A few weeks ago, my twin* brother and I were talking and somehow the Nazis came up. While he knows roughly about WWI and WWII, it quickly became apparent that his knowledge of the two events were extremely shallow. He did not know about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the Yalta Conference, the differences between the Nazis and the Communists (he thought they were the same group), or hardly anything about the countries involved except for (some) of the parts that the US was directly involved in. We went to the same schools, attended the same college and studied the same subject (Computer Science/Multimedia Studies), and we have a similar amount of intelligence. The only difference between us is that I was a grade ahead of him (I skipped 2nd grade), and he apparently didn't go beyond what the schools taught him.
Put simply, the public school systems, both here and in the UK, suck. If my brother, an intelligent person who learned the material presented to him but simply didn't bother to go beyond it, had** such a shallow knowledge of history, can you imagine how poorly educated the people who merely put in just enough work to pass are? Those people are likely close to functionally illiterate. And they are the average product of our school system, not the dregs. They compromise the majority of the students produced by our school system, the standard by which schools should be judged by. And that standard is dismal.
*We are fraternal twins, not identical.
**After that discussion, he decided to rectify his ignorance, and is reading several history books that I recomended to him.
Well, he's right and it's pretty sad. I see this every day. No doubt we have different reasons why this is so but here's a start. I just read this today.
But what was our excuse? The weird thing about this Lebron story is that seven or eight years ago, he seemed like a nice kid. All he did was step into a media machinery deisgned to create, reward, nurture, and worship self-obsessed assholes. He was raw clay when he went in, and now he's everything we ever wanted him to be -- a lost, attention-craving narcissistic monster who simultaneously despises and needs the slithering insect-mortals who by the millions are bent over licking his toes.
I'm sure there's a larger point to make in all of this about how the insane pathology behind the Lebron spectacle (read: a co-dependent need to worship insatiable media-attention hogs gone far off the rails of self-awareness) is what ultimately is going to destroy this country and leave us goverened for all time by dingbat megalomaniacs like Sarah Palin.
That's why I have been saying lately that in all honest our country should have Sarah Palin as president and not Barack Obama. She is more reflective of who we are right now and one of the main reasons why Obama is having the problems he is having (aside from his own mistakes and faults) is that many of his ideas and actions aren't working that well in a self involved and narcissistic society.
Dalrymple's quote here does hold the answer to getting back on track.
And our educators, I think, have a lot to answer for because they have suggested that education should be of relevance to the children's lives as they are lived, and of course the whole point of education is to make the world beyond that relevant, and of course interesting and important to them, otherwise they are utterly enclosed in the indescribably miserable world in which they find themselves.
In order to make learning interesting and important to them, it must be shown, by educators, to be relevant to their lives. The parents must also play a large role in this. If the parents are COP (checked out parents, as I call them), it's an uphill battle. The reason why the show Are you Smarter than 5th Grader even exists is because most parents are part of the Michael Jordan generation which is aplty described by Taibi above. They are incredibly self involved and are so full of extrinsic motivation that it's terribly difficult to show the relevance of history.
And that's where the laziness of instructors comes in. They don't want to take the time to deal with the complexities of how to do this. That's why I admire Tomlinson and Gardner as much as I do because they took the time to make good models for the rest of us to use and expand upon.
In the final analysis, though, our culture has to change. We define success as material gains. If you have the Mercedes or the latest iPhone, you are "IT." Until that changes, many people will indeed be "enclosed in the indescribably miserable world in which they find themselves."
Yeah, I know I'm late to the party, but that post has done busticated my irony meter.
It's all there: insane pathology, co dependency, the need to worship narcisists, the absence of self awareness, and, of course, blameshifting, because clearly, our corrupt society isn't worthy of the purity and goodness that is Obama.
"...That's why I have been saying lately that in all honest our country should have Sarah Palin as president and not Barack Obama. She is more reflective of who we are right now and one of the main reasons why Obama is having the problems he is having (aside from his own mistakes and faults) is that many of his ideas and actions aren't working that well in a self involved and narcissistic society..."
See, Marxy is convinced that the US is filled with peeeeeple who are stonewalling The One, and they are all evil, corrupt, unedumacated, Bible-thumping conservatives.
Plays straight into his narrative.
Hey Marxy, ya ever think that it might actually be the other way around, that your boy, Barry, is really the media whore, and that he's the one driving the truck that is America, straight toward the closest horizon labeled "Demise," that he can see?
"The end of truth," as Hayek put it, when somehow Sarah Palin is a incompetent narcissist and Barack Obama is a hard-working and intelligent, but demonized popularily. Mark's working for a job as the czar for the Ministry of Truth, methinks.
Well Mark thinks you should be able to con the world into supporting your deficit spending forever, and have no trouble. Given that, I can see his point. A big part of Obama's trouble is that we haven't yet turned 100% into a nation of suckers, begging to be conned.
Mark is absolutely correct, once a solid majority begs to be conned over and over and never wake up, just be fueled by denial... sure, under those conditions, "Hope and Change" would be a lot easier.
Based on what little I can glean from their public lives, it seems to me that while President Obama may perhaps have the edge on raw intellectual fluency, Governor Palin is far more intellectually curious and more aware of the world around her. Moreover, she has demonstrated far more aptitude for governing, as can be seen by comparing her record for working with Democrats in Alaska versus the President's record of working with Republicans as president.
You are uncritically accepting a media stereotype.
Then why did she quit being the governor? I'm afraid I don't see any intellectual curiosity there at all. This is not based on her media stereotype but on her own words and actions. I would direct you to her Facebook page for evidence of this as well as her various speeches and writings. And aware of the world? Wow. I don't know what to say to that. Have you listened to what she has said or read what she has written? Based on her words, her knowledge of the world is more child like than W's view of the world.
I still say more power to her, though. Her clear goal in life was to be a successful and wealthy media personality. That is why she quite being governor. If you look at her biography, that is always where she has wanted to be and now she has achieved it. Essentially, she is the LeBron James of the GOP...a superstar, no doubt, and a perfect reflection of what our culture has become.
Would it occur to you that the reason she quit is the reason she stated when she quit? Would it also occur to you that some people have a moral or ethical problem with holding a position or a job while simutaneously being unable or unwilling to perform the functions of that job?
Finally, would it occur to you that while you mock Palin for 'quitting her job', Mr. Obama spent the entire time in the position of his previous job doing nothing but angling for his next job. In some circles that is considered fraud. Perhaps in your case you consider it a feature, not a bug.
I just wanted to know why she quit. I'm not mocking that. So, you're saying that you take at her word as to why she quit. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem if she quit to become a media personality and make a lot of money. So what? She's living the American dream...doing what no one else can do because our country is pretty fucking awesome.
Of course, if she did quit because of the latter that should cause a logical and reasoned man or woman to question whether she has "far more aptitude for governing."
... take at her word as to why she quit. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem if she quit to become a media personality and make a lot of money ... ... Of course, if she did quit because of the latter that should cause a logical and reasoned man or woman to question whether she has "far more aptitude for governing ...
So let me ask you, if you elected a person to perform a job and that person decided they wanted something bigger and better and needed to devote time and effort towards that goal, would you rather they:
a) quit the job you elected them for in order to devote that time and effort? or
b) continue to receive pay for the job you elected them for, while not performing it because they are devoting time and effort into the new project?
Now, I don't think either case can definitively point to who has "far more aptitude for governing". But one of those can for sure point to who has far more aptitude for fraud and deceit.
If you doubt that, try going to work and ignoring your job while working on a different one. Oh wait, you have a government job...guess that example doesn't work.
Actually, I think she is a more accurate reflection of where we are at right now as a country, not Barack Obama. In all honesty, we deserve her, not our current leader. I mean...people on the right support her simply because of the fact that she pisses liberals off. The more anger on the left they see, the more they love her. Pretty pathetic...I pity people like this.
What is scary, though, is how much fun I (with buttered popcorn) would have watching you and some others wonder how fucking dumb all of you could be to think that she had any sort of aptitude for anything other than being a media personality. Or the guts, for that matter. She says she quit being a governor because she couldn't carry out her job because of the media. I wonder how well she would handle an incident with Pakistan, for example. Or Iran. Her action of quitting does indeed show that she doesn't really have the stomach for pressure.
Of course, her resulting ineptitude would, in all liklihood, result in dead bodies so my enjoyment would be short lived.
"What is scary, though, is how much fun I (with buttered popcorn) would have watching you and some others wonder how fucking dumb all of you could be to think that she had any sort of aptitude for anything other than being a media personality."
What scares you, in my unhumble opinion, are two things: 1) She has demonstrated considerable executive abilities, she has demonstrated considerable business acumen and experience, and she is fearless in scaling the hide off your favorite politician, President President; and, 2) the "others" you make noise about watching are ever-increasing millions of voters who understand item #1.
Now, contrast your two statements:
"I also have no problem if she quit to become a media personality and make a lot of money."
and
"Her action of quitting does indeed show that she doesn't really have the stomach for pressure."
You will not acknowledge reality, will you? It's just beyond you.
She resigned as governor to raise funds so she could defend herself in court. She scared the living hell out of millions of liberal fuckwits like you, some of whom did the only thing they could to cause her harm and attempt to silence her; they filed nuisance suits in court. Such suits cannot be ignored; if they are, the plaintiff wins by default. Such suits are not cheap; her legal bills ran into the millions. So, realizing that people by the gazillions would pay good money of their own free will to hear her speak, she stepped up to the podium and raked in the cash. I call resigning her elected job to do this as quite honorable.
She is what every politician dreams of being; someone who can draw in huge crowds of people who will pay their own money of their own free will to be there and hear her speak. She is doing so in a target-rich environment, wherein President Present is shooting himself in the foot at every turn, and wherein millions of people are waking up to what a dangerous empty suit he is.
Yup, she scares the living hell out of you, but you cannot admit it, any more than you can admit error. Yet again, you fool no one, teacher boy.
"In all honesty, we deserve her, not our current leader."
She has demonstrated considerable executive abilities
This statement unequivocally proves that you are not a critical thinker. DJ, she fucking quit her job as governor after two years in office. Normally I don't go for the personal attacks but how fucking stupid can you be? How do you think she would respond to the pressure of being president? Her actions tell me she would quit if it get even a little hot. And you wonder why I say you are in a Cult. Sheesh...
she has demonstrated considerable business acumen and experience
Acumen, yes. She knows her audience well and like any superstar knows how to play this hits and make money. For that, I say, more power to her. Experience? How exactly? What experience does she have in business other than being a media personality? She has done that very well, no doubt.
she is fearless in scaling the hide off your favorite politician, President President
Why don't you come out and just say that you think she is hot? Again, she plays the hits quite well...just like any rock star.
the "others" you make noise about watching are ever-increasing millions of voters who understand item #1.
So, you think that she has a chance of beating President Obama in 2012? Assuming she even runs? I think you are overestimating her supporters but I hope to God she is the nominee. I want her out front and center...talking loud and making her views known to the whole world. I want to hear how she would handle the various issues that come up as president. More importantly, I want the comic relief of you defending her sub moronic answers.
Defend herself in court? Huh? What on earth are you talking about?
DJ, no problem if you are just yanking my chain here. If you are trying to get a rise out of me, that's cool. And no problem if you are a fan of Sarah Palin. I'm a fan of a whole host of media personalities. But if you honestly think she would be a more skilled executive than Barack Obama, my respect for you is instantly in the toilet. For someone who champions logic and reason, clearly you have none of it and, as Mastiff said a while back, are thinking with your emotional mind and not your rational one. And, I suspect, your little head and not your big one.
"This statement unequivocally proves that you are not a critical thinker. DJ, she fucking quit her job as governor after two years in office. Normally I don't go for the personal attacks but how fucking stupid can you be?"
Yet again, we see you fixating on one fact, to wit, that she resigned as gubnor after two years, as if nothing else matters. That's YOU in a nutshell, fuckwit, and the pun is intended.
And, yet again, we see your incessant hypocrisy. You either ignored or defended President Present's voting "present" 135 times as a state senator, which means he didn't have the courage to actually VOTE and thereby represent his constituents, which was his job, y'see. You either ignored or defended his bugging out of the US Senate after much less than two years to take a better paying job with more perks. Don't ignore the observable fact that he appears to really, really enjoy those perks.
"How do you think she would respond to the pressure of being president?"
A shitload better than President Present, who claims he "won't rest" until the gulf well is capped and the mess cleaned up, only to repeatedly go on vacation. She has a history of getting things done, and she is fearless in doing so. As an executive, she is formidable and capable.
"Acumen, yes. She knows her audience well and like any superstar knows how to play this hits and make money. For that, I say, more power to her. Experience? How exactly? What experience does she have in business other than being a media personality?"
Her family owned and ran numerous businesses BEFORE she got into politics. Don't you read the papers, teacher boy?
By THIS STATEMENT ALONE, you demonstrate that you really don't know jack shit about her history, her past experience, or her achievements. The most believable statements you make are those made when you don't have the tiniest clue what you are revealing. THIS IS ONE, and it is AWESOME.
You have just revealed that you are simply spouting the venom you have read elsewhere, and again, you have the hypocrisy to accuse others of non-critical thinking.
Me: "... she is fearless in scaling the hide off your favorite politician, President President."
You: "Why don't you come out and just say that you think she is hot?"
Can't you stop being a jackass even for five minutes?
"So, you think that she has a chance of beating President Obama in 2012?"
Again, you jump to conclusions. You just won't learn, will you?
So far, she isn't running. That election is 52 months away. I haven't a clue what her chances would be if she runs.
"Defend herself in court? Huh? What on earth are you talking about?"
Yet again, you reveal that you don't even read the papers, that YOU DONT KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT HER HISTORY, HER PAST EXPERIENCE, OR HER HISTORY.
So, do a little research, teacher boy. Let's see if you understand what this internet thingamabob is for. I'll make it easy by giving you a simple starting point. Google "Palin lawsuits". Read. DIG. LEARN.
Goddamn, you pathetic idiot. You were so busy drooling with venomous rage at my post that this didn't even occur to you, did it?
"But if you honestly think she would be a more skilled executive than Barack Obama, my respect for you is instantly in the toilet."
She has demonstrated that she is a skilled executive by running more than one business and by being a successful, well-respected governor. Likely you are unaware that being a governor is a chief executive position, second in scale only to President of the USA. We have demonstrated to you, time and again, that President Present entered the White House with ZERO executive experience of any kind. He has never run a business, never met a payroll, and, prior to being sworn in as president, never been an executive. She has. Moreover, the past two years, particularly the past two months, he has shown unequivocally that he is in WAY over his head.
Oh, and I have never cared one whit whether you respected me or not. You don't even respect yourself.
So, if they have been rejected and thrown out as frivolous, what are you talking about, DJ? It seems to me that they aren't really all that important after all. Or are they? ;)
Actually, you should read the whole post as most of it makes about as much sense as Dick Nixon at the end on pills. After stating that the suits have been thrown out, there is a statement saying that not all of them have been but then one of them has been. So which is it?
he has shown unequivocally that he is in WAY over his head.
Really? Was he in over his head when with these accomplishments?
I expect to see detailed analysis from you regarding this data. If you choose not to do so, no worries. Anyone is entitled to their own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. And this list of 119 accomplishments is fairly detailed and impressive. Of course, he's not perfect and he has made plenty of mistakes but this comment of yours...
