Bill Maher at the Huffington Post is really sad that most people aren’t as smart as he is. If they were, then they would know what’s good for them, as he does. But they don’t. He writes:
Just because a country elects a smart president doesn’t make it a smart country. A few weeks ago I was asked by Wolf Blitzer if I thought Sarah Palin could get elected president, and I said I hope not, but I wouldn’t put anything past this stupid country. …And before I go about demonstrating how, sadly, easy it is to prove the dumbness dragging down our country, let me just say that ignorance has life and death consequences. … And I haven’t even brought up America’s religious beliefs. But here’s one fun fact you can take away: did you know only about half of Americans are aware that Judaism is an older religion than Christianity? That’s right, half of America looks at books called the Old Testament and the New Testament and cannot figure out which one came first. … Until we admit that America can make a mistake, we can’t stop the next one. A smart guy named Chesterton once said: “My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying… It is like saying ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’” To which most Americans would respond: “Are you calling my mother a drunk?”
The fundamental problem with Bill Maher’s line of reasoning is that every argument he adduces to prove the stupidity of America works against him. He says, “I wouldn’t put anything past this stupid country”. But does that include electing Barack Obama? And while he is on the subject of religious beliefs what does he call people who believe in the existence of an object they have never seen because an obscure bureaucrat emerges from a closed room and declares that it exists?
In reality what Bill Maher is really asserting is that America is sometimes smart (such as when it elects his preferred candidates or listens to him) and is sometimes dumb, such as when it disagrees with him. At all other times in between it’s in a null condition, being neither intelligent nor stupid until Bill Maher has decided his position on an issue. I think all it proves is that everyone has an opinion. Maher is entitled to think he is smart. But if he were he would understand that is not necessarily the case.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
Iowahawk covered the “loss of faith in constituents” in his hilarious send-up here.
Even Paul Keating (former Australian Prime Minister) said that the voters get it right “most of the time”.
I remain of the opinion that the voters can only get it right if they have (a) honest media reporting, or (b) are interested enough to dig beyond the daily platter of soundbites and the extensive repast of biassed reporting.
The despicable Bill Maher quoting Chesterton? It’s a wonder the earth didn’t spin off its axis at such effrontery.
Bill might want to spend some time actually reading the “smart guy” Chesterton. It might rattle his proud atheism just a little bit.
Bill Maher was convinced that he is brighter than most ever since –in his 30s– he figured out that religion is Man’s invention. Maligning religious people (mostly Christians) has become a trademark for Bill in recent years. It’s funny that he fails to realize that he too is religious. Except that he doesn’t view his particular religion to be a religion at all. He thinks it’s real…just as any deeply religious person does. To label ones faith, worldview, their perception of reality as a “religion” might imply an artificial, abstract human creation.
Bill’s religion is thus: He thinks that American industry is boiling the oceans and melting the polar ice caps. With no regard to science or evidence, he preaches that human beings are creating hurricanes and hot weather, and if we don’t start driving stupid little cars, doomsday is inevitable. He cites “facts” that support his beliefs, but discounts the wealth of counterevidence because it contradicts what he has already decided is imperical truth. Sound familiar, Bill?
Perhaps it is the same genetic defect he is so quick to point out in Christian people that drives him to be believe and preach nonsense. There is what is, and there is what is in our heads. Maher feels uniquely qualified to tell the difference.
Playboy Mansion suckup wanna be.
Maher is also an anti-medicine crank. His rants against vaccination, for example, have been chronicled in many places. See http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/07/bill_maher_gets_the_richard_dawkins_awar.php#more, for example.
Gosh, that explains much. America is Schroedinger’s Cat! We are neither dead nor alive until Bill Maher makes an observation! How very quantum mechanical! He really is smart! (Though some would probably say quantum mechanics is kind of religious, too.)
Extreme celebrity, which is to entertainment what wing-gliding is to sport, must be based on some kind of market logic. There appears to be a demand for sword swallowers, freaks, shock jocks, tatooed ladies, conspiracy theorists and cult-leaders which almost craves fulfillment. Unless you are a very talented writer, it is very hard to undertake a sober, reasoned book. Absent a superlative literary talent, sober books are as exciting as drying paint. But if you wear strange clothes, say outrageous things and engage in bizarre behavior there appear any number of people who will pay, and pay handsomely, to watch you shame and degrade yourself.
So when Bill Maher sets himself up as the paragon of intellectual achievement, I wonder sometimes if he isn’t really just smart enough to realize how lucrative it is to be dumb. How much of it is play-acting and how much the expression of heartfelt belief I cannot tell. Maybe the biggest risk to a career of extreme celebrity is that you may eventually become what you affect to be. Life imitates art all too easily.
Watching a TV analysis of a new movie last weekend, one of the reviewers commented that anything that shows the stupidity of the White House in getting us into the Iraq war is a good thing, even if it didn’t really happen that way.
The thought occurred that Hollywood’s movie reviewers and screenwriters concoct and approve of these scenarios because that is *their* level of life experience and intelligence. They can’t wrap their minds around the conversations, the planning, the ethics — everything involved in a national decision made at an adult level because *they* are the stupid ones, forever condemned to project their own experience and intellectual level on everyone else.
Obama’s performance to date reflects this same level of experience and understanding. His staff keep making huge political and social blunders because they simply cannot conceive of doing anything any other way than what they’ve already done; in this case, “the Chicago Way”.
When I read Maher’s column, or the little bit of it I did take the time to peruse, I thought the same thing. This is a stupid man projecting his own stupidity out there onto everyone else because that is what he, personally, knows. He simply cannot conceive of a Carl Sagan or a Bill Buckley or even a George Bush (who’s pretty well educated himself in comparison with certain Messiahs), and who resolutely refuses to consider that the total mass of American citizens inevitably manage to be pretty damned smart … eventually.
My existential question for a long time has been, “Do dumb people realize that they are dumb?” And increasingly, my answer to myself is that no, they do not. They think that everyone thinks in the same plodding, erratic and frequently wrong fashion as they do because they can’t envision a different way of having the mind work.
Yes, well, it is all about establishing intellectual superiority. This sits well with the common fashion for establishing moral distance as personal identity defense.
what you said in #7, wretchard.
But my take on Maher is he just don’t care no more.
Remember, this is a world in which Al Franken can be elected a senator.
I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere.
Mr. Fernandez, that seems quite like the premise of “Mother Night” by Kurt Vonnegut.
Nahncee, I don’t think that “dumb” people appreciate how dumb they are sometimes. Some years ago, I was watching an episode of “Celebrity Jeopardy” , which had Bill Maher and Ollie North as contestants (I don’t remember the third contestant). Bill did very well, being glib and quick witted on his feet. That doesn’t always translate into “universal” intelligence. Good for a game show and “Politically Incorrect” banter, but I would rather have Ollie as a platoon or company leader if I was going into combat. I don’t think Bill Maher has the “right stuff” for that sort of endeavor.
Likewise, his intelligence in writing is rather shallow. Not quite on the same level as Frederic Hayek, Bill Buckley or Milton Freidman, wouldn’t you say??
“Do dumb people realize that they are dumb?”
For the truly dumb the question does not arise. Surprisingly it doesn’t arise even for people who are quite smart. Every logical system is founded on a set of unproved assumptions we call axioms or postulates. I think what defines a culture is a core set of beliefs for which no proof is required. They simply are, and the members of that culture choose to believe in them and that defines them.
A number of recent books have been written which claim to empirically show that religion is on the rise, rather than on the decline. And I believe it, especially when you count, as ‘religions’, those systems of belief which are structurally similar, such as Communism or Environmentalism. Even Atheism, when you think about it, falls into this category. At rock bottom, people who subscribe to these beliefs adhere to a core for which no proof is necessary or even possible.
Maybe the underlying reason why politics is so fragmented is that the population’s core myths have diverged. People believe different things and have become many nations. Too pluribus to be unum any more and no inclination to be. The reason, to return to Nahncee’s question, why some dumb people can never realize they are dumb is that there exists no set of arguments that will persuade Bill Maher he is other than right.
The new tribalism.
Mr Maher is getting his Chesters confused. I think he means not Chesterton but Chester Goode from Gunsmoke who limped into the sheriff’s office and memorably exclaimed “Marshall Dillon! Marshall Dillon!”
Except that Maher’s “religion” is in fact not a religion. We make a mistake in calling Marxist a “religion” as it is purely concerned with the Material world and denies a spiritual component to mankind. It is a parody of a religion.
That is what makes quoting from Chesterton so galling. It is not only the illicit use of it, it is the fact that Maher cannot possibly understand what Chesterton is talking about.
As a former militant atheist myself (and now an agnostic), I marvel at the immaturity of a middle-aged man like Maher with his teenage-like callowness and shallowness.
When smart people are wrong, they are disastrously wrong.
