Le Marquis de Kennedy

At the beginning of WWII, Joseph Kennedy (pere to JFK, RFK, and Teddy K) argued strongly against the USA giving aid to Britain:

"Democracy is finished in England. It may be here,” stated Ambassador Kennedy, Boston Sunday Globe of November 10, 1940. In a one simple statement, Joe Kennedy ruined any future chances of becoming US president, metaphorically committing political suicide. While Blitzkrieg bombs fell daily on England, Nazi troops occupied Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France, Ambassador Kennedy unambiguously and repeatedly stated his belief that the war was not about saving democracy from National Socialism (Nazism) or Fascism."""

See the Wiki-school and other sites for further proof that Vati Kennedy was, at least throughout the 30s, and even into WWII, about as close to the nazis as say Chas. Lindberg, and certainly as anti-semitic as Lindberg. Joe Sr. went too far, but be damn sure he's spinning in his grave since TeddyBear Kennedy (and other Kennedy scabs, like Schwarznegger's Schlampe, Maria) have given their blessing to Reverend Obama (who btw has implicitly affirmed creationism, and denied Darwinian evolution and questioned secularism in numerous appearances, hand-shaking with fundamentalist preachers. Got that yet McBozo? And don't spam in Mssr. Tristero's writing when you don't know Crying of Lot 49 from the 49er's [see note]*). It might also be recalled that Joe Sr. supported JoeMcCarthy, even after his censure, and that Bobby boy worked for McCarthy and the House Un-American activities for quite some time.

Maria, Die Ueber-Frau


The Kennedy spectacle, indeed, remains one of the mysteries of the American mind-phuck: a sort of clan of Irish monarchists with mob ties succeed in presenting themselves as "liberals" while living in a manner comparable to the Bourbons of pre-revolutionary France. J'accuse! Put 'em in the tumbrils (and Jefferson would've agreed, probably).

----------------------

Here's a useful criteria for RealPolitik: who would George Orwell support for Prez? First, Orwell was NOT a pacifist (unlike say his glib acolyte Pynchon). Nor was Orwell a Xtian (or religious in any conventional sense). He valued secularism, rationality, and modern science. He was opposed to tyranny on right or left, and to sentimental liberalism (i.e. US democrats). Orwell would therefore, probably support McCain, albeit with a bit of trepidation (and opposition to some of McCain's votes, and to the GOP economics--tho' McCain did vote against Bushco's tax slashes), or perhaps Ron Paul. Ron Paul of course scares the F. out of yogurt-sucking DNCocrat swine "gauchistes," but Dr. Paul hasn't exactly waved a swastika around. He denounces zionism, and is not nice, and not an accommodator, but not exactly Goering. Ed Abbey probably woulda voted for Doc Paul.


(Re: Tristero/Trystero/COL49. Those who actually have made it through Pynchon's complex maze in COL49 (and it's a shawty maze, compared to V or Gravity's Rainbow) know that Tristero is no liberal (or group of liberals). Who (or what) exactly is Tristero? We suggest sort of Wobbly anarchist-couriers--a Wobbly Pony Express if you will (READ it and find out)---rather rustic. Cactus Ed Abbey might be part of the imaginary brigade. Mssr. Tristero of Digby's joint would not likely be par-tay material).

Burroughs vs. the Church of L-Ron?? (No Secret Handshakes, continued).


We shiete you not:

"Although Burroughs writes that he finds some techniques from Scientology "highly valuable," he criticizes what he describes as "Mr. Hubbard's overtly fascist utterances" on American and international politics. He considers Hubbard to be out of sync with the radical youth movement of the period, and asks rhetorically, "which side are you on, Hubbard, which side are you on?"[1]"

NakedScientology

This is interesting, but not completely surprising. Reading a bit about the founding of the COS and the mysterious L-Ron, one soon notes that L-Ron was not quite the do-gooder moralist that many modern Scientologists claim he was (or aspire to be). L-Ron, one time Navy man, dabbled in the occult back in the day, along with his pal Jack Parsons (who dat? He was a rocket scientist who more or less founded Cal Tech and JPL). Care to guess who they were inspired by? None other than old Uncle Aleister Crowley himself (this might be old news to some older El Lay locals--not to MSM). Parsons in fact corresponded with Uncle Al--that is, until Parsons blew himself up in his Pasadena mansion under rather odd circumstances (and --get this--L-Ron had run off with one of Parson's "scarlet ladies"). Much of this is detailed in Mike Davis' great history of LA, City of Quartz (and he's probably leftie enough for much of blogville).





Burroughs' interest in the church of L-Ron then does not seem so strange (we here at Contingencies are not avid Burroughs' fans, but that's old-time religion and Naked Lunch was a formative influence on many, including "Steely Dan"--the curious may google around for a clearer definition). L-Ron did appropriate some of Crowley's techniques (whatever those are--probably mostly derived from yoga and meditation, etc.), and that's probably what intrigued Big Bill B. Hubbard actually was not a complete rightist: he was a pal of Robert Heinlein (both failed engineers, and probably with some CIA connections), and L-Ron made a few slightly anti-war comments during 'Nam, and even hung out with some hippies on occasion, but was of course opposed to drugs--though his autopsy showed abundant quantities of muscle relaxants in his blood (L-Ron himself found dead, in somewhat "mysterious" circumstances, out in the boonies near San Luis Obisbo in 80s). All a big part of the Operation Mindphuck, unknown to most American thanatoids (Tom Cruise, member of the Bavarian Illuminati? Whoa).

Reverend Hillary and the protestant left

"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." (Johnson)

During the reign of Bill Clinton,Murray ROTHBARD, of the VonMises school penned some nearly interesting essays on "left millennialism": the Von Misesians may have been wrong-headed on some things (the Keynesians of FDR's time were not as demonic as some libertarians claim), but their secularism and skepticism towards statism of all sorts is deserving of some respect. According to Rothbard, Clintonocracy represented a sort of christian socialism, the aim of which concerned not merely political or economic efficiency, but a type of religious state. Taking on the techno-oligarchies may not be the worst thing a politician could do (really, the Clintons have been content to appease corporations), but the success of authentic anti-trust efforts should not depend on religious zeal.

The liberal reformers' enthusiasm generally assumes the forms of their faith, usually of the calvinist variety (someone might term that "populism" of a sort--while remembering that populism and biblethumping works for conservative yokels like Huckabee as well as it does for Dame Hillary). We here at Contingencies would include Rev. Obama--who campaigned in churches all of Fall '07 (40 Days of Faith and Phamily, y'all), and has questioned the separation clause of 1st Amendment---- along with The Right Reverend Hillary in that category of "leftist millennialists". (Other writers, even fairly liberal figures such as Bertrand Russell, noted this puritanical tendency in leftist and marxist reformers. Marxist or multiculturalist dogma substitutes in quite nicely for methodist tracts).


And here's.........Murray:

"""""Which brings us to our beloved First Couple. I have already mentioned that Slick Willie, in addressing a black Gospel church in Maryland on behalf of God's alleged commandment to pass his crime bill, revealingly told the assembled congregation that the goal of his "ministry" is to bring about "the Kingdom of God on earth." That should have sounded the fire alarm throughout the nation. Unfortunately, to an American public possessing little knowledge of history or theology, Clinton's remarkable statement went unreported.

But, as we all know, it is Hillary, not Slick Willie, who [was] the hard-core ideologue in the White House. Hillary's theological agenda was perceptively unveiled recently by the knowledgeable, if admiring and liberal, Kenneth L. Woodward, religion editor of Newsweek. (Kenneth L. Woodward, "Soulful Matters," Newsweek (Oct. 31, 1994) pp. 23–25) In a lengthy exclusive interview with Hillary, Woodward reports that our Lady Macbeth simply considers herself "an old-fashioned Methodist."

Hillary's pronouncement is not as absurd as it might first seem. Hillary Rodham was born in northern Illinois Yankee country, in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. Her grandparents told stories about their Methodism in early-nineteenth-century England, not many generations removed from the founding of Methodism by John Wesley. Hillary's family were pious Methodists, and Hillary herself was inducted into the Social Gospel by the Rev. Donald Jones, the then youth minister at her Park Ridge First United Methodist Church. I am sure that we are all gratified to learn how Hillary got her start in the cause of "social reform"; as Woodward fondly puts it, the Rev. Jones "developed his privileged suburban students' social consciences by taking them to visit migrant workers' children."

The most important passage in Woodward's article is his explanation of the importance of Methodism within the American Protestant spectrum: "More than other Protestants, Methodists are still imbued with the turn-of-the-century social gospel, which holds that Christians have been commissioned to build the Kingdom of God on earth."

.........

