Pam Discovers Secret Obama Plot To Nuke Planet
The prospect of a Negro in the White House has Pammiecakes Geller in full meltdown mode over at Atlas Shrieks. She’s giving a performance quite unequaled since that given by Margaret Hamilton when Dorothy dumped a bucket of water on her.
In a flurry of melting flesh, acrid steam, and screeching wails, Pammiecakes tells us that Obama plans to dump all our nuclear arms in the trash basket and surrender the United States to the unholy troika of an Islamic Caliphate, Vladimir Putin, and Hugo Chavez. Obama’s chief accomplice will be, according to Pam, Major General Jonathan Scott Gration:
Gration is now considered one of Obama’s three top military advisers …. Gration wants to disarm the US of all nuclear weapons completely. Quoting from the Newsweek article:
The general also has some strong views of his own: ‘I believe if you could get rid of all the nuclear weapons this would be a wonderful world,’ he says.
Gration also has some strong views of his own on national security, which may not always be perfectly in accord with Obama’s. Above all, he thinks there are far too many nuclear weapons in America’s arsenal and in the world, and he wants to accelerate the 2002 Moscow Treaty that called on Washington and Moscow to reduce their operationally deployed strategic warheads to about 2,000 by 2012. … “When you have 15,000 to 16,000 weapons floating around, I think you can reduce that number significantly. And make sure nobody else feels a requirement to get new nukes. I believe if you could get rid of all the nuclear weapons this would be a wonderful world.” Even so, Gration says, he’s a “pragmatist. … But we have to do it in a way that makes sense. I’m not one who just says get rid of everything unilaterally.“
Bonus stupid from Pam in the same post (my emphasis):
Neither did I believe the extreme example Ayn Rand put forth in her masterwork, Atlas Shrugged, to demonstrate her philosophy and prove her epistemology would be rendered pale, almost timid, by the Orwellian plot to overthrow capitalism by the Marxist messiah.
Obviously Pam has gotten hold of a “big word generator” that randomly generates multisyllabic words that Pam just randomly puts into her posts, in this case her hilarious insertion of “epistemology.” She could have just as easily inserted “molinology” or “cytomorphology” or “honorificabilitudinitatibusosity” or even “tuna on rye” and the sentence would have made just as much sense.
Full meltdown mode? Isn’t she permanently there?
FRIST!
Everytime I hear a wingnut using a word like “epistemology,” I reach for my revolver.
Screaming racist wingnuts are so cute when they try to act smart.
Wait a minute. No, they’re not. Horrible and stupid is no way to go through life.
Pam Atlas is scum – she’s largely responsible for the Obama birth certificate lawsuit, as she turned the site over to a number of idiots who “proved” that Obama’s official birth certificate was forged.
But Ayn Rand did believe she could prove her epistemology, didn’t she? And not in some kind of namby-pamby naturalized epistemology sense either.
Somewhere in that John Galt bit that everyone skipped, she lays it all out. A is A, bitches!!!
The words “masterwork” and “Ayn Rand” don’t really belong in the same paragraph, do they?
But LOOK AT THOSE CANS!!
Ew.
Nevermind.
I thought Obama, Pelosi and Reid were the unholy troika.
Oh, wait, sorry. They’re a dangerous threesome.
Everytime I hear a wingnut using a word like “epistemology,” I reach for my revolver.
I reach for the barf bag. Of course Pammy Cakes always inspires that reaction.
Oh, wait, sorry. They’re a dangerous threesome.
No love for “The Coalition of the Wild-Eyed”? I always thought that was a rhetorical masterwork worthy of, say, Nelson Muntz.
Pam’s defense of Rand is based on a posteriori knowledge, by which I mean knowledge she pulled out of her ass.
The words “masterwork” and “Ayn Rand” don’t really belong in the same paragraph, do they?
Perhaps in the same way Bio-Dome could be considered Pauly Shore’s “masterwork”.
DoctorB – that is truly the font of all (rightwing) wisdom.
The words “masterwork” and “Ayn Rand” don’t really belong in the same paragraph, do they?
Maybe if you spell it “masturwork”.
If you can pick it up at a farmer’s market, bring it home, wash it, sprinkle a little lemon juice and water over it, and then wrap it in paper towels, your epistemology shouldn’t be rendered pale. If your epistemology isn’t brightly colored, and if there are any off smells from unenthusiastic polls, don’t use it.
Maybe if you spell it “masturwork”.
Maybe if you spell it “masturwank.” The words “masterwork” and “Ayn Rand” don’t even belong in the same universe.
Encino Man (1992) is superior to Bio-Dome in every way, but particularly in the quality of Shore’s performance. A true Method actor, Pauly Shore outdid Martin Sheen and Robert De Niro: he “prepared” so intensely for his role as stoner Stoney Brown that after filming the caveman-thawing scene, he suffered a massive munchies attack and consumed 56 pounds of nachos in a single sitting.
