Sunday, July 24, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Pen-Paper-Sword
Related source » Heavy sentences by Joseph Epstein - The New Criterion
On How to Write a Sentence and How to Read One, by Stanley Fish.
This review, by a professor of prose style, of a book on writing prose is interesting reading for several reasons, not the least being its valuable lessons on the subject matter. Professor Epstein's wisdom is provided by direct advice, as well as by examples of both good and less good stylistic stratagems. The commentary from readers of the review is also interesting.
As might be expected, any written critique of writing style is tantamount to a challenge for readers to find fault in the critic's own style. And many of the readers of the review rose to the challenge to varying degrees of persuasiveness. I, too, found several points to quibble with, though these may have had more to do with less-than stellar editing than with poor stylistic choices.
Together with some of the readers' comments, the article confirmed for me something that I had intuited about writing online. Given the sheer volume of writing available to anyone with access to the web, anyone who writes with the hope of finding appreciative readers must pay close attention to being succinct. Online readers have no tolerance for verbiage. If you insist on your readers having to use their scroll-bars, be advised that you are laboring on borrowed time.
I did get the sense that Epstein and the target of his scorn, Stanley Fish, have a history, not all of it pleasant. Either Fish gave offense to Epstein in the past, or he never repaid that loan. In any case, I thought that final cut, the backhanded compliment on the book's shortness, was a cut too deep, especially since Epstein's review itself would have benefited from some prudent pruning.
Post 1,685 Pen-Paper-Sword
On How to Write a Sentence and How to Read One, by Stanley Fish.
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“After thirty years of teaching a university course in something called advanced prose style, my accumulated wisdom on the subject, inspissated into a single thought, is that writing cannot be taught, though it can be learned—and that, friends, is the sound of one hand clapping. A. J. Liebling offers a complementary view, more concise and stripped of paradox, which runs: “The only way to write is well, and how you do it is your own damn business.” […] I seem to have written more than three thousand words without a single kind one for How to Write a Sentence and How to Read One. To remedy this, at least partially, let it be noted that, at 165 pages, index and acknowledgments and biographical note on the author included, it is a short book.”
— by Joseph Epstein, JUNE 2011 (newcriterion.com)
This review, by a professor of prose style, of a book on writing prose is interesting reading for several reasons, not the least being its valuable lessons on the subject matter. Professor Epstein's wisdom is provided by direct advice, as well as by examples of both good and less good stylistic stratagems. The commentary from readers of the review is also interesting.
As might be expected, any written critique of writing style is tantamount to a challenge for readers to find fault in the critic's own style. And many of the readers of the review rose to the challenge to varying degrees of persuasiveness. I, too, found several points to quibble with, though these may have had more to do with less-than stellar editing than with poor stylistic choices.
Together with some of the readers' comments, the article confirmed for me something that I had intuited about writing online. Given the sheer volume of writing available to anyone with access to the web, anyone who writes with the hope of finding appreciative readers must pay close attention to being succinct. Online readers have no tolerance for verbiage. If you insist on your readers having to use their scroll-bars, be advised that you are laboring on borrowed time.
I did get the sense that Epstein and the target of his scorn, Stanley Fish, have a history, not all of it pleasant. Either Fish gave offense to Epstein in the past, or he never repaid that loan. In any case, I thought that final cut, the backhanded compliment on the book's shortness, was a cut too deep, especially since Epstein's review itself would have benefited from some prudent pruning.
Post 1,685 Pen-Paper-Sword
A Touchdown for the Ages
• LABELS:
American cultural literacy,
Duuude,
QuantHist,
Remembrance
Atlantis Ends 30-Year Shuttle Program
Image by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center via FlickrRelated source » Atlantis Makes Final Landing, Ending 30-Year Shuttle Program - FoxNews.com
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – After decades of inspiring millions around the globe, space shuttle Atlantis made a final, picture-perfect touchdown at Kennedy Space Center at 5:56 a.m. EDT -- ending the shuttle program.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/21/atlantis-astronauts-close-shuttle-doors-for-last-flight-home/#ixzz1SlGa1Fes
— Published July 21, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Post 1,684 A Touchdown for the Ages
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
One Heck of a Leap!
