November 30, 2005
Overheard in... WRONG!
I'm sorry, but I can't go along with
this one.
Queer: Stop calling your arms "guns"!
Step right up and get your tickets! Get your tickets to the gun show, baby!
WOOO!
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
05:58 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: BLEEAAARRRG!
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.
Dear CNN, Your Bias is Showing
I am so over the war in Iraq. We killed Uday and Qusay. We caught Saddam. As far as I'm concerned our business is done there. I can understand using Iraq to hunt terrorists, because terrorists are bad and since we totally rocked that place we can assert our right to pursue baddies there as long as we can continue to show that that is what we're doing. Since there's no shortage of terrorists, that could go on for a while.
But I do NOT support this silly thing we're doing now where we're trying to help these people set up a new government and train their police and all of that. We shouldn't stand in their way, but we don't have to help them. It's a waste of our time and energy to do so anyway.
Well, CNN's main headline today is about Bush's new Iraq plan. The headline says "Document maps out Iraq victory strategy." The problem I have is that the headline is paired with a picture of Naval Academy midshipmen sleeping in an auditorium somewhere.

The caption does explain that they are sleeping while waiting for Bush, but the pairing would lead a casual observer to think that they are sleeping while listening to Bush's plan.
That would be completely disrespectful if they were, but they aren't. Instead, CNN is showing their disrespect with the obvious implication.
As I post this, CNN is updating the page. Now, they have a picture that looks like Bush has his eyes closed. I know CNN can afford to hire competent photo editors and I'm sure they have, so these pairings cannot be taken in any other way than a brazen display of bias.
I've mentioned before that I don't mind bias when everyone is honest about it, but I resent CNN's pretense at being unbiased.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
05:28 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.
More Evidence that Marriage Law is Poorly Defined, Inconsistent, and Pretty Much Absurd
CNN:
Grand jury indicts woman who married boy
GAINESVILLE, Georgia (AP) -- A 37-year-old woman who married a 15-year-old boy was indicted Tuesday on charges of child molestation, statutory rape and enticing a child for indecent purposes.
Lisa Lynette Clark, who says she is pregnant with the teenager's child, was arrested earlier this month after their November 8 wedding.
She has been ordered not to come within 100 feet of the boy.
Georgia law allows children of any age to marry -- without parental consent -- if the bride-to-be is pregnant. The law dates back to the early 1960s and was written to prevent out-of-wedlock births.
How does it make any sense to forbid a husband and wife to see one another? If they are permitted to marry, then it is understood from the legal perspective that they are allowed to have sex (Since not having sex can be used as grounds for divorce and/or anullment, the implication is that sex is even required in marriage.), and if a 37 year-old woman can marry a 15 year-old boy, how does it make sense that they aren't allowed to have sex outside of wedlock?
On one hand the law is sanctioning this foolish pairing and punishing it on the other. This isn't justice. It's not even consistent. Even if these two were completely rational, well-formed human beings, there would be no legal way for them to have their relationship and follow the law.
I do not support adults having sex with children, but the serpentine logic that created Georgia's statutory rape and marriage laws is ridiculous on its very face. This situation highlights exactly how absurd this can be.
Meanwhile, we forbid gay people from getting married because it might unseat Western Civilization or something.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
05:16 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: Politickin'
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You missed a few weeks of news here...the marriage has been annulled,thats why.
Posted by: The Brat at November 30, 2005 09:19 AM (oqu5j)
2
Ok. Now I'm pissed off by CNN failing to mention that fact in this report.
It's clearly relevant to the story, so why the hell did they leave it out?
gits.
Posted by: Trey Givens at December 01, 2005 05:54 AM (yaMs/)
3
I am not sure.I just heard it here on 11Alive but can't find anything on it either.A week or two they said that the grandmother of the boy wanted to make sure the marriage was being annulled and last I heard they did.Get this tho...the boy was also put into juvie....for an UNRELATED thing.I believe for skipping school.Skipping school to get married maybe?LOL
I find the whole thing just stupid...She should have never had sex with him and gotten pregnant....the law should have never let them get married.But.....the boy needs to be slammed as well,because even a 15 year old knows its wrong to have sex with someone who's 22 years older.May not be wrong at the time,and god knows,maybe there is really some love (remember the teacher that got busted for screwing with a student,got restrained,they still got together,she got pregnant,ended up in jail for years,got out and now they are married and had more kids??)....but please....think about it!LOL
Posted by: The Brat at December 01, 2005 07:49 AM (oqu5j)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 29, 2005
Sheeps are Fast
Whoa.
Props to Ice Scribe for the tip off.
I got "Bobbing Bobcat" the first time. That's not so great. It told me to get some coffee. Although, I did get one of them in .016 of a second. Cheeky sheeps.
Update: I just managed to earn a "Rocketing Rabbit" rating. I think I need to find something else to do before I waste my whole evening.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
02:33 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: BLEEAAARRRG!
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sheep games are such fun. There's something inherently comical about the fuzzy critters.
Bobbing Bobcat so far, must go practice...
Posted by: Jim at November 30, 2005 12:52 AM (oqu5j)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Office Rumor Mill
You know
the asshole who recently left? Well, I just heard that she actually left a list of people in the office who should
NOT be considered to take over her responsibilities.
This says more about her than anyone on that list.
Asshole.
To the max.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
02:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: At My Work
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.
November 28, 2005
Kiss it!
Thanks to Ice Scribe, I have discovered the trainwreck that is
Those Who Would Have No Christmas.
Like the lovely Scribe, I'm not religious. At all. I don't do faith. I don't do Jesus. I don't do any kind of supernatural mumbo-jumbo. And on top of it all, I love life and reject altruism.
Christmas for me is very much about the celebration of prosperity and showering of loved ones in luxuries and gifts. The idea of Christmas without gifts is ridiculous to me. RI-DIC-U-LOUS. It's not even Christmas.
So, these no gifts on Christmas people can just kiss it. I'm going to the mall just because they said not to now.
(Actually, I'm not setting foot in a mall any time between now and Christmas. I'm not crazy. Shopping is why God invented the internet.)
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
12:28 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Category: BLEEAAARRRG!
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Guess then we'll just kiss it from now on.We do not do presents for Christmas.Materialism is sooooooooo off the list.Christmas is for being together and stuff but mostly,of course decorations and the music,the pretty lights and better then ever food.They can jeep the presents at any time.
