Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center assessed all morning-show coverage on the Big Three from January 1 through July 31. In those 517 campaign segments, the networks offered nearly twice as many segments to Democrats as Republicans, a margin of 284 to 152. (Another 66 stories focused on both parties.) When the sample is narrowed down just to interviews with the candidates or their spouses and staffers, the morning shows gave out nearly three times as much free air time to Democrats (4 hours, 35 minutes) than they gave to Republicans (1 hour and 44 minutes).
ABC’s "Good Morning America" was the worst, with 119 segments on the Democrats to just 51 for the Republicans. And try this for impartiality, ABC-style: the network offered sprawling, positive "town hall" segments to only two presidential candidates so far this year: 38 minutes for John Edwards and 26 minutes for Hillary Clinton.
Hillary’s ABC town meeting was especially scripted, a platform so supportive that a former member of her 1993 health-care nationalization task force just happened to take the microphone to read to her a long softball question about whether she would boldly try, try again to blaze a trail to rescue the uninsured. Anchor Robin Roberts allowed Clinton to carry on (and on) uninterrupted for almost 18 of her 26 minutes with "the people." During some of these long soliloquies, the former First Lady urged viewers to look up her campaign web site. ABC somehow failed to put a toll-free 800 number for Hillary’s campaign on screen to develop the full infomercial effect.
All three Democratic frontrunners received more individual attention than any of the top Republican candidates, with Hillary unsurprisingly receiving the most coverage of anyone, at 61 adoring minutes. The leading Republican was former liberal media darling John McCain, who attracted 31 minutes of coverage, much of it assessing how his campaign was falling apart.
Even Al Gore, a man the morning anchors love so much that CBS’s Harry Smith begged him to put on a Gore for President button, drew 29 minutes on the morning shows this year, giving this unannounced candidate more attention than any announced GOP contender except for McCain.
Rudy Giuliani drew only 26 minutes, and Mitt Romney attracted even less, 19 minutes. Worse still, the Republican segments highlighted problems and controversies, like Romney’s Mormonism and Giuliani’s messy, fractious private life.
By comparison, the babble about Democrats was, and continues to be, embarrassingly giddy. Take ABC’s Claire Shipman describing Hillary and Barack as both "white hot," a diversity-enhanced clash of the titans. Hillary was an "unparalleled star," with a "hot factor" boosted by "her ever-popular husband." But wait, Obama, "with his fairy-tale family, has personal charisma to spare!" Someone needed to urge Shipman to come down off her puffy cloud of hype.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Couture / Gonzaga
Kick that broke Randy's arm. He ended up winning though, 44 years old and outweighed by about 30 pounds
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2825114320070829?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
The late Fidel Castro has issued an endorsement in the 2008 presidential campaign, Reuters reports:
*** QUOTE ***
"The word today is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary [Clinton] for president and [Barack] Obama as her running mate," he wrote in an editorial column on U.S. presidents published on Tuesday by Cuba's Communist Party newspaper, Granma.
At 81, Castro has outlasted nine U.S. presidents since his 1959 revolution turned Cuba into a thorn in Washington's side by building a communist society about 90 miles offshore from the United States.
*** END QUOTE ***
Well, yes, by staying in power by force, of course Castro has "outlasted" presidents who must face the voters and whose time in office is constitutionally limited. We wonder how many obituaries for Generalissimo Francisco Franco mentioned how many U.S. presidents that dictator had "outlasted."
The late Fidel Castro has issued an endorsement in the 2008 presidential campaign, Reuters reports:
*** QUOTE ***
"The word today is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary [Clinton] for president and [Barack] Obama as her running mate," he wrote in an editorial column on U.S. presidents published on Tuesday by Cuba's Communist Party newspaper, Granma.
At 81, Castro has outlasted nine U.S. presidents since his 1959 revolution turned Cuba into a thorn in Washington's side by building a communist society about 90 miles offshore from the United States.
*** END QUOTE ***
Well, yes, by staying in power by force, of course Castro has "outlasted" presidents who must face the voters and whose time in office is constitutionally limited. We wonder how many obituaries for Generalissimo Francisco Franco mentioned how many U.S. presidents that dictator had "outlasted."
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The Horror!
The Horror! The Horror! The paranoid style of the American left.by Noemie Emery 09/03/2007, Volume 012, Issue 47
Printer-Friendly
Email a Friend
The fascists are coming! Or rather, they're already here, installed in the White House, planning like mad to subvert the Constitution and extend their reign in perpetuity, having first suppressed and eviscerated all opposition and put all of their critics in jail. Thus goes the rant of America's increasingly unhinged left. If only, sigh many Bush partisans, wondering when this administration will get out of the fetal position and show some fighting spirit. To them, as to most reasonable observers, the White House shows the chronic fatigue of a two-term presidency reaching its final year. Nonetheless, paranoia about what Bush and Co. are up to preys on the minds of many progressives, who have progressed, in this case at least, beyond reason.
Printer-Friendly
Email a Friend
The fascists are coming! Or rather, they're already here, installed in the White House, planning like mad to subvert the Constitution and extend their reign in perpetuity, having first suppressed and eviscerated all opposition and put all of their critics in jail. Thus goes the rant of America's increasingly unhinged left. If only, sigh many Bush partisans, wondering when this administration will get out of the fetal position and show some fighting spirit. To them, as to most reasonable observers, the White House shows the chronic fatigue of a two-term presidency reaching its final year. Nonetheless, paranoia about what Bush and Co. are up to preys on the minds of many progressives, who have progressed, in this case at least, beyond reason.
The Mainstream Media and Iraq
Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:32:27 am PDT
Here’s a terrific post from Karl at Protein Wisdom, a monumental, heavily-sourced overview of the establishment media’s coverage of the Iraq War; there’s so much malfeasance, sloppiness, propaganda, and outright bias on display here that it’s a little overwhelming—but this is why so many of us are unhappy with the mainstream media: The Big Picture(s).
Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:32:27 am PDT
Here’s a terrific post from Karl at Protein Wisdom, a monumental, heavily-sourced overview of the establishment media’s coverage of the Iraq War; there’s so much malfeasance, sloppiness, propaganda, and outright bias on display here that it’s a little overwhelming—but this is why so many of us are unhappy with the mainstream media: The Big Picture(s).
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
http://newsbusters.org/
ABC Weatherman Touts Rambling Tennis Star’s Concern Over ‘Green Noise’
By Scott Whitlock August 28, 2007 - 16:07 ET
On Tuesday’s "Good Morning America," weatherman and liberal global warming activist Sam Champion featured tennis star Billie Jean King in his latest attempt to hype the danger of climate change. In a new series entitled, "Just One Person," King vaguely described her new environmental charity, GreenSlam, in such a way that it appeared to confuse GMA audience members standing behind her. At Champion’s prompting, she bemoaned all the "green noise," a term she never explained, in today’s society. Equally confusing were her constant references to "green collar studies."
Most bizarre, however, was when the tennis star appeared to be distracted, much in the way a five-year old would be upon seeing a butterfly. King noticed a tennis ball on an adjacent camera and fixated on it as an example of recycling. Apparently bewildering even Champion, she rambled, "We want to use things again. Okay? You see this tennis ball? You have one on your camera over there so that you don't whack somebody. It’s protection. There’s one at the end of, there’s one at the end of the camera there. That’s reusable. [Points to GMA camera.] All these little things we can do. I’m taking shorter showers. I’m worrying about the plastic bags now."
By Scott Whitlock August 28, 2007 - 16:07 ET
On Tuesday’s "Good Morning America," weatherman and liberal global warming activist Sam Champion featured tennis star Billie Jean King in his latest attempt to hype the danger of climate change. In a new series entitled, "Just One Person," King vaguely described her new environmental charity, GreenSlam, in such a way that it appeared to confuse GMA audience members standing behind her. At Champion’s prompting, she bemoaned all the "green noise," a term she never explained, in today’s society. Equally confusing were her constant references to "green collar studies."
Most bizarre, however, was when the tennis star appeared to be distracted, much in the way a five-year old would be upon seeing a butterfly. King noticed a tennis ball on an adjacent camera and fixated on it as an example of recycling. Apparently bewildering even Champion, she rambled, "We want to use things again. Okay? You see this tennis ball? You have one on your camera over there so that you don't whack somebody. It’s protection. There’s one at the end of, there’s one at the end of the camera there. That’s reusable. [Points to GMA camera.] All these little things we can do. I’m taking shorter showers. I’m worrying about the plastic bags now."
Jiminy!
"I've been in this business 27 years in the public eye here. I don't go around anywhere hitting on men, and by God, if I did, I wouldn't do it in Boise, Idaho! Jiminy!"
Sen. Larry Craig
Sen. Larry Craig
Monday, August 27, 2007
Oral Sex Implicated in Some Throat and Neck Cancers
By Serena Gordon
HealthDay Reporter
Monday, August 27, 2007; 12:00 AM
MONDAY, Aug. 27 (HealthDay News) -- Human papillomavirus (HPV), which is believed to be responsible for most cervical cancers, may also be at the root of many cancers of the mouth and throat, new research suggests.
Although the rate of most head and neck cancers has been declining over the past 30 years because more people have stopped smoking, the rate of certain cancers in the throat and mouth hasn't dropped, according to research published in the Aug. 27 online issue ofCancer.
By Serena Gordon
HealthDay Reporter
Monday, August 27, 2007; 12:00 AM
MONDAY, Aug. 27 (HealthDay News) -- Human papillomavirus (HPV), which is believed to be responsible for most cervical cancers, may also be at the root of many cancers of the mouth and throat, new research suggests.
Although the rate of most head and neck cancers has been declining over the past 30 years because more people have stopped smoking, the rate of certain cancers in the throat and mouth hasn't dropped, according to research published in the Aug. 27 online issue ofCancer.