“That's … one giant leap for mankind.”
Related source » Apollo 11 - 30th Anniversary
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“On July 20, 1969, after a four day trip, the Apollo astronauts arrived at the Moon. This photo of Earthrise over the lunar horizon taken from the orbiting Command Module is one of the most famous images returned from the space program, although even the astronauts themselves cannot remember who actually took the picture. The lunar terrain shown, centered at 85 degrees east longitude and 3 degrees north latitude on the nearside of the Moon is in the area of Smyth's Sea.”
— NASA photo ID AS11-44-6552
 |
| NASA photo ID AS11-44-6552 |
Post 1,683 One Heck of a Leap!
This Sum's It Up
• LABELS:
spoof
Gag me with a spoon …
Related source » Miss USA 2011 — Should Math Be Taught In Schools?
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
Any questions? Answers? Prayers?
Alrighty, then. Let's all put our heads between our legs, and ...
Post 1,682 This Sum's It Up
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Saturday, July 16, 2011
The Race Plague
La Raza Zaraza
In the Spanish language the term "la raza" translates into English as "the race".
In the Polish language the word "zaraza" translates into English as "plague".
Allow me to preface my post proper with a meta post. I will dispense with a meta meta-post, which would have amounted to stating that: given the choice between being misunderstood or not, I much prefer the latter.
Preface
In what follows I conjecture something about a complex, controversial and emotion-laced aspect of human relations. I make no claims about the veracity of my conjecture, for it amounts to my personal opinions about an idea that emerged as a gut feeling. I put it out there for what it is and for what it might possibly evolve into (if you'll excuse the prepositional terminus). Moreover, I haven't the foggiest notion how to address the subject notion, or even if it is at all addressable. Nevertheless, I think it may be worth investigating whether or not it is.
From its very beginning, our Nation's intent (in principal, though not explicitly defined) has been that the people of what was to become the United States of America are "one". In its most liberal interpretation, that oneness stems from equal treatment under the law for every person, irrespective of race, color or creed, which continues to be the intent of our social contract. The only problem with the concept, however, is that this square-peg philosophy doesn't fit well in the round-hole of human relations. Racial and other prejudices have plagued humanity throughout recorded history.
Despite enormous progress — from our crude beginnings (with slavery as the norm), on through the devastation of Civil War and continuing racial strife during Reconstruction, additional enmity with every wave of ethnic immigration, the chaotic days of the Civil Rights Movement, up to today's bitter polarization between our two sociopolitical worldviews — humans continue to be obsessed by their perceived differences, much more so than by their ties that bind. Perhaps this is so because perceptual acuity is fundamentally based on the ability to differentiate.
And the obsessive clannishness of humanity is, seemingly, independent of clan size, too. Witness: today's clash of civilizations; religion-based warfare; war between nations; civil war; regional strife; inter-city rivalry, especially in professional sports; intramural rivalry; family feuds; fratricide (the first homicide); and, finally, suicidal homicide, as a perversion for some greater good. Just for the sake of a contemporary example of clannish hatred, consider the recent killing of a San Francisco Giants fan by a gang of LA Dodgers fans. Apparently, we can't all just get along. Humanity is afflicted by a prejudicial pestilence, la raza zaraza.
I submit that before we can do anything about the race plague, we must learn more about the nature of the epidemic. In particular, we must determine if it is a plague-like problem for which a solution exists.
In my current re-reading of John Steinbeck's East of Eden, I came across the following passage in Chapter 51, soon after I published this post:
Post 1,680 The Race Plague
In the Polish language the word "zaraza" translates into English as "plague".
Allow me to preface my post proper with a meta post. I will dispense with a meta meta-post, which would have amounted to stating that: given the choice between being misunderstood or not, I much prefer the latter.