A shitload better than President Present, who claims he "won't rest" until the gulf well is capped and the mess cleaned up, only to repeatedly go on vacation.
is seriously hilarious, dude. I was under the impression that the private sector could police itself and the federal government should engage in benign neglect. Isn't that exactly what is happening? So what are you complaining about?
And since you are OCDing like a good little Cult member spouting the "Executive Experience" meme (see: CEOs=Jesus), doesn't 18 months as POTUS mean more executive experience than being a governor of a state of less than a million for only a half term? That would be the logical and reasoned line of thought...
"And since you are OCDing like a good little Cult member spouting the "Executive Experience" meme (see: CEOs=Jesus), doesn't 18 months as POTUS mean more executive experience than being a governor of a state of less than a million for only a half term? That would be the logical and reasoned line of thought..."
Oh gosh, I almost couldn't stop laughing at just how amazingly dense you are, but this was a real knee slapper.
Let's just take the low hanging fruit, fer grins.
Marxy, you special needs troll, has it penetrated your amazingly thick skull that DJ IS NOT A CHRISTIAN? Snide remarks about Jesus equaling a CEO will only serve to make you look a like a bigger tool since you cannot, or will not, understand your audience. Brilliant! Sock puppets are smarter than that!
"...18 months as POTUS mean more executive experience than being a governor of a state of less than a million for only a half term"
Palin was Governor from December 4, 2006 to July 26, 2009. I love you tried to obscure that by saying it was only half a term. She served as Governor for just over 30 months, which is just a tick more than 2 1/2 years. Pop quiz time, which is greater, 18 months or 30 months? You may use a calculator. Also, a State Governor serves for 4 years. Which is greater, 24 months (2 years, half a term) or 30 months? Again, a calculator is permitted.
But wait! There’s more! Palin was mayor of Wasilla for two terms, or 8 years as a very active mayor. 8 year is 96 months, so add 30 months and we get 126 months of active civic duty. Now which is greater, 126 months or 18 months?
And even more important than time on the job is what someone does while on the job. Since you wouldn’t know logic and reason if they sat on your head and sang opera, it’s futile to point out that dear Leader couldn’t lead his way out of an oil soaked paper sack. On the other hand, Palin managed to stick to a lot of her campaign promises, and then build a small media empire after her resignation.
One last thing, Palin wasn’t running for President. I know, I know, it gets confusing with all those words about her, and the chanting from the MSM and Daily Kos marching orders, but she was on the ticket as Vice President. McCain was running as President. Who knew, right?!
Carry on, Marxy, you do such a wonderful job be-clowning yourself that it would be a shame for you to get a clue and move on.
So, Russell, am I to understand that you equate being the mayor of Wasilla and the being a slightly more than half term governor of Alaska as the same "Executive Experience" as being POTUS?
"So, Russell, am I to understand that you equate being the mayor of Wasilla and the being a slightly more than half term governor of Alaska as the same "Executive Experience" as being POTUS?"
So, teacher boy, am I to understand that you equate being the mayor of Wasilla and the being a slightly more than half term governor of Alaska as the same "Executive Experience" as being POTUS?
If so, then kindly tell us how the hell you claim to know, given that you exhibit damned nearly zero understanding of what executive experience is, and that simple arithmetic is more than you care to handle.
“So, Russell, am I to understand that you equate being the mayor of Wasilla and the being a slightly more than half term governor of Alaska as the same "Executive Experience" as being POTUS?”
Er, no, I don’t expect you to understand anything at this point.
Since your reading comprehension is around nil, let’s revisit your claim: “doesn't 18 months as POTUS mean more executive experience than being a governor of a state of less than a million for only a half term? “
Ok, notice how the core of your own argument centers around time in office? See how that’s the condition you made? Time in office is greater for President Obama is greater than the time in office for former Governor Palin. Now read my response. See how I dismantled the condition, showing that Palin has had more time in active civic duty than Obama?
So I ask again, and this isn’t about the position because you missed that point the first time, which is greater: 18 months or 126 months? Again, you may use a calculator.
"Well, I read her Facebook page on a fairly regular basis and this is what was written on 6-24-2010."
Golly. You read her Facebook page. I am so totally all like, impressed, and stuff.
Lessee now ... a Facebook page is written (generally) by the owner thereof, right? So, at best it is an autobiography, sort of, if the owner cares to put that much information on it, right? But the fact that she had been slammed with a bucketload of frivolous lawsuits was COMPLETELY UNKNOWN TO YOU, and so reading her Facebook page wasn't very informative, was it?
This is an admission by you of your own failure, teacher boy. Do you not recognize it as such? Are you really that dense?
What you did was tell us WHY she did what she did when you didn't have the tiniest clue WHAT she did.
What you have been doing, regarding her, is what the leadership of the Dimocrat Party, the Dimocrats in Congress, the Dimocrat bootlickers of the MSM, and much of the left wing moonbattery of the country have been doing. You blast one ad hominem attack after another in her general direction, and you blast one ad hominem after another towards anyone who makes any noise about her that you don't like.
And you're getting more and more shrill in the process, and you accuse me of being emotional ...
Now, what should you have done? What Grumpy Old Fart did, the results of which you'll find in his comment today. He begins with "Here's my take on it" and proceeds to ANALYZE the predicament she was in, DESCRIBE her possible responses thereto, and REASON why the response that she chose was a good one. This is a marvelous, wonderful lesson in how to do it right.
And, well done, Grumpy. Well done indeed.
You, on the other hand, are simply incapable or unwilling to do this kind of thinking. I keep telling you and telling you that you are dealing with grownups here, and you are not up to it. You won't even try.
"I expect to see detailed analysis from you regarding this data."
Yet again we see your unmitigated hypocrisy. Who they bloody hell are YOU, given your never-ending record of precisely the opposite behavior here in Kevin's parlor, to make such a statement? Do you see why you merit the term "fuckwit"?
"I was under the impression that the private sector could police itself and the federal government should engage in benign neglect. Isn't that exactly what is happening? So what are you complaining about?"
And yet again, we see your unmitigated hypocrisy. On the one hand, you piss and moan to the effect that you think Palin couldn't properly handle the feddle gubmint's response to the oil spill (i.e. one rule for her), but on the other hand, you piss and moan to the effect that you think President Present has done just fine because it's not his job do anything (i.e. another rule for him). Yet again, we see your underlying scale of justice: your guy can do no wrong, the other guy can do no right, because you hold each to different standards. Again, do you see why you merit the term "fuckwit"?
"... the "Executive Experience" meme (see: CEOs=Jesus), doesn't 18 months as POTUS mean more executive experience than being a governor of a state of less than a million for only a half term? That would be the logical and reasoned line of thought..."
You have demonstrated for a long time, continuing with this statement, that you don't have a clue what "executive authority" is. The key components of executive authority are: 1) authority to make a decision and cause it to be emplemented by the means appropriate to the organization in question; and, 2) responsibility to the voters, owners, or shareholders for so doing.
You should now understand that Jesus was not a Chief Executive Officer. In terms of gubmint, Jesus was a gadfly.
Now, read Russell's comment of today.
Note the executive experience of Palin: 1) eight years as mayor of Wasilla (which is the highest executive position in city gubmint); and, 2) 30 months as Governor of the State of Alaska (which is the highest executive position in state gubmint). We'll ignore for now her executive experience within her family's business activities.
Note the executive experience of President Present, prior to being elected President: ZERO. NADA. ZILCH. Since then, he's had 18 months.
No, his 18 months is NOT more executive experience than her 126+ months. His position involves greater responsibility than hers, but that does not mean he now has more experience than she does nor that he has become more skilled at it than she is. What it means is that, yet again, we see your unmitigated hypocrisy, in that you continue to blither along the meme of one rule for him, another rule for her, one standard for him, another for her.
Now, let's look at this again.
Me: "A shitload better than President Present, who claims he "won't rest" until the gulf well is capped and the mess cleaned up, only to repeatedly go on vacation."
You:"is seriously hilarious, dude."
President Present did state: "We will not rest until this well is shut, the environment is repaired and the cleanup is complete." I'll leave it to you to (sigh ...) use the internet to find the sources which confirm it. You obviously need to learn both how and why to do this.
The hypocrisy of President Present is that, apparently, resting involves three vacations (so far) and lots of golf.
Now, we know what his response, and that of his administration, has been. YOU should hold him accountable for the failures thereof, just as you held President Bush accountable for Every Goddamned Thing That Went Wrong during his administration. The principles behind his responses are three: 1) there shall be no mitigation of bureaucratic interference by gubmint vs. those who would try to suck up the oil before it gets to the beaches; 2) there shall be no help allowed in sucking up the oil (until quite recently, anyhow) by any foreign countries, no matter how good they are at it and no matter that it is offered at no cost; and, 3) no ship may return any water to the gulf that is sucked up with any oil unless, per EPA rules, it is 99.9985% free of oil, by golly, because letting the oil hit the beaches is preferable to returning water to the gulf that is only 99.0000% free of oil. His job as a chief executive is to clear the bureacratic interference out of the way of mitigating a disaster that is huge, ongoing, and relentless; he has failed miserably at this, as if he hasn't a clue what to do or how to do it.
Now, what would Palin's response have been, had she been in the hot seat? Remember a few things about her: 1) her family's business is commercial fishing (in the ocean, teacher boy); 2) as gubnor of Alaska, she WAS in the hot seat for her state's being prepared to respond to oil spills; and, 3) you can bet your last dollar that she remembers the Exxon Valdez; 4) she has a record of standing against corruption and incompetence; and, 5) she has a reputation for getting things done.
So, yes, I think her response, and thereby that of the feddle gubmint, would have been much better than that of a Chicago-machine campaigner.
I'm gonna educate you a bit more, teacher boy. I think you'll find this quite interesting, particularly given the collapse of the I-35 bridge in your state.
In May of 2002, two barges struck a bridge of I-40 over the Arkansas River near Sallisaw, OK, collapsing a 500 foot long section into the river. This was a MAJOR interruption of commerce and traffic in the area, both on the river and on the highway.
Here is a press release by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation:
"We're going to pursue all avenues for funding of this work as quickly as we can, Ridley said. We'll be working flat out to get this situation remedied. We hope for prompt action on the federal level to help move ahead as quickly as we can."
"ODOT estimates the demolition of the destroyed section and rebuilding of a new structure will take less than six months and cost around $15 million, including maintenance and repairs on the detour routes."
"A highway engineer at the site said it would likely take six months to repair the span."
Again, I'm going to leave it to you to browse the internet and learn about this. You'll find statement after statement by ODOT and others that this was going to take a long, long time to fix. I know the results because my father-in-law used to work for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, and so he knows the people who got the job done.
Now, what was done? The gubnor exercised his executive authority and kept the bureaucracies from gumming up the works. ODOT assigned the job to contractors who, by experience, they KNEW could get the job done. The job was completed in 28 days, and under budget.
This is the opposite of what President Present is about, ain't it?
In order to make learning interesting and important to them, it must be shown, by educators, to be relevant to their lives.
Why? I dispute the premise of this statement. Should not the purpose of education be to convince students to look beyond the immediate benefit to them? To be willing to enrich their minds without immediate hope for gain, so that they will become better people? And in so doing, to change the very meaning of what is relevant to their lives—not because they are comparing bits of knowledge like fruit in a supermarket, but because the way they see the world has been ennobled?
Why? Because it's about making connections. I think we are saying the same thing here. Many young people don't see the relevance of WWII, for example, to their lives. "So what? It happened a long time ago" is what I get all the time. It's up to instructors to search for those connections. Perhaps they don't like paying so much for gasoline. Show them how the price of gas relates to some events that occurred during WWII. Or perhaps they might make the connection using the instructional strategy of living history by Tomlinson. Seeing a dramatic re-enactment of Yalta, for example, is of great interest to interpersonal learners as well as visual learners.
So the convincing that you talk about comes in these forms as well as many others far too lengthy to mention here. Enriching their minds without the immediate hope for gain is essentially intrinsic motivation and that's my whole point. This is an enormous struggle in our "Material Gains means Success" culture.
Well, I gave you a shot Ken but I guess you didn't see what I meant. Since I don't really care about material gains, why would it bother me that someone else is more materially succesful than me? Why would I even be comparing at all? It might be nice to have some more CDs or a bigger house but the truth is I'm pretty happy with what I have. I count myself pretty blessed to have the friends and family that I have. Last in Line, for example, will always be my brother. My happiness revolves around time spent with people not whether or not I have a Mercedes or the latest iPod.
I was lamenting the fact that our culture is extrinsically motivated and that's one of the primary reasons why students are as Dalrymple described. One of my chief goals has always been to demonstrate to young people that learning or doing something simply for the sake of doing it is enjoyable.
Do you honsetly think people that are prosperous and have a good standard of living in this country all got it through hard work?
No, but many have gotten through inheritance or questionable means.
Actually, the question you ought to be asking yourself is not whether or not I'm a Marxist but how can a "Christian" nation have as its central definition of success material gains?
Yes, exactly. I can see that you don't personally care at all about material gains, or how much other people have, or how they got it. I don't care to wrestle with Echo to hunt down some of your "relative immiserization" howlers from last fall's tax threads, so deny you ever said so if you care to do.
The point is that the scoreboard doesn't favor you, so you lament the scoreboard. It doesn't favor me, either, but one of the differences between us is that I recognize that (A) it's not really my scoreboard unless I let it be, and (B) how someone else chooses to keep score is none of my damned business anyway, unless someone offers me force or fraud in the effort to tally a score.
You use the term "culture" here the way you and other Progressives use "society": as a reified entity that has enforceable claims against the individual, those claims to be enforced at the direction of those who claim to speak for it.
It is a philosophy evil beyond redemption. It can be only rejected, or ridden to Hell.
Ken, I'm more of a functionalist than I supporter of conflict theory. In fact, conflict theory falls third in my book behind functionalism and interactionist theories. My main issue with Marx is that it doesn't matter who owns wealth...it's in human nature to create classes in a society. A class less society is about as much of a fantasy as benign neglect. My main issue with Bell, his conflict theories, is that the value of a community should not be measure on whether or not it is urban or rural. In short, conflict theories are not an accurate measure of human organization.
My concern with our drive for material gains honestly conincides with many of the complaints on here about where our culture is headed in terms of intrinsic motivation vs. extrinsic motivation. This would be why Dalrymple's comments are quite accurate. Far too many young people do not care about anything other than their immediate and present (and very) material world.
Mark, the thing about Every Single Theory you just invoked is that they all imply, to a greater or lesser degree, reification of collectives. Urban? Rural? Classes/classless society? Value of a community? They all refer to collectives, and are silent with respect to individuals.
When an individual joins a community, is it the same community as it was before she joined? If an individual leaves a community, is it the same community as it was before he left?
If not, what does that imply about the nature and existence of community (and therefore collective)?
If so, what does that imply about individual human worth?
Unless communities have a separate existence, and have claims superior to those of the individual, Every Single Theory you invoked is disqualified at the starting line, as they all appeal to something that does not and cannot exist.
Here's my philosophy: Adult human beings are morally entitled (in other words, they enjoy the natural right, granted by G-d, but inherent in their nature as human beings) to the fruits of their labor and to the exercise of their own wills, so long as they do not use aggressive force or fraud against other human beings (and, of course, they are also welcome to the consequences attendant the exercise of their wills).
Put another way: People either own themselves, or someone else owns them.
Which is it? This may be the single tenet of Objectivism with which I agree without reservation: Has to be one or the other.
Sorry, that should read "granted by G-d, but inherent in their nature as human beings for those who don't believe in or care to appeal to a higher power."