Posted by: The Brat at November 28, 2005 01:28 PM (oqu5j)
2
Presents don't have to be materialistic if they come from the heart. Now for me, they better come from a high end store or from some electronics place, but just the act of giving presents isn't necessarily evil because people make money off the holidays. Your company and love might be great, but I should be getting that year round - your goods and services are what I expect during the holiday season!
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Posted by: Britton at November 28, 2005 05:11 PM (rLkU8)
3
Interpretation of what one says is all it takes.Evil..Ok.....I like that,never considered that one.Thats my new one now....GIVING IS EVIL.
Bullshit,think what you want.
It is hypocrite to celebrate a holiday for what is doesn't mean or is,that was my point.You either are religious and celebrate a holiday or you are not and forget about it.But doing it for the wrong,self-made reason just to irritate the ones who think different is idiocy.Would be like us celebrating Hanukkah (spelling?) for the pretty candles and 8 crazy days.
Anyways...presents in any form of material are materialism.Presents from the heart are not bought in a store.
Posted by: The Brat at November 28, 2005 10:47 PM (oqu5j)
4
Presents from the heart can very well be bought from the store. Are you nuts? There's nothing wrong with spending money one someone to show you care. If you have the money, it's your business frankly. And why or how I celebrate any given holiday is my business. Christmas can mean a celebration of the birth of Jesus to you and can mean whatever the heck I want it to for me.
Posted by: Britton at December 03, 2005 11:15 AM (V6WWL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Happy Chrismahannukwanzikah!
So, I'm slowly getting all of my decorations up for the holiday. I'm planning on having a couple of dinner parties and my family has finally agreed to allow me to host Christmas this year. I'm stoked.
I bought like five CD's of Christmas music. I have two christmas trees (1 9' tree for the living room, 3' one for someplace else, and a 2' tree that now sits on the corner of my desk here at work.) and lots of garland. I also got the ornaments from my mom and brought them up this weekend. So, it's gonna be cool.
BUT! I have to tell you about the thing I love most: the timer that controls my outdoor lights.
This is a genius invention.
My lights come on at 6:30 and they go off at midnight without me messing with them at all!
I'm totally tempted to get some for the lights indoors, but I also fear that I might become addicted. I could put all my lights on timers so that I don't have to bother any more with flipping switches! How great would that be!?!
So, I'm excited. I am just not excited about having to take all this stuff back down again. I'll cross that bridge when I get there... in a month or so.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
10:10 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Category: Odds & Ends
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.
1
We always put ALL our lights on timers.:-)
It not as much of an addiction as a convenience of life.he he
Posted by: LW at November 28, 2005 10:57 AM (oqu5j)
2
But you'd still need to flick the occasional switch. I mean - there will always be unscheduled light requirements like a midnight trip to the potty.
Of course, you could get a Clapper™ for that...
Posted by: Jim at November 28, 2005 10:57 AM (oqu5j)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 25, 2005
The Business Genius of Trey Givens
During my MBA courses, we had to brainstorm business ideas in a couple of classes. One idea that I had, which I actually thought would work, was for high-quality, digitally "watermarked" and validated paintings.
My thought was that the business would also partner with some company that manufactures high-resolution displays to sell digital canvases. Basically, the canvases would be flat-panel television screens set-up to do two things: connect to your home network and display these images.
The digital watermarking would just be digital coding hidden in the file to allow my company to authenticate the files and to prevent unlicensed copying of works protected by copyright.
My class generally poo-pooed the idea, but I must conceed that they, nor I, have enough experience in the field of fine-art to assess whether or not the plan is a good idea.
I bring this up now because I was over at Klaus Norby's site and saw his rant against museums and the . Sounds to me like there might really be a market for digital versions of fine art at many levels of quality.
I might have to give it some more thought.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
02:07 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: Money, Money, Money!
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.
November 24, 2005
From the Manolo I Must Dissent
I confess: I have not been following the Manolo as I should. But on this day of thanks, I decided to take a peek and imagine my horror when I saw the Manolo praising the work of
John Galliano.
By and large, Galliano's "clothing" is absolutely dreadful. Awful! Awful! Awful!
Clothing is decorative, which means that it must serve the functions of clothing first. These outfits fail. By everyone's admission, they are unwearable, so why praise them as fashion? It's not.
So, what is it supposed to be if it's not supposed to be clothing? Art? Don't make me laugh! John Galliano's work does not even qualify as art!
I think that the Manolo is quite wise in his knowledge and understanding of fashion, but on this I cannot possible agree.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
11:58 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Question: What's with the "Dirty Sanchez" on the model in the first two pics? Ewww.
Posted by: Jim at November 25, 2005 07:17 AM (oqu5j)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Holiday Party Conflict
I was going to have a holiday party this year, but it's really turning into something really, really difficult.
All of my Saturdays from now until Christmas are scheduled out with other parties.
Ok. I'm slow child at play. I just thought of a brilliant idea: New Year's Party!
Now, I need to make sure that I get invitations out soon before folks make plans.
Mark your calendars!
Update: Ok. Invitations sent. I've invited 51 people. If 51 people show up and bring a significant other, there will be WAY too many people in my house. Actually, 51 people by themselves is WAY too many people in my house. Obviously, I expect some people have other plans and will decline, but I am a little bit freaked at how not good I planned that.
On the upside, preparing for this will require some real creativity, which is always good fun.
Worst case scenario: I cancel my party.
Best case scenario: The right number of people (whatever that is) show up at my house.
I had no idea I was friendly with so many people.
Update: I am so smart in spite of being so incredibly stupid in wildly destructive spurts as documented herein. I changed my invitation so that it says that my party is tentative so I can see how many people are interested.
This is the best way because then I can see what this looks like and THEN plan a party if it is even possible!
And I think I was able to change it before anyone, but for maybe two (you know who you are) of my would-be guests even saw it!
Genius plan!
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
10:58 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: Odds & Ends
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Guess I better cancel then.....will be 5 of us otherwise.
Posted by: LW at November 24, 2005 01:01 PM (oqu5j)
2
No! Don't decline just because you're afraid there will be too many people!
Say you'll come so I can see how many people want to come!
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at November 24, 2005 01:24 PM (yaMs/)
3
I didn't get invited.
Posted by: Britton at November 28, 2005 05:04 PM (rLkU8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
On Running for Two-ish Hours
Most people think that anything more than 100 yards is why God invented cars, but if you decide to pay not heed to this tribal wisdom, there are some things you should know, especially if you're going to run for more than about an hour at a stretch.