Preface
In what follows I conjecture something about a complex, controversial and emotion-laced aspect of human relations. I make no claims about the veracity of my conjecture, for it amounts to my personal opinions about an idea that emerged as a gut feeling. I put it out there for what it is and for what it might possibly evolve into (if you'll excuse the prepositional terminus). Moreover, I haven't the foggiest notion how to address the subject notion, or even if it is at all addressable. Nevertheless, I think it may be worth investigating whether or not it is.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people ...". So begins the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. The quoted fragment established, in writing, a guiding principle, albeit highly idealistic and far removed from reality, for the fledgling confederation of British colonies: the so-called "one people" of the colonies are to be thought of and governed as an undifferentiated group. Of course, as anyone having just a passing familiarity with American history is aware, it only requires the mention of its most egregious counter example, slavery, to understand just how high was that pie in the sky.
From its very beginning, our Nation's intent (in principal, though not explicitly defined) has been that the people of what was to become the United States of America are "one". In its most liberal interpretation, that oneness stems from equal treatment under the law for every person, irrespective of race, color or creed, which continues to be the intent of our social contract. The only problem with the concept, however, is that this square-peg philosophy doesn't fit well in the round-hole of human relations. Racial and other prejudices have plagued humanity throughout recorded history.
Despite enormous progress — from our crude beginnings (with slavery as the norm), on through the devastation of Civil War and continuing racial strife during Reconstruction, additional enmity with every wave of ethnic immigration, the chaotic days of the Civil Rights Movement, up to today's bitter polarization between our two sociopolitical worldviews — humans continue to be obsessed by their perceived differences, much more so than by their ties that bind. Perhaps this is so because perceptual acuity is fundamentally based on the ability to differentiate.
And the obsessive clannishness of humanity is, seemingly, independent of clan size, too. Witness: today's clash of civilizations; religion-based warfare; war between nations; civil war; regional strife; inter-city rivalry, especially in professional sports; intramural rivalry; family feuds; fratricide (the first homicide); and, finally, suicidal homicide, as a perversion for some greater good. Just for the sake of a contemporary example of clannish hatred, consider the recent killing of a San Francisco Giants fan by a gang of LA Dodgers fans. Apparently, we can't all just get along. Humanity is afflicted by a prejudicial pestilence, la raza zaraza.
I submit that before we can do anything about the race plague, we must learn more about the nature of the epidemic. In particular, we must determine if it is a plague-like problem for which a solution exists.
Postface (July 19, 2011)
In my current re-reading of John Steinbeck's East of Eden, I came across the following passage in Chapter 51, soon after I published this post:
Lee went on, "that's why I include myself. We all have that heritage, no matter what old land our fathers left. All colors and blends of Americans have somewhat the same tendencies. It's a breed — selected out by accident. And so we're overbrave and overfearful — we're kind and cruel as children. We're overfriendly and at the same time frightened of strangers. We boast and are impressed. We're oversentimental and realistic. We are mundane and materialistic — and do you know of any other nation that acts for ideals? We eat too much. We have no taste, no sense of proportion. We throw our energy about like waste. In the old lands they say of us that we go from barbarism to decadence without an intervening culture. Can it be that our critics have not the key or the language of our culture? That's what we are, Cal — all of us. You aren't very different."This passage speaks to me ...
Post 1,680 The Race Plague
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Destroyer of Worlds
 |
| The gadget, ready to test (Image via Wikipedia) |
Related source » Trinity (nuclear test) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“Trinity was the code name of the first nuclear weapons test of an atomic bomb. This test was conducted by the United States Army on July 16, 1945, in the Jornada del Muerto desert about 35 miles (56 km) southeast of Socorro, New Mexico, at the White Sands Proving Ground, now the White Sands Missile Range. The date of the test is usually considered to be the beginning of the Atomic Age.
Trinity was a test of an implosion-design plutonium device. The weapon's informal nickname was "The Gadget". Using the same conceptual design, the Fat Man device was detonated over Nagasaki, Japan, on August 9, 1945. The Trinity detonation produced an explosive power equivalent to the explosion of about 20 kilotons of TNT.”
— From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (wikipedia.org)
 |
| The Trinity explosion, 0.016 seconds after detonation, July 16, 1945. (Image via Wikipedia) |
Post 1,679 The Destroyer of Worlds
What's it all about, Alfie?
