IT BEGINS WITH A 'P'
. I am cracking my toes in glee repeatedly over the special election in New York. Brief recap for those not up to speed: Obama appointed a NY "Republican" Congressman to be the Secretary of the Army. No clue what his name was, but it doesn't matter. The Governor (can't recollect his name either, but I think it rhymes with 'blind') called a special election to fill Army guy's seat. Naturally, a Democrat, Bill Owens, and a Republican, Dede Scozzafavorita, are selected in non-smoke-filled rooms to run for the seat. Owens is a monster (but I repeat myself! HA!), and Scozzafatta is worryingly described as "moderate to liberal" by every news outfit reporting. Another lock for the forces of octopoid government, right?
Hang on. Out of nowhere, some nonentities called The Conservative Party of New York State
FUBARed the race (HA! again) by nominating some nobody named Doug Hoffman who actually believes what Republicans claim to believe. Suddenly, support for the nominated Republican doughgirl starts falling so fast all the graphs measuring that sort of thing have to be renumbered.
Finally, last Saturday, Scozzafatasso quits! Really
Republican Dede Scozzafava announced Saturday that she is suspending her campaign in the Nov. 3 House special election in New York, a dramatic development that [pretty damn strongly de]creases the GOP's chances of winning the contentious and closely-watched race.
"In recent days, bitch bitch bitch, cry cry cry,” she whined in her formal statement. [Bitching and crying added by me. Not really.]
Now it's a two-man race, between a genuine
conservative and a run-of-the-mill totalitarian. Zounds! (Sorry. That's to make the Boss happy. Won't happen again.)
But what does our stateswomanish Republican do next? She turns around and endorses Bill Owens -- the Democrat
-- over the ostensibly ideologically compatible candidate who knocked her cellulitic RINO ass out of the race. Sour grapes much, Scozzafyouio?
Today, she's got robocalls
going out that remind me of nothing so much as the "confessions" at a Soviet show trial. Just before the train ride to Siberia.
"Hi, this is Dede Scozzafava calling on behalf of Bill Owens. And I wanted to let you know that I am supporting Bill for Congress."
“Since beginning my campaign I have said that this election is not about me, it’s about the people of this district. It’s not in the cards for me to be your representative but I strongly believe Bill Owens is the only candidate who can build upon John McHugh’s lasting legacy in Congress.
“In Bill Owens I see a sense of duty and integrity. He will be an independent voice, devoted to doing what is right for New York. To address the tough challenges ahead we must rise above partisanship and politics, and work together. [do I have to tell you the boldface is added? Do you really need constant reminders of how emphasis in quotations works? I'm going to give you some credit and never denote added emphasis again. Cool?]
Guess what, Dede? The only people who think they have to keep telling everyone that something isn't "about them" are narcissists. And since you brought it up, one of the great rhetorical victories of the left has been to erase the difference between the words "partisan" and "principled," turning the former into a slur of the latter. Thus, "rise above partisanship" means, and always means, "sink below principle."
It took me all day yesterday to remember the word for people like this: feckless
. Morally flakey. Indifferent to obligations. Lacking in feck.
What excuse could she, a Republican, have for endorsing a Democrat over a conservative? If it's out of spite, she has no principles. If she truly prefers a Democrat, she has crap principles. What's the point of you, Scazzafollotypo? Why don't you believe in anything good? WHERE'S YOUR FECK, WOMAN?
Speaking of woman, I can't let this
pass without comment and correction:
Bill Owens is coming to the defense of Dede Scozzafava after Rush Limbaugh accused her of being “guilty of widespread bestiality — she has screwed every RINO in the country”:
“This despicable attack on Assemblywoman Scozzafava offends me personally and exemplifies exactly what’s wrong with Hoffman and his right wing backers. Assemblywoman Scozzafava is an honorable public servant who has served Upstate New York as an independent and principled [there's that word again] leader who always prioritized the best interests of Upstate New York ahead of a partisan agenda [See? Swapped. "Orwellian" doesn't do this sentence justice]. Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing special interests that are running Hoffman’s campaign [Rush is running Hoffman's campaign? Aren't Democrats supposed to be the literate party?] can’t even begin to compete with what she has accomplished over her career.”
