Stephen Colbert "goes Galt" ... for about four seconds
By David Neiwert Thursday Mar 12, 2009 8:00am
Stephen Colbert brings our attention to the latest manifestation in conservatives' ongoing embarrassing-fanboy thing about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged -- the revolutionary notion of "going Galt":
Colbert: So, what happens is, all the successful people go on a strike. Now, the mastermind [screen script: "Hell no, we won't CEO!"] -- the mastermind behind the strike is John Galt, who bravely spends the last 60 pages of the book praising selfishness. He is a hero who tells the poor, quote, "You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you." Nation, this book is like the conservative Bible!
Now, Ayn Rand has some pretty powerful fans, including Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan, and the author of The Satanic Bible, Anton LaVey. And conservatives are using Atlas Shrugged to spur a movement:
[Michelle Malkin, to Neil Cavuto:] Going Galt -- and this of course is a reference to the famous Ayn Rand novel Atlas Shrugged, where the protagonist, John Galt, called a general strike among the wealth producers in society --
Colbert: Well said, Attractive Humanoid Lifeform. Yes! Going Galt: Rich people scaling back their productivity so that the lower-downs can't get their grubby fingers on our stuff! There's even a website: GoingJohnGalt.org. Its creator is calling for "a calculated work slowdown."
It takes a brave man to call for a work slowdown. Particularly when his site prominently features an announcement that he's looking for work.
Colbert, perhaps in a better position, tries "going Galt." It works for about four seconds.
What'll be really funny is watching these Galt-goers come scrambling back from their U.S. of A-holes when the economy gets rumbling again. I plan to welcome them back by laughing in their faces.
Though by then, of course, they'll have moved on to fresh new phony right-wing issues to get all worked up about. And they'll still believe Ayn Rand had something important to say.
I will give Atlas Shrugged one bit of credit: It was maybe the first widely published work of true, unadulterated wankery.
I don't think that's his navel he's gazing at there.
Login or Register to post comments.
More my speed:
http://thegypsykiss.com/blog/wp-content/uploa...
Milton Freidman was a better libertarian, he didn't subscribe to Rand's rantings. Naomi Klein abusively takes his words out of context and misstates his positions. If Freidman were still alive he would eat her for lunch in a debate.
Here see what I mean, Friedman on Donahue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76frHHpoNFs
It speaks volumes about the mind of the average libertarian.
friedman a libertarian? actually, he was a neoliberal.
really, how can one claim to be a libertarian and use the coercive power of the state as an oppressive regime against the people (see, chile) to skew the market? seriously, is that part of libertarianism, using the power of the state to enforce undemocratic measures on the citizens?? skewing the market at the butt of a rifle doesn't seems very libertarian to me...
friedman was a neoliberal not a libertarian, doug henwood from LBO comments:
“Though it fantasizes itself to be antistatist, neoliberalism was nonetheless accomplished only with a heavy hand of the state. It couldn’t have happened had the Federal Reserve under Paul Vocker not raised interest rates towards 20%, producing a savage recession that scared labor into submission and drove the world’s debtor countries into the arms of the IMF. It couldn’t have happened if the IMF, a body of states, hadn’t forcibly supervised the innumerable rounds of austerity, privatization, and market openings that were the ‘solution’ to the debt crisis. It couldn’t have survived the repeated state bailouts that rescued the financial system whenever it hit a wall.”
Friedman and libertarians go hand in hand, he is one of their top idols.
I don't think neoliberalism means what you think it means...
i know exactly what it means, i think you are the confused one
since neoliberalism implies the phasing out of government power in lieu of more "efficient" and de-regularized private enterprise. The "liberalism" in this case, does not refer to the "liberal" as in left wing political movement, but rather as in "laissez faire" or "liberal" deregulation of economic activity.
Neoliberalism is tightly coupled with both libertarianism and neoclassical price theory. Thus, being a libertarian, like Freidman, does not negate in any way shape or form following neoliberal principles.