1) Protect your nipples. I know. I could have started my list with something less likely to inflame your lusts, but it is for that very reason that I feel the need to warn you of this. The regular, plain, white, cotton undershirts I run in tend to rub my nipples raw. It is not uncommon to see people who run full marathons with bloody splotches on the front of their shirts because of the wear. Consider band-aids or shirts of a smoother texture, or just do like me and suffer sore nipples.
2) Protect your knees and ankles. Do not be a "stomper!" When I am out for a run, I often have to clear my throat when approaching others from behind, that's how quiet I am. If you can hear a steady "thud thud thud" as you trot along, you're going to wind up in pain after 2 hours for sure. I'm not saying that having a nice, easy stride won't still give you some aches and pains, but stomping is both annoying and hurtful.
3) Use the restroom in advance. I'm sorry I have to talk about this, but I strongly recommend that you find a way to inspire a bowel movement BEFORE doing a long distance run. The rythmic motion of running is well known to induce bowel movements for you and unless you want to stop during your race or just poo your pants, make sure you're empty in advance. (Hey! That kind of rhymes!) No, I'm serious. Watch a Marathon sometime and I promise you will notice that some have not heeded my advice and have allowed their dignity to suffer at the expense of the race.
4) Do a race where the crowd is rowdy. Atlanta is not that place. It's much more fun and inspiring when the crowd is into the race and cheering for you. My favorite thing is to give kids five when I run by. The Country Music Marathon in Nashville is an awesome event with a great crowd. I have not been impressed by the crowd in any of the three Atlanta races I've run. New Orleans also wasn't very lively.
5) Eat something. I'm not saying that you lack integrity or anything, but if you don't eat something before the race and then eat something after the race, you just might turn to violence after the race. You could turn on your own children. Fortunately, in your weakened state, you don't pose much of a threat and you're certainly not going to chase anyone down.
6) Drink something. This should go without saying. Don't be a dumbass like Pheidippides.
7) Walk it off. Stretch, too. I know you won't feel like it, but walk around a bit. Stretch. Your feet and legs will thank you. If you can, find someone to give your legs a massage.
I'm sure there are some other things I could say, but that's all I have right now.
Happy running!
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
08:17 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: Odds & Ends
Post contains 551 words, total size 3 kb.
Record Breaking and Working Holidays
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
Well, first the easy-to-write good news: I beat the two hour mark on my half marathon this morning! Yay! My running buddy and I came in around 1 hour 57, which is five or six minute faster than our previous best. So, I'm pretty proud of that.
The temperature was perfect this morning. We started out in the upper 40's, which sounds bad, but if you're running, it's not. It was the low 60's when we finished, so it was perfect. And unlike last year, there was no rain. The only complaint I have, if you could complain about anything on such a beautiful day, is that the sun was too bright. My eyeballs do not like staring right into our solar system's own little ball of fusion. They're nuts like that.
There were tons of super-cute guys in the race. I ran with one of them for a good eight miles before I realized I had left my running buddy WAY behind me and had to stop. No, I didn't get the digits. He and I only got to the point where we realized we were checking either out before I had to slow down. *sigh*
At this point, I've gone on about the race longer than I had intended when I started, so I'll stop by saying that I was surprised about our starting pace: my running buddy is generally a good pace-setter, but this morning we were cooking along at about a 8:20 mile for the first four miles. Then, she eased up. I kept trucking, of course, because I haven't good sense about these things and I don't pay close enough attention when there's a hot guy trotting along in front of me in tight shorts that perfectly accentuate his... wait. Um.
I forgot what I was saying.
Anyway, I'm at the office now more or less working.
I'll put in my eight hours as usual.
Contrary to the impression you may have about this, my working today is actually a good thing. Due to the meandering plans that plague most of my family gatherings when anyone other than my mom or myself attempts to plan, we're doing Thanksgiving tomorrow.
I managed to arrange with my boss to basically swap the holiday. So, I'm taking tomorrow off instead of today without having to use any of my time off.
If she had not allowed me to do this, there's a good chance I wouldn't have visited with my family today because that would mean that I would have had to drive four hours immediately after my race, eat dinner with them, and hop back in the car and drive back four hours so that I could be here tomorrow.
(I am trying not to use any more time off than I need right now because if I can't keep my job once I start school, the remaining time off I have saved up with turn into dollars.)
So, anyway, I'll probably get lots more done without meetings or phone calls to interrupt me. (Actually, in the past 20 minutes I've already been lots more productive.) And I'll get to spend more time with my family.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
07:24 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: Odds & Ends
Post contains 539 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Well, that makes sense then. I'm happy the boss lady accomodated you there and I'll remove her from my voodoo curse list.
Happy Thanksgiving, Trey!
Posted by: Jim at November 24, 2005 07:54 AM (oqu5j)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 23, 2005
Tomorrow's Schedule
5:30 am - Wake up
6 am - Meet friends
7 am - Start half marathon
<9 am - Finish half marathon
12pm - Arrive at office and work, work, work
8pm - Drive 4 hours to south Georgia or just go home and do the driving on Friday
We'll see.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
10:43 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: Odds & Ends
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
Cute Starbucks Guy
There is a new barista guy at Starbucks now and he's pretty cute. I think he might have been throwing a little game my way, too.
My pocketbook can't really handle it, but I might have to hang out there more often.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
05:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: Odds & Ends
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
Killing Customers Is Definitely an Unwise Business Practice, But...
CNN:
Bartender jailed for lethal tequila
OSLO, Norway (AP) -- A 32-year-old Norwegian bartender was sentenced to six months in prison Wednesday for serving a customer so much tequila that he fell into a coma and died.
This is my favorite part:
"In the court's opinion, it is hard to imagine a more serious case of excessive alcohol serving," said the ruling
Undeniably, it's just not really a great idea to let your customers kill themselves, but in the case of a bar, the business is to serve alcohol, so the court ruling is basically against doing too much business.
Of course, we're talking about Sweden Norway, which isn't known to me as being a Capitalist paradise.
No one's rights were violated in this exchange. One might compare this conviction to convicting a store for murder if they sell a gun to someone who kills himself or another with it.
Props to Chris Brown for raising my blood pressure again this morning
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
05:02 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Category: Money, Money, Money!
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Actually; "we're talking about" Norway.
Posted by: Billy Beck at November 23, 2005 05:23 AM (QqIuk)
2
Heh heh heh... my mind wandered while I was typing.
Corrected!
Thanks!
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 23, 2005 10:37 AM (yaMs/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 22, 2005
Who's Worst Than Both Batman and Superman?
He-Man: the altruist mystic of a dark, medieval world of magic and mayhem.
So, there.
Update: I did a Googlefight of Batman and Superman, and I am sad to say that Superman lost. Hard.