Wretchard,
I think that EVERY belief system ultimately relies on assumptions that cannot be proven: in other words, on faith. Even mathematics, that most rigorous and axiomatic of all disciplines, ultimately relies upon a few assumptions that just can’t be proven, such as that 1 + 1 = 2. (Though my Master’s Degree is applied math, not theoretical, so I can’t quote a reference without doing a lot of, frankly, annoying research work.) But a great many other disciplines that carry the title of “sciences” are a lot worse: anything related to psychology or sociology have only a marginally better theoretical basis than Catholicism. Biology isn’t a lot better, though it’s more conducive to experiment. But the line between “religion” and “science” isn’t sharply defined, it’s fuzzy, and nothing at all exists without at least a little bit of faith behind it. That’s why I prefer to believe in God, by the way. The notion may even be nonsensical, but it can’t be disproven, the belief is not debilitating and may even be adaptive, and I find a Universe with God in it is a much nicer place than a Universe without God in it. So in that case, I’ll believe what I prefer to believe. That’s what “faith” amounts to, after all, doesn’t it?
I simply can’t think of a better poster boy for the utter arrogance of the Liberal Elite than Bill Maher.
What I wouldn’t give to see an organized effort to deprive him of his “Real Time” studio audience of hard-left trained seals. What if he had to deal with an audience full of, say, tea party protestors.
I had heard of this survey of Christians, from another source, whose source was no doubt Huff-in-puffs own (the following three words are a link) Willy Mahrvelouse Daggett, and just as in the Angry Beaver’s disappearance from Nickelodeon, Daggett has done the indefensible and revealed that his comedy isn’t funny.
From where is this factoid taken? Who would ask such a question for what reason and in what context??? The only survey like that one I am aware of deals with the age of the practitioners, and not with the age of the religion itself. Sigh, angry beaver Daggett is not a commentator, not a comedian, he is lost in a warp between who cares and who knows. Bill Mahr is irrelevant.
I disagree that we are in a condition where “logics have diverged”. We are in a situation where barbarians, poltroons, vipers, idiots and charlatans are allowed to be taken seriously. Our civilization and societies have become diseased by tis mindless tolerance and we are estranged from our true natures. Our very civilization, polity and society now hangs in the balance.
But we can return to who we would and ought to be. It is not as if this mob has not always been about. In the past folks knew how to deal with them and feel little qualms about taking the necessary actions to save their civilization.
To save ours these people have to be shown to be who and what they are, and made to pay a price for what they have wrought.
And, of course it is the set of beliefs that define a civilization, a polity or a society. That is primarily what a civilization is all about. And not just any set of beliefs. Remember, that there are only a handful of civilizations in history–perhaps seven or eight. One of the common errors of our time is that we run around thinking that we a brimming with “ideas” and “concept” of our own creation. In fact, most of these are received or delivered from one’s civilization. Much of what goes on in our minds are merely reframings of the historical, mental, emotional and spiritual legacies of our civilization. Without it, most of us are at the level of animals, in fact lower than animals for we posses not their innocence. A civilization is lucky to have one new “idea” in a century. Ours is a great one, we jettison it at our peril.
Maher’s desultory chirpings are merely an example of all of this.
So when Bill Maher sets himself up as the paragon of intellectual achievement, I wonder sometimes if he isn’t really just smart enough to realize how lucrative it is to be dumb. How much of it is play-acting and how much the expression of heartfelt belief I cannot tell.
“I’m not an arrogant, ill-informed hack of a lefty faux intellectual, I just play one on TV.”
The problem with this, even if it’s an act, is that the role of Smarter-Than-The-Proles is already being played by, ohhhh, about a thousand other leftists who get camera and print privileges.
You can pretty much get any set of data to “prove” anything you want if you cherry-pick it. Example of isolated data: How about the over-50-percent of Obama voters last fall who didn’t know that the Democrats were the majority party in Congress?
He’s not even right about ignorance having life-and-death consequences. As we have already observed elsewhere at BC, the outcome of ignorance is situation-dependent. Sometimes, yeah, it can kill you (and other people). Other times, it can make you a YouTube sensation … or, with the right lawyer, net you a cool million or more. Design margin, feedback loops, tort reform, a culture of personal responsibility — all these and more are things that will come up in any kind of earnest discussion of ignorance and its consequences. It’s not just a “one anecdote and I can draw my general conclusion” kind of idea.
But if Mr. Maher really and truly wants minimum I.Q. standards and civic literacy tests applied as voter qualifications, I say let’s go for it. Anything that disqualifies the majority of Harvard undergrads is okay by me.
(Interestingly enough, if you read the breakdowns of the ISI test scores, there is very little difference between liberals and conservatives; each group knows only half as much as it should. Same thing with religious and non- … very little difference. And the college grads, while ahead of the HS-diploma-only crowd, still flunk miserably.)
I disagree that we are in a condition where “logics have diverged”. We are in a situation where barbarians, poltroons, vipers, idiots and charlatans are allowed to be taken seriously. Our civilization and societies have become diseased by this mindless tolerance and we are thus estranged from our true natures. Our very civilization, polity and society now hang in the balance.
But we can return to who we would and ought to be. It is not as if this mob has not always been about. In the past folks knew how to deal with them and feel little qualms about taking the necessary actions to save and maintain their civilization.
To save ours these people have to be shown to be who and what they are, and made to pay a price for what they have wrought.
And, of course it is the set of beliefs that define a civilization, a polity or a society. That is primarily what a civilization is all about. And not just any set of beliefs. Remember, that there are only a handful of civilizations in history–perhaps seven or eight. One of the common errors of our time is that we run around thinking that we a brimming with “ideas” and “concept” of our own creation. In fact, most of these are received, delivered or derived from one’s civilization. Much of what goes on in our minds are merely reframings of the historical, mental, emotional and spiritual legacies of our civilization. Without it, most of us are at the level of animals, in fact lower than animals for we possess not their innocence. A civilization is lucky to have one new “idea” in a century. Ours is a great one, we jettison it at our peril.
Maher’s desultory chirping are merely an example of all of this.
“Poltroons”!!! Mongoose, do you know how long it has been since I read or heard that word?
Thanks for that vocabulary blast from the past!
I once had a conversation with a Christian Lady in eastern Georgia. I had run into a local gent of some physical distinction (beard and whatnot) and asked her about him. She said “Oh gosh, he’s an atheist.” (emphasis in the conversation)
“Well,” I said, “that’s his problem, isn’t it?”
It took this very intelligent lady about 30 sec to understand te implications of that.
Maher’s problem is that he is credible only in context of his own and like persons. The issue is that they are Not Us but they are such a major part of the zeitgeist, generated by the TeeVee.
The Boss said:
I dont think so. I think the issue is that the “core myths” have been under concerted attack for 40 years. Its hard for a lay Christian to defend the idea of the Divinity of Jesus. Its hard for an American educated in the public schools to defend the rightness of the Constitution and the (underlying) Declaration. First Principles are essentially the Assumptions underlying any debate. If the debate proceeds from the ideation that there are no valid “First Principles,” the defender is at an immediate disadvantage.
Thus our current situation.
duplicate- I need patience
When smart people are wrong, they are disastrously wrong.
Eh, not if they live in a shack in the woods. (And don’t venture out to set bombs like Mr. K.)
But when they hold the levers of power, yes, the disasters born of their errors can be, and too often are, magnified exponentially.
I was looking at some stuff and came across this gem on faith,
“Faith is much better than belief. Belief is when someone else does the thinking.”
–R Buckminster Fuller,
I have no faith in Willy the Mahrvelouse Daggett’s notions of intelegence, nor any faith that president Obama’s best and brightest have a clue yet what they have done. I will take it on faith that they have not accounted for what they believe ought to happen now that so much of their stuff has been passed, and made law. For Willy the Mahervelouse Daggett (angry beaver) real intelligence is no doubt a black swan sort of occasion.
Please please please may we leave the Intelligent Design debate at LGF?
wretchard
I wonder sometimes if he isn’t really just smart enough to realize how lucrative it is to be dumb.
So smart parents who dream of big things for their children should advise them to choose the right role models. There is a three step program for success here.
1) Work hard in High School but be sure to devote enough of your time to organizing a series of fund raising drives (Colleges react to the prospect of future fundraising like Pavlov’s dogs) and organizing (In a nod to the Wasp heritage leadership is still prized over productivity) volunteer projects for approved special victim classes. The elusive illegal alien lesbian disabled minority Aids patient needing tutoring is the gold star project but demands patience and a good set of binoculars to locate.
2) Once you are in Harvard things get better as you can focus on balancing the various networks you will depend on in the future.
3) After graduation be sure to get photographed wearing a diaper (for Maher it is a virtual diaper, but still) and run around declaring that preselected targets are evil and stupid. Then just watch the money and power role in.
Oh Maher thinks he is smarter than every one else, all right. Narcissism–and this sort of comic obtuse solipsism which walks with it–is SOP for Liberals. They could not live with themselves if they faced the true nature of themselves. Even if he was cynically playing dumb, it would just further add to the narcissistic delusions of grandeur: He is just that much more smarter than all the rest for getting away with it.
