the rules" part, this movie is definitely not
recommended for Kantians.
Fred Weiss
David Buchner
> Bend It Like Beckham
Seconded! Enjoyed it a lot. (Athletic teenaged girls with English
accents -- what's not to like?)
> The Incredibles, the highly successful new animation which apparently is
> so explicitly Objectivist, it couldn't be coincedental
Hmmmm...
Unfortunately, my responses to any current or recent releases will have
to wait for video release, till further notice. Baby, and all.
> Michael Crichton's new novel
I suppose I owe it to myself to go digging for some of those angry
reviews; I get a fair amount of pleasure for some reason, watching
outraged commies pee their pants. Something a bit Kolkerish, I suppose:
taking pleasure in your enemies' misery. These people are so opposed to
pretty much everything I value, and rely so heavily on demagoguery, that
it's somehow heartwarming -- watching their gasping, indignant rage when
someone dares challenge them. "But. The global warming thing. It was
going so well. And, we thought he was on our side because wasn't
Jurassic Park about people meddling with Nature?"
fred...@papertig.com
>>I suppose I owe it to myself to go digging for some of those angry
>>reviews; I get a fair amount of pleasure for some reason, watching
>>outraged commies pee in their pants.
Here, enjoy a commie peeing.
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/guests/s_2884
29.html
http://tinylink.com/?NWNy858mad
For some reason, tinylink also gives this one:
http://tinylink.com/?EI6gCoVFw9
So if one doesn't work, maybe the other will.
Fred Weiss
Evil Collectivist Pig Dog
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
> Somewhat along the same lines, you might want to check out The
> Incredibles, the highly successful new animation which apparently is
so
> explicitly Objectivist,
Okay, tell us all how "the incredibles" is "explicitly" objectivist. I
haven't seen it yet, but this should be good.
>
> Speaking from my own personal viewing, I thoroughly enjoyed a movie
now
> showing on cable. Here's the plot summary from one site:
>
> "A comedy about bending the rules to reach your goal, Bend It Like
> Beckham explores the world of women's football, from kick-abouts in
the
> park to freekicks in the Final. Set in Hounslow, West London and
> Hamburg, the film follows two 18 year olds with their hearts set on a
> future in professional soccer. Heart-stopping talent doesn't seem to
be
> enough when your parents want you to hang up your football boots,
find
> a nice boyfriend and learn to cook the perfect chapatti."
Yeah that sounds "explicitly" objectivist, too.
Tell us Fred, was Leonardo DaVinci an objectivist? Sheesh.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Evil Collectivist Pig Dog
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
> Somewhat along the same lines, you might want to check out The
> Incredibles, the highly successful new animation which apparently is
so
> explicitly Objectivist,
Okay, tell us all how "the incredibles" is "explicitly" objectivist. I
haven't seen it yet, but this should be good.
>
> Speaking from my own personal viewing, I thoroughly enjoyed a movie
now
> showing on cable. Here's the plot summary from one site:
>
> "A comedy about bending the rules to reach your goal, Bend It Like
> Beckham explores the world of women's football, from kick-abouts in
the
> park to freekicks in the Final. Set in Hounslow, West London and
> Hamburg, the film follows two 18 year olds with their hearts set on a
> future in professional soccer. Heart-stopping talent doesn't seem to
be
> enough when your parents want you to hang up your football boots,
find
> a nice boyfriend and learn to cook the perfect chapatti."
Yeah that sounds "explicitly" objectivist, too.
Evil Collectivist Pig Dog
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> >It's _Firefly_, the tragically short-lived Joss Whedon (Buffy the
> >Vampire Slayer) series about the crew of a spaceship-for-hire on the
> >fringes of colonized space.
>
> I haven't yet seen it myself, but I've heard nothing but good things
> about it.
>
> Somewhat along the same lines, you might want to check out The
> Incredibles, the highly successful new animation which apparently is
so
> explicitly Objectivist, it couldn't be coincedental (although I also
> understand it is not always consistently so).
It's coincidental. There are plenty of non-objectivists who see the
folly of touchy-feely Stuart Smalley affirming pop psychology.
"Demoted to the prototypical unspectacular job of insurance agent, Mr.
Incredible (now known as "Bob Parr") gripes that "They keep inventing
new ways to celebrate mediocrity." He's hiding away with his wife Helen
(formerly the stretchy heroine Elastigirl). His son Dash, blessed with
super speed, is banned from competing in school sports, lest he betray
the family secret. "Dad says our powers make us special," he protests.
"Everyone is special, Dash," his mother replies. "Which is another way
of saying no one is," Dash complains.
If that sounds like some Ayn Rand capitalist fable of the mediocre
punishing the talented ..."
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041119-083413-4361r.htm
Randroid Terminator
<chuck_u_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yeah that sounds "explicitly" objectivist, too.