Update 2: Then I went to see if there were any Objectivist comic book heroes and found this forum discussion.
Some seem to support for the Batman and I don't see a mention of Superman, but I stand by my reasons.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
02:38 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Googlefight is cool! Sorry, but I had to try
this one.
You must respect my authori-tah!
Posted by: Jim at November 22, 2005 03:42 PM (oqu5j)
2
The Question and Mr. A (and to a lesser extent, the Charleston run of Blue Beetle) are fun little romps with great Ditko art, if heavy-handed and somewhat frantic on the philosophy end.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/objectivists/187393.html
I wholeheartedly recommend them to any comic fan, much less any O'ist comic fan.
Posted by: Ben Cremeens at November 22, 2005 06:53 PM (LAt4e)
3
I thought I was clear that my approval of the Superman story isn't from Superman himself, but the world in which he lives.
I'm more facinated by this happy, shiny place with lots of incredible, regular human beings, like Lois Lane, being driven and productive.
Superman's personality is flawed, perhaps more seriously than Batman's. Supe's powers are many and strong and that merely presents lots of interesting situations for the story. (Incidentally, one of the best aspects of the Smallville television show is the process Clark goes through in trying to learn about his powers and learn to control them.)
But to be clear: The sense of life of Metropolis is, by far, the most appealing aspect of the Superman story. And the hideous, grimy, darkness of Gotham is why I don't like Batman as much.
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 23, 2005 04:08 AM (yaMs/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 21, 2005
Gotham v. Metropolis
I saw the trailer for Superman Returns last Thursday during Smallville. I am really excited about it except for one thing: Metropolis.
Superman is one of my favorite superheros, but one of the things that is inseparable from the Superman story is the Superman universe, Metropolis. Similarly, lots of people really like the Batman character and story with the same accompanying sympathetic environment.
I described it to my friend yesterday thus: "I like Superman better than Batman because Gotham is a bad place where good people happen, while Metropolis is a good place where bad people happen."
If you watch Batman, the buildings are gothic, dark, dirty, and oppressive. In Metroplis the buildings are soaring, majestic, bright, and clean. Also, it's night time in Batman where as it's daytime in Superman.
Well, in the trailer for Superman, things look like they might be dirty and I'm worried about it.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
04:51 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Category: State of the Arts
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.
1
But... Superman is SUPER BORING. Life as a superhero is entirely too easy for him, not due to superbly culivated skills, but due to innate, accidental, and boring powers like super-strength and flight. Batman, in contrast, has no super powers whatsoever, just his mind and will. Also, Superman routinely sacrifices his own life and values for any random person in distress. Batman is fighting criminals.
Admittedly, I love Batman for other reasons too. Those are personal, so I wouldn't expect others to share them. However, However, I simply cannot understand what is interesting or admirable about Superman. (So please explain, if you can!)
Posted by: Diana Hsieh at November 21, 2005 07:24 PM (m7u+F)
2
I'm with Diana. Although it would be sweet to BE Superman it's just not that exciting to watch him. My favorites have always been the exceptional regular guy heros (Batman, Jon Sable).
I'll admit that I've been carrying a flame for Rogue since puberty though.
Posted by: Jim at November 22, 2005 12:24 AM (oqu5j)
3
If Batman wasn't so tortured and always in the dirty darkness, I would probably like him better because then I would more readily identify with what makes him super -- his mind and skills.
But Batman is tortured and Gotham is this crazy, ugly place that I hate. If I were Bruce Wayne, I'd probably just move before trying to save that cesspool that is Gotham -- only he can't move because that horrid environment is part of the Batman world.
And Bruce Wayne is also a playboy who had the latitude to foster his mind and body by money he didn't earn. (Although, I loved in the last movie where they showed you that Wayne does actually have some business acumen by out-maneuvering the sneaky chairman guy. It made me think that he is actually earning some of that money he has.) In that way, he might be compared to Superman.
Superman's powers are awesome. I'd love to be able to fly, but that's not why I like him.
Superman isn't ever really sacrificing his life when he's saving people from a train because trains don't pose any legitimate threat to him.
The times when he is in real danger and protecting Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, and the rest, he is fighting criminals -- really, really, really powerful criminals who are bent on enslaving or destroying the earth.
You are correct, though: a key part of the Superman "myth" is the notion that he's obliged the save people just because he can. I manage to ignore that most of the time somehow.
My enjoyment of Superman is less about who Superman is (with the possible exception of the tall, dark hotness with the cape and tights, but Batman kind of has that, too) than the world in which he does it. I also like his earnest, innocent desire for happiness and a world in which happiness is possible.
What I just realized is a bit silly about this conversation (apart from the obvious) is that we're attempting to decided which is more virtuous: the angst-ridden, revenge seeking dark knight who lives in a cave world and the altruistic man of steel who lives in a world of sunshine and puppy dogs.
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 22, 2005 04:44 AM (yaMs/)
4
Try
Jon Sable. He's neither an all powerful goody-two shoes nor an angst ridden vigilante.
Posted by: Jim at November 22, 2005 03:40 PM (oqu5j)
5
Batman!
Never cared for Superman--he had too many powers. My favorite was The Flash, who had the single superpower of speed.
But I love the grim dedication of Batman and the dark world he lives in. I think his esthetic is much more akin to Ayn Rand's sense of life than Superman's is.
Rand once told us, in THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER, that Nathaniel Branden's boyhood hero was Superman. She said it with approval; however, she did not imply a similar feeling in herself. I suspect a similar significance in the fact that Nathaniel liked dogs, while Ayn liked cats.
This is not meant as criticism of NB, Superman, or dogs. Just a justification of ...
Batman!
Posted by: Rodney Rawlings at November 23, 2005 03:37 AM (+9ec7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 20, 2005
Ominous Parallels and the Second Coming of Christ
One of the several books I'm reading now is
The Ominous Parallels from which the quotation in my previous post was pulled. While I was nlooking to Amazon for the link, I decided to read the reader reviews.
Reader reviews on Amazon are wild, especially when the book in question is on a controversial topic or the writing himself is controversial. Ayn Rand is very controversial. So, if you look at reviews for her books you'll get a crazy mix of glowing reviews and raw condemnations. The Ominous Parallels has a similar mix but not with such variety or vehemence on the part of would-be detractors.
The bad reviews are usually the most fun because they're like side-show freaks.