Now obviously, and of course, a lot of this is Hillary's drive to "reinvent" herself, that is, to create a duplicitous false image, to make herself less threatening to the angry American public. And surely the late-nineteenth-century Social Gospelers would be horrified at the current multi-gendered, condomaniacal Clintonian left, to say nothing of the rapid revolving of poor John Wesley in his eighteenth-century English grave. But there is definitely a direct line of descent from the Methodist Social Gospelers of the nineteenth century to St. Hillary and the monstrous Clintonian left. Mix into "old-fashioned Methodism" liberal doses of Marxism, the New Left, the pagan pantheist New Age, and the multicultural and sexual revolutions, stir briskly, and you get the current ruling horror that we all face, and are trying to roll back out of our lives. We face, in short, regardless of what hairdo or persona she affects next week, the evil Witch in the White House.""""

* * *

Hallelujah! Kudos for the Lady Macbeth riff too, Mssr. Rothbard (Lady Macbeth might serve as a template for many American political mollies, really--it works for Hillary or DiDi Feinstein or Annie "The Mormon She-wolf" Romney). Rothbard may have gone a bit overboard here, but he was not so far from the mark in terming the Clinton agenda a sort of marxist-methodism (with corporate support, as well. Rev. Obama also gets some help from good American muslims). One notes that marxist-methodist tendency in many contemporary whiny-ass democratic scum leftist scribblers, say, in the PC sanitorium of DailyKOS.

Indeed, one might argue that Hegelianism (sort of the basis for statist tyranny, whether Xtian rightist or secular-marxist) affirms a certain antinomian approach to political theory: Hegel it should be recalled often praised Martin Luther (and Machiavelli for that matter), and Luther's essential objection against Catholicism hinged on an insistence on "sola fide." Catholic tradition (yes, chockful of hypocrisy and superstition), at least understands the danger posed by the doctrine of "sola fide" (common to protestant-robots of all sorts): the absurdity of salvation by "faith" alone.

No secret handshakes, II (BR's version)


ψ(ιx(φx)) ≔ ∃x(∀y(φy ↔ y = x) ∧ ψx).


(What means that? That's Russell's iota notation for definite descriptions (sort of the basis for any artificial language as well). It also means that whenever you assert something, you make an existence claim, and it means you usually are talking scheisse--any predications (such as the King of France is bald, or not bald) about non-existent entities are false)

So, an assertive sentence turns out to entail something like this in predicate form:

--There is an x such that x is Bubba the Sweatshop Boss (∃x(Bx))

--For every x that is Bubba the Sweatshop Boss and every y that is Bubba the Sweatshop Boss, x equals y (i.e. there is at most one Bubba the Sweatshop Boss, hopefully) (∀x(Bx → ∀y(By → y=x))) . That indicates uniqueness, a point which the greeks, classical mathematicians and even Frege had not quite grasped.

---Bubba the Sweatshop Boss is an Oppressor. (∀x(Bx → Ox)) (or, the Sweatshops of Bubba are Oppressive--An Oppressor would run an oppressive business, presumably)


So, one merely verifies that a Sweatshop X operated by Bubba does exist, and proves that X is indeed Oppressive, and calls the Better Bidness Bureau! QED.

No Secret Handshakes, I
History: Fundamental Conditions (Marx, the German Ideology)

"""""Since we are dealing with the Germans, who are devoid of premises, we must begin by stating the first premise of all human existence and, therefore, of all history, the premise, namely, that men must be in a position to live in order to be able to “make history.” But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life. Even when the sensuous world is reduced to a minimum, to a stick as with Saint Bruno [Bauer], it presupposes the action of producing the stick. Therefore in any interpretation of history one has first of all to observe this fundamental fact in all its significance and all its implications and to accord it its due importance. It is well known that the Germans have never done this, and they have never, therefore, had an earthly basis for history and consequently never an historian. The French and the English, even if they have conceived the relation of this fact with so-called history only in an extremely one-sided fashion, particularly as long as they remained in the toils of political ideology, have nevertheless made the first attempts to give the writing of history a materialistic basis by being the first to write histories of civil society, of commerce and industry."""""



"Du essen. Daher ist es dich gibt": a point which most theists, metaphysicians, idealist historians, and romantics (whether left or right) never quite realize. Marx, of course follows Thomas Hobbes here (and Hobbes had already said as much contra-Descartes), and is not so far from Malthus or Darwin really, except that he has a keener awareness of economics (not that his proposed cures for the disease of finance capitalism are so grand, taken across the board). Marx's writing also might serve as an effective antitode to the identity-politics of blogland, and various e-moralists, whether links oder rechts..

"On The Campaign Trail With Dennis Kucinich" (from theonion)



"Despite trailing every other Democratic presidential candidate in the polls, Dennis Kucinich is still campaigning actively. Here is a sample day on the campaign trail with Kucinich:

6:45–7:00 a.m.: Unbuckle self from underside of the Straight Talk Express bus
7:45–7:50 a.m.: Gaze sympathetically at fly being shooed away from stack of syrup-slathered waffles
Noon–12:15 p.m.: Break down in tears in truck-stop bathroom, pull self together
3:00–3:30 p.m.: Stand in cornfield whispering policy to scarecrow
5:15–8:30 p.m.: Drive around South Carolina looking for vegan-friendly restaurant
8:45–9:15 p.m.: Pick John Edwards' brain
10:30–10:45 p.m.: Drop everything and call campaign headquarters to see if Leno, Letterman, O'Brien, Stewart, or Colbert called..."

"Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein." (Nietzsche)

Toulmin

Toulmin's system suggests a middle ground might hold between the hyper-rationalism of analytical philosophy (and the science establishment) and the absurdity and anti-rationalism of postmodernism and marxist aesthetics (tho' we here at Contingencies once in a great while peruse the "textual idealism" of Derrida's Of Grammatology with amusement).

Toulmin's emphasis on practical argument also seems somewhat pragmatist: there are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to pragmatism--the "cash value of Truth" model, as Wm James called it---whether in terms of philosophy or politics. Toulmin, however, understands the problems --and unworkability--of the academic logician's worship of necessity and formal validity; one might think of Toulmin's approach as applied inductive logic, analogous to applied engineering mathematics (and contrasted to the "Theory of the Calculus" posited by those holymen Leibniz and Newton). Though it's unlikely Toulmin-fever will catch on soon, Toulmin offers a fairly comprehensible and sensible approach to communication--one that might conceivably be implemented on blogs, for example, if not the....San Phrancisco Cthulhucle.

In "The Uses of Argument" (1958), Toulmin offered a schema featuring six components for analyzing practical arguments:

1. Claim: conclusions whose plausibility or trustworthiness or "merit" must be established (note the avoidance of the absolute category of "Truth"). For example, if a person tries to convince someone that poverty leads to crime, the claim would be “Poverty leads to crime.” Similar to a conclusion (in a modus ponens argument), or hypothesis (in terms of trad. phil of sci.)

2. Data: the facts appealed to as a foundation or ground for the claim. For example, the person can (and should) support his claim with data, statistics, and any other evidence showing significantly higher rates of crime in poor areas (higher than in middle or upper class areas) supporting his claim “Poverty leads to crime (or poverty has a causal relation to crime).” (so the statement would be, "crime rates are higher in poor areas than in middle or upper class areas: in effect, the minor premise in a modus ponens). Data obviously entails probability and statistical issues, such as sampling (perhaps "confidence intervals" should be attached to the data-statements).

3. Warrant: a statement which justifies the "movement" from the data to the claim (a warrant is similar to a major premise/conditional statement, in modus ponens). In order to move from the data established in 2---"there are higher rates of crime in poor areas than in middle or upper class areas"---there needs to be a warrant bridging the gap between the data and claim, and supporting his claim “Poverty leads to crime": "Since poor areas have higher crime rates (thando middle class or upper class areas), poverty has a causal relation to crime." Note again this is not "necessary" in a tautological or mathematical sense. The warrant itself generally is an inductive generalization (as with most generalizations of "social science"), and involves probability and statistical issues, such as sampling (a point which Toulmin may overlook--perhaps "confidence intervals" should be attached to the warrant as well).


4. Backing: the Wiki on Toulmin refers to these as "credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant"; but it is really an evidentiary question. If the warrant seems overly conjectural, incredible, or merely plausible (instead of "nearly always the case"), the arguer must introduce backing for the warrant. Not all poor people are criminals, and not all criminals come from poverty. IN many practical arguments (where people might grant a warrant/premise) this might not be a problem, but at the level of economics or sociology or journalism it could be. Nonetheless, the warrant-construction is generally not too difficult--no more difficult than say an economist suggesting the historical effects of lower interest rates on consumer spending and the economy at large (which is to say, if most economic or sociological generalizations mean anything, then Toulmin's warrant model can work).

