spongy white bread on the great buffet

An insanely funny review of Atlas Shrugged. I couldn't stop laughing.

I can't imagine it being that funny, if you haven't read the book, which the reviewer describes as "nerd revenge porn". Several of the reader comments (well the 1st few, I"m not going to read all 396 of them) are really amusing, as well. "Regardless, I may have to read it now, just so I can picture John Galt as a sentient cup of yogurt the whole time."

commenter #39 stated:
I think most Objectivists sit in their middle class suburban houses and think “Yeah, if society was like that, then I’d be a CEO making the big bucks too!” And there are also those who see these people, and use this selfishness and lack of self esteem and use it to manipulate them. Probably why it appeals to segment of the tea party folks.
-- nailed it in one. This explains my personal opinion of tannin-containing-idiots quite succinctly.

I read it in high school and it was the first significant piece of literature that really impressed me socio-politically. Sure, I'd read a bunch of Heinlein, Asimov, and I might even have read Dune, and quite a bit of Cherryh's more social-focused works. All of which came across as clearly SciFi. Atlas Shrugged was presented as more clearly 'it could be real', since it didn't have interstellar space traveling aliens wielding laser guns. I clearly disagree with the reviewer about how plausible the objectivist-world is. Just look around, man, and listen to the politicians today.

incompetent self analysis

From 'The Agnostic's Dilemma' (NYTimes):
When people are incompetent in the strategies they adopt to achieve success and satisfaction, they suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.

the article also cites:
Justin Kruger and David Dunning, “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties of Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-assessments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 1121-1134
these authors have several related articles

Respecting the Law ... but not my intelligence

I am perhaps more critical of writing which starts by pissing me off.

America, we have a problem. Millions upon millions of people want to move here. Permanently. Even a country as prosperous as ours cannot possibly absorb so much humanity.
1st sentence of the NRO article Respecting the Law

bullshit.

So what happens now? The bullshit detector is on.

next sentence:

As problems go, however, this is not a bad one to have. For the day that “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” no longer besiege America is the day we will have to admit that America has lost its “magic formula.”

well, maybe an intelligent neo-nationalist

8th paragraph, following rah-rah-ain't-we-wonderful self-aggrandizement of the United States of America:

Respect for the rule of law seems natural to most Americans, what America does he live in? and can I get a visa? but it is largely an anomaly in the history of other nations. really? Would this be the 'other nations' whose legal system we adopted, like England? Or China, the oldest country in the world, which has had a rule of law for centuries? Or maybe he really means a 'democracy', which really has little to do with a rule of law? Nowhere is this more evident than in Latin America. South and Central America have seen scores of military dictatorships and autocracies, despite endorsing democracy and democratic institutions, since freeing themselves from the shackles of Spanish colonialism. Because we keep funding the groups which remove the democratically elected people we don't like. ... Far too many of the region’s leaders have learned the fine art of manipulating electoral politics FROM US in order to install themselves as autocrats or dictators with our money and political backing.

The inconsistent adherence to the rule of law has made it difficult for democratic institutions to flourish in Latin America. there? what about here? Moreover, repeated flouting of the law by political and military leaders undermines respect for the law among the general public. only if you're a progressive This is evidenced in everyday life: Consider the streets of many Latin American countries, where simple traffic laws are violated almost universally, and with near-total impunity. Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Has this man seen the streets of America? oh, right ... we've already established he doesn't live in the same America I do. Like Michigan, which treats stop signs as general guidance, and Minnesota where running red lights is a local sport on par with jay-walking in Michigan.


It’s no surprise, then, that some immigrants from Latin America evince a residual disrespect for the rule of law in this country. trans: I come from a country without traffic enforcement, therefore I will become a felon here, rape your daughters, steal your dogs, and suck on the teat of American social security.

It explains why so many ______ remain convinced that they have done nothing wrong by _________. Their desire to work hard and provide for their families is, for them, enough to justify their actions — the rule of law is an extraneous concept.

Now, class, let's fill in the blanks above. Is the correct answer:

American politicians // fucking the poor
American politicians // fucking our children's future
American politicians // waging unfunded wars abroad
unemployed illegal aliens // being hired by American companies
undocumented workers // entering our country illegally

If you answered a, b, c, or d - your head is sufficiently far enough out of your ass to smell shit when it's there.
If you answered e, you read Mr. Ortega's article.

Why is it that I think they assigned this piece of propaganda bullshit to a person with an Hispanic family name?

So, in summary:
Latinos have no traffic control and therefore are inherently incapable of obeying any law and therefore are unworthy to enter the hallowed borders of a country which worships the rule of law.

by the way ...

I filed suit yesterday in small claims court against someone in this Rule of Law Worshiping Society who rear-ended me, stove in my back hatch, and has no insurance while driving a vehicle belonging to someone else with no insurance, who then drove off before the cops came, after being monumentally stupid enough to stop and talk to me. If she'd just driven off, no one would ever have been able to prosecute her, since it wasn't her car.
She must have been an illegal immigrant.