One reviewer states, "The ones [people] who are not fully "rational," including unborn children, have no whatsoever, and may be killed if their continued existence is inconvenient. (Yes, Rand actually all these things - but not quite this clearly. She was a master of propaganda.)" Ayn Rand never said or implied any such thing. Other reviews recite the more common and equally ungrounded aspersion at Rand, that she echoed Marx and Neitzche.
One reviewer struck me by saying that Peikoff attempts in the book to blame Kant for the rise of Nazi Germany. Now, I haven't finished the book, yet, but I have read the first chapter where Peikoff actually attributes the roots of Nazi philosophy to Plato. Kant was a cog in the process of philosophical degradation for Germany then and America today -- a big cog, yes, but a cog all the same.
A few reviewers say that Peikoff and Ayn Rand both fail to provide (enough) evidence for the cases they make. Those reviews have to be disregarded off the cuff because they fail to understand the difference in the two works and their individual purposes and because no standard for "enough" exists. You'll have to read their works to judge for yourself, but my experience has been that each idea proceeds well from the previous and the citations of practical phenomenon are well-founded.
Another audacious criticism offered is, "Before writing an entire book based on the assumption that history is determined by philosophy, Peikoff really needs to prove this point empirically." That comment implies the idea that any purposeful action might be divorced from an idea. It's like the writer is imagining a world in which people make decisions for no reason at all. I'm sorry but that's just not the case. I would hope that before picking up any book a reader realizes that every purposeful action is a reflection of ideas if only from an observation of one's own actions.
What I'd like to look at, however, is the claim that I'm surprised doesn't appear more frequently among Peikoff's critics: that his predictions have not come true, America isn't the new Nazi Germany. Those who wish to take the criticism a step further and accuse Peikoff of being "shrill," "overblown," or "knee-jerk" in his predictions are likely to draw a parallel with the second coming of Jesus. Christians say that the second coming might happen at any moment. It's a spiritual sword of Damocles or something. Similarly, they will say that the rise of American national socialism is the threat Peikoff would hold over our heads.
First, there is no such thing as determinism. Just because America is turning into a socialist cesspool (Yes, it is. Check the news and Congress for numerous examples.) does not mean that it will continue to follow that path to the point where the country becomes a totalitarian dictatorship. There are lots of steps along the way, some large and some small, and the country may deviate at any point. The reality is that in any country there are likely those who oppose such a movement and every now and then they get to make a decision that runs counter to oppression.
Individuals are the same way. My Christian friends are all inconsistent and I love them for the times that they don't practice what they preach. Just because they say they're Christian or Buddhist or Pagan or whatever, doesn't mean they're going to carry out all the ideas subsumed by those titles, turn into lunatics, and die. Dying IS the logical, ultimate consequence of carrying out bad ideas.
So, that's the first thing.
But my friends might turn into lunatics and start dying -- that is if they start applying their bad ideas consistently and follow them to their logical conclusions.
That brings me to the second point which is that it's ridiculous to demand a timeline on this sort of prediction. The prediction is merely that IF America continues to apply these awful ideas THEN it will descend into totalitarianism. That does not have to happen in order for the statement to be true any more than my saying, "If I roll out of bed then I will hit the ground" requires that I roll out of bed as proof.
What Peikoff's book offers is a clear illustration of how ideas do impact action. He also traces the progression of ideas and how they build upon one another. From the platonic idea of Forms to marxist communism and socialism.
Boy, did I ramble on this one...
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
08:35 AM
| Comments (23)
| Add Comment
Category: Importance of Ideas
Post contains 886 words, total size 5 kb.
1
Ominous Parallels is a good book, but there are a few factual problems --
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon13.html
Posted by: Martin Clarke at November 20, 2005 10:46 AM (ky5pd)
2
That critique is intellectually vapid and the items of factual nature are inconsequential to theme and premises of the book.
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 20, 2005 04:31 PM (HdlBk)
3
I don't see how you can say that Peikoff's numerous factual errors are inconsequential. If Peikoff doesn't know what all these supposed irrationalists (Spencer, Schmitt, Godel, etc.) believe then why should I trust that he has discovered what is behind the Germany's descent into irrationality?
Nor is it intellectually vapid. If Kant did not say what Rand and Peikoff claim he did, then isn't the book flawed from the start?
Actually, I have a somewhat higher opinion of the book than Gordon, but intellectual history isn't Rand or Peikoff's stong point.
Posted by: Martin Clarke at November 21, 2005 01:46 AM (xpn8s)
4
First of all, the author is openly hostile of Ayn Rand's ideas without providing any counter-argument to why. His entire focus is on what he claims to be a mis-interpretation of Kant's arguments.
Second, we have to ask whether or not Peikoff's summary of the Kantian argument is accurate or not. Gordon holds that it is not for a few reasons.
1) Metaphysics - Gordon says that Peikoff says Kant is a skeptic. Having not read the entire book I can't say that Peikoff does say any such thing apart from using the general, non-philosophical sense of the word. But Kant does separate the world into two parts: the phenomenal and the noumenal, where the phenomenal world is the sensory aspect and the noumenal world is some sort of unknowable, undescribable reality that does reflect some sort of ultimate truth. Peikoff's summary is just that.
Further, Gordon attacks Peikoff by saying that it's absurd to imagine people trying to live life while denying reality. Indeed, it is absurd from an objective perspective which is what makes the attempt wrong.
Peikoff never says that anyone was able to actually deny reality. The objective nature of reality is such that any attempt to deny it cannot be fully successful and ultimately leads to destruction, which is what the Nazi's embodied. As such, Gordon's attack actually supports Peikoff's premises.
The only way that Gordon could possible level such an attack in the first place would be to deny the hierarchical nature of knowledge and philosophy. Peikoff starts with metaphysics because conceptually it preceeds epistemology and a particular view of the universe establishes the groundwork for a succeeding view of knowledge, which, in turn, produces a particular system of ethics. Gordon seems to imply that each of these subjects are separate and distinct, when they are not.
2) Ethics - Gordon implies that Peikoff's assertion is that the Nazi state regurgitated Kant's philosophy word-for-word, when Peikoff actually says that it merely laid the foundation for the Nazis. Kant's ethics are ultimately altruistic because they logically require the formulation of a heirarchy of values that places self last. The Nazi's took Kant's categorical imperative, in any of its formulations, and took them to their next step.
Gordon fails to address this central theme of the categorical imperative and critiques Peikoff apparently on the grounds that Peikoff didn't reprint Kant's work in its entirety. Absurd doesn't begin to describe what I think of that.
Gordon is clearly well-learned on the topic of Kant, so why does he miss the forest for the trees?