First of all, I made an error above. I was referring to Wirth's theories on urban-rural conflict, not Bell's.
Second, whether you want to admit it or not, we live in a society which is a collective of people. I know that most folks here fantasize about being the rugged invidualist...the hero in their very own Ayn Rand novel...but it's pure fantasy. The actions that you take...the actions that others take...have an effect on your life. But that doesn't mean that the individual is powerless. Now to your questions...
When an individual joins a community, is it the same community as it was before she joined? If an individual leaves a community, is it the same community as it was before he left?
No and yes...actually. Because as any group grows in size, it's human nature to create bureacracy, institutions, and classes. As different individuals move or leave a community, change is constant. Sometimes these changes are positive...sometimes negative...how people behave is, in my opinion, a combination of the functionality of those community created institutions (government, social norms, ideas, values etc) and how rules spring out of their interactions. Some individuals may conform to these norms...others may not. The ones that don't may be considered devaint for awhile but that could easily change.
In my suburban community, in the space of one block, you can buy a gun, get a tattoo, see a play or look at art at our Performing Arts Center, and hang out a a coffee shop and listen to beatnik poetry. It's very eclectic and it's wonderful. The individual human worth of all of these people is expressed in one block....free to do as they wish...yet all are part of a community that helps each other out and, at times, aggravates each other. I have always believed that individuals can change communities...the world. Yet, at the same time, communities need to rely on each other in order to survive. The most effective ones are the ones that strike a balance between the two which is why I live where I do.
So that's why I don't accept your "either-or" supposition here. This would the main reason why I am not (and never will be) a "conservative." It's too black and white for me and ignores the fundamental grays of human existence. I own myself and yet I am owned by the functionality and interactions of my society.
Indeed, many here (you?) cannot even recognize the collective that has been created at TSM. I dug out this quote from one of my old texts and it fits perfectly for many commenters here.
From his anlyses of ineraction in different groups, Georg Simmel concluded that groups often find it convenient to think of nonmembers or outsiders as somehow inferior to members of the group. But why does this familiar in-group/out-group bias develop? Simmel explained it as arising out of the intensity of interactions within the group, which leads its members to feel that other groups are less important. Once they have identified another group as inferior, it is not a great leap to think of its members as enemies, especially because doing so increases their sense of solidarity.
Ironic that a neo-Marxist and early informer of the Franfurt School would so pefectly describe the community here.
If I were to walk away from the TSM commentariat (or, for that matter, even if you were to do so) and never return, it is not the same community. It may not be much different, but it is not the same.
The Right Honorable Gentleman's* "'rugged individualist'/Ayn Rand fantasy" line is, alas, another of the gentleman's Patented Flaming Straw Men (does the Right Honorable Member from Minnesota need a permit from the local fire department for those, or what?). There is none here who does not choose to voluntarily associate for their own benefit -- if they're really clear-sighted, for mutual benefit, because that's how long-term associations are made and sustained. Their presence here is proof enough. Autarky is only possible if one is willing to give up a lot. (I choose to ignore the Right Honorable Gentleman's reference to Simmel, apart from noting in passing that it is, of course, yet another straw man. How much overtime does the gentleman pay Ray Bolger?)
The other way to form long-term associations is to use force. If someone else can take an individual's life or property when one has committed no crime (obtained any good or service by aggressive force or fraud), one does not own one's self, at least not an uncontested claim. So I ask again: Does the individual enjoy natural rights that cannot be taken absent some crime against natural law he himself commits, or is he the tool of another will? It must be one or the other.
*I have been reading Massie's Dreadnought lately, and have chosen to try a new debating tack.
Adding: The gentleman's use of "collective" to refer to the TSM commentariat is telling in that it is illustrative of a fundamental, and I fear unbridgeable, gap in first principles. The TSM commentariat is a voluntary association: of course it is. However, if (as I proposed above) I left tomorrow, intending never again to darken the estimable Mr. Baker's free ice cream stand, I should have no cause to fear that armed thugs in cheap suits would come to my door and force me to continue commenting against my will. Even if Mr. Baker had the means, I should have no cause to fear, because this is a voluntary association.
If, however, association on other than voluntary grounds is legitimate, there is nothing left over which to argue but how much of one's life and labor one is willing to have stolen for another's purpose.
Let's try another way of looking at what I mean by materials gains. I think that many (if not all) of us here have great respect for older Americans. For me, they represent primary sources of history that should be revered. Sadly, this is not the case for much of our society. Our culture has created the social institution that old people are basically dead and should be treated like shit. Youth, in the form of a perfect material body, is worshiped by much of our country. Spend some time examining a few gerontological studies in the US and you will see that this is true.
We created this material view out a collective function of our society. It has become both a value and a norm for our culture. And it is based on material gains (six pack abs and tight butt) as meaning success. Essentially, old balls are not hot. As Dalrymple intimates, the youth of our country have no interest in things that are "old" and see no value in them. Until we change this defintion of success, his points will remain sadly true.
Though it is scarce worth the effort to do so, I rise to note that the gentleman from Minnesota has moved the goal posts to a field in an entirely different riding, and perhaps changed sports as well. I suppose that we may interpret that as the gentleman's admission of his inability to defend his (after all) indifensible first principles.
As for the gentleman's point: This is supposed to be some stunning insight? I said the same years ago, when a 28-year-old had to run out and buy a Mitsubishi after being called "sir" at a stoplight by a couple of dewy coeds.
And once again, we see the gentleman's supposition that all action and interaction is taken by and on behalf of groups, not individuals. "Older Americans." "Our society." "Our culture." "much of our country." "The youth of this country." I have had no hand in any of it, and I refuse to be held to account for it. Collective responsibility is fiction, promulgated by those who seek power over other men's lives.
The point of reducing everything to collectives and reifying them is to be able to say, "It's your fault, too, so you have to help fix it. Here's the bill.
"What? You want a say in how it gets fixed? Go peddle your papers, junior, we have Men With Plans for that. Top men.
"Top. Men."
Until we change this defintion of success, his points will remain sadly true.
Who gets to decide to what this definition is changed, pray tell, and will everyone be compelled to participate...by being made to pay for it, by being made to render one's children over to those who think that This Time, By Cracky, Yes, We Can Work the Revolution in Human Nature?
Ken, I haven't moved the goal posts at all. Try to think outside of the box a little on this material gains=success thing. Seriously attempt to view someone who is critical of measuring success through image and objects as NOT being a Marxist. If collective responsibility is fiction, what are your thoughts on the armed forces?
Regarding human nature, there are plenty of other cultures that do not view material gains as being success. In so many ways we are at loggerheads with ourselves because of our other core values that have nothing to do with extrinsic motivation. We are a very giving people and a very selfish people at the same time.
The Right Honorable Gentleman is deluded or, lamentably but unsurprisingly, lying. From:
Actually, the question you ought to be asking yourself is not whether or not I'm a Marxist but how can a "Christian" nation have as its central definition of success material gains*
to:
Let's try another way of looking at what I mean by materials gains. I think that many (if not all) of us here have great respect for older Americans. For me, they represent primary sources of history that should be revered. Sadly, this is not the case for much of our society. Our culture has created the social institution that old people are basically dead and should be treated like shit. Youth, in the form of a perfect material body, is worshiped by much of our country. Spend some time examining a few gerontological studies in the US and you will see that this is true.
We created this material view out a collective function of our society. It has become both a value and a norm for our culture. And it is based on material gains (six pack abs and tight butt) as meaning success. Essentially, old balls are not hot.
No, the goalposts have not not moved At. All. I'm pretty sure Christ was silent on the issue of six-pack abs or, ahem, "old balls," or does the gentleman claim that was what he had on his mind the whole time?
By the way, how's that country-by-country analysis of the statistical handling of premature births coming?
I am not even remotely a Snoop Dogg fan. But when I read this part of me says, "Okay, props to the Dogg. Evil, dirty capitalism at its most shining. Rent Liechtenstein? In its own twisted way, that's classy. Well played, Mr. Broadus. Well played.
I don't read Facebook pages, I don't do Twitter or Facebook or MySpace or any of that. And to be honest, I don't care what she has to say about it, if you assume she's a human being you can assume that her opinion is biased in her own favor. However:
1) Alaska state law says a sitting Governor cannot start a legal defense fund.
2) You noted "the courts found them to be frivolous", yet at the same time wondered what DJ was talking about when he said that if she didn't defend herself against them they would default to a judgement against her. Well, that's what. Frivilous or not, she had to argue them in court to get them dismissed as frivolous. Otherwise the default judgement is against her. You understand the legal term "default judgment", right? It's what the DoJ had against the NBPP before they dropped the charges.
3) Those bills add up over time. She can't pay them with state funds, she can't legally do fundraising to pay them.
Therefore
4) What it boiled down to was George Soros et. al. playing it that she has a choice. She can
4a) Remain as Governor for however long it takes those bringing the frivolous lawsuits to pauperize her, her family, and anyone she can possibly get a loan from legally. There was no indication that they would let up, ever, nor any reason why they should. They weren't actual ethics complaints after all, they were just ways to tie her up with legal battles, that was their whole purpose. After that, she could either spend all of her time in courtrooms personally answering frivolous charges and not do her job as Governor, or she can default and be hounded out of office on ethics charges she would be convicted ofin default judgment, despite their lack of basis.
or
4b) She can go ahead and quit, and allow her Lieutenant Governor to take it, in hopes that he will be allowed to actually do the job she has now been specifically prevented from doing by Democrat Party fundraisers.
So... which choice do you think she should have made, and why?
Why don't you come out and just say that you think she is hot?
Meh, she's medium pretty. Presentation and attitude makes her appear prettier than she actually is, just as it did for Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Obama. Hollywood is crammed full of women a whole lot hotter, and the vast majority of em I wouldn't listen to their political opinions on a bet. So what's yer point?
Oh Wow! I was in such a hurry to get back to work that I almost missed the secondary explosion of Irony:
The Liberal Argument Playbook:
1. Ignore Facts that hurt your position.
Marky's use of "The Rove" is one of his favorite techniques for deflecting attention away from the fact that he's ignoring what he doesn't like.
2. Say "It's Bush's Fault"
Karl Rove: Bush Administration.
3. Call them a Racist then run away!
Oops. Missed calling me "racist" in that comment, Mark! And you were so close to pulling off the perfect liberal argument in only 2 words! If only you had used "Köö1t" instead of "Rove"!
Are you planning to rectify that before you run away?
As much of the world makes strides in reducing child mortality, the U.S. is increasingly lagging and ranks 42nd globally, behind much of Europe as well as the United Arab Emirates, Cuba and Chile. Twenty years ago, the U.S. ranked 29th in the child mortality rate, according to data analyzed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
In a paragraph or two, Ed, let's hear your reaction.
If the gentleman is raising this issue in good faith, and not merely attempting to send the membership on yet another snipe hunt while he retreats behind an ink cloud, the gentleman will of course be able to describe in detail how each and every country covered in the aforementioned Lancet study accounts for premature births for statistical purposes.
We await the gentleman's report with great anticipation.
1) I don't have time. I already stated this, yet you're trying to suck me in anyway? You're a jerk!
(BTW, when I do have time, my first response will be to your extremist thinking that the only two market options are absolutely no regulations whatsoever, or total control.)
2) It's just snark! It's not an actual (or accurate) argument.
4) You've ignored literally dozens of far simpler questions over the past 2 weeks, yet you try to demand that I answer yours?!? It seems you think it's not a double-standard when you do it. (Gosh, those words sound familiar. Where have I heard them before?)
5) In the irony department, your chosen red herring actually demonstrates the truth of Step 1 of the snark: Ignoring facts that hurt your position. In this case, you have previously been shown the fact that different countries have different reporting standards, and your choice to bring it up again shows that you're stillignoring that fact!
I know what you mean. Just when I think I've gotten an irony meter that Mark can't break, he goes and breaks it again!
What's that saying about idiot-proof and better idiots?
Off topic: I noticed that once again, Echo positively insists on replacing a closing parenthesis with a smiley, even though I added a space after my text, and I never used a semi-colon. Great software, this… *DONT_KNOW*
I appreciate Marxy's willingness to double down on stupid every single time. I mean, that takes some dedication and a lack of self awareness and reflection!
Echo is one of the worst commenting systems I have seen. It feels like a beta system in so many ways. Like these boxes support HTML, but darned if I have a tool bar to change anything like fonts or sizes. And the nesting just gets confusing!
This statement unequivocally proves that you are not a critical thinker.
I don't know about you DJ, but I would consider that high praise if I were you. Remember, the definition of "critical thinking" Mark provided demanded that the thinker include such things as "fairness" in his thinking, in other words several concepts with no objective meaning at all.
Now if only Mark could think analytically, he might learn something. Ah, well...
Since the Facebook thing has gone on all the way down here, I thought I'd thrown in something about it to respond to the above comments.
As I have said repeatedly in this thread, Sarah Palin knows here audience very well and her business acumen is stellar. She has become an "electrifying superstar" in the words of Chris Matthews (funny no complaint now about tingles up the leg) and, even though she rips the MSM, she needs them desperately and knows it. It's all an act used to whip up her base. I liken it to the WWE. When she wants to get messages out to go around the filters, she uses her Facebook page. She knows that her supporters use the Internet to communicate information so she uses FB as her main point of release.
So when DJ says something like this...
Golly. You read her Facebook page. I am so totally all like, impressed, and stuff.
It shows a somewhat out of touch with reality frame of mind. DJ, her FB page is Palin central. Google her name and see what comes up second on the list. It's her official page, dude.
"It shows a somewhat out of touch with reality frame of mind. DJ, her FB page is Palin central. Google her name and see what comes up second on the list. It's her official page, dude."
So, her Facebook page is all we need to see, is it, teacher boy? Even though you've been shown just a tiny bit of what you've missed by practicing intentional ignorance?
To borrow from Andy Warhol, you are a deeply superficial person.
It is all you need to see if you are looking at getting unfiltered information direct from her. I don't judge her based on the fawning over her on FOX News or the ire that she generates from HuffPo. I judge her based on her words, ideas, and actions. Her FB page is the untainted outlet for those three things.
So, read her posts and let's here your definition of critical thought in response to them.
"I judge her based on her words, ideas, and actions."
HORSESHIT.
You have demonstrated unequivocally that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.
"Her FB page is the untainted outlet for those three things."
HORSESHIT.
You have demonstrated unequivocally that HER FACEBOOK PAGE BARELY SCRATCHES THE SURFACE OF HER HISTORY.
Moreover, you have just admitted that you believe she doesn't lie, that she tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We'll remember that.
Teacher boy, you are defending your own willful ignorance as if it were a virtue. You do so because it is embarrassing to you, and because you cannot admit it is an error.
To borrow from Mark Twain, those who won't learn have no advantage over those who can't. With you, one cannot tell the difference.
To me, it's just another example of how the Cult's philosophy has no practical application in reality. And that she is in no way qualified to be president.
"DJ, your bias regarding me has really sent you into a bizarre place."
I have no tolerance for the brazen stupidity, the pure arrogance, the unlimited hypocrisy, and the utter, fundamental dishonesty that you exhibit here in Kevin's Parlor. I can't see any reason why I should.
As I have stated to you for years, you might have something worthwhile to read, but it isn't worth wading through the crap you submerge it in to find out. Imagine what you could learn if you would first unlearn what is wrong. But you can't. You simply cannot admit significant error, and it drives you like a rented mule.
You do such GOOD work for our side with your drivel, and it will NOT go unchallenged.
