No to Grunt Rights

A few confused members of the Red Stoner Mafia (over at New Worlds) believe that Grunts (who voluntarily enlist in US Military) have the right to complain publicly about the war (one SPC Milo in Iraq has taken to voicing his complaints on a blog, and the Kos comrades are using that for their daily leftist Phun avec FiFi). Unless there were some outrageous, Ludendorffian sort of commander in charge or a My Lai sort of situtation, the enlisted man really does not have any grounds to complain, except for gross incompetence (though perhaps he later goes on to write a literary variation on "War is Hell," etc.).

The US soldier enlists voluntarily: and one doesn't need to read the Recruiter's fine print on the Fed. contract to realize that the enlistee agrees to obey orders--even if those orders call for the enlistee to participate in combat, or be involved in perilous situations, or fire at the enemy at will. Agreeing to military service does not entail joining the republican party, but those who do sign up should be aware they will be following orders from people who are most likely conservative ( a point lost on Private Milo). Following orders from his commanding officers, Sarge says to the greenhorns, "take Hamburger Hill," and SPC Greenhorn follows orders. If not, Sarge should (and indeed may have the right per code) to terminate SPC Greenhorn's employment for the USA via his .45 on grounds of insubordination.

Thumbs down, man

Logo for Ron Paul campaign (and supporters)

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does that right to freedom of expression apply to blogs and websites? Hint: Yeah.
Until bloggers argue for real, democratic sites ACROSS THE ENTIRE NET (i.e. non-moderated, or at least group editorial policies,), Blogland will continue to resemble a J.Edgar Hoover report if not KGB policy manual.


Even a confused leftist such as Chomsky understands the necessity of free and open communication:

""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)

Carnap (& Hume) for Cali Consumers

From "Philosophy and Logical Syntax":

""The opinion that metaphysical propositions have no sense because they do not concern any facts, has already been expressed by Hume. He writes in the last chapter of his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (published in the year 1748) as follows: "It seems to me, that the only objects of the abstract sciences or of demonstration, are quantity and number ...All other enquiries of men regard only matter of fact and existence; and these are evidently incapable of demonstration ...When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume, of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." We agree with this view of Hume, which says - translated into our terminology - that only the propositions of mathematics and empirical science have sense, and that all other propositions are without sense.""

SO much for fundies, islamofascists---or moralist-leftists and apparatchiks common to the Kremlin.com's (aka DailyKos , DU, etc.)......................


Verstehen Sie Das?
Carnap

Bobby Rat




Altar boy who ushered in the teary-eyed, statist Left, RFK was a pal of J. Edgar, Nixon, and at least for a time, Joe McCarthy. Good riddance, carpetbagger. (and I wager Thomas Jefferson would have agreed). Ishallah, Sirhan.

Top 10 uses for the corpse of Jerry Falwell

10. Pin-yata
9. bowling pin
8. crash test dummy
7. Tele-tubbie grave party
6. Alpo processing plant
5. inexpensive fertilizer
4. catapult ammunition
3. parachute-less skydiver test
2. skull-mug harvest
1. shark bait


Hitchens as usual skewers the fundie rather effectively (a charlatan, a "Chaucerian fraud"). Aye Mr. Hitchens: the Pardoner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkAPaEMwyKU

Cure for theocrats



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_%28book%29

Grotesque Disregard (How Not to Write, continued)

Righteous Indignation du jour

Imagine like a middle-aged Jim Morrison, stoned and not-so-immaculate, meets Jerry Falwell. Rightist moralists are bad enough: but when the rightist moralist sucks up a few too many bongs and takes side with the Mommycrats: a cyber-libertarian can only say, like, STFU, even if C.L. doesn't care for BushCO--certainly not GOP econ. policies (some libertarians actually make an exception for anti-statism and support higher taxes on ueber- wealthy)--- and agrees with a few of the yawps (it's not likely to interfere with "Aldous"s' hustle, but the Lancet people said only 1/3 of the estimated deaths (not verified, btw, McLizard-King) were attributable to US/Brit. forces).

Those few cynics (including some who read and understood Gulliver's Travels once in their life, unlike the McLizardKings of NW) with enough spine and intelligence to denounce such phonies are slowly being eliminated from both left and rightist sites--dissent now referred to, in 90s dweeb terms, as "trolling" by the over-grown adolescents, pansies and emotional wrecks who operate most blogs and websites at this point (typical leftist narcissists, like their fundie cousins, usually never quite realized what trolls really were--)

Hitchens on the politics of Hell-fire

Slate now offers, for the discriminating and non-sentimental sort of skeptic, excerpts from Christopher Hitchens' new book: God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Hitchens/Slate/Xtians

"""We do not believe in heaven or hell, yet no statistic will ever find that without these blandishments and threats we commit more crimes of greed or violence than the faithful. (In fact, if a proper statistical inquiry could ever be made, I am sure the evidence would be the other way.) We are reconciled to living only once, except through our children, for whom we are perfectly happy to notice that we must make way, and room. We speculate that it is at least possible that, once people accepted the fact of their short and struggling lives, they might behave better toward each other and not worse. We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true—that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow ..."""