Wine Bore
Jefferson had served as America’s Minister to France between 1785 and the outbreak of the French Revolution, and had developed a fascination with French wine. Upon his return to America, he continued to order large quantities of Bordeaux for himself and for George Washington, and stipulated in one 1790 letter that their respective shipments should be marked with their initials. During his first term as President, Jefferson spent seventy-five hundred dollars—roughly a hundred and twenty thousand dollars in today’s currency—on wine, and he is generally regarded as America’s first great wine connoisseur. (He may also have been America’s first great wine bore. “There was, as usual, a dissertation upon wines,” John Quincy Adams noted in his diary after dining with Jefferson in 1807. “Not very edifying.”)
Friday, August 24, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
John Derbyshire's review of Robert Spencer’s new book, Religion of Peace?—Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t:
Christianity Good, Islam Bad?
>>
Whatever the facts of that, it can hardly be disputed that we have got into the mess we are in with Islam today not so much because of the letter of Islamic theology, or the failure of enough of us to knuckle down to our citizenly duty and read the Koran (personally, I would rather undergo radical dentistry), as because we have executed policies of staggering idiocy.
There are now tens of millions of Muslims living in Christian nations; and this is the case because our nations allowed the tens of millions to enter. We need not have done so. Wise men as long as forty years ago were sounding the alarm about the gross folly of opening our territories to such numbers of strangers with whom we had nothing in common. If Islamia has sunk into the grip of a poisonous ideology—the ideology of jihadism—the Christian West (Spencer actually says “Judeo-Christian,” but that is just a lagniappe) has been seized by an even more destructive ideology: globalization.
The second ideology has in fact been the great enabler of the first. And, very uncomfortably for a Christian apologist like Robert Spencer (so uncomfortably he has not confronted it in this book, nor in any of the other writings of his I have perused; nor have I ever seen it mentioned in the rest of the burgeoning literature of Islamophobia), a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.? Why should not ten million of each do so? Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions? It beggars belief that anyone should hold such a civilizationally-suicidal view, but many Christians do—the current President of the United States, for example.
Robert Spencer promises to answer Derbyshire’s critique.
Christianity Good, Islam Bad?
>>
Whatever the facts of that, it can hardly be disputed that we have got into the mess we are in with Islam today not so much because of the letter of Islamic theology, or the failure of enough of us to knuckle down to our citizenly duty and read the Koran (personally, I would rather undergo radical dentistry), as because we have executed policies of staggering idiocy.
There are now tens of millions of Muslims living in Christian nations; and this is the case because our nations allowed the tens of millions to enter. We need not have done so. Wise men as long as forty years ago were sounding the alarm about the gross folly of opening our territories to such numbers of strangers with whom we had nothing in common. If Islamia has sunk into the grip of a poisonous ideology—the ideology of jihadism—the Christian West (Spencer actually says “Judeo-Christian,” but that is just a lagniappe) has been seized by an even more destructive ideology: globalization.
The second ideology has in fact been the great enabler of the first. And, very uncomfortably for a Christian apologist like Robert Spencer (so uncomfortably he has not confronted it in this book, nor in any of the other writings of his I have perused; nor have I ever seen it mentioned in the rest of the burgeoning literature of Islamophobia), a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.? Why should not ten million of each do so? Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions? It beggars belief that anyone should hold such a civilizationally-suicidal view, but many Christians do—the current President of the United States, for example.
Robert Spencer promises to answer Derbyshire’s critique.
Rawhide: Dr. Banzai is using a laser to vaporize a pineal tumor without damaging the parthogenital plate. A subcutaneous microphone will allow the patient to transmit verbal instructions to his own brain.
Observer: Like, "raise my left arm"?
Rawhide: Or "throw the harpoon." People are gonna come from all over. This boy's an Eskimo.
Observer: Like, "raise my left arm"?
Rawhide: Or "throw the harpoon." People are gonna come from all over. This boy's an Eskimo.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
SEATTLE – The FBI is asking for the public’s help to identify two men who have been seen acting suspiciously aboard Washington State ferries recently.
The FBI released a bulletin late Monday, including photographs of the two men. One of the photos shows the men side-by-side and the other is a solo shot of one of them. They were snapped by a ferry employee who thought the pair acted suspiciously.
“They had more than the average interest in the working parts of the ferry, the layout of the ferry, the size of it — more than you would see in normal passenger,” said FBI spokesperson Robbie Burroughs.
The FBI says the men were seen on more then one ferry and more than one run over the past several weeks. They were also taking photos of parts of the boat, which the agents won’t reveal, but that apparently aroused the suspicions of passengers and crew alike.
Anyone who knows the men or there whereabouts are asked to call the FBI at (206) 622-0460.
The FBI released a bulletin late Monday, including photographs of the two men. One of the photos shows the men side-by-side and the other is a solo shot of one of them. They were snapped by a ferry employee who thought the pair acted suspiciously.
“They had more than the average interest in the working parts of the ferry, the layout of the ferry, the size of it — more than you would see in normal passenger,” said FBI spokesperson Robbie Burroughs.
The FBI says the men were seen on more then one ferry and more than one run over the past several weeks. They were also taking photos of parts of the boat, which the agents won’t reveal, but that apparently aroused the suspicions of passengers and crew alike.
Anyone who knows the men or there whereabouts are asked to call the FBI at (206) 622-0460.
Monday, August 20, 2007
The History Channel has a documentary coming on the moronic "Truther" movement-
9/11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction.
Examines the various conspiracy theories espoused on the Internet, in articles and in public forums that attempt to explain the 9/11 attacks. It includes theories that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition; that a missile, not a commercial airliner, hit the Pentagon; and that members of the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks in hopes of creating a war in the Middle East. Each conspiracy argument is countered by a variety of experts in the fields of engineering, intelligence and the military. The program also delves into the anatomy of such conspiracies and how they grow on the Internet.
9/11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction.
Examines the various conspiracy theories espoused on the Internet, in articles and in public forums that attempt to explain the 9/11 attacks. It includes theories that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition; that a missile, not a commercial airliner, hit the Pentagon; and that members of the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks in hopes of creating a war in the Middle East. Each conspiracy argument is countered by a variety of experts in the fields of engineering, intelligence and the military. The program also delves into the anatomy of such conspiracies and how they grow on the Internet.
Bears eat man at beer festival
BELGRADE, Serbia (Reuters) -- A 23-year old Serb was found dead and half-eaten in the bear cage of Belgrade Zoo at the weekend during the annual beer festival.
The man was found naked, with his clothes lying intact inside the cage. Two adult bears, Masha and Misha, had dragged the body to their feeding corner and reacted angrily when keepers tried to recover it.
"There's a good chance he was drunk or drugged. Only an idiot would jump into the bear cage," zoo director Vuk Bojovic told Reuters.
Local media reported that police found several mobile phones inside the cage, as well as bricks, stones and beer cans.
BELGRADE, Serbia (Reuters) -- A 23-year old Serb was found dead and half-eaten in the bear cage of Belgrade Zoo at the weekend during the annual beer festival.
The man was found naked, with his clothes lying intact inside the cage. Two adult bears, Masha and Misha, had dragged the body to their feeding corner and reacted angrily when keepers tried to recover it.
"There's a good chance he was drunk or drugged. Only an idiot would jump into the bear cage," zoo director Vuk Bojovic told Reuters.
Local media reported that police found several mobile phones inside the cage, as well as bricks, stones and beer cans.
the undercover economist
Milton Friedman, Meet Richard Feynman
How physics can explain why some countries are rich and others are poor.
By Tim Harford
Posted Saturday, Aug. 18, 2007, at 7:07 AM ET
If economics can tell us something useful about crime, marriage, or carpooling—as I believe it can—then other academic disciplines should have something to tell us about economies. Last month, Science published an example that may turn out to be important. Two physicists, Cesar Hidalgo and Albert-László Barabási, and two economists, Bailey Klinger and Ricardo Hausmann, have been drawing unusual pictures of economic "space" that promise a deeper understanding of the biggest question in economics: why poor countries are poor.
There are many explanations, but some are easier to test than others. One very plausible account of why at least some poor countries are poor is that there is no smooth progression from where they are to where they would be when rich. For instance, to move from drilling oil to making silicon chips might require simultaneous investments in education, transport infrastructure, electricity, and many other things. The gap may be too far for private enterprise to bridge without some sort of coordinating effort from government—a "big push."
That is an old and intuitive idea in economics, but as an informal argument it leaves a lot to be desired. For a start, while plausible, it might not be true. If it is true, it might be far more so for some kinds of economy than for others. And if there is to be a big push, in which direction should it go?
Testing the idea took three steps. First, economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research broke down each country's exports into 775 distinct products. Next, Hausmann and Klinger used that data to measure how similar each product is to each other product. If every major apple exporter also exports pears, and every major pear exporter also exports apples, then the data are demonstrating apples and pears to be similar.
Presumably, both economies would have fertile soil, agronomists, refrigerated packing plants, and ports. For the third step, Hausmann and Klinger called upon Hidalgo and Barabási, who specialize in mapping and analyzing networks. The result was a map of the relationships between different products in an abstract economic space. (And look at more maps here. Apples and pears are close together; oil production is a long way away from anything else.
"The physicists' map shows each economy in this network of products, by highlighting the products each country exported. Over time, economies move across the product map as their export mix changes. Rich countries have larger, more diversified economies, and so produce lots of products—especially products close to the densely connected heart of the network. East Asian economies look very different, with a big cluster around textiles and another around electronics manufacturing, and—contrary to the hype—not much activity in the products produced by rich countries. African countries tend to produce afew products with no great similarity to any others."
That could be a big problem. The network maps show that economies tend to develop through closely related products. A country such as Colombia makes products that are well connected on the network, and so there are plenty of opportunities for private firms to move in to, provided other parts of the business climate allow it. But many of South Africa's current exports—diamonds, for example—are not very similar to anything.
If the country is to develop new products, it will mean making a big leap. The data show that such leaps are unusual.
None of this is proof that other development prescriptions—provide financing, fight corruption, cut red tape, and lower trade barriers—are useless. Nor is it a green light for ham-fisted industrial policy. Klinger warns: "It's easy to take the policy implication too far and start trying to pick and choose where to settle in the product space." But it is a big step forward. Policy-makers should take note, and economists, too.