Oooh, epistemology and logic puzzles all in one post.
The words “masterwork” and “Ayn Rand” don’t really belong in the same paragraph, do they?
Sure they do. Such as: “Uri Vandelay, the notorious conceptual artists, produced a remarkable masterwork with his shit-sculpture of Ayn Rand. ‘She is such a megalomaniacal, execratory beast that I just had to express my opinion of her Objectivist ‘epistemology’,’ said Vandelay.”
OK. Loneoak. You managed to find the single sentence in any language which would justify placing the words “masterwork” and “Ayn Rand” in the same universe.
As far as nuclear disarmament goes, you can get most of the way unilaterally. Going most of the way is probably the smart thing to do, too, seeing that the Air Force has a hard time keeping track of the weapons it already has, and the remaining weapons can still scare any potential nuclear adversary shitless.
Glibertarian epistemology recapitulates onanology.
Matt T. said, “Perhaps in the same way Bio-Dome could be considered Pauly Shore’s ‘masterwork'”.
Victory! Matt T. wins this thread!
Also placing Vandelay in the context of Art is worth a few points.
ploeg – I think having only enough atomic weapons to destroy the earth 3 times over should be plenty for anyone (I think we are currently at about a gazillion).
J— said,
“Glibertarian epistemology recapitulates onanology.”
Runner up!
Victory! Matt T. wins this thread!
Yay! I’ve never won a thread before. Come to think of it, the only thing I’ve ever won is Scholar’s Bowls in high school, so this is pretty neat. Who wants to smoke a victory bowl?
Seriously, sub-based nukes are practically all that is needed for a deterrent. Nuclear subs are real doomsday machines. The enemy doesn’t know where they are, so they can’t be neutralized by a first strike. The weapons can hardly be commandeered for similar reasons. And, in the even of armageddon, the subs will be there to launch a retaliatory strike.
Limiting the nukes to those on the subs would make it much easier to keep track of our weapons while greatly reducing the risk of some of them being stolen. Many of the other nukes are really dangerous, dangerous pork holdovers from before the sub-launched days.
How about “is a masterwork of self-indulgent tripe”?
Let me assure you, Mrs. McCain, just as soon as I complete this temple to the human spirit, I’ll get right on designing that new house of yours.
Major General Jonathan Scott Gration
I must once again object to the use of stupid made-up names.
Of course she did. She was a jumped-up peasant who had been given letters by a cruel twist of fate; her every academic pretense revealed this, from her refusal to read any philosophy after Aristotle to her spurning actual books in favor of pulp detective novels with plenty rape in.
‘Kantian nihilist’ is all you really need to know here. She went after Kant not for his ethics – which is a fertile and reasonable line of attack, partially because his ethical platform is so compelling and simple – but for his epistemology, which is ridiculous and silly. She honestly believed his surreal maunderings about the nature of knowledge were the foundation for democracy and socialism and et fucking cetera, and that this meant Western civilization had been irreparably tainted.
She went after Kant on his epistemology, in the process proving nothing but that she had skimmed Critique of Pure Reason and disliked the title. Anyone who buys Rand on epistemology is beyond stupid – they’re a willing dupe for that braying jackass’s intellectual pretensions.
And Pam, Pam, Pam. How many times do we gotta tell you this: you’re not actually supposed to hate and fear the shvartzers any more. Really; they’re not all out to get you because they envy your superior intellect. I don’t know why I’m telling you this – your patronage of the Kahanies basically means you think Hitler was right on the broad strokes, just wrong about who the master race actually was – but come on. You’re not an old woman, you’re not first- or second-generation. You have no more excuse to indulge the stupid belief that Obama is formed whole from the same radical, traitorous, anti-Semitic (and by ‘anti-Semitic’ of course you mean ‘pro-Venezuela’, for some surreal reason) clay as every other black person.
I’m going to enjoy Pam going nuts as her axioms fail her, as nobody around her seems to notice that Obama’s as anti-Israel as the color of his skin and every surgical intervention fails to stop the relentless march of age – which has already stolen the ephemeral beauty she used as a substitute for basic humanity, but which she labors under the delusions he can stop with enough force of will. But dust she is, as it says, and to dust she will return.
Oh man, I love how I can’t even tell whether the Nostradamus commenter is for real or not.
Libertarians are the political equivalent of Raelians. They may share a language, but that’s about all.
Obviously Pam has gotten hold of a “big word generator”
These must be kept out of the hands of rogue bloggers.
Oregon Guy said,
Everytime I hear a wingnut using a word like “epistemology,” I reach for my revolver.