No one over 30 with a sound mind, spirit and soul can hold such idiotic notions of oneself and the wide, wild world. It to hold such notions perforce requires such vile narcissism, solipsism and arrogance.
While this evil can affect both the highly intelligent and the dullest souls, this sort of willful obtuseness is most commonly the curse of the mediocre. The crude of spirit imagine that the direct expression of what is inside them is somehow more “genuine” or “legitimate”. It is no such thing, it is just an uncivilized release of vileness, bile and that baseness. They confuse “genuine” with “essense”. In Mahers case one see that truly there is no bottom.
bogie: you’re welcome. A watchword for our times.
Wretchard,
I’d be curious to know what your axioms are. I often agree with you, but I suspect our axioms differ.
Another facet of this that strikes me is that when dealing with human affairs there always seems to be that sixth postulate in everyone’s list that people seem to be unaware of themselves.
#8 Nahncee #12 Wretchard
I think that’s why Sun Tzu’s maxim “know yourself and know your enemy and you will be victorious” is both obvious and rarely used.Smart or dumb , very few people take the time to look at themselves or others objectively, they’re too busy watching a video in their minds they’ve imagined that may or may not connect with the real world.
Mongoose said:
Maher is the case in point. Nobody would pay any attention to him without his platform. in the eternal scheme, he is a nullity. In current culture, he is a Personality
Along these lines, you might want to check out this link which relates to a study of incompetence:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL
It explains a lot. A few of the key excerpts:
“most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent.
On the contrary. People who do things badly, Dunning has found in studies conducted with a graduate student, Justin Kruger, are usually supremely confident of their abilities — more confident, in fact, than people who do things well…One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.
The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, they suggested in a paper appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
“Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,” wrote Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, and Dunning. ”
Read the whole thing. It gives you a whole new perspective on our current political class.
While at university I had a job handing out visitor passes at the medical complex. Usually I was posted at the entrance to the Lying In Hospital, where a neighborhood youth was hired to share the desk with a student employee. One day I opened the desk drawer and saw some tracts that someone had left there. As I closed the drawer I smiled and Terry (odd that I remember his name since I have a terrible memory for names) asked me a little sharply, “What’s the matter “LifeOf”? Don’t you believe in God?” My reply was, “Terry, I only worry if God believes in me.”
john lynch
When smart people are wrong they are disastrously wrong
More damage is done by the immodest overachievers seeking to prove themselves then by the talented who fail to do their bit. The most dangerous man in the world is the Petty Officer 3rd Class who decides to fix the nuclear power plant to prove himself smarter then the Chief thinks he is.
Mongoose,
No one over 30 with a sound mind, spirit and soul can hold such idiotic notions of oneself
That is why healthy men need women, to have someone who can laugh at us and say, “You are kidding, aren’t you? Because the answer is NO”
Otherwise you end up like the Jack Nicholson character in Carnal Knowledge. Liberal Narcissism is a form of sexual dysfunction I suspect. A craving for power to replace what is lacking inside.
I have taken to calling the political Left “Dark Agers.” They are over-schooled and under-educated.
A large portion of them seem to reflexively reject anything which truly improves mankind’s condition: individual liberty, technological improvement, scientific discovery, free markets, freedom of thought, etc. The majority of them also appear to be in love with Death – witness their infatuation with abortion and with evil, murderous ideologies.
Like the people of the Dark Ages, they hanker to be led by kings who possess ultimate power and the ownership of all property (we might call it feudalism, but the modern version lacks the ties of mutual loyalty and obligation – everything is one-way).
The only real distinction contrasting the modern bunch with those ancient people is that most of the Left are totally lacking in true spirituality. In short, the Left are a bunch of overgrown babies seeking mommy and daddy.
The foregoing opinion is based on close-up observation of the breed over several decades.
But if you wear strange clothes, say outrageous things and engage in bizarre behavior there appear any number of people who will pay, and pay handsomely, to watch you shame and degrade yourself.
Samuel Johnson nailed nailed celebrities once and for all, before 1800 even. He called that behavior ‘exhibiting yourself for a fee’.
There’s a part of American custom that wholly perverts both statute and common law in order to create tolerance for celebrity behavior. And in parallel with Bill Maher’s reasoning, I officially wring my hands at how many folks fall for it.
TCobb: Just seems obvious to me, even tautologous. Of course the incompetent do not understand that they are incompetent, that is why they are incompetent.
“Do the dumb realize they are dumb?”
I assume so, since “dumb” means without the ability to speak.
How much better the world would be if Maher and Blitzer were dumb.
I suspect the question intended was ‘Do the stupid know thay are stupid.
The evidence is that Maher and Blitzer do not.
Bill Maher demands to be told exactly how much smarter he is then the rest of us before he will love us.
(with language lesson) http://tinyurl.com/mtaz68
37 and 39 – - My buddy Garland refers to them as “Educated beyond their capacity”
Based, Im sure, on the concept that you cannot put 5LB of shit in a 3LB bucket
Math:
I think that EVERY belief system ultimately relies on assumptions that cannot be proven: in other words, on faith.
jj mollo:
I’d be curious to know what your axioms are. I often agree with you, but I suspect our axioms differ.
The question wasn’t directed at me, but I’ll toss out one of my axioms: the law of non-contradiction. With certain beliefs that are neither provable nor disprovable in the empirical sense, I try to determine whether they are logically consistent or inconsistent.
As for whether the law of non-contradiction itself is “faith-based” and thus no truer than “both-and” thought systems, I’ll defer to New Delhi-born Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias: “Even in India, we look both ways before crossing the street. It’s EITHER the bus, OR me — not both/and!”
Mongoose @15…
Marxism and the other isms are anti-religions.
Their ‘bibles’ are three-ring binders ready to receive the party’s latest edits.
The NY Times dispenses with the binder and provides a new edition every day!
The absolute fountainhead of every anti-religion is the ascension of the anointed up to godhood. Man is perfected within them; hence it is naturally proper for them to manage the proles.
As Caligula — a certified living god — demonstrates with such high status there are no limits. God help us all from their benedictions!
At least the Romans didn’t have databases, webcams, and an army of Benedicts.
There’s a part of American custom that wholly perverts both statute and common law in order to create tolerance for celebrity behavior.
Could it be because, having no royals to mock/obsess over, Americans went and invented ‘em anyway?
But I don’t think it has always been this bad. It is largely media-created and exacerbated, IMO.
I have a set of Time/Life books called “This Fabulous Century” that looks at America decade by decade in the 20th century. In the 1940-1950 book, a two-page spread is devoted to reporting the results of a high-school survey that asked American teens which people excluding their parents (and Jesus) they most admired. The top 12 answers (IIRC the book listed 12) included, again IIRC, only 1 movie celebrity and 1 sports celebrity. All the others were political leaders (Lincoln, FDR) or humanitarians (Florence Nightingale, Clara Barton, Sister Kenny).
I’ve seen comparable contemporary polls. Celebrities dominate overwhelmingly, followed by politicians. Mother Theresa was the lone humanitarian there for a while. I doubt she’d even make the top dozen today. Most teens today were tots or young kids when she died; hence, little to no memory connection to her.
By dint of the camera and microphone, both beauty and glibness are overly rewarded and paid attention to in our culture.
#39 Mongoose
I think you’re missing the point. There were things I was assigned to do in my life that I knew or could see I didn’t have the ability to accomplish. I knew I was incompetent for performing such tasks, and I didn’t like having to try. Ask me to sing a song. You won’t like what you get, I guarantee you.
Its all about a type of mindset. There are a lot of people in positions that are incompetent to perform their duties. The dividing marks come between those who realize they are, those who realize they are but don’t care (hey its pays well), and those who don’t have a clue.
I think I have about three axioms, all of which essentially create a system of belief under uncertainty.
1. The world has a meaning.
2. It is important to figure out this meaning without ever knowing if you got it right.
3. Act in accordance with your best estimate and take what’s coming.
I don’t think I have ever inventoried or codified all the axioms I use, but a key one is:
The world is a rational place (meaning everything can be explained even if I don’t know how to explain it).
Corollary: If you can think like a crazy person, you can predict what a crazy person will do. (Especially useful in today’s politics).
The wit and wisdom of Bill Maher
Is simply quite delicious
I do believe he is a star
Though clearly meretricious
I mean that in its nicest form
He’s lost in his pretensions
Believing he is but the norm
Of intellect’s dimensions
He thinks we’re dumb and more or less
Too stupid to be trusted
To vote for now just let me guess
The guys who just now busted
The bank and socialized the cars
And now will do to health care
What LBJ by lowering bars
Forever did to welfare
I could go on about Bill Maher
With words right on the money
But even looked at from afar
Was he ever really funny?
wretchard
May I propose a Fourth Axiom?
4. If at any time when determining this “meaning” you hear music connected with the Monty Python team, stop. Go out for a long walk and a sit down dinner. Then try again.