You were saying?
i know exactly what it means, i think you are the confused one.
it seems you have been duped by the neoliberal propaganda, read the quote i provided again. or check out immanuel wallerstein, or david harvey, or naomi klein.
it has been shown time and time and time and time and time again that neoliberalism uses the state to funnel wealth upwards. in other words, the state is used to skew the market on behalf of the ruling class. simply look at the IMF policies since the 80s.
if you want to argue that the state skewing the market to favor the rich is what libertarianism is, then fine, make that argument. but don't fall so easily for the neoliberal propaganda that they advocate the mythical "free" market.
My point was that academically, being a libertarian does not negate following neoliberal principles.
I frankly believe both are full of shit (neoliberals and libertarians). Which explains why Friedman et al were such douches.
there's the pot calling the kettle black
Among all the babbling I guess I lost track of your point...
i consider you my favorite poster here, no shit.
i love your posts, i think you make great arguments and excellent observations.
but you obviously don't like being challenged. you get a little pissy. but, i guess i do too.
Probably my sense of humor does not translate well to the blog-form? I honestly wasn't being pissy.
I am a recovering loud mouth, so maybe...
I love being challenged if I am mistaken, as it is a learning experience. As long as it goes both ways....
I'm gettin' pissed
English style.
The claim by neoliberals to favor an unfettered market is a distortion: they do not advocate a market free from regulations.
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, explains, “in general, political debates over regulation have been wrongly cast as disputes over the extent of regulation, with conservatives assumed to prefer less regulation, while liberals prefer more. In fact conservatives do not necessarily desire less regulation, nor do liberals necessarily desire more. Conservatives support regulatory structures that cause income to flow upward, while liberals support regulatory structures that promote equality. ‘Less’ regulation does not imply greater inequality, nor is the reverse true.” Baker continues, “framing regulation debates in terms of more and less is not only inaccurate; it hugely biases the argument toward conservative positions by characterizing an extremely intrusive structure of, for example, patent and copyright rules, as the free market. In the realm of insurance and finance over the last two decades, calls for deregulation have been cover for rules that tilted starkly toward corporate interests.”
(NOTE: Baker couches his description in terms of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’. For all intents and purposes, in this example, conservative is another term for neoliberal).
Chalmers Johnson, author and president of the Japan Policy Research Institute, states in reference to the dictates of neoliberalism: “What a country gets out of such a mélange of ‘reforms’ is not economic recovery, long-term growth, or stability, but a government so weakened that it usually declines into a kleptocracy, experiences periodic collapses precipitated by rampant speculation (Mexico, 1994-95; Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia, 1997; Brazil and Russia, 1998; Argentina, 2000; Venezuela, 2002), and is forced to rely on US corporations to provide virtually all consumer products, employment, and even public services.” 7 This is not by accident, but by design. The system has been set up explicitly for the purpose of enriching corporations and local elites, and the claim of its altruistic intentions by its defenders is at best inaccurate, at worst a blatant lie.
Rand was a total nutcase. I can't believe people still give her ridiculous ideas any attention.
She was just incredibly mediocre. If she had applied the standards she was advocating in her works, to herself, she would have been in a world of trouble.
Her books/life are basically the longest hissy fit in modern history.
I wonder what would have happened if none of "us LOSERS" bought her books?
I read 'em as stories. Parts were interesting, but in "Atlas Shrugged" I skipped over that 70-page speech-to-the-world, and gave up.
I wonder if anyone in the U.S. of A-ssholes will know how to cook, wash clothes, or grow food.
I can blacksmith and have worked extensively with silver and copper.
I also am a hell of a plant grower, and manage to do it w/o petrochemicals as an added bonus. I start plants from cuttings quite regularly. I have the knowledge to properly prune trees and I know how to stack brush for easy removal.
As a cook, I can do fancy stuff on 1 burner, even. Baked goods, bread, too.
I can mend clothes and make them as well. And I can spin wool. And I crochet. I know I've slacked off in the knitting and weaving arenas, but I think I more than make up for it with my applique, beading, embroidery and quilting skills.
We're not all helpless Jabba the Hut style fat arses, you know.
We're all entitled to our own opinion - but I happen to agree with you. I think her receiver was off the hook.
*
Atlas Farted
Were you channeling Beavis and Butthead there?
OR
Is that the single greatest critique of Ayn Rand in history?