“Wenn ich Kultur höre … entsichere ich meinen Browning,” Hans Jost,1939
I think Pam’s musings could be a teaching tool, warning kids about the dangers of simultaneously trying to read We the Living while flipping channels back and forth between a Sarah Palin speech on C-Span and Tim Burton’s Mars Attacks on TNT.
You kooky LIEbrals, the 2nd Amendment of the USA of America says that citizens of The Heartland of our Beloved Nation have the right to own weapons of any kind, and that includes Trident gum based nukes. Read your Constitution sometime, DEMONcraps!
Also alec, Ayn Rand’s “epistemology” is not that far removed on the quality scale from Derrida.
As I understand it, Ayn Rand’s epistemology was in need of repair after her third child was born…
Orange Tom – My understanding is that was a birth defect.
Isn’t the first part less “stupidity” and more “lying?”
Given how Mr. Gration explicitly rejects the sentiment Pam attributes to him.
Oh, wait, looking at the Newsweek article it’s entirely possible that Pam just read the blurb under the headline and then stopped. Stupidity it is!\
PS seeing a woman decry “feminization of the Armed Forces” makes me sad.
seeing a woman decry “feminization of the Armed Forces” makes me sad.
Plays havoc with her fantasies about her and the 101st Airborne at that lonely oasis in the Israeli desert.
Hey Honus, I know ironic sarcasm is hard to get on the intert00bz – but yeah, I know the source of the quote (tho it is commonly attributed to Goering) and was being, well, that.
That picture of P Gels has inspired me, halloween-costumely speaking. Am I alone in this? Is anyone else going trick-or-treating as Ashley Todd?
Is anyone else going trick-or-treating as Ashley Todd?
Put a McCain sticker on your ass please.
oregon guy,
I figured you did, I was just messing with Truth, since I left a Schiller quote in german on the other thread he hasn’t gotten yet. I do like “undo the safety on my Browning” though…
Sorta roasted my nuts when I read the crap about how Sun-Tzu “said basically the same thing” as Flavius’ “if you want peace, prepare for war” – no, he said if you want peace, defeat your foes before either of you get anywhere near the bloody battlefield, you dim twat.
The first – & only – major politician I ever heard putting forward the idea of total nuclear disarmament for the US? Why, that would be none other than Ronald “Abwehr” Reagan himself, during the SDI Treaty talks with Gorbachev … & he promptly dropped it like a hot potato when his advisors told him he’d just buggered the pooch by suggesting it … but then, he also sincerely thought Star Wars was going to be used to defend Earth from an imminent alien invasion-fleet’s arrival.
OT (& I hope I’m not just echoing here):
“Gentlemen, I give you our next President – Ms. Condoleeza Rice!”
Likewise, I’m sure, Herr Trout – for MANY threads.
I am a member/paticipant of a Christian Ladies Mailing list. Most of us are of a “certain age” having grown up with ingrained prejudices, yet we know in our hearts and from the teachings of Jesus, “Judge not the man by the color of his skin but the deeds within”.
Recently we have been discussing the racial issue in this election and we are dismayed. We are dismayed by right-of-center blogs who claim that people will vote for Mr. Obama out of a misguided sense of “white guilt”. We are dismayed by left-of-center blogs that claim only bigots will vote for Mr. McCain.
Things have changed for the better in this country over the last decades. Fifty years ago Lucy and Ricky, a happily married couple, could not share a bed on television, several years ago Brokeback Mountain won an Oscar. As distasteful as we may find the images of cowboys kissing, we know that Jesus would probably not mind. Remember that only 18 years ago Vanilla Ice, a white man, was vilified for performing rap music which at that time was considered a purely African-american music style. Now Eminem, a white man, is considered the preeminent artist in that genre.
Things have changed, we need to get past our racial prejudices and move forward for the good of this great country of ours.
God Bless you all
DrDick threatens to shoot Republicans
If he does not intend to use every part of the Republican I think that is wasteful and not respectful to nature.
I always get “epistemology” mixed up with “episiotomy.” Good thing I’m not an obstetrician, huh?!!
Is anyone else going trick-or-treating as Ashley Todd?
Check Pandagon and Wonkette – a handful of hundreds of commenters between them are probably going to try it.
Mr. Indignation – There are no usable parts on a Republican. It is all shit and bile.
Vanilla Ice ruined his credibility because he falsely claimed he was national motocross champion. He regained it temporarily with his stellar performance in Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze. He lost it again with Extremely Live, although his brief run-in with Suge Knight and a balcony garnered him a special, permanent place in the hearts of millions.
And the preeminent artist in the genre today is not Eminem nor anyone else from the U.S. It’s a Boricua. Bring it!
