Oct
3
3
“They did not need to use attack dogs to get him into the shuttle.”
It’s Friday. You should be laughing at this:
China Launches First Willing Manned Mission Into Space
UPDATE: And for you vets out there (mikey, I’m lookin’ at you), these are cool shirts:
You can buy them here.
PeeJ said,
October 3, 2008 at 22:04
This would be brilliant if it was satire.
Xanthippas said,
October 3, 2008 at 22:13
Freaking…hilarious. Frankly, the dude’s lucky they didn’t just photoshop a cute Chinese girl’s face onto his head.
Gary Ruppert said,
October 3, 2008 at 22:27
The fact is what the hell is this?
PeeJ said,
October 3, 2008 at 22:49
That’s your dick, Gary. Now be a good boy and put it back in your pants where it belongs.
Lesley said,
October 3, 2008 at 22:51
Just because I’d vote for him doesn’t mean I’d wear a shirt for him.
He just agreed to that horrible sell out bill. Yes the Dems are the best choice but they still suck hairy goats balls.
HumboldtBlue said,
October 3, 2008 at 22:54
No goddamned self-respecting former infantryman would EVAH! be caught dead wearing an armor t-shirt. You may as well ask us to wear McPalin shirts. Fuckin’ treadheads.
t4toby said,
October 3, 2008 at 23:09
Did you work out your tie issues, Peej?
PeeJ said,
October 3, 2008 at 23:15
I got yer tie issues right here, pal!
Seriously though, DOWN is more or less toward the bunghole. I didn’t say “points directly to” so phhthtththtphptphpthphtt
Also, I just have to share this.
PS - are we having server issues again?
t4toby said,
October 3, 2008 at 23:18
Socialest.
Mavrik.
Exactly.
Matt T. said,
October 3, 2008 at 23:31
Jesus loves the little children and so do I.
J— said,
October 3, 2008 at 23:35
PS - are we having server issues again?
Daily Kos linked to Clif’s “Soft Bigotry” post. That could be slowing things down.
No Limit Soldier said,
October 3, 2008 at 23:45
I’m in the tank for Obama.
Uggghhhh!
rotten mcdonald said,
October 3, 2008 at 23:52
Cliffy hits the bigs.
I can say I knew him when,
And his dog is Teh Cute.
PeeJ said,
October 4, 2008 at 0:06
Heh. Sadlynauts rule! Here’s Ebert, on Sarah Lundergard Palin. The ever-sharp Sadlies nailed it last night.
mantis said,
October 4, 2008 at 0:15
“When it was discovered that beating people to death was much more cost effective.”
Now come on, who doesn’t know that?
mikey said,
October 4, 2008 at 0:16
Sorry, Humboldt’s right.
You ain’t gonna find anybody who was Airborne goddam CAV in a metal box. For ANYBODY.
Find one with a Huey on a hot LZ that says “I’m in the TALL Weeds for Obama” and I’ll be whipping out a credit card…
mikey
PeeJ said,
October 4, 2008 at 0:20
I just can’t help myself - I have to ahare this as well.
At Intrade.com, Obama is about to break 70, up about 5 from yesterday) while McCain has dropped to 30 even (down ~4.5). I’ve been following the intrade #s for some while and never have I seen such a dramatic change.
For the uninitiated, Intrade is a public opinion marketplace - you can buy “stock” in a particular even, say Obama getting elected. What the above says is people are 70% confident Obama will win. People give McCain a 30% chance.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
October 4, 2008 at 0:24
People give McCain a 30% chance.
Hte Free Market™ must be rigged!
It’s no fair!
Waaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
SamFromUtah said,
October 4, 2008 at 0:31
That T-shirt will just remind people of Dukakis!
Obama is DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
Lesley said,
October 4, 2008 at 0:34
How about this on a t-shirt?
“Life isn’t fair.” 13 cars. 7 houses McCain
J— said,
October 4, 2008 at 0:46
The pro-victory political science professor working in Southern California goes after Sadly, No! for no specific reason and makes a prediction about weekend developments.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
October 4, 2008 at 0:52
But the d00d loves him some Word Salad Bible Spice.
SamFromUtah said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:00
“Pro-victory”?
How 2004!
Snorghagen said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:08
And Donald Douglas loves his Ayn Rand (check out his favorite books).
Notice this line…
I also abhor irrationalism in argumentation.