That both possibilities could be correct, just says SO much.
boggle the mind dunnit?
It's not like she deserves more, except perhaps, in the context of the damage wrought on behalf of her ideas.
*
If outhouses and sears catalogs were still the norm and I ran out of sears catalogs I could find a use for this books.
That's a laugh.
Call a general strike in this country...EVERY SERVICE WORKER IN AMERICA...these pampered bed wetters wouldnt' be able to wipe their own asses.
I remember a show about a newspaper...losing money...they fired all the administrative staff. Famous line from one of the top managers trying to make a photocopy..
"What does call Key Operator mean?"
Who does the actual work?
I thought Atlas Shrugged was a good novel. I enjoyed it. Not once did I view it as a philosophy. It was a novel - a work of fiction, to me at least, nothing more, nothing less.
EVERY company I've worked at, the higher up the ladder you are, the less work you do and the more you get paid. Those guys will take off on holiday for weeks and the company's operations don't miss a beat.
I say, "Go on strike, rich folks!" Not only will it not affect a thing, someone else under you will gladly step into your position.
I read "The Fountainhead" and found it was the only book I've EVER read where I wasn't behind the lead character. Howard Rourke is as much of an asshole as this Galt guy. He actually blows up a building meant for low-income people because his pride gets hurt.
And I asked about it...he said it wasn't worth reading, and he didn't know why he kept it.
I'm so glad you posted this. I thought it was an awesome rebuttal to one of the conservatives favorite fallback pieces. Thanks bro.
is something Union members do.
Don't conservatives detest Unions?
I think I read something recently that "Atlas Shrugged" endorses atheism. What do the boneheads think about this?
and her minions...you need to suspend..
1) reality
2) intellectualism
3) common sense
4) all of the facts about human nature that have researched and confirmed over the course of civilization.
That book is the biggest piece of tripe ever written.
It should have been published as a comic book.
More like those pamphlets the Jehovah Witnesses hand out...
Chick Tract.
Do they come with centerfolds?
Rand's does - Alan Greenspan.
And yes - he's COMPLETELY exposed.
*
because I just lost mine, with the imagery you suggested!
I suggest using quotes when referring to the "writing" in Atlas Shrugged. It's amateurish at best - completely one-dimensional characters, a bizarre, poorly developed plot, and completely transparent as a vehicle for delivering (poorly) a single message. There's a lot of fifth graders who could write a better novel. It is very useful, however, as a divining rod for the character and intellect of those who have read it. I would be wary of anyone who worships it.
They gloss over that part General...just like the parts in that "bible" they're so fond of clubbing people over the head with...they cherrypick the parts they like.
You guys embarrass yourselves. You sound just republicans.
Conservatives have abused Rands work for decades as a way of justifying their own morally decrepit philosophy, but Rand would be appalled at the current republican movement. She was a champion of intellectualism, science and moral objectivism, all major tenets the Republicans have left behind.
There were plenty of powerful, but inept or just evil characters in Rands books who are very similar to the people we see pushing the conservative movement. Elsworth Toohey is as near Rush Limbaugh as any character I've seen, Murdoch is Wynand.. etc.
Insulting her because of her appearence or any of the other cheap shots mental midgets like to throw out there shows your ignorance.
At the time I am posting this, there is *one* post that could possibly be called an attack on Rand's appearance, and even that one would be arguable.
And while you are correct that there was more to Rand than her obnoxiously bad paean to selfishness, the Colbert video and its accompanying article (and therefore the comment thread) are all about that one particular book.
So you are trying to change the subject *and* making a false accusation all in one post. Congratulations on being such a versatile Concern Troll.
we should note that no one in this thread so far had anything to say about Rand's appearance.
So the question begs to be asked: Are some of you Randbots capable of individual thinking, or are you continue to drop anymore canned responses?
Yeah...okaaaay...
I sir or madam...do NOT sound JUST republicans.
Huh?
Or for the Austinite?
The "huh" was for the Austinite!
I'm sure the Austinite is a great person....I just question his/her statement. I started this particular chain, and I was wondering if the Austinite was questioning me!
Didja check his other posts? 'Cause...wow...
I just ignored them....
but...I didn't...