Third, as hinted above, Gordon places unreasonable demands on Peikoff by expecting some sort of lengthy discussion of Kant's philosophy and other's particular formulations in themselves. That is not the topic of the book and it would be superfluous, unsuitable, ineffective, and patently absurd to expand the discussion to that breadth.
Excluding such points does not indicate that Peikoff has not considered the philosophical argumets for views of which he disapproves. Actually, in summarizing them as he did it is necessary that he has considered them. The accusation that Peikoff is dogmatic is, at that point in the article, mere name-calling.
I can't tell what the fact is about Kant's ideas from this article because Gordon himself fails to meet the standard to which he holds Peikoff. Why doesn't he do that? For the same reasons Peikoff didn't.
Fourth, Gordon seems to be confused into thinking that Peikoff is claiming some sort of determinism (see my post on this matter) regarding those who subscribe to Kantian metaphysics or ethics. Peikoff never claims that just because a person says they agree with Kant that they must be rotten through and through and that they cannot hold any proper conclusions. People can be inconsistent, but to the extent that they are wrong, they will be in corresponding amounts inconsistent in practice and in theory.
Fifth, the factual items that Gordon presents are inconsequential and Gordon himself treats them as such by dedicating one paragraph of his critique to them and failing to provide any citations for the claims.
I openly admit that I am not well-versed in the vagaries of Nazi history or even intellectual history, but Gordon's assertions don't give me reason to doubt Peikoff's thesis or explanations.
For example, was Edgar Jung a Nazi? I don't know. Does being a Nazi exclude one from being killed by the Nazis? No. I'm sure the Nazis killed one another sometimes. Could one be conservative and a Nazi? If the Republicans in this country are any indication, yes.
Other seemingly factual claims may be simple mistakes, like Carl Schmitt, socialist and supporter of dicatorship, not being a communist, (recall that communism and socialism are the same in essence, which Peikoff also discusses) or misunderstandings by Gordon about what it means to summarize the philosophy of another in terms of its ultimate conclusions, like the cases of Godel and Spencer and George.
In reading up on each of these people, I am finding that the high-level view that Gordon denies is, in fact, the case.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume that Peikoff got these particulars wrong. Does that mean that the ideas he describes were not held by the Nazis? The evidence says they did. Does it mean that people in America today do not hold those ideas? The evidence says they do. Does it mean that ideas do not influence action? Reality says it does.
Peikoff's thesis simply does not rely completely on these items. That's why I say those claims are inconsequential.
Ultimately, Gordon's critique has the flavor and content of a person who would deny the importance of ideas. That sort of system of thought, pragmatism, is precisely the issue that Peikoff criticizes in the book. And that's why I say the critique is intellectually vapid.
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 21, 2005 07:04 AM (yaMs/)
5
I don't know the specifics of Gordon's philosophy, but he has discussed Rand's philosophy in detail and reviewed OPAR --
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_8.pdf
I see no reason to belive that Gordon denies the importance of ideas or their influence on history. Apparently he holds a doctorate in the history of ideas.
In discussing the rise of the Nazis and their ideology, there are a great many facts that one could marshal for or against any given thesis. So as a reader I have to have confidence that a writer has a good grasp of history.
For example, if I wrote a book on the fall of the Roman Empire but got the names wrong of the Roman governors and the ideology of the Roman emperors wrong, you would have every right to question my underlying thesis.
And take the case of Kant. In talking about Kant's views of ethics, it certainly is fair to mention that he put stress on "duty" and the categorical imperative. But isn't it important to tell readers that he explicitly rejected the idea that people should be used as "ends"? There is nothing whatsoever collectivistic in Kant's ethics.
Posted by: Martin Clarke at November 21, 2005 07:32 AM (6xOPR)
6
No reason to think that Gordon rejects a connection between ideas and action except his remarks in this article, particularly where he cites Hume's remark that one cannot behave according to the skeptical philosophy he taught.
His degrees bear no weight in light of his actions insofar as I am aware of them. (I've not yet read his review of OPAR yet.)
The claim isn't that Peikoff was wrong about every person he cites and discusses in the book, but that he is inaccurate or misleading about a few. Peikoff and Gordon both deserve the benefit of the doubt on the niggling issues. If you wrote a book about the history of Rome and got some of the names wrong, that in itself would not stand to undermine whatever your thesis was.
In discussing Kant's ideas it isn't necessary to discuss any particular formulation when the conclusion suffices to make his points clear. The second formulation of the categorical imperative is directly altruistic and its application logically results in collectivism even if Kant either failed to see it or avoided saying it. Gordon credits Peikoff for pointing out that Kant was not consistent in this matter.
But because the conclusions are as stated and the results are as described, there is very little point in a book of this nature to go into much depth on the matter.
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 21, 2005 08:35 AM (yaMs/)
7
What Gordon is against is an all too facile identification of beliefs and actions. That is why he mentions Hume and also stresses the importance of Versailles on the rise of the Nazis.
Peikoff's errors are significant since they go to the essence of the thinkers mentioned. It's not like getting the birth places of Spencer, Kant, Schmitt and Godel wrong. In the case of Kant's ethics he leaves out important information necessary to evaluate the thesis of the book. I 've read both the Grounding and the Critique of Practical Reason and the standard Objectivist interpreation is so skewed as to make me wonder if Rand or Peikoff are mistaken or whether the misrepresenation is deliberate.
Posted by: Martin Clarke at November 21, 2005 09:10 AM (6xOPR)
8
If that is Gordon's claim, he has failed to support it with that article. Maybe a longer work on the matter will give him sufficient space in which to expand on his claims.
Point of fact, Gordon's mention of Hume is not relevant to the book but to the point he attempts to make specifically and directly about the impracticeability of skeptical metaphysics and indirectly about the same for Kantian metaphysics.
If I may be permitted some liberty to guess, I would guess that Peikoff doesn't dwell on the Treaty of Versailles because that is a political cause, behind which is a philosophical cause which is the point and address of the book. Again, all the various political effects of various philosophies and their influence on the German reaction is not the topic of the book, but the philosophy of the Germans. If the Germans resented that treaty, then their resentment was borne of their philosophy.
Also, as mentioned and explained, I think Gordon's 'factual' items are niggling.
As I've not read Kant's books, I really could not comment from direct experience on whether or not their particular interpretation is too general or grossly incorrect; however,
every summary of Kantian ethics I've read is in line with the summaries offered by Rand and Peikoff.
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 21, 2005 09:27 AM (yaMs/)
9
I guess I'm discussing this issue because I first became interested in philosophy when studying Rand. I'm grateful for that; but when I began reading other philosophers, her influence was a big detriment. If you try to read everyone through her lense, you get a distorted view.