>Tell us Fred, was Leonardo DaVinci an objectivist? Sheesh.
Lol.
--
But woe to the legislator who wishes to establish
through force a polity directed to ethical ends!
For in so doing he would not merely achieve the
very opposite of an ethical polity but also
undermine his political state and make it insecure.
Immanuel Kant
fred...@papertig.com
> Beckham explores the world of women's football, from kick-abouts in
the
> park to freekicks in the Final. Set in Hounslow, West London and
> Hamburg, the film follows two 18 year olds with their hearts set on a
> future in professional soccer. Heart-stopping talent doesn't seem to
be
> enough when your parents want you to hang up your football boots,
find
> a nice boyfriend and learn to cook the perfect chapatti."
>>Yeah that sounds "explicitly" objectivist, too.
I don't recall suggesting that it was.
The difference is that while in this movie there are a number of
important aspects of the movie with which Objectivists could agree,
with The Incredibles there are apparently lines which seem to virtually
come right out of Ayn Rand's mouth and it is done in a way which
clearly is not intended to be satirical. It is also notable that a
number of reviewers have commented on this aspect of it, Brent Bozell
just being one.
Beyond that I can't comment because I haven't seen it myself, as I made
clear right from the start.
Fred Weiss
Agent Cooper
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
>
>>Somewhat along the same lines, you might want to check out The
>>Incredibles, the highly successful new animation which apparently is
>
> so
>
>>explicitly Objectivist,
>
>
> Okay, tell us all how "the incredibles" is "explicitly" objectivist. I
> haven't seen it yet, but this should be good.
Sheesh backatcha. Have you ever considered becoming a district attorney?
I think what Fred was saying was "if you like Ayn Rand, you'll like X."
You may not like Ayn Rand, but Fred obviously does, a lot of people here
do, and they find this kind of guidance useful. I myself recently said
here that many here would love "The Aviator," as I did, and I'm not an
Objectivist, I'm just a fan of the novels and have some parallel
tendencies in my thinking.
I said this to Cathcart not too long ago, but I'll say it to you too: If
you really think that Objectivism is some sort of quasi-religious cult,
then I hope you don't act this way whenever you find yourself in an
alien religious environment. I can just see you in some Hindu temple or
Jewish synagogue, shouting "all right, that's about enough of that
nonsense, assholes." Where are the manners?
Matt Barrow
"David Buchner" <buc...@wcta.net> wrote in message
news:1gpx88e.40ihrm1c17woyN%buc...@wcta.net...
> going so well. And, we thought he was on our side because wasn't
> Jurassic Park about people meddling with Nature?"
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote01.html
No, not the book. The movie brought it out that way, but the book made no
such reference. Actually, the book was quite in favor of it.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO
fred...@papertig.com
X."
Actually, I wasn't quite saying that and wouldn't (boy, have I learned
not to make that assumption), although I suspect that many would - or
perhaps, that if I knew that someone liked AR they might have a greater
tendency to like it.
For example, you might be surprised to learn that while it got a couple
of raves on HBL similar to your own, The Aviator was also panned by a
couple of people. Not to the extent that anyone walked out on it, but
they just didn't like it. I seem to vaguely recall a couple of people
not particularly liking The Incredibles either. I have heard nothing
but good things about the Firefly series which David B. mentioned right
at the start of the thread, but it wouldn't surprise me if some
Objectivists don't particularly like it. I can't comment on it myself
because I haven't seen it.
Fred Weiss
Kyle Haight
<fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
>The difference is that while in this movie there are a number of
>important aspects of the movie with which Objectivists could agree,
>with The Incredibles there are apparently lines which seem to virtually
>come right out of Ayn Rand's mouth and it is done in a way which
>clearly is not intended to be satirical.
I don't think the "Objectivist influence" on THE INCREDIBLES should be
overblown. There are some moments, such as Mr. Incredible's complaint
about the schools constantly "finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity"
that sound Randian. There are others, such as Mrs. Incredible's
admonition to her children that heroism is "in their blood" that sound
more Nietzschean. I think these overtones are pretty much unavoidable
in any story about people with extraordinary abilities who are forced
to eschew them for some reason, at least if you want to treat the
highly-abled characters as sympathetic.
(It's also worth noting that the character who does the best job
applying his mind to improving his abilities, Syndrome, is the bad
guy. Inherent super-powers are good, but using your inventive genius
to make it possible for everybody to have super-powers would apparently
be bad. That idea is positively anti-Randian.)
>It is also notable that a number of reviewers have commented on this
>aspect of it, Brent Bozell just being one.
I think this is because Rand is probably the most prominent cultural
defender of the rights of the more able against the less able, so
when those themes are raised in a film the reviewers naturally think
of her.
There is a lot in THE INCREDIBLES for Objectivists to like. I'm dubious
that those things were put in there as a deliberate reference to or
homage to Rand. I prefer to think of the film as 'Objectivist-friendly'
rather than 'Objectivist-influenced'.