“Doug Hoffman and his supporters have sunk to a new low today. There is no excuse for this kind of shameful rhetoric and Doug Hoffman ought to denounce Limbaugh immediately.”
He actually has an airtight "excuse": IT'S A PLAY ON WORDS, AND YOU KNOW IT'S A PLAY ON WORDS, DUMBASS. And we
know you know it.
I love how stupid people think everyone's dumber than them. You think we don't know a dumbass liberal like you would only use the word "assemblywoman
" to play on the sympathies of the decent?
So it's unconscionable to even joke about bestiality, since Scoffatollo is a woman? Chickenshit. Playing the damsel-in-distress card is as despicable as playing the race card. The older Punks may have half a notion that women are fragile flowers and whatever
, and should get a social handicap in games of hardball. I can't agree. You want to play with the boys? You consent to play as rough as
the boys. Can't handle it? Then you shouldn't even be voting. And you sure as hell shouldn't be in a position to write and pass laws
, for Chrissake.
Harsh? Yep. But fair. The price of full equality is giving up special treatment. If Scozzafoolo has any
principles, she'll denounce her beloved Bill Owens riding his white charger to her defense.
One more thing. The Wall Street Journal offers a well conceived word of caution
Nominating a candidate who "can win" in the Northeast does not have to mean someone whose voting record is more liberal on taxes and unions than that of most Blue Dog Democrats.
But that lesson will be for naught if conservatives conclude that their victory is reason to challenge any candidate who doesn't agree with them on every issue. The truth is that some conservatives are as bloody-minded and intolerant of all dissent as the hard left is at the Daily Kos. A majority political party requires a far more diverse coalition than the audience for your average right-wing blogger or talk show host. Some of those voices prefer having Democrats in power because it drives up their own ratings.
A bitter pill to swallow but one that's medicinally sound. Nevertheless, look how easy it is for another (increasingly) feckless politician to twist this caveat into a threat
against party disloyalty:
This makes life more complicated from the standpoint of this: If we get into a cycle where every time one side loses, they run a third-party candidate, we'll make [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi speaker for life and guarantee [President] Obama's re-election," Gingrich told the New York Times hours after Scozzafava's exit. "I think we are going to get into a very difficult environment around the country if suddenly conservative leaders decide they are going to anoint people without regard to local primaries and local choices.
In other words, it'd be too hard to do anything
without the GOP, so stop trying. Because God forbid we "anoint" candidates based on PRINCIPLE rather than PARTISANSHIP. Or do I have that backwards?
New York's 23rd district has a chance to make history. To make some change we can really
believe in. Don't fuck this up, guys. Vote early and often.
. Finally, some people are noticing that Ayn Rand is back on
the front burner of political philosophy. It must
be significant if Ed Morrissey
Reason TV kicks off its Ayn Rand
retrospective this week with a look at how suddenly relevant the
philosopher and novelist has become. A-list Hollywood stars want
to make a movie from Atlas Shrugged, and suddenly “going Galt” has
become a popular catchphrase for producer strikes. Who would have
guessed that the era of Hope and Change would have produced Rand as a
Just how much has Rand and her
Objectivism returned to the fore? Her book, with no particular
marketing campaign of which I’m aware, is just outside the top 100
books on Amazon, at #103. This is a perfect example of what Nick
Gillespie calls “the long shelf life of Ayn Rand,” which springs from
the natural impulse of a free people when confronted with statism, even
so-called benevolent statism. In the novel, the producers of the world
act individually, but eventually all reach the same conclusion.
I agree with Nick that Rand may wind up being more relevant to this
century than she was to the last.
Good of you, Ed. One might even call your tone generous. Not that we
think Ed is ever ungenerous; it's just that a political philosophy like
his, which consists of bringing the meat cleaver down sharply in the
middle of whatever topic is being discussed, rarely lends itself to
kind of whole
without first bisecting it into moderately digestible halves. However...