Two thoughts from Winston Churchill apropos this topic. I am not researching the quotes for precision here.
1. Democracy is a terrible system but is better then every other system that has been tried.
2. All your illusions about Democray can be cured by a 5 minutes conversation with the average voter.
Aristotle broke political systems into three categories each of which had an ideal and a degenerate state. The ideals were Democracy, Aristocracy and Monarchy. Each in turn degenerated into Mob Rule, Oligarchy and Tyranny. Maher and company think they are the Platonic Philosopher KIngs. Aristotle pointed out that even in Greece that had a culture that exhalted the “beautiful and the good” the best aristos became merely the few oligos. We now have the worst of all three degenerations of politics coming together. A mob lead by a thuggish self appointed minority ruling arbitrarily.
This type of arrogance drives me crazier than almost any form of of stupidity and yes Maher is stupid. There are those on the conservative side who have the same conceit.
William F. Buckley Jr. no dummy observed he’ld rather be goverened by the first 50 people pulled form the Boston telephone directory rather than any 50 from Harvard (however, this may be the Yale v Harvard rivalry but I suspect he’ld say the same of nearly any university).
It is never easy to reconcile your deeply held personal beliefs when rejected by others. Every time a political party loses at the polls they have to do this and most often the explanation has little to do with a rejection of their candidates and ideology. So when the polls go against Maher it is because the voters are dumb or because MSNBC is too conservative.
Humility is very tough for many. Humility coupled with intelligence is wise. One does not begin to learn until they realize they do not know something.
Now a smattering of comments on the comments. LifeoftheMind I stopped reading LGF after CJ started focusing on intelligent design.
WilldoMathforFood, Albert North Whitehead & Bertrand Russell wrote the Principia Mathematica and after 1 volume and 362 pages in the second volume they prove 1+1=2.
I distinctly remember a maxim from the 1970′s Dr. Who. It goes like, “If I don’t know where I am going, neither will anybody else.” Dr. Who used intentional randomness to keep his enemies from tracking him down. Intentional randomness has other positive applications, such as keeping other people off balance. Nothing Bill Maher says is random. It may be outrageous; it may be offensive; it is not random.
Within many subcultures, it is a hallmark of stupidity to show off how smart one is; such behavior turns one’s self into a target and makes other people suspicious. There are good reasons why people will use an “aw shucks” routine. There are times when intelligence is shown by hiding one’s self in the woodwork and acquiring cultural camouflage. And whatever else Bill Maher is good at, adopting cultural camouflage does not appear to be one of his strengths.
It appears to me that Bill Maher is filling a similar slapstick niche as Ben Stein, although I think it would be a lot more enjoyable to win Ben Stein’s money than to win Bill Maher’s money.
I am sure we all know people who are highly educated but lack common sense. It seems to me that knowledge about the world without knowing how it interacts is worthless. In keeping with the lesson Bogie Wheel pointed out, knowing pedestrians have the right of way is not much consolation as the truck is passing over your body.
Bill Maher and his ilk, John Stewart, Dave Letterman, etc, only seem smart to young, inexperienced people because they as comedians are not subject to cross examination. We need to bring back open debate as a form of entertainment. Gauntlets thrown and wits exchanged at thirty paces. I might actually start watching TV again.
Marcus Aurelius
It is never easy to reconcile your deeply held personal beliefs when rejected by others.
“The people have spoken, the bastards.” – Dick Tuck
Alexis
adopting cultural camouflage does not appear to be one of his strengths
“You blend?” – Mona Lisa Vito (Marisa Tomei) in My Cousin Vinny
BM et al are court jesters…
As for real smarts…
Once upon a time DL had Dr Edgerton ( EG&G, Inc. ) on the show.
DL lost his cool as the good Doctor ran rings around him.
The audience was laughing at DL and with Edgerton!
And it all started with Letterman condescending to the genius.
your #12 – is all too right -
maher, and etc. – are actors, comedians, people who speak-for-pay – their motive is not trust, it is pay, amusement, and attention.
and that is their worth.
But wasn’t the court jester the source of common sense, at least as Shakespeare laid it out?
Axioms are best when simple and direct.
1. If you wouldn’t do it in front of your mother then don’t do it.
2. Stupid should hurt. It is the only way stupid people can learn.
3. Pay attention. If you don’t people will think you are stupid. See #2.
These three axioms get me through most days and has raised four wonderful and quite intelligent children.
Due to the fact that I don’t have TV. Bill Maher is quite irrelevant. And surely redundant to our needs.
362 pages before you get to 1 + 1 = 2!? Egads!
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals could believe them.”
–Michael Levine
A great rule to promote: Always trace your ideas back to reality. (The more folks that do this, the better off we’ll all be).
Syd,
Always trace your ideas back to reality.,
In the Navy I was taught that every instruction, directive or order must begin by citing all the sources of authority that grant legitimacy to the document. For example an order instructing the crew as to the Uniform of the Day would reference the Area Commander’s orders, the Fleet Commander’s orders, Commander Naval Surface Forces Pacific’s Instructions, Chief of Naval Operations Instructions, Naval Regulations and the Uniform Regulations.
Every Bill passed by Congress should include a clear statement as to where in the Constitution is found the authority for Congress to pass that law. Such a reference could serve as an instruction to the Court in how to handle a challenge to the law if it came before the court on appeal. Congress has the power under the Constitution to give the Court such instructions and limits. That is one reason why the doctrine of Judicial Review that has produced the Imperial Court is extra-constitutional. Of course the corollary of that is that if the Bill does not have such a clear statement of enabling authority then it should be deemed defective on its face and void.
1. The world exists; it is a physical reality, independent of human awareness or thought
2. Consciousness of the human being means we can be aware and in some limited way understand existence if we are honest in our thinking (objective?).
3. Because the world continues to exist moment to moment, in a seemingly logical continuity independent of human thought, it follows that there is an underlying logic and reason to its form. We may not be able to perceive it perfectly or completely, but it does exist.
The faux intellectual (of which Maher is a minor and annoying form), believes that by thought (and sarcastic banter) alone he can summon up a new reality. Unhappy man, he is. All we have to do, he thinks, is come up with snappy blog posts to persuade the idiots and comfort the followers. Lest we become too vain, let us not fall into that same trap.
It reminds me of Ann Coulter’s remark that the problem with Liberals was that they thought they could change the temperature of the oceans by turning off a light switch (a swipe at AGW believers).
Were that reality were so malleable.
The court jester, by protocol, was allowed to say what would be impossible for the nobility to say.
Stewart comes closest to the standard.
So the point wasn’t common sense, per se; it was to perform verbal take downs.
If Biden were to gas before any jester the opportunity overload would trigger a seizure.
OTOH, perhaps everything you believe to have happened in the past, is happening in the present and will happen in the future is only happening in your consciousness and no one else really exists.
That kind of statement is why it takes 362 pages to prove 1 + 1 = 2 when it is more enlightening to simply hold an apple in each hand and bring them together.
The discussion of the delusional arrogance of the alleged comedian Maher brings to mind some recollections.
In the mid-1990′s a lady who had spent part of her career teaching in the UCal system described a horror story from the library at UC Santa Barbara. Seems the library had one of the world’s pre-eminent collections of photos of American Jazz musicians from performances, interviews, family albums, etc. When they decided to announce a rare exhibition of the collection, the task of preparing graphics for publicity posters fell to an undergrad student employee. As the deadline for camera-ready art approached, one of the librarians checked in to see how things were progressing.
The student had selected some really kewl pictures from among the original prints, and had been cutting them with scissors and pasting bits into a jaunty little composition.
Irreplaceable original photographs.
The concept meant nothing to this pathetic little troglodyte, raised in an era of scanned images residing in the cloud of servers, websites, Xeroxed copies from other Xerox copies, and all the other highly modern storage forms.
My reaction is a schizoid tension between a desire to find a damn great rattan rod with which to thrash the cretin, versus the goal of swallowing a couple of bottles of single malt and praying the world has changed by the time I regain consciousness.
Dang. Neither properly feminine.
The story underscores the prevailing stupor of our culture; the gut-wrenching plummet into the abyss. Sometimes it seems half of the last three generations spent their youth sniffing glue and being resuscitated by heroic measures so they might be able to sort out which end of the mop to clutch while shambling down the asylum hallway.
Acephalic citizens like these don’t seem to be able to comprehend that there is anything beyond their own experience, memory, or fogged understanding of the world. We superannuated types have to remember that the voters who will be deciding things in the next decade have no recollection of a time without DVD recorders, terabyte drives, Youtube, Skype, downloadable MP3 music, movies, favorite shows, a houseful of electronic gadgets so commonplace that anything older than a year gets tossed.
Library of Congress announces the loss of a hard drive rated at a Terabyte. No one seems to know what documents were recorded there. After the initial report, silence. No followup. No detectible ripples of concern or upset at the loss.