5. Rebuttal: these are statements recognizing possible exceptions to the claim. An obvious one would be that some poor people are hard-working, and are not criminals. And there might be other factors causing crime, even among the poor--mental health issues, education, or gangs. The rebuttal, we suggest, may simply be a recognition that the claim depends on an "existence generalization" (some, or sometimes, or "often") rather than a universal (all): "poverty is one causal factor of criminal behavior, but not the only one." So the arguer must support his claim--and possibly the warrant--with additional evidence which would overcome the rebuttal. This could be difficult, but overcoming the rebuttal strengthens the argument.

6. Qualifier: words or phrases which express the speaker’s degree of emphasis or certainty concerning the claim (thus could be part of the rebuttal, really). Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim “Poverty definitely leads to crime” has more force than does the claim “Poverty sometimes may result in crime.”

The first three components---“claim,” “data,” and “warrant”-- are considered to be the essential components of practical arguments (as are the two premises and conclusion in modus ponens), while the second three-- “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal”--- are not always needed in arguments.

In terms of modus ponens, Toulmin's schema looks something like this:

1st premise/Warrant: "If poor areas have higher crime rates (than do middle class or upper class areas), poverty has a causal relation to crime." (Backing may be needed here--and since the claim is contained in the consequent, any rebuttals would be dealt with at this stage as well)

2nd premise/Data: "poor areas do have higher crime rates (than middle class or upper class areas). (Grounds/foundation/evidence may be needed here) . Note that this is the antecedent to the conditional in 1st premise.

Conclusion/Claim: “Poverty leads to crime.”


It might be noted Toulmin's argument form is valid when put in form of modus ponens--though Toulmin most likely wanted to avoid the problems of inductive conditionals with his system). If warrant/1st premise is likely (strongly probable), the argument is cogent as any good inductive argument is--not "sound" as with modus ponens (at least one with necessarily true 1st and 2nd premises), but cogent.

Clint-o-crats

The case against Billary (Hitchens):


""""""During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand taken, by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to the effect that another and final confrontation with the Baathist regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter whether you agree or agreed with her about this (as I, for once, do and did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses. Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from consideration? Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry."""""

Touche. However snide CH may be, a few of his points contra-Clinton are worth reiterating: Hillary has shown herself to be "indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security."

Crepsecule with Alex S.



Ah yeahh homie

Reverend Obama, redux

You need additional evidence of BO's PC-conservativism? Barack praised Reagan while in the sticks Reno a few days ago, while again dissing the Clinton administration: "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."


Yes, Rev. Obama, he put us on a fundamentally different path: a fundamentalist path, a path which we still stumble upon. Rather improper comments, and the criticism from Edwards and Clinton seems quite appropriate, even if one does not agree to the Edwards' agenda in full. Reaganomics was not exactly a concept to be admired either--even from a moderate perspective. Who can forget corporate welfare, the S & L crisis, the bloated deficit, boomtowns for the wealthy and powerful, environmental disasters, and the rise of a theocratic "moral majority." The "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship" doesn't quite do Reaganomics justice.

Reagan was arguably even less capable a politician and person than was Nixon (Christopher Hitchens, having met RR, called him a "senile lizard" or something). Anyone recall James Watt or Edwin Meese? After getting his mandate from the American zombies people, Reagan (or perhaps Reagan's bosses) awarded administrative jobs to various mafiosi and shady financiers, the effects of which are still to be felt (check the reports of Dan Moldea for Reagan's hidden connection to the NFL and professional gambling). As Dylan once said, "it doesn't take a weathervane to tell which way the wind blows": Reagan's celebration of Sinatra and Co. indicated fairly clearly the relationship between American politics, celebrity power, and organized crime, for lack of a better word. Obama taps into that power.

Obama's praise for Reagan should be counted as a rather significant faux-pas, but the spineless cretins who now make up the DNCocrats will probably let it slide. Obama's political strategy indeed bears a certain resemblance to Reagan's, even in terms of the "insider-ness"; as with most of the good ol' boys in the GOP, Obama too covets the position of American Mob Boss. The Obama posse might consider spinning Sinatra, say, doing "Chi-caw-go, my kind of town," at the DemCon in honor of the Reagan-Sinatra heritage.

Herren- und Sklavenmoral

"Herrenmoral sei die Haltung der Herrschenden, die zu sich selbst und ihrem Leben Ja sagen könnten, während sie die anderen als „schlecht“ (Wortstamm: „schlicht“) abschätzten. Sklavenmoral sei die Haltung der „Elenden […], Armen, Ohnmächtigen, Niedrigen […], Leidenden, Entbehrenden, Kranken, Hässlichen“[8], die zuerst ihr Gegenüber – die Herrschenden, Glücklichen, Ja-Sagenden – als „böse“ bewerteten und sich selbst dann als deren „guten“ Gegensatz ausmachten. Es sei vor allem die Moral des Christentums gewesen, die eine solche Sklavenmoral zum Teil selbst hervorgerufen, in jedem Fall aber begünstigt und sie dadurch zur herrschenden Moral gemacht habe."

(Nietzsche)

Sehr gut.

Robert James Fischer, RIP



"Marx was a very keen chess player... Lenin was keen on chess although he he gave it up because he said it was interfering with his political activities..Marx was a bad loser apparently.. Lenin was a good loser"

(Alexander Cockburn)



Karl Marx (pawn-pusher)

(21) Spassky,B - Fischer,R Reykjavik-Wch Reykjavik (21), 1972


BF mit Schwarz ( with his fave Sicilian defense--Kan variation, methinks)

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bd3 d5 8.exd5 exd5 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bd4 0-0 12.Qf3 Be6 13.Rfe1 c5 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Qxf6 gxf6 16.Rad1 Rfd8 17.Be2 Rab8 18.b3 c4 19.Nxd5 Bxd5 20.Rxd5 Bxh2+ 21.Kxh2 Rxd5 22.Bxc4 Rd2 23.Bxa6 Rxc2 24.Re2 Rxe2 25.Bxe2 Rd8 26.a4 Rd2 27.Bc4 Ra2 28.Kg3 Kf8 29.Kf3 Ke7 30.g4 f5 31.gxf5 f6 32.Bg8 h6 33.Kg3 Kd6 34.Kf3 Ra1 35.Kg2 Ke5 36.Be6 Kf4 37.Bd7 Rb1 38.Be6 Rb2 39.Bc4 Ra2 40.Be6 h5 41.Bd7 0-1 (take that russ-ski)

Note the moves starting about 18-19- 20 and the great bishop sacrifice/check on h2: Spassky has been doing quite well if perhaps a standard "control the center" type of playing, and then 20 Bxh2+--the tolling of the bell starts (or so it seems). For the end game BF has R and R to Spassky's R and B. How far does Fischer set up the bishop sacrifice in advance? Masterful defensive playing from BF--though methinks a Karpov or Kasparov playing white would probably have seen that possible combination by 16 or 17 and avoided it.

The Huckabilly Constitution

The latest fundie-politician to come up the pike from Dixie recently expressed his viewpoint that, like, Madison, Jefferson and Co were full of mierda: "I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Really, the Huckster makes an interesting theocratic belch here. Does he mean to imply (as other comments of his indicate) that the Old and New Testaments should be considered infallible? Were Huck to win and somehow enact his Baptistocracy, the clerics would need to decide which sections of the "word of the living God" to enforce: all? some? who decides? The infallibilists would seemingly be committed to upholding the entire Bible, including the code of Leviticus, which not only features various prohibitions against the usual suspects--the adulterous, the incestuous, the queer, the heathen, etc.--but against, say, pork and shellfish eaters. Ye shall not eat of the squid of infamy! (Perhaps a more frightening theocracy would follow from a Mitt Moroni victory: not only are alcohol, coffee and tobacco banned, the Golden Plates of Nephi could appear at courthouses and other public institutions, and public schools may offer mandatory classes in Mormonic egyptian (the language of the Angel that dictated the glorious visions to Joe Smith). Musick by the Osmond phamily, and nothin' but fiery serpents for the Wicked.)

That may seem palpably absurd. Yet the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Koran are chockful of absurdities and contradiction (for one, the Kissinger-like scribes of the OT insisted on "an eye for an eye", and enjoyed contemplating the deaths of babylonian infants (see Psalm 137); while the fruitier JC yawped "forgive thine enemies"). Additionally, modern physical science--starting at least with Lyell and Darwin--obviously falsified Biblical accounts of natural history (that was reinforced with C14 dating of fossils, and other chronological techniques).


Few in the MSM, not even the so-called liberals, have challenged the Huckabee sort of enthusiasm (or the more subtle theocracy that Romneyoid promotes) nor dared to mention a Darwin or Thomas Jefferson for that matter. (both Hillary and Obama court fundamentalist churches who question Darwinian evolution and uphold Scriptural infallibility; Obama has himself questioned the separation clause of the 1st Amendment.) The predictable resentment and rage against Chuckabea from the Kossacks and the so-called left seems fairly ineffectual and tame as well. What's needed is a re-animated HS Thompson to appear on Scarsborough Kountry, in his aviator shades, sipping Wild Turkey, and while gazing at pics of the Huckabees, to solemnly intone the words: phuck those people.