…coming from a wingnut. That is surrealism at its most profound.
SamFromUtah said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:14
That is surrealism at its most profound.
Nah, it’s just like with every other Objectivist. They define “rational” and “objective” as synonyms for “agreeing with me”.
Jennifer said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:26
I have no idea how I missed this at the time; perhaps it’s because when I was younger I HAD A LIFE and didn’t watch much TV, but this will be of particular interest to some of our Rupperts et al.
I wonder if it came with a Barbie’s Dream Bridge playset?
MzNicky said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:27
“Life isn’t fair.”
Thus Spake Jimmeh Carter. Do Not Use.
Smut Clyde said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:28
Proudly eschewing irrationalism since 1994!
MzNicky said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:31
“I also abhor irrationalism in argumentation.”
But not laughable pomposity. Laughable pomposity makes me sound all smart n’ shit.
WereBear said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:32
I have read a number of Ayn Rand biographies, and all I can say is that she epitomized the wingnut’s love of rationalization.
She bullied her husband and her boy toy’s wife into agreeing that it made absolute sense for her to have an affair with said boy toy. Then she did.
And that was just the tip of an iceberg of weirdness.
In her defense, I read her first, obscure novel, about life in Soviet Russia, and I understand how she went crazy. But she could have gotten better, and never did.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:34
I also abhor irrationalism in argumentation.
Wingnut strives to reach the George Fwill level of smug assholery.
Smut Clyde said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:34
I eschew to chew blue goo.
i cn hz “In the Tank for McCain” t-shirt? kthnxbai.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:53
For five and one half years, John McCain couldn’t clean out septic tanks, SC.
mikey said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:55
Oh sure, the content seems appropriate enough, but the style seems all wrong for it to be hanging in the upstairs bathroom at Chez Smut…
mikey
Jon H said,
October 4, 2008 at 1:55
My Tank Is Fight
Matt T. said,
October 4, 2008 at 2:01
She bullied her husband and her boy toy’s wife into agreeing that it made absolute sense for her to have an affair with said boy toy. Then she did.
Wasn’t said boytoy the head of whatever thinktank dedicated to spreading Rand’s ideas? And didn’t Rand basically pull a Soviet-style erasing of said boytoy’s involvement with her religio,er…philosophy*, sorry, once she caught said boytoy en flagrente aardvarkus (h/t Joe Bob Briggs) with some younger woman?
* One of my philosophy teachers asked us on the first day of class to name our favorite philosopher. I said Socrates. When some dude said Ayn Rand, said prof quipped, “Well, I meant real, actual philosophers, not bad novelists who are taken too seriously by their readers, their followers and themselves.” Guy got pissed off, but after reading Atlas Shrugged, I lost all respect for anyone who buys into that shit. On that note, my brother read and dug The Fountainhead - ’cause he’s an artiste - and toyed with Objectivism until he actually did some research on the topic. After that, not so much. He may be an artist, but Baby Bro’s no dummy.
dave said,
October 4, 2008 at 2:05
In a steel cage battle of wits between Donald Douglas and Susie Bright, I don’t much like Donald’s chances…
Interview with Chinese astronaut » The Peking Duck said,
October 4, 2008 at 2:06
[...] A rare spoof about China. Baked by Richard @ 8:06 am, Filed under: General [...]
Jennifer said,
October 4, 2008 at 2:40
Rand? The primary appeal is to the emotionally adolescent.
That’s all I’ve ever thought need to be said on that topic.
Jennifer said,
October 4, 2008 at 2:43
In her defense, I read her first, obscure novel, about life in Soviet Russia, and I understand how she went crazy. But she could have gotten better, and never did.
Bulgakov wrote a much better novel about life in Soviet Russia, and he might have been crazy at the time he wrote it. Also, he never got out of Soviet Russia. So there’s really no excuse for Rand.
MaineMan said,
October 4, 2008 at 2:58
Hmmm.
Don’t know whether or not this is posted at MSNBC.com yet (or if it ever will be), but Olbermann just called out Rich Lowry on national TV for masturbating to Palin’s debate performance.
Oh. Yes. He. Did.
Snarking on Lowry’s posted description of said debate performance, of course. But still.
not funny said,
October 4, 2008 at 2:59
Not funny. Not even a little. And no, I’m not Chinese.
hamletta said,
October 4, 2008 at 3:01
One of my favorite movie writers, Glen Erickson, did a review of The Fountainhead that suddenly made clear to me that Ayn Rand was the anti-Christ. He musta been raised Catholic or something.