“I’m going to enjoy Pam going nuts as her axioms fail her”
I was going to suggest that she’d never know it–there’s a relativistic frame-of-reference deal happening here, where if you’re “nuts” you don’t, by def., know it–but alec’s point still stands. Whether she knows it or not, what matters is WE know it.
So happily, yes. Let’s watch.
Swear to god, “Mr. Indignation” was a JanusNode production that came along at the right time.
But Ayn Rand did believe she could prove her epistemology, didn’t she?
Well, the first mistake is trying to prove your epistemology. You might be able to justify or argue for or support your epistemology, but that’s about as far as you can get. You can’t “prove” your standards for truth or knowledge.
From the tiny little bit of Objectivism I have been able to stomach, I gather it basically goes like this:
1) Assert some basic or perhaps logically necessary truths, like “existence exists” or “A is A” and call them “Axioms.”*
2) Magical thinking.
3) Therefore, reason demands maximized personal freedom in the form of unregulated markets.
4) Ignore the flipper babies and tainted food.
* Note that an axiom is considered a proposition that is self evident or necessarily true, which is to say everyone believes them. So it’s a particularly childish philosophical method to move from an axiom to a contentious philosophical position, let alone a unified theory of epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and politics.
No argument here.
Loneoak – Alternatively you could do what Rand and Pammy cakes do and just pull the shit out of your ass and pretend it smells like roses.
Also alec, Ayn Rand’s “epistemology” is not that far removed on the quality scale from Derrida.
Except Rand made her stuff sort of comprehensible so it is really easy for anyone with more than an 8th grade education to call it as bullshit. Derrida tends to make you feel stupid until you realize that it really is gibberish.
Loneoak and Dr. Dick – I agree with both of you. My experience with Objectivists – I haven’t been able to manage reading much about Objectivism itself – runs something like this:
“I believe that the only true source of knowledge is that which can be discovered through objective observation and logical reasoning. Therefore, whatever dumbshit idea pops into my head that sounds good to me must be the product of objective observation and logical reasoning.”
Please Mrs. O’Sadly, you introduced me to miss Pammy. I’ve tried to talk reason with her, because I’m a european guy, and couldn’t stand the slander. I went there, and I’ve been promptly banned for I said Europe was nowhere near a caliphate ( of course a caliphate isn’t wrong per se ).
Please tell me Mrs. O’Sadly, what is it with Ayn Rand that makes people so dumb (and why, O why did pammy have to read that book — and from her writings — that single book). Seriously, this book has so many pages, and since we all know reading is boring we might as well read good books.
My personal take on objectivism is that it’s got the same appeal to intellectual children that rapturism or transhumanist singularitarianism do – a major feature of her reasoning derives from the argument that:
1) It is in the interest of one’s own life to support one’s own best interests;
2) Ergo, going against one’s own best interests is against life and therefore pro-death.
I’m not even joking; she actually says almost exactly the same thing in pretty much every essay or pretence to scholarship she ever indulged in. She labors under the belief that it was meaningful or constructive to be ‘anti-death’, that the evasion of death was more worthwhile than anything else in the universe.
The problem, of course, is that we are all mortal. Making your own life better is no more – and can no more be – intrinsically anti-death than making the local community better is intrinsically anti-human. Death is an inherent part of human life and no amount of hand-waving can escape the horrible truth that you are mortal. Rand, and many of her followers, seem to have honestly believed that being ruthless enough could make you immortal; it seemed not to occur to her that Andrew Carnegie outlived J.P. Morgan, and neither substantially outlived their own contemporaries.
Rand, for her part, acted out the triumph of man over the elements by smoking and died when her cancer-weakened heart and lungs gave out on her. There is no better response to this apotheosizing of the social-darwinists’ nihilist superman than the understanding that if the superman is immortal, you’re automatically disqualified.
And because nobody’s brought it up yet, Mozart was a red.
As someone much wiser than I one said it is all a futile effort to give moral cover to greed.
Cliff, did you add extra pencil to the eyebrows or are those Pam-made? Holy smokes.
She must also be heavily into the Botox. A woman of her age and that much anxiety and rage should have a hundred horizontal and vertical lines criss-crossing every twitch way on her forehead.
Lesley – I think she uses industrial grade sandpaper.
Well, if it’s nowhere near a caliphate, why do you call it ‘Eurabia’, huh?? Check and mate.
One of my favorite lines on that score is that over the last two millennia – with the exception of the last five or so decades, and even that isn’t absolute – if you had to choose any country to be born a Jew chances are pretty good that country would be predominantly Muslim. The terrifying poll tax and community legal jurisdiction of dhimmitude were a damned sight better than the enlightened European practice of exclusion from the polity with random expropriation and expulsion.