Toastmasters from Hell (How not to write, continued).

"Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good ground for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones."

(Bertrand Russell)


Another ignis fatuus of Cyberia offers up deep thoughts on campaign strategy:

""""Had Sen. Clinton done her duty in that first regard, then all she would have needed was the toughness to become a lightning rod for rhetorical hostility from political conservatives and other hawks. Having endured just about as much malicious language as any living politician, I believe she could have weathered the darkness while at the same time serving as a beacon of hope to that tiny minority of us who retained a capacity to distinguish warmongering from patriotism. Had she done that, the vindication that predictably comes to those who champion realism in the face of popular alternative viewpoints would have propelled her into office with the kind of popular mandate not seen since Reagan-Bush in ‘84."""""


Ah Dementia-weed not only wields a powerful trailer-park salesman rhetoric, he predicts the future! (and even possible futures that coulda happened: "Had she done that"). He also has some strategical advice for Ms Clinton ala the Today show. Intense. His slogans and pep-talk do not quite overcome the syntax errors, however: "Having endured just about as much malicious language as any living politician, I believe she could have weathered the darkness....." D-weed himself is a politician who endured malicious language? (That's the error of "amphiboly"). Well, perhaps he did: the malicious retorts of any Podunkville metro-editor responding to his gaseous letters to the editor before deleting or tossing 'em in the Schmutzsack.

Occasionally, D-weed even loses control of his 10th grade Civics speech, as here: "The vindication that predictably comes to those who champion realism in the face of popular alternative viewpoints would have propelled her into office." Yes propelled by vindication! Now, that's refines the deflination of unsoliciphated and irrevulant syncrastical mutterance! Hail Sergeant Dogberry.




Also to be noted are D-weed's repeated uses of auxiliaries--woulds, coulds, and shoulds. That's not merely an indication of, uh, verbal incompetency, but a type of mendacity (and most likely a sign of criminal insanity as well). That might be termed the "subjunctive fallacy", common to leftist scumbags, two-bit political moralists, and wannabe-Marats all over Blogopolis. Or maybe it's better termed paranoid schizophrenia. Either way, no human, especially not D-weed on his crack buzz, knows what "would have happened" in terms of politics or history.

A wannabe-Marat such as D-weed doesn't generally concern himself with established fact or provable assertions, of course: he relies on the insinuation or suggestion, either sinister or sentimental. (D-weed and the NWacheks have yet to allude to Hillary Clinton's massive corporate-sponsored campaign war-chest (BO's a few million behind), about triple the size of John Edwards', and about 20 times that of a Huckabilly or Ron Paul). He manipulates his audience with slogans and trite metaphors: a "lightning rod", "weather{ing} the darkness", a "beacon of hope". (how does one "weather the darkness"? STFU) Like any salesman or low-rent sophist, D-weed also makes use of informal fallacies to score points. He creates the image of the hipster clique who, like, knew the score: "that tiny minority of us who retained a capacity to distinguish warmongering from patriotism": sort of a reversed Ad Populus. (and mistaken as well---the zombies of DailyKOS and similar ugly, Tory-marxist sites are hardly a tiny minority. That a Kossack once in a while says something correct---even in regards to investigating possible mis-rep by Buscho in regards to the war-effort (oh wait, that's no longer cool: chanting "Huckabilly" is) does not excuse the KGB tactics).


Ansteigen an Die Zug, schwein.

Reverend Obama, continued.

Consider the connotations of the modern "Mega-church": most consumers in the Thanatopolis most likely think of white-trash baptists, biblethumpers who deny Darwinian evolution, televangelists, beerdrinking, hellraising capitalists, GOP hawks who thought Nixon "soft", Annie Coulter fans, etc. Most humans would assume the megachurches thus write big tax-deductible checks to their favorite biblethumping Republican politician, when the Bingo Parlor opens election cycle kicks in. Think again. Religious organizations and clergy-peoples now donate a greater quantity of their tax-free shekels to Democrats than they do to GOP candidates (this started with the campaign of that good xtian Bill Clinton in early 90's). Indeed the leading religious fundraiser in the 2008 Prez race is not a GOPer, but Barack Obama, who outdistances 2nd place Mitt Moroni in terms of moneys accepted from religious organizations by a rather substantial margin (BO also outdistances all except Dame Clinton in terms of corporate fundraising: Hill and BO's war-chests are nearing $90 million each---while a Huckabee has not quite cracked $3 million (google 'er (btw Google execs approve of ObamaCorp. too--as do those great progressives Melinda and her wife Billy Gates).

Rev. Obama's appeal to the pious extends beyond simply taking their tithing change, however (in fairness, it might be noted that clergy-bucks hardly match up with, say, donations to candidates from oil executives). As noted in previous posts, BO in fact campaigned recently on a "40 days of Faith and Family" platform, not so different in spirit and substance from a bonehead baptist tent-revival meeting (readers of Contingencies in the El Lay area who were targeted by Bethel AME/Obama spam know what we be representin' about here) Obama also attends a church which distributes creationist pamphlets (see Hitchens' recent interesting anti-Obama essay here). Additionally, BO has on occasion made some slightly peculiar comments in regards to the separation clause of the 1st Amendment.

Obama, given the support he has received from corporate and religious organizations, appears as likely to gain the conservative nomination as does Dame Clinton.

WHOA.

Bubbanius on Modern Pedagogy (how not to write, cont.)

Deep thoughts: "‘Don’t tase me, bro’ — a famous phrase, now." (funny, that happened at a Kerry rally. So Kerry must be counted as part of the Oppressor now too. Cops and campus police are mostly democrats, anyway, and generally members of those massive police unions. So the Taser-specialist, was, one could safely bet, a Dem.).

"Neocons pay good money to right-wing students for illegally taping their professors, to ‘catch’ them in liberal biases."" Evidence or citation for that claim? Not exactly "liberal" biases, Bubba, anyway: Jefferson was a liberal. And it's not a crime to tape any instructor's lectures, moron. The biases lean a bit more towards those of Karl Marx and/or one Jacques Derrida (ever make it through a bit of Sokal and Bricmont, Bubba?). Bubba has no problem, apparently with say radical muslim professors--or communists--- in the Ivy League, or UC edu-gulags, teaching the words of the Prophet--- or Mao-- alongside courses in haploids, Heisenberg or GWF Hegel. He and those of his ilk seemingly don't mind when the latest PoMo du Paris takes his place at the podium and asserts, categorically, that Logic, rationality and western science are all delusions and the product of Western imperialism.

At Bubba U., there would be no history of Maoism or Stalinism, or Islam for that matter. Just some pics of Evil Incarnate: the Neo-Cons, alongside Hitler and the Waffen SS. (any rational dissent opposed to the NW paranoia festival has already been blocked and moderated).


"Homeland Security’ in and of itself was a ridiculous idea, a trillion-dollar boondoggle used primarily to harass Code Pink and Texas Democratic lawmakers, and to install the illegal domestic spying system so sought after by the criminal class, i.e., Neocons."


Ah Bubba might be referring to Diane Feinstein or Jane Harman, who in fact argued for a harsher, more Orwellian version of the Homeland Security act. A few weeks apres-911, DiFi in fact suggested that a nationwide cyber-ID system be implemented. Then the dreaded Neo-cons. Wow. Bubba can barely control his latent anti-semitism and general muddle-headed idiocy when he begins to intone his favorite epithets. You mean like Wolfowitz, Podhoretz, Abrams, or Lieberman, Bubba? Those are the neo-cons. Yes, Abrams sucks. The good ol' boys, even the sinister Rove, mostly work for 'em. And uh so does the Clinton gang. After chuckling at Bubba's hick belch here ("Rusticus," as EP would aver), insert it in the SPAM Spam BACON & Spam file, and flush.

A place you'll nevah Be

Reverend Obama, cont.


Here's a quote from a front-runner in the US Prez audition election battle:

"Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."


Did that issue from the piehole of the hillbilly bapteest Huckabee? Perhaps a bon mot from MittBot, personally guided by the Angel Moroni? A pious genuflection from altar boy Roody G.? NYET. That's Kid Obama representin', a few months ago (before commencing his "40 days of Faith and Phamily" tour of protestant churches across the USA). Had one of the GOPers yawped that, many liberals and secularists--and atheists--would have turned Sally Fields, waxed righteously indignant for a few days, brought up the separation of church and state, referred to Jefferson, or Darwin, maybe Richard Dawkins---or Marx-- innate rights, and so and so forth. The BO, however, has been granted a sort of tactical dispensation, and appears to be immune from the secularists' criticisms.

