Menu Bar
spirot's Comments
Re: Ferguson: If You Don't Vote, You're a Moron
As George Carlin said, "I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with."
- George Carlin.
That sure sounds to me like advocacy for not voting. In this quote he reserves the right to criticize only for those who don't participate. He lionizes the apathetic as if not caring is a virtue.
Just because he's George Carlin doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of being full of shit sometimes and in this case he was full of shit.
No, you don't have to vote. However, if you choose the Carlin Option (not to vote) then you choose not to take any responsibility.
If you take a public forum and advocate for people to not exercise their democratic franchise, then you're delivering an irresponsible message, and I don't care if you're a preacher, a stand-up comedian, a broadcaster, a parent,... whatever... that's bullshit.
Democracy demands excellence and diligence, not apathy and abdication.
And no matter what kind of doublespeak you try to employ, the 'no votes' DON'T count. They have an effect, but they don't count. The effect they have rewards the corrupt.
Vote Green. I dare you.
- George Carlin.
That sure sounds to me like advocacy for not voting. In this quote he reserves the right to criticize only for those who don't participate. He lionizes the apathetic as if not caring is a virtue.
Just because he's George Carlin doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of being full of shit sometimes and in this case he was full of shit.
No, you don't have to vote. However, if you choose the Carlin Option (not to vote) then you choose not to take any responsibility.
If you take a public forum and advocate for people to not exercise their democratic franchise, then you're delivering an irresponsible message, and I don't care if you're a preacher, a stand-up comedian, a broadcaster, a parent,... whatever... that's bullshit.
Democracy demands excellence and diligence, not apathy and abdication.
And no matter what kind of doublespeak you try to employ, the 'no votes' DON'T count. They have an effect, but they don't count. The effect they have rewards the corrupt.
Vote Green. I dare you.
By: spirot
Re: Ferguson: If You Don't Vote, You're a Moron
George Carlin, brilliant as he often was, was a moron when he said that, and I refuse to believe that he actually believed that. But if he was sincere and not just being provocative, then... "fuck you Carlin."
I applaud Ferguson's passion here but he closes with a false statement. There are more than "two patriotic candidates". Many more
According to a page on wikipedia the following are all registered options for the 2008 presidential election.
Ralph Nader - independent
Alan Keyes- independent
Kelcey Wilson - independent
Cynthia McKinney - Green Party
Charles Jay - Boston Tea Party
Gene Amondson - Prohibition Party
Gloria La Riva - Party for Socialism and Liberation
Frank McEnulty - New American Independent Party
Gene Amondson - Prohibition Party
Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party
Ted Weill - Reform Party
Brian Moore - Socialist Party USA
Roger Calero - Socialist Workers Party
Bob Barr - Libertarian Party
The question of whether any of these candidates have a realistic hope of moving into the oval office is irrelevant. A vote for any of these candidates is a chance to register a vote for change, choice, and dissent.
And even if you can't place yourself somewhere between the Libertarian and the Prohibitionist,
even if you can't get past the idea of strategic voting and to do as your heart tells you to (Green Party... you know you want to)
even if you are so finicky and precious that nobody in the above list is able to spark your fire... then there is always the option of spoiling your ballot. Throw your wooden shoe into the machine. Eat the paperwork.
But if you don't show up, if you choose the Carlin option to not participate and to be a cynical nihilist, then you are not just a moron. You're a slug.
I applaud Ferguson's passion here but he closes with a false statement. There are more than "two patriotic candidates". Many more
According to a page on wikipedia the following are all registered options for the 2008 presidential election.
Ralph Nader - independent
Alan Keyes- independent
Kelcey Wilson - independent
Cynthia McKinney - Green Party
Charles Jay - Boston Tea Party
Gene Amondson - Prohibition Party
Gloria La Riva - Party for Socialism and Liberation
Frank McEnulty - New American Independent Party
Gene Amondson - Prohibition Party
Chuck Baldwin - Constitution Party
Ted Weill - Reform Party
Brian Moore - Socialist Party USA
Roger Calero - Socialist Workers Party
Bob Barr - Libertarian Party
The question of whether any of these candidates have a realistic hope of moving into the oval office is irrelevant. A vote for any of these candidates is a chance to register a vote for change, choice, and dissent.