If you have TCM on your cable dial, it’s worth looking out for. It’s a laff riot! I don’t understand how such intelligent artists as King Vidor, Gary Cooper, and Patricia Neal didn’t just piss themselves laughing over the script (penned by Rand herself, natch). To say the woman had a tin ear for dialog is to over-praise her.
Re: the T-shirt: The apostrophe is upside down and backwards. I hate that.
Lesley said,
October 4, 2008 at 3:34
Lindsay has a video up of McSnarly
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/10/mcscary.html
The Truth said,
October 4, 2008 at 3:35
I’m seeing a lot more bumper stickers and signs for McCain and Palin lately. This is in my exceedingly blue state, and yet the mania for Obama certainly seems to have crested and begun to wane. You liberals pegged your hopes on the Obama-McCain debate, which McCain shone in, and now pathetically you hope for Palin to stumble.
Perhaps in debate #2 we will finally see the “dominance” you’ve been hoping Obama will exhibit. But I wouldn’t count on it, liberals.
Lesley said,
October 4, 2008 at 3:51
The Truth might be confused and/or he might not be reading the captions.
This one’s a ringing endorsement though.
Big Bad Bald Bastard said,
October 4, 2008 at 4:12
ZOMG! The girl in the video is wearing Sarah Palin glasses!
Smiling Mortician said,
October 4, 2008 at 4:16
Lindsay has a video up of McSnarly
What’s fascinating in that clip is how soft-spoken and gentle the questioners are. They sound just like some of the better mental-health professionals I’ve known when they’re talking down a raving psychotic. What would he have done had there been a single forcefully presented question? He’s as petulant as Bush, but you get the sense he might actually be packing heat. Scary indeed.
justme said,
October 4, 2008 at 4:22
Also Sprach McThuselah.
Waahh.
Lesley said,
October 4, 2008 at 4:36
I found Mr. McHonesty’s long winded non answer to the question about his personal health insurance puzzling. In a round about way he paid high praise for the publicly funded health insurance that has covered him for most of his life. He mentions a short spell in which he had no coverage and, if I’m not mistaken he said it didn’t work out so well.
I guess what’s good for the gander isn’t appropriate for anyone else.
justme said,
October 4, 2008 at 4:38
This is really about all I can think of anytime Rand is brought up.
I have one friend who apologetically cops to buying in to a certain amount of objectivist drivel. I think he knows that it’s drivel, but would like it if the world was that simple. I give him a certain amount of leeway for having grown up fundie in Detroit and making it out in one piece.
PeeJ said,
October 4, 2008 at 4:41
Ayn Rand is the most fantastic philosopher ever. I mean that quite literally.
WereBear said,
October 4, 2008 at 4:43
Yup. He shoulda used Objectivist arguments. Instead of sneaking around.
MzNicky said,
October 4, 2008 at 4:44
I’d love to watch Josh Marshall’s vids if only Josh Marshall wasn’t the main feature attraction.
PeeJ said,
October 4, 2008 at 5:22
MzNicky, I’m with you. I don’t why he insists on introducing every one. They’d be better without him. Seems he’s got a media whore jones he needs to satisfy.
suedehead said,
October 4, 2008 at 6:45
Thanks, Brad. I needed a laugh and ONN is my new primary news source.
And…YAY! Ayn Rand! I read almost all of her work as a younger (almost) adult and it kind of made sense to me at the time. Then I grew into an actual adult and, well, I’m glad she’s still an interesting foil for clear thinkers.
“Philososophy, Who Needs It? (We all do)” is still on my shelf and my love/hate for her only intensified as I watched the inscrutable Helen Mirren absorb her mien (I imagine) on film.
Valerie Solanas said,
October 4, 2008 at 7:13
Ugh. That’s the Onion video that has stopped me from looking at more Onion videos. It’s not that China’s space program is on the up and up or that the segement doesn’t make sense. It’s more that China’s space program is low hanging oppression, more a financial crime than cultural devolution. Which reminds me that I’m pretty sure Bob Dobbs is barely known in China, even with 8 million non-licensed followers, and Confucius is the most popular word in Shanghai trance.
PeeJ said,
October 4, 2008 at 7:15
AmericanPowerBlog probably linked to S,N! solely so he’g get noticed here. Angling for the coveted “New WWotW” award, I expect.