* * *

We here at Contingencies have been slightly impressed with some of Senator Edward's recent anti-corporatist rhetoric--if not anti-Tory-yankee rhetoric---which bears some resemblance to "economic-realism" for lack of a better term. We might not agree with Edwards' platform and policies across the board--just as we might not agree with the ideological "message" of some harsh, naturalistic novel by Theodore Dreiser, yet still respect Dreiser for having written it (Sister Carrie for the Peoples!). Edwards walks the talk, sometimes. But his economic-realism doesn't make it in the Simulacra of American politics: Reverend Obama's sermons and Hillary's sob-sistah act apparently do, unfortunately, as does the flag-waving of the right.

Hysteria, Inc.

William F. Buckley........on yahoo? Whoa.

"No. 1 was Mrs. Clinton, with $89 million. Much of the money received reflects the donors' attraction to a favorite. In some contests, only the winner matters; this is not quite the case in a presidential race, because the runner-up may gain influence from a strong showing. And there can always be the candidate who is campaigning on a novel doctrine that catches the favorable notice of the backers.


Gorgon-in-chief


"Surprisingly close to Mrs. Clinton's $89 million was Barack Obama's $79 million. This presaged the revolution that was. Next in line were three Republicans: Romney with $62 million, Giuliani with $47 million and McCain with $31 million. Then came Edwards at $30 million. A caution: These figures do not disclose self-financing. Thanks to the Buckley-Valeo bill--co-sponsored 30-some years ago by the sainted junior senator from New York, on the grounds that then-new campaign-financing law violated freedom of speech--no limits are permissible on what John Edwards can give to Edwards for President."

"Then there are a few eclectic distributions. Who on earth gave $13 million to Senator Dodd, and why? And meanwhile, Huckabee, with $2.3 million, was down near the bottom of the list, behind candidates such as Joe Biden and Sam Brownback."

Never under-estimate the political and financial power of Pathos. Hysteria Clinton, for instance, sitting, or perhaps squatting on the top of the campaign shekels heap, has raked in $89 million in donations (compared to say $2.3 million for Huckabee--who's representing the American working class?). The only way Boy Obama might compete with that is with some reinforcement.....like from Chair-sistah Oprah.

Menckenism


"Whenever 'A' attempts by law to impose his moral standards upon
'B', 'A' is most likely a scoundrel."

I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a
waste of time.


No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
public.


The objection to Puritans is not that they try to make us think as they do, but that
they try to make us do as they think.


Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

Ein Alt fur Fruehstuck, bitte

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -- and both commonly succeed, and are right.



[T]he only thing wrong with Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was that it was the South, not the North, that was fighting for a government of the people, by the
people and for the people.



The whole drift of our law is toward the absolute prohibition of all
ideas that diverge in the slightest form from the accepted platitudes, and
behind that drift of law there is a far more potent force of growing custom, and
under that custom there is a natural philosophy which erects conformity into the
noblest of virtues and the free functioning of personality into a capital
crime against society.


In f-n dubitably.

Scryabinopolis

Lancet Report lies (McMendacity II)


Perhaps some humans out in consumerland recall that geek-speak maxim, GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). GIGO sort of reduces the problems with the Lancet report, and one might say the Lancet ideology (the Lancet researchers purport to offer an estimation of civilian deaths in Iraq) into a pleasant conceptual package. The Lancet ideology has unfortunately become part of the accepted lies dogma of the contemporary PC left.


Rationalists would do well to keep GIGO in mind when reading high-powered demographics (especially when there are Dems, marxists, dixie evangelicals, or Kennedy's involved in the research). Anyone who assumes the reliability of data they have no aquaintance with, especially when it's not being released (academia depends on that "transparency" of data--and peer review---not withholding of evidence) has in essence taken sides with zealots.

Say one was to recreate the Lancet research, using their data (i.e. their hunches). Before inputting the numbers into the little SPSS app, grinding out mean, standard deviation, confidence intervals, obtaining a bellish-curve (maybe one with a few cracks) how do we know that the data collection of the Lancet researchers (and the sample itself) should be assumed to be reliable? However "vulgar" empirical questions concerning verification seem to some, they ALWAYS remain an issue with high-powered, politically-significant studies. In many journals that withholding of evidence (a "peer review" requirement) would prevent their study from being published. Americans, excepting maybe military personnel, weren't there anyways. So consumers are taking their word--and their spurious demographics---- on faith. Iraq Body Count, on the other hand, works from confirmed deaths, formerly known as facts.


Noting the prevalence of the Lancet hoax in Lib.com (in ways, more pernicious than 911 conspiro-nut claims) some humans may be tempted to take down their pic of Harry Truman or Eleanor R., and cancel their Dem registration: that is, if they didn't after 9-11. Don't take Contingencies' word for the Lancet BS, however; consider some of the Tenured mafia thoughts:

""""Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph, the use of the word “casualties” to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen. Using the “three-to-one rule” – the idea that for every death, there are three injuries – there should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports. """""

“The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions,” contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. “They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated.” The paper had “no scientific standing”. Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? “No.” """""


Lancet/Fraud

IBC/Lancet

The IBC's rebuttal of Lancet should especially be noted: the IBC people for one wield a few nice reductio ad absurdum sorts of arguments (they may not be contradictions, but induction rarely offers contradiction): ""On average, (according to Lancet) a thousand Iraqis {would have been} violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms."
There are many other such rebuttals. Bias of course should be kept in mind: the skeptics might work for the Oppressor.



"""""Still, the authors have declined to provide the surveyors' reports and forms that might bolster confidence in their findings. Customary scientific practice holds that an experiment must be transparent -- and repeatable -- to win credence. Submitting to that scientific method, the authors would make the unvarnished data available for inspection by other researchers. Because they did not do this, citing concerns about the security of the questioners and respondents, critics have raised the most basic question about this research: Was it verifiably undertaken as described in the two Lancet articles?

"The authors refuse to provide anyone with the underlying data," said David Kane, a statistician and a fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Statistics at Harvard University. Some critics have wondered whether the Iraqi researchers engaged in a practice known as "curb-stoning," sitting on a curb and filling out the forms to reach a desired result. Another possibility is that the teams went primarily into neighborhoods controlled by anti-American militias and were steered to homes that would provide information about the "crimes" committed by the Americans.""""


And it's just pure coincidence that George Soros, millionaire communist and hater of the USA, provided the seed money for the research.



"""""Critics say that the surveys used too few clusters, and too few people, to do the job properly.

Sample size. The design for Lancet II committed eight surveyors to visit 50 regional clusters (the number ended up being 47) with each cluster consisting of 40 households. By contrast, in a 2004 survey, the United Nations Development Program used many more questioners to visit 2,200 clusters of 10 houses each. This gave the U.N. investigators greater geographical variety and 10 times as many interviews, and produced a figure of about 24,000 excess deaths -- one-quarter the number in the first Lancet study. The Lancet II sample is so small that each violent death recorded translated to 2,000 dead Iraqis overall. The question arises whether the chosen clusters were enough to be truly representative of the entire Iraqi population and therefore a valid data set for extrapolating to nationwide totals."""""


NJ/UN/Lancetprobs


Preposterous! He's probably a neo-con, and so we don't have to pay attention to the fascist punk. Really, on closer inspection, the Lancet does not even appear to be an analysis of mortality ratios. It's a study (or poll, really) regarding various anecdotal reports of deaths--alleged deaths. In effect, it's a large collection of hearsay evidence--and really inadmissable. But it serves a purpose. The little undergraduate confidence intervals, the rest of the stats hype (ANOVA! whoa), the APA format, are there to impress, like little leftist undergraduates. The fact that the researchers do not submit their research/data collection to peer review makes it mostly irrelevant, except as an example of gauchiste agit-prop disguised as academic research. Bukharin and the Cheka boys most likely blow some infernal kisses to the JohnsHopkins comrades for a prevarication job well done.

McMendacity

Quote: "a 95% white state just voiced their full and overwhelming confidence in a black candidate.”


Obviously McM. didn’t quite make it through stats back at ye olde Stargell State. A state didn’t "voice" anything. There are about approx. 2.9 million Iowans. 220,000 of those Iowans voted in the Demoncratic caucus. 38% supported BO, most likely because they were told to. That is about 83,600 humans, er Iowans. So 2.9 % of Iowan Children of the Corn voted for Kid Obama: not exactly a mandate, except to the MSM gauchistes who have decided upon Kid Obama as the Hipster candidate, and thus most deserving of a win (notwithstanding his routine biblethumping, fiscal conservativism, etc.). What do you wager the racial breakdown of that 2.9% has nothing to do with the racial distribution of the state as a whole. McM's statement embodies a fallacy of aggregation, common to blogger leftists who mistake politics for their favorite rap-star popularity contest.