Image via WikipediaLet's put the useful-idiots on the dole. Then they'll continue to vote for us for fear of losing their place on the gravy train. Then we'll replace the mushroom-gravy with bullshit …
Related source » DICK MORRIS TV; LUNCH ALERT! OBAMA PUTS AMERICA ON WELFARE at DickMorris.comDick Morris reports a conversation he had had with then-President Clinton, in which the President revealed what the difference was between liberals and conservatives. According to Clinton, for whom Morris was then serving as an adviser, both of the principal American sociopolitical philosophies favor government aid for the poor. The difference is that liberals want to insure such aid (to the poor) by extending its various means of allocation to the middle class as well, thereby creating broad entitlements that become virtually impossible to roll back.
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“In this video commentary, I talk about how Obama has followed the welfare reforms of the Clinton years with a new approach: Putting the entire country on welfare.”
— By Dick Morris, 07.15.2011 (dickmorris.com)
In so doing, the liberals also hope to broaden their power base and, ultimately, to convert the United States into a European-style socialist society. Conservatives are against such an overhaul of our free-market capitalist system, which has created our bountiful meritocracy, based on self-reliance, personal accountability, entrepreneurship, and freedom of choice.
When Obama leftists warn the easily alarmed among us that conservatives want to push grandma off a cliff, they are simply lying to the perpetually perplexed. Conservatives want nothing of the sort. They are every bit as generous as liberals claim to be. But conservatives do not want to turn this country into another stultifying version of Sweden. The economic marrow of this great nation is the middle class. Our national wealth was created by energetic and industrious individuals who were eager to build a good life for themselves, their children, and even their grandchildren.
Obama and his cohorts want to transform all Americans with true-grit into a bunch of whining shnorrers [(Yiddish) a scrounger who takes advantage of the generosity of others] to reflect his vision for an America dependent on the nanny state. Don't let him do it.
Post 1,678 What's it all about, Alfie?
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Father of the Mother of Invention
Image via WikipediaNecessity is the mother of invention.
Related source » Scott Adams Blog: Creativity 07/13/2011Boredom is the father of creativity? Perhaps Scott Adams is on to something.
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“I read someplace that the brain needs some boredom during the day to process thoughts and generate creativity. That sounds right. My best ideas always bubble up when I'm bored. And my period of greatest creative output was during my corporate years when every meeting felt like a play date for coma patients. […] As recently as a year ago I would drive my car in silence and cook up all sorts of ideas on the go. Now I have satellite radio and can always find some auditory diversion. The only reliable place to be bored these days is in the shower.” [emphasis added]
— Scott Adams, 07/13/2011 (dilbert.com/blog)
There have been times when I would get out of the shower, and when I began to dry my hair I would discover that I had neglected to rinse-out the conditioner. Invariably, I would then realize that I had been mulling over certain issues that had captivated my interest while shampooing my hair. This is anecdotal support for Scott's insight, but support that resonates with me.
Like most people in Western society, I have totally bought into the boredom-avoidance mindset. With either my computer or my Kindle (I never leave home without it) always at the ready, I manage to fill almost all my waking hours with activities that keep boredom at bay. Gone are the days when daydreaming was allowed to creep into one's person, as long as one had a reasonable excuse, like attending an all-hands Friday-afternoon meeting (especially when donuts were provided).
I think I will try to set aside some deliberate boredom-time in my daily routine. At least it might help me remember to rinse my hair in the shower.
Post 1,677 The Father of the Mother of Invention
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Toast "Я" Us
My fellow Merkins, have you ever heard the expression, "Do as I say, not as I do"? Have you ever taken a moment to consider its meaning? Have you ever been lied to? When's the last time you took your bullshit-meter in for a tuneup? Can you even identify a shitstorm during a brown-out? I'm just askin' ...Related source » Day by Day Cartoon by Chris Muir :: July 12, 2011 Archives
D'you wan' fries widdat?
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“Transfats.”