Speaking of which:
"Way to skirt my challenge to you, though."
Hypocrisy boy, skirting challenges is WHAT YOU DO. You have TWELVE STANDARD BEHAVIORS by which you do it. You remember them all, don't you? You'll find them at:
You remember when I first catalogued them, don't you? Perhaps not. Perhaps the casual reader might want to know. Fair enough; you'll find it in the comments at:
Read the whole thing, as it is quite entertaining.
"To me, it's just another example of how the Cult's philosophy has no practical application in reality."
Of course it is. She proposes to ENFORCE THE LAW. Your side doesn't like ENFORCING THE LAW, does it? YOU don't like ENFORCING THE LAW, do you?
"And that she is in no way qualified to be president."
She scares the living hell out of you, doesn't she, marxie boy?
Oh, and speaking of challenges again, you still haven't answered my question from six days ago.
Do you understand what I meant when I wrote:
"Prosperity and a good standard of living come about through WORK."
You'll find that question and the whole comment thread that led to it at:
I have no tolerance for the brazen stupidity, the pure arrogance, the unlimited hypocrisy, and the utter, fundamental dishonesty that you exhibit here in Kevin's Parlor.
Of course, if any of this were true, it would make it easier for you and others to not have to admit that I am right about anything.
You do such GOOD work for our side with your drivel, and it will NOT go unchallenged.
Which side is that? I believe you have assured me that you are no Republican as many others here have as well. If that's they case, how does Sarah Palin fit into to your side? What is your side?
She proposes to ENFORCE THE LAW. Your side doesn't like ENFORCING THE LAW, does it? YOU don't like ENFORCING THE LAW, do you?
Why am I imagining talking to the late Phil Hartman as Frankenstien on SNL? Fire-Bad, Enforce the law-Ugh. This line of thought demonstrates such a shallow grasp of the situation of immigration that honestly (and I can't believe I'm saying this) but George W. Bush looks like a fucking genius compared to you and Sarah Palin. Did you notice how she had no understanding whatsoever for the complexity of the issue when pressed by O'Reilly? More than likely, that will be the last time she does that show. As I have said previously, she has no guts. She can't handle simple questions...even from a friendly interviewer on the network she works for...how on earth do you think she can handle the various complicated tasks of being president?
What's scary is not her being president. I doubt she would last that long. Her actions and words demonstrate that she wouldn't be able to handle it for very long. The truly frightening thing is the people like you who are so blinded by dogma that you truly believe that she would be a skilled leader despite all the evidence to the contrary. And you call yourself a logic and reasoned thinker. What a pathetic joke.
The truly frightening thing is the people like you who are so blinded by dogma that you truly believe that she would be a skilled leader despite all the evidence to the contrary.
"Of course, if any of this were true, it would make it easier for you and others to not have to admit that I am right about anything."
Golly, teacher boy, we have a first here. I have stated a great many times that you cannot admit significant error, and this is the VERY FIRST TIME that you have EVER responded to it in any way. But, of course, it was only to deny its truth, which brings up the obvious challenge: SHOW US JUST ONE TIME WHEN YOU ADMITTED ANY SIGNIFICANT ERROR. Just one will do. Go ahead. We'll wait.
"Which side is that?"
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. Save your straw man, little boy.
"Did you notice how she had no understanding whatsoever for the complexity of the issue when pressed by O'Reilly? ... even from a friendly interviewer on the network she works for ..."
Did you notice that O'Reilly repeatedly butted in, butted in, butted in, butted in, butted in, and drowned her out, drowned her out, drowned her out, drowned her out ...
This was not friendly interview by a friendly interviewer, fuckwit.
"The truly frightening thing is the people like you who are so blinded by dogma that you truly believe that she would be a skilled leader despite all the evidence to the contrary. And you call yourself a logic and reasoned thinker. What a pathetic joke."
The truly frightening thing is the people like you who were so blinded by projection that you truly believed that Obama would be a skilled leader despite his utter lack of experience necessary for the job. And you call yourself a critical thinker. What a pathetic joke.
Now, let's read a comment of yours from only four days ago in this thread:
"That's why I have been saying lately that in all honest our country should have Sarah Palin as president and not Barack Obama. She is more reflective of who we are right now and one of the main reasons why Obama is having the problems he is having (aside from his own mistakes and faults) is that many of his ideas and actions aren't working that well in a self involved and narcissistic society."
Your Quick Retort of the Moment meme is biting you in the ass, teacher boy. Note that this is the first time EVER that you have admitted that Obamateur isn't perfect. Golly.
Now, pay attention carefully or this will go right past you.
The next presidential election is 28 months away. You are ranting as if the election were imminent and Palin were about to win in a landslide.
I suspect your pants aren't big enough to hold all the shit you'll fill them with if Obama loses, the economy turns around, the stock market rises, employment rises, unemployment drops, and so on, and so on, and so on.
The thought of that happening is your worst nightmare, isn't it?
She scares the living hell out of you, doesn't she?
Oh yeah, this was a true gem, even by Marxy's standards: "that many of his ideas and actions aren't working that well in a self involved and narcissistic society."
Yes, silly ol' Americans, still a-thinkin' the Constitution and Rule of Law mean a darn thing! I mean, we have the Right People in Charge, correct? Why isn't Utopia here?
Ah, it's the self involved and narcissistic society that stands in the way!
But hark! What soft words did Fearless Leader speak waaay back in 2008? "But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people."
So if you are right now about society now was the Won wrong then?
No matter, some soul fixing will set this nation aright once more!
Damn. My comment here just disappeared. My mouse hovered near the "delete" button, I pressed NOTHING, and it went bye-bye.
This commenting software is spooky.
The comment was to the effect that hypocrisy boy, the resident troll here in Kevin's Parlor, yet again has exhibited his Standard Response #10. The monsters must have been really bad this time, as he was gone a whole week.
I judge her based on her words, ideas, and actions.
I have no doubt of it. But on the other hand, I also know that you have judged my words, ideas and actions, and unless you specifically know it's me posting, you judge what I say to be the words of a Christian fundamentalist, racist rube who doesn't know anything. All it has taken was to do some computer housekeeping (so I'm suddenly posting as "Guest") to find this out.
"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion -- when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing -- when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors -- when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you -- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice -- you may know that your society is doomed." -- Ayn Rand
Seriously attempt to view someone who is critical of measuring success through image and objects as NOT being a Marxist.
That would be me. The difference is I don't claim to be able to look into people's heads and divine their motivations.
Case in point: Right now I do not own a cell phone, I don't really have a need for one. A few years ago, that was my highest priority, higher than paying the rent. And yet it is only in the last few years that cell phones have moved out of the "luxury" category and into the "necessity" category for most of us. I, on the other hand, was a stagehand, a field that very quickly adapted to cell technology. If my employers couldn't get live voice conversation with me anywhere at any time, I wouldn't work, it was just that simple.
There are lots of jobs out there that the car you drive, the suit you wear, how much you spend on your haircut, etc. etc. can have a marked affect on your career. Several years ago when I was a copier tech, I found that to be the case. Nor do you know without being told what someone's future plans may be, in other words how the presence or absence of "luxuries" may affect their chances in a career they don't have yet.
I've used careers as an example because anyone can understand why it gets such a high priority. But it doesn't have to be career, it can be replaced by any plan someone has for his life that he gives such a high priority to that it makes no sense to ditch the idea. The point is, we aren't privy to people's plans.
1) Therefore it is not your place nor mine to criticize them based on the priority they give to their "toys". They may only be toys from our perspective and not theirs, and we have no way to tell.
2) Children and young adult are always more enamored of "stuff" than the average. Spend enough time around the younger set and your perception of what is "typical" may be skewed.
3) "The one who dies with the most toys wins" is an attitude easily documented in both rich and poor at least as far back as the Romans. Joan of Arc's father, when given a horse he had no ability to ride nor any harness to use as a work animal, was nonetheless insufferably vain about no longer being a poor peasant who didn't even have a horse.
So far as I can tell, the only way you can reliably keep people focused on "intrinsic" rather than "extrinsic" motivation is to make sure they live in extreme material poverty, with no possibility of ever escaping it. Well enough if that's what they choose, like a monk, but are you going to force them into it?
The bottom line is that trying to get people not to be "extrinsically motivated" bears a suspicious resemblance to taking away people's freedom to prevent them from making "bad" choices... "bad" being defined by the personal bias of whoever has the power to take said freedom.
If collective responsibility is fiction, what are your thoughts on the armed forces?
That somewhere along the chain of command, there is an individual who accepts personal responsibility. Even to the point of accepting the idea that one day he may be stood against a wall and shoton the orders of his own superior officers if he blows it badly enough.
Why am I imagining talking to the late Phil Hartman as Frankenstien on SNL? Fire-Bad, Enforce the law-Ugh. This line of thought demonstrates such a shallow grasp of the situation of immigration that honestly (and I can't believe I'm saying this) but George W. Bush looks like a fucking genius compared to you and Sarah Palin.
It's downright frightening that you can't get a grip on this simple concept.
If the actions of you or me takes us into an area covered by ___________ law
regardless of whether ____________ law is good, bad or indifferent as laws go
then if laws are enforced to the fullest extent possible, again
regardless of whether ____________ law is good, bad or indifferent as laws go
then you and I know in advance that "if I _________, the government response will be _______", because that is the law.
The less it is true that the laws are enforced to the fullest possible extent, the more "if I _________, the government response will be _______...."
...unless I know the right people to call, or...
...unless I have the correct skin color/ethnicity, or...
...unless my political views agree with the views of those currently in power, or...
...unless I have enough money/power/favors to bribe my way out of it, or...
Notice that none of that depends on who is in power at the moment, nor does it depend on whether the law in question is good, bad or indifferent. If laws are uniformly enforced, you have predictable conditions. If you dislike the conditions, there is a process by which to change the law affecting them. If laws are not uniformly enforced, you do not have predictable conditions. If you dislike the conditions, changing the law affecting them may or may not help, because the whims of those selectively enforcing them are the limiting factor, not the law itself.
Sheesh, talk about an indictment of the educational system. Should it be possible for an American to get past the age of 15 or so without freshman or sophomore high school civics class teaching him this one?
Grumpy's explanation is a description of the principle of "Rule of Law". We've using that phrase many times over the years. Did you understand it then? Do you understand it now?
What's even more amusing, time in office doesn't determine ability, success or all around executive experience. It's just a number to establish time served in office and since that favors the hated Sarah Palin, he can't admit to it.
Now that I've pointed that out, I think that should he respond, it'll be along the lines of "Oh! I didn't see your question." or "I could've have answered, but that would have fallen into your language manipulation tactics, you GOP toady!". That's assuming he stays on topic and doesn't launch into one of his tangents.
Just to head off any argument along the lines of, "It can't be done that way because the government is neutered by corporate interests yadda yadda yadda...", yes, we all know that. That's factored into the design. You see, the idea of self-government under the rule of law deliberately allows the right of BP to buy politicians like Obama or those before him. The concept assumes the people who work for BP, invest in BP and own BP are people too, with the same right to buy politicians as the SEIU or the UAW.
Believe it or not, "special interests" actually is a feature, not a bug. Sucks, don't it?
You should now understand that Jesus was not a Chief Executive Officer. In terms of gubmint, Jesus was a gadfly.
Okay, I have to say it. I just have to.
It has been bugging me for months now that Marky will include (See: ____=____), referencing something that has no existence outside of his own head. I'm not sure whether he doesn't get the concept of "See:" being used as a reference, rather than merely an encapsulated block of his own belief or opinion, or the concept that a reference should actually refer to something, or what.
But I'm all better now. The above statement gave me the opening I needed, at least for a tiny fix on the problem.
You should now understand that Jesus was not a Chief Executive Officer. In terms of gubmint, Jesus was a gadfly.
Which, it so happens, is Sarah Palin's position in terms of gubmint since resigning as Governor of Alaska.
There, Mark. You can now confidently use "See: Sarah Palin=Jesus" in the knowledge that it references a comparison someone actually once made.
I was shocked when I saw a report on a recent study in the UK in which a surprising amount of their recent public school graduates (23%) thought that Winston Churchill was a fictional character. There's video (well, technically, film) of him, audio recordings of him, and people that knew/met him are still alive, and they don't think he was real? Yet about 50% thought Sherlock Holmes was a real person.
See http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/34730/myth-winston-churchill/greg-pollowitz
Well, why not? We do it, too. In exit polls in 2008, a stunning number of Obama voters thought statements made by Tina Fey, while lampooning Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live, were actually made by Sarah (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2134403/posts).
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/07/quote-of-day-education-edition.html (108 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Yes but they all know they are entitled to a job, or the dole. And a winning football team.
A few weeks ago, my twin* brother and I were talking and somehow the Nazis came up. While he knows roughly about WWI and WWII, it quickly became apparent that his knowledge of the two events were extremely shallow. He did not know about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the Yalta Conference, the differences between the Nazis and the Communists (he thought they were the same group), or hardly anything about the countries involved except for (some) of the parts that the US was directly involved in. We went to the same schools, attended the same college and studied the same subject (Computer Science/Multimedia Studies), and we have a similar amount of intelligence. The only difference between us is that I was a grade ahead of him (I skipped 2nd grade), and he apparently didn't go beyond what the schools taught him.
Put simply, the public school systems, both here and in the UK, suck. If my brother, an intelligent person who learned the material presented to him but simply didn't bother to go beyond it, had** such a shallow knowledge of history, can you imagine how poorly educated the people who merely put in just enough work to pass are? Those people are likely close to functionally illiterate. And they are the average product of our school system, not the dregs. They compromise the majority of the students produced by our school system, the standard by which schools should be judged by. And that standard is dismal.
*We are fraternal twins, not identical.
**After that discussion, he decided to rectify his ignorance, and is reading several history books that I recomended to him.
Which ignorance being the whole point of the State Indoctrinaion system...
You want to be frightened? Watch a couple Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader game shows. These people are supposedly contributing members of society.
Well, he's right and it's pretty sad. I see this every day. No doubt we have different reasons why this is so but here's a start. I just read this today.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/179533/83512
But what was our excuse? The weird thing about this Lebron story is that seven or eight years ago, he seemed like a nice kid. All he did was step into a media machinery deisgned to create, reward, nurture, and worship self-obsessed assholes. He was raw clay when he went in, and now he's everything we ever wanted him to be -- a lost, attention-craving narcissistic monster who simultaneously despises and needs the slithering insect-mortals who by the millions are bent over licking his toes.
I'm sure there's a larger point to make in all of this about how the insane pathology behind the Lebron spectacle (read: a co-dependent need to worship insatiable media-attention hogs gone far off the rails of self-awareness) is what ultimately is going to destroy this country and leave us goverened for all time by dingbat megalomaniacs like Sarah Palin.
That's why I have been saying lately that in all honest our country should have Sarah Palin as president and not Barack Obama. She is more reflective of who we are right now and one of the main reasons why Obama is having the problems he is having (aside from his own mistakes and faults) is that many of his ideas and actions aren't working that well in a self involved and narcissistic society.
Dalrymple's quote here does hold the answer to getting back on track.
And our educators, I think, have a lot to answer for because they have suggested that education should be of relevance to the children's lives as they are lived, and of course the whole point of education is to make the world beyond that relevant, and of course interesting and important to them, otherwise they are utterly enclosed in the indescribably miserable world in which they find themselves.