The resurgence of Ayn Rand is hardly news. It's ongoing and will likely
only increase. We're living through the crisis she prophesied. With
that in mind, we thought it might be helpful to remind people of some
interesting posts and the comments on them in which Instapunk has
talked about Ayn Rand or Atlas
in the past. (There's also a post, summoned in response
to the search term "Atlas," which isn't specifically about Rand but
adds tremendously to the argument made in another recent
) Enjoy the synaptic activity occasioned by the following:
There's some authentic
for hope in there if you look, especially in some of the comments.
I don't know anything
about Traveller's Insurance. But I do know something about capitalism.
And I just luuuuv the way the market is trying to respond to the
recession. Think about it. During the Great Depression, there was no
television. What I see today on TV is car dealers, insurance agents,
estate companies, fast-food franchises, and the big guys in every
conceivable industry fighting for business. Result: Immediate
responsiveness, competitive pricing, and some of the most creative
advertising I've ever seen. Like my all-time, completely
There are actually multiple versions of this commercial. I watch all of
them, all the way through, every time. I want to buy the album. I want
to buy the dog, which is sick, because I already have four, every one
of them dumb as fenceposts (sighthounds are idiots: I'm no doggist. But
morons too.) When I was a kid, we had German Shepherds (scary
smart) and terriers (annoying smart)... and now I have a, uh, Scottish
Deerhound. Handsome, sweet, noble, dignifiedly affectionate, and smart
a bathroom U-joint. Capitalism. Non-Rand style. Him we take care of.
Because he can't compete.
The rest of them? We watch them compete like
nobody's business -- clever as rocks and contending for every scrap...
If and when they want an insurance policy, we'll help them with that,
too. But they have to ask us first. That's the capitalist way.
Monday, November 02, 2009
And you thought "Avatar" was
a technological breakthrough...
Muhammed battling the hymen of a
nine-year-old girl in I-Max 3D.
Matrix producer plans
Barrie Osborne, part of the
Oscar-winning team behind the Lord of the Rings films, says the new
production 'will educate people about the true meaning of Islam'
Producer Barrie Osborne cast Keanu Reeves as the messiah in The Matrix
and helped defeat the dark lord Sauron in his record-breaking Lord of
the Rings trilogy. Now the Oscar-winning American film-maker is set to
embark on his most perilous quest to date: making a big-screen biopic of the prophet Muhammad.
Budgeted at around $150m (£91.5m), the film will chart Muhammad's
life and examine his teachings. Osborne told Reuters that he envisages
it as "an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true
meaning of Islam".
Osborne's production will reportedly feature English-speaking Muslim
actors. It is backed by the Qatar-based production company Alnoor
Holdings, who have installed the Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf
Al-Qaradawi to oversee all aspects of the shoot. In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet
will not actually be depicted on screen. [boldface added]
Kewl. A "biopic" that won't depict its subject. Just think about that cinematically. Seems like a horror movie doesn't it? Lots of heavy breathing behind a camera that keeps closing in on its victims... Think of the Matrix with Neo permanently off-camera. Sound interesting? uh, no. Sounds awful. Sounds like political whoring with a ginormously huge checkbook behind it. But please correct me if you have ideas about how to do a biopic that never shows its protagonist. "Malcolm X" would have been so much greater if we'd never seen the face of Denzel Washinton, wouldn't it? Can't wait for all the filmic innovations that will make "Muhammedix" an Oscar winner.
Maybe you thought Hollywood had reached its lowpoint with the Polanski
defense. Not at all. Hollywood hasn't yet begun to reach its lowpoint.
Two kinds of points to make here. The first is theological and
historical. Jesus Christ transformed the world and human consciousness
without being documented in any verifiable historical terms. The proof
of his existence rests entirely on the fact that unless he existed,
impossible to explain the subsequent course of human civilization.
figure, a fairly obvious imitation of a Biblical prophet who
his betters to found a religion based on racial and ethnic hatreds,
mysogyny, brutal oppression, and mass murder. (Find me any language beautiful
in the Koran that
competes with the King James Bible. It's all generic phony
scripture, as dull as it is mean and didactic.) But all
religions are equal in the
eyes of those who simultaneously patronize all faiths that proclaim a
god of some sort and forgive every barbarian excess as a proof of the
evils of civilization itself.