A few years ago, Sandy Berger, if I recall correctly, was scheduled to testify before the 9-11 commission on how his boss Clinton had handled the threat of terror attacks. As his time approached, he was discovered to have used his clearance allowing him access to top secret files in the National Archives to steal, hide, and destroy documents with critical information about those issues.
He copped a plea.
No, that doesn’t really do justice to the travesty.
The authorities ALLOWED him to plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than actually prosecute him for the treasonous acts he committed.
The LEFT are busy destroying the institutional memory of our country, but it’s just a continuation of a long tradition. Think of Will Duranty of the New York Times, and the lies he wrote denying the monstrous atrocities of Stalin. Pulitzer prize for that. The crazy thing is that inside the Soviet Union, Stalin fully intended for everyone to be aware of his prolonged slaughter of anyone resisting collectivization. Intimidation only works, after all, if people are aware of the consequences of failure to grovel.
Duranty’s lies (and the implied cooperation of the Editors of the NYT) make sense only as a deliberate effort to conceal from US readers the monumental brutality of Communism. Instead, like CNN’s deliberate concealing of the atrocities of Saddam Hussein when the US public were trying to evaluate the warnings from the Bush Administration, we were fed a pack of lies.
The actions of the Left throughout the decades, STINK.
The lobotomization of the patient proceeds apace.
E. Nigma,
The faux intellectual … believes that by thought (and sarcastic banter) alone he can summon up a new reality.
From The Tragedy of King Henry IV Part I, Act 3, scene 1, by W. Shakespeare:
GLENDOWER
HOTSPUR
GLENDOWER
HOTSPUR
HT/ shakespeare.mit.edu
Quote begins at 10:10, http://tinyurl.com/nnum4n
Infestations of Glendowers have been faced down before.
The one axiom that I have been bludgeoned into submission with and blame for all of our current circumstances is this:
Celebrate Diversity
In a nutshell, this means that everything and everyone is equivalent, that no one shall ever judge anyone else because everyone and everything is to be celebrated. This includes female genital mutilation, honor killings, necrophilia, incest, and Chinese foot binding.
I distinctly remember the first time I ever saw this particular bumper sticker some decades ago (in a university setting, I might add), the inward shock I felt at its implications, and then the subsequent guilt over being so closed-minded while everyone around me seemed to think it was such a really good idea.
Now I am convinced it’s a really BAD idea, but how do we go about over-coming 20 years of societal brainwashing that we *must* “celebrate diversity” or go to hell?
Celebrate Diversity
Orwell understood that many slogans really communicated the opposite of their literal meaning; hence the Ministry of Truth was really the Ministry of Propaganda.
“Celebrate Diversity” is really code-speak for “Be Politically Correct”. There is actually a very narrow band of allowable opinion. Stray outside of it and you will be pilloried. “Celebrate Diversity” in practice means follow the Party Line. The secret to remaining functional in the world of Doublespeak, according to Orwell again, was to think one thing in your head while saying another with your lips, but only a for a moment. To use words in their original meaning and to use them consistently is really an act of rebellion.
The key to celebrating diversity is to be yourself; and the main thing to remember is that being yourself always costs. Morality costs. Freedom costs. It’s a theme which I’ve often talked about in relationship to coercive interrogation. We can unilaterally restrain ourselves from using brutal methods, and forgo the methods of our enemies, but at the risk of giving up an advantage. But so what? If we’re willing to pay, we can do it. Even in the old cowboy movies if you wanted to walk the walk you never shot a man in the back, even if it was easier. You paid for your self respect. The same holds true for freedom. You can be as free as you want, even in a totalitarian society if you are willing to pay the price.
Unfortunately the cost of freedom and the price of virtue is now rarely mentioned. Many people today expect to fight bloodless wars, to tackle a ruthless enemy without having to live with moral ambiguity and to remain free while submitting. The truth is that you get what you pay for. A costless virtue will turn out to be the facsimile of it. I think the price of celebrating diversity is the cost of living free. The black man who was beaten by the SEIU may have been the worse for wear, but he’s a free man. He celebrated his own opinion and so, stepped outside the bumper sticker and became more than the slogan when he became the reality of it.
@53 SE notes: “Bill Maher and his ilk, John Stewart, Dave Letterman, etc, only seem smart to young, inexperienced people because they as comedians are not subject to cross examination.”
Exactly, anyone in a well choreographed situation can appear to be “smart” or at least less stupid. Take them out of the choreographed situation and examine them and a completely different picture emerges.
You can take a Talking Head who is dumber than dirt, give them a script, enough time to practice the scrip, enunciation coaching, and a teleprompter and they will appear smart. I have seen such people.
Returning to Wretchard’s thrust. Who says Bill Maher is smart? Where is the evidence? Did Bill Maher build a successful business as did many others like Henry Ford? No.
Did Bill Maher make any meaningful scientific discovery as did Einstein or Oppenheimer? No.
Bill Maher is just another talking head who reads from a script (and probably has writers generate most of his material).
When some Hollywood type calls a group of people “stupid” it is time to examine who is the stupid one.
Btw, my family and I have been “TV Free” for almost five years and we are happier and more productive – thanks to Bill Maher and his kind.
42. Herb: “Based, Im sure, on the concept that you cannot put 5LB of shit in a 3LB bucket”
True, but they think they can…and that’s why they pile it so high.
MA @ 51
Bertrand Russell also “proved” there is no God.
43 Bogie:
Ravi Zacharias is the quintessential mix of Christian apologia and sound philosophy. He is one of my favorites.
Some folk say that the less gifted aren’t aware of their affliction. I listen to Ravi and it confirms the incredible distance I have yet to travel.
The closer I come to living my Christian faith, the more I gain true humility. The difference between that quest and the one Bill Maher is on is that he sees absolutely no reason to grow, to improve as a human being. Unless of course, perfecting the art of snide and acerbic derision is his view of improvement.
His is a journey that eventually leads to the abyss; the same destination that Nietzsche apparently sought and may certainly have attained.
But to whom does the “smart than thou” pose of Bill Maher appeal to? Certainly he has an audience that gains him the wealth and social stature he now can exercise. He is not, for example, Kato Kaelin, famous for fifteen minutes and now forgotten.
Moreover, why is there the slogan “Celebrate Diversity?”
And this to me speaks to the fundamental difference in opinion between myself and Wretchard on the nature of the disease of the West. Wretchard looks at, if I understand him right, as a fundamental ideological divide between those devoted to freedom and those devoted to rule by fiat and strong men. If I understand other posters here, most think this way as well.
I used to hold this opinion, but no longer. To me it goes deeper. WHY is Maher popular? WHY does he make so much money? From whom does he derive his followers and his money, and WHO supports the “Celebrate Diversity” Slogan.
To me the answer lies, after long reflection, in the fundamental shift both in commercial buying power (thus moving the culture to the buyers) and interests of women. Maher appeals to the secular “Playboy Mansion ethos” (as one poster wisely put it) which is deeply attractive to not only young men but women as well. Seeing Judeo-Christian limits on sexuality, behavior, and promotion of the nuclear family and ethno-centric monocultures as “evil” to be vanquished.
Take a look at your check-out counter at the supermarket. The magazines there are all aimed at women, and chock-a-block with celebrities. Like Maher. Expressing the same soft female consensus: Christianity bad, nuclear family bad, alternative families good, war on terror bad, being nice to jihadis good, lots of sexual expression good, traditional straight white men bad. It’s no accident that Obama is on nearly ever cover of every magazine appealing to women: he’s First Rockstar and also a deeply desired alternative to “Straight White Male Leaders” to women. Who have hungered for such an alternative since the collapse of the nuclear family.
Why “Celebrate Diversity?” The message is obvious: the former prominence of mostly White Male leaders has been the problem, and the remedy is lots of non-White guys in power. That’s the message of diversity. Its meaning is clear. It’s driven from the fundamental disconnection between women and men, and their fundamental interests. Women really, in the modern welfare state in the West, don’t need or want most White guys around. They are dangerous cultural and economic and political competitors.
Thus the prominence of Maher who might as well be the late night equivalent of the View for the type of views he expresses. Or the celebrate diversity stuff. Which really means, White guys get in the back. It’s a pure political power struggle between fractioned groups. It at its core is non-ideological, rather an expression of which group(s) will run things.
It’s nothing personal, or driven by Freedom or love of tyranny. Merely gender politics at it’s worst.
Thought experiment: imagine Joe Stalin, alive today, or Trotsky, offering a Communist alternative to traditional American conservative politics. Think they’d give a damn about Global Warming, save the Whales, queer theory, gay marriage, or hatred of America? Heck no, they’d build up a whacking great US military if they ever took power and seize whatever they could. Factories would pump out arms 24/7, the whales would all be dead, and queer theory and it’s theorists would be disposed of in the workers paradise on the assumption that it would not be conducive to producing more workers.
This one reason why I believe all this “I’m smarter than you” and “celebrate diversity” stuff is at it’s core gender based. It’s certainly not the masculine though nasty Communists I recall reading about.