--
Kyle Haight
fred...@papertig.com
dubious
>that those things were put in there as a deliberate reference to or
>homage to Rand. I prefer to think of the film as
'Objectivist-friendly'
>rather than 'Objectivist-influenced'.
Your take on it sounds reasonable and you could be right. As I said, I
haven't seen it myself so I can only go on what I've heard.
Fred Weiss
David Buchner
> No, not the book. The movie brought it out that way, but the book made no
> such reference. Actually, the book was quite in favor of it.
But the book, I recall, had the chaos-mathematician character preaching
a lot about uncontrollable systems, unpredictable results, etc. And of
course, things didn't go all that well in the end...
David Buchner
> Here, enjoy a commie peeing.
Gee, thanks.
That's pretty funny. And so predictable: he goes immediately to
"corporate shills." Anybody who opposes environmentalists or other
do-gooders MUST be a stooge being paid off by Big
Corporations. There's always the conspiracy map: aha! here's the
inevitable link to an eeeeevil corporation! The way to test whether
uncomfortable or surprising ideas are correct is to find out if the
author is linked to a corporation? EVERYTHING is a conspiracy: nobody
could disagree with us unless they were part of an evil conspiracy.
And besides: it's a NOVEL, fer petesake.
It reminds me of one of the Amazon reviews I read for a book called
"Killing Monsters," about the wholesome goodness of toy guns and kids
pretending to kill bad guys and cartoon violence. This nut actually
responded by trying to sketch out this chain of corporate
responsibility, eventually tying the author (a comic book guy, IIRC) to
the Military-Industrial Complex (which of course has a stake in teaching
kids to kill on command).
It was funny.
Randroid Terminator
<buc...@wcta.net> wrote:
><fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
>> Here, enjoy a commie peeing.
>Gee, thanks.
>That's pretty funny. And so predictable: he goes immediately to
>"corporate shills." Anybody who opposes environmentalists or other
>do-gooders MUST be a stooge being paid off by Big
>Corporations. There's always the conspiracy map: aha! here's the
>inevitable link to an eeeeevil
"Eeeeevil." A Savage fan, I see.
Matt Barrow
And that would have been accurate, but the book (AIR) didn't go into all the
dramatic failure.
I would guess that such experiments could get out of hand, but that's not
the point the book made (again, AIR).
Matt Barrow
> This nut actually
> responded by trying to sketch out this chain of corporate
> responsibility, eventually tying the author (a comic book guy, IIRC) to
> the Military-Industrial Complex (which of course has a stake in teaching
> kids to kill on command).
Recall that the next line in Dwight Eisenhower's speech (?) about the
"Military-Industrial Complex" referred to the fake
scientific/elitist/anointed's (or some such).
fred...@papertig.com
>to an eeeeevil corporation!
That's the Marxist premise that it is not possible to be objective and
all of our views are conditioned by our economic class and economic
interests. Today it's been broadened to include race, sex, ethnicity,
etc. And thus you have a brainless ninny like Cat-Toy, and all his
brainwashed carbon copies, blathering about everyone's biases.
In effect, it's the Kantian premise that our minds are constructed to
perceive reality a certain way. The only difference for Marx is he
replaces "transcendental logic" with "dialectical materialism" and
"class consciousness". "Let's bring this abstract Kantian philosophical
crap down to brute reality", says Marx. But it's essentially the same
B.S. with the same kind of impressive sounding gibberish. But the
fundamental premise is the same: severing reason from reality, with the
same stolen concept at its root.
Fred Weiss
Jonathan Heath
> "Military-Industrial Complex" referred to the fake
> scientific/elitist/anointed's (or some such).
Not sure what you're referring to. Here's the relevant excerpt:
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -
economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every
State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the
imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to
comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood
are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties
or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the
huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful
methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Randroid Terminator
>In effect, it's the Kantian premise that our minds are constructed to
>perceive reality a certain way. The only difference for Marx is he
>replaces "transcendental logic" with "dialectical materialism" and
>"class consciousness". "Let's bring this abstract Kantian philosophical
>crap down to brute reality", says Marx. But it's essentially the same
>B.S. with the same kind of impressive sounding gibberish. But the
>fundamental premise is the same: severing reason from reality, with the
>same stolen concept at its root.
So sayeth God Peikoff.
David Buchner
> ....I have heard nothing but good things about the Firefly series which
> David B. mentioned..... I can't comment on it myself because I haven't
> seen it.
Well, hurry up and see it then!
Just curious: from whom have you heard these "nothing but good things"?
It was one of those shows I sorta blew off at the time it was airing,
but then when the DVD's came out somebody called my attention to it as
something worthwhile. I could have been in alt.fan.heinlein, but I
really don't remember.
David Buchner
> "Eeeeevil." A Savage fan, I see.