};)>
I wasnt responding directly to "General Jack.." [Deleted. Flamebait-Sitemonitor]
Do you really think ANY of that lot are christians?
*
"called a general strike among the wealth producers in society"
'wealth producers'? let me guess, they mean the rich. phhpt.
a simple problem with that notion that is lost on the ruling class whores, like malkin: the ruling class does not produce wealth, they only absorb it.
the ruling class should not 'go galt', they should just 'go'. might i recommend paraguay?
In our dreams. Hoping the rich do "go galt". Hope they find that island. Oh wait a minute they all ready have a few continents
I'm also in favor of the poor and middle class going cannibalistic.
Let's take Rand to it's logical end...and see how much Randians enjoy it.
into a very small area, as they aren't very many...when the hungry, poor, unwashed hordes come for them, they'll want to leave.
Reslugs are just so desperate to get their cult going again with their ignorant sheep.
they've moved on to pathetic...and driving hard toward irrelevance.
how many of those "ignorant sheep" in the cult have ever read or even heard of Ayn Rand??!
ever read or even heard of Ayn Rand??!
or can spell it! LOL
Ayn Rand to ann coulter?
is that miserable woman taken seriously as a "philosopher". In Europe, she's considered a joke.
Besides being a horrible writer, her "philosophy" is merely a mishmash of Descartes and Nietzsche. Individual and sovereign subjects imposing their wills on the external world. Rand's version of the "overman" is simply the capitalist without conscience willing to shit on everyone for a buck.
People are FINALLY beginning to see what a fraud she really is.
to the business world. She managed to produce books that were even more boring than Nietzche's if that was even possible.
In all honesty, I don't see much if anything at all of Descartes in her works. Most of Descarte's writings would have flown over her head at supersonic speeds anyways.
She was a mediocre write at best, I have no clue how she managed to be taken seriously as a philosopher.
is basically Cartesian. Decartes postulated that there is a point of demarcation between the individual as subject and the external world of objects.
Of course, I suspect Rand's followers (an oxymoron if there ever was one) would protest that there's a lot more to objectivism than this. However, the kernal of the idea is simply warmed over Descartes.
I found her objectivism to be so simplistic, that it never occurred to me that was linked to any more complex thought currents. Much less Descartes and esp. rationalism.
Although you bring a good point. If its warmed up Descartes, then she just picked up the crumbs from weeks old leftovers at best.
To me Ayn Rand would be what a "philosopher" would look like if he or she had dropped out in 10th grade and never had any formal philosophical education.
read her book "Philosophy: Who Needs It." I can't believe I'm saying this but, in her defense, I think she did have a basic understanding of the central tenents of Western philosophy.
What she tried to do with this understanding is where I have issues.
More my kind of Van:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsO7Xr6njMA
I figured you were more of this kind of van guy...
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/61022/
Too much of Western Philosophy has been in favor of the power of the State over the rights of the Individual. Even the Utilitarians Summum Bonum seems to make the greater good of the State, and Marxism would make it the "collective," which sounds rather Borgian
What is "Marxism" exactly?
Marx's own words in the Communist Manifesto:
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.
(This is also to distinguish it from Lenin/Stalinist Vanguard of the Proletariat).
The Communist manifesto had many words, lots of which were not Marx's :-)
All the more reason for conservatives to embrace her!
:-)
Her ideas have been rejected by academics as a true "philosophy" in its own right. This has the Randites royally pissed off.
* Philosophical criticism
*
I am sure this is a purely unintentional, but this phrase means "going crazy" in Norwegian. The word gal means crazy, strange, or wrong. And to go 'galt' (gå galt) literally means to go crazy.
I guess this is just another example of the extraordinary similarity to be found in the Germanic languages: English and Norwegian.
/Michelle Malkin is part Norwegian, right?
Although 'gaga' is attributed to French in the OED, it's interesting that ga galt could also distill down to 'gaga.'
Rand got a little confused: Atlas was a slave.
Atlas was forced to hold the world on his shoulders. The Randian argument goes that wealthy elitist capitalists do the same thing; they support the entire world. And finally, "Atlas" got tired of being enslaved to the "lesser" people and shrugged his shoulders (thus releasing himself of his unwanted burden).