Write-in

Reverend Obama

Barack Obama has, over the last few months, quite clearly demonstrated that he has no problem appealing to religious conservatives. He also accuses secularists of being overly preoccupied with the separation clause, and too attached to the idea that "constitutional principles tie our hands": a statement which, if uttered by a GOPer, would have surely provoked panic and a few days of Sally Fields-like righteous indignation among the gauchistes of blogland.

AS Hitchens recently noted, a candidate's religious affiliations should be on the table (as should Article VI, if only to a few cynics). The gauchistes relish attacks on fundies such as Chuckabee and Mormonic Mitt--so why not on Rev. Obama? Consistency matters. Obama biblethumps nearly as much as the rightists do--he stands up on stage with preachers, even conservative hick preachers, and chats about his relation with Jee-zuss, his personal savior. Even Christian bloggers approved of his recent tour of the mainstream Jee-zuss businesses:

"""""God-o-Meter--like so much of the news media--was impressed with Barack Obama’s appearance last Sunday at a Greenville, SC megachurch as part of his campaign’s “40 Days of Faith and Family” tour of the state. After all, the conservative evangelical congregation’s previous political guests were Sen. Lindsey Graham, Gov. Mark Sanford, and Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, all Republicans.""""""

Beliefnet/BO

(that's no endorsement of Beliefnet, another brainless fundie site)



Can ah, ah get a wit-ness?


Others have noted Obama's occasional conservative tendencies (including his odd suggestion that Ms Clinton's health care proposals might offend some insurance execs). Obama may not be a rightist biblethumper per se, but he does have the support of many religious organizations (both Xtian and muslim). Secularists should feel a bit uneasy supporting someone who throughout the Fall of 2007 stood in pulpits in protestant churches across the USA (including churches notorious for denying Darwinian accounts of evolution), rallying support for his "40 Days of Faith and Family” platform. No other democratic candidate has been so willing to court the fundamentalist vote, Hillary included (nor has say a Ron Paul, who has made a few interesting comments in support of Constitutional principles, notwithstanding some issues).

In fact a new study from the Center for Responsive Politics (you can do the googlin') reveals that BO "has received more money from clergy than any other 2008 presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican." He's received three times the amount of shekels from clergy than has the top Republican moron, Mitt Romney. We here at Contingencies can only say like, phuck that freak.

American Philosopher, Vince Lombardi



"Academy, n. (From ACADEME) A modern school where football is taught" (Bierce).

Politics
"A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."
Ambrose Bierce

McBeatnik


Tired of praising NASA, Al Gore, and the Bangles, McMax offers some insights into the political mindstate of the 50s:

"""" Mr. "X" needs to pick up a book by Jack Kerouac or William S. Burroughs and get a sense of what was really going on in those days........ The real people, the ones who were actually alive and had functioning senses, went underground. The media of the time didn’t mention them and that’s why they are believed to have never existed by the conservatives who long for the good old days. Drunks, bums, hookers, addicts, artists, jazz musicians, existed and thrived in the underworld as they do today. Belief in God, or the lack of it, had nothing to do with it then and it doesn’t now.""""


Generalized, oversimplified, tasteless--the usual NW posse fare. Kerouac for one WAS a media star for some time (the Beats were featured in LIFE, and other rags), as were quite a few jazz musicians. The beats may have not been Eisenhower conservatives, but they weren't card-carrying communists either, or RichardDawkins-like Tory atheists and skeptic philosophers (or wannabe Tory atheists---Kerouac never rejected his Catholic roots completely). And they sure in the phuck were not monolingual phonies and hicks like the NW crew (for one, however F-ed up most of the beats were, they were quite well read in French lit----so start with like Voltaire's Candide, and uh start over, McBubba).

Dr. Jeff Glassman on AGW guestimates

(Glassman, neither conservative nor a creationist nor a member of the Gore church, takes apart the IPCC/AGW guesswork, manipulations, and CO2 hype. Perhaps the Goreans might peruse recent US weather patterns-- with record freezing temperatures in the Midwest over the last few weeks: maybe, in some PC postmodernist fashion, poor people freezing to death is actually a sign of AGW too )

(IPCC claim: "The present atmospheric CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years, and likely not during the past 20 million years.")

Glassman: """"""Keeling's Mauna Loa record now covers 50 years, and during that entire time it exceeded 300 ppm, the top of the grey bar range. What are the chances of detecting such a 50 year span during the last 420,000 years by one of the 363 ice core samples? It is 50 divided by the mean sample interval, 1140 years, which is 4.4%. If the claim is extended to cover the 650,000 year period covered by the extended Vostok record comprising 685 samples, the chances are 5.3%. Thus the IPCC claim is true with a confidence level of about 5%. Usually scientific claims are expressed in confidence levels better to much better than, and not much worse than, a coin toss, such as 80%, 90%, 95%, or better. The IPCC could be 95% confident that an interval such as the present was undetectable among the Vostok ice core reductions.

[In the Fourth Assessment Report, the Consensus on Climate introduces qualitative expressions to stand for quantified "likelihood of the occurrence" of events. Very unlikely is less than 10%, "extremely unlikely" is less than 5%, and "exceptionally unlikely" scores as less than 1%. 4AR, Technical Summary, p. 121. In the IPCC discussions on carbon dioxide and its immediate effects in the GCMs, the Consensus uses this scoring to impart a quantitative and objective score to what is actually no more than the writers' subjective opinions. Science precludes such subjectivity.""""

[However, with regard to the unprecedented nature of the Mauna Loa record, the confidence level is objective, calculable by the ratio of the record length to the sample interval. The IPCC could have said that the chances of having detected an interval like the modern record in the Vostok record was extremely unlikely. When the Consensus had a chance to be objective, it declined. Proclaiming an impending catastrophe trumped objectivity. """"""

A Bubba belches "Tolkien".

"Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein." (Nietzsche, "Jenseits von Gut und Böse")


Tolkien, from German "tollkühn" meaning, "foolhardy". Das Stimmt! Du bist tollkühn.

"""""Tolkien was much inspired by ancient Germanic literature, indigenous pre-Christian religion (Germanic paganism), linguistics, legend and culture, for which he confessed a great love. Tolkien spent much of his scholarly time studying and lecturing on these subjects, as well as producing a number of introductions and essays. These sources of inspiration included Anglo-Saxon literature such as Beowulf, the Norse sagas (such as the Volsunga saga and the Hervarar saga[89]), the Poetic Edda, the Prose Edda, the Nibelungenlied and numerous other culturally related works.[90]

Despite similarities to the Volsunga saga and the Nibelungenlied, the basis for Richard Wagner's opera series Der Ring des Nibelungen, Tolkien dismissed critics' direct comparisons of his work to Wagner, telling his publisher: "Both rings were round, and there the resemblance ceases."

Tolkien himself also acknowledged Homer, Sophocles, and the Finnish and Karelian Kalevala as influences or sources for some of his stories and ideas.[91] Tolkien also drew influence from a variety of Celtic — Scottish and Welsh — history and legends.[92][93]

A major philosophical influence on his writing is Alfred the Great's Anglo-Saxon translation of Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, known as the Lays of Boethius.[94] Characters in The Lord of the Rings such as Frodo, Treebeard, and Elrond make noticeably Boethian remarks. Also, Catholic theology and imagery played a part in fashioning his creative imagination, suffused as it was by his deeply religious spirit.[95][96]""""""

Gut Glueck, Bubba

merdly rdnzl-muss

A Modest Proposal: End the popular vote

"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good." (HLMencken)

As Mencken realized, the American citizenry's innate faith in the voting process (and thus in democracy) ranks as one of the most pernicious of modern political fallacies. Deciding on politics and selecting representatives merely by polling the population at large obviously does not result in "good" politics--majorities have no problems voting in Dubya's or Feinstein's (that is, unless DiDi and crew engaged in some old Tammany Hall style ballot-stuffing). Voting thus seems analogous to, say, an incompetent algebra teacher who asks for a show of hands to a difficult word problem, and then assumes whatever the majority decides upon is the correct answer. Imagine counting the hits to a Britney Spears fan site and to a Debussy fan site, and then, since Britney.com has 1,000,000+ per annum, and Claude.com barely cracks 1000, claiming that Britney is clearly the superior artiste: that is the American vote. (the utilitarians themselves understood the potential problem associated with democracy, and the tyranny of the majority).

Implementing voter-intelligence tests at poll booths might offer one solution. Tests on Readin', writin', Riemann, and RPC buffer attacks for starters. Or perhaps a sheepskin requirement (and one not in Recreation Studies). Voters should demonstrate some basic intellectual competency: the ability to read and understand like the state's voter pamphlet for one. Failing that, Vox populi will decide, and Britneyopolis--or Oprahopolis (about the same) will become the norm.