The second point has to do with the real
bond between Hollywood and Islam -- the twisted sexuality that has
produced both the casting couch and honor killings, a tradtition of
open-secret homosexuality (uh, yeah, gays have a whole 24/7 cable movie channel
even as they
ululate about the uniqueness in cinematic history of Brokeback Mountain
promulgates female subjugation while it
pretends to respect women even as it sanctifies purely male kinship and
espouses artistic and moral freedom for everyone but dumb sluts who
show off their vaginas on camera, and promotes (dirtiest secret of all)
Pretty sure I'm the first ever to call out the similarities between
Hollywood and Arab oil magnates. But they're legion. Way too much
unearned money on both sides. The Hollywood kids are, by definition, not anyone
. Imagine what it's like
to play all those parts of people who are brave, accomplished,
eloquent, creative, and important. They're not
those people. And they
don't see their own movies the way we do. They see them the way they're
made -- with lights, sets, glass paintings, cameras, directors,
stand-ins, stunt people, scripts, multiple
takes, and blue-screen-CGI effects. No wonder they feel guilty when
they get a $20 million check for pretending to be Napoleon,
Shakespeare, Cleopatra, or a cop who refuses to give up in the face of
formidable odds. Add to that the fact that most "action heroes" are
shrimps, and most "femme fatales" are the creations of cosmetic
surgeons, or makeup (guess
) who wow people on-screen without being able to keep
their boyfriends or husbands faithful and interested for more than a
year or three at best. They're all
and they know it because that's
their line of work
. And they've all, male and female, slept with
wouldn't have if a part they wanted wasn't on the line. How much purer
a definition of "hypocrisy as a profession" could you ever find?
It's basically the same situation with Arab oil princes (and royalty
generally). They get all this money, truly endless
amounts of money, just for
being someone's son or cousin or brother. Are they motivated by
religion, even the mysterious barbarian religion of Islam we
excuse ourselves from understanding? No. A fact of human nature: nobody
ever really believes
evil religion when they're in charge of enforcing it. Islam is
an evil religion. What men of
the spiritual desert get from Islam is permission
. For everything a
self-righteous, Jew- and woman-hating man might want to do. A rich
muslim is a hypocrite-paradox by definition. Hypocrite because rich is
a violation of jihad while infidels still exist. Paradox because riches
are a persistent temptation to luxury, and luxury usually wins over
orthodoxy. It certainly did with Muhammed. So maybe hypocrisy isn't
that big a deal with Islam after all.
Quivering, are you? Offended? Outraged. Politically correctly
protesting? Terrified? Muhammed consummated a marriage with a nine year
Bukhari vol. 7, 65:
"Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her
when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was
nine years old. Hisham said: 'I have been informed that Aisha remained
prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).'"
I'm thinking that the same rationale applies to righteous muslims who
desire the bottoms of nine-year-old boys. Clearly, there's no sexual
moral distinction at work, no Koranic differential postulated between
the adult sexual desire of a bearded man and the target of his lust.
How can it count? If a woman is responsible for being
raped, then how can a man
be responsible for raping a woman,
a girl, or a boy? Kind of a perfect Hollywood religion. Those who have
the money and the power get to do what they want
Saudi princes and Hollywood bigwigs are the same. No doubt,
Hollywooders have witnessed the behavior of Arab princes when they come
to this country (i.e., Los Angeles) and believe they understand the
faith they share in common, which is that the powerful are accountable
to no one. Arab chieftains are free to believe in the chastity of
muslim womanhood, the preferable promiscuity of Hollywood actresses,
the moral ideal of clitorectomies in general (er, in muslim countries
that Roman Polanski is not guilty of rape. (If only we could have
in show biz, the producers say, er, th
As for the Hollywood women...? Not
women. That's the other
secret of Hollywood. The ones
who make it big are also sexual predators. They're the only ones who
survive the honor-rapes of the casting couch. (Jon Voight is upset
because his daughter isn't a woman but an alpha male with a perpetually
erect vagina. I'd be devastated too.) It wouldn't occur to them
that there are females who might guard their chastity or modesty as a
treasure worth preserving. (Not saying there aren't exceptions. There
probably are. They just keep quiet about it. Kind of like female
Christian converts in muslim neighborhoods.)