A savage fan of what?
David Buchner
> That's the Marxist premise that it is not possible to be objective and
> all of our views are conditioned by our economic class and economic
> interests.
But lefties, greenies, fans of global warming, and those who whine that
we're not spending enough on public education -- they all think they're
being smart and sensible and seeing things as they really are, don't
they?
It's just anybody who disagrees with them who's either suffering from
"false consciousness" or whatever, or is a right wing shill.
Here in Minnesota, there's an organization called the Taxpayers League,
which mostly seems to point out boondoggles paid for with tax money.
During the election, Dems ritualistically referred to their TL
opposition as "big business interests from the metro area." Whenever
John Stossel does a bit on how the government ought to mind its own
business, he gets a slew of poorly-spelled email condemning him for
being a mouthpiece for big tobacco or whatever. As if nobody could think
that way unless they were.
I just read the last couple paragraphs of that "State of Fear" review
you linked, and found the phrase, "the right-wing and its corporate
masters." Perfect.
fred...@papertig.com
David Buchner wrote:
> <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > That's the Marxist premise that it is not possible to be objective
and
> > all of our views are conditioned by our economic class and economic
> > interests.
>
> But lefties, greenies, fans of global warming, and those who whine
that
> we're not spending enough on public education -- they all think
they're
> being smart and sensible and seeing things as they really are, don't
> they?
Yeah, it's the "Fallacy of Self-Exclusion". It applies to all versions
of determinism, behaviorism, etc. It's rampant on these boards. For
example, surely you don't think Acorn will admit that he gets all of
his views from "consensus" - in effect that his brain is just an
uncritical sponge absorbing whatever ideas are predominant at the
moment - and that he is incapable of independent thought.
> It's just anybody who disagrees with them who's either suffering from
> "false consciousness" or whatever, or is a right wing shill.
Yeah, they are superior beings capable of a higher consciousness. It's
everyone else who is motivated by forces outside of their control.
And we of course, as Objectivists, are merely uncritical drones,
whereas they, who characteristically spout the conventional wisdom on
virtually any subject, are paragons of independent thought.
> Here in Minnesota,...
Forget my question in the other thread about where you live. You must
have mentioned it before, because that was what I would have guessed
and it was buried somewhere deep in my memory banks.
My new part-time neighbors are from Minn. They bought the place because
their son and daughter live in the area. They're here for a couple of
months in the fall and spring.
I mentioned that I spent 4 years in Wisconsin (U of W - Madison).
Wisconsin was quite a literal shock to my system. Coming from NYC the
coldest weather I had ever experienced was maybe about 15. And that I
thought was cold. I started at UW mid year, got off the plane in
January and the temperature was
-20. I said WTF have I gotten myself into. I actually said that for the
next four years. The only small comfort I took was that it was
apparently even colder in Minn.
For years after I returned to NYC I used to walk around with my coat
open when it got down to the teens. It didn't bother me in the
slightest. That was equivalent to spring in Madison. My blood has
re-thinned a bit since.
Fred Weiss
thepau...@hotmail.com
Kyle Haight wrote:
> In article <1105039755....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
> >
> >The difference is that while in this movie there are a number of
> >important aspects of the movie with which Objectivists could agree,
> >with The Incredibles there are apparently lines which seem to
virtually
> >come right out of Ayn Rand's mouth and it is done in a way which
> >clearly is not intended to be satirical.
>
> I don't think the "Objectivist influence" on THE INCREDIBLES should
be
I was speaking with an old friend that works for Pixar the other
night. When I mentioned the many people that have commented on the
possibility that objectivism influenced the writer/director told me the
following. My friend recently heard writer/director Brad Bird speaking
about that very subject and that along with downplaying any objectivist
influence Mr Bird said something to the effect of "That Ayn Rand stuff
is cool when you're a high school kid..." and then explained that the
majority of ideas and themes in The Incredibles was directly influenced
by the very negative and frustrating experience he had as a film maker
working on The Iron Giant. And yet his seemingly dismissive comment
about Ayn rand being cool for high school kids would seem to be an
acknowledgement that he did indeed get some exposure to Rand's writings
at some point.
Whatever the case, The Incredibles is a really great movie. I've seen
it twice and I rarely ever go out to see movies any more.
Randroid Terminator
Lol.
I guess not.
fred...@papertig.com
> <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > ....I have heard nothing but good things about the Firefly series
which
> > David B. mentioned..... I can't comment on it myself because I
haven't
> > seen it.
>
> Well, hurry up and see it then!
>
> Just curious: from whom have you heard these "nothing but
> good things"?
Both HBL and O-O.
Fred Weiss
x
x
x
x
x
x
David Buchner
> Yeah, it's the "Fallacy of Self-Exclusion". ....they are superior beings
> capable of a higher consciousness. It's everyone else who is motivated by
> forces outside of their control.... they, who characteristically spout the
> conventional wisdom on virtually any subject, are paragons of independent
> thought.