Dissent: Rational, and not-so-rational.



""Among people who have learned something from the 18th century (say, Voltaire) it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended.""" (Noam Chomsky)

The Chomsky's not our favorite Ivy League intellectual, but he raises an important point here (whether he himself obeys his own maxim is another matter). The connection to Voltaire and the Enlightenment also might be noted: monarchists had for years, nay centuries, stifled criticism and dissent (as had religious clerics), and that was arguably one of the "historical crimes" which jacobins rightfully objected to (of course when the sans cullottes seized power, they engaged in censorship and communication control as well, as did the Bolsheviks, later-day sans cullottes. So did the nazis).

Authentic democracy depends to some degree on "communication rights". Totalitarianism on the other hand, whether communist or fascist or theocratic, depends on controlling and eliminating those communication rights. Unfortunately, blogs and websites, as much instruments of communication as the old daily newspaper (regardless of the grumbles of a few metro editors), have over the last few years become ever more controlled, moderated, policed: Bukharins, Goebbels, and J-edgars rule the cyber-roosts to a large extent.

In his introduction to a new printing of Orwell's 1984, the novelist Thomas Pynchon recently suggested that the Net could become some crypto-totalitarian zone, "a development that promises social control on a scale those quaint old 20th-century tyrants with their goofy moustaches could only dream about." Pynchon's prognostication should not be dismissed out of hand. Cyber-Bukharins are on the rise. We here at Contingencies contend that liberal sites–-like a DailyKOS–-are generally as guilty as the rightist-bonehead sites in that regard, regardless if the Kossack’s intentions rate higher on the Benevolmeter. Troll-paranoia, for instance, on KOS and similar sites has resulted in all sorts of moderation guidelines and procedures. “Troll” doesn’t really even mean what it used to mean: now it connotes something like outsider, dissenter, renegade, crypto-fascist-on-meth, etc. Formerly on newsgroups it had more of a hacker connotation: real trolls didn’t merely say speculate on Hillary’s pubic hair style on a dem site, but like played pranks, launched viruses, engaged in ID theft, phucked things up.

The membership/registration jazz, and the mandatory login/pass (or worse, the pinche verification capchas) seems pretty anal really: on the old sites you
just posted something and let it fly (wordpress is a bit better, but many
wordpress sites are heavily moderated as well). In certain contexts some moderation or deletion is understandable (like deleting some hick conspiracy buff afflicted with verbal diarrhea who remains convinced that Dick Cheney piloted the planes into WTC on 9-11), at least if people agree not to use obscenity or discuss their favorite sapphic erotica DVDs.

---------------

A rather sullen and resentful scribbler aka Demonweed shows the characteristics of the cyber-Bukharin. AS his regular brain-farts indicate, he has difficulties with writing, and with rationality. Apparently, D-w doesn’t quite know what a valid argument consists of, either, regardless of his supposed interest in philosophical hype and trite bon-mots from the Greats (Russell!!! What a joke. D-w. would not know the theory of logical types from his TCP-IP settings). D.w. in fact revealed his real character with a bon-mot from Dan Quayle, offered sans irony or sarcasm.

The cyber-Bukharin like Demonwind however is usually a clever ghoul. He writes things which appear to be profound. He indulges in ideology. He attempts lightweight satire or invective, while generally avoiding any sort of fact-based argument. Demonweed in fact lost his ass on some global warming sites: not merely due to rightist-boneheads (yet even the anti-AGW writing of a Bonehead like Crichton should not be dismissed), but by all sorts of people (including some non-conservatives) who actually know something about the difficulties associated with the science, rather than the hype, of AGW (i.e., see Dennis Rancourt, canadian physicist, green, and AGW skeptic). Then, after his trashing, D-weed started into his usual milquetoast defamations, bogus inferences, and preacher-speak: anyone who objects to that great liberal Al Gore and his Chevy-sponsored eco-politics supports the Republicans, if not the aims of fascism itself! Suffer fools gladly.

Al Gore more or less flunked his science courses at Harvard, misrepresented
evidence of AGW (as was proven when the Feds themselves corrected Mann, the
hockey stick guy); the political record of Big Al, who took Occi money for
years, is a few baby steps away from say Reagan’s. But who cares: Gore’s the
hero of the PC bogus suburban-greens.

The Demonweed sort of control freaks, now proliferating at an alarming rate, should not be mistaken for Hunter S. Thompson like gonzo hipsters either. D-weed's own blog, a collection of moralisms and generalized idiocies (he hasn't quite grasped what inductive reasoning--ie. economics-- entails either) demonstrates how square he really izz: “What You Should Think”. Hah. Sounds about like a collection of Paul Craig Roberts columns (and reads like that as well, at least if one can make it past 3 or 4 paragraphs of humorless, rhetorical sludge).

One could continue, ad nauseum. Even a few ancient scribes, however, knew the score in regards to the politics of language: "Thou shalt not bear false witness". Consider that carefully, Demonweeds.

Intense, man: The Sean Penn School of Rhetoric

The intensity of Sean Penn often has impressed us. Few boomer/Gen X sorts under 50 or so could forget intense Penn classics like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" or "The Falcon and the Snowman." His interactions with the media also have been intense--as was marriage with like Madonna. Whoa! That's like real intense. Sean lately has morphed into a quasi-romantic marxist writer of sorts--another John Reed iteration, in a sense (a slightly less intense thespian, Warren Beatty, played the part of Reed in "Reds", and was nearly believable for a few scenes). Sean doesn't care for the Iraqi war, or for most American politicians, GOP or Democratic. That's somewhat understandable ( we don't support Bushco). Penn also travels across the world (who's footing the bill, tho? SF Cthulicle? That's zionist capital, man) and writes up little reports on the good people in those distant locales. He parties with communists and disses the yokels back in Amerika who don't understand the sublimity of marxist insurrection. Marxism is itself intense, dude, according to Penn. (Marx may have simmered, but was rarely intense. He described the supposed failures of capitalism in cold and precise terms (even Marx's errors, like the Labor Theory of Value, are impressive in their precision).



"His mind moves upon the Silence"

Here's Sean on the Constitution, and some other intense political stuff:

""""But I was talking about the Constitution. Most importantly, our own. And what an odd week it has been. Our culture is engrained with a tradition that blurs the line between what is right, what is just and what is constitutional, with what is a scam. That tradition is the cult of personality. What can TV sell, what kind of crap will we buy. And at what point are we buying and selling our rights, our pride, our flag, our children, and succumbing to meaningless slogans that are ultimately pure titles for un-Americanism. How do we know what’s American and what is not? Because John Wayne tells us so? Because Sean Penn tells us so? Susan Sarandon? Bill O’Reilly? Michael Moore? Senator Bull? Or Senator Shit? Ann “my bowel expenditure” Coulter? No. It’s our Constitution. We don’t use it just to win. We depend on it because it’s the only “us” worth being. And because it’s our children’s inheritance from our shared forefathers and the traditions that really do speak best of our country.""""

PennSpeak

Not exactly John Kenneth Galbraith. As with a powerful five- minute reading at say a Bay Area espresso joint, it's meant to shock a little. The Constitution. Cult of personality. TV crap. The Bowels of Ann Coulter (OK, I agree there, Seanie. Ann the man's not merely with the Orangemen, but Vichy. Like most real Vichy sorta talented in her own sinister fashion: as even a Bukowski would have granted). All way intense, man. Sean Penn does some representin', for the Peeps.

The real question, though, is this: who the phuck is Sean Penn anyways? He's another actor: not a politician, nor a political theorist, nor philosopher, scientist, or even pro-muckraker like Daddy Cockburn, nor belle-lettrist (ala Buk. or beats, like). Penn's not a grand shakespearean sort of thespian, nor somewhat noirish sort like Beatty, but more like an actor as rock-star. Pop culture icon, really. We don't have his CV here, but it's unlikely he ever earned ye olde sheepskin (even some history or econ. courses might have helped. Start with like Mao and work backwards).

As academic snobs say, there's really an agency issue with the Penns and the Sarandons (and with the Reagans and Thompsons, as well). The celebrity actor-politicians (regardless of flavor) are the Alcibiades--not the Socrates; they start from Pathos, not Logos. They produce oratory (typically intense, and emotional) if not marketing plans, instead of thoughts: even when slightly correct (i.e. supporting a secular constitution), they pitch something, play a part, strike a pose. We barely hear "Sean Penn": we hear.....the Snowman.

Mitt the Mormon waves his Flag of Phreedom.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."