Wretchard,
This is a little off topic but you might find it of interest.
The US Military and Law Enforcement is beginning to join the revolt:
Oath Keepers
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
Our motto is “Not on our watch!”
I have no faith in God. I have experienced Him.
Faith is for people without experience.
BTW I have no problem with hedonism. On your own dime. And I’m against turning vices into crimes.
73. M. Simon:
How do we know that this site is not an extension of the current penchant for some of our leaders to get themselves a nice list of folk to intern later?
IOW, do the exact opposite of the site’s stated mission.
Love the music and the videos, but you don’t get into the site until you provide your contact info.
36. Lifeofthemind,
A Nuke I take it. I’m a qualified RO myself. Although I haven’t requalified since I left the Navy in ’67.
RCM,
It makes no difference to me. I agree with the sentiment. And I’m probably already on the list. For a number of different reasons.
My Axiom:
Test everything. Hold fast to that which is true.
Did I mention I’m an engineer?
I also am a fan of science:
“I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.”
The one price the vast majority are unwilling to pay is attention.
The Waters
Poet, oracle, and wit
Like unsuccessful anglers by
The ponds of apperception sit,
Baiting with the wrong request
The vectors of their interest,
At nightfall tell the angler’s lie.
With time in tempest everywhere,
To rafts of frail assumption cling
The saintly and the insincere;
Enraged phenomena bear down
In overwhelming waves to drown
Both sufferer and suffering.
The waters long to hear our question put
Which would release their longed-for answer, but.
(From The Quest by W. H. Auden)
“A smart guy named Chesterton once said: “My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying… It is like saying ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’” To which most Americans would respond: “Are you calling my mother a drunk?””
Eh? I have never once heard a ‘patriotic’ American use the phrase “My country right or wrong”. It is used by anti-Americans in their excoriations of those they consider jingoists.
Besides, Maher redacted part of the G.K. Chesterton quote. In full it reads: “My country right or wrong is no thing a patriot would consider saying, *except in a desperate case*, it is like…” Kind of alters the meaning a bit.
Maher’s last line — which if he were funny, is where I imagine the punchline would go — doesn’t even make sense. I assume he is attempting to somehow bulwark his argument that Americans are stupid with a hypothetical. And it is a counterintuitive one at that. If someone said, “Hey, you’re a great guy, whether you’re an *sshole or not,” the implication of that statement is obvious. So Bill, um… “Good” one.
But wasn’t the court jester the source of common sense, at least as Shakespeare laid it out?
There are, I believe, three categories of fools:
1. Shakespearean Fools. (the only kind of fools you get wisdom from)
2. Pity Da Fools. (see MumbaiGal’s snip-happy undergrad trog)
3. Damn Fools. (the poltroons, idiots and charlatans from Mongoose’s list)
I think Maher is in the third category.
Eh? I have never once heard a ‘patriotic’ American use the phrase “My country right or wrong”. It is used by anti-Americans in their excoriations of those they consider jingoists.
This may be because patriotic (no scare quotes) Americans have been thoroughly discouraged from uttering this phrase after 40+ years of its being declared out-of-bounds speech (except for the purposes of excoriation) by the left.
Whereas a little understanding of the man who first uttered it (Stephen Decatur) and the nuance of its meaning (Ross Douthat is helpful here: we should read both it and the “drunk mother” corollary as “statements of abiding love in bad times, rather than blanket endorsements of bad conduct”) would go some way towards reclaiming it from the shame that leftists have heaped upon it.
As is typical, they labeled a noble, nuanced statement “mindless jingoism,” in a reaction of their own that they have made the very jingoism they claim to reject.
The first victim in a propaganda war is nuance. The second is truth.
Much easier to take out the enemy’s bunker once you have destroyed their capability of interlocking fire.
If someone said, “Hey, you’re a great guy, whether you’re an *sshole or not,” the implication of that statement is obvious.
I’ve heard the version that goes, “You know, I don’t care what everyone else says about you. I think you’re great!” (Never said TO me, personally, mind you!)
Your title is as close as wisdom will ever be to Bill Maher.
blert:
Marxism and the other isms are anti-religions.
Their ‘bibles’ are three-ring binders ready to receive the party’s latest edits.
MumbaiGal:
The LEFT are busy destroying the institutional memory of our country, but it’s just a continuation of a long tradition.
I think you are both hitting upon a critical point that goes back to our discussion of axioms.
If your worldview is based on a form of the axiom, “There is such a thing as absolute truth (and it is knowable),” (and my hunch is that most BCers subscribe to this belief), then your modus operandi is to think and behave in a way that signals your awareness of and respect for Fixed Things and Boundaries That Shall Not Be (Cannot Be) Crossed.
Whereas if your worldview is based on the axiom, “There’s no such thing as absolute truth” or “Even if there is such a thing as truth, it is not knowable,” then your modus operandi is going to be a continuous trampling of boundaries (other people’s, or those you once set out as your own) and an almost reflexive airbrushing mentality.
If reality (truth) is inconvenient, change it.
Result? Vanishing commissars. Memory holes. Emanations and penumbras. Fauxtography. Bread & circus distractions.
This reaches even (inevitably) the nature of man. Conservatives believe it’s a fixed property. Humans are inherently “thus”; therefore, you design a government and order a society that respects that reality, that fixed-ness, by not trying to tinker with it or bulldoze it. (The Christian vision would be to set in place institutions and social mores that restrain the original sin while edifying and channeling the imago dei.) Whereas progressives believe that human nature, not being a fixed property, can be changed by government and society, and so they go about manufacturing the myriad bulldozers.
Bill Whittle put it wonderfully in a video I just watched yesterday. Summing up the mentality of US Congress members attacking their constituents who oppose Obamacare, Whittle said they appear to hold the belief that, “When the government clashes with the people, it’s time to get a new people.” The very antithesis of the Declaration, in other words.
The Gramscian project at work the last 40+ years has precisely as its goal, “get a new people.” And we have seen that people, individuals, cultures, are certainly malleable.
But I maintain that human nature is not.
And there, up against that immovable object, the Gramscian project will ultimately find its limitations. That Which Cannot Be Altered.
Question is, how much and how many will have been bulldozed, and what will the cost in human misery be, when that moment finally arrives.
An older gentleman, from whom I learned a great deal, was fond of saying: “It’s not what you don’t know that gets you in the most trouble. It’s what you think you know that ain’t so.”
Or, to quote Davey Crockett via Fess Parker: “Be sure you’re right, then go ahead.”
Works for me.
Well I’m late on this thread, and I haven’t read the 86 comments above this, but W, what a glorious put-down of the mentally deficient.
Your mathematics’ years at Harvard show.
ADE
Well i still hope that they may have more modified themselves than anything else, in any lasting sense–or at least the circle of debasement is smaller than we think. Should they be rejected and ousted from power in the various institutions they have hijacked, I still believe matters can be set right. This will mean forcing a broad swathe of folks to actually go out and earn an honest living. This may not educate them, but it will keep them occupied. The question is: How much time do we have before the ruination is complete and irreversible? The Gramscian project will ultimately flounder, of course. The obvious point is to avoid them it taking the rest of us with them.
We are certainly in uncharted seas here, at least as far as the USA goes.
We will see. I would wager that we all agree that the next a election will be a profound test for the republic, for the Left will attempt to thoroughly–and final–corrupt the electoral system and the entire political process. How will Americans respond? What are folks prepared to do all round?
The left may have already inadvertently tipped their hand. It is the intervening period between now and the next actual election season that is critical. Patriots with political bully pulpits need to be relentless and ruthless in exposing what the game is between now and then. This is crucial.
No wonder they hate Palin so. I hope she has good security.
Just now scrolling through this thread. Damn I missed it.
Anyway, to the mind of our host:
I think I have about three axioms, all of which essentially create a system of belief under uncertainty.
1. The world has a meaning.
2. It is important to figure out this meaning without ever knowing if you got it right.
3. Act in accordance with your best estimate and take what’s coming.
Here’s mine:
1. The world is a random evolution of a priori physical laws, which we can know, but we are not there just yet.
2. The laws are just there. There is no meaning to them. No comfort, no evil.
3. What Maggie Tatcher said: “there is no society, there’s just me an you”.
Given that it is just you and me, I will select people who are more like me.
The ultimate belief under uncertainty?
BC’ers, even.
ADE
celebrate diversity
It’s easy to be diverse by being wrong.
Should fatal diversity be celebrated?
Of course not.
ADE
“But wasn’t the court jester the source of common sense, at least as Shakespeare laid it out?”
The court jester in Shakespeare was an actor, a paid actor, reading lines Shakespeare wrote for him.
“maher, and etc. – are actors, comedians, people who speak-for-pay – their motive is not trust, it is pay, amusement, and attention.”
What is sad is that when Reagan used a role to make a point, everybody ridiculed him.
“42. Herb: “Based, Im sure, on the concept that you cannot put 5LB of shit in a 3LB bucket”
True, but they think they can…and that’s why they pile it so high.”