Mahster Hitchens raises an important if somewhat obvious point (obvious to anyone who ever bothered with the cliffsnotes to Hume) in opposition to those religious conservatives who suggest that without threat of Hell-Fire, society falls into decay or anarchy (of course that never stopped centuries of warfare waged by xtians, muslims, jews, etc.). CH however arrogant does have a certain gift for putting forth skeptical arguments in a coherent fashion (and quoting some of Hitchens' bon mots will generally piss off both biblethumping idiots and whiny-ass liberals). And whether you agree with him or not (or his politics) one might respect his courage (he, like his pal Rushdie, also lives under threat from the muslim nuts, if not from some zealous Catholics or fundies).

Kurt Vonnegut on the death of eloquence



"""I'm writing about the death of eloquence. Eloquence was so ordinary back then, in the time of Shakespeare. In contrast to Shakespearean speech, I was watching one of those television talk shows the other night where people air their disagreements with other people. There is a scene in Othello where Iago wants to get Cassio drunk on alcohol and.... ......""

"So Iago says, "Come, lieutenant, I have a stoup of wine; and here without are a brace of Cyprus gallants that would fain have a measure to the health of black Othello." Cassio turns down the drink and says, "Not tonight, good Iago; I have very poor and unhappy brains for drinking: I could well wish courtesy would invent some other custom of entertainment." And then we get back to what I saw the other guy say on tv — well, I read his lips actually, because we don't get anything real on our televisions. And this talk show guy said, "Fuck you — you know what I'm saying?" [Laughs] I just don't think people get off on language anymore. Language used to be an elevated art. It used to be for people what music can be. But people don't learn to do that anymore, so eloquence is merely a matter of waste now. Who needs a good vocabulary and proper English? Eloquence — it's dead and who needs it? We use shorthand nowadays. Fuck you — you know what I'm saying? [Laughs] """"

Indeed, Mr. V . As with the scrawlings of his literary ancestor Twain, Vonnegut's screeds have been approved by Contingencies: KVSpeak may not have been sufficiently posh-- or marxist--- for east coast lit. snobs, yet still, shall we say, Jeffersonian (and KV, Cornell guy, was fairly well read in sciences, reportedly). Better some yankee cynicism--- even bad, stoner yankee cynicism-- than English lit. melodrama, or space operas for that mattter (or Catholics, Inc.) . We don't care for all of his writing---Slaughterhouse 5 may have been overrated (the Dresden sections are pretty powerful)--- but Breakfast of Champions not a bad book (and possibly a parody of Updike?). Dwayne Hoover is alive and well, and defending Dick Cheney in some bar. JG Ballard approved of KV, apparently. A few years ago, Vonnegut also penned an interesting column on Nelson Algren, one of America's legends of the literary underground (as KV noted, Sinatra made far more from "Man with the Golden Arm" than Algren did). So it goes.

(and note, Vonnegut fans, how many so-called "liberal" bloggers didn't even bother to mention Kurt's death: that's par for the course for the new sort of cyber-apparatchik).

"Are we better off without religion?"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/audio_video/podcasts/article1583399.ece

Richard Dawkins, the delightfully fiendish Christopher Hitchens, and Grayling vs. Roger Scruton (a great windbag in the Kantian tradition) and some other pious tories. Reports indicate that the bad guys (D. & H.)) proved victorious.

"Christian: One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor." (A. Bierce)

What is a lie to a Darwinian materialist?


Vincit omnia veritas

Lying could be quite useful, genetically speaking, for a mafioso, while on trial, to save himself (and his family, cronies, business etc.). Say Guido ordered his boys to off some nosy-detective, and they do so, and then Guido lies about his guilt ("plead the fifth, paysano") when on trial (as of course many people accused of crimes do) and then goes to trial, but is acquitted, and in effect gets away with Moider, returns to his warehouse, and continues with his business, advances the gene pool a bit more via kids with Velma, etc. What does the strict Darwinian say? Guido succeeded, in a sense, by lying (a "don't get caught" meme, in contemporary parlance), and many criminals who lie about their guilt (at least ones with the right defense attorneys) do succeed; thus lying could in many instances be a positive trait. We here at Contingencies (and we do not advocate Catholics, Inc. as an alternative to DarwinCorp.) assume that most rational humans would object to Guido's lie, but those who hold to purely Darwinist or genetic determinism would appear to have no grounds for any such objections.


What is a lie to a pragmatist?


Pragmatists, idealists (at least some), mystics, and postmodernists generally assert that truth is not a matter of confirming some alleged facts, "out there", in an objective, empirical world. There are various differences between these groups, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that they uphold some version of William James concept of pragmatism: that truth always has some relation to usefulness, whether in regards to sciences, social sciences, humanities, etc.