.. the wealthy elitists should rid themselves of the terrible burden of multi-billions and let all that cash rain down upon the unworthy masses. At the very least, they should spend (rather than amass.hoard) it on something useful and important to humanity - no?
A) Atlas was enslaved for a reason: he lost in the battle against the olympians
B) Atlas was never forced to hold the earth, he was condemned to support the heavens :-)
c) Atlas Shrugged is a bad attempt by Rand at portraying the victimizers as the victims. Because she had such contempt for the common man, that she thought that having to "put up" with the middle and lower classes was pretty much torture.
Though I think (B) is more an artifact of my ignorance on the detail of what Atlas was really doing. ^_^ Whichever one Atlas was really holding up, Rand was still using it as a symbol of the mighty one relieving himself of his unwanted burden.
And that is still definitely stupid for the reasons (A) and (C) that you listed.
B) was a lame attempt at humor, sorry ;-)
The reason why I dislike Rand, is her utter contempt for the common man. It perspirates through every single one of her works.
In the fountainhead, for example, the "hero" gets to get away with rape just because he doesn't feel like going through all the hard work that courtship implies (and he is so magnificent of a human being, that the raped lady falls in love with her rapists). Furthermore Rand's "hero" in the same book gets away with destroying other people's property because they were not up to his standards.
From a subjective reading, it is clear that Rand's hero is victimizing other people (raping people, burning houses down, etc). But she, and her followers, doesn't see it that way at all: The victim is the hero who is forced to "put up" with such "mediocrity." And thus her "heroes" are justified in lashing out and getting away with "murder" basically, on the basis that they are superior to the people they victimized. And thus, us common folk, should we be ever so lucky we get to be "f*cked" by these superior beings, as that would certainly teach us lessons that may lift us ever so slightly from our crushing mediocrity.
In the end, Rand's works are nothing more than the ramblings of a spoiled girl, who had her toys take away... by the "commoners" who had had enough of being screwed constantly. Rand could never comprehend why those "commoners" were angry, as they should have been happy that they were being screwed by such incredible humans as Rand's family themselves.
between "doing something" and making money, and between "success" and making money. For example, Paris Hilton makes $100k for a single night's appearance at a night club. The monetary value of what she does is greater than the monetary value of what you or I do; however, it doesn't make her "successful" or mean that she's "doing something."
Joe the Plumber's boss is more successful and does more than Michelle Malkin or Victoria Jackson. So, the people who bitch about being penalized for "success" or for "doing something?" Let them quit.
Huzzah, Dave Neiwert!
You can't blame Conservatives too much, Ayn Rand is the closest thing they've had to an intellectual.
The philosophy behind Atlas Shrugged has even been rebutted by a fucking video game, for crying out loud.
Go ahead, Beck. "Go Galt", and take the greedy fat bloated parasites with you. Oh no, Glenn's Going Galt! Wherever are we going to find another insane, right-wing big-mouth??
Was it 'Gauntlet' or 'Paperboy'? :)
You can't blame Conservatives too much, Ayn Rand is the closest thing they've had to an intellectual.
I just had to post that statement again...I mean...really read it...it's funny, sad, and mind numbing all at the same time.
Her and their economist over at University of Chicago - can't remember but - c'mon - everyone here knows the name . . . .
*
Von Hayek, Buchanan, Strauss, the whole NeoCon gang, etc, etc, etc.
I say let them go Galt. They basically went Dillinger with my 401K so what the hell, but they forget that there are millions of people who are just waiting for the opportunity to take their place. People like Gates, Jobs, Edison, Ford and Mellon might have some point, but to forget that Government provided the framework for them to succeed is just plain narcissistic thinking. Many successful people are narcissistic and the world might be better without them.
I for one would LOVE to see Limbaugh, O'Reily and Beck go Galt.
Bioshock was one of the best games of the last decade. Easily, hands down.
Ayn Rand was a hardcore atheist?
Please let Malkin go on strike. Please.
Malkin is a nut. We pay too much attention to her. It's like slowing down for an accident. Better not to have the accident. Go Galt already and STFU. If you are going to do it - do it, but like all these big shots it's all talk and no action. Go Galt already.