— Chris Muir, July 12, 2011 (daybydaycartoon.com)
Both Obamas are the personification of bullshit. They are not intellectuals. They are not looking out for your interests. They do not care about your well being nor the general prosperity of your country. They merely want the biggest slice of American pie they can get their grubby hands on. And if you let them, they'll take your portion too.
The left has been priming and basting you for decades in preparation for the feast of the beast. The feasting is well underway, and pretty soon what will remain is the slimmest of pickin's. The Chevy's down by the levee, but the levee is dry, bro.
You've been punk'd; big time.
Post 1,676 Toast "Я" Us
Sunday, July 10, 2011
The Unbearable Enormity of Being
 |
| Cartoon Round Up (Image via Theo) |
For real?
Related source » Fan forgoes payday to present ball to Jeter
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“NEW YORK – In that moment after he grabbed Derek Jeter’s 3,000th hit ball in his hand, tucking it inside his defensive lineman’s body and diving down to avoid the reaching hands of fans around him, security guards were leading Christian Lopez and his father Raul up the stairs toward the stadium security office.
“What do you want for the ball?” the stadium security man asked.
“I just want to give it to Jeter,” Lopez said. […]
Who knows how much the ball would have been worth. Early estimates had it going for anywhere from $250,000 to $400,000. No one will ever find out for sure. […]
[Tara Johnson] wouldn’t second-guess her boyfriend’s decision to forgo hundreds of thousands of dollars even as she did give a small grimace. “Well he does have student loans,” she said. Then she smiled. “He did the right thing,” she said.” [emphasis added]
— By Les Carpenter, Yahoo! Sports (07/09/11)
Really? He did the right thing? Let's consider the enormity of this young man's largess.
The average household's annual income in the United States is $50,000. Let's make the very liberal assumption that this young man saves 10% annually for his retirement ($5,000). At this rate, it would take him 50 years to save up $250,000. On this basis, the young man gave Derek Jeter (who is a very wealthy man) more than the equivalent of an average American's lifetime-savings, for the privilege of experiencing what could well be described as 15 minutes of fame. Moreover, his girlfriend, after a cursory moment of soul-searching, agreed that he did the right thing!
I submit that this anecdotal slice of Americana exemplifies the utter demolition by the progressive left of not only common sense but also the ability to put things in perspective and thereby the ability to make rational life-altering decisions, especially among the young. What we have witnessed here is, arguably, a monstrous miscarriage of rational behavior masquerading as a "feel good" media event. And, in a larger sense, we have been presented with an archetypal example of the dumbing-down of America.
We have the leftist worldview to thank for this. From the "pinnacle" (excuse the expression) of the Administration on down through the liberal half of Congress and the Supreme Court, to the mass idolatry of entertainment idiots, the greed of unionized education systems, to the advocacy by our mass media of the cult of personality, we are grooming a gene-pool of leaders who conflate grossly-misguided extravagance with rectitude.
For goodness' sake, can we please just stop and think what we are doing to our Nation's future?
Post 1,675 The Unbearable Enormity of Being
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
Institutionalized Absurdity
 |
| How's dat Hopey-Dopey workin' for ya? (Image via Theo) |
Related source » Hope and ChangeChange not; want not. It means don't change it if it works well. You can quote me on that. As for "hope", there is a proper time and place for it. It belongs at the end of an exhaustive travail that has brought you to the last refuge of true grit; but it also appears magically at the starting blocks as the first refuge of the lazy, the ignorant, the easily charmed, and/or the heavily sedated.
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“We are a democracy, and as such do not generally elect our best people to office. How could we? They weren't running. Those wishing to be elected must appeal, in the shortest time, to the greatest number. They are generally those comfortable with, enamored with, or incapable of understanding the potential harm of questionable generalities, which is to say, of mumbo jumbo.