The Cash Value of Truth model, has of course been criticized, and not without reason. While in some contexts--say medicine--utility would seem to be critical (--testing the functionality of a drug, say)--in others, whether history or law, or various social sciences, any modifications of the actual facts to fit some ideology might conceivably result in highly unethical situations. Bertrand Russell noted this problem in regards to Dewey's pragmatist ideas. If the pragmatist's goal is to create a harmonious community, or even harmonious classroom, or well-integrated self, then it would seem the pragmatist might "shape" facts (say historical, or economic facts, or even literary narratives) to fit his pedagogy--making the students see the world through rose-tinted glasses, more or less (or perhaps red-tinted glasses, in marxist indoctrination centers). And if the end result was a harmonious community and well-balanced individuals (or even a supremely efficient proletarian State), then pragmatists would grant, it would seem, that the right thing had been done. And other sorts of similar absurdities, possibly Orwellian, resulting from pragmatism (or any ideology where truth is solely a matter of functionality) across the board could be realized.

Fritz Nietzsche on Dames

(Anglocized from the Deutsch)

"When a woman becomes a scholar there is usually something wrong with her sexual organs."

"You go to a woman? Carry thy whip"

"A woman does not want the truth; what is truth to women? From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to women than the truth - her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty."

"God created woman. And boredom did indeed cease from that moment — but many other things ceased as well! Woman was God’s second mistake."

Das stimmt. Doc FN generally scores nearly as high on the Chuckleometer as half-hour of comedy from homie Mike Richards.

One amusing Americun flick

Leibniz for Dummies“ There are also two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible: truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. When a truth is necessary, its reason can be found by analysis, resolving it into more simple ideas and truths, until we come to those which are primary."

Verstehen Sie das, Kerl? Ja f-n wohl

Stevie Schwenson, the Galifornian J-Edgar, Pink-slipped

Another little Moderatrix (with his new boy Friday Sperber) doing his best for the maoists at Ginger's Warehouse, Stevie Schwsenson would do well to, like, find a new job maybe back in Podunkville before the shite hits the fan.

Grotesque Disregard (How Not to Write, continued)

Righteous Indignation du jour

Sort of like Jim Morrison, stoned and not-so-immaculate, meets Jerry Falwell. Rightist moralists are bad enough: but when the rightist moralist sucks up a few too many bongs and takes side with the Mommycrats: a cyber-libertarian can only say, like, STFU, even if C.L. doesn't care for BushCO--certainly not GOP econ. policies (some libertarians actually make an exception for anti-statism and support higher taxes on ueber- wealthy)--- and agrees with a few of the yawps (it's not likely to interfere with "Aldous"s' hustle, but the Lancet people said only 1/3 of the estimated deaths (not verified, btw, McLizard-King) were attributable to US/Brit. forces).

Gene Roddenberry, Snitch


Americans have for years been indoctrinated with the humanist and secularist vision of Gene Roddenberry; as the Vietnam war raged in the late 60s and students rioted in the streets of the US and Europe, Roddenberry was able to sell his optimistic pop sci-fi vision across the cathode ray tubes of the world. Kirk, Spock, Bones: American geeks have for years emulated them nearly as much as they emulated rock stars. Yet most Trekkies are probably unaware that their pulp guru Roddenberry was for years an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department. And before Officer Gene managed to get Star Trek aloft, there was...Dragnet, and Highway Patrol (perhaps there are others who might prefer the occasionally noirish Highway Patrol to the NeverNeverLand of ST). Roddenberry also acted as technical consultant for the LA District Attorney while writing scripts and even passed the sergeant's exam in his first attempt. (and many of the ST plots are obvious lifts of greek myths, Shakespeare [probably at least 2-3 riffs from the Tempest] or other sci-fi ala Orwell or Huxley--one could fairly easily demonstrate how the Ho-wood sci-fi industry has turned a tidy profit on Aldous Huxley for decades).

Roddenberry also was a B-17 pilot during WWII, and not the worst of humans, but really closer to an L-Ron Hubbard huckster than to a great intellectual figure; even the pulp space operas of Heinlein, however gawky and occasionally rightist-militaristic, rather superior--certainly in terms of hard science--to the touchy-feely Star Trek spectacle; most Heinlein fans, however, don't really understand what the RAH code consists of (think a hick Nietzsche meets, oh, Oppenheimer). That many naive, middle of the road "liberals" view Roddenberry as some type of visionary should not be that surprising: he's the Good Cop (with the great LAPD squad car, the Starship Enterprise, tragic-hero lite Capn. Kirk and PC socialist Federation) that many liberals (and crimefighter conservatives) dream of being, either explicitly or not.

Les bons mots de Cactus Ed Abbey

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

“Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.”

“The only thing worse than a knee-jerk liberal is a knee-pad conservative.”

There is science, logic, reason; there is thought verified by experience. And then there is California.”

“That which today calls itself science gives us more and more information, and indigestible glut of information, and less and less understanding.”

“In the modern techno-industrial culture, it is possible to proceed from infancy into senility without ever knowing manhood”

“The only thing worse than a knee-jerk liberal is a knee-pad conservative.”

“No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets.”