In order to make learning interesting and important to them, it must be shown, by educators, to be relevant to their lives. The parents must also play a large role in this. If the parents are COP (checked out parents, as I call them), it's an uphill battle. The reason why the show Are you Smarter than 5th Grader even exists is because most parents are part of the Michael Jordan generation which is aplty described by Taibi above. They are incredibly self involved and are so full of extrinsic motivation that it's terribly difficult to show the relevance of history.
And that's where the laziness of instructors comes in. They don't want to take the time to deal with the complexities of how to do this. That's why I admire Tomlinson and Gardner as much as I do because they took the time to make good models for the rest of us to use and expand upon.
In the final analysis, though, our culture has to change. We define success as material gains. If you have the Mercedes or the latest iPhone, you are "IT." Until that changes, many people will indeed be "enclosed in the indescribably miserable world in which they find themselves."
So, teacher boy, we see, yet again, your Standard Response #10, the "Brave Sir Robin" response. We're still waiting, over at
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/07/quote-of-day-dr-zero-edition.html
Are the monsters still after your ass? You grow any stones yet?
Nope. Not yet.
Yeah, I know I'm late to the party, but that post has done busticated my irony meter.
It's all there: insane pathology, co dependency, the need to worship narcisists, the absence of self awareness, and, of course, blameshifting, because clearly, our corrupt society isn't worthy of the purity and goodness that is Obama.
Good grief.
"...That's why I have been saying lately that in all honest our country should have Sarah Palin as president and not Barack Obama. She is more reflective of who we are right now and one of the main reasons why Obama is having the problems he is having (aside from his own mistakes and faults) is that many of his ideas and actions aren't working that well in a self involved and narcissistic society..."
See, Marxy is convinced that the US is filled with peeeeeple who are stonewalling The One, and they are all evil, corrupt, unedumacated, Bible-thumping conservatives.
Plays straight into his narrative.
Hey Marxy, ya ever think that it might actually be the other way around, that your boy, Barry, is really the media whore, and that he's the one driving the truck that is America, straight toward the closest horizon labeled "Demise," that he can see?
Yeah, I didn't think you'd see that either.
Shocker.
Stupid Fuckwit.
"The end of truth," as Hayek put it, when somehow Sarah Palin is a incompetent narcissist and Barack Obama is a hard-working and intelligent, but demonized popularily. Mark's working for a job as the czar for the Ministry of Truth, methinks.
Demonized popularly? That's unpossible! I thought it was just a few million flat earthers and Civil War reenactors standing in the way.
Well Mark thinks you should be able to con the world into supporting your deficit spending forever, and have no trouble. Given that, I can see his point. A big part of Obama's trouble is that we haven't yet turned 100% into a nation of suckers, begging to be conned.
Mark is absolutely correct, once a solid majority begs to be conned over and over and never wake up, just be fueled by denial... sure, under those conditions, "Hope and Change" would be a lot easier.
Mark,
Based on what little I can glean from their public lives, it seems to me that while President Obama may perhaps have the edge on raw intellectual fluency, Governor Palin is far more intellectually curious and more aware of the world around her. Moreover, she has demonstrated far more aptitude for governing, as can be seen by comparing her record for working with Democrats in Alaska versus the President's record of working with Republicans as president.
You are uncritically accepting a media stereotype.
Then why did she quit being the governor? I'm afraid I don't see any intellectual curiosity there at all. This is not based on her media stereotype but on her own words and actions. I would direct you to her Facebook page for evidence of this as well as her various speeches and writings. And aware of the world? Wow. I don't know what to say to that. Have you listened to what she has said or read what she has written? Based on her words, her knowledge of the world is more child like than W's view of the world.
I still say more power to her, though. Her clear goal in life was to be a successful and wealthy media personality. That is why she quite being governor. If you look at her biography, that is always where she has wanted to be and now she has achieved it. Essentially, she is the LeBron James of the GOP...a superstar, no doubt, and a perfect reflection of what our culture has become.
"Then why did she quit being the governor?"
Would it occur to you that the reason she quit is the reason she stated when she quit? Would it also occur to you that some people have a moral or ethical problem with holding a position or a job while simutaneously being unable or unwilling to perform the functions of that job?
Finally, would it occur to you that while you mock Palin for 'quitting her job', Mr. Obama spent the entire time in the position of his previous job doing nothing but angling for his next job. In some circles that is considered fraud. Perhaps in your case you consider it a feature, not a bug.
I just wanted to know why she quit. I'm not mocking that. So, you're saying that you take at her word as to why she quit. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem if she quit to become a media personality and make a lot of money. So what? She's living the American dream...doing what no one else can do because our country is pretty fucking awesome.
Of course, if she did quit because of the latter that should cause a logical and reasoned man or woman to question whether she has "far more aptitude for governing."
Correct?
... take at her word as to why she quit. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem if she quit to become a media personality and make a lot of money ...
... Of course, if she did quit because of the latter that should cause a logical and reasoned man or woman to question whether she has "far more aptitude for governing ...
So let me ask you, if you elected a person to perform a job and that person decided they wanted something bigger and better and needed to devote time and effort towards that goal, would you rather they:
a) quit the job you elected them for in order to devote that time and effort? or
b) continue to receive pay for the job you elected them for, while not performing it because they are devoting time and effort into the new project?
Now, I don't think either case can definitively point to who has "far more aptitude for governing". But one of those can for sure point to who has far more aptitude for fraud and deceit.
If you doubt that, try going to work and ignoring your job while working on a different one. Oh wait, you have a government job...guess that example doesn't work.
She scares the living hell out of you, doesn't she, liberal boy?
Actually, I think she is a more accurate reflection of where we are at right now as a country, not Barack Obama. In all honesty, we deserve her, not our current leader. I mean...people on the right support her simply because of the fact that she pisses liberals off. The more anger on the left they see, the more they love her. Pretty pathetic...I pity people like this.
What is scary, though, is how much fun I (with buttered popcorn) would have watching you and some others wonder how fucking dumb all of you could be to think that she had any sort of aptitude for anything other than being a media personality. Or the guts, for that matter. She says she quit being a governor because she couldn't carry out her job because of the media. I wonder how well she would handle an incident with Pakistan, for example. Or Iran. Her action of quitting does indeed show that she doesn't really have the stomach for pressure.
Of course, her resulting ineptitude would, in all liklihood, result in dead bodies so my enjoyment would be short lived.
In all honesty, we deserve her, not our current leader.
You're right. We don't deserve Maximum Leader Obama. I cannot imagine what we ever did that was bad enough to deserve Him.
These are the same people who gripe about "disproportionate response", right?
"What is scary, though, is how much fun I (with buttered popcorn) would have watching you and some others wonder how fucking dumb all of you could be to think that she had any sort of aptitude for anything other than being a media personality."
What scares you, in my unhumble opinion, are two things: 1) She has demonstrated considerable executive abilities, she has demonstrated considerable business acumen and experience, and she is fearless in scaling the hide off your favorite politician, President President; and, 2) the "others" you make noise about watching are ever-increasing millions of voters who understand item #1.
Now, contrast your two statements:
"I also have no problem if she quit to become a media personality and make a lot of money."
and
"Her action of quitting does indeed show that she doesn't really have the stomach for pressure."
You will not acknowledge reality, will you? It's just beyond you.
She resigned as governor to raise funds so she could defend herself in court. She scared the living hell out of millions of liberal fuckwits like you, some of whom did the only thing they could to cause her harm and attempt to silence her; they filed nuisance suits in court. Such suits cannot be ignored; if they are, the plaintiff wins by default. Such suits are not cheap; her legal bills ran into the millions. So, realizing that people by the gazillions would pay good money of their own free will to hear her speak, she stepped up to the podium and raked in the cash. I call resigning her elected job to do this as quite honorable.
She is what every politician dreams of being; someone who can draw in huge crowds of people who will pay their own money of their own free will to be there and hear her speak. She is doing so in a target-rich environment, wherein President Present is shooting himself in the foot at every turn, and wherein millions of people are waking up to what a dangerous empty suit he is.
Yup, she scares the living hell out of you, but you cannot admit it, any more than you can admit error. Yet again, you fool no one, teacher boy.
"In all honesty, we deserve her, not our current leader."
Yes, we do.
She has demonstrated considerable executive abilities
This statement unequivocally proves that you are not a critical thinker. DJ, she fucking quit her job as governor after two years in office. Normally I don't go for the personal attacks but how fucking stupid can you be? How do you think she would respond to the pressure of being president? Her actions tell me she would quit if it get even a little hot. And you wonder why I say you are in a Cult. Sheesh...
she has demonstrated considerable business acumen and experience
Acumen, yes. She knows her audience well and like any superstar knows how to play this hits and make money. For that, I say, more power to her. Experience? How exactly? What experience does she have in business other than being a media personality? She has done that very well, no doubt.
she is fearless in scaling the hide off your favorite politician, President President
Why don't you come out and just say that you think she is hot? Again, she plays the hits quite well...just like any rock star.
the "others" you make noise about watching are ever-increasing millions of voters who understand item #1.
So, you think that she has a chance of beating President Obama in 2012? Assuming she even runs? I think you are overestimating her supporters but I hope to God she is the nominee. I want her out front and center...talking loud and making her views known to the whole world. I want to hear how she would handle the various issues that come up as president. More importantly, I want the comic relief of you defending her sub moronic answers.
Defend herself in court? Huh? What on earth are you talking about?
DJ, no problem if you are just yanking my chain here. If you are trying to get a rise out of me, that's cool. And no problem if you are a fan of Sarah Palin. I'm a fan of a whole host of media personalities. But if you honestly think she would be a more skilled executive than Barack Obama, my respect for you is instantly in the toilet. For someone who champions logic and reason, clearly you have none of it and, as Mastiff said a while back, are thinking with your emotional mind and not your rational one. And, I suspect, your little head and not your big one.
Do you think dropping f-bombs from behind your keyboard makes you some kind of tough guy?
"Do you think dropping f-bombs from behind your keyboard makes you some kind of tough guy?"
No, it simply shows that his armor finally cracked.
But calling me a "fuckwit" is Ok. It's not ______when we do it!
It's just that it's so much less convincing when you do it.
"But calling me a "fuckwit" is Ok."
Sigh ...
Let's look the word up in the dictionary, shall we, teacher boy?
fuckwit
n.
Taboo slang a fool or idiot
Y'see (no, of course, you don't see) words have meaning, and this word describes you, in a derogatory way.
You won't even try, will you?
"This statement unequivocally proves that you are not a critical thinker. DJ, she fucking quit her job as governor after two years in office. Normally I don't go for the personal attacks but how fucking stupid can you be?"
Yet again, we see you fixating on one fact, to wit, that she resigned as gubnor after two years, as if nothing else matters. That's YOU in a nutshell, fuckwit, and the pun is intended.
And, yet again, we see your incessant hypocrisy. You either ignored or defended President Present's voting "present" 135 times as a state senator, which means he didn't have the courage to actually VOTE and thereby represent his constituents, which was his job, y'see. You either ignored or defended his bugging out of the US Senate after much less than two years to take a better paying job with more perks. Don't ignore the observable fact that he appears to really, really enjoy those perks.
"How do you think she would respond to the pressure of being president?"
A shitload better than President Present, who claims he "won't rest" until the gulf well is capped and the mess cleaned up, only to repeatedly go on vacation. She has a history of getting things done, and she is fearless in doing so. As an executive, she is formidable and capable.
"Acumen, yes. She knows her audience well and like any superstar knows how to play this hits and make money. For that, I say, more power to her. Experience? How exactly? What experience does she have in business other than being a media personality?"
Her family owned and ran numerous businesses BEFORE she got into politics. Don't you read the papers, teacher boy?
By THIS STATEMENT ALONE, you demonstrate that you really don't know jack shit about her history, her past experience, or her achievements. The most believable statements you make are those made when you don't have the tiniest clue what you are revealing. THIS IS ONE, and it is AWESOME.
You have just revealed that you are simply spouting the venom you have read elsewhere, and again, you have the hypocrisy to accuse others of non-critical thinking.
Me: "... she is fearless in scaling the hide off your favorite politician, President President."
You: "Why don't you come out and just say that you think she is hot?"
Can't you stop being a jackass even for five minutes?
"So, you think that she has a chance of beating President Obama in 2012?"
Again, you jump to conclusions. You just won't learn, will you?
So far, she isn't running. That election is 52 months away. I haven't a clue what her chances would be if she runs.
"Defend herself in court? Huh? What on earth are you talking about?"
Yet again, you reveal that you don't even read the papers, that YOU DONT KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT HER HISTORY, HER PAST EXPERIENCE, OR HER HISTORY.
So, do a little research, teacher boy. Let's see if you understand what this internet thingamabob is for. I'll make it easy by giving you a simple starting point. Google "Palin lawsuits". Read. DIG. LEARN.
Goddamn, you pathetic idiot. You were so busy drooling with venomous rage at my post that this didn't even occur to you, did it?
"But if you honestly think she would be a more skilled executive than Barack Obama, my respect for you is instantly in the toilet."
She has demonstrated that she is a skilled executive by running more than one business and by being a successful, well-respected governor. Likely you are unaware that being a governor is a chief executive position, second in scale only to President of the USA. We have demonstrated to you, time and again, that President Present entered the White House with ZERO executive experience of any kind. He has never run a business, never met a payroll, and, prior to being sworn in as president, never been an executive. She has. Moreover, the past two years, particularly the past two months, he has shown unequivocally that he is in WAY over his head.
Oh, and I have never cared one whit whether you respected me or not. You don't even respect yourself.
Google "Palin lawsuits". Read. DIG. LEARN.
Well, I read her Facebook page on a fairly regular basis and this is what was written on 6-24-2010.
To date, these civil suits have been rejected by the courts as baseless.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/the-uncommon-law-reality-and-common-sense/401691963434
So, if they have been rejected and thrown out as frivolous, what are you talking about, DJ? It seems to me that they aren't really all that important after all. Or are they? ;)
Actually, you should read the whole post as most of it makes about as much sense as Dick Nixon at the end on pills. After stating that the suits have been thrown out, there is a statement saying that not all of them have been but then one of them has been. So which is it?
he has shown unequivocally that he is in WAY over his head.
Really? Was he in over his head when with these accomplishments?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/
I expect to see detailed analysis from you regarding this data. If you choose not to do so, no worries. Anyone is entitled to their own opinion. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. And this list of 119 accomplishments is fairly detailed and impressive. Of course, he's not perfect and he has made plenty of mistakes but this comment of yours...
A shitload better than President Present, who claims he "won't rest" until the gulf well is capped and the mess cleaned up, only to repeatedly go on vacation.
is seriously hilarious, dude. I was under the impression that the private sector could police itself and the federal government should engage in benign neglect. Isn't that exactly what is happening? So what are you complaining about?
And since you are OCDing like a good little Cult member spouting the "Executive Experience" meme (see: CEOs=Jesus), doesn't 18 months as POTUS mean more executive experience than being a governor of a state of less than a million for only a half term? That would be the logical and reasoned line of thought...
"And since you are OCDing like a good little Cult member spouting the "Executive Experience" meme (see: CEOs=Jesus), doesn't 18 months as POTUS mean more executive experience than being a governor of a state of less than a million for only a half term? That would be the logical and reasoned line of thought..."
Oh gosh, I almost couldn't stop laughing at just how amazingly dense you are, but this was a real knee slapper.
Let's just take the low hanging fruit, fer grins.
Marxy, you special needs troll, has it penetrated your amazingly thick skull that DJ IS NOT A CHRISTIAN? Snide remarks about Jesus equaling a CEO will only serve to make you look a like a bigger tool since you cannot, or will not, understand your audience. Brilliant! Sock puppets are smarter than that!