"Hope" […] means:"Hope for the best, in a process over which you have no control." For, if one had control, if one could endorse a candidate with actual, rational programs, such a candidate demonstrably possessed of character and ability sufficient to offer reasonable chance of carrying these programs out, we might require patience or understanding, but why would we need hope? […]
"Change" what in particular? "Hope" for what? […]
My generation [the baby boomers] has a giddy delight in dissolution. Mark Rudd, a leader of the radical group which occupied Columbia in the student riots [I was there, as a grad student, at that time. TBH], said, on taking over the administration building, "We got a good thing going here. Now we've got to find out what it is." This student radical, on taking the high ground, called for "change," undifferentiated from improvement, or any, specific improvements. […]
To inspire the unsophisticated young to demand "change" is an easy and a cheap trick — it was the tactic of the Communist Internationale in the thirties, another "movement." The young and spoiled, hav[e] not been taught to differentiate between impulses. Frightened of choice, they band together, dress, speak, and act alike, take refuge in the herd, and call it "individualism." But the first principle of a responsible human being — a man or woman who must support him or herself, or their dependents […] is not to alter that which prospers.” [emphasis added]
— David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture, Chapter 34
If you vote for "hope-and-change" (another way of saying, "let's fling it at the wall and see if anything of value sticks"), you will get both, in spades (racism not intended; spades is the highest ranking suit in bridge). And, as an added "bonus", you will rue the day you voted for it (no extra charge, because it's a given).
It is astounding to realize how many millions of Americans were duped into trusting such unadulterated vomit. Even doctors, many of whom smile contentedly when charmed by notions of a "god complex", ignored their Hippocratic oath, which is characterized by the familiar dictum, "First do no harm". Would these people be willing to perform surgery blindfolded so that they could put their complete trust in the deity instead of their own skills? Would their sorry-assed patients?
Whence this monstrous mass hysteria that enables people, who normally get up in the morning, and after tying their own shoe-laces, head out into the cold cruel world to earn a living, to subordinate all they know to be real to the demagoguery of a f*cking charlatan?
If you want to understand whence comes your loathing of the liberal left, read David Mamet's The Secret Knowledge. Be advised that understanding will likely effect more intense loathing.
Post 1,673 Institutionalized Absurdity
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Leveling the Asymmetric GWOT
Image via WikipediaOne MOAB at a Time
Related source » Anti-Terror Sensor That Scans Crowds for Bombers Tested in U.K. - FoxNews.comThe new scanner/sensor sounds like a promising advance in preempting homicide bombers. But preemption does little to offset the asymmetry of this decade-long global war on terror (GWOT). The better defense would be a strong offense, one that will level the "playing field" of this asymmetric war.
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“LONDON – A sensor that can scan huge crowds and pick out a lone suicide bomber by homing in on hidden explosives has undergone official tests, The Sun reported Thursday.
The revolutionary gadget -- similar to airport scanners but top secret -- is believed to silently analyze materials using the unique 'terahertz' waves emitted by different substances.
British government scientists began testing it a year ago on mock crowds where one person in every 75 carried a 'Person-Borne Improvised Explosive Device'.”
— Published July 07, 2011 | NewsCore
In order to level the playing field, the Western democracies engaged in this war against terror must offset the source of the asymmetry. That source is the relatively low price paid by the agents for each act of terror. To paraphrase Isaac Newton, "Every action has a corresponding cost/benefit analysis".
The terrorists have done their math. The homicide bombers have been enticed by promises of glorious sexual favors in their "Valhalla" and/or the spoils of their posthumous glory for their beneficiaries. Each terrorist's cost is his miserable life. As for the bombers' sponsors, their benefit is the terror, death and destruction inflicted on their sworn enemy. Their cost lies somewhere between negligible and vanishingly small. So the benefits for bombers and sponsors alike are perceived to be much greater than their corresponding costs.
As for the West, the history of the past decade shows that the cost of engaging the enemy, in units of blood, wealth, and tears, has been enormous. And the only benefit appears to be an interminable standoff. It can be argued that the West's calculation needs more work. As the saying goes, we need more bang for the buck — we need to level the asymmetry. We must raise the price of waging war for the terrorists.