Dhalgren said,
October 4, 2008 at 7:25
And on a sports note -
Can all the Angels fans finally stuff their thundersticks and their fucking rally monkeys up their drugged-up California asses?
I believe so.
K-Rod……Donnie Moore. Fucking just kill yourself. Please.
suedehead said,
October 4, 2008 at 7:50
“…their drugged-up California asses.”
Booty Bumps 4 All, y’all !!!
g said,
October 4, 2008 at 7:52
Oh, hey!! someone’s paying attention to her shoes!
fuck me pumps
HTML Mencken said,
October 4, 2008 at 8:10
I flirted with Randroidism for a while, when I was a teenager. I think it’s a sort of normal thing for rebellious nerds to go through, which is why holding onto Objectivism into adulthood is evidence of arrested intellectual and psychological development.
What broke me was the first novel, her stab at ‘realism’, We The Living. Lachrymose, maudlin… so unbearably corny. But even then I was a glutton for punishment, so I went ahead and read all of Atlas Shrugged. The long diatribe somewhere in the first third of the novel against ecological responsibility — hell, against nature itself — horrified me. Then there was the guy who worked for Dagny (or was it Hank?) who bought the Objectivist line of crap but at the same time openly considered himself a beta male. How much more untruthful to human psychology could the author be, I wondered. No one would espouse the individual-as-Superman philosophy and at the same time admit himself to be second rate. The whole point to Randroidism is, basically, its utility in deluding losers that they are, in fact, winners; its function is the reinforcement of self-esteem to sociopathic levels. And so, certainly no “squire” is going to buy Objectivism and still think himself a squire: he’s gonna think himself a “knight” or not bother at all.
Then there was the Francisco D’Acona character, the Copper King, which took some chutzpah for that bitch Miss Rosenbaum to write considering the history of copper extraction in South America. And finally, there was John Galt’s speech, which took me two days to get through because it kept putting me to sleep.
I still think, though, as art, Anthem isn’t too terrible a dystopian novella. As a warning, or pedagogy, or even propaganda, it’s nothing compared to Animal Farm or 1984, which warn against basically the same thing. (Brave New World is the only classic dystopian novel I’ve read whose warning is still applicable [now, actually, more than ever]. While By The Waters of Babylon, a short story, remains relevant in the same context.)
[I started writing a post the other night while fried related to this stuff, incidentally; maybe I'll finish it sometime.]
Of all wingnuts, I hate libertarians most; of all libertarians, I hate Randroids the most. A tiny amount of libertarians actually want the government to leave everyone alone. Most, however, adopt their philosophy out of more personal needs: sociopathic self-esteem, again. As such their brand of social Darwinism is the most obviously depraved, because these people, deep down, are some of the most insecure and paranoid people on the planet. Thus, it’s not enough that they should be seen to succeed; it’s that they must see other people “fail” — and most importantly, suffer — to convince themselves that they truly are achievers. Most libertarians and all Randroids *want* “inferior” people to perish. But they lack the courage to do it by their own hand, in the fashion of traditional fascists, so they invent something called “nature” (which in practice means lack of government — remember, to a libertarian and Randroid, “there is no such thing as society”) to do it for them.
(Fun fact: Only on a libertarian site — in this case Hit and Run — will you find such anthropologically-retarded comments as “there is no such thing as other cultures, only freedom or collectivism.”)
Lesley said,
October 4, 2008 at 8:25
Valerie Solanas
Whoa, that name brings back memories.
Lesley said,
October 4, 2008 at 8:34
Folk song for our times
A Different Jake H. said,
October 4, 2008 at 8:35
HTML, bravo…
A Different Jake H. said,
October 4, 2008 at 8:41
My only criticism of that book (and it’s a completely unfair one) is that, as with Gibson and Neuromancer, the author did not anticipate the invention of personal computers, the Internet (hell, even BBS’s), and cellphones, and the communications revolution brought by those technologies.I remember reading a preface to Brave New World written by Huxley 10 or so years later where he lamented that he did not take into account the earth-changing impact of nuclear weapons (and power). But in retrospect, nukes have changed our world far less than the 80’s and 90’s era tech that I mentioned.
A Different Jake H. said,
October 4, 2008 at 8:42
Ok, I goofed, Neuromancer had PC’s and the Internet, but not cellphones and WiFi.