Tim Harford is a columnist for the Financial Times. His latest book is The Undercover Economist.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2171898/
Copyright 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
Milton Friedman, Meet Richard Feynman
How physics can explain why some countries are rich and others are poor.
By Tim Harford
Posted Saturday, Aug. 18, 2007, at 7:07 AM ET
If economics can tell us something useful about crime, marriage, or carpooling—as I believe it can—then other academic disciplines should have something to tell us about economies. Last month, Science published an example that may turn out to be important. Two physicists, Cesar Hidalgo and Albert-László Barabási, and two economists, Bailey Klinger and Ricardo Hausmann, have been drawing unusual pictures of economic "space" that promise a deeper understanding of the biggest question in economics: why poor countries are poor.
There are many explanations, but some are easier to test than others. One very plausible account of why at least some poor countries are poor is that there is no smooth progression from where they are to where they would be when rich. For instance, to move from drilling oil to making silicon chips might require simultaneous investments in education, transport infrastructure, electricity, and many other things. The gap may be too far for private enterprise to bridge without some sort of coordinating effort from government—a "big push."
That is an old and intuitive idea in economics, but as an informal argument it leaves a lot to be desired. For a start, while plausible, it might not be true. If it is true, it might be far more so for some kinds of economy than for others. And if there is to be a big push, in which direction should it go?
Testing the idea took three steps. First, economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research broke down each country's exports into 775 distinct products. Next, Hausmann and Klinger used that data to measure how similar each product is to each other product. If every major apple exporter also exports pears, and every major pear exporter also exports apples, then the data are demonstrating apples and pears to be similar.
Presumably, both economies would have fertile soil, agronomists, refrigerated packing plants, and ports. For the third step, Hausmann and Klinger called upon Hidalgo and Barabási, who specialize in mapping and analyzing networks. The result was a map of the relationships between different products in an abstract economic space. (And look at more maps here. Apples and pears are close together; oil production is a long way away from anything else.
"The physicists' map shows each economy in this network of products, by highlighting the products each country exported. Over time, economies move across the product map as their export mix changes. Rich countries have larger, more diversified economies, and so produce lots of products—especially products close to the densely connected heart of the network. East Asian economies look very different, with a big cluster around textiles and another around electronics manufacturing, and—contrary to the hype—not much activity in the products produced by rich countries. African countries tend to produce afew products with no great similarity to any others."
That could be a big problem. The network maps show that economies tend to develop through closely related products. A country such as Colombia makes products that are well connected on the network, and so there are plenty of opportunities for private firms to move in to, provided other parts of the business climate allow it. But many of South Africa's current exports—diamonds, for example—are not very similar to anything.
If the country is to develop new products, it will mean making a big leap. The data show that such leaps are unusual.
None of this is proof that other development prescriptions—provide financing, fight corruption, cut red tape, and lower trade barriers—are useless. Nor is it a green light for ham-fisted industrial policy. Klinger warns: "It's easy to take the policy implication too far and start trying to pick and choose where to settle in the product space." But it is a big step forward. Policy-makers should take note, and economists, too.
Tim Harford is a columnist for the Financial Times. His latest book is The Undercover Economist.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2171898/
Copyright 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
Friday, August 17, 2007
GLOSSARY (Tillich)
Neurosis - the way of avoiding nonbeing by avoiding being, which is a lack of self-affirmation with imaginary protective walls of security that will overlook doubt on issues that are in need of it, submitting to authorities and structures that eliminate freedom, and at the same time, create doubt on areas that do not need it, that have been proven beyond the doubts entered upon it. Neurotic anxiety is the inability to take one's existential anxiety upon oneself.
Ontological - Ontology is any particular theory that pertains to the nature of being or the kinds of existents. Ontic, from the Greek On, "being, means here the basic self-affirmation of a being in its simple existence. Ontological designates the philosophical analysis of the nature of being.
Despair - is "that a being is aware of itself as unable to affirm itself because of the power of nonbeing. consequently it wants to surrender this awareness and its presupposition, the being which is aware." p. 55
Existential - The expression of the anxiety of meaninglessness and of the attempt to take this anxiety into the courage to be as oneself. A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and individual responsibility for the consequences of one's acts. It is the ambiguous structure and meaninglessness which drives to despair as the center to being. Anxiety in the existential awareness of nonbeing is not the abstract knowledge of nonbeing, which produces anxiety, but the awareness that nonbeing as a part of one's own being. "Twentieth-century man has lost a meaningful world and a self which lives in meanings out of a spiritual center. The man-created world of objects has drawn into itself him who created it and who now loses his subjectivity in it." p. 139
Nominalism - 1: theory that there are no universal essences in reality and that the mind can frame no single concept or image corresponding to any universal or general term. 2 : theory that only individuals and no abstract entities (as essences, classes, or propositions) exist.Nominalism can be described as splitting the universals into individual things, as the individualization of the whole, yet never fully leaving the collective thought of conformism and ceasing to fully enter into the individual and ambiguous nature of existentialism. Opposed to Realism.
Essentialism - A chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for his acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad. The philosophical theory ascribing ultimate reality to essence embodied in a thing perceptible to the senses.
Humanism - A philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and a supernatural God and stresses the individual's dignity, creativity, self-worth and capacity for self-realization, the creation through reason. Humanism can be both Existential and Non Existential. As humanistic Existential thinking, (The despair of Heidegger, and Sartre), contributes existence to the essence of man, yet remain ambiguous in meaninglessness and despair, while the Non Existential (Descartes - "I think, therefore I am"), removes all subjectivity, thus objectifying all meanings in that of human creation (dehumanization) and meaning.
Romanticism - An artistic and intellectual movement originating in Europe in the late 18th century and characterized by a heightened interest in nature, emphasis on the individual's expression of emotion and imagination, departure from the attitudes and forms of classicism, and rebellion against established social rules and conventions.
Classicism - Aesthetic attitudes and principles manifested in the art, architecture, and literature of ancient Greece and Rome and characterized by emphasis on form, simplicity, proportion, and restraint.
Bohematism - A person with artistic or literary interests who disregards conventional standards of behavior.
Naturalism - Philosophy:. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. Theology: The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation. Naturalism can be defined as a dogmatic secularism and opposition to a belief in the transcendent. Yet Naturalism is also a form of individualism, and when combined with Romanticism, can transcend natural causes that are immutably contained within objectivity, to that of natural causes in existential and ambiguous meaning.
Pragmatism - Philosophy. A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical and measurable consequences, that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief. Originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James.
Collectivism - The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
Nihilism - Philosophy: a) An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence. b) A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Macrocosm - The entire world; the universe.
Microcosmic - A small, representative system having analogies to a larger system in constitution, configuration, or development
Cynicism - Modern cynics are not ready to follow anybody. They have no belief in reason, no criterion of truth, no set of values, no answer to the question of meaning. They courageously reject any solution which would deprive them of their freedom of rejecting whatever they want to reject. In turn, they are lonely and empty of both preliminary meanings and an ultimate meaning and therefore easy victims of neurotic anxiety, susceptible to compulsive self-affirmation and fanatical self-surrender.
Idealism - The doctrine that ideas are the only reality. theory that the object of external perception, in itself or as perceived, consists of ideas. The system or theory that denies the existence of material bodies, and teaches that we have no rational grounds to believe in the reality of anything but ideas and their relations.
Solipsism - theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified, the theory or view that the self is the only reality. The philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist. A theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing.
Monads - An indivisible, impenetrable unit of substance viewed as the basic constituent element of physical reality in the metaphysics of Leibnitz.
Pantheism /Cosmotheism - Belief in and worship of all gods. A doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe. The doctrine that the universe, taken or conceived of as a whole, is God; the doctrine that there is no God but the combined force and laws which are manifested in the existing universe.
Realism - 1 : concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary 2 a : a doctrine that universals exist outside the mind; specifically : the conception that an abstract term names an independent and unitary reality b : the conception that objects of sense perception or cognition exist independently of the mind 3 : fidelity in art and literature to nature or to real life and to accurate representation without idealizationAn inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism, opposed to nominalism which is that of universals exist independently of their being thought. Also opposed to idealism, which is that physical objects exist independently of their being perceived.
Anxiety - A state of apprehension, uncertainty, and helplessness resulting from the anticipation of a realistic or fantasized threatening event or situation, often impairing physical and psychological functioning. Since there is no object but uncertainty, there is nothing conquer, only ambiguity.
Fear - A state or condition marked by the feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger or uncertainty. Unlike anxiety, fear has an object that can be conquered with self-affirmation and courage. Therefore anxiety must be converted into an object of fear.
Entelechy - In the philosophy of Aristotle, the condition of a thing whose essence is fully realized; actuality. In some philosophical systems, a vital force that directs an organism toward self-fulfillment.
Neurosis - the way of avoiding nonbeing by avoiding being, which is a lack of self-affirmation with imaginary protective walls of security that will overlook doubt on issues that are in need of it, submitting to authorities and structures that eliminate freedom, and at the same time, create doubt on areas that do not need it, that have been proven beyond the doubts entered upon it. Neurotic anxiety is the inability to take one's existential anxiety upon oneself.
Ontological - Ontology is any particular theory that pertains to the nature of being or the kinds of existents. Ontic, from the Greek On, "being, means here the basic self-affirmation of a being in its simple existence. Ontological designates the philosophical analysis of the nature of being.