And even if you can't place yourself somewhere between the Libertarian and the Prohibitionist,
even if you can't get past the idea of strategic voting and to do as your heart tells you to (Green Party... you know you want to)
even if you are so finicky and precious that nobody in the above list is able to spark your fire... then there is always the option of spoiling your ballot. Throw your wooden shoe into the machine. Eat the paperwork.
But if you don't show up, if you choose the Carlin option to not participate and to be a cynical nihilist, then you are not just a moron. You're a slug.
By: spirot
Re: Dennis Kucinich: Hearings on Impeachment
Spirot is a neocon? Wow. What's the evidence for that spurious and completely inaccurate charge? Just because I suggest that the donkey is full of shit, doesn't make me an elephant, man. Being a neocon would require me to be partisan, which I am not. I hold the whole of the system in contempt regardless of what color the necktie is.
Clearly I was wrong about Kucinich (and others) on the issue of this particular vote. Thanks for the correction. I misunderstood Kucinich's intent and the context for his comments. (I thank loqi for eloquently providing clarity to what was obviously fuzzy for me.)
I was projecting a generalized frustration on to the wrong target. I mistook Kucinich for one of the legions of people who seek now to absolve their culpability with the excuse that they were misled then. My rant was launched from Kucinich's comment:
"Many members of Congress relied on these representations from the White House to inform their decision to support the legislation that authorized the use of force against Iraq. We all know present and former colleagues that have said that if they knew then what they knew now they would not have voted to permit an attack upon Iraq".
It is obviously difficult for me to make the case for a greater intellectual rigor when I was clearly lacking on this point with regards to my impression of what Kucinich was saying... but the question to all those that claim to have been misled is: "Were you misled because you were ignorant or could you see the truth but chose to support the lie?"
I have no patience for anybody that claimed to have been misled by the smirking chimp. The lies were clear at the time. No hindsight was necessary in order to identify the imperialist occupation agenda that was behind the invasion of Iraq. There were plenty of little boys pointing out that the emperor wore no clothes but unlike in the H. C. Andersen story, the majority chose not to heed what was obvious.
If Kucinich was the little boy, then I applaud him, and I amend my question to direct it not at Kucinich but at the Members of Congress he refers to in the above quote. I direct the question also to every journalist (or those posing as journalists), every Senator, every member of the armed forces, and to every voting citizen that claim to have been misled.
Kucinich's point is to "hold accountable those who misled this nation" and the action in question is to impeach the smirking chimp. I assume that he would not expect that action alone to solve the accountability question. The Executive and its cabal are corrupt. That's obvious.
So is Congress.
So is the Senate.
So is the Judiciary.
So is the Military.
So is the Fourth Estate.
The President did not act alone. That he lied is the thin edge of the wedge. To right this wrong merely by scapegoating Bush is illusory. What is more troubling to me is the masses' collaboration with the lie; what is most frustrating is the disingenuous complaint of "we were misled". He led those that followed exactly where they wanted to go.
Clearly I was wrong about Kucinich (and others) on the issue of this particular vote. Thanks for the correction. I misunderstood Kucinich's intent and the context for his comments. (I thank loqi for eloquently providing clarity to what was obviously fuzzy for me.)
I was projecting a generalized frustration on to the wrong target. I mistook Kucinich for one of the legions of people who seek now to absolve their culpability with the excuse that they were misled then. My rant was launched from Kucinich's comment:
"Many members of Congress relied on these representations from the White House to inform their decision to support the legislation that authorized the use of force against Iraq. We all know present and former colleagues that have said that if they knew then what they knew now they would not have voted to permit an attack upon Iraq".
It is obviously difficult for me to make the case for a greater intellectual rigor when I was clearly lacking on this point with regards to my impression of what Kucinich was saying... but the question to all those that claim to have been misled is: "Were you misled because you were ignorant or could you see the truth but chose to support the lie?"
I have no patience for anybody that claimed to have been misled by the smirking chimp. The lies were clear at the time. No hindsight was necessary in order to identify the imperialist occupation agenda that was behind the invasion of Iraq. There were plenty of little boys pointing out that the emperor wore no clothes but unlike in the H. C. Andersen story, the majority chose not to heed what was obvious.
If Kucinich was the little boy, then I applaud him, and I amend my question to direct it not at Kucinich but at the Members of Congress he refers to in the above quote. I direct the question also to every journalist (or those posing as journalists), every Senator, every member of the armed forces, and to every voting citizen that claim to have been misled.