Yeah, she's fodder for posts in the progosphere, but I don't think anyone will notice when she
diesgoes Galt. The Earth isn't held aloft by some mythical being who's influenced by the Malkins (or any single person, for that matter) who shuffle atop its burden. It will continue to spin on its axis and orbit its sun long after Malkin has stopped blogging and breathing.Did anyone read the same book as I? What I got out of AShrugged was that the people who could actually do something, build a car, a railroad, went on strike so as not to be beholden to those in power who can't do anything but tell people what to do.
The people in power are the ones that say, 'no, do it this way,' or, 'make it so it can kill more people.'
I can't tell you how many times I've created something, a painting, an essay only to have someone say, "But you know what you should do..."
that people aren't trying to "dominate" you, but maybe you're just a shitty painter and people are trying to give you advice that you're free to take or leave?
Not sure what you mean about "aren't trying to dominate you." Shitty painter or not, I make paintings but people who don't do anything want to tell you how to do something.
Like the Head Honchos in the car industry, can they even turn on the conveyor belt?
.
Because Michele Malkin's refusal to work will shake the pillars of heaven and earth. Trucks will stop delivering goods. Food in the fields will go unpicked. Floors will go unswept. Baristas at Starbucks will stop making coffee.
Oh noes!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0gzQS4w1sc&pl...
Ayn Rand is dead. Her policies may live on, but we're in the process of doing something about that as well. - Mush Lamebrain
per CNN
Roanoke Times (Dec 13 2008): Radford to offer BB&T-funded business course
More at link.
Who is "BB&T"?
Wikipedia: BB&T
the REAL traitors of America work?
Banks have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to universities to get them to teach Rand's crap.
No one has to bribe universities with special "gifts" to teach Plato, Hobbes, Rousseau or Nietzsche. These philosophers were great thinkers whose ideas stand on their own merits.
And mind you .. all these universities are short of funds given the economic and financial messes .. so they are all the more likely to accept this kind of ideologically based funding.
Sick Sick Sick
Rand meets the qualifications for all conservative thought. She saw the world in black and white with broad paint strokes. So all these people go Galt and then who the hell is going to provide THEIR services... the Government which they refuse to support? You see they WANT the services because it provides the stability of the society they live and work in. It provides the environment that allows them to grow and excel, but GOD forbid they have to pay for it.
I say they actually want a reverse welfare society where they can use the roads, bridges, electrical grid, government investment in technology, waterways, national parks, legal system etc and everything else that provides the general welfare, but damn if they will pay for it.
not only do they not want to have to pay for it...by paying classes of people that they perceive as inferior and a hindrance...but they believe that those classes of people don't have any right to even exist.
Soo..the question is...who builds and maintains the roads, bridges, etc? Hamsters? Gerbils?
Shit...even those animals would have to be trained. The rich...touch animals? dirty their hands? actually WORK?
The whole idea behind this book is based on a view of the world as seen by a 5 year old.
If Atlas rolled his eyes too he'd be a 13 year old girl.
from economics to foreign policy, will the rightwing ever be able to hold up something from reality, and not fiction, as proof of their ideology's efficacy?
As a kid I always wondered if Samson was a Hebraic euhemerization of Atlas.
Even Herakles dressed as a women and forced to turn a mill wheel for Leda was said to be an astronomical symbol, and seems to be on a related note.
And Leda liked her dispay case for cake slices to rotate.
wow... when i was a kid i liked legos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J0XB8IEDeM
they could make excellent catapults.
Sometimes I'm amazed I haven't gone McVeigh on someplace/someone...
I think most boys played a bit with things that go boom...
It's in our nature to blow shit up...but my experience in that area was cut short my somewhat overprotective folks...
"You'll blow yer guts out kid!" was a phrase I tired of quickly.
Then a schoolmate blew his hand off and nearly lost an eye
making nitro-base "rockets"....so after that...the parents put the brakes on us playing with anything more than a snap-n-pop.
Which was probably for the best....I'm kinda clumsy.
There is a reason why that Bush staffer (name forgotten) referred to Bush's critics as the "reality-based" people. He was talking about how they (the Bush people) were making their own reality and leaving everyone else behind.