Deutschland 4 : 0 ...??

Argentina????

Ole! ole ole ole ole ... ole ... ole ...
Ole! ole ole ole ole ... ole ... ole ...
Ole! ole ole ole ole ... ole ... ole ...**(hear below if anyone I know doesn't actually know what this is)

Jr.Gopher#2 was standing next to me singing in the middle of the 2nd half of the game. He looked pleased that he could sing with the grown-ups. Which is good, because I'm not sure he quite understood why the adults had been going bezerk.

At the end of the game, after screaming themselves hoarse, the Germans looked at each other and wondered: "4 to zero! ... but, against ... them...??"

Maybe because I'm not German, or perhaps because I'm not a serious soccer fan ... I've noticed the Germans, almost uniformly, seemed stunned at the score. Rabidly enthusiastic, but stunned. I don't get it. Sure, Argentina is good; but did these people assume their national team wasn't all that good? Sure, even I'm surprised, but my non-German mind says "wow, we won, cool. Pass the pretzels."

Goal #3 was a thing of technical beauty.

Goal #2, however, I think demonstrates why Germany won: they simply never gave up once they got the ball.
From 66:50 until the goal, Der Mannschaft just passed and passed and passed and scored. Müller (I think) slips, goes down while the ball hits him, he spins on his butt on the ground to kick the ball while practically lying down, straight over to Podolski and then the video clips pick up letting you see the goal.

Messi might be the greatest soccer player in the world, but you don't win the World Cup by being the best player. Or by fielding the best players. Germany hounded him and simply kept him from doing what he does best; it interrupted Argentina's flow of play. Germany just ran them into the ground.

Ahhh ...

Jr.Gopher#1 got to sit next to another boy 2 grades ahead of him at the German school; they at least got to socialize a bit with someone their own age. One of the teachers @ the German School was there, as well.

I hear the jingle for the ESPN world cup highlights coming from the front room...

I can't find a short version with the chant/song - The first 20 seconds or so of this is all you would need to hear; the rest is icky.

.

Retarded: redeux

Retarded.

Apparently the newest target of PC-mania. "developmentally disabled", "developmentally challenged" "otherwise abled" ... ???

How about just "fucked up just like everyone else in the world"?

I am handicapped ... or is it developmentally impaired (maybe that's 'retarded') ... or crippled ... or otherwise-abled ... ?

Hell if I know what you want to call me - I just go with whatever the government form has in its demographics:
Race: Other
Gender: F
Military Status: No
Handicapped: Yes

Now ... don't be pissin' me off about this. I am handicapped (or whatever), therefore I get to pick whatever damn term I want to talk about myself or my fellowly-abled.

This is right up there with being black and calling your friends niggers. They get to because its a self-reference? But I can't, because it's grossly offensive? Is it only offensive because I'm white? Would it be equally offensive if I was Asian & calling someone nigger?

What about calling people Black rather than African-American? Is that okay these days? Or what about Colored? Is that as equally offensive as nigger? At least one person I know, who is African, didn't particularly care for being called "African American" since he was white.

Who thinks they're appointed by Linguistic Gods to tell me what I can or cannot use? I'll use any word I want any time I want. If you don't like it ... oh, well. Mind you, I do have a sense of social propriety. I'm not going to yell, "yo, cunt!" across the table of some executive business meeting.

Most women I know find 'cunt' to be the maximum offensive euphemism for 'woman'. Why? Because it's only used when trying to be offensive? I guess the Vagina Monologues wouldn't have the same advertising draw as the Cunt Monologues, or the Pussy Monologues. (One of the scenes in the play is a list of every single word possible in the English language to use as a euphemism for vagina - wow.)

Know what ...? letting Them get away with this is tantamount to signing away one's power.

By being offended at a given term, you give Them power over you.
Making Them stop using a word is not exercising power over Them; it's giving them the power to offend you.
Sure, being called a nigger by some red-neck home-boy is likely on par with being called cunt by some red-necked home-boy. Know what ... I don't give a damn.

Yup, I've been called a cunt. And ... I didn't give a damn then. Don't care now. If he was so g-damned stupid to think that his pie-hole-noise would somehow hurt me ... he's even stupider than his actions would indicate.

It isn't the word. It's how its used. The [person] who complained on my blog

... what's with using the word retarded? just wrong any way you look at it.

apparently failed to notice the term 'retarded' was applied to the Catholic Church, and not some 'developmentally disabled' person. The term 'retarded' was also immediately followed by "retarded ... as in developmentally retarded' - explicitly stating the application of this word was not about a person.