It's not about religion. It's about elites. Money. Power. And a lot of
the frightened insecure people who know this about themselves hate themselves for being frightened and insecure. They think everyone else is like that too. Which makes them deathly afraid of the idea of meritocracy and and thriving or not on the basis of what you're worth. Which makes them think the biggest problem is capitalism. But it isn't. Capitalism is about earning
money. For having a better
idea. For working harder. For manufacturing products and providing
services people couldn't have had without your imagination and
inventiveness and determination. Which is a very different thing
from being paid for being a little guy who looks big on camera, a dull
witch who looks interesting on camera, or a smelly, concupiscient
barbarian who looks white-robed and rich on the world stage.
Saudi princes want to kill the whole world for the temptations they
can't resist. So do Hollywood stars. But we do
need fewer sodomites and
pedophiliacs. It won't work to condemn the Catholics, forgive the
Arabs, and celebrate the Hollywood celebrities who would make a
religion of perversity.
Oh. Forgot to include the film trailer that Fox Entertainment has made
the World Series a wholly owned subsidiary of. It's great. All about
the evil military who do whatever it is evil American militaries do so
that Hollywood directors get to spend $300 million in hopes of earning
half a billion condemning it.
I'm not paid to do this promo. I'm just hoping I won't get arrested for
the rest of the content because I'm following the lead of Media Nation.
Do I sound bitter? I hope so. Because I am.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
What's the Daily
like this guy. They really like this guy.
. The Daily Beast
. The name
reminds me of Evelyn Waugh. The best funny
satirist of the twentieth century. He did outstanding lampoons of the
press of his day, most notably in Scoop
, the story of a foreign
correspondent made hero by forces beyond his control. Only problem:
Waugh would not have liked the Internet abomination called The Daily
. He'd have found its publisher, Tina Brown, a foppishly
fertile opportunity for scathing ridicule, and he'd have laughed his
tight ass off at Christopher Buckley -- ne'er-do-well son of William F.
Buckley -- who seems determined to disgrace the legacy of his eminently
cartoonable dad. Chris Buckley famously endorsed Obama in the runup to
the 2008 election and has been justifying his wrong-headed decision,
made on the basis of 'superior temperament,' ever since, most recently
by calling for surrender in Afghanistan. Dad would be so proud.
Tina Brown, it will be remembered, is the silly British bitch who
destroyed the once estimable New Yorker Magazine
presides over a publication whose pomposity could only have been topped
by Mr. Waugh or P.G. Wodehouse's even sillier media magnate, Lord
Mammoth. Ms. Brown presides over tea parties (the real thing, not
common-man teabuggering of the sort Anderson Cooper bends over for at
CNN) in Manhattan and pretends she's still in the journalism business.
If you're looking for ultimate snot on the Internet, here's its
headquarters. You can always count on the Daily Beast
to put on airs while
the country itself is in flames. Cool, eh?
But today they have finally called out the highly paid anchor of Fox
News Channel's lowest rated evening show, the 7 o'clock news
starring Shepard Smith. He's a moderately charming boy I've always had
a certain affection for, principally because after a few months of
watching him I identified his alma mater as the University of
Mississippi and was subsequently proven correct. (You'd be pleased with
yourself too.) Believe me, there's no one at the Daily Beast
who thinks this is a
worthwhile credential. But given that Shepard is a reflexive liberal in
the tradition of all other mainstream media, they're prepared to admire
him as the only voice of 'reason' at Fox News. Which they do. At
President Obama is stretched thin
prosecuting three wars at once. Not only is he battling violent
insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, he’s also fighting the ruling
regime at the Fox News Channel, where former Republican media
strategist Roger Ailes—the journalistic equivalent of Mullah Omar—is
commanding warlords Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity in an
epic struggle for hearts and minds.
But then there’s Shepard Smith, Fox News’ resident contrarian.
Far from toeing the company line, Smith occasionally defends Obama and
other Democrats, mocks and argues with his right-wing colleagues, and
otherwise has positioned himself among anti-Fox liberals as a lone
voice of reason behind enemy lines—the Fox News personality who truly
is fair and balanced.