Why ostensibly pro-Jewish scholars and propagandists have been so willing to drink the Crusaders’ kool-aid is beyond me.
Alec – Pre-Israel, anywhere in the Islamic world was generally preferable to anywhere in the Christian world for Jews.
I’m going to have to stick up for Derrida, here. For one, it’s hardly fair to accuse him of having an epistemology. Rather, it would be more accurate to say he tried to undermine all epistemology as a stand alone enterprise separate from historical and political arcs.
Which, I would point out, obliterates the methods of Objectivism. When all knowledge is interpretive, there is no foundational axiom from which douchebags like Rand or her moran followers like Pammycakes can get their certainty.
I know all the problems with his work—it is terribly dense and snooty and French. But there are moments of genius.
Fear of Eric B is Black President.
Loneoak – moments of genius afloat in a sea of gibberish. I agree that they are there, but he suffers from the same dementia as all of the postmodernists. Who cares whether the “real world” is actually real? If you experience it as such and others appear to share your experience, treat it as if it were real. Which, by the way, is what actual science (as opposed to the postmodernist strawman) actually does.
Minister Shayne-Danyell Consonant-Abba’s Gazelle Risotto
Ingredients:
1 gazelle, stretched
1 Havarti
1 pint Emmentaler
3 bunches ladybug heart
1 jigger paprika
5 teaspoons vanilla
First grease a cookie sheet. Cream the gazelle with a really big can opener. Mash the Havarti with the Emmentaler over medium heat in a wok. Sprinkle resulting potion over the gazelle. Crush the ladybug heart, paprika, and the vanilla. Dab the latter combination on to the former. Leave raw. Serves 11 enemies with philosophic stomachs.
Nah, the eyebrows are all Pam’s handiwork. I just added the black eye and the backwards “B.”
Before consulting the ladies, who admittadly know more on this subgect than me,
I will sensibly bow to your greater knowledge of current preeminantcy, admitting that I do not really follow the recent trends in pop music, and unfortuntely your link does not work for me other than to show it has something to do with our Mexican brothers?
But this only goes to stress my point, things have changed. Even our southern neighbors can now excel in what was once considered an African-american artform.
I would also suggest not using Mr.Suge Knight as an example of a fine upstanding African-american businessman.
Sorry about my misspellings in that last post, I have been tippling a bit. Lol
Maybe the ladies can help me out here?
Why would a woman shave or pluck every last eyebrow hair and draw in thick ugly lines where the eyebrows used to be?
General “Buck” Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious… service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.
I found this some time ago.
Objectivist Epistemology: Strengths and Weaknesses
Hit the “back” button for a good deal more.
Alec- who coined that “Eurabia” BS? Seriously I’m just being curious (regardless of its inaccuracy).
I’m pretty sure Pam didn’t come up with that term. So whose brilliant mind should we credit for that ?
(BTW does the abia mean that we have mooselims or does it mean we have san niguhs- and where should they be: italy, france, spain, croatia, or maybe Sweden?)
Why would a woman shave or pluck every last eyebrow hair and draw in thick ugly lines where the eyebrows used to be?
Ideas about beauty are a strange thing. Why would a woman put iron rings around her neck so that over the years they push her shoulders down and make it look like her neck is highly elongated? Or even better. Why smash your feet into tiny pointed shoes on 3 inch spiked heels that eventually destroy your feet, knees and back? People are weird.
Can we get a copypasta spam ban for Midwestmom?
That block of dreck was either identical, or at least in all essence the same dreck from the previous post’s comments.
Also, stop toying with the played-out trolls, fellow Sadlynaughts.
Sorry about my misspellings in that last post, I have been tippling a bit. Lol
Fake.
Hey DrDick, I don’t want to get into a science wars fight here. Maybe elsewhere, but not here. But … that’s a bit of a strawman yourself. So, I will say my piece and check out.
First, if we’re going to talk about Derrida, it’s post-structuralism, not post-modernism. Post-modernism generally refers to art or cultural movements, whereas post-structuralism is very loosely defined as a set of stances about the relationship between signifiers (signs, words) and the signified (things, meanings) that attempts to deconstruct assumptions about a singular or unified connection between them. In other words, signifiers don’t have a single signified.
Second, Derrida never once challenges the existence of a “real world.” He might find that to be a silly phrase meant to conjure up hosts of strawmen, but that’s a different story. His writings are mostly about language, which is what we have to use to describe the world. It often happens that people mistake the claim that language fails to singularly describe the world as a claim about there not being a singular world.