I disagree. I think they think (FSVO “think”) that is much a good idea, and they have a right to do it, so things like “impossibility” and “can’t afford it” are just evidences of the VRWC trampling the good people.
M. Simon,
Not a nuke. Never lived in a sewer pipe. Although I have on occasion glowed in the dark.
bogie wheel,
Sometimes it works.
get a new people
Fredrick the Great of Prussia viewed his nation as an appendage to his army rather then the other way around. THe enlightened Left have a similar view of the nation as an appendage of the Welfare State.
BTW, the “Who goes there?” immigration thread is still alive.
Somebody has to say it.
“The Court Jester” is one of the greatest Danny Kaye flix of all time.
It’s especially endearing to the sort of person who’s always been in trouble for cracking wise in class.
Bill Mayer needs to go live in a country where his wit, humor and mouth can get him all the attention he craves.
I would suggest the smart folks in Somalia would appreciate his line of reasoning.
Fredrick the Great of Prussia, was the most Enlightened ruler in Europe of his time, the archetype of the Benign Despot, and a patron of Voltaire.
“The pellet with the poison’s in the vestle with the pestle! The chalice from the palace holds the brew that is true!”
(until it didn’t …)
@89. Mongoose, It surely is time for the parents to get up and quell the tantrum that is rending apart this planet. This age of the terrible twos is to be polite becoming tiresome. Now, who is the parent of this recalcitrant child? Are those of us nominally lumped together as “anti-totalitarian” even capable of the deeds that will be required to stop this tantrum?
What will be the cause of a return to Judeo-Christian morals on a national scale? Will there be a return? Or are we fast approaching a time of travel to new frontiers? As the pilgrims took to escape the immorality of Europe.
@ 74. M. Simon, I propose to you that a man without faith in GOD. In reality has no faith in himself. GOD is. You may construct as many intellectual castles to defend your belief in Science without GOD. But GOD is already inside your walls before you begin construction. Denying his existence is the same as a two year old covering his eyes so that you don’t exist. I will not try to persuade you from your belief beyond asking you to look within yourself. As you become older you will either begin to understand or you will calcify. This is of no consequence for me but is of immense consequence to you. Because, in the end it is all just between GOD and the individual.
LOL. I bet I could sell tickets to a pissing contest between Maher and Chomsky provided it was staged in a not overly large fish tank.
I was going to post this comment yesterday when there was only 2 comments, but I couldn’t think of the word solipsism.
Thanks to Mongoose I now have the word — and realize, because it is so obvious, that there was no real need to invoke it.
And thanks to Firefox, when I turned on my computer this morning, the filled in BC comment form was still in the tab window. Just so you all know who shares the blame.
BTW Mongoose. I couldn’t help but notice what is at center to your focus.
Notice I fixed your pyramid of evil structure as I think it then better reflects the light you had shed on it.
I say we’re damn lucky to have Bill Maher. It’s increasingly obvious our civilization needs an enema, and as long as we can find Bill Maher, we know where to adminster it.
The above, aside from being a little crass, is, if I dare say so myself, clever.
But clever isn’t the same as smart. Clever is rearrainging thoughts into surprising patterns, which can be enteratining or thought provoking. Smart is understanding whether the new pattern means anything or if it’s just a momentary diversion – mere shadows in the grass instead of a stalking tiger. Clever is an input to smart, but not the whole thing by itself. It’s like gasoline to an internal combustion engine. Used properly and in the right amount, it makes the engine run. Sloshing around all by itself it’s highly dangerous.
A big problem we’ve developed is the habit of mistaking clever for smart. Bill Maher is clever. Richard Fernandez is smart. The problem extends to an awful lot of intellecutal pursuits. Art for instance. Splashing colors around on a canvas and calling it “abstract” art is to clever as a Norman Rockwell painting is to smart. (and a whole bunch of other things that go under the name “modern art” are to abstract art as “idiotic” is to “clever”).
That’s not to say that clever doesn’t have it’s place and can’t be entertaining. It can be very entertaining, it just doesn’t by itself solve a problem. I found a clever way to call Maher a name, but I’m not smart enough to convince all the kids to not take him seriously.
The Grammar Nazi in me peeks out:
“The pellet with the poison’s in the vestle with the pestle!”
“Vessel”, as in a cup or a dish; a container.
Love Danny Kaye. Reminding self to put in a Netflix order for some of his movies which do *not* have superfluous “evil Republican” jibes scattered throughout.
I’ve decided to state my own three axioms, simply because this post is an opportunity:
1; There is truth
2; Truth is knowable
3; If you disagree with me too very much, I’ll fight ya.
I think I formulated these axioms when I was three years old, or, more probably, was simply born with them. I think this is the natural orientation of anybody of psychological health.
As to the necessary expression of modesty: I carry with me as a constant image given me by a very excellent highschool chemistry teacher:
“Knowledge is a sphere. What you know is inside it, what you don’t know is outside it. As the surface of the sphere increases, your knowledge of your own ignorance increases. Whether you consider yourself smart, or whether you consider yourself ignorant, depends on which way from the skin of the sphere you look. You move in the direction you face.”
A very smart man. Any smart man should feel very inferior.
Of course, sometimes very dumb bozos get in your face and you just can’t shake them. It’s disruptive of contemplative peace. Bill Maher can be ignored, Barack Obama can’t be, and he’s dangerous.
As to virtue having a cost? That may soon be more true than any of us had ever expected possible in America. But you might as well be good humored about it. After all, somehow, in some vast way, everything you do matters.
I, personally, am not going to quietly get into the boxcar.
I would prefer fair elections.
Well said, JMH.
In the era of nothing-impresses-me ‘distain chic’, everyone’s a member of the Algonquin Roundtable. Bon mot, insult and put downs have masquerade as discourse. Rhetoric is no longer in the service of logic or reason.
Maher’s critique of the society which pays him handsomely for his ‘sneering waiter’ routine reminds me of the old admonishment against criticizing your wife’s judgment: after all, look who she married. So too with Maher’s catty sneering and snark, which is less social commentary than a window into Maher’s hangups and issues.
Wretchard,
Thank you for # 47.
Jim
Diversity is fine… if you know to impose out-of-bound markers to keep the excesses away. Step out of line, and ‘thwack’ goes the cane. Keeps everybody honest.
The problem lies with maintaining the correct markers, and making sure people understand why the markers are there. The problem with the US, I think, is that diversity was promoted as cover for political correctness to stifle critical thinking, and hence the markers used were the wrong ones. Witness the gradual withdrawal of conservative thought from the media and academia.
I have to agree somewhat with whiskey, but I disagree with his thesis about the ultimate cause being gender politics. The promotion of certain thought patterns and the ascension of the welfare state due to the policies of politicians over the decades are the cause of the prevailing attitudes amongst the various sub-groups in the US, leading to the current mess. If the conditions weren’t the way they are, then gender politics wouldn’t have become an issue and a problem.
bogie wheel @ 86
Getting a new people? That sounds like unlimited immigration… But even immigrants have their hopes and dreams… and what happens when those hopes are dashed?
The strange thing about the gramscians is that after they’ve achieved power, which is what they’ve managed to do, what’s next? I assume they’re not a bunch of crazy nihilists, but they really did think they were right. And as you said, the ultimate test of their beliefs now comes against human nature. Unless they managed, via technology, to devise ways (ala Draka) to control human nature, they’re going to lose.
I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But I personally cannot get past Maher’s butt-ugly face long enough to know what he believes. Thanks to the above, I’m glad to know I haven’t missed out on anything. Love this website. Thanks W.
M Simon @ #73:
I had an interesting conversation with a young family member yesterday. He is a Marine with 1 tour in Iraq and is scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan in October. As a former Marine myself (and Vietnam Vet) he feels I’m “ok” to talk to.
I’ll just say this, he and his buddies don’t have much use for O. They are keenly aware of the direction this administration is taking the Country and they don’t like it one bit.
> Wretchard: “Every logical system is founded on a set of unproved assumptions we call axioms or postulates. I think what defines a culture is a core set of beliefs for which no proof is required. They simply are, and the members of that culture choose to believe in them and that defines them.”
Maher and perhaps other atheists might benefit, as one poster suggested, from actually reading Chesterton. They might also benefit from an examination of presuppositional apologetics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics
Doug Wilson, a Presbyterian minister from Moscow, Idaho, is a presuppositionalist and has been debating Christopher Hitchens, who may be an atheist but doesn’t seem to suffer from the same sort of insufferability that exudes from Bill Maher’s pores even through the television screen.
The idea behind presuppositional apologetics is that every world view that is not Christian is self-contradictory. It’s a bold statement. It maintains that atheists, to defend their own world view, are forced to borrow from the Christian’s.