Those old dead crackers Madison and Jefferson are rolling in their graves (or perhaps laughing at the freak). Mitt's mistaken in regards to the Founding Fathers, anyway. A few FF’s were somewhat religious, or nominally Xtian (such as Adams); most were not (i.e. Madison and Jefferson, pal even of a few jacobins). The “freedom” that MittMan insists upon also meant the freedom to not be religious (as outlined in First Amendment). Not that many fundies understand the meaning of the separation of Church and State (for that matter, neither do most of the GangstaCrats of DailyKOS and similar e-union halls).



Master Snitchens cares not for Mitt or the Mormon clan:

"""""Romney does not understand the difference between deism and theism, nor does he know the first thing about the founding of the United States. Jefferson's Declaration may invoke a "Creator," but, as he went on to show in the battle over the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, he and most of his peers did not believe in a god who intervened in human affairs or in a god who had sent a son for a human sacrifice. These easily ascertainable facts are reflected in the way that the U.S. Constitution does not make any mention of a superintendent deity and in the way that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention declined an offer (possibly sarcastic), even from Benjamin Franklin, that they resort to prayer to compose their differences. Romney may throw a big chest and say that God should be "on our currency, in our pledge," and of course on our public land in this magic holiday season, but James Madison did not think that there should be chaplains opening the proceedings of Congress or even appointed as ministers in the U.S. armed forces. Trying to dodge around this, and to support his assertion that the founders were religious in the Christian sense, Romney drones on about a barely relevant moment of emotion in 1774 and comes up with the glib slogan that "freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Any fool can think of an example where freedom exists without religion—and even more easily of an instance where religion exists without (or in negation of) freedom."""""


Oooo. Direct hit. Ghastly!

Hitchens/Romney

Bubba discovers Verification!

Bubba finally makes it through the first chapter of Semantics 200 and goes googley at the V-word: Verification (the simplified form of V-theory asserts that the meaning of a proposition depends on the method by which it is verified: statements which are not verifiable, at least in principle, are not meaningful--according to verificationists). Verification was a hot topic in the 1920's or so in the Vienna Circle; pragmatists such as CS Peirce and Wm. James were well aware of the issue (one can also note a concern with verification with the early empiricists/Hobbes/experimentalists, etc.). Quine updates verification to include the entire domain of knowledge. To most college-boys aware of say induction, it's sort of passe; to the Bubbas of Blogland, it's a deep one.

Verification does not usually play well with ideologues: truth is somewhat malleable to stalinists, or nazis, or mafiosos--or to belle-lettrists (even notable literary works do not feature verifiable statements; nor do most space operas) . Dems are often as much veri-phobic as is the nutty right. Often a big liberal site such as KOS sort of controls verification.

A few verified statements:

—muslim terrorists blew up the WTC, and killed 2500+ Americans

—Saddam and baathists had centrifuge materials; they were not in compliance with UN inspections, and harbored terrorists, including some with ties to AQ (see Robb Silbermann). Bush may have misrepresented the danger, but danger there was.

—most leading dems agreed to war effort in Afghan and Iraq

—Obama has ties to radical muslim groups

—Iran has pledged to destroy Israel; the Prez had denied holocaust

–any manipulations by Bush/Cheney in regards to intelligence were approved by dems

etc. etc

Politics of "compassion"

“The idea of equality, therefore, both in its bourgeois and proletarian form, is itself a historical product, the creation of which required definite historical conditions which in turn themselves presuppose a long previous historical development. It is therefore anything but an eternal truth.”(Karl Marx).

You were programmed to be compassionate. That doesn't make it right (or wrong). Even Marx, regardless of his monsters, understood the hypocrisy and BS of the liberal Ignis fatuus.

Russell's Teapot

Most participants in the Dawkins vs. Theists debate have yet to grasp Dawkins' central point (however primitive), which he adapts from Sagan (with help from Bertrand Russell): a monotheistic "God" cannot be established via empirical proof, the "normal", inductive method of the sciences. He provides numerous rebuttals of inductive proofs of God, such as the Design argument: obviously the Design argument, even if one granted its plausibility, does not establish any judeo-Christian theology. (Design remains something to be reckoned with, however, instead of swept away with a wave of some fur-covered hands; Chas.Darwin himself, gazing at a human eye, speculated on how such a marvelous device could arise ex nihilo. )

Dawkins makes use of a celebrated passage from Bertrand Russell's "Is There a God?" in his "The God Delusion". The analogy has irritated more than a few fundamentalists, and not without reason: it is not only witty, but based on a rather sound argument: Bertie demonstrated that Christians who believe in God merely because he cannot be conclusively disproven to exist are guilty of committing the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy:


"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."


A few Christians claim the analogy is irrelevant, and typical of the Russellian or Dawkinsesque scoffer. That objection is not entirely without merit (this is only one of many anti-theological arguments made by Lord Russell, of course); religious people who object to the analogy may have a point--yet that point holds only in regards to the somewhat whimsical quality of the language, not to the argument itself.


Here's one grumble about the Teapot analogy from a theist and fairly well-known conservative blogger,
The Maverick Philosopher


""""But the real appeal to atheists and agnostics of the Teapot passage rests on a third move Russell makes. He is clearly suggesting that belief in God (i.e., belief that God exists) is epistemically on a par with believing in a celestial teapot. Just as we have no reason to believe in celestial teapots, irate lunar unicorns (lunicorns?), flying spaghetti monsters, and the like, we have no reason to believe in God. But perhaps we should distinguish between a strong and a weak reading of Russell's suggestion:


S. Just as we cannot have any reason to believe that an empirically undetectable celestial teapot exists, we cannot have any reason to believe that God exists.


W. Just as we do not have any reason to believe that a celestial teapot exists, we do not have any reason to believe that God exists.


Now it seems to me that both (S) and (W) are plainly false: we have all sorts of reasons for believing that God exists. Here Alvin Plantinga sketches about two dozen theistic arguments. Atheists will not find them compelling, of course, but that is irrelevant. The issue is whether a reasoned case can be made for theism, and the answer is in the affirmative. Belief in God and in Russell's teapot are therefore not on a par since there are no empirical or theoretical reasons for believing in his teapot."""""


Billy the Maverick Philosopher seems to miss the mark here (tho' he has a good heart). The (S) formulation of the analogy offers a rather powerful objection to any inductive arguments for God, however whimsically stated (and instead of Teapot, one could instantiate Zeus, or flying spaghetti monster, or perhaps an incredibly powerful alien who resides in the Teapot millions of lightyears away). And Dawkins in a sense bases a great deal of TGD on that exact argument: that lacking any empirical, observable proof of God, it's far more likely than not that He does not exist (or perhaps, to claim that a monotheistic God exists, is about like saying "Zeus exists").

Moreover, Billy the MP, while correctly pointing out the Ad Ignorantium fallacy that Russell attacks as a typical sort of pseudo-argument, doesn't quite understand all the implications of the analogy, especially the implications of the following passage:


"""But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."""



That is the real issue, however mundane: shouldn't humans be allowed to doubt--strongly doubt-- the existence of some X which cannot be observed, inferred, nor empirically proven to exist? (nor, quite arguably, proven deductively or mathematically: neither Design or the Ontological argument are really necessary). That is the crux of Russell's analogy: not only that "God" cannot be proven to exist, but that we are not, according to Christian tradition, even to doubt His existence given that lack of proof. The noun "teapot" is not the point. Make it "JHVH in a spaceship" (perhaps teapot-sized), and the argument still holds.


Even if we agreed that Russell's analogy was, in terms of language and imagery, incredibly rude, blasphemous, obscene (the reduction of the Almighty to a Teapot??!! Preposterous!To the stake), that does not negate the force of the argument.

At the same time, the Russell's Teapot example provides some ammunition for theists, at least by implication: for one, some theists argue, quite correctly, there are limits to human reason, and to empirical science (those who say otherwise should say offer a valid prediction for next month's weather-- or the Super Bowl winners). Even if Design does not establish JHVH, there are no proofs showing that God can not exist, nor showing that a Design argument could not hold. So it becomes, as Dawkins grants, a matter of weighing evidence, even probability. There could very well be some Being (or beings?) who controls, like time, space, all physical laws. To say that unicorns exist one does not contradict one's self; similarly, "God exists" is not a contradiction (as it is with "G. exists and he doesn't exist"). So it would seem it is sort of a matter of proof of some sort: either a monotheistic G. exists or.... He don't (and if not monotheistic, then not G., at least in traditional sense). The conceptual games often obscure that basic tautology. Either that, or one sees a burning bush or perhaps some Golden Plates carried by celestial creatures, ala Joseph Smith, and changes one epistemic outlook .

Slang, n.

"The grunt of the human hog (Pignoramus intolerabilis) with an audible memory. The speech of one who utters with his tongue what he thinks with his ear, and feels the pride of a creator in accomplishing the feat of a parrot. A means (under Providence) of setting up as a wit without a capital of sense." (Bierce)

Grunt