Despair - is "that a being is aware of itself as unable to affirm itself because of the power of nonbeing. consequently it wants to surrender this awareness and its presupposition, the being which is aware." p. 55
Existential - The expression of the anxiety of meaninglessness and of the attempt to take this anxiety into the courage to be as oneself. A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and individual responsibility for the consequences of one's acts. It is the ambiguous structure and meaninglessness which drives to despair as the center to being. Anxiety in the existential awareness of nonbeing is not the abstract knowledge of nonbeing, which produces anxiety, but the awareness that nonbeing as a part of one's own being. "Twentieth-century man has lost a meaningful world and a self which lives in meanings out of a spiritual center. The man-created world of objects has drawn into itself him who created it and who now loses his subjectivity in it." p. 139
Nominalism - 1: theory that there are no universal essences in reality and that the mind can frame no single concept or image corresponding to any universal or general term. 2 : theory that only individuals and no abstract entities (as essences, classes, or propositions) exist.Nominalism can be described as splitting the universals into individual things, as the individualization of the whole, yet never fully leaving the collective thought of conformism and ceasing to fully enter into the individual and ambiguous nature of existentialism. Opposed to Realism.
Essentialism - A chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for his acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad. The philosophical theory ascribing ultimate reality to essence embodied in a thing perceptible to the senses.
Humanism - A philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and a supernatural God and stresses the individual's dignity, creativity, self-worth and capacity for self-realization, the creation through reason. Humanism can be both Existential and Non Existential. As humanistic Existential thinking, (The despair of Heidegger, and Sartre), contributes existence to the essence of man, yet remain ambiguous in meaninglessness and despair, while the Non Existential (Descartes - "I think, therefore I am"), removes all subjectivity, thus objectifying all meanings in that of human creation (dehumanization) and meaning.
Romanticism - An artistic and intellectual movement originating in Europe in the late 18th century and characterized by a heightened interest in nature, emphasis on the individual's expression of emotion and imagination, departure from the attitudes and forms of classicism, and rebellion against established social rules and conventions.
Classicism - Aesthetic attitudes and principles manifested in the art, architecture, and literature of ancient Greece and Rome and characterized by emphasis on form, simplicity, proportion, and restraint.
Bohematism - A person with artistic or literary interests who disregards conventional standards of behavior.
Naturalism - Philosophy:. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. Theology: The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation. Naturalism can be defined as a dogmatic secularism and opposition to a belief in the transcendent. Yet Naturalism is also a form of individualism, and when combined with Romanticism, can transcend natural causes that are immutably contained within objectivity, to that of natural causes in existential and ambiguous meaning.
Pragmatism - Philosophy. A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical and measurable consequences, that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief. Originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James.
Collectivism - The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
Nihilism - Philosophy: a) An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence. b) A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Macrocosm - The entire world; the universe.
Microcosmic - A small, representative system having analogies to a larger system in constitution, configuration, or development
Cynicism - Modern cynics are not ready to follow anybody. They have no belief in reason, no criterion of truth, no set of values, no answer to the question of meaning. They courageously reject any solution which would deprive them of their freedom of rejecting whatever they want to reject. In turn, they are lonely and empty of both preliminary meanings and an ultimate meaning and therefore easy victims of neurotic anxiety, susceptible to compulsive self-affirmation and fanatical self-surrender.
Idealism - The doctrine that ideas are the only reality. theory that the object of external perception, in itself or as perceived, consists of ideas. The system or theory that denies the existence of material bodies, and teaches that we have no rational grounds to believe in the reality of anything but ideas and their relations.
Solipsism - theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified, the theory or view that the self is the only reality. The philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist. A theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing.
Monads - An indivisible, impenetrable unit of substance viewed as the basic constituent element of physical reality in the metaphysics of Leibnitz.
Pantheism /Cosmotheism - Belief in and worship of all gods. A doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe. The doctrine that the universe, taken or conceived of as a whole, is God; the doctrine that there is no God but the combined force and laws which are manifested in the existing universe.
Realism - 1 : concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary 2 a : a doctrine that universals exist outside the mind; specifically : the conception that an abstract term names an independent and unitary reality b : the conception that objects of sense perception or cognition exist independently of the mind 3 : fidelity in art and literature to nature or to real life and to accurate representation without idealizationAn inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism, opposed to nominalism which is that of universals exist independently of their being thought. Also opposed to idealism, which is that physical objects exist independently of their being perceived.
Anxiety - A state of apprehension, uncertainty, and helplessness resulting from the anticipation of a realistic or fantasized threatening event or situation, often impairing physical and psychological functioning. Since there is no object but uncertainty, there is nothing conquer, only ambiguity.
Fear - A state or condition marked by the feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger or uncertainty. Unlike anxiety, fear has an object that can be conquered with self-affirmation and courage. Therefore anxiety must be converted into an object of fear.
Entelechy - In the philosophy of Aristotle, the condition of a thing whose essence is fully realized; actuality. In some philosophical systems, a vital force that directs an organism toward self-fulfillment.
Moo!
Chicken go cluck cluck Cow go moo Piggy go oink oink How bout you?! Got to be an animal just like youuu!!
http://kungpowwheel.ytmnd.com/
http://kungpowwheel.ytmnd.com/
www.littlegreenfootballs.com
Well, I hope the Venezuelans who voted for Chavez enjoyed that election, because it’s the last one they’ll have for a long time: Hugo Chavez to make himself president for life.
The Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has anointed himself president for life by proposing sweeping changes to the country’s constitution.
Setting out his plans for completing his socialist revolution in the oil-rich Latin American nation, he proposing radical constitutional reform which has at its centre indefinite re-election for himself.
In a rambling televised speech reminiscent of his close ally and friend Fidel Castro, Mr Chavez told the national assembly of 33 changes he plans to make to the constitution he introduced in 1999 which will cement his grip on power.
The Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has anointed himself president for life by proposing sweeping changes to the country’s constitution.
Setting out his plans for completing his socialist revolution in the oil-rich Latin American nation, he proposing radical constitutional reform which has at its centre indefinite re-election for himself.
In a rambling televised speech reminiscent of his close ally and friend Fidel Castro, Mr Chavez told the national assembly of 33 changes he plans to make to the constitution he introduced in 1999 which will cement his grip on power.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, expressing his skepticism about many conventional conceptualizations of God. Sagan once stated, for instance, that "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."[17] Sagan is also widely regarded as a freethinker or skeptic; one of his most famous quotations as seen in Cosmos, was "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Bias, Bias, Bias
A newsroom reprimand at The Times
Posted by David Postman at 03:26 PM
Seattle Times Executive Editor Dave Boardman wrote today in one of his morning notes to staff that there had been "an awkward moment at yesterday's news meeting." That's the meeting where editors and other staff from throughout the newsroom talk about the stories planned for the next day's paper.
Boardman wrote in "Dave's Raves (and the occasional rant)"
When word came in of Karl Rove's resignation, several people in the meeting started cheering. That sort of expression is simply not appropriate for a newsroom.
It sounds like a conservative's parody of how a news meeting would be run. I wasn't there, but I've talked to several people who were. It was only a couple of people who cheered and they, thankfully, are not among the people who get a say in news play. But obviously news staff shouldn't be cheering or jeering the day's news, particularly as Boardman points out, "when we have an outside guest in the room."
Jokes get made in newsrooms, of course — even what you would call gallows humor. And Boardman wrote that he was "all for equal-opportunity joking at both parties' expense." But he was clearly ticked off by yesterday's display.
As we head into a major political year, now's a good time to remember: Please keep your personal politics to yourself.
http://newsbusters.org/
Posted by David Postman at 03:26 PM
Seattle Times Executive Editor Dave Boardman wrote today in one of his morning notes to staff that there had been "an awkward moment at yesterday's news meeting." That's the meeting where editors and other staff from throughout the newsroom talk about the stories planned for the next day's paper.
Boardman wrote in "Dave's Raves (and the occasional rant)"
When word came in of Karl Rove's resignation, several people in the meeting started cheering. That sort of expression is simply not appropriate for a newsroom.
It sounds like a conservative's parody of how a news meeting would be run. I wasn't there, but I've talked to several people who were. It was only a couple of people who cheered and they, thankfully, are not among the people who get a say in news play. But obviously news staff shouldn't be cheering or jeering the day's news, particularly as Boardman points out, "when we have an outside guest in the room."
Jokes get made in newsrooms, of course — even what you would call gallows humor. And Boardman wrote that he was "all for equal-opportunity joking at both parties' expense." But he was clearly ticked off by yesterday's display.
As we head into a major political year, now's a good time to remember: Please keep your personal politics to yourself.
http://newsbusters.org/
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Allah Dammit!
Bishop: Call God ‘Allah’ to ease relations
Roman Catholic leader stokes already heated debate on religion
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:29 a.m. PT Aug 15, 2007
AMSTERDAM - A Roman Catholic Bishop in the Netherlands has proposed people of all faiths refer to God as Allah to foster understanding, stoking an already heated debate on religious tolerance in a country with one million Muslims.
Bishop Tiny Muskens, from the southern diocese of Breda, told Dutch television on Monday that God did not mind what he was named and that in Indonesia, where Muskens spent eight years, priests used the word "Allah" while celebrating Mass.
"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him? It is our problem."
A survey in the Netherlands' biggest-selling newspaper De Telegraaf on Wednesday found 92 percent of the more than 4,000 people polled disagreed with the bishop's view, which also drew ridicule.
"Sure. Lets call God Allah. Lets then call a church a mosque and pray five times a day. Ramadan sounds like fun," Welmoet Koppenhol wrote in a letter to the newspaper.
Gerrit de Fijter, chairman of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, told the paper he welcomed any attempt to "create more dialogue", but added: "Calling God 'Allah' does no justice to Western identity. I see no benefit in it."
A spokesman from the union of Moroccan mosques in Amsterdam said Muslims had not asked for such a gesture.
Religious tensions on the riseSigns of tension had already surfaced in the last two weeks after the head of a committee for former Muslims was attacked and populist anti-immigration politician Geert Wilders called for the Koran to be banned.
Bishop Muskens, who will shortly retire, has raised eyebrows in the past with suggestions that those who are hungry may steal bread and that condoms should be permissible in the fight against HIV and AIDS.
Some Dutch Muslims welcomed his comments as a valuable gesture of support coming just days after Wilders branded the Quran a "fascist book" in the vein of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" which legitimizes violence.