For example, a pose of moral indignation against Christians (such as Maher exhibits) does not follow from atheism. If atheism is true, then our world is the accidental result of physics — molecules clanging, light shining, gravity pulling, chemicals combining, all with no guiding hand. That means man invented morality. That means it does not transcend man. That means it has no moral authority, and that morality is but an illusion, a conceit, consisting only of brain chemistry. So if morality is no higher than man and is in fact of the same essence as a Dr. Seuss book, why waste one’s time with poses of moral indignation? Why prefer one set of brain chemicals to another?
The atheist can respond that morality is simply man’s response to the necessity of survival — that practical experience necessitated the invention of morality. But if that is true, then religion, like morality, is also a result of evolution. So why are atheists enraged at the persistence of this one manifestation of evolution that they don’t happen to like, while heralding every other work of evolution as if they’re John the Baptist and evolution is the long-awaited Messiah?
Do atheists think that religion may have once been necessary, but is no longer? That doesn’t make much sense, particularly when you compare the fertile birth rates of Islamic countries vs. the flaccid birth rates of post-Christian Europe, which will become Europistan in about thirty years. If this is about survival of the fittest, who do you think will survive?
To a Christian, morality is absolute as part of the essence of God. So is logic. So is meaning. Every atheist who debates a Christian believes there is something that transcends the argument, by which their respective arguments may be judged — but it doesn’t follow from their premises. In the materialist world of the modern atheist, there is no such thing as something that transcends man. They appeal to a logic that doesn’t exist except as a human notion. We cannot even dissect a brain and tell which chemicals or electric impulses represent logic and which represent fallacy. In Wilson’s memorable illustration, to such a world view, it is no more accurate to say a debate is happening than it would be to shake two cans of soft drink, give each its own podium, and open them — and then call the resulting foam and froth a debate.
As C.S. Lewis said, if God exists, that is the most important fact in the world. You cannot hope to understand the world if you ignore that fact.
Pascal Fervor,
barbarians, poltroons, vipers, charlatans and idiots
Your cut rate law firm?
In an Orwellian effort the commie progressive left is attempting to relabel the concept of fascism.
http://www.alternet.org/politics/141819/istheu.s.onthebrinkof_fascism/?page=entire
The commie left does not get to brand patriotic Americans exercising their Constitutional rights as fascists – but they want to seize the word and concept. no damn way. I have confronted several lefties already about their attempted use of the word.
obama, SEIU and ACORN and friends and the current progressive movement are the fascists, not true Americans. SEIU pushing grannies around is fascist.
I am getting tired of hearing about the far left’s version of social justice through fascism. If America wanted this garbage we would have signed up for the SDS insanity and the Bolivian revolution the first time Hayden and Ayers brought it around – not!
plus check Alternet about the phantom coming of the new teacher, Maitreya, to damn weird. Had not heard of that wack job concept yet.
Guess Obama is getting the place ready for him to move in.
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its “successor” x’ is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x’ = 1.
P4. If x isn’t 1, then there is a y in N such that y’ = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x’ in S) holds, then S = N.
Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a’
(using P1 and P2). If b isn’t 1, then let c’ = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)’.
Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1′
2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.
Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2
Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1′ = 2 Q.E.D.
Yes, Russell was an atheist; but Alfred North Whitehead, the co-author of the Principia, was a Christian theologian.
By the way, Godel too believed in God; as did Newton, Galileo, Father Copernicus, Father Lemaitre (big bang theory), Father Mendel, Einstein … actually I think only Halley (of Halley’s comet fame) was an atheist; Feynman was probably an agnostic.
Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Michelangelo . . . all believers. We’re in good company, friends.
What I find so off-putting about Maher and the others is the absolute arrogance; OF COURSE I’m right, OF COURSE anyone who disagrees with me deserves euthanasia. While I’m firm in the correctness of my beliefs, I also try to keep in mind that I’m fallible. As the good W points out, make a decision based on the available information and do your best.
It would be fascinating to see a thread solely on personal axioms or foundational points. While many of us have arrived at the similar points intellectually, politically, religiously, etc., I would bet we start with very different axioms. Some of my foundational points (which may be contradictory):
1) Whatsoever you do to the least of My people, that you do unto Me.
2) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (or “There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”)
3) Anyone who clings to the historically untrue – and thoroughly immoral – doctrine ‘that violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedom.
“”"”"”The LEFT are busy destroying the institutional memory of our country,”"”"”"
#64: Mumbai Gal: Since part of the context of your post was the Sandy Berger incident, are you aware that a removable hardrive supposedly containing all the archived records of the Clinton administration disappeared from a Greenbelt, MD facility recently? Couldn’t find anywhere any mention of whether there was a complete backup.
FWIW, I’m right around the corner from where the construction trailer was that Berger hid his stolen documents under for later retrieval.
The Jazz photos story is flabbergasting. I’ll pass that on to the academics around here.
re: 116. Ahh Buckets, in quote number 3 you’re speaking my language. I was so disappointed at the movie, it brought very little of the true message from the book out.
Violence straightened out Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. It will work wonders on this current crop of oppresors, too.
Doug Wilson, a Presbyterian minister from Moscow, Idaho
Doug Wilson. O my God, I sold that man the land he lives on, a big mistake.
He has dreams of the wonderful life it was of being an honored slave in the old American south.
He’s nuts.
Wonder how much money Maher and Huffington make from Soros or Soros funded organizations. The extent of his involvement, including ACORN and PBS, is being disclosed. His full agenda includes the loss of Sovereignty for the USA and our military being controlled by the UN. Whats it going to take to wake up America.
@Lifeofthemind 36
I wonder if you are familiar with the science fiction short story “Day of the Moron” by H. Beam Piper? If not, based on you comment to John Lynch, I think you might find it interesting.
It was published in 1951 by Astounding Science Fiction and is available at Project Gutenberg.
I prefer the first HTML edition as it has the original artwork. YMMV.
Regards and thanks for your keen observations.
JD @ 110: I find comfort in your post about your young Marine relative and his buddies. I’m glad they’re paying attention. We on the home front may need them soon.
119 bob — I have no idea what Wilson said on that subject, but I think even a nut can be capable of good thinking on subjects that don’t abrade against the nutty part of the brain.
Controversy
Wilson’s most controversial work is probably his pamphlet Southern Slavery, As It Was (ISBN 1-885767-17-X), which he wrote along with League of the South co-founder Steve Wilkins. Critics such as the History News Network (HNN), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) have argued that it is an inaccurate account of American slavery motivated by a racist ideology. Eminent historians of the field such as Peter H. Wood, Clayborne Carson, and Bancroft Prize winner Ira Berlin condemned the pamphlet’s arguments, with Wood calling them as spurious as holocaust denial.[6] Its publishing also created a public outcry among Wilson’s neighbors.[7] According to the HNN, most residents opposed Wilson and Wilkins’ views.[6]
Wilson held a February 2004 conference for those who supported his ideas, such as pastor George Grant, in the University of Idaho. The University published a disclaimer distancing itself from the event, and numerous anti-conference protests took place. Wilson described critical attacks as ‘abolitionist propaganda’.[6] He also has repeatedly denied any racist leanings. He has said that he intended to defend the once traditional biblical approval of slavery since, in his view, disregarding that tradition will lead to disregarding biblical sanction against homosexuality as well.[7] A few white nationalists have reviled and criticized him for his open and vehement opposition to racialist movements such as “Kinism”, which Wilson has labeled as “Skinism” for its adherents’ unapologetic and, Wilson as argues, anti-biblical racism.[8] Wilson has described his own views as ‘paleo-Confederate’. He has said, “I would say we’re fighting in a long war, and that [the Civil War] was one battle that we lost.”[7]
Canon Press ceased publication of Southern Slavery, As It Was when it became aware of serious citation errors in several passages authored by Wilkins.[9] Robert McKenzie, the history professor who first noticed the citation problems, described the authors as being “sloppy” rather than “malevolent.”[10] Wilson reworked and redacted the arguments in the tract, and published (without Wilkins) a new set of essays under the name Black & Tan (ISBN 1-59128-032-X) after consulting with historian Eugene Genovese.[8]
In an article in Christianity Today, Wilson was described as someone that could not speak for the “mainstream” of evangelical Christians, and it also remarked that “Wilson has gone out of his way to alienate people.” The magazine placed Wilson more along the vein of Christian Reconstructionists. Although Wilson disputed this categorization, he stated in an interview that he would support the forced exile of LBGT people and the execution of adulterers. He also said, “I’m not proposing legislation. All I’m doing is refusing to apologize for certain parts of the Bible.” [7] The SPLC’s blog Hatewatch has blasted Wilson’s comments. wiki
If you have Wilson and Hitchens for a debate, you’ve got an interesting afternoon, I’ll tell you that.
It’s Christ Church he’s head of, and they almost have the women in burkas.
One wag wrote to our local newspaper–”I too qualify to be on the Board of Directors. I have a penis, and I’m a moron.”
Which is close to the truth.
Near as I can make out, Doug’s got it in his head that he’s Father Abraham, Moses, Elijah, John the Grim Baptist, and Jesus all rolled into one, if such a thing were possible.
Rusti,
Thank you