Third, I for one (among many others), find Derrida’s work to be quite compatible with scientific inquiry and actual scientific practice. I like Derrida in large part because I’ve loved science my entire life; human knowledge is all just a string of contingencies held together by the best narrative we have the resources to generate. The sciences have produced some damned beautiful and useful narratives. I just don’t like the way we often talk about science, asserting it finds some absolute truth, floating out there separate from our methods, minds, and language. Absolute truth about a “real world” is for Objectivists, not me.
bladule: I think it was Bat Ye’or who gave us “Eurabia.” Fallaci, Steyn & co. then spread the shit around.
And come on: are there any kinds of Mozrabs that aren’t sandkips? Stop making intelligent distinctions here.
Women have been led to believe, by magazines like Vanity Fair, that men prefer the plucked and clean look to what my husband amusingly calls my “unibrow”.
As I understand it, young women nowadays believe that tattoos on their back just at the panty line are appealing to their menfolk.
Times change.
But what hasn’t change is women’s need to find a man to love and support.
Noen, some women haven’t much of a choice.
But yeah, the heels, yikes.
In Pam’s case, perhaps face lifts have made penciling a necessity. Her natural eyebrows might be too close to her hairline by now.
who coined that “Eurabia” BS? Seriously I’m just being curious (regardless of its inaccuracy).
google is your friend.
he, indeed. Ban.
I think this is right. The word ‘dhimmitude’ has a specific (fancy, French) pedigree; Eurabia lacks the subtle dignity, but still only has one father, despite its bastard hand-jobbers.
I suspect in the long run antigastarbism/Islamophobia is going to be viewed in Europe much the same way early nativism and scientific racism are here – something that had depressingly strong traction among people who should have known better, but which is doomed for the ashheap of history among everyone except the shrieking freepers.
Gould actually has an excellent stance on the appropriate relationship between scientist and science – that is, the scientific method is pretty reliable, but we aren’t – even if our collective understanding of objective reality is close to perfect (& per Feynman on the oil-drop experiment, it’s less so than we’d like to think) our personal understanding, whether as laymen or scientists, is much weaker and less objective than we are willing to accept.
Humans are subjective animals in an objective universe, and while we can unfuzz the basics it takes a lot of doing to be close to certain about anything with objective clarity.
On the other hand – and this is the crucial delimiter between pomo/poststructuralism and the brand of woo that latches onto it as illiterately as it latches onto quantum physics and Heisenberg – that doesn’t mean that the objective is impossible, or that the vicious subjectivity that applies to human culture can be completely glossed into science. We know little enough about physics that our great-great-great-great grandchildren may think of Stephen Hawking the way we do about Duns Scotius, but that doesn’t mean some idiot with a coherent sales pitch about God, energy, or the market is going to do better. All beliefs are subjective, but some are more subjective than others.
To be glib, what pomo is about is the impossibility of being right. Taking it to imply that it’s impossible to be wrong is heretical, a marketer’s lie sold to moneyed children.
Also, she has to wear a scarf or get a Brazilian.
Oh, you silly kultur höres. It was indeed Hanns Johst, but the play in question debuted in ’33, for Hitler’s birthday.
I juhst wanted to say “kultur höres”.
In other news of the offal-choked pirhana tank, Redstate urges its Alaskan readers not to vote for Stevens or Young.
I don’t know what’s going to be more fun, the next week full of wingnuts screaming and climbing on each other trying to stay out of the woodchipper, or watching the final collapse of denial setting in after the election.
MWAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAA!
SCARVES ARE ISLMAOFASCIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ELEVENTHOUSANDELEVENTEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Midwestmom
But what hasn’t change is women’s need to find a man to love and support.
You don’t get out much do you?
OMG. I haven’t looked at Ms. Pam’s site in a while. Yikes. Every post is a full scale meltdown. And the new birth certificate post? Well, if I’m reading it correctly–and I’m open to other interpretations–she’s saying Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, he was born in Washington SO TAKE THAT, HE WASN’T BORN IN AMERICA, HE WAS BORN IN WASHINGTON! I am so not going to vote for him now.
ALSO OMG, Obama looks kinda like Malcolm X when he’s wearing glasses! AND, AND he attended a lecture by Edward Said, an English professor at Columbia! GOD HELP US ALL!
She’s exhausting. Are you sure you guys aren’t paying Pam to write this stuff just so you’ll be employed at the Sadly No! labs until 2012? Or, what a minute, I think you guys might BE Pam. She’s not real. OMG. Where is her birth certificate? I’ve never see it. OMG. OMG. OMG. OMG.
HLEP PMA EATED MY BRIAN! OMG!
Neon, the lesser person within me suspects you are trying to do what the kids today call “flaming”, but the greater person within suggests you are serious.
Although I am somewhat inhibited by arthritis, I do indeed “get out”. I regularly attend church and the Christian Ladies Book Club. I also visit the library regularly and have been know to “troll” the internets.
How about you?
Do I get any continuing education credits for reading this thread? Most important, will there be a pop quiz?