Wilders, whose new party won nine seats out of the 150 in parliament in last November's elections, is well known for his firebrand remarks on Islam.
He said an attack by two Moroccans and a Somali on the head of a Dutch group for "ex-Muslims" had spurred him to write.
Issues of immigration and integration had faded from the Dutch political agenda over the last year, after a period of unprecedented social tension sparked by the 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh, a filmmaker critical of Islam, by a Muslim militant.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20279326/
Roman Catholic leader stokes already heated debate on religion
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:29 a.m. PT Aug 15, 2007
AMSTERDAM - A Roman Catholic Bishop in the Netherlands has proposed people of all faiths refer to God as Allah to foster understanding, stoking an already heated debate on religious tolerance in a country with one million Muslims.
Bishop Tiny Muskens, from the southern diocese of Breda, told Dutch television on Monday that God did not mind what he was named and that in Indonesia, where Muskens spent eight years, priests used the word "Allah" while celebrating Mass.
"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him? It is our problem."
A survey in the Netherlands' biggest-selling newspaper De Telegraaf on Wednesday found 92 percent of the more than 4,000 people polled disagreed with the bishop's view, which also drew ridicule.
"Sure. Lets call God Allah. Lets then call a church a mosque and pray five times a day. Ramadan sounds like fun," Welmoet Koppenhol wrote in a letter to the newspaper.
Gerrit de Fijter, chairman of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, told the paper he welcomed any attempt to "create more dialogue", but added: "Calling God 'Allah' does no justice to Western identity. I see no benefit in it."
A spokesman from the union of Moroccan mosques in Amsterdam said Muslims had not asked for such a gesture.
Religious tensions on the riseSigns of tension had already surfaced in the last two weeks after the head of a committee for former Muslims was attacked and populist anti-immigration politician Geert Wilders called for the Koran to be banned.
Bishop Muskens, who will shortly retire, has raised eyebrows in the past with suggestions that those who are hungry may steal bread and that condoms should be permissible in the fight against HIV and AIDS.
Some Dutch Muslims welcomed his comments as a valuable gesture of support coming just days after Wilders branded the Quran a "fascist book" in the vein of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" which legitimizes violence.
Wilders, whose new party won nine seats out of the 150 in parliament in last November's elections, is well known for his firebrand remarks on Islam.
He said an attack by two Moroccans and a Somali on the head of a Dutch group for "ex-Muslims" had spurred him to write.
Issues of immigration and integration had faded from the Dutch political agenda over the last year, after a period of unprecedented social tension sparked by the 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh, a filmmaker critical of Islam, by a Muslim militant.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20279326/
Friday, August 10, 2007
Do's and Don'ts
Yeah, you know who likes it hot? Me. I don’t care if that means you’re going to f*ck me or just take me out for some passionate Spanish dancing. Let’s do this!
Y2K Bug Drastically Changes US Climate Data
Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:38:56 am PDT
According to the DailyTech blog, the NASA temperature data used to estimate the advance of global warming has been shown to be way off the mark, due to a Y2K bug in the graphing software—and the corrected charts tell a very different story: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data.
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.
The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.
Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:38:56 am PDT
According to the DailyTech blog, the NASA temperature data used to estimate the advance of global warming has been shown to be way off the mark, due to a Y2K bug in the graphing software—and the corrected charts tell a very different story: Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data.
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.
The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Opinion Journal
Fair but Unbalanced
How the media promote false pessimism about the economy.
BY BRIAN S. WESBURY
Thursday, August 9, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Not that it needed any help, but the already energized debate about journalistic bias was electrified when Rupert Murdoch, owner of the "fair and balanced" Fox News Channel, struck a deal to buy The Wall Street Journal.
I have no desire to take sides in this debate, or question anyone's integrity, but my role as a business economist gives me a unique view of this subject. I talk frequently with members of the print media, and I am a regular guest on business TV shows. Both venues stress debate and journalistic skepticism. In my view this tendency causes a great deal of confusion.
If one guest or expert is a "bull," then the other must be a "bear," to keep things fair. Or, if there is a single guest on air, the host often takes the other side of the issue in order to keep things balanced. Get some sparks between guests, a little argument here or there, and it's even better for the ratings. The bigger the audience, the better the show, that's the way the advertisers see it. It's basic supply and demand.
But this idea of presenting both sides of an issue, while entertaining, informative and seemingly balanced, may paradoxically create a warped perspective of the economy.
For example, the most recent Wall Street Journal economic forecasting survey, from July, shows that 49 out of 60 forecasters expect real GDP to grow at an average annual rate of 2%, or faster, in 2007. Of the remaining 11 forecasters, only two expect growth of less than 1%, and only one expects a recession. For 2008, the forecasters are even more optimistic, with none expecting recession.
There are at least a half-dozen other institutions publishing surveys, and all of them report very similar results among the 100 or so active professional forecasters. Except for two well-known economists (Nouriel Roubini at New York University, and Gary Shilling of A. Gary Shilling & Co.), who are not in many surveys, a super-duper majority of professional forecasting economists believe the economy will continue to expand during the next year and have believed so for the past four or five years.
Despite this, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken in late July found that 68% of Americans thought that the economy either was in recession already, or would experience a recession sometime during the next 12 months. Interestingly, this is not much of a change from the past. This same survey question has been polled at least five times since September 2002. Each time a robust majority of between 65% and 85% of respondents thought a recession either was under way or would occur within the year. Americans have been bearish on the economy for quite some time.
In short, over the past five years, forecasting economists from academia, consulting shops, financial services and industry have a perfect 5-0 record against a random sample of American citizens. It's important to understand that economists are not always right. Some even say that economists were put on earth to make weathermen look good.
In fact, some suggest that the experts don't know what they are talking about. They say that economists make the mistake of looking at aggregate data, for GDP or overall income, which hides serious dislocations for the middle class and those with lower incomes. Those who argue this point believe that unfair foreign competition and unfair distribution of income are leaving many Americans behind.
But this is hard to believe. The economy moderated last year, but the unemployment rate is still just 4.6%, almost a full percentage point below its 20-year average of 5.5%. Since the jobless rate first fell below 5% in December 2005, average hourly earnings have expanded at a 4.1% annualized rate--as good as any year during the late 1990s. And recent research shows that incomes for the bottom fifth of wage earners have risen faster in the past few decades than incomes at the top, hard work is being rewarded more by performance pay, and income volatility is no worse today than it was in the 1980s and 1990s.
Stranger still is a July poll by the American Research Group (ARG) in which 68% of respondents rated their own personal financial situation as "good, very good or excellent." This is a huge improvement from March 2003, when another ARG poll found only 46% of Americans were either "hopeful or happy" about their personal financial situation, while 46% were "worried or angry."
This begs the question: If the actual economic data, the views of professional economists and the self-proclaimed personal financial situation of a majority of Americans have improved this much, why are people so worried about the economy? Why do people assume they are the exception rather than the rule?
One answer is that people gather knowledge about the rest of the economy, the part they cannot see, from watching news. As a result, it could be that the format behind most business journalism skews perceptions and creates pessimism. To be very clear, I am not arguing that business news is purposefully biased. But what seems clear is that in the name of producing an entertaining product, and in an attempt to provide contrasting views, the true consensus of experts is rarely reported.
A randomly selected pairing of economists from The Wall Street Journal forecasting panel would pit two rather optimistic forecasters against each other in debate. But having two economists debate about whether GDP will grow 2.1% this year or 2.4% is downright boring. As a result, the producers of business news spice things up. They arrange for debates between a bullish economist and a bearish economist. And since they can't have Messrs. Roubini and Shilling on every hour of every day, they find equity short-sellers who make a living when things turn down, or political economists who are trying to score points.
While this is entertaining, and may bring in eyeballs, which sell commercials, this idea of "fair and balanced" debates leaves an impression that the experts are split 50/50, when in reality it's more like 80/20, or 90/10.
After all, the economy is closing in on six straight years of growth and the stock market is up more than 80% since its bottom in October 2002. It is true that the number of shares sold short on the Nasdaq rose to a record of 9.3 billion last week, but this only equals the number of shares that change hands on the Nasdaq (on average) every 4.9 days. There are way more bulls than bears. It's not a 50/50 world.
But if all the public sees is an endless stream of 50/50 debates, then it is really not that much of a surprise that people think the future is basically a coin toss. And a coin toss, especially in a time of war and terrorism, is not very good odds.
And that's too bad. The global economy may never have been as strong as it is today. The pace of technological achievement has boosted living standards for billions of people, and promises to do even more in the years to come. It's sad, really, that so many people can't enjoy it because they fret so much about the future.
Mr. Wesbury is chief economist for First Trust Portfolios, LP.
How the media promote false pessimism about the economy.
BY BRIAN S. WESBURY
Thursday, August 9, 2007 12:01 a.m.
Not that it needed any help, but the already energized debate about journalistic bias was electrified when Rupert Murdoch, owner of the "fair and balanced" Fox News Channel, struck a deal to buy The Wall Street Journal.
I have no desire to take sides in this debate, or question anyone's integrity, but my role as a business economist gives me a unique view of this subject. I talk frequently with members of the print media, and I am a regular guest on business TV shows. Both venues stress debate and journalistic skepticism. In my view this tendency causes a great deal of confusion.
If one guest or expert is a "bull," then the other must be a "bear," to keep things fair. Or, if there is a single guest on air, the host often takes the other side of the issue in order to keep things balanced. Get some sparks between guests, a little argument here or there, and it's even better for the ratings. The bigger the audience, the better the show, that's the way the advertisers see it. It's basic supply and demand.
But this idea of presenting both sides of an issue, while entertaining, informative and seemingly balanced, may paradoxically create a warped perspective of the economy.
For example, the most recent Wall Street Journal economic forecasting survey, from July, shows that 49 out of 60 forecasters expect real GDP to grow at an average annual rate of 2%, or faster, in 2007. Of the remaining 11 forecasters, only two expect growth of less than 1%, and only one expects a recession. For 2008, the forecasters are even more optimistic, with none expecting recession.