Here are a couple of items from Roderick Long who started out a Randian:
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1738
http://solohq.com/Articles/Long/Two_Cheers_for_Modernity.shtml
I'm curious which discussions of Kant's ethics you believe are consistent with Rand's.
Posted by: Martin Clarke at November 21, 2005 12:52 PM (xpn8s)
10
The summaries in my intro to ethics textbooks by James Rachels and the description of Kant in Wikipedia both describe Kant's ethics in a way that is, yes, more specific than any description I've read by Peikoff and Rand, but still consistent therewith.
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 21, 2005 02:15 PM (HdlBk)
11
Ok, I just skimmed that SOLO post and it's ridiculous, which is the quality of post I've come to expect over there.
Neither Rand nor Peikoff nor any person of credible rational faculty including myself would praise an entire era of thinkers categorically and without qualification.
First of all, the thesis of that post is hidden in this statement and question, "Certainly on many major issues, the Enlightenment culture is right, and the medievalists and postmodernists are wrong. But from the standpoint of Objectivist principles, is it really true that defenders of the Enlightenment have nothing to learn from the medievalist and postmodernist critiques?"
To which I would respond, "Even if the answer is 'yes' and there are some philosophers or ideas of value from those periods, our conclusion must still be that the that Enlightenment was generally characterized by liberty and reason, while the opposing points are woefully wrong and destructive in the same general sense. What of value is added to the discussion by going over these niggling points?"
Furthermore, to say that Enlightenment thinkers were always right is to ascribe an intrinsic value to them based on what era they lived in, which is patently absurd.
I'd criticize that writer, like Gordon, for missing the forest for the trees. The remarks are devoid of any significant intellectual value.
What are you giving me links to? I printed out that other review by Gordon to read, but I'm a little scared to read it and the other link you posted.
I probably won't be able to resist since, apparently, I'm a glutton for punishment, but still. Scary, yo.
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 21, 2005 02:36 PM (HdlBk)
12
According to Rand:
"An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derivses no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual; a benefit destroys the moral value of an action." (For the New Intellectual at p. 32.)
I don't have the Rachels book, but this is NOT what Wikipedia says.
I return again to Roderick Long who points out that Rand actually has repeated an error of other commentators on Kant (at pp. 95-96)--
http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_1_7.pdf
Posted by: Martin Clarke at November 21, 2005 02:45 PM (xpn8s)
13
I will have to read that new PDF a bit more closely because I don't see where he explains how Kant is not like that. Also, I believe Rand was summarizing the Kantian ethic and not quoting him directly.
In reading about Kant's categorical imperative, and even excerpts from Kant's own writings, which attempt to state and explain it, it seems clear that in the question of a conflict between one's own value and that which is valued by another, one should choose the value of the other. The end result of following the categorical imperative would appear to be exactly as Rand stated it.
I hope that it is sufficient for us in this discussion to agree that if anyone did formulate such a dastardly idea as described by the Rand quotation you provided, they are the worst of all evil.
I wish I could cite some other sources for you to investigate but I am only (re)starting my formal philosophical training. I recall hearing Rand's summary being repeated by professors and reading it in other books as well, but it is concievable that they have missed some key element for the sake of such a pat summary. I do doubt it, but I can see how it might happen and I will weigh those ideas when I come to them.
I am sure that I will study Kant in greater detail over the next several semesters. I will see if they are wrong or right.
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 21, 2005 03:15 PM (HdlBk)
14
Gordon complains that Peikoff denounces the implications of Kant's philosophy while glossing over its more "individualistic" aspects. To make this point, we are informed that Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative is: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end." Can this be interpreted as anything other than an expression of altruist ethics?
Another line from Gordon that demonstrates his vapidity: "Peikoff gives us a history of philosophy with the arguments left out." He chastises Peikoff for not revealing "why Kant's successors regarded him as a profound thinker." It's Peikoff's book; it's his argument to make.
I see Gordon's attitude pretty often among my friends who attended college, who all claim that Ayn Rand is not "academic" or "recognized" and is therefore meaningless. In the modern world, one's writing actually gains academic credibility if one makes an argument, and then bats for the other team.
Posted by: John Powers at November 21, 2005 03:31 PM (rkqgT)
15
Correction: I just went back and reviewed the materials in my Rachels book and he does not use that summary of Kant's position.
Now I do wonder if I've ever read that summary anywhere but by Rand and Peikoff.
The question merely remains whether or not it is an accurate summary and since I've not read Kant myself, I can't say.
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 21, 2005 03:44 PM (HdlBk)
16
"it seems clear that in the question of a conflict between one's own value and that which is valued by another, one should choose the value of the other."
Where in the world does Kant say this? In the Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals (which you should read since it is only about 70 pages) Kant says that nothing from experience should determine ethics. It is the moral law derived from practial reason that counts.
Here is a good discussion --
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#2
Posted by: Martin Clarke at November 21, 2005 03:58 PM (xpn8s)
17
Altruism, the ethical philosophy that one has a moral obligation to others, is implicit in both formulations of the categorical imperative which state that every person must be regarded as an end in himself and that one should only act in line with principles that one would want applied universally.
This is little more than intrinsicism, which requires a disregard for the values one holds as well as the context (reality) in which one holds them.
I'm fighting the urge here to oppose his duty-fetish here.
But the altruism claim comes in because as an ethical guideline the categorical imperative requires that the individual consider not his own values but the good of EVERYONE else as if anyone and everyone else was as important to him as himself.
I think people probably have a hard time seeing this connection because Kant is sure to include the individual in this writhing mass of human "dignity," but in order to continue to project the categorical imperative one cannot see one as better or worse than everyone else, which is also to say that the individual is indistinct from the collective.
In sum, the categorical imperative requires that humanity be regarded as a huge, undifferentiated mass. The values (good) of the many outwiegh the values (good) of the individual (the fewest).
This is where Kant's own inconsistency would appear to come into play.
Again, I've not read all of Kant. All I can say is that it's clear to me based on what I do know that Kantian ethics are ultimately altruistic and if projected into the political realm, they are collectivistic as well.
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 21, 2005 06:54 PM (HdlBk)
18
One more:
http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/06/rands-misunderstanding-of-kant.html
Posted by: Martin Clarke at November 22, 2005 02:44 AM (xpn8s)
19
You are just full of handy links on this stuff!
I'll check it out. Thanks!