Of course, that was nonsense, but it stems perfectly from the republican inability to deal with the world as it is. They are authoritarians who insist on making everything, including reality itself, conform to what they want it to be.
That is also why they are able to speak such transparent insanity ("freeze government spending during a major recession!!!") with a straight face. They have their beliefs and reality is expected to conform to that, period.
Given that, is it really such a surprise that their inspirational heroes are all fictional characters?
that is why they have to make up their own.
They see reality as a buzzkill when it does not match their expectations/entitlement.
You know what was Carter's biggest sin according to conservatives? That he dared tell Americans what their reality was: we were screwed unless we did anything about it. Things like energy efficiency, trying to curb debt, etc. And why is Reagan their greatest idol? Because Reagan basically ran on a platform of fantasy.
In fact, if you look at their "heros" you see a disconcerting pattern:
Their political god Reagan, was nothing but a bad actor.
Their most respected philosopher, Rand, wasn't a philosopher at all but a bad fiction writer.
Their economic tenets are based on the works of a person, John Nash, with a severe case of schizophrenia. In fact to this day, you can explain every single action of the GOP by following principles and evaluation based on "game theory."
etc... etc... etc...
in Douglas Adams 'Hitchhiker's Guide' series, were a civilization threatened by a large meteor coming at their planet. They built three enormous spaceships to transport their people to a new planet. On the first spaceship they sent all the really important people - management consultants, security guards, telephone hygienists - so that their new world would be secure, hygienic and ready for consultation when the rest of the people arrived.
As it turned out, there was no meteor and the other two spaceships were fakes. It was just a ploy to rid their society of the dead weight. Nowadays that spaceship would be filled with hedge fund managers, conservative pundits, telemarketers, SUV designers, real estate developers, commodities traders, strip mall architects, AM radio talk show hosts, energy speculators, reality TV contestants and other assorted nitwits. I don't think it would take much to persuade them to get on board the spaceship.
Well, that's just what these self-important 'going Galt' people remind ME of.
Flash Gordon did it first, when the evil Emperor Ming, learned to put his planet Mongo out of it's orbit and shoot it at planets he wished to destroy by earthquakes, hurricanes and volcano eruption.
Essentially, he became the Evil Empire and Darth Vader, Mongo became the Death Star, Flash was split in half to make both Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, Princess Aura and Dale Arden were smushed together to make Princess Leah, and Thun the Lion Man became Chewbaca.
I'd pay to see Princess Aura and Dale Arden smushed together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B707Ava4wrY
I'll just bet you would, you dirty old man.
I copied this post and sent it to my son. He's studying for a BAGD (Bachelors in Game Design) -- focusing on the creative (visual and mental) end of interactive video games -- He'll find it interesting.
Love those helmets - is that where Python ripped them from?
*
Sounds like Galt wants to form a union and go on strike. The reason no one really would do that is that no one would miss them.
I'm going to toot my own horn here, but I wrote a diary entry about this over at Kos a few days ago called "Conservatives Turn to Atlas Shrugged...and get disappointed".
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/8/0054/2...
Ironically enough, the world Rand described in Atlas Shrugged was caused by right wing Republicans, not left wing, collectivist "cry babies". The Republicans embraced anti-intellectualism, along with anti-progress and anti-science rhetoric, which would have angered Rand.
There are a few good lines in the book, but sifting through 1000 pages to get to them isn't worth it.
The game 'BioShock'?...actually, play the game, you'll hear some familiar stuff 'go out and live your lives, go shopping...if you dont, the smugglers win'...and other eerie and topical phrases...
That was the game I was referencing in my earlier comment.
Anyone thinking of 'Going Galt' and quitting their job, please contact me so I can have it. I'm out of work, have my masters degree, and am hungry to start working again.
Damn funny
Anti-collectivism and individualism really piss you guys off.
Some of us take exception with really shoddily written books.
Nice trolling though...
BTW, there is a reason why being antisocial has always been considered a character/psyche/mental disorder, regardless how much Randbots try to turn it into a philosophical virtue.
No, we actually cherish individualism.