Funny you put it that way. I had a brief but hysterical e-mail exchange
with a neighbor who was very big with the MoveOn anti-war thing. She
kept forwarding me all these articles condemning the Bush administration
for the illegal war, and the bombing of innocent baby civilians, etc.
When I'd finally had enough, I counterforwarded a couple of
carefully-chosen pieces expressing an alternative point of view. I was
immediately scolded for being such a sucker, that it was shocking that a
seemingly intelligent person wasn't thinking for himself but was instead
just parroting the bile of his right-wing masters.
I responded uh, lady, it's not as if you were crafting your own
treatises there: you were just sending along whatever Paul Krugman
happened to write this week. What's the difference? Couldn't I make
exactly the same claim about you with equal support?
Whoosh. Right past her. No effect. Nothin'.
> I mentioned that I spent 4 years in Wisconsin (U of W - Madison).
> Wisconsin was quite a literal shock to my system.
Holy hell. Well of course it was. Oh -- you mean the weather. Winter
doesn't phase me, but UW Madison, that's harsh. (hint to those not in
the know: the campus paper is the "Daily Cardinal." Get it? *What* color
are cardinals?)
Agent Cooper
> Funny you put it that way. I had a brief but hysterical e-mail exchange
> with a neighbor who was very big with the MoveOn anti-war thing. She
> kept forwarding me all these articles condemning the Bush administration
> for the illegal war, and the bombing of innocent baby civilians, etc.
> When I'd finally had enough, I counterforwarded a couple of
> carefully-chosen pieces expressing an alternative point of view. I was
> immediately scolded for being such a sucker, that it was shocking that a
> seemingly intelligent person wasn't thinking for himself but was instead
> just parroting the bile of his right-wing masters.
>
> I responded uh, lady, it's not as if you were crafting your own
> treatises there: you were just sending along whatever Paul Krugman
> happened to write this week. What's the difference? Couldn't I make
> exactly the same claim about you with equal support?
>
> Whoosh. Right past her. No effect. Nothin'.
I have completely given up on communicating with these people. I began
before 9/11 but has accelerated dramatically since then. As much as I
want to think that the goofy-appearing stereotypes (and the explanations
for same) of AS are just that, in the past few years I keep getting my
nose rubbed in the fact that too many of my countrymen are *determined*
to believe things that make little or no sense. I have resigned myself
to the idea that America is hated abroad (I'm using that word in its
literal sense--the desire is that the country and the human beings who
live there should *die*, so that the world can get on with being poorer
and less free--nothing else explains the glee that circled the globe on
9/11, from Rome to Gaza--see Brian Appleyard for more). Much of my
changed attitude recently toward Israel is rooted in a sudden
realization of what it is like to be surrounded by people who believe
that it is virtue to hope for your *death*.
A few years ago, I fantasized about an emerging post-totalitarian (after
the fall of Nazism in 1945 and the fall of Communism in 1989) community
of nations and cultures, each with its own peculiar local merits, all
joined together by a shared commitment to democracy, markets and open
borders, enlivening and cross-fertilizing each other, a new sense of the
phrase "Free World." Now I know better. And it is not the hatred of the
developing world that is the deepest cut, for poverty makes for the most
irrational resentments, and are slowly overcome.
It is the hatred of our erstwhile allies. I begin to wish that not one
drop of American blood had been shed at Normandy, that Europeans had all
perished in the cesspool of the totalitarianism they have displayed such
an endless fertility at inventing and such an ineradicable passion for
submitting to. (I wish that every citizen of every one of our allies
during World War II would read that last sentence and fully feel the
fear that it ought to inspire). I have learned the lesson that you
cannot save people from themselves, and if you try, they will hate you
for it. The "Free World" is an illusion, and perhaps always was.
Tony Blair was right, though I fear that he may have failed. Europe will
always have to deal with the United States in one form or another. But
she may have lost the best friend she ever had. For her sake, I hope she
will *never* need us again.
BTW, this looks interesting:
Matt Barrow
> <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> I responded uh, lady, it's not as if you were crafting your own
> treatises there: you were just sending along whatever Paul Krugman
> happened to write this week. What's the difference? Couldn't I make
> exactly the same claim about you with equal support?
>
> Whoosh. Right past her. No effect. Nothin'.
Here...send her here: http://www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp (Don
Luskin's web site that takes Krugman apart from every direction, on damn
every statement Krugman ever issued).
Be aware of the new term for deranged/demented left wingers: Moonbats :~) I
suspect post-modernism is the overwhelming factor.
Where could I get a copy of the Peikoff piece he write a few years ago,
"Modernism and Madness"? Man, was that dead-on!!
Matt Barrow
"David Buchner" <buc...@wcta.net> wrote in message
news:1gq41a9.1gt2wt7o6jlyN%buc...@wcta.net...