Kucinich's point is to "hold accountable those who misled this nation" and the action in question is to impeach the smirking chimp. I assume that he would not expect that action alone to solve the accountability question. The Executive and its cabal are corrupt. That's obvious.
So is Congress.
So is the Senate.
So is the Judiciary.
So is the Military.
So is the Fourth Estate.
The President did not act alone. That he lied is the thin edge of the wedge. To right this wrong merely by scapegoating Bush is illusory. What is more troubling to me is the masses' collaboration with the lie; what is most frustrating is the disingenuous complaint of "we were misled". He led those that followed exactly where they wanted to go.
By: spirot
Re: Dennis Kucinich: Hearings on Impeachment
Accountability, eh?
So... we have Mr. Kucinich here absolving himself from his own responsibility to have made informed and reasoned decisions. He was misled. He suggests that he and his buddies would have acted differently way back when if they had only known what the real story was.
For any member of Congress that had voted to allow and allocate resources for the Executive to invade, yet now takes the position that they would have voted differently if they had known the truth; there seems to me only two plausible pleas such a member could take.
The first is a position of incompetence. The shifty eyed nonsense that Cheney's gang put forward as a justification for invasion was as full of holes then as it is now. For one to claim that they were misled and outwitted by George W. Bush paints a very sad self-portrait. If you are so lacking in intelligence, Mr. Kucinich, you really need to recuse yourself from representative democracy altogether. If you truly believed the story way back then, then you and yours better take responsibility for your gullibility and your lack of diligence. You are a fool. All of you. Your collective ignorance does not excuse your individual ignorance.
Impeach the president? Dissolve Congress while you're at it because each Member of Congress that supported those resolutions is as culpable for the consequences.
Because the only other alternative to being ignorant of the reasons for war, was that you were cognizant of them... which would make you a liar now and an accomplice then.
So which is it, Mr. Dennis Accountability Kucinich? Were you incompetent or were you an accomplice?
Are you ignorant or are you dishonest?
So... we have Mr. Kucinich here absolving himself from his own responsibility to have made informed and reasoned decisions. He was misled. He suggests that he and his buddies would have acted differently way back when if they had only known what the real story was.
For any member of Congress that had voted to allow and allocate resources for the Executive to invade, yet now takes the position that they would have voted differently if they had known the truth; there seems to me only two plausible pleas such a member could take.
The first is a position of incompetence. The shifty eyed nonsense that Cheney's gang put forward as a justification for invasion was as full of holes then as it is now. For one to claim that they were misled and outwitted by George W. Bush paints a very sad self-portrait. If you are so lacking in intelligence, Mr. Kucinich, you really need to recuse yourself from representative democracy altogether. If you truly believed the story way back then, then you and yours better take responsibility for your gullibility and your lack of diligence. You are a fool. All of you. Your collective ignorance does not excuse your individual ignorance.
Impeach the president? Dissolve Congress while you're at it because each Member of Congress that supported those resolutions is as culpable for the consequences.
Because the only other alternative to being ignorant of the reasons for war, was that you were cognizant of them... which would make you a liar now and an accomplice then.
So which is it, Mr. Dennis Accountability Kucinich? Were you incompetent or were you an accomplice?
Are you ignorant or are you dishonest?
By: spirot
Re: Dawkins: Universe is Queerer Than We Can Suppose
And... I kind of went off topic in that post. I apologize because he doesn't actually speak of atheism in the TED lecture.
So to the point... in this lecture Universe is Queerer than we think... he's just patting himself on the back and giving permission to everybody else in the room to pat themselves on the back.
It's a TED lecture... and what's his message... we should encourage wonder and questioning and discovery... at a TED lecture... that's like encouraging fun at Disneyworld. Preaching to the choir.
So to the point... in this lecture Universe is Queerer than we think... he's just patting himself on the back and giving permission to everybody else in the room to pat themselves on the back.
It's a TED lecture... and what's his message... we should encourage wonder and questioning and discovery... at a TED lecture... that's like encouraging fun at Disneyworld. Preaching to the choir.
By: spirot
Re: Dawkins: Universe is Queerer Than We Can Suppose
It certainly says something about me.
I don't like biologist Richard Dawkins. Obviously. Maybe it's just his accent, but I don't think so because I don't hate all Englishmen.