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 22, 2005 07:22 AM (yaMs/)
20
Incidentally, if you check out Georges Dicker's book Kant's Theory of KNowledge he states that the "older view" of Kant described his epistemology in some ways similar to Rand. He says that the "newer theory" is more moderate. As he points out, there is textual evidence for both views. For example, at times Kant describes things in themselves as "unknowable."
Allen Wood in his intro book on Kant (publicshed by Blackwell) says that a few older commentators on Kant (including Schiller and Hegel) saw Kant as a world denying type (p. 133) but he doesn't see anything in Kant's writing suporting such a view.
Neither book mentions Rand. You can search both on Amazon.
So Rand might have something of a case concerning Kant's epistemology because that view was common when she was writing. I don't think she has any case concerning his ethics.
There is no shortage of secondary material on Kant, that's for sure.
Posted by: Martin Clarke at November 22, 2005 11:54 AM (xpn8s)
21
I don't think she has a case regarding his epistemology just because that's what everyone else was saying at the time. It's a conclusion one could draw from listening to the convoluted arguments of Kant himself.
Similarly, the Categorical Imperative, his ethical guidepost, can be legitimately argued as support for altruism.
Rand may have simplified Kant's position to an extent that Kant's students and supporters might not immediately recognize him, but I do not think it's safe to say that there is no grounds for her charge.
Posted by: Trey Givens at November 22, 2005 02:41 PM (HdlBk)
22
If Rand's summary of Kant's teaching includes certain conlusions she draws from Kant's position, then she has the duty to so inform her readers.
Rand was sensitive to misrepresenations of her thought, so she should have been cautious in her discussion of others.
I'll cut Rand a little slack since she did not have an advanced degree in philosophy. THe same cannot be said for Peikoff.
Posted by: Martin Clarke at November 22, 2005 04:28 PM (xpn8s)
23
Rand did inform her readers of her conclusions. That's what her whole discussion of Kant is about.
Posted by: Trey Givens at December 14, 2005 03:12 AM (yaMs/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Quotation for the Time Being
"Christianity ... paved the way for modern totalitarianism by entrenching three fundamentals in the western mind: in metaphysics, the worship of the supernatural; in epistemology, reliance on faith; as a consequence, in ethics, the reverence for self-sacrifice.
- Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
07:39 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: A Quotation for the Time Being
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.
November 18, 2005
This Weekend
Things I want to get done this weekend:
- Begin putting up Christmas decorations
- Watch Harry Potter
- Do the laundry
- Do some work at the office (in progress now)
- Clean up the house a bit
- Homework?
- Catch up on sleep
So, we'll see.
I just ran 10 miles at a smidge over a 9 minute mile pace and I'm a little loopy right now. We'll see how things turn out.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
02:14 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: Odds & Ends
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.
Bedazzler!
Paul at Noodlefood posted about a new weapon. It's some kind of laserbeam-lite that blinds people.
Let me be clear, when I'm talking about laserbeams, I mean the kind that cut through titanium like buttah. I'm not talking about some kind of glorified pointer thingie.
So, imagine the eye-rolling I was doing when I read, "the device will require close scrutiny to ensure compliance with a United Nations protocol on blinding laser weapons."
There's a protocol about blinding people?
Frankly, if I had one of these razzle-dazzle guns, I would give killers an option: Either be blinded or be dead.
Because if folks are upset about the bedazzler then grenades, tanks, surface-to-whatever-the-hell-is-in-the-way missiles are also effective deterrants.
And I'm not calling that thing a phaser either. It's demeaning to good phasers that I would categorize as useful laserbeams.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
02:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: BLEEAAARRRG!
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.
Hello, Objectivists and Students of Objectivism!
I am so happy because some of my recent posts have evinced some comments from some of my favorite Objectivist bloggers.
Diana Hsieh was here and Don Watkins, too! And Mike of Passing Thoughts linked over to me a little while back. And, of course, there's Ice Scribe who sails by now and then.
I love it! I love them. I love them here.
It's like I'm throwing a party and looking out at the howling wind satisfied in the thought that it is my mind that brings warmth and food. (If you don't get the allusion, go get you some Atlas Shrugged.)
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
01:58 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Category: BLEEAAARRRG!
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Everytime I'm alone and it's storming outside I think back to that passage. One of my favorites.
Posted by: Don at November 18, 2005 02:30 PM (aO2kt)
2
I added you to my blogroll today, before I even saw this post. I'll post the announcement about it tomorrow. You get a special mention in the announcement, since I mostly updated the blogroll just to add your blog!
Happy blogging!
Posted by: Diana Hsieh at November 18, 2005 05:56 PM (m7u+F)
3
"Sails by now and then?" I'm here reading every day my friend
Posted by: Ice Scribe at November 19, 2005 03:52 AM (WWjB7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More Signs of the End Times
Yahoo! News:
Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design
VATICAN CITY - The
Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.
"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."
What's very surprising about this is that an institution of faith is actually standing up for reason.
What doesn't make this SO surprising is that these comments and the ones later in the article are actually in line with previous statements other Catholics have made on the matter. (I wish I had some citations for you, but unfortunately, I've read far too many articles on IB, Creationism, and Atheism to remember where I've read all these things right now.)
Some people are quite honest about their faith and acknowledge that it is completely separate and distinct from reason. They're more honest than their I.D. counterparts in that regard.
So, good for them in continuing to stick to their guns of irrationalism and not allowing the Intelligent Design crowd lure them into mixing their faith with the appearances of reason.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
09:56 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Category: Mythology and Modern Man
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.
1
It basically comes down to integrity. Religious folks with integrity say ID isn't science. The ones that are willing to compromise themselves in an effort to proselytize say it is.
Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2005 12:39 PM (oqu5j)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Overheard at a Dinner Party
Party guests are moving the couch to make more room.
Hostess: Don't be scared if you see a roach under there. I'm so embarrassed to have to say that.
Flibby: Roaches aren't you're fault. They're the fault of people who invent inadequate nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
04:05 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: Overheard
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.
Worst Advertising Slogan
I was listening to the radio this morning on my way to work and a commercial for a Chevy dealership came on and the guys said, "Buy American. Not because you ought to but because there's no reason not to."
Ok. So I understand this to mean, "I have no good reason to buy American but at the same time I have no good reason not to buy American."
hmm... Are there any worthwhile products anywhere?
If it weren't for all the fabulous goods and services I've purchased with origins all over the planet, I might seriously start to question the virtue of shopping altogether.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
03:43 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Category: Money, Money, Money!
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.
137kb generated in 0.2573 seconds; 83 queries returned 291 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.