Midwestmom, I think your a fake, but playing along, yeah, I do. I wasn’t trying to flamebait, just suggesting that there are plenty of women, straight women at that, who don’t need men as some kind of emotional crutch. But think of their partners as coequals. Yeah I know, pretty radical, not only true, but that arrangement works very well for them.
Do I get any continuing education credits for reading this thread?
No, but you get an ice cream cone if you add the fake to your killfile.
What they finally found inside Pam’s oddly-assorted clothes was mostly liquescent horror. There were bones, too — and a crushed-in skull. Some dental work positively identified the skull as Rand’s.
As my grandson says, “Duh”. Of course there are women who do not need men, my grandson’s computer is loaded with lesbian porn. I seriously don’t know what to do with that boy.
But I agree with you, just look at our recent political candidates, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. We agree that neither have used their menfolk to get were they are today.
Things have changed since the Lucy and Ricky days, women today can achieve anything.
Midwest Mom needs to stop so obviously misspelling her posts.
Midwest Mom is about 159 pounds, white, male and forces his friends to watch Coen brothers movies over and over so he can point out the “cool parts.”
Midwest Mom needs to stop so obviously misspelling her posts.
Doug Watts needs to pay attention.
Noway would Danzig liek Winnie the Pooh!!!
Danzig will fuck up your day!
Midwestmom, the lesser person within me suspects you are what the kids today call “full of shit”, but the greater person within suggests you are a fucking loon. Eat pie.
“Obama wants to remove Christmas from the National Holiday roster? There’s a tape?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2117188/posts
Just when you thought they couldn’t get any more stupid…
Like Mikey, I can remember when the comment threads on this blog were funny and intelligent. Now they are easily trolled, what’s up with that? Has the readership gotten stupider or just the commenters?
Danzig will fuck up your day!
Sadly, no. I, for one, am amazed Danzig’s got such a glass jaw. Who knew?
Has the readership gotten stupider or just the commenters?
Same people, innit? One assumes the commenters also make up the bulk of the readership. I could be wrong, though. In any event, you’re being pretty damn teedjus yourself. Perhaps we all need to do a little reflection on how to better stimulate our fellow man, hmmm? Or maybe we all just need new batteries.
“Obama wants to remove Christmas from the National Holiday roster?
This kid isn’t concerned. I suppose this photo of Obama and his family in front of a Christmas poinsettia must be photoshopped.
You could probably find a photo of Obama in his jammies opening x-mas goodies on Christmas morning and some wingnut would tell say “turn it upside down and you can see the horns of satan.”
Fucking assholes are clutching at so many straws there’s a shortage.
In any event, you’re being pretty damn teedjus yourself.
Perhaps you are right. Seriously I only post here when i am drinking, cuz otherwise i don’t care one way or the other. heh. indeed.
Sigh, you people don’t appreciate me, maybe I’ll go over there and post another comment about yet another secret Obama tape.
Like Mikey, I can remember when the comment threads on this blog were funny and intelligent. Now they are easily trolled, what’s up with that? Has the readership gotten stupider or just the commenters?
Sounds like you’re blaming the decent people for the trolls.
Sounds like you’re blaming the decent people for the trolls.
See, easily trolled and not funny. What’s up with that?
Man walks into a bar. “12 inch pianist!” says the bartender.
whoa, winslow, I bow to your superior commenting skillz and so sorry you have to endure inferior liberals. at least our hearts and votes are in the right place though.
The problem with easily trolled people such as yourself, is that you are easily trolled.
Lesley, read the threads.
MidwestMom may not be on the level? Why doesn’t anybody tell me these things!
You forget that Pammyjugs is the only one who has the right to blow-up the world.
And just when you thought it was impossible for her to go even further off the reservation:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html#comments
I for one am absolutely speechless. Why hasn’t Fox News given her a gig?
Wasn’t that B on the other side, before?
t Winslow Howell, Gazoogle may be my friend, but why would I ask a robot a question when people can give me equally good pointers?
I, for one, am amazed Danzig’s got such a glass jaw. Who knew?
The glass ass wasn’t enough?
Atlas Shrugged was an annoying, unrealistic book.
My troll writing style algorithm (patent pending) shows an 83% probability that MidwestMom is, in actuality, Doc Sammich. Even so:
“But this only goes to stress my point, things have changed. Even our southern neighbors can now excel in what was once considered an African-american artform.”
Hip hop developed from the sound systems at Nuyorican block parties. It was in Spanish first, so nothing has changed. Ack like ya know.
The Truth: I’m going to kill you and then I’m going to rape your entire family and burn your house to the ground.
Your house – to the ground.