There are at least a half-dozen other institutions publishing surveys, and all of them report very similar results among the 100 or so active professional forecasters. Except for two well-known economists (Nouriel Roubini at New York University, and Gary Shilling of A. Gary Shilling & Co.), who are not in many surveys, a super-duper majority of professional forecasting economists believe the economy will continue to expand during the next year and have believed so for the past four or five years.
Despite this, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken in late July found that 68% of Americans thought that the economy either was in recession already, or would experience a recession sometime during the next 12 months. Interestingly, this is not much of a change from the past. This same survey question has been polled at least five times since September 2002. Each time a robust majority of between 65% and 85% of respondents thought a recession either was under way or would occur within the year. Americans have been bearish on the economy for quite some time.
In short, over the past five years, forecasting economists from academia, consulting shops, financial services and industry have a perfect 5-0 record against a random sample of American citizens. It's important to understand that economists are not always right. Some even say that economists were put on earth to make weathermen look good.
In fact, some suggest that the experts don't know what they are talking about. They say that economists make the mistake of looking at aggregate data, for GDP or overall income, which hides serious dislocations for the middle class and those with lower incomes. Those who argue this point believe that unfair foreign competition and unfair distribution of income are leaving many Americans behind.
But this is hard to believe. The economy moderated last year, but the unemployment rate is still just 4.6%, almost a full percentage point below its 20-year average of 5.5%. Since the jobless rate first fell below 5% in December 2005, average hourly earnings have expanded at a 4.1% annualized rate--as good as any year during the late 1990s. And recent research shows that incomes for the bottom fifth of wage earners have risen faster in the past few decades than incomes at the top, hard work is being rewarded more by performance pay, and income volatility is no worse today than it was in the 1980s and 1990s.
Stranger still is a July poll by the American Research Group (ARG) in which 68% of respondents rated their own personal financial situation as "good, very good or excellent." This is a huge improvement from March 2003, when another ARG poll found only 46% of Americans were either "hopeful or happy" about their personal financial situation, while 46% were "worried or angry."
This begs the question: If the actual economic data, the views of professional economists and the self-proclaimed personal financial situation of a majority of Americans have improved this much, why are people so worried about the economy? Why do people assume they are the exception rather than the rule?
One answer is that people gather knowledge about the rest of the economy, the part they cannot see, from watching news. As a result, it could be that the format behind most business journalism skews perceptions and creates pessimism. To be very clear, I am not arguing that business news is purposefully biased. But what seems clear is that in the name of producing an entertaining product, and in an attempt to provide contrasting views, the true consensus of experts is rarely reported.
A randomly selected pairing of economists from The Wall Street Journal forecasting panel would pit two rather optimistic forecasters against each other in debate. But having two economists debate about whether GDP will grow 2.1% this year or 2.4% is downright boring. As a result, the producers of business news spice things up. They arrange for debates between a bullish economist and a bearish economist. And since they can't have Messrs. Roubini and Shilling on every hour of every day, they find equity short-sellers who make a living when things turn down, or political economists who are trying to score points.
While this is entertaining, and may bring in eyeballs, which sell commercials, this idea of "fair and balanced" debates leaves an impression that the experts are split 50/50, when in reality it's more like 80/20, or 90/10.
After all, the economy is closing in on six straight years of growth and the stock market is up more than 80% since its bottom in October 2002. It is true that the number of shares sold short on the Nasdaq rose to a record of 9.3 billion last week, but this only equals the number of shares that change hands on the Nasdaq (on average) every 4.9 days. There are way more bulls than bears. It's not a 50/50 world.
But if all the public sees is an endless stream of 50/50 debates, then it is really not that much of a surprise that people think the future is basically a coin toss. And a coin toss, especially in a time of war and terrorism, is not very good odds.
And that's too bad. The global economy may never have been as strong as it is today. The pace of technological achievement has boosted living standards for billions of people, and promises to do even more in the years to come. It's sad, really, that so many people can't enjoy it because they fret so much about the future.
Mr. Wesbury is chief economist for First Trust Portfolios, LP.
But Majorities Still Form the Majority in the Majority
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/09census.html?ex=1344312000&en=acb30f0eee9fdb05&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
"Minorities Now Form Majority in One-Third of Most-Populous Counties"--headline, New York Times, Aug. 9
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/09census.html?ex=1344312000&en=acb30f0eee9fdb05&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
"Minorities Now Form Majority in One-Third of Most-Populous Counties"--headline, New York Times, Aug. 9
Who Moved My Cheese?
http://www.wvrecord.com/news/198972-man-allergic-to-cheese-seeks-10-million-from-mcdonalds
Remember that old lady who sued and won some unspeakable amount of money after she spilled McDonald's coffee on herself, then became a symbol of the out-of-control plaintiffs bar?
Young Jeromy Jackson seeks to supplant her. The Record, "West Virginia's legal journal," reports on Jeromy's lawsuit against the Golden Arches, in which he seeks $10 million in damages:
*** QUOTE ***
Jackson, his mother Trela Jackson and his friend Andrew Ellifritz filed a suit July 18 in Monongalia Circuit Court against the popular fast-food chain because Jeromy Jackson is allergic to cheese.
According to the suit, Jackson, his mother and friend went to the drive-thru at the McDonald's on Chaplin Road in Morgantown on Oct. 30, 2005. Jackson claims he ordered two "Quarter Pounders" without cheese, stating he was allergic to cheese.
"From this point forward, Mr. Jackson repeatedly asked as to the status of his food and whether it had no cheese, and took multiple preventive steps to assure his food did not contain cheese," the suit says.
The suit says Jackson received his food, bit into one of his sandwiches and immediately began to have a severe allergic reaction.
*** END QUOTE ***
So apparently the "multiple preventive steps" he took "to assure his food did not contain cheese" did not include looking at the damn sandwich before eating it!
http://www.wvrecord.com/news/198972-man-allergic-to-cheese-seeks-10-million-from-mcdonalds
Remember that old lady who sued and won some unspeakable amount of money after she spilled McDonald's coffee on herself, then became a symbol of the out-of-control plaintiffs bar?
Young Jeromy Jackson seeks to supplant her. The Record, "West Virginia's legal journal," reports on Jeromy's lawsuit against the Golden Arches, in which he seeks $10 million in damages:
*** QUOTE ***
Jackson, his mother Trela Jackson and his friend Andrew Ellifritz filed a suit July 18 in Monongalia Circuit Court against the popular fast-food chain because Jeromy Jackson is allergic to cheese.
According to the suit, Jackson, his mother and friend went to the drive-thru at the McDonald's on Chaplin Road in Morgantown on Oct. 30, 2005. Jackson claims he ordered two "Quarter Pounders" without cheese, stating he was allergic to cheese.
"From this point forward, Mr. Jackson repeatedly asked as to the status of his food and whether it had no cheese, and took multiple preventive steps to assure his food did not contain cheese," the suit says.
The suit says Jackson received his food, bit into one of his sandwiches and immediately began to have a severe allergic reaction.
*** END QUOTE ***
So apparently the "multiple preventive steps" he took "to assure his food did not contain cheese" did not include looking at the damn sandwich before eating it!
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Paglia
Art movies: R.I.P.
Long before Bergman and Antonioni died, the mystical art-house film experience faded to black. Plus: How rock can rehabilitate, and a vote for Kelly Clarkson.
By Camille Paglia
Aug. 8, 2007 The 2008 presidential sweepstakes have hit the doldrums as the pack of eager candidates of both parties dutifully make their rounds and tread water like tar. Whoever survives this corrida-by-boredom will presumably have the brass cojones to run the government. By what national curse must we suffer another year of this?
Trivialities and missteps clog the political news: is Mrs. Rudy Giuliani a vampy, trampy film-noir gold digger? Did Mrs. John Edwards, playing phone tag, put her foot in her mouth by single-handedly rehabilitating Ann Coulter's reputation for seat-of-the-pants, high-testosterone counterpunching? Why was Clinton campaign advisor Ann Lewis (sister of Barney Frank) so addled and strangely superheated by the Washington Post's whimsical meditation on the saggy Hillary cleavage that she instantly turned it into a crass cash come-on?
Meanwhile, the war drags on in Iraq, where the worthless Baghdad government has fled the blistering summer heat while American soldiers, laden with their battle gear, suffer and die. When will this fruitless exercise in nation building end? No one will ever resolve the eternal hatreds and ethnic rivalries of the Middle East, which have been churning and festering for 5,000 years. The extremist Muslim drama is only half the story.
As I replied to a Salon reader in my last column, yes, if the United States makes a strategic retreat from Iraq, we may well be returning in a decade or two, this time with regional allies. But things will be vastly different: no more happy facade of pacification and reconstruction; no more corrupt protectionism of commercial contractors; no more costly police or military training of volatile, faithless local recruits; no more intrusive neighborhood patrols with our soldiers blown to smithereens by cheap booby traps. It will be real war, heavily applied by air force, with maximum damage inflicted at minimal cost to our troops.
The thick-headed Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld triad may have grotesquely bungled the Iraq incursion, but Republicans (barring a breakaway third party) will still comfortably retake the White House next year if my fellow Democrats don't get their act together on the cardinal issue of geopolitics. Terrorism isn't going to go away if and when we withdraw from Iraq. We need to recalibrate our global strategy and more intelligently address the fractured, dispersed nature of jihadism, which is germinating everywhere from Indonesia and the Philippines to the Western world. Throwing billions into the desert morass of Iraq isn't getting us anywhere -- especially with our porous domestic security and our alarmingly decaying infrastructure needing urgent remediation.
Long before Bergman and Antonioni died, the mystical art-house film experience faded to black. Plus: How rock can rehabilitate, and a vote for Kelly Clarkson.
By Camille Paglia
Aug. 8, 2007 The 2008 presidential sweepstakes have hit the doldrums as the pack of eager candidates of both parties dutifully make their rounds and tread water like tar. Whoever survives this corrida-by-boredom will presumably have the brass cojones to run the government. By what national curse must we suffer another year of this?