And joining a horde of intellectual zombies who all think Ayn Rand's philosophical crap is Teh Awesome is about the opposite of individualism.
Rand didnt champion "wealthy elitists." There were plenty of wealthy elitists in her book that she clearly had nothing but scorn for. What she championed were "Men of the mind" which is actually what the Galt movement represented. Apparently none of you have actually read the books but just hop onto the "Ihaterand" bandwagon because some liberal blog says she's "Rand=bad"
There were plenty of ordinary protagonists in her books, people who were neither wealthy or elite but still clearly symbolized a personality type she respected. Eddie, Dagny Taggerts friend, various train engineers, miners etc. Her respect wasnt isolated to the wealthy or the elite, and these ridiculous claims you read from narrow-minded liberals are just blatant misrepresentations of her philosphy. She was a champion of intellectual integrity in all people, not just the elite. The truth of the world is, theres people who move the world and the people who support them. Both roles are important, and neither should take the other for granted.
It was actually the greedy elitist CEO's who started the events in the book which lead to Galt withdrawing the "Men of the mind." Galt was neither a CEO nor wealthy, he was simply an intelligent university educated man who decried the corruption he saw in government and society. Which is another way the repubs and Rand differ, Rand clearly had a great respect for higher-learning which is something else the repubs have left behind.
All I am saying is, be objective. You people approach her philosphy, or rather the liberal cliffs notes version of it, having already decided what its all about and what you think of it.
Here is a hint, when you are trying to pretend to be all "objective" and "open minded" try to not address those who dare disagreeing using "you people."
BTW, I wish there had been a Cliff's notes of Atlas Shrugged when I was reading that book. Talk about bad endless prose. It took Rand, what 300+ pages, to make a point a normal person could have made using a 10-page (or less) essay without any significant difficulty.
Some of us take issue with shitty fiction writers being propelled as visionary philosophers.
Hey, you've nailed it. I don't have time to read shitty books.
"Life's too short to drink bad wine."
to drink cheap beer.
oh...and who draws the line...and it always seemed that these "Men of the Mind" were upper crust types.
Gee...too bad she didn't provide graphics with her books...I'm sure they'd also all be blond, blue eyed and tall.
Ignoring, for the moment, that you have completely missed the point of this vid/article/comments thread **AGAIN**, there's also the fact that you are belligerently lumping together, and misrepresenting, everyone you disagree with, and then chiding them for misrepresenting your favorite book.
Do you know what "hypocrisy" means, my dear Concern Troll?
I absolutely despise people who use forum catch-phrases like "Concern troll." Its sad...
I'm lumping the people who disagree with me on this into one group yes.... how else should I group them? By the number of letters in their screen names...? Give me a break.
I'd also love for you to explain to me what was hypocritical in anything I said... Hypocrite is like "concern troll," its just a generic insult you throw out when you've got nothing else to say
Is it because you get called that so often?
No, because its a placeholder for an actual thought.
I don't rightly care what you despise being called.
Frankly, by coming in here, and talkin outta yer backside. You left us little choice.
...because that means I'm doing something right.
And if you had any reading comprehension skills, my dear Concern Troll, you would have understood from my last post why you are a hypocrite. You are falsely lumping your critics together and lecturing them about false lumping.
Get it this time, my dear Concern Troll?
Ayn and you and Greenspan and others seem to think that she was some sort of special "philosopher."
But, it is entirely possible to pick up Rand's books and just glean from them that they are crummy, exceedingly long and boring novels.
That's what I took from this book as well. While I do not agree with her objectivism, her books aren't as bad as people on here are screaming (nor do I understand the republicans view of it). Yes, they are quite dry in some spots but not terrible by any means. I love the fountain head. That one to me is more about staying true to yourself no matter what society says.
Much as I dislike Rand's philosophy it's amusing to me that someone like Glenn Beck or Michelle Malkin think they would be among the elite in her ridiculous fantasy world.
would have had a hard time being among the "elite" if she had been a character in one of her books.
You're confusing objective with egalitarian. Nice try though.
Also, its sad that the attention span of your average american is such that everything has to be condensed into 2 pages, including pictures, or its too much for them to handle.
Login or Register to post comments.