I'm a scientist; whether or not I have finished my MPH (almost there, almost there, almost there), I was a scientist long before grad school. When I wrote "retarded growth of the microorganisms" ... I was not referring to "developmentally disabled bacteria".

John Stewart Mill, a famous sociologist of the late 19th Century, wrote in his 'Sociology':
"However much their pursuit of these objects may be for the present retarded by want of electoral organization," should this monumental text be re-edited? (maybe to accommodate inadequate 21st Century education to realize that he meant "these people don't have their political shit together"). Are these pursuits are "otherwise abled"? no ... His point is that they hadn't grown and whether or not they would was yet to be determined.

The word retarded has meaning outside of a person's physical or mental development. By demanding Society ignore those other meanings detracts from the rich melange called the English language.

There are so many different physical manifestations that are today considered to be "handicaps". No one would look at me and call me a cripple - during martial arts classes or biking to school or carrying my 3 year old son.

I'm not sure if people would be understanding of assigning me to a category of "handicapped", since it's not obvious. Is it still a "handicap" if it's not obvious?

Am I handicapped? Some times I wonder myself.

Yet, I can't drive without having my neurologist reassure the DMV every 6 months that I'm safe. I can't go anywhere without my medication, on the off chance I get stuck somewhere, e.g. another unplanned 3-day stay Children's Hospital. I really shouldn't do contact sports. A serious amount of pharmacological attention to detail before/during/after pregnancy. This does handicap my life. Yet "crippled" seems more severe. That, to me, is a perception of severity. Even I wouldn't apply that term to myself.

A co-worker's sister is retarded. She doesn't seem to feel comfortable with any particular term for this, seeming equally uncomfortable with retarded (due to PC-ness) or 'developmentally disabled' (because it's long and sounds euphemistic).

Developmentally disabled is a euphemism. So are most words related to bodily functions or parts. We use euphemisms for things that make us feel uncomfortable. We curse what makes us feel uncomfortable, usually using euphemisms to help distance ourselves psychologically.

The problem is not society's use of a word. The problem is society's delusional beliefs about what that rate/level of development means about a person's intrinsic value. Changing the word ain't gonna do squat to change Society.


Therefore, move out of my way; let the handicapped get on with her life and change society, not her language.

.

Gravely Imperilled

The future of mankind will be gravely imperilled, if great questions are left to be fought over between ignorant change and ignorant opposition to change.

John Stewart Mill, Sociology, 1879.

he also wrote in his introduction to the book well the commentary is mine:

The great increase of electoral power which the Act places within the reach of the working classes is permanent. ha ha ha The circumstances which have caused them, thus far, to make a very limited use of that power, are essentially temporary. 131 years later, does it still count as 'temporary'? It is known even to the most inobservant The powerful certainly observed this, that the working classes have [... for good or ill realized their goals/opinions are in conflict with the powerful...]. However much their pursuit of these objects may be for the present retarded seriously retarded by want of electoral organization, by dissensions among themselves, or by their not having reduced as yet their wishes into a sufficiently definite practical shape, it is as certain as anything in politics can be, that they will before long before 2010? find the means of making their collective electoral power effectively instrumental to the proportion of their collective objects.

His introduction is poignant in its delusional futility. He - and perhaps the rest of Socialists in general - completely and totally underestimated the willpower of the disenfranchised classes. Their will to do nothing is astonishing. He also completely and totally underestimated the lengths to which the propertied/powerful would go, in order to protect their status quo. Or the awe inspiring, subtle creativity they would employ.

The disenfranchised have had their "collective objects" co-opted by the rich & powerful. The powerful, fearing to loose their proportion of that power, have convinced the Little Guy that "you can be just like me". So, all these tea-party idiots are running around defending the rich & powerful because they think they, too, can become rich and powerful, and want to have those power-perqs.

What better way to fuck the little guy, than to get her to do to herself?

It Might Get Loud

what do these people think they're doing, who

a) crank up the stereo volume in their internal combustion transportation vehicle to the point that with their windows closed and my windows closed, at 10' I can still hear it?

b) talk on their cell phone on the bus for more than a few minutes loud enough that they can be heard 6 rows away?

c) play YouTube videos on their laptop at a coffee shop so loud as to be heard 5' away?


Obviously their parents never included "that's not polite" in their social behaviour modification process.

[def.] Knowledge

Additional research based knowledge of the costs imposed on people ....ref.1

I cannot imagine a chemist or physicist (or industrial hygienist) writing this sentence. How does one make any claim to anything in a scientific peer-reviewed journal if it isn't researched based? I suppose the assumption excludes personal opinions and the editorial section.

I've seen this several times in this course's readings. It's even defined somewhere in the text. It's the social science method to claim scientific validity for a subject most physical scientists don't think is science.

(ref.1) Warner, et. al. 1995. Criteria for determining an optimal cigarette tax: the economist's perspective. Tobacco Control, 4, 380-386.