> <fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
> I responded uh, lady, it's not as if you were crafting your own
> treatises there: you were just sending along whatever Paul Krugman
> happened to write this week.
One last thing regarding Krugman: http://vodkapundit.com/archives/007233.php
Matt Barrow
<thepau...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105232810.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> ... Mr Bird said something to the effect of "That Ayn Rand stuff
> is cool when you're a high school kid..." and then explained that the
> majority of ideas and themes in The Incredibles was directly influenced
> by the very negative and frustrating experience he had as a film maker
> working on The Iron Giant. And yet his seemingly dismissive comment
> about Ayn rand being cool for high school kids would seem to be an
> acknowledgement that he did indeed get some exposure to Rand's writings
> at some point.
That gets to be a tired refrain...damn near a mantra. Hillary Clinton was
another big celebrity to throw that bilge. Then, too, I notice it's the
flaky celebrities that usually throw that bilge anyway. Them or the academic
whackjobs.
Thing is, Rand doesn't really click or make sense (IMO) until your got some
experience under your belt and several years in the trenches. Not until your
get your degree from the School of Hard Knocks.
Randroid Terminator
<mwba...@qwest.net> wrote:
>Thing is, Rand doesn't really click or make sense (IMO) until your got some
>experience under your belt and several years in the trenches. Not until your
>get your degree from the School of Hard Knocks.
Thing is, it sounds like Bird has had a degree from that school, but
still doesn't think much of Objectivism.
David Buchner
> Be aware of the new term for deranged/demented left wingers: Moonbats :~) I
> suspect post-modernism is the overwhelming factor.
May be. But I'm convinced that lots and lots of cannabis has a lot to do
with it too.
fred...@papertig.com
Matt Barrow wrote:
> Where could I get a copy of the Peikoff piece he write a few years
ago,
> "Modernism and Madness"? Man, was that dead-on!!
I agree with you that it was a brilliant article. One of a number he
wrote, and nearly all of them quite important, which appeared in TIA.
You might check their website. I know that back issues can be
purchased.
Fred Weiss
fred...@papertig.com
> I was
> immediately scolded for being such a sucker, that it was shocking
that a
> seemingly intelligent person wasn't thinking for himself but was
instead
> just parroting the bile of his right-wing masters.
The same exact thing goes on here, too, when we get the charge of
dogmatism thrown at us or that we are just following the ARI line, or
whatever. Our accusers - veritable vessels of conventional wisdom - are
of course independent spirits who follow the "rat-a-tat-tat of their
own drummers", etc. etc. blah, blah.
> > I mentioned that I spent 4 years in Wisconsin (U of W - Madison).
> > Wisconsin was quite a literal shock to my system.
>
> Holy hell. Well of course it was. Oh -- you mean the weather. Winter
> doesn't phase me, but UW Madison, that's harsh. (hint to those not in
> the know: the campus paper is the "Daily Cardinal." Get it? *What*
color
> are cardinals?)
Well, I meant the weather, but.... :-)
But, yes, that too to some extent. Brooklyn College where I did my
undergraduate work was moderately active, but it was tame in comparison
to UW. Let's just say I was there when they blew up the Math/Science
Bldg. killing a bright young student, when they raided and trashed
profs. offices who disagreed with them, when they hooted down speakers
whom they regarded as part of "the military/industrial complex", etc.
etc.
Incidentally, a handful of us took them on and managed to hold our own.
They weren't thrilled for example when I wrote a piece which the
Cardinal actually published called "The New Left are the New Nazis".
Fred Weiss
Agent Cooper
> The same exact thing goes on here, too, when we get the charge of
> dogmatism thrown at us or that we are just following the ARI line, or
> whatever. Our accusers - veritable vessels of conventional wisdom - are
> of course independent spirits who follow the "rat-a-tat-tat of their
> own drummers", etc. etc. blah, blah.
I wonder if there is a way of ending all this nonsense. I pretty much
suspect that there isn't. Before the 60s, when there was a sizable
Southern conservative wing of the Democratic Party, the open warfare
model of party relations (in which any linguistic item which is
potentially useful to the opponent gets dismissed as if it were
war-propaganda by the hated Hun) had not yet dawned. Now, I don't think
that there's any hope for depolarization.
I wasn't able to get my reply to Mark to post, but at the risk of
warming the cockles of Ken Gardner's heart (well, why not? I'm all for
Ken having hot cockles) I have to say that we have almost reached a
point where at least on an ideological level, we now have the
pro-collectivism party and the anti-collectivism party. This may not
always be the result in practice (OK, that's an understatement of
colossal proportions), and surely Bush has done a number of things not
calculated to warm my cockles (steel tariffs, por ejemplo), but I think
that this is pretty close to the bottom line. The base in each party has
too many people committed each respective way. They should just rename
them the Taxpayer Party and the Public Employment and Social Spending
Party and have done with it.