But I am serious about my query. The field of reference I have for him is video clips of him at this forum, that forum, "guest atheist" on some lousy news show, etc. and that series of his on atheism ... whatever that was called. And every time he speaks I am struck by his lack of intellectual rigour. His scalpel is dull. He is just as entrenched and unwilling to question his own position as the easy targets that he puts into his crosshairs... which is the antithesis of the scientific method.
I will however be influenced by evidence. I currently hold the position that biologist Richard Dawkins is a media whore who advocates science yet doesn't practice it and is as narrowminded and stubborn as any professional lobbyist you're going to find in Washington, D.C. If you can direct me towards what his scientific work is and what his contributions to the field of knowledge are, I will be glad to be edified.
(If, however, his sole relevance is his willingness to raise the flag of atheism and take on the dangerous hordes of theists... well... then he doesn't hold much interest to me. I've been an atheist since I was 9 yet he doesn't speak my language. I think he doth protest too much, too often, and too loudly.
I don't like biologist Richard Dawkins. Obviously. Maybe it's just his accent, but I don't think so because I don't hate all Englishmen.
But I am serious about my query. The field of reference I have for him is video clips of him at this forum, that forum, "guest atheist" on some lousy news show, etc. and that series of his on atheism ... whatever that was called. And every time he speaks I am struck by his lack of intellectual rigour. His scalpel is dull. He is just as entrenched and unwilling to question his own position as the easy targets that he puts into his crosshairs... which is the antithesis of the scientific method.
I will however be influenced by evidence. I currently hold the position that biologist Richard Dawkins is a media whore who advocates science yet doesn't practice it and is as narrowminded and stubborn as any professional lobbyist you're going to find in Washington, D.C. If you can direct me towards what his scientific work is and what his contributions to the field of knowledge are, I will be glad to be edified.
(If, however, his sole relevance is his willingness to raise the flag of atheism and take on the dangerous hordes of theists... well... then he doesn't hold much interest to me. I've been an atheist since I was 9 yet he doesn't speak my language. I think he doth protest too much, too often, and too loudly.
By: spirot
Re: Dawkins: Universe is Queerer Than We Can Suppose
Biologist Richard Dawkins.
So sick of this guy.
Every every every time I hear him speak,
I'm left befuddled
as to the merit of
biologist Richard Dawkins.
Biologist Richard Dawkins
on this show, that show, this forum, that forum.
This is the first time I've watched a TED lecture where I have been neither enraptured nor illuminated. This is the first time I've watched a TED lecture and been bored.
Biologist Richard Dawkins: Preaching To The Choir.
Biologist Richard Dawkins: Making Wonder Boring.
Biologist Richard Dawkins: Picking Easy Targets.
Biologist Richard Dawkins: Promoting Richard Dawkins.
He's like the Dr. Joyce Brothers of our time. A ubiquitous talking head who must have one hell of a media team working non-stop to promote his agenda, and that agenda is the promotion of "biologist Richard Dawkins."
Can somebody point out to me why biologist Richard Dawkins is relevant? What has he contributed to the great debate?
So sick of this guy.
Every every every time I hear him speak,
I'm left befuddled
as to the merit of
biologist Richard Dawkins.
Biologist Richard Dawkins
on this show, that show, this forum, that forum.
This is the first time I've watched a TED lecture where I have been neither enraptured nor illuminated. This is the first time I've watched a TED lecture and been bored.
Biologist Richard Dawkins: Preaching To The Choir.
Biologist Richard Dawkins: Making Wonder Boring.
Biologist Richard Dawkins: Picking Easy Targets.
Biologist Richard Dawkins: Promoting Richard Dawkins.
He's like the Dr. Joyce Brothers of our time. A ubiquitous talking head who must have one hell of a media team working non-stop to promote his agenda, and that agenda is the promotion of "biologist Richard Dawkins."
Can somebody point out to me why biologist Richard Dawkins is relevant? What has he contributed to the great debate?
By: spirot
Re: Beatles: Tomorrow Never Knows
It starts out as Tomorrow Never Knows but the lyrics are mostly Within You Without You.
Where is this track from?
Where is this track from?
By: spirot
not funny
What was funny was to watch graduands of such a prestigious institution of higher education sitting in the rain and forcing themselves to laugh at MacFarlane's smug smirk... and then standing at the end out of some sense of propriety. I wish they had to guts to boo him and not because his material is somehow innapropriate for Harvard or because of his "Liberal politics"? Boo him because he sucked.