It has been lamented that the terrorist networks themselves own neither territory nor infrastructure. But that is not the case for their sponsoring rogue-states. Everyone knows who they are, for they make no effort to hide it. The West has made enormous efforts to bring down terror-sponsoring regimes, replacing them with Western democracy. These efforts have yielded mixed results, at best. Perhaps it would be more cost-effective to ratchet back on the nation-building and consider a tried and true alternative: assured destructive retaliation for each terrorist attempt, whether successful or not. Tit for tat; nay, Grand Teton for tat.
There is a very cost-effective can of whoop-ass that can be delivered by a single B2 tactical mission. The clear message would be: any single terrorist mission, regardless of its outcome, will trigger a special delivery. No exceptions. Any bets on which side can outlast the other?
Shock and awe, mofo, one MOAB at a time.
Post 1,672 Leveling the Asymmetric GWOT
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Wisdom and Justice for All
Image via WikipediaRelated source » The AshkenazisWhat a wonderful exegesis on the origins, impartiality, superiority, foundation of, and, sadly, confusion about the rule of law. The American Constitution, the basis of our Nation's rule of law (not rule of men) is arguably, as if that were necessary, the greatest and most successful charter for any nation-state in recorded history. In the manner of the Decalogue, which was etched in stone, the Constitution (together with its self-amending provisions) guarantees predictable treatment under the law and equal justice to all persons, regardless of any distinguishing characteristics.
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“I am the tag-end of that generation of Jews linked to the Ashkenazi Immigration.
The Ashkenazis, the Eastern European Jews, were, in the main, unassimilated in Europe. They lived in the Pale of Settlement, banished there by the Tsarina, in 1772 […] Those who stayed behind, in Warsaw, and on the Bug River, the Russian-Polish border, died, killed by Stalin or Hitler. […]
All four grandparents came here with nothing — with little or no command of English, and all their children went to college. […]
Other than that, we, in my own as in many Ashkenazi families, had little or no Family History. […]
For we were assimilated Jews. […]
This millennia-old history of reverence for Justice could not be eradicated in the two generations between my grandparents' immigration and the baby boom. The mechanism at the center of this pursuit, however, was not only lost, but forgotten.
The assimilated Jews, raised as immigrants, in families, which for whatever reason, ceased Jewish observance, retained their cultural love of Justice, but were ignorant of the historical methods of its pursuit. […]
Jews of my day were Democrats, were Liberals. Everyone in the acquaintance of my parents' generation supported the NAACP and the ACLU, […] and for a Jew, to vote Republican would have been as for him to endorse child sacrifice. […]
But we, the Jews, even given our historical dedication to Justice, had, in our assimilation, forgotten that justice could only be achieved through law, and that the application of law meant the necessity of, at the very least, disappointment to at least one and more probably both of the parties involved in dispute. That, thus, the utmost expression of care was not the ability to express sympathy, but the ability to control sympathy and execute justice. Sympathy to the wicked, we were taught, is wickedness to the just. […]
Rabbinical thought holds that all sins are the Sin of the Golden Calf: Moses told the Jews to wait, as he was ascending the mountain to talk with God; the Jews did not wait, but, instead, built a golden image, and worshipped it.
But note that, though we understand their sin, ... , it was committed while Moses was yet undescended from the mountain, that is, before the Jews even received the Law. That is to say, they held in their heart some conscience, some knowledge of the Divine which caused them, on discovery of their act, shame at what they, even uninstructed, understood as a transgression. […]
The revelation, of my latter years, is that all good people care, but that they may be, legitimately, divided as to the means to address and the potential to understand and to correct disparity, sorrow, and injustice. […]
What is "social justice"? It is not merely an oxymoron. It is, inherently, the notion that there is a supergovernmental, superlegal responsibility upon the right-thinking to implement their visions. […]
The great advances in Justice which have made our country not only great but good are essentially the broadening of its definitions of those worthy of protection. This is the attempt to find justice through equality of opportunity. This is antithetical to that equality of result beloved of the Left; […]
I recognized that though, as a lifelong Liberal, I endorsed and paid lip service to "social justice", which is to say, to equality of result, I actually based the important decisions of my life ... upon the principle of equality of opportunity.”