This, BTW, is why I think that stupid symbolism issues come to dominate.
Though the Pubs have accomplished precious little in the way of changing
the abortion status quo, or implementing a mandatory national
creationism curriculum (about as little as the Dems have done to fix the
problems in the African-American community), the Dems *need* these
issues, because there are a lot voters out there who vote Dem out of
commitment to secularism *only*. In fact, that was why I voted for
Clinton in 1992. I saw a couple of polling studies on this, and people
who vote atheism are a rapidly growing, key constituency of the
Democratic Party, probably about 10%. Though more than 10% of Pubs
*care* about "morality" issues, I'd say that no more than about 10% care
*only* about them. See my link below for the fascinating statitics, a
bit rusty but probably still OK. Incidentally, this link is very useful
as well for a better understanding by our trans-Atlantic friends who
suspect that the country is run by yahoos. Rther, the people who run
this country are pestered by yahoos, which is not the same thing.
This leads me to think that if some visionary Republican were to rethink
the whole strategy and "steal" this issue by shifting the Republicans to
a more atheism-friendly stance, while they might lose some people who
are *primarily* interested in these sorts of issues on the Right, I
suspect that an awful lot of those people would *stay* for the social,
economic and foreign policy issues. What then would happen to those "New
Democrats" who like the Democrats only because they are the culturally
sensible but, alas, essentially socialist party? Would they swing over?
They might. It might make sense to go for a mirror image of the old
Dixie Democrat strategy, and decide that Southern Republicans have no
place else to go, let's take them for granted and start reaching out to
the younger, more secular crowd out there. A good place to start would
be to talk about the "steal from the young poor to give to the old rich"
bamboozle that is Social Security. You may not want to go to church 40
hours a week. Do you want to be taxed into oblivion so some old fart can?
Where are our "New Republicans"? C'mon guys! You have a world to win!
I'd also wager that if this were to happen, that an awful lot of folks
hereabouts who still hold back from the Republican Party would take the
plunge.
Data at http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=82
http://tinyurl.com/5fwot
Mark N
> Holy hell. Well of course it was. Oh -- you mean the weather. Winter
> doesn't phase me, [...]
And your linguistic offense here apparently didn't "phase" Coop, either.
I'm shocked, shocked. I would have thought that this would have at least
caused him some momentary dizziness.
Mark
Mark N
> I wasn't able to get my reply to Mark to post, but at the risk of
> warming the cockles of Ken Gardner's heart (well, why not? I'm all for
> Ken having hot cockles) I have to say that we have almost reached a
> point where at least on an ideological level, we now have the
> pro-collectivism party and the anti-collectivism party. [...]
I've noted your comments here and have taken them under advisement. I
don't think you are going to change my mind that "Republican" is a nasty
epithet any time soon, but I guess I'm getting a better idea of where
you are coming from on this.
Mark
David Buchner
> but at the risk of warming the cockles of Ken Gardner's heart (well, why
> not? I'm all for Ken having hot cockles)
Hear that, Ken?
They're looking out for your cockles.
David Buchner
> ....Our accusers - veritable vessels of conventional wisdom - are
> of course independent spirits who follow the "rat-a-tat-tat of their
> own drummers", etc. etc. blah, blah.
Of course, "their own drummers" in the world DO a fair amount of
rat-a-tat-tatting: generally it's with Soviet-made AK-47's with 30-round
magazines. Odd icons for the anti-gun Euphorian contingent to glom
onto...
[UW Madison]
> Let's just say I was there when they blew up the Math/Science
> Bldg. killing a bright young student, when they raided and trashed
> profs. offices who disagreed with them, when they hooted down speakers
> whom they regarded as part of "the military/industrial complex", etc.
> etc.
Oh, dude, you're older than I thought. But that's okay.
> Incidentally, a handful of us took them on and managed to hold our own.
> They weren't thrilled for example when I wrote a piece which the
> Cardinal actually published called "The New Left are the New Nazis".
Are you sending it to me?
I called that event in history (bombing) to my mom's attention. She
recently attended the UMW, in education, has spoken warmly of Chomsky,
and has the requisite 60's baggage. I'm not exactly sure where she's at
now, though she's married a Republican Corvette salesman. ;-) I think
they still cancel out each others' votes.
David Buchner
> I have to say that we have almost reached a point where at least on an
> ideological level, we now have the pro-collectivism party and the
> anti-collectivism party. This may not always be the result in practice
Very perceptive. I agree. It's how I vote.
bot lines
bot lines
bot lines
bot lines
bot lines
bot lines
etc.
fred...@papertig.com
> Oh, dude, you're older than I thought. But that's okay.
60 in March.
I was there (UW-Madison) in the late 60's/early 70's. Let me tell "you
kids" who think things are bad now....You have no idea.