"...18 months as POTUS mean more executive experience than being a governor of a state of less than a million for only a half term"
Palin was Governor from December 4, 2006 to July 26, 2009. I love you tried to obscure that by saying it was only half a term. She served as Governor for just over 30 months, which is just a tick more than 2 1/2 years. Pop quiz time, which is greater, 18 months or 30 months? You may use a calculator. Also, a State Governor serves for 4 years. Which is greater, 24 months (2 years, half a term) or 30 months? Again, a calculator is permitted.
But wait! There’s more! Palin was mayor of Wasilla for two terms, or 8 years as a very active mayor. 8 year is 96 months, so add 30 months and we get 126 months of active civic duty. Now which is greater, 126 months or 18 months?
(cont.)
And even more important than time on the job is what someone does while on the job. Since you wouldn’t know logic and reason if they sat on your head and sang opera, it’s futile to point out that dear Leader couldn’t lead his way out of an oil soaked paper sack. On the other hand, Palin managed to stick to a lot of her campaign promises, and then build a small media empire after her resignation.
One last thing, Palin wasn’t running for President. I know, I know, it gets confusing with all those words about her, and the chanting from the MSM and Daily Kos marching orders, but she was on the ticket as Vice President. McCain was running as President. Who knew, right?!
Carry on, Marxy, you do such a wonderful job be-clowning yourself that it would be a shame for you to get a clue and move on.
So, Russell, am I to understand that you equate being the mayor of Wasilla and the being a slightly more than half term governor of Alaska as the same "Executive Experience" as being POTUS?
"So, Russell, am I to understand that you equate being the mayor of Wasilla and the being a slightly more than half term governor of Alaska as the same "Executive Experience" as being POTUS?"
So, teacher boy, am I to understand that you equate being the mayor of Wasilla and the being a slightly more than half term governor of Alaska as the same "Executive Experience" as being POTUS?
If so, then kindly tell us how the hell you claim to know, given that you exhibit damned nearly zero understanding of what executive experience is, and that simple arithmetic is more than you care to handle.
“So, Russell, am I to understand that you equate being the mayor of Wasilla and the being a slightly more than half term governor of Alaska as the same "Executive Experience" as being POTUS?”
Er, no, I don’t expect you to understand anything at this point.
Since your reading comprehension is around nil, let’s revisit your claim: “doesn't 18 months as POTUS mean more executive experience than being a governor of a state of less than a million for only a half term? “
Ok, notice how the core of your own argument centers around time in office? See how that’s the condition you made? Time in office is greater for President Obama is greater than the time in office for former Governor Palin. Now read my response. See how I dismantled the condition, showing that Palin has had more time in active civic duty than Obama?
So I ask again, and this isn’t about the position because you missed that point the first time, which is greater: 18 months or 126 months? Again, you may use a calculator.
Part I
"Well, I read her Facebook page on a fairly regular basis and this is what was written on 6-24-2010."
Golly. You read her Facebook page. I am so totally all like, impressed, and stuff.
Lessee now ... a Facebook page is written (generally) by the owner thereof, right? So, at best it is an autobiography, sort of, if the owner cares to put that much information on it, right? But the fact that she had been slammed with a bucketload of frivolous lawsuits was COMPLETELY UNKNOWN TO YOU, and so reading her Facebook page wasn't very informative, was it?
This is an admission by you of your own failure, teacher boy. Do you not recognize it as such? Are you really that dense?
What you did was tell us WHY she did what she did when you didn't have the tiniest clue WHAT she did.
What you have been doing, regarding her, is what the leadership of the Dimocrat Party, the Dimocrats in Congress, the Dimocrat bootlickers of the MSM, and much of the left wing moonbattery of the country have been doing. You blast one ad hominem attack after another in her general direction, and you blast one ad hominem after another towards anyone who makes any noise about her that you don't like.
And you're getting more and more shrill in the process, and you accuse me of being emotional ...
Now, what should you have done? What Grumpy Old Fart did, the results of which you'll find in his comment today. He begins with "Here's my take on it" and proceeds to ANALYZE the predicament she was in, DESCRIBE her possible responses thereto, and REASON why the response that she chose was a good one. This is a marvelous, wonderful lesson in how to do it right.
And, well done, Grumpy. Well done indeed.
You, on the other hand, are simply incapable or unwilling to do this kind of thinking. I keep telling you and telling you that you are dealing with grownups here, and you are not up to it. You won't even try.
"I expect to see detailed analysis from you regarding this data."
Yet again we see your unmitigated hypocrisy. Who they bloody hell are YOU, given your never-ending record of precisely the opposite behavior here in Kevin's parlor, to make such a statement? Do you see why you merit the term "fuckwit"?
"I was under the impression that the private sector could police itself and the federal government should engage in benign neglect. Isn't that exactly what is happening? So what are you complaining about?"
And yet again, we see your unmitigated hypocrisy. On the one hand, you piss and moan to the effect that you think Palin couldn't properly handle the feddle gubmint's response to the oil spill (i.e. one rule for her), but on the other hand, you piss and moan to the effect that you think President Present has done just fine because it's not his job do anything (i.e. another rule for him). Yet again, we see your underlying scale of justice: your guy can do no wrong, the other guy can do no right, because you hold each to different standards. Again, do you see why you merit the term "fuckwit"?
Part 2
"... the "Executive Experience" meme (see: CEOs=Jesus), doesn't 18 months as POTUS mean more executive experience than being a governor of a state of less than a million for only a half term? That would be the logical and reasoned line of thought..."
You have demonstrated for a long time, continuing with this statement, that you don't have a clue what "executive authority" is. The key components of executive authority are: 1) authority to make a decision and cause it to be emplemented by the means appropriate to the organization in question; and, 2) responsibility to the voters, owners, or shareholders for so doing.
You should now understand that Jesus was not a Chief Executive Officer. In terms of gubmint, Jesus was a gadfly.
Now, read Russell's comment of today.
Note the executive experience of Palin: 1) eight years as mayor of Wasilla (which is the highest executive position in city gubmint); and, 2) 30 months as Governor of the State of Alaska (which is the highest executive position in state gubmint). We'll ignore for now her executive experience within her family's business activities.
Note the executive experience of President Present, prior to being elected President: ZERO. NADA. ZILCH. Since then, he's had 18 months.
No, his 18 months is NOT more executive experience than her 126+ months. His position involves greater responsibility than hers, but that does not mean he now has more experience than she does nor that he has become more skilled at it than she is. What it means is that, yet again, we see your unmitigated hypocrisy, in that you continue to blither along the meme of one rule for him, another rule for her, one standard for him, another for her.
Now, let's look at this again.
Me: "A shitload better than President Present, who claims he "won't rest" until the gulf well is capped and the mess cleaned up, only to repeatedly go on vacation."
You: "is seriously hilarious, dude."
President Present did state: "We will not rest until this well is shut, the environment is repaired and the cleanup is complete." I'll leave it to you to (sigh ...) use the internet to find the sources which confirm it. You obviously need to learn both how and why to do this.
The hypocrisy of President Present is that, apparently, resting involves three vacations (so far) and lots of golf.
Now, we know what his response, and that of his administration, has been. YOU should hold him accountable for the failures thereof, just as you held President Bush accountable for Every Goddamned Thing That Went Wrong during his administration. The principles behind his responses are three: 1) there shall be no mitigation of bureaucratic interference by gubmint vs. those who would try to suck up the oil before it gets to the beaches; 2) there shall be no help allowed in sucking up the oil (until quite recently, anyhow) by any foreign countries, no matter how good they are at it and no matter that it is offered at no cost; and, 3) no ship may return any water to the gulf that is sucked up with any oil unless, per EPA rules, it is 99.9985% free of oil, by golly, because letting the oil hit the beaches is preferable to returning water to the gulf that is only 99.0000% free of oil. His job as a chief executive is to clear the bureacratic interference out of the way of mitigating a disaster that is huge, ongoing, and relentless; he has failed miserably at this, as if he hasn't a clue what to do or how to do it.
Now, what would Palin's response have been, had she been in the hot seat? Remember a few things about her: 1) her family's business is commercial fishing (in the ocean, teacher boy); 2) as gubnor of Alaska, she WAS in the hot seat for her state's being prepared to respond to oil spills; and, 3) you can bet your last dollar that she remembers the Exxon Valdez; 4) she has a record of standing against corruption and incompetence; and, 5) she has a reputation for getting things done.
So, yes, I think her response, and thereby that of the feddle gubmint, would have been much better than that of a Chicago-machine campaigner.
I'm gonna educate you a bit more, teacher boy. I think you'll find this quite interesting, particularly given the collapse of the I-35 bridge in your state.
In May of 2002, two barges struck a bridge of I-40 over the Arkansas River near Sallisaw, OK, collapsing a 500 foot long section into the river. This was a MAJOR interruption of commerce and traffic in the area, both on the river and on the highway.
Here is a press release by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation:
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i40bridge/press/june_04_press_release.htm
"We're going to pursue all avenues for funding of this work as quickly as we can, Ridley said. We'll be working flat out to get this situation remedied. We hope for prompt action on the federal level to help move ahead as quickly as we can."
"ODOT estimates the demolition of the destroyed section and rebuilding of a new structure will take less than six months and cost around $15 million, including maintenance and repairs on the detour routes."
This is a magazine article:
http://fleetowner.com/news/fleet_oklahoma_bridge_collapse/
"A highway engineer at the site said it would likely take six months to repair the span."
Again, I'm going to leave it to you to browse the internet and learn about this. You'll find statement after statement by ODOT and others that this was going to take a long, long time to fix. I know the results because my father-in-law used to work for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, and so he knows the people who got the job done.
Now, what was done? The gubnor exercised his executive authority and kept the bureaucracies from gumming up the works. ODOT assigned the job to contractors who, by experience, they KNEW could get the job done. The job was completed in 28 days, and under budget.
This is the opposite of what President Present is about, ain't it?
But if you honestly think she would be a more skilled executive than Barack Obama, my respect for you is instantly in the toilet.
I honestly think I could pick a name at random out of a phone book and have a better than even chance of it.
To your point:
In order to make learning interesting and important to them, it must be shown, by educators, to be relevant to their lives.
Why? I dispute the premise of this statement. Should not the purpose of education be to convince students to look beyond the immediate benefit to them? To be willing to enrich their minds without immediate hope for gain, so that they will become better people? And in so doing, to change the very meaning of what is relevant to their lives—not because they are comparing bits of knowledge like fruit in a supermarket, but because the way they see the world has been ennobled?
Bravo, Mastiff! Spot on!
Why? Because it's about making connections. I think we are saying the same thing here. Many young people don't see the relevance of WWII, for example, to their lives. "So what? It happened a long time ago" is what I get all the time. It's up to instructors to search for those connections. Perhaps they don't like paying so much for gasoline. Show them how the price of gas relates to some events that occurred during WWII. Or perhaps they might make the connection using the instructional strategy of living history by Tomlinson. Seeing a dramatic re-enactment of Yalta, for example, is of great interest to interpersonal learners as well as visual learners.
So the convincing that you talk about comes in these forms as well as many others far too lengthy to mention here. Enriching their minds without the immediate hope for gain is essentially intrinsic motivation and that's my whole point. This is an enormous struggle in our "Material Gains means Success" culture.
What is your problem with material gains? Is it that you suspect that someone being more materially successful than you reflects poorly on you?
Wow. I think you need to re-read your questions and perhaps rephrase for the obvious and glaring flaw.
I'll take that as a "yes" to the second question.
Well, I gave you a shot Ken but I guess you didn't see what I meant. Since I don't really care about material gains, why would it bother me that someone else is more materially succesful than me? Why would I even be comparing at all? It might be nice to have some more CDs or a bigger house but the truth is I'm pretty happy with what I have. I count myself pretty blessed to have the friends and family that I have. Last in Line, for example, will always be my brother. My happiness revolves around time spent with people not whether or not I have a Mercedes or the latest iPod.
I was lamenting the fact that our culture is extrinsically motivated and that's one of the primary reasons why students are as Dalrymple described. One of my chief goals has always been to demonstrate to young people that learning or doing something simply for the sake of doing it is enjoyable.
Do you honsetly think people that are prosperous and have a good standard of living in this country all got it through hard work?
No, but many have gotten through inheritance or questionable means.
Actually, the question you ought to be asking yourself is not whether or not I'm a Marxist but how can a "Christian" nation have as its central definition of success material gains?
Yes, exactly. I can see that you don't personally care at all about material gains, or how much other people have, or how they got it. I don't care to wrestle with Echo to hunt down some of your "relative immiserization" howlers from last fall's tax threads, so deny you ever said so if you care to do.
The point is that the scoreboard doesn't favor you, so you lament the scoreboard. It doesn't favor me, either, but one of the differences between us is that I recognize that (A) it's not really my scoreboard unless I let it be, and (B) how someone else chooses to keep score is none of my damned business anyway, unless someone offers me force or fraud in the effort to tally a score.
You use the term "culture" here the way you and other Progressives use "society": as a reified entity that has enforceable claims against the individual, those claims to be enforced at the direction of those who claim to speak for it.
It is a philosophy evil beyond redemption. It can be only rejected, or ridden to Hell.
Ken, I'm more of a functionalist than I supporter of conflict theory. In fact, conflict theory falls third in my book behind functionalism and interactionist theories. My main issue with Marx is that it doesn't matter who owns wealth...it's in human nature to create classes in a society. A class less society is about as much of a fantasy as benign neglect. My main issue with Bell, his conflict theories, is that the value of a community should not be measure on whether or not it is urban or rural. In short, conflict theories are not an accurate measure of human organization.
My concern with our drive for material gains honestly conincides with many of the complaints on here about where our culture is headed in terms of intrinsic motivation vs. extrinsic motivation. This would be why Dalrymple's comments are quite accurate. Far too many young people do not care about anything other than their immediate and present (and very) material world.
Mark, the thing about Every Single Theory you just invoked is that they all imply, to a greater or lesser degree, reification of collectives. Urban? Rural? Classes/classless society? Value of a community? They all refer to collectives, and are silent with respect to individuals.
When an individual joins a community, is it the same community as it was before she joined? If an individual leaves a community, is it the same community as it was before he left?
If not, what does that imply about the nature and existence of community (and therefore collective)?
If so, what does that imply about individual human worth?
Unless communities have a separate existence, and have claims superior to those of the individual, Every Single Theory you invoked is disqualified at the starting line, as they all appeal to something that does not and cannot exist.
Here's my philosophy: Adult human beings are morally entitled (in other words, they enjoy the natural right, granted by G-d, but inherent in their nature as human beings) to the fruits of their labor and to the exercise of their own wills, so long as they do not use aggressive force or fraud against other human beings (and, of course, they are also welcome to the consequences attendant the exercise of their wills).
Put another way: People either own themselves, or someone else owns them.
Which is it? This may be the single tenet of Objectivism with which I agree without reservation: Has to be one or the other.
Sorry, that should read "granted by G-d, but inherent in their nature as human beings for those who don't believe in or care to appeal to a higher power."
First of all, I made an error above. I was referring to Wirth's theories on urban-rural conflict, not Bell's.
Second, whether you want to admit it or not, we live in a society which is a collective of people. I know that most folks here fantasize about being the rugged invidualist...the hero in their very own Ayn Rand novel...but it's pure fantasy. The actions that you take...the actions that others take...have an effect on your life. But that doesn't mean that the individual is powerless. Now to your questions...