— David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture, Chapter 27
The Left, which is populated by the greater part of all assimilated Ashkenazi Americans, has succumbed to the fallacy at the root of their waywardness: justice can not be dispensed by a supremely-gifted wise Latina or a purported-genius community organizer; it can only be pursued via the application of the impartial rule of law. It is not only wrong to search for equality of result; it is immoral to forgo the mechanisms implemented for the arrival at an impartial and just verdict.
Moses the Lawgiver and Jesus the Christ are the soul of the Judeo-Christian foundation that enabled the evolution of law-based ethical standards of Western civilization. As David Mamet wisely states:
This expression of "sympathy," as in the action of most of contemporary Big Government, is the usurpation by the elected (or appointed) of the rights of others. The judge who forgot the admonition in Proverbs, "do not favor the rich, neither favor the poor, but do Justice," who set aside the laws, or who "interpreted" them in a way he considered "more fair," was, for all his good intentions, robbing the populace of an actual possession (the predictability of the legal codes). He was graciously giving away something which was not his [to give].If you want to understand whence comes your loathing of the liberal left, read David Mamet's The Secret Knowledge. Be advised that understanding will likely effect more intense loathing.
Post 1,671 Wisdom and Justice for All
Monday, July 4, 2011
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The Left's Superego
 |
| (Image via theospark.net) |
Related source » RumpelstiltskinI hesitate (for a moment) to add any commentary to David Mamet's own superb commentary on the dismal and despicable liberal-left moronocracy. Verily they are a virulent-liberal wolfpack clothed in classical-liberalism woollies.
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“The [Left's] Superego, here, has made a terrible bargain.
It has offered membership in a group whose size and power allows the individual to submerge his doubts. And then to forget them. But the cost is the surrender of his reason.
He may live his entire life never talking to a Conservative, never reading a Conservative publication, or listening to any news at all save that of the Left. That four hundred Liberal journalists [JournoList] have been revealed as involved in a long cabal to distort that which they offer as news, in aid of Liberalism, makes no difference to the Liberal. It cannot; for he cannot risk his membership in the herd. And he must remain unaware of his bargain. […]
The Liberal is caught. To reject the herd protection is to, inevitably, undergo the shame and humiliation of recognizing his prior, destructive folly.
So the Liberal stands pat. He, who never talks to anyone outside of this group, accuses the Conservative of being brainwashed; he explains the abysmal performance of Obama by saying "look at the mess he inherited," as if the President did not campaign (as do all politicians) on the platform of cleaning up the prior mess. […]
The Liberal is subsumed in the herd. How, then, to explain, as he must, the unfortunate state of things?
The herd supplies the answer: blame the Opposition.
Obama's plans are questioned? Call his opponents Racist.
Palestinian Terrorists are dedicated to the destruction of our ally, Israel? Blame the Israelis for saddling us with a challenge to our delusion of Universal Brotherhood.
The Left, in suspending reason and accountability, is ravaging our beautiful culture. […]
The drive to discard our evolved American culture, to replace it with the "reasoning" of idiot teenagers who have blessed, by their presence, the schools of the Ivy League, results, as it must, in a new culture. But in what does this culture consist?
The Nazis and the Communists railed against and discarded religion, and instantly, automatically, created their own religion, each with all the formal trappings and operations of — though with different content than — those religions they displaced.
So the Left creates its own, new culture.
But this culture is confusing, amorphous, and constantly shifting. It not only resembles, it is the Party Line, avant la lettre. The confused Liberal must grope, each day, to find how to explain (to his own satisfaction, for he will never talk to a conservative) the inexplicable vagaries of his tribe.
How can he do so? "Call MoveOn.org, and just do whatever they say."
In what does this new culture consist? In obedience.”
— David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture, Chapter 21
There is literally nothing "liberal" about these so-called "progressive" leftists. Their views are intolerant, monolithic, belligerent, infantile, not to mention just plain stupid and unsupported by history or reality. Moreover, those are their good points.
If you want to understand whence comes your loathing of the liberal left, read David Mamet's The Secret Knowledge. Be advised that understanding will likely effect more intense loathing.
Post 1,668 The Left's Superego
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)