Trivialities and missteps clog the political news: is Mrs. Rudy Giuliani a vampy, trampy film-noir gold digger? Did Mrs. John Edwards, playing phone tag, put her foot in her mouth by single-handedly rehabilitating Ann Coulter's reputation for seat-of-the-pants, high-testosterone counterpunching? Why was Clinton campaign advisor Ann Lewis (sister of Barney Frank) so addled and strangely superheated by the Washington Post's whimsical meditation on the saggy Hillary cleavage that she instantly turned it into a crass cash come-on?
Meanwhile, the war drags on in Iraq, where the worthless Baghdad government has fled the blistering summer heat while American soldiers, laden with their battle gear, suffer and die. When will this fruitless exercise in nation building end? No one will ever resolve the eternal hatreds and ethnic rivalries of the Middle East, which have been churning and festering for 5,000 years. The extremist Muslim drama is only half the story.
As I replied to a Salon reader in my last column, yes, if the United States makes a strategic retreat from Iraq, we may well be returning in a decade or two, this time with regional allies. But things will be vastly different: no more happy facade of pacification and reconstruction; no more corrupt protectionism of commercial contractors; no more costly police or military training of volatile, faithless local recruits; no more intrusive neighborhood patrols with our soldiers blown to smithereens by cheap booby traps. It will be real war, heavily applied by air force, with maximum damage inflicted at minimal cost to our troops.
The thick-headed Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld triad may have grotesquely bungled the Iraq incursion, but Republicans (barring a breakaway third party) will still comfortably retake the White House next year if my fellow Democrats don't get their act together on the cardinal issue of geopolitics. Terrorism isn't going to go away if and when we withdraw from Iraq. We need to recalibrate our global strategy and more intelligently address the fractured, dispersed nature of jihadism, which is germinating everywhere from Indonesia and the Philippines to the Western world. Throwing billions into the desert morass of Iraq isn't getting us anywhere -- especially with our porous domestic security and our alarmingly decaying infrastructure needing urgent remediation.
Darius Miles Teaches History
These photos of Darius Miles' car come courtesy of the Oregon Live Blazers Blog. The photos originally appeared on a random Blazers forum. Up top we have the front and side views, and down below we have the hood of the car. Upon closer inspection it appears there's an image of Benjamin Franklin smoking a doobie right next to a skank grinding him and the rim of some car.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Blogger's Union
But that's not how Kirsten Burgard sees it.
Sitting at a panel titled "A Union for Bloggers: It's Time to Organize" at this week's YearlyKos Convention for bloggers in Chicago, Burgard said she'd welcome a chance to join a unionized blogging community.
"I sure would like to have that union bug on my Web site," said Burgard, a blogger who uses the moniker Bendy Girl. Madrak hopes that regardless the form, the labor movement will help ultimately help bloggers pay for medical bills. It's important, she said, because some bloggers can spend hours a day tethered to computers as they update their Web sites. "Blogging is very intense — physically, mentally," she said. "You're constantly scanning for news. You're constantly trying to come up with information that you think will mobilize your readers. In the meantime, you're sitting at a computer and your ass is getting wider and your arm and neck and shoulder are wearing out because you're constantly using a mouse."
Bwaahahhahahahhhhhahahhahahahaaaaahahah! How out of touch are these people?
Sitting at a panel titled "A Union for Bloggers: It's Time to Organize" at this week's YearlyKos Convention for bloggers in Chicago, Burgard said she'd welcome a chance to join a unionized blogging community.
"I sure would like to have that union bug on my Web site," said Burgard, a blogger who uses the moniker Bendy Girl. Madrak hopes that regardless the form, the labor movement will help ultimately help bloggers pay for medical bills. It's important, she said, because some bloggers can spend hours a day tethered to computers as they update their Web sites. "Blogging is very intense — physically, mentally," she said. "You're constantly scanning for news. You're constantly trying to come up with information that you think will mobilize your readers. In the meantime, you're sitting at a computer and your ass is getting wider and your arm and neck and shoulder are wearing out because you're constantly using a mouse."
Bwaahahhahahahhhhhahahhahahahaaaaahahah! How out of touch are these people?
Monday, August 06, 2007
Georgetown U Imam: Muslims Gaining Strength in US
Speaking in the world center of Wahhabism, the home country of most of the 9/11 hijackers, Imam Yahya Hendi of Georgetown University said the September 11 attacks helped Muslims to gain strength in the United States.
>>
RIYADH, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Muslims are steadily improving their position in U.S. society, contrary to the media image of a community besieged by suspicions of links to militants, a leading U.S. Muslim cleric said on Sunday.
Yahya Hendi, a prayer leader who teaches at Georgetown University, said the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. cities in 2001 had spurred Americans to know more about Islam and Muslims to affirm their U.S. identity. “I think the future is bright, because of our wisdom in dealing with the reality,” Hendi, a Palestinian by birth, told a gathering of Saudi academics on a visit to Saudi Arabia.
“There are serious efforts being made among the second and third generation to become part of the political establishment. The challenge we face is in the media and from some Christian extremists who don’t want an Islamic presence in America.”
Hendi said U.S. Muslims, whose number he put at 7 to 9 million [The Pew Research Center estimates the total population of Muslims in the United States at 2.35 million. —ed.], were working on “nationalising” Islam as part of the fabric of U.S. society, including cutting funding links to Muslim countries. ...
Hendi, who met President George W. Bush days after Sept. 11, 2001, said Muslims had thrown off a tendency to shun political action such as voting and running in elections because it was considered akin to surrendering to U.S. culture.
He said he did not feel there was general animosity towards Muslims in American society, and that he encouraged Muslims to join intelligence bodies like the CIA and FBI.
(Hat tip: JammieWearingFool.)
Previously at LGF: An Islamic Blessing for the DNC DNC’s Imam Testified for Sami al-Arian
Speaking in the world center of Wahhabism, the home country of most of the 9/11 hijackers, Imam Yahya Hendi of Georgetown University said the September 11 attacks helped Muslims to gain strength in the United States.
>>
RIYADH, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Muslims are steadily improving their position in U.S. society, contrary to the media image of a community besieged by suspicions of links to militants, a leading U.S. Muslim cleric said on Sunday.
Yahya Hendi, a prayer leader who teaches at Georgetown University, said the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. cities in 2001 had spurred Americans to know more about Islam and Muslims to affirm their U.S. identity. “I think the future is bright, because of our wisdom in dealing with the reality,” Hendi, a Palestinian by birth, told a gathering of Saudi academics on a visit to Saudi Arabia.
“There are serious efforts being made among the second and third generation to become part of the political establishment. The challenge we face is in the media and from some Christian extremists who don’t want an Islamic presence in America.”
Hendi said U.S. Muslims, whose number he put at 7 to 9 million [The Pew Research Center estimates the total population of Muslims in the United States at 2.35 million. —ed.], were working on “nationalising” Islam as part of the fabric of U.S. society, including cutting funding links to Muslim countries. ...
Hendi, who met President George W. Bush days after Sept. 11, 2001, said Muslims had thrown off a tendency to shun political action such as voting and running in elections because it was considered akin to surrendering to U.S. culture.
He said he did not feel there was general animosity towards Muslims in American society, and that he encouraged Muslims to join intelligence bodies like the CIA and FBI.
(Hat tip: JammieWearingFool.)
Previously at LGF: An Islamic Blessing for the DNC DNC’s Imam Testified for Sami al-Arian
Friday, August 03, 2007
Man-made travel wonders of the world
Great Pyramids of Giza
Great Wall of China
Taj Mahal
Machu Picchu
Bali
Angkor Wat
Forbidden City
Bagan Temples & Pagodas
Karnak Temple
Teotihuacán
Natural travel wonders of the world
Serengeti Migration
Galápagos Islands
Grand Canyon
Iguazu Falls
Amazon Rainforest
Ngorongoro Crater
Great Barrier Reef
Victoria Falls
Bora Bora
Cappadocia
Great Pyramids of Giza
Great Wall of China
Taj Mahal
Machu Picchu
Bali
Angkor Wat
Forbidden City
Bagan Temples & Pagodas
Karnak Temple
Teotihuacán
Natural travel wonders of the world
Serengeti Migration
Galápagos Islands
Grand Canyon
Iguazu Falls
Amazon Rainforest
Ngorongoro Crater
Great Barrier Reef
Victoria Falls
Bora Bora
Cappadocia
Principia Discordia
This is an extremely debatable assertion of what would define Discordian philosophy as a whole; indeed, it is a notion directly confronted by the concept of the Eristic Illusion, as mentioned in the following passage, a summary of part of the Discordian philosophy which appears in the Principia Discordia:
"HERE FOLLOWS SOME PSYCHO-METAPHYSICS.
If you are not hot for philosophy, best just to skip it.
The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper than is the level of distinction making.
With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us.
The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently.
It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T) True reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept.
We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle.
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
DISORDER is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the Eristic Principle.
The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the Eristic Illusion.
The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.
Reality is the original Rorschach. Verily! So much for all that."
—Malaclypse the Younger, Principia Discordia, Pages 00049-00050
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Sparring With Vidal on The Dick Cavett Show
The video Assorted Appearances 1968-2004, now playing at the Paley Center for Media in connection with the festival, amounts to a greatest-hits collection. Here we find Mailer all but flirting with William F. Buckley on Firing Line: "For years, I've felt that one of the problems with this country is that it's insane." With a flip of the calendar, he's chatting with chain-smoking Johnny Carson about Nixon in China and tribal warfare in New Guinea, and, by the '90s, graciously condescending to appear opposite Bill Maher. But Mailer's most legendary advertisement for himself aired live on Dec. 2, 1971, and the Paley Center billed it, last week, as "Sparring With Vidal on The Dick Cavett Show." Charlie Rose's producers included a famous part of the action near the half-hour mark of this clip, but to properly appreciate Mailer's crude righteousness and semi-cultivated berserk aura, you've got to size up the full text.