When an individual joins a community, is it the same community as it was before she joined? If an individual leaves a community, is it the same community as it was before he left?
No and yes...actually. Because as any group grows in size, it's human nature to create bureacracy, institutions, and classes. As different individuals move or leave a community, change is constant. Sometimes these changes are positive...sometimes negative...how people behave is, in my opinion, a combination of the functionality of those community created institutions (government, social norms, ideas, values etc) and how rules spring out of their interactions. Some individuals may conform to these norms...others may not. The ones that don't may be considered devaint for awhile but that could easily change.
In my suburban community, in the space of one block, you can buy a gun, get a tattoo, see a play or look at art at our Performing Arts Center, and hang out a a coffee shop and listen to beatnik poetry. It's very eclectic and it's wonderful. The individual human worth of all of these people is expressed in one block....free to do as they wish...yet all are part of a community that helps each other out and, at times, aggravates each other. I have always believed that individuals can change communities...the world. Yet, at the same time, communities need to rely on each other in order to survive. The most effective ones are the ones that strike a balance between the two which is why I live where I do.
So that's why I don't accept your "either-or" supposition here. This would the main reason why I am not (and never will be) a "conservative." It's too black and white for me and ignores the fundamental grays of human existence. I own myself and yet I am owned by the functionality and interactions of my society.
Indeed, many here (you?) cannot even recognize the collective that has been created at TSM. I dug out this quote from one of my old texts and it fits perfectly for many commenters here.
From his anlyses of ineraction in different groups, Georg Simmel concluded that groups often find it convenient to think of nonmembers or outsiders as somehow inferior to members of the group. But why does this familiar in-group/out-group bias develop? Simmel explained it as arising out of the intensity of interactions within the group, which leads its members to feel that other groups are less important. Once they have identified another group as inferior, it is not a great leap to think of its members as enemies, especially because doing so increases their sense of solidarity.
Ironic that a neo-Marxist and early informer of the Franfurt School would so pefectly describe the community here.
If I were to walk away from the TSM commentariat (or, for that matter, even if you were to do so) and never return, it is not the same community. It may not be much different, but it is not the same.
The Right Honorable Gentleman's* "'rugged individualist'/Ayn Rand fantasy" line is, alas, another of the gentleman's Patented Flaming Straw Men (does the Right Honorable Member from Minnesota need a permit from the local fire department for those, or what?). There is none here who does not choose to voluntarily associate for their own benefit -- if they're really clear-sighted, for mutual benefit, because that's how long-term associations are made and sustained. Their presence here is proof enough. Autarky is only possible if one is willing to give up a lot. (I choose to ignore the Right Honorable Gentleman's reference to Simmel, apart from noting in passing that it is, of course, yet another straw man. How much overtime does the gentleman pay Ray Bolger?)
The other way to form long-term associations is to use force. If someone else can take an individual's life or property when one has committed no crime (obtained any good or service by aggressive force or fraud), one does not own one's self, at least not an uncontested claim. So I ask again: Does the individual enjoy natural rights that cannot be taken absent some crime against natural law he himself commits, or is he the tool of another will? It must be one or the other.
*I have been reading Massie's Dreadnought lately, and have chosen to try a new debating tack.
Adding: The gentleman's use of "collective" to refer to the TSM commentariat is telling in that it is illustrative of a fundamental, and I fear unbridgeable, gap in first principles. The TSM commentariat is a voluntary association: of course it is. However, if (as I proposed above) I left tomorrow, intending never again to darken the estimable Mr. Baker's free ice cream stand, I should have no cause to fear that armed thugs in cheap suits would come to my door and force me to continue commenting against my will. Even if Mr. Baker had the means, I should have no cause to fear, because this is a voluntary association.
If, however, association on other than voluntary grounds is legitimate, there is nothing left over which to argue but how much of one's life and labor one is willing to have stolen for another's purpose.
Let's try another way of looking at what I mean by materials gains. I think that many (if not all) of us here have great respect for older Americans. For me, they represent primary sources of history that should be revered. Sadly, this is not the case for much of our society. Our culture has created the social institution that old people are basically dead and should be treated like shit. Youth, in the form of a perfect material body, is worshiped by much of our country. Spend some time examining a few gerontological studies in the US and you will see that this is true.
We created this material view out a collective function of our society. It has become both a value and a norm for our culture. And it is based on material gains (six pack abs and tight butt) as meaning success. Essentially, old balls are not hot. As Dalrymple intimates, the youth of our country have no interest in things that are "old" and see no value in them. Until we change this defintion of success, his points will remain sadly true.
Though it is scarce worth the effort to do so, I rise to note that the gentleman from Minnesota has moved the goal posts to a field in an entirely different riding, and perhaps changed sports as well. I suppose that we may interpret that as the gentleman's admission of his inability to defend his (after all) indifensible first principles.
As for the gentleman's point: This is supposed to be some stunning insight? I said the same years ago, when a 28-year-old had to run out and buy a Mitsubishi after being called "sir" at a stoplight by a couple of dewy coeds.
And once again, we see the gentleman's supposition that all action and interaction is taken by and on behalf of groups, not individuals. "Older Americans." "Our society." "Our culture." "much of our country." "The youth of this country." I have had no hand in any of it, and I refuse to be held to account for it. Collective responsibility is fiction, promulgated by those who seek power over other men's lives.
The point of reducing everything to collectives and reifying them is to be able to say, "It's your fault, too, so you have to help fix it. Here's the bill.
"What? You want a say in how it gets fixed? Go peddle your papers, junior, we have Men With Plans for that. Top men.
"Top. Men."
Until we change this defintion of success, his points will remain sadly true.
Who gets to decide to what this definition is changed, pray tell, and will everyone be compelled to participate...by being made to pay for it, by being made to render one's children over to those who think that This Time, By Cracky, Yes, We Can Work the Revolution in Human Nature?
Addendum: My anecdote refers to a Mitsubishi commercial from a decade or so back; I fear I was not clear in the original.
Ken, I haven't moved the goal posts at all. Try to think outside of the box a little on this material gains=success thing. Seriously attempt to view someone who is critical of measuring success through image and objects as NOT being a Marxist. If collective responsibility is fiction, what are your thoughts on the armed forces?
Regarding human nature, there are plenty of other cultures that do not view material gains as being success. In so many ways we are at loggerheads with ourselves because of our other core values that have nothing to do with extrinsic motivation. We are a very giving people and a very selfish people at the same time.
Ken, I haven't moved the goal posts at all.
The Right Honorable Gentleman is deluded or, lamentably but unsurprisingly, lying. From:
Actually, the question you ought to be asking yourself is not whether or not I'm a Marxist but how can a "Christian" nation have as its central definition of success material gains*
to:
Let's try another way of looking at what I mean by materials gains. I think that many (if not all) of us here have great respect for older Americans. For me, they represent primary sources of history that should be revered. Sadly, this is not the case for much of our society. Our culture has created the social institution that old people are basically dead and should be treated like shit. Youth, in the form of a perfect material body, is worshiped by much of our country. Spend some time examining a few gerontological studies in the US and you will see that this is true.
We created this material view out a collective function of our society. It has become both a value and a norm for our culture. And it is based on material gains (six pack abs and tight butt) as meaning success. Essentially, old balls are not hot.
No, the goalposts have not not moved At. All. I'm pretty sure Christ was silent on the issue of six-pack abs or, ahem, "old balls," or does the gentleman claim that was what he had on his mind the whole time?
By the way, how's that country-by-country analysis of the statistical handling of premature births coming?
Here's something completely unrelated, but I thought it should be put here somewhere, and this is a busy spot where it will be noticed.
http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/stopthepresses/219122/its-a-snoop-doggs-life/
I am not even remotely a Snoop Dogg fan. But when I read this part of me says, "Okay, props to the Dogg. Evil, dirty capitalism at its most shining. Rent Liechtenstein? In its own twisted way, that's classy. Well played, Mr. Broadus. Well played.
Apropos nothing: Chinese Farmer defends his land with Homemade Cannon -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQGdW3CjSt0&feature=player_embedded
I just wanted to know why she quit.
Here's my take on it:
I don't read Facebook pages, I don't do Twitter or Facebook or MySpace or any of that. And to be honest, I don't care what she has to say about it, if you assume she's a human being you can assume that her opinion is biased in her own favor. However:
1) Alaska state law says a sitting Governor cannot start a legal defense fund.
2) You noted "the courts found them to be frivolous", yet at the same time wondered what DJ was talking about when he said that if she didn't defend herself against them they would default to a judgement against her. Well, that's what. Frivilous or not, she had to argue them in court to get them dismissed as frivolous. Otherwise the default judgement is against her. You understand the legal term "default judgment", right? It's what the DoJ had against the NBPP before they dropped the charges.
3) Those bills add up over time. She can't pay them with state funds, she can't legally do fundraising to pay them.
Therefore
4) What it boiled down to was George Soros et. al. playing it that she has a choice. She can
4a) Remain as Governor for however long it takes those bringing the frivolous lawsuits to pauperize her, her family, and anyone she can possibly get a loan from legally. There was no indication that they would let up, ever, nor any reason why they should. They weren't actual ethics complaints after all, they were just ways to tie her up with legal battles, that was their whole purpose. After that, she could either spend all of her time in courtrooms personally answering frivolous charges and not do her job as Governor, or she can default and be hounded out of office on ethics charges she would be convicted of in default judgment, despite their lack of basis.
or
4b) She can go ahead and quit, and allow her Lieutenant Governor to take it, in hopes that he will be allowed to actually do the job she has now been specifically prevented from doing by Democrat Party fundraisers.
So... which choice do you think she should have made, and why?
Why don't you come out and just say that you think she is hot?
Meh, she's medium pretty. Presentation and attitude makes her appear prettier than she actually is, just as it did for Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Obama. Hollywood is crammed full of women a whole lot hotter, and the vast majority of em I wouldn't listen to their political opinions on a bet. So what's yer point?
There you go using facts and stuff again.
I've been too busy to beat Mark with the ClueBat™ lately, so I just have to satisfy myself with snark:
The Liberal Argument Playbook
The Liberal Argument Playbook, Ed? Nice Rove.
Such a target rich environment in a single comment… you might almost say it's a cluster ****.
A) It's snark!
B) Nice Alinsky! (Specifically, Rule 5.)
C) Irony defined: Marxaphasia trying to ridicule a snarky definition of his tactics where tactic 1 is exactly what he's in the process of doing.
Oh Wow! I was in such a hurry to get back to work that I almost missed the secondary explosion of Irony:
The Liberal Argument Playbook:
1. Ignore Facts that hurt your position.
Marky's use of "The Rove" is one of his favorite techniques for deflecting attention away from the fact that he's ignoring what he doesn't like.
2. Say "It's Bush's Fault"
Karl Rove: Bush Administration.
3. Call them a Racist then run away!
Oops. Missed calling me "racist" in that comment, Mark! And you were so close to pulling off the perfect liberal argument in only 2 words! If only you had used "Köö1t" instead of "Rove"!
Are you planning to rectify that before you run away?
The reason why I say it's a nice Rove can best be explained by this exercise. Check out this link, Ed
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960703-9/fulltext
As much of the world makes strides in reducing child mortality, the U.S. is increasingly lagging and ranks 42nd globally, behind much of Europe as well as the United Arab Emirates, Cuba and Chile. Twenty years ago, the U.S. ranked 29th in the child mortality rate, according to data analyzed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
In a paragraph or two, Ed, let's hear your reaction.
If the gentleman is raising this issue in good faith, and not merely attempting to send the membership on yet another snipe hunt while he retreats behind an ink cloud, the gentleman will of course be able to describe in detail how each and every country covered in the aforementioned Lancet study accounts for premature births for statistical purposes.
We await the gentleman's report with great anticipation.
No. Because…
1) I don't have time. I already stated this, yet you're trying to suck me in anyway? You're a jerk!
(BTW, when I do have time, my first response will be to your extremist thinking that the only two market options are absolutely no regulations whatsoever, or total control.)
2) It's just snark! It's not an actual (or accurate) argument.
3) It's off topic. (See Red Herring ;)
4) You've ignored literally dozens of far simpler questions over the past 2 weeks, yet you try to demand that I answer yours?!? It seems you think it's not a double-standard when you do it. (Gosh, those words sound familiar. Where have I heard them before?)
5) In the irony department, your chosen red herring actually demonstrates the truth of Step 1 of the snark: Ignoring facts that hurt your position. In this case, you have previously been shown the fact that different countries have different reporting standards, and your choice to bring it up again shows that you're still ignoring that fact!
I've had to replace my irony meter several times over the years because of Marxy.
I know what you mean. Just when I think I've gotten an irony meter that Mark can't break, he goes and breaks it again!
What's that saying about idiot-proof and better idiots?
Off topic: I noticed that once again, Echo positively insists on replacing a closing parenthesis with a smiley, even though I added a space after my text, and I never used a semi-colon. Great software, this… *DONT_KNOW*
I appreciate Marxy's willingness to double down on stupid every single time. I mean, that takes some dedication and a lack of self awareness and reflection!
Echo is one of the worst commenting systems I have seen. It feels like a beta system in so many ways. Like these boxes support HTML, but darned if I have a tool bar to change anything like fonts or sizes. And the nesting just gets confusing!
Of course, I do like the "like" feature. Though a "dislike" would also be nice.
Fair enough, Ed. Snark against liberals is always welcome. They invariably deserve it.
This statement unequivocally proves that you are not a critical thinker.
I don't know about you DJ, but I would consider that high praise if I were you. Remember, the definition of "critical thinking" Mark provided demanded that the thinker include such things as "fairness" in his thinking, in other words several concepts with no objective meaning at all.
Now if only Mark could think analytically, he might learn something. Ah, well...
"I don't know about you DJ, but I would consider that high praise if I were you."
I do, and you are correct, Grumpy. Thankee kindly.
Since the Facebook thing has gone on all the way down here, I thought I'd thrown in something about it to respond to the above comments.
As I have said repeatedly in this thread, Sarah Palin knows here audience very well and her business acumen is stellar. She has become an "electrifying superstar" in the words of Chris Matthews (funny no complaint now about tingles up the leg) and, even though she rips the MSM, she needs them desperately and knows it. It's all an act used to whip up her base. I liken it to the WWE. When she wants to get messages out to go around the filters, she uses her Facebook page. She knows that her supporters use the Internet to communicate information so she uses FB as her main point of release.
So when DJ says something like this...
Golly. You read her Facebook page. I am so totally all like, impressed, and stuff.
It shows a somewhat out of touch with reality frame of mind. DJ, her FB page is Palin central. Google her name and see what comes up second on the list. It's her official page, dude.
"It shows a somewhat out of touch with reality frame of mind. DJ, her FB page is Palin central. Google her name and see what comes up second on the list. It's her official page, dude."
So, her Facebook page is all we need to see, is it, teacher boy? Even though you've been shown just a tiny bit of what you've missed by practicing intentional ignorance?
To borrow from Andy Warhol, you are a deeply superficial person.
It's all an act used to whip up her base.
You mean it's the exact same thing Obama did to get elected?
Once again, Markadelphia illustrates that he "ain't here for the hunting."
It is all you need to see if you are looking at getting unfiltered information direct from her. I don't judge her based on the fawning over her on FOX News or the ire that she generates from HuffPo. I judge her based on her words, ideas, and actions. Her FB page is the untainted outlet for those three things.
So, read her posts and let's here your definition of critical thought in response to them.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
You are truly priceless! Carry on!