> > ...I wrote a piece which the
> > Cardinal actually published called "The New Left are the New
Nazis".
> Are you sending it to me?
I have a box of stuff from that era somewhere, including a couple of
other columns I wrote for The Daily Cardinal. I'll tell you a little
secret that I learned from that experience (which is what gives me hope
for the future). There were about a dozen of us and about 5,000 of
them. No, I'm not going to tell you we "won". There was no winning
against those kinds of odds and we were fighting more than just them of
course. But we held our own. And they were not happy about it.
> I called that event in history (bombing) to my mom's
> attention.
I was actually near there when it happened, in one of the dorms, and
heard the blast.
Fred Weiss
David Buchner
> And your linguistic offense here apparently didn't "phase" Coop, either.
Oops, I've apparently forgotten one of these taboos. I'm reeling with
the enormity of my mistake.
faze?
Star Trek geek here, is my defense.
Mark N
> Mark N <ma...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>>And your linguistic offense here apparently didn't "phase" Coop, either.
> Oops, I've apparently forgotten one of these taboos. I'm reeling with
> the enormity of my mistake.
:-)
> faze?
>
> Star Trek geek here, is my defense.
I think we can let you off with a warning. Just don't let it happen
again! Of course, this is only a preliminary decision -- it will have to
be reviewed by Coop! :-)
Mark
David Buchner
> 60 in March.
Sweeeeet. I know grownups. And they give me the time-o-day.
> I was there (UW-Madison) in the late 60's/early 70's. Let me tell "you
> kids" who think things are bad now....You have no idea.
I get that impression.
> I was actually near there when it happened, in one of the dorms, and
> heard the blast.
Geez. See above.
Agent Cooper
Maybe I should just get a Universal Translator that will correct all
these egregious lapses for me...
Ken Gardner
> Agent Cooper <agentc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hear that, Ken?
What the heck is a "cockle?"
Ken
Agent Cooper
Though "it warms the cockles of my heart" is a common expression, I was
alluding to a line from Woody Allen's _Love and Death_ in which Diane
Keaton exclaims that someone warms the cockles of her heart (which has a
sentimental connotation) to which WA replies, "great, now you've got hot
cockles!" which sounds vaguely sexual. It never occurred to me to wonder
what the origin of the expression is, but all I could find was the
following:
Dear Word Detective: Recently in my Study of Language class, the
professor said that something "warmed the cockles of his heart." Then he
chuckled to himself and said if any one of us could explain what that
meant we'd get extra credit. Can you help me out here? -- Melody Asbury,
Dallas PA.
This is one of those questions which ought to be easier to answer than
it turns out to be. Let's start with the easy part. "Cockles of the
heart" means your innermost feelings or the depths of your soul. The
phrase is almost always found in the expression "to warm the cockles of
one's heart," meaning to give a feeling of happiness, gratification and
contentment. Old "Lassie" movies, for instance, can usually be counted
on to warm the cockles of any nearby hearts.
The origin of "cockles of the heart," however, is a classic
chicken-and-egg question and there are a number of theories. "Cockles"
in the non-heart sense are mollusks -- shellfish -- not unlike scallops,
with vaguely heart-shaped, ribbed shells. The "cockles of the heart" in
a technical sense are the ventricles, or chambers, of the heart, and
here's where it starts to get a little confusing. Are the chambers of
the heart called "cockles" because, with their spiral ribbed pattern,
they resemble the shellfish? Or might it be the other way round -- are
aquatic cockles called "cockles" because they themselves resemble little
hearts? Dizzy yet? If all that isn't sufficiently confusing, the
scientific Latin name for the aquatic "cockle" just happens to be
"Cardium," meaning "heart," which is really no help at all.
The best we can say is that the two "cockles" are linguistically
related. Aquatic "cockles," even though heart-shaped, probably took
their name from a Greek word for mussel or scallop, and "cockles of the
heart" is probably based on the heart's resemblance to a ribbed shell.
All of which is interesting, but it can't hold a candle to a good
"Lassie" movie."
Agent Cooper
On the other hand.
"Cockles of the heart have nothing to do with the cockles and mussels
Sweet Molly Malone used to sell. The word comes from the Latin phrase
'cochleae cordis,' meaning 'ventricles of the heart,' while the
shellfish 'cockle' comes from the Latin 'conchylium,' meaning 'conch
shell.'" From "Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins" by William
and Mary Morris (HarperCollins, New York, 1977, 1988).
Evil Collectivist Pig Dog
Matt Barrow wrote:
> That gets to be a tired refrain...damn near a mantra. Hillary Clinton
was
> another big celebrity to throw that bilge. Then, too, I notice it's
the
> flaky celebrities that usually throw that bilge anyway. Them or the
academic
> whackjobs.
Aren't you forgetting Evil Collectivist Pig Dogs and other scumsuckers?
.
.
.
.