Should these 75 minutes of Cavett ever be adapted into one-act stage play, the part of the host should go to Jude Law, but only on the condition that he delicately synthesizes his I Heart Huckabees oiliness and his Talented Mr. Ripley hauteur, while also bringing in elements of Conan O'Brien's humble clubbability. Cavett, being a fancy lad, made his loud studio audience wait two beats before he made his entrance—electric seconds of empty spotlight—then, lump in his very tan throat, flubbed his lead-in: "I wish I shared your enthusiasm." He then did a self-conscious bit of literary parody that involved an A-minus impersonation of Buckley. He then used a synonym for "advertising spot" too precious to repeat.
After those messages, the camera came up on Cavett playing audience Q&A: "Are there any other questions? ... Do I dye my hair? No. I tint my body a little to set it off." Then Vidal (to be played by Frank Langella on-stage) came out. His eyebrows were a touch lugubrious, but his name-dropping was excellent. "I had dinner with Philip Roth the other night, and … " He drew out the word "Roth" in an exquisite manner—it's like he was saying the s in España, or rolling a th. Not to be left out of the impersonation game, Vidal then gave a first-rate Eleanor Roosevelt, the kind of powerful performance grounded in deep research. He told the one about the time he caught her arranging gladioluses in the toilet bowl.
Next came Janet Flanner. Cavett and Gore treated her like royalty, and she gave them no reason not to, combining aspects of Helen Thomas, Diana Vreeland, and the queen mother. I like Dame Maggie Smith for the part. Cavett cravenly admitted that he'd always thought she was a man because the byline on her "Paris Journal" column in The New Yorker was Genet. She explained that she's just a reporter: "There's no gender in that. No sex, either. None." Cavett, almost literally kneeling now, inelegantly set up her anecdote about finding Ernest Hemingway in the bathtub, and she did the radio edit, and her Papa imitation was exquisitely subtle.
Cavett then appeared on another part of the set to shill Domino sugar, which really is great for home-baked cookies at holiday time. His imitative Cookie Monster rumble ("Cooookies!!!") was rather too cute. For a segue, he actually said, "My next guest is a tough cookie." Reasoning, in all probability, that Mailer wouldn't hit a man wearing glasses, Vidal then put his glasses on.
The only hitch with my proposed stage adaptation is Mailer's inimitability. Either he'd have to play himself, or you'd have to cast someone far out—Johnny Depp or Tilda Swinton or Shaq or someone—in the role. Mailer swaggered out imitating a fighter's coiled ease, a superstar in a dark suit and black leather boots, angel-headed under Bob Dylan curls. He'd come from a cocktail party and boasted he'd been drinking, and he also looked pretty baked. He had head-butted Vidal in the green room. He bounced right into a performance that was better than some of his journalism and all of his novels. Everything he learned from studying Ali (rhythm and rope-a-dope) and Chaplin (grace and grandiosity) and Marilyn (eyelash-batting) went to use.
Mailer failed to shake Gore's hand and pursed his lips when explaining why: "I guess I forget." Honestly besotted with Flanner—"I'm a student of television, and I'm overcome with how good you are"—he apologized to her in advance for breaking the charming mood, going on to call Gore a liar and hypocrite and "absolutely without character or moral foundation or even intellectual substance."
At issue was Gore's New York Review of Books piece on Mailer's Prisoner of Sex, that pot of crock about feminism. The review had said that Mailer's thoughts on sex "read like three days of menstrual flow," but Mailer as much as agreed with that. No, he had found it unreasonable that Gore had likened him to Charles Manson and that it was low of him to mention the thing with Adele and the penknife—"We all know that I stabbed my wife many years ago"—and then he went gunning. He didn't turn everyone against him at once, instead gradually modulating his courtliness with Flanner ("Angel, it's my turn now") and deepening his casual disdain for Cavett ("Why don't you look at your question sheet and ask your question?"). When the audience booed, he started yelling back—his accent, formerly professorial-patrician, slipping around from Texas sheriff to white Negro. He turned a swank salon into a churning saloon. For a coup de grace, Mailer called out Gore for lifting a bon mot from the previous week's Times Book Review. (For evidence that Mailer's point, however loutishly made, was a sharp one, note that the offending passage does not appear in Vidal's essay as reprinted in United States.)
Flanner seemed to appreciate Mailer's verve and quickness, despite being wholly put off by the arguing and insults: "Very odd! You act as if you're the only people here."
To which Mailer said, "That's the art of television, isn't it?"
We came back from the last break to see that Cavett had given Flanner a colorful bag of home-baked cookies made with Domino sugar. Clutching them in one gloved hand, she sighed, "My only solace," and the set went dark, and Mailer trotted off stage left.
http://www.slate.com/id/2171514/pagenum/all/#page_start
Should these 75 minutes of Cavett ever be adapted into one-act stage play, the part of the host should go to Jude Law, but only on the condition that he delicately synthesizes his I Heart Huckabees oiliness and his Talented Mr. Ripley hauteur, while also bringing in elements of Conan O'Brien's humble clubbability. Cavett, being a fancy lad, made his loud studio audience wait two beats before he made his entrance—electric seconds of empty spotlight—then, lump in his very tan throat, flubbed his lead-in: "I wish I shared your enthusiasm." He then did a self-conscious bit of literary parody that involved an A-minus impersonation of Buckley. He then used a synonym for "advertising spot" too precious to repeat.
After those messages, the camera came up on Cavett playing audience Q&A: "Are there any other questions? ... Do I dye my hair? No. I tint my body a little to set it off." Then Vidal (to be played by Frank Langella on-stage) came out. His eyebrows were a touch lugubrious, but his name-dropping was excellent. "I had dinner with Philip Roth the other night, and … " He drew out the word "Roth" in an exquisite manner—it's like he was saying the s in España, or rolling a th. Not to be left out of the impersonation game, Vidal then gave a first-rate Eleanor Roosevelt, the kind of powerful performance grounded in deep research. He told the one about the time he caught her arranging gladioluses in the toilet bowl.
Next came Janet Flanner. Cavett and Gore treated her like royalty, and she gave them no reason not to, combining aspects of Helen Thomas, Diana Vreeland, and the queen mother. I like Dame Maggie Smith for the part. Cavett cravenly admitted that he'd always thought she was a man because the byline on her "Paris Journal" column in The New Yorker was Genet. She explained that she's just a reporter: "There's no gender in that. No sex, either. None." Cavett, almost literally kneeling now, inelegantly set up her anecdote about finding Ernest Hemingway in the bathtub, and she did the radio edit, and her Papa imitation was exquisitely subtle.
Cavett then appeared on another part of the set to shill Domino sugar, which really is great for home-baked cookies at holiday time. His imitative Cookie Monster rumble ("Cooookies!!!") was rather too cute. For a segue, he actually said, "My next guest is a tough cookie." Reasoning, in all probability, that Mailer wouldn't hit a man wearing glasses, Vidal then put his glasses on.
The only hitch with my proposed stage adaptation is Mailer's inimitability. Either he'd have to play himself, or you'd have to cast someone far out—Johnny Depp or Tilda Swinton or Shaq or someone—in the role. Mailer swaggered out imitating a fighter's coiled ease, a superstar in a dark suit and black leather boots, angel-headed under Bob Dylan curls. He'd come from a cocktail party and boasted he'd been drinking, and he also looked pretty baked. He had head-butted Vidal in the green room. He bounced right into a performance that was better than some of his journalism and all of his novels. Everything he learned from studying Ali (rhythm and rope-a-dope) and Chaplin (grace and grandiosity) and Marilyn (eyelash-batting) went to use.
Mailer failed to shake Gore's hand and pursed his lips when explaining why: "I guess I forget." Honestly besotted with Flanner—"I'm a student of television, and I'm overcome with how good you are"—he apologized to her in advance for breaking the charming mood, going on to call Gore a liar and hypocrite and "absolutely without character or moral foundation or even intellectual substance."
At issue was Gore's New York Review of Books piece on Mailer's Prisoner of Sex, that pot of crock about feminism. The review had said that Mailer's thoughts on sex "read like three days of menstrual flow," but Mailer as much as agreed with that. No, he had found it unreasonable that Gore had likened him to Charles Manson and that it was low of him to mention the thing with Adele and the penknife—"We all know that I stabbed my wife many years ago"—and then he went gunning. He didn't turn everyone against him at once, instead gradually modulating his courtliness with Flanner ("Angel, it's my turn now") and deepening his casual disdain for Cavett ("Why don't you look at your question sheet and ask your question?"). When the audience booed, he started yelling back—his accent, formerly professorial-patrician, slipping around from Texas sheriff to white Negro. He turned a swank salon into a churning saloon. For a coup de grace, Mailer called out Gore for lifting a bon mot from the previous week's Times Book Review. (For evidence that Mailer's point, however loutishly made, was a sharp one, note that the offending passage does not appear in Vidal's essay as reprinted in United States.)
Flanner seemed to appreciate Mailer's verve and quickness, despite being wholly put off by the arguing and insults: "Very odd! You act as if you're the only people here."
To which Mailer said, "That's the art of television, isn't it?"
We came back from the last break to see that Cavett had given Flanner a colorful bag of home-baked cookies made with Domino sugar. Clutching them in one gloved hand, she sighed, "My only solace," and the set went dark, and Mailer trotted off stage left.
http://www.slate.com/id/2171514/pagenum/all/#page_start
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
On Francisco Franco
On Francisco Franco written by Charles Few Americans know much about Francisco Franco, leader of the winning side in the Spanish C...
-
Starálfur Blá Nótt Yfir HimininnBlá Nótt Yfir MérHorf-Inn Út Um GluggannMinn Með HendurFaldar Undir KinnHugsum Daginn MinnÍ Dag Og Í GærBlá ...
-
"From our perspective this is an issue between Colombia and Ecuador," he said. "I'm not sure what this has to do with Ven...
-
OK, Grandma ... put your hands in the air ... slowly ... step away from the bingo machine ... put down the knitting needles...