Obviously Pam has gotten hold of a “big word generator” that randomly generates multisyllabic words that Pam just randomly puts into her posts
Clearly, her nipple is stuck on the keyboard.
Why hasn’t Fox News given her a gig?
Part of her demands are Bolton mustache rides and a Get Out Of Jail, Free card for her hubby. That’s where the negotiations hung up.
Isn’t Atlas Shrugged that book that chick wrote after playing Bioshock too many times? I heard it sucked.
Maybe we should set MidwestMom up on a date with Rugged in Montana.
How say the pelicans?
I’d suggest that Pammy got everything that she knows (or thinks she knows) about Ayn Rand via Steve Ditko, but I would never insult Ditko in that manner.
The problem with easily trolled people such as yourself, is that you are easily trolled. Lesley, read the threads.
Can’t read what’s in my killfile, Winslow.
You’ve just been added to it.
She’s giving a performance quite unequaled since that given by Margaret Hamilton when Dorothy dumped a bucket of water on her
Yeah, but that didn’t go on for years, and become the entire movie.
Advantage: Pammycakes!
This is the only site where I LOL even more when I get to the comments!
And not just at my own, boffo knee-slappers tho they are.
Sadly, No! ers, would you be embarrassed if I said I love you?
I was just thinking that some kind of linguistic analysis and text generation program fed with the collected comments posts from Sadly, No! would generate a resounding discrediting of right-wing epistomology in .09 seconds or less.
algorithm
Shoulda got that in there. “mooselims” Thank you very much, bladule! You have just named my religion! I’m a “mooselim”, of course.
I’ll never forget this. I am in your debt.
Ayn Rand had an episiotomy? I was unaware that she had children. Was it just for fun? And its easy to prove an episiotomy — just look for the scar.
Oh wait . . .
And I had, at one time, a whole job of stick-on letters which got gummed on the wrong side! If I still had those and bought a carload of cheap greasepaint I could make pelf hand over fist this Halloween!
I for one welcome the opportunity to see the word ‘pelf’ outside the context of that poem by Arthur Hugh Clough.
Do you want 3 or 4 of them in here regularly – or do you want 20 new ones for every thread? I’d venture to guess that’s how many aspiring bridge-dwellers come in, see the caliber of sheer brutality trolls recieve here on a daily basis – & depart, without polluting these threads with a single keystroke. Play nice with them – & watch them multiply exponentially.
Sorry, but that old cliche “ignore them & they’ll go away” is comforting nonsense – that just makes them convinced that they’ve won, & they’re apt to take over like fungus wherever they can post their garbage unanswered. Letting their lies stand unrefuted grants them spurious legitimacy – especially among readers who don’t know it’s BS … & then their next lie doesn’t seem quite as incredible.
TL;DR: all that is required for lies to prevail is for honest folk to say nothing.
Trolls on political websites aren’t just passive-aggressive attention-whores now: some of them are doing it for money (&/or nifty totebags), & others are zealously vying for intellectual checkmate on behalf of their chosen ideology. It’s not 1997 anymore.
Not to mention that (for me personally) some of the most lulzworthy comments on here are examples of premium troll-spanking. The poor dumb beasts leave themselves wide open for it, & sometimes it’s just … beautiful. The wingnut-brigade this site targets are themselves a species of troll – as some* would argue “Sadly, No!” itself is – so don’t hold your breath waiting for detente & group-hugs here.
Well, from what I’ve seen, you’ve just started commenting here recently. Does that answer your question?
You used it too – incorrectly.
No “A, B, ergo C” = no syllogism.
If you’re just learning what a syllogism is now, you are many fathoms out of your depth here. Hope you’ve got a life-jacket on.
You’re sure one to talk about running away, honey-bun. Funny – you keep mentioning where I live, but never what I actually SAY, let alone daring to attempt a straight answer. Butthurt, delusional, or all of the above?
————-
* See “Alkon, Amy”
Sorry, but that old cliche “ignore them & they’ll go away” is comforting nonsense
Ignoring them has never been tried here. In other threads I’ve been on, ignoring trolls has worked. They’re not here to listen or be persuaded or influenced by what you have to say. They live for you rising to their bait.
From the tiny little bit of Objectivism I have been able to stomach, I gather it basically goes like this:
1) Assert some basic or perhaps logically necessary truths, like “existence exists” or “A is A” and call them “Axioms.”*
2) Magical thinking.
3) Therefore, reason demands maximized personal freedom in the form of unregulated markets.
4) Ignore the flipper babies and tainted food.
Dude. I am so using that. If royalties ensue, after the keef shipment has been fully paid for, a check will be cut in your name and delivered to the annoying guy at the AM/PM minimart who thinks I don’t notice that he surreptitiously fingers the hotdogs as they roll endlessly on that Sisphyean contraption.