Liberal? He's a Liberal? Really? How do you figure? How does taking a comedic swipe at the President make him into a Liberal? 10 years ago he would have been making a Lewinsky joke. Would that have made him a Republican? He also takes a swipe at eastern Ivy League college students joining the Peace Corps. Does that make him a dyed in the wool Reactionary Conservative?
Appropriate for Harvard? Bah. Who cares? Ultimately this was about as entertaining as Anthony Michael Hall on SNL.
Liberal? He's a Liberal? Really? How do you figure? How does taking a comedic swipe at the President make him into a Liberal? 10 years ago he would have been making a Lewinsky joke. Would that have made him a Republican? He also takes a swipe at eastern Ivy League college students joining the Peace Corps. Does that make him a dyed in the wool Reactionary Conservative?
Appropriate for Harvard? Bah. Who cares? Ultimately this was about as entertaining as Anthony Michael Hall on SNL.
By: spirot
Re: Panda Bounce
seriously. i have never yelled wih white hot rage at chipmunks before this.
i hate them
i hate them
By: spirot
Re: not as good as Hapland
OK. FINISHED IT.
but... Now I have the "Green Award For Intelligence" yet there are three other awards neither highlighted nor explained... what the hell? Am I done or not?
but... Now I have the "Green Award For Intelligence" yet there are three other awards neither highlighted nor explained... what the hell? Am I done or not?
By: spirot
not as good as Hapland
Boo. Boo on this game. So many glitches that can leave you stranded. Boo on a game that allows me to stroll through 9 screens without losing a life and then because of a glitch in the game I am stuck with no suicide option requiring that I refresh the browser to start again... trundllng like an automaton through levels I've already mastered so I can get back to the puzzle I'm working on.
Yeah, yeah, you get what you paid for and I didn't pay a cent but this aint nearly as satisfying as Hapland 1 or 2... that said I'm not stopping until it's finished, but I'd rather be frustrated by my own limitations rather than flaws in the game.
Yeah, yeah, you get what you paid for and I didn't pay a cent but this aint nearly as satisfying as Hapland 1 or 2... that said I'm not stopping until it's finished, but I'd rather be frustrated by my own limitations rather than flaws in the game.
By: spirot
No, Ayn... but.
What is most interesting to me (about this very interesting find from the past and a genuine thanks for sharing) is how locked in she is to the Liberal/Conservative left/right us/them dialectic.
While her depth of thought is a tad more contemplative than the Coulter says/Olbermann says/O'Reilly says/ pingpong match we are inundated with in current times, Rand is still propagating a vision that is locked into a house that is still pseud-leftist-liberal vs pseudo-conservo-robot-right.
The failure for me in watching this (and not coincidently my complete lack of interest in Ayn Rand as a "philosopher) is the complete and absolute absence of a spirit of inquiry. She doesn't ask a single question; she proclaims. She defines her presuppositions as truths... not as starting points for a discussion of potentials, and wondering, and what-ifs, and maybes. She is not possessed of an ounce of doubt.
If if found her conclusions rational, then perhaps I would go along for her ride. However, when she throws out such nuggets as, "...it is much more preposterously irrational to use the old as a standard of value...", then I just can't buy in.
Why? Why is the old more preposterous than the new? Why is the traditional inherently more preposterous than the untested?
In the end, it seems to me that what she is proposing is an end to theology in government and to embrace reason. I concur. (Although I can't concur with the equation of rationalism with capitalism.) However, it doesn't matter whether I agree with her endpoints or not.
Ironically, her arguments for rationalism are irrational. Her logic is flawed. Her conclusions have been determined before her inquiry has been conducted.
For instance: "Intellectually, to rest ones case on faith, is to concede that reason is on the side of ones enemies, to concede that there are no rational arguments to support the ideas which created this country." How is that a rational argument? The presence of faith demands the absence of reason? Furthermore, if you embrace faith, then you have automatically endowed your enemies with reason? How is this any more rational than to say "you are either with us or you're against us"?
If, in the end, this might convince a so-called Conservative to reconsider the pillars of their political agenda - to perhaps place The Constitution above The Holy Bible - then bravo. That does not excuse her lack of intellectual rigour.