So that means you have read her book?
................... No?
"I judge her based on her words, ideas, and actions."
HORSESHIT.
You have demonstrated unequivocally that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.
"Her FB page is the untainted outlet for those three things."
HORSESHIT.
You have demonstrated unequivocally that HER FACEBOOK PAGE BARELY SCRATCHES THE SURFACE OF HER HISTORY.
Moreover, you have just admitted that you believe she doesn't lie, that she tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We'll remember that.
Teacher boy, you are defending your own willful ignorance as if it were a virtue. You do so because it is embarrassing to you, and because you cannot admit it is an error.
To borrow from Mark Twain, those who won't learn have no advantage over those who can't. With you, one cannot tell the difference.
DJ, your bias regarding me has really sent you into a bizarre place. Way to skirt my challenge to you, though.
How about we try this? Take a look at this video (from Fox News) and tell me, using your critical thinking skills, how you would assess her answers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dlZwM-eZkA&feature=player_embedded
To me, it's just another example of how the Cult's philosophy has no practical application in reality. And that she is in no way qualified to be president.
"DJ, your bias"
You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means.
"Way to skirt my challenge to you, though. "
And there's the double down on stupid! *Golf claps*
Well played to your script, sir!
I rise to note that the gentleman from Minnesota is forever after his interlocutors to account for the words and deeds of others.
As I said, an unbridgeable gap in first principles.
"DJ, your bias regarding me has really sent you into a bizarre place."
I have no tolerance for the brazen stupidity, the pure arrogance, the unlimited hypocrisy, and the utter, fundamental dishonesty that you exhibit here in Kevin's Parlor. I can't see any reason why I should.
As I have stated to you for years, you might have something worthwhile to read, but it isn't worth wading through the crap you submerge it in to find out. Imagine what you could learn if you would first unlearn what is wrong. But you can't. You simply cannot admit significant error, and it drives you like a rented mule.
You do such GOOD work for our side with your drivel, and it will NOT go unchallenged.
Speaking of which:
"Way to skirt my challenge to you, though."
Hypocrisy boy, skirting challenges is WHAT YOU DO. You have TWELVE STANDARD BEHAVIORS by which you do it. You remember them all, don't you? You'll find them at:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/08/standard-responses-of-markadelphia.html
and in the comments at:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-celebration-of-earth-day.html
You remember when I first catalogued them, don't you? Perhaps not. Perhaps the casual reader might want to know. Fair enough; you'll find it in the comments at:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/09/rapture-of-marxists.html
Read the whole thing, as it is quite entertaining.
"To me, it's just another example of how the Cult's philosophy has no practical application in reality."
Of course it is. She proposes to ENFORCE THE LAW. Your side doesn't like ENFORCING THE LAW, does it? YOU don't like ENFORCING THE LAW, do you?
"And that she is in no way qualified to be president."
She scares the living hell out of you, doesn't she, marxie boy?
Oh, and speaking of challenges again, you still haven't answered my question from six days ago.
Do you understand what I meant when I wrote:
"Prosperity and a good standard of living come about through WORK."
You'll find that question and the whole comment thread that led to it at:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/07/quote-of-day-dr-zero-edition.html
Your hypocrisy really is unlimited, isn't it?
I have no tolerance for the brazen stupidity, the pure arrogance, the unlimited hypocrisy, and the utter, fundamental dishonesty that you exhibit here in Kevin's Parlor.
Of course, if any of this were true, it would make it easier for you and others to not have to admit that I am right about anything.
You do such GOOD work for our side with your drivel, and it will NOT go unchallenged.
Which side is that? I believe you have assured me that you are no Republican as many others here have as well. If that's they case, how does Sarah Palin fit into to your side? What is your side?
She proposes to ENFORCE THE LAW. Your side doesn't like ENFORCING THE LAW, does it? YOU don't like ENFORCING THE LAW, do you?
Why am I imagining talking to the late Phil Hartman as Frankenstien on SNL? Fire-Bad, Enforce the law-Ugh. This line of thought demonstrates such a shallow grasp of the situation of immigration that honestly (and I can't believe I'm saying this) but George W. Bush looks like a fucking genius compared to you and Sarah Palin. Did you notice how she had no understanding whatsoever for the complexity of the issue when pressed by O'Reilly? More than likely, that will be the last time she does that show. As I have said previously, she has no guts. She can't handle simple questions...even from a friendly interviewer on the network she works for...how on earth do you think she can handle the various complicated tasks of being president?
What's scary is not her being president. I doubt she would last that long. Her actions and words demonstrate that she wouldn't be able to handle it for very long. The truly frightening thing is the people like you who are so blinded by dogma that you truly believe that she would be a skilled leader despite all the evidence to the contrary. And you call yourself a logic and reasoned thinker. What a pathetic joke.
The truly frightening thing is the people like you who are so blinded by dogma that you truly believe that she would be a skilled leader despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Hey, it's working so far for the One!
"Of course, if any of this were true, it would make it easier for you and others to not have to admit that I am right about anything."
Golly, teacher boy, we have a first here. I have stated a great many times that you cannot admit significant error, and this is the VERY FIRST TIME that you have EVER responded to it in any way. But, of course, it was only to deny its truth, which brings up the obvious challenge: SHOW US JUST ONE TIME WHEN YOU ADMITTED ANY SIGNIFICANT ERROR. Just one will do. Go ahead. We'll wait.
"Which side is that?"
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. Save your straw man, little boy.
"Did you notice how she had no understanding whatsoever for the complexity of the issue when pressed by O'Reilly? ... even from a friendly interviewer on the network she works for ..."
Did you notice that O'Reilly repeatedly butted in, butted in, butted in, butted in, butted in, and drowned her out, drowned her out, drowned her out, drowned her out ...
This was not friendly interview by a friendly interviewer, fuckwit.
"The truly frightening thing is the people like you who are so blinded by dogma that you truly believe that she would be a skilled leader despite all the evidence to the contrary. And you call yourself a logic and reasoned thinker. What a pathetic joke."
The truly frightening thing is the people like you who were so blinded by projection that you truly believed that Obama would be a skilled leader despite his utter lack of experience necessary for the job. And you call yourself a critical thinker. What a pathetic joke.
Now, let's read a comment of yours from only four days ago in this thread:
"That's why I have been saying lately that in all honest our country should have Sarah Palin as president and not Barack Obama. She is more reflective of who we are right now and one of the main reasons why Obama is having the problems he is having (aside from his own mistakes and faults) is that many of his ideas and actions aren't working that well in a self involved and narcissistic society."
Your Quick Retort of the Moment meme is biting you in the ass, teacher boy. Note that this is the first time EVER that you have admitted that Obamateur isn't perfect. Golly.
Now, pay attention carefully or this will go right past you.
The next presidential election is 28 months away. You are ranting as if the election were imminent and Palin were about to win in a landslide.
I suspect your pants aren't big enough to hold all the shit you'll fill them with if Obama loses, the economy turns around, the stock market rises, employment rises, unemployment drops, and so on, and so on, and so on.
The thought of that happening is your worst nightmare, isn't it?
She scares the living hell out of you, doesn't she?
Oh yeah, this was a true gem, even by Marxy's standards: "that many of his ideas and actions aren't working that well in a self involved and narcissistic society."
Yes, silly ol' Americans, still a-thinkin' the Constitution and Rule of Law mean a darn thing! I mean, we have the Right People in Charge, correct? Why isn't Utopia here?
Ah, it's the self involved and narcissistic society that stands in the way!
But hark! What soft words did Fearless Leader speak waaay back in 2008? "But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people."
So if you are right now about society now was the Won wrong then?
No matter, some soul fixing will set this nation aright once more!
My, oh, my, how the world does turn:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/15/ppp-obama-palin-tied-4646-in-2012-polling/
Nope, no quotes. Read the whole thing, and marvel at it ...
Damn. My comment here just disappeared. My mouse hovered near the "delete" button, I pressed NOTHING, and it went bye-bye.
This commenting software is spooky.
The comment was to the effect that hypocrisy boy, the resident troll here in Kevin's Parlor, yet again has exhibited his Standard Response #10. The monsters must have been really bad this time, as he was gone a whole week.
I judge her based on her words, ideas, and actions.
I have no doubt of it. But on the other hand, I also know that you have judged my words, ideas and actions, and unless you specifically know it's me posting, you judge what I say to be the words of a Christian fundamentalist, racist rube who doesn't know anything. All it has taken was to do some computer housekeeping (so I'm suddenly posting as "Guest") to find this out.
"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion -- when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing -- when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors -- when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you -- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice -- you may know that your society is doomed." -- Ayn Rand
Seriously attempt to view someone who is critical of measuring success through image and objects as NOT being a Marxist.
That would be me. The difference is I don't claim to be able to look into people's heads and divine their motivations.
Case in point: Right now I do not own a cell phone, I don't really have a need for one. A few years ago, that was my highest priority, higher than paying the rent. And yet it is only in the last few years that cell phones have moved out of the "luxury" category and into the "necessity" category for most of us. I, on the other hand, was a stagehand, a field that very quickly adapted to cell technology. If my employers couldn't get live voice conversation with me anywhere at any time, I wouldn't work, it was just that simple.
There are lots of jobs out there that the car you drive, the suit you wear, how much you spend on your haircut, etc. etc. can have a marked affect on your career. Several years ago when I was a copier tech, I found that to be the case. Nor do you know without being told what someone's future plans may be, in other words how the presence or absence of "luxuries" may affect their chances in a career they don't have yet.
I've used careers as an example because anyone can understand why it gets such a high priority. But it doesn't have to be career, it can be replaced by any plan someone has for his life that he gives such a high priority to that it makes no sense to ditch the idea. The point is, we aren't privy to people's plans.
1) Therefore it is not your place nor mine to criticize them based on the priority they give to their "toys". They may only be toys from our perspective and not theirs, and we have no way to tell.
2) Children and young adult are always more enamored of "stuff" than the average. Spend enough time around the younger set and your perception of what is "typical" may be skewed.
3) "The one who dies with the most toys wins" is an attitude easily documented in both rich and poor at least as far back as the Romans. Joan of Arc's father, when given a horse he had no ability to ride nor any harness to use as a work animal, was nonetheless insufferably vain about no longer being a poor peasant who didn't even have a horse.
So far as I can tell, the only way you can reliably keep people focused on "intrinsic" rather than "extrinsic" motivation is to make sure they live in extreme material poverty, with no possibility of ever escaping it. Well enough if that's what they choose, like a monk, but are you going to force them into it?
The bottom line is that trying to get people not to be "extrinsically motivated" bears a suspicious resemblance to taking away people's freedom to prevent them from making "bad" choices... "bad" being defined by the personal bias of whoever has the power to take said freedom.
If collective responsibility is fiction, what are your thoughts on the armed forces?
That somewhere along the chain of command, there is an individual who accepts personal responsibility. Even to the point of accepting the idea that one day he may be stood against a wall and shot on the orders of his own superior officers if he blows it badly enough.
Why am I imagining talking to the late Phil Hartman as Frankenstien on SNL? Fire-Bad, Enforce the law-Ugh. This line of thought demonstrates such a shallow grasp of the situation of immigration that honestly (and I can't believe I'm saying this) but George W. Bush looks like a fucking genius compared to you and Sarah Palin.
It's downright frightening that you can't get a grip on this simple concept.
If the actions of you or me takes us into an area covered by ___________ law
regardless of whether ____________ law is good, bad or indifferent as laws go
then if laws are enforced to the fullest extent possible, again
regardless of whether ____________ law is good, bad or indifferent as laws go
then you and I know in advance that "if I _________, the government response will be _______", because that is the law.
The less it is true that the laws are enforced to the fullest possible extent, the more "if I _________, the government response will be _______...."
...unless I know the right people to call, or...
...unless I have the correct skin color/ethnicity, or...
...unless my political views agree with the views of those currently in power, or...
...unless I have enough money/power/favors to bribe my way out of it, or...
Notice that none of that depends on who is in power at the moment, nor does it depend on whether the law in question is good, bad or indifferent. If laws are uniformly enforced, you have predictable conditions. If you dislike the conditions, there is a process by which to change the law affecting them. If laws are not uniformly enforced, you do not have predictable conditions. If you dislike the conditions, changing the law affecting them may or may not help, because the whims of those selectively enforcing them are the limiting factor, not the law itself.
Sheesh, talk about an indictment of the educational system. Should it be possible for an American to get past the age of 15 or so without freshman or sophomore high school civics class teaching him this one?
Mark,
Grumpy's explanation is a description of the principle of "Rule of Law". We've using that phrase many times over the years. Did you understand it then? Do you understand it now?
I wouldn't hold my breath on that, Ed, I can't get Marky to state which is greater, 18 months or 126 months.
"I wouldn't hold my breath on that, Ed, I can't get Marky to state which is greater, 18 months or 126 months."
He knows, he just can't admit that he knows.
What's even more amusing, time in office doesn't determine ability, success or all around executive experience. It's just a number to establish time served in office and since that favors the hated Sarah Palin, he can't admit to it.
Now that I've pointed that out, I think that should he respond, it'll be along the lines of "Oh! I didn't see your question." or "I could've have answered, but that would have fallen into your language manipulation tactics, you GOP toady!". That's assuming he stays on topic and doesn't launch into one of his tangents.
Just to head off any argument along the lines of, "It can't be done that way because the government is neutered by corporate interests yadda yadda yadda...", yes, we all know that. That's factored into the design. You see, the idea of self-government under the rule of law deliberately allows the right of BP to buy politicians like Obama or those before him. The concept assumes the people who work for BP, invest in BP and own BP are people too, with the same right to buy politicians as the SEIU or the UAW.
Believe it or not, "special interests" actually is a feature, not a bug. Sucks, don't it?
You should now understand that Jesus was not a Chief Executive Officer. In terms of gubmint, Jesus was a gadfly.
Okay, I have to say it. I just have to.
It has been bugging me for months now that Marky will include (See: ____=____), referencing something that has no existence outside of his own head. I'm not sure whether he doesn't get the concept of "See:" being used as a reference, rather than merely an encapsulated block of his own belief or opinion, or the concept that a reference should actually refer to something, or what.
But I'm all better now. The above statement gave me the opening I needed, at least for a tiny fix on the problem.
You should now understand that Jesus was not a Chief Executive Officer. In terms of gubmint, Jesus was a gadfly.
Which, it so happens, is Sarah Palin's position in terms of gubmint since resigning as Governor of Alaska.
There, Mark. You can now confidently use "See: Sarah Palin=Jesus" in the knowledge that it references a comparison someone actually once made.
Damn, it's hard being the nice one sometimes.
"There, Mark. You can now confidently use "See: Sarah Palin=Jesus" in the knowledge that it references a comparison someone actually once made."
BRAVO!
ENCORE! ENCORE!
I'm gonna be laughing about this all weekend. That's the best cluebat I've read in years!
I was shocked when I saw a report on a recent study in the UK in which a surprising amount of their recent public school graduates (23%) thought that Winston Churchill was a fictional character. There's video (well, technically, film) of him, audio recordings of him, and people that knew/met him are still alive, and they don't think he was real? Yet about 50% thought Sherlock Holmes was a real person.
See http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/34730/myth-winston-churchill/greg-pollowitz
Well, why not? We do it, too. In exit polls in 2008, a stunning number of Obama voters thought statements made by Tina Fey, while lampooning Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live, were actually made by Sarah (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2134403/posts).
Mark does.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>