Keep reading if you like, but you get the drift. Heaven knows, I don't
credit Sean Hannity with much in the way of intellect, but he'd
pulverize Shepard in any formal debate on any issue you'd ever want to
mention, and I can't help but think this puff piece about the lowliest
of all news anchors is just about as condescending as it gets. The man
is a news reader in a bunch of nice suits. Period.
The winningest thing about him is the evident fact that he's never had
a thought in his life. He could even lose to Wolf Blitzer on Celebrity Jeopardy
. So what's
the point of the Daily Beast
Irony. Tina Brown and Chris Buckley and Lloyd Grove are playing a
parlor game with their little paper. Yes, we admire the one good
newsman on Fox News, and we
count on all of you to see that he's a retard. So what does that say
about the rest of them? The ones who didn't
major in beer and blondes at the University of Mississippi?
Can't tell you how tired I am of this schtick. Can't tell you.
Shepard? Go to hell. You're an idiot. Even Brian what's-his-name on Fox & Friends
impressive than you are. Honestly.
? Reread your
Waugh. You can do better. Unless you're as dumb as Shepard is...
...which I happen to think you are.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Sorry, but FU,
apologize for the bad language. But you're completely full of shit.
IN. I keep doing this and I shouldn't. But I will, one more time,
because Billy Oblivion is a valued commenter and I believe he's
actually trying to have a discussion despite his, uh, [DELIBERATELY
LEFT BLANK]. In his comment on the last post, he said this:
Evolution is not a theory, not really.
It's a label for a general class of theories that currently represent
our best guess (backed up by a LOT of evidence). But like a Black Swan,
the entire house of cards is one bit of irrefutable evidence away from
completely collapsing. This is how science works.
This is a little lopsided really because almost all atheists can be
brushed with "evolutionist", but there almost as many different
positions on the believer side as there are different Christian sects.
So here's to painting with a powersprayer and covering everything that
doesn't move fast enough:
Intelligent Design is not a theory either. It does not make
predictions, it doesn't (as I understand it) make verifiable or
Evolution IS science. Intelligent Design is not.
It is for MOST of it's proponents synonymous with "creationism" in the
sense that it means "God Did It".
So I'm going to respond, which I really really shouldn't do, because
[DELIBERATELY LEFT BLANK]. Billy O:
I appreciate your agnosticism, but I have to call bullshit on your
major points, which are delivered in exactly the same condescending
tone I object to from Dawkins and Hitchens.
Lake's points are pretty accurate, but they overlook a fundamental
cheat by evolutionists, and they tend to obscure "real" science that
For a long time, neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (which IS a lot more
specific than you describe it in your convenient blur...) has ruled the
origin of life a separate question from the evolution of life forms
once they came into being. They get pretty obstreperous about
this separation. Why? Because it's a serious problem for them.
As I made clear in the original post, for example, it's obvious that
evolution AS change occurs. New species emerge. Existing species change
and adapt. That's NOT what the opponents of Dawkins and Stephen Jay
Gould are objecting to. What they're objecting to is the specific
description of how that
change occurs, its fundamental mechanisms. The neo-Darwinians insist
that it's driven by random genetic mutations and adaptation to
environmental conditions. That life essentially stumbles into greater and greater
complexity by a process of entropy combined with, uh, climate change
and mutating neighborhoods.
It's important to bear in mind here that the original Darwinian theory
is, in modern scientific terms, ancient; that is, it predates many of
the most useful scientific, mathematical, and biological metaphors we
have available to us. Darwin, for example, knew virtually nothing about
the functions and mechanisms of the cell. He lived before the invention
of the manufacturing assembly line and couldn't possibly have
anticipated anything of systems theory, which illuminated the fact that
initial conditions of a dynamic system have everything to do with what that
system produces and is capable of producing. What we know that he
couldn't have known is the principle of "Sensitive Dependence on
Initial Conditions," which has demonstrated time and again that small
changes in initial inputs can effect exponential changes in system
Now we have to consider the response of neo-Darwinians -- that is, the
"scientists" who had to explain away Darwin's admirable anticipation of
the mechanical assembly-line view of genetic variation in
dealing with reported fossil findings like the Cambrian Explosion,
which made it obvious that there were periods when species creation
suddenly became a huge "thing" in the history of life on earth. And
they had to do it without acknowledging in any way the importance of
initial conditions. Which I have more than fairly lampooned thus:
Dr. Steven J. Goop takes on the nagging
details—like the absence of any supporting fossil evidence—that
continue to give false hope to critics. Readers will be awed by the
genius of Goop’s debunking of seeming problems with Darwin’s big idea,
which can all be resolved by such Goop refinements as double
somersaulting inverse evolutionary spirals; random accelerating
half-gainer transition invisibilizations; and triple sowkow
over-and-under evolutionary Ernst paradoxes, to name but three.