A Different Jake H. said,
October 4, 2008 at 8:46
The part that Neuromancer got wrong was how absurdly expensive RAM (and what was presumably flash RAM) was, and how impossible it would have been for them to fit the kind of data they were talking about into the sizes of RAM that they mentioned. And that’s a pretty minor goof, all things considered. Gibson basically didn’t know about Moore’s Law, but envisioned the rest fairly accurately (and with such visual impact:
And to think that kids 10 years younger than me will read that and think he must have meant some kind of ultra-blue sky.
A Concerned Reader said,
October 4, 2008 at 9:00
If you want to read real American philosophers try Rawls, Quine, Peirce, and Dewey.
Rand was a lightweight. A third rate mind, at best.
PeeJ said,
October 4, 2008 at 9:00
I wish was less spifflicated sp I could correct thoroughly, you Jake m’boy. In the meantime, Gibson gets so much wrong it’s almost funny. The outsider hero, who doesn’t really need to know anything, who learns how to hack into the most complex systems ever devised by man by wqatching an old drunk, kinda blows the whole concept. Know what I mean?
Let’s take it up tomorrow.
A Different Jake H. said,
October 4, 2008 at 9:25
I wish I was less splifflicated myself so I would have made some better insights, PeeJ, but I’m totally with you about Gibson getting all of those things wrong. I just meant that he foresaw the rough outlines of those respective technologies, even though not in a way that they actually work IRL.
Looking forward to it. Since I can only talk about my work in the most general of terms, it’s fun to use the sci-fi frame of reference. I’ve got to head in to the office this weekend anyway and catch up on some triple-s3kret c0d0r1ng tasks for the current sprint.
It’s fortunate for my ability to get other tasks accomplished that the volume on S, N! has decreased in recent months: I think it’s the calm before the storm. I’ve been pretty confident that our guy’s going to win handily for at least the past 2 months. The InTrade thing and the various EV and popular vote predictions have clenched it for me.
On topic, watching the videos on the BarackObamadotcom YouTube channel is always invigorating. The Bill Clinton speech at the college in Florida was in his inimitable style, awesomely intelligent, and it also showed me that Bill Clinton is still the biggest babe magnet of the bunch, judging from the ladies standing behind him during the speech. The 10-minute Barack bio sketch is very powerful as well.
justme said,
October 4, 2008 at 10:29
I often see the modern Republicans as very “Lord of the Flies”, what with being put in a situation where there really is no external power check, and their internal moral compasses existing on a fifth-grade level.
I’m just waiting for January, when we can see the shoes on the beach.
justme said,
October 4, 2008 at 10:38
Hmmm, sounds sorta familiar.
Interrobang said,
October 4, 2008 at 18:56
I still think, though, as art, Anthem isn’t too terrible a dystopian novella.
That’s because it’s plagiarised wholesale from Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We, which is actually a good dystopian novel. Try reading them back to back sometime (I did) and comparing the publication dates. And you can chalk up another strike against Rand while you’re at it.
Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said,
October 4, 2008 at 21:27
I still hold that the worst thing about Objectivism is inspiring the pain-in-the-ass concept albums Rush puts out.
Fuck you, Neil Peart.
Porlock Hussein Junior said,
October 5, 2008 at 9:46
justme looks forward to seeing the shoes on the beach, and so do the rest of us. But following the pointer to the Obama youtube site, and hearing the “All across America…” gave me a sudden realization that makes my weekend: in a couple of months — all right, three of them — I’ll turn on the TV and hear a Presidential speech, and that’s the voice I’ll hear!
Does that not grab you? I haven’t had a sensation like that in 45 years. And I like this accent better than Boston.
HTML Mencken said,
October 6, 2008 at 1:28
That’s because it’s plagiarised wholesale from Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We
Hmm. I’ve read several people make the same accusation against 1984. I need to read We eventually and make up my own mind.
I still hold that the worst thing about Objectivism is inspiring the pain-in-the-ass concept albums Rush puts out.
Please stop. I know Andrew Northrup constantly pushes this garbage, but it doesn’t make it any truer than his similar exaggerations that all Led Zeppelin songs are about Hobbits.
There’s one Randroid Rush album. It’s 2112. That’s it. Peart was like 22 or so when he wrote it, which is ordinarily a bit late for flirtation with Objectivism, but then Peart at the time was a rural autodidact and so ought to be cut some slack about picking up passe’ intellectual fads.