You see, the problem their antique metaphors can't overcome is that in
the age of systems theory, you can't isolate the change of organisms
over time as a phenomenon independent of initial conditions. If we
don't know how life originated, we can't nevertheless presume to speak
with authority about how life changed subsequently. In the current
metaphor milieu -- THE MOST MODERN SCIENTIFIC ONE, BILLY O -- that's a
lot like saying we have a theory why all this software programming is
unintelligent and we have no obligation whatsoever to explain where the
computer that's running it comes from. Overstated? No.
All forms of life we know about, even the earliest and most primitive
Eukaryotes, are governed by DNA, which is a pretty damn complex
molecule. The more we learn about it, the more it seems to behave like
and exhibit the characteristics of a computer program, instructing
cells with what look like nested algorithms on how to change and why in
response to changing environmental conditions. I grant you that
"science" works with the best currently available metaphors from
intelligent human experience -- and that it may yet discover a process
(i.e., a new metaphor) for the spontaneous generation of a
self-creating computer -- BUT. This still leaves four problems for
One is a philosophical problem. The second is a garden-variety
scientific problem. The third is a mechanical problem. The fourth is a
hard-science problem. Which one do you want to hear about first?
I'll take time out here to reaffirm the postulate that all the Billy
O's of the world ignore with their preemptive condescension. We who
oppose the Dawkins certainty are not all creationists. If we believe in
God, we do not see him as the Yahweh of the Old Testament. But we also
don't exclude the possibility that a mind so vast as to conceive of the
universe might also have some purpose in what he has created. A god,
er, uh, a mind of first
causes only is a distinct
possibility. But it's hardly inevitable. If there's a computer at the
beginning, there's absolutely nothing which insists that its expertise
is limited to physics,
biology, and math. Although the existence of all three as consistent
laws of nature certainly makes a mockery of the notion that everything
in our universe is a function of randomness. Why should there ever be
consistency in a random universe? What mandates laws of nature? Why
should anything stand still long enough to admit of a question,
philosophical, scientific, or religious? And on what basis do
scientists declare that scientific matters matter and philosophical
matters do not?
I'm guessing you want to hear first about the garden-variety scientific
problem. Actually, there are two. First, how can you explain away the
fact that the first life on earth already possesses the most advanced
molecule needed for life? Second, how do you explain the existence of
life on earth in particular? Which can be broadly described by the
Occam's Razor test. The simplest
answer is likeliest to be the right one. Right? (I'm going to use this
one again, so be forewarned.) You want to tell me about the moon? Do
you? No scientist has ever had a fully convincing explanation of where
the moon came from. Yet the moon is absolutely critical to the
existence of human life on earth. Without the moon, we would as a
planet roll and wander with constant enormous changes of climate that
would doom the possibility of prosperous life, if not the evolution in
the first place, of homo sapiens. Our moon is the largest relative to
the planet in the entire solar system. We have yet to find any planet
with a moon like ours, either as big or as stabilizing in is affect.
Does this make us an anomaly in our galaxy? If it does, which it
probably does, is intelligent life on a planet a rarity, and is the
simplest explanation that intelligent life on a planet is an exception
in a vast sea of meaninglessness? Or are we to make something of the
fact that we do exist? That the moon is precisely the right size and
distance from the earth at this particular point in our evolution to
give us perfect wedding ring eclipses and to ask all the grand
questions about meaning our scientists don't want us to ask. Which way
do your Occam antennae go on
Where the FUCK did the moon come from? Yeah, they claim they can tell
us where the universe came
from, but the Moon? No. That's a pretty elementary scientific question,
cosmologically speaking. Unanswered. And Neo-Darwinian Evolution is no
longer a theory. Right. Like
I'm guessing your next question is the hard-science one. Wouldn't want
to get into mere philosophy when SCIENTISTS are flirting with oblivion
in the hall. Physicists are about three generations ahead of
evolutionary biologists. They're grappling with alternative universes
and multiple dimensions of existence that make the insistence on
existential unintelligence look, well, as stupid as it is. Here's
Michio Kaku, whose brains I'd put up against Dawkins any day of the
week, speculating about the eleventh
dimension (Are you aware that the existence of even the fifth dimension
defeats time itself? Meaning the, uh, inevitability of cause
relentlessly preceding effect, etc, etc, etc?)
Oh. The mechanical problem. The cosmologists can't figure out all the
forces at work in the universe. They need
dark matter to account for two-thirds of the mass in the universe. They
need dark energy to account
for the behavior of dark matter. And evolutionary biologists know
exactly how raptors turned
into hummingbirds?? I don't think so. It's nice to feel that you know how octopuses
and birds independently evolved the sharp-focusing eye, but it's
another to be able to prove it. As a pure coincidence. Without purpose.
And, finally, the philosophical problem. A much harder question to make
the Billys of the world recognize. Another Occam's Razor test. What are
the odds that the greatest intelligences ever manifested in the universe
are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Billy Oblivion? Which is
snide but also on point.
Occam's Razor. Intelligence is an incredibly rare phenomenon exhibited
by certain representatives of a random species generated on a planet
with an unexpectedly stabilizing moon, who are somehow able to divine
the way the entire universe came into being with perfect contemporary
political acuity -- OR we don't know shit and are still trying to get
to first base. (What on earth would we do without AllahPundit?)
Intelligence is really a product of an unintelligent process that
succeeds in the heretofore unknown aim of producing something from
nothing? Free lunch? With no previous example in any of our or natural
human history? Kewl.
You see, it just MIGHT be, oh Oblivious One, that something wrote the first program -- not even
God, Watson, or Crick -- which throws all of evolutionary science into
the pickel barrel. In which case, all your sanctimonious pronouncements
are total f___ing bullshit.
That's all I'm saying.
And as an aside, God might
have something to do with it. I'm not asserting it, just allowing it.
Since you're too ritzy to do that, I MAKE FUN OF YOU.
Joyfully. That's the real by-product of being so f___ing smart. Which I
The real question to be answered is how the rest of you can get by for a day or rwo or three without InstaPunk?
Even I don't know the answer to that one.
the time of the year for scary stuff. All for laughs. No need to be
COURSE SHE'S FAITHFUL
alarmed. Just like the Queen doesn't
mean anything by hanging out
with that pale rockstar-looking dude.
You know, the one in charge?
. There's absolutely no chance that Michelle
is cheating on
Barack. Well, hardly any. He didn't have his best week ever, that's
true. But he did
wife's $10 million trip to Broadway in no
President Barack Obama is letting it be
known that he was not pleased with the way his trip to New York with
wife Michelle last May became a political issue.
'Cause he, you know, loves her and like that. I'm betting, though, that
Michelle is not happy about this really really bad week her hubby has
Awful week. That's all. She'll forgive you eventually. She loves you.
Sort of. Maybe not sexually. At least until until Other Guy (see
above) came along.
response to some email bafflement: Something
about rock stars in an explicitly
Do they fit? Do they transcend? Or do they jar?
Happy Halloween. She loves you. Sure she does. You're the mother of her
children. Or something like that...
PW just isn't in it. At all. No. Of course not. Take her for another
Big Apple trip. That'll do the the trick
she's just not that sort.
How right we so often are. Revisit the link
final paragraph above and then drink in the following pic of
Michelloween in her own Trick or Treat garb.
It could be that Barry
the Dry Stick
is in more trouble than he suspects. We're reminded,
sadly, of this
Back to Archive Index