author: Matt Barrow

subject: Re: Is perception epistemological?

text:
"Ken Gardner" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

You'd think that reasoning objectively would be a hallmark of science.
Instead, you get the environuts, the "social" scientists (barf), the
psuedoscientists.

Which of those mentioned are the ones Kolker is so fond of?

Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)


author: TC

subject: Re: Is perception epistemological?

text:
Matt Barrow wrote:

Now there's a concept.  An Objectivist psychologist.
He couldn't do anything experiment or theory lest it contract
Rand!

Its pretty well known he doesn't like social scientists.

Tom


author: Robert J. Kolker

subject: Re: Is perception epistemological?

text:
Matt Barrow wrote:

I am fond of physics and molecular biology. Not too much quakery and
fraud there. An occassional cloning hoax maybe and then there is Pons
and Fleischer with the cold fusion. They were shot down in under six months.

Bob Kolker


subject: Re: Is perception epistemological?

text:
TC wrote:

Social -what-? How many psychologists does it take to change a mind? And
if you laid all the economists on earth out linearly foot to head they
couldn't reach a conclusion.

Bob Kolker


author: Mark Bartelt

subject: netters @ LA Lohengrin ?

text:
Maybe this excessively far in advance, but are any of the {h.m.c.w|r.m.o}
folks interested in rendezvousing for a drink (or whatever) at LA Opera's
Lohengrin this September?  I'll likely be attending both matinees (Sep 15
and Sep 30), assuming that series subscribers don't grab all the tickets.

Mark Bartelt                                                 626 395 2522
Center for Advanced Computing Research              [email]
California Institute of Technology      http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~mark

      "Nur eine Waffel taugt!"  --  Parsifal, in an Eggo commercial


author: Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque

subject: Re: netters @ LA Lohengrin ?

text:
Sounds like a good idea - let's talk about it later (when
we're all sure we have tickets).  ...And Otto's is
conveniently close by.

Mark Bartelt wrote:


subject: Re: netters @ LA Lohengrin ?

text:
Back in May, I wrote ...

|  Maybe this excessively far in advance, but are any of the {h.m.c.w|r.m.o}
|  folks interested in rendezvousing for a drink (or whatever) at LA Opera's
|  Lohengrin this September?  I'll likely be attending both matinees (Sep 15
|  and Sep 30), assuming that series subscribers don't grab all the tickets.

...  and Evelyn Vogt Gamble replied ...

|  Sounds like a good idea - let's talk about it later (when we're all sure
|  we have tickets).  ...And Otto's is conveniently close by.

So, "later" is here, and it's almost September.  Any other {h.m.c.w|r.m.o}
folks going to the September 15 matinee, and might be interested in getting
together for a drink during the intermissions, and/or dinner afterwards?

By the way, the ticket situation is pretty bleak:  I'd hoped to get one for
the 15th (which I did, just barely; it's nearly sold out) and a pair for the
30th.  But for the 30th, there's nothing left but "partially obstructed view"
seats in the balcony.  Haven't yet checked the evening performances, but (as
an early-morning sort of guy) it's hard for me to stay awake that late, even
for Wagner.

I plan to check back occasionally for the 30th, in hopes that some somebody
might turn back a pair of tickets.  (Or maybe Malcolm has some for sale. ;-)

In any case, if you haven't gotten your Lohengrin tickets yet, it would be
wise to do so ASAP.

Mark Bartelt                                                    626 395 2522
Center for Advanced Computing Research                 [email]
California Institute of Technology         http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~mark

"Sheep not busy being shorn are busy frying" -- Dylan, at a NZ lamb barbecue
            [ singing "It's all right, ma (I'm only bleating)" ]


author: Phillip

subject: vrkah

text:
nirRtirnaH puro nityaM naramuurtirviniSThitaH/
kiM kaaryaM raakSasaireva puruSaH puruSe vRkaH//

"Il male ci affronta sempre in forma umana.  Che bisogno di demoni?
Homo homini lupus."


author: Enzo

subject: Re: vrkah

text:
L'Essere si manifesta nella umana forma. Che bisogno di dei ?

"Phillip" <[email]> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[email]...


author: whois

subject: Re: vrkah

text:
"Phillip" <[email]> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[email]...
(
Sorridi,senza una ragione
Ama,come se fossi un bambino
Sorridi,non importa cosa dicono
Non ascoltare una parola di quello che dicono
perchï¿½ la vita ï¿½ bella cosï¿½.

Lacrime,un'ondata di lacrime
Luce,che lentamente scompare
Aspetta,prima di chiudere le tende
C'ï¿½ ancora un altro gioco da giocare
e la vita ï¿½ bella cosï¿½.

Qui con i suoi occhi eterni
sarï¿½ sempre vicina quanto te
ricorda da prima
ora che sei lï¿½ fuori con te stesso
ricorda cos'ï¿½ vero
e quel che sognamo ï¿½ solo amore.

Conserva la risata nei tuoi occhi
presto verrï¿½ premiato il tuo aspettare
non dimenticheremo i nostri dolori
e penseremo ad un giorno piï¿½ allegro
perchï¿½ la vita ï¿½ bella cosï¿½.

Non dimenticheremo i nostri dolori
e penseremo ad un giorno piï¿½ allegro
perchï¿½ la vita ï¿½ bella cosï¿½.
C'ï¿½ ancora un altro gioco da giocare
e la vita ï¿½ bella cosï¿½.


author: Swan

subject: Re: vrkah

text:
"whois"

---
---

*

oggi sono predisposta alla lettura. ti invito personalmente su iap!
(basta con i criss.cross ep.pure i post! perchè il crossposting è
male!)
qui fra le lenzuola tento di dare una risposta all’esistenza del male:
non è possibile! perché ognuno può raccontare la propria storia, ma
quella storia non è comunque la risposta.

il male secondo l'orso, è un mito di salvezza al contrario.
m.ah!
swan

ps: mi piacerebbe dirgli (all'orso) che cosa ho visto. ma non sarebbe
credibile...

*


subject: Re: vrkah

text:
On 11 Gen, 16:38, Swan <[email]> wrote:

Io sono uno straordinario boccalone, quindi a me interesserebbe
parecchio, tuttavia, non potendo ricevere mail per motivi
virusattinenti, non potrei leggerlo che qui sopra, se vuoi,
eventualmente approfittando di un OT, e sperando che nessuno se la
prenda....


subject: Re: vrkah

text:
On 11 Gen, 15:37, Phillip <[email]> wrote:

Certo, togliendo funghi ed erbe velenose, animali feroci, tutta la
tecnologia con la quale ci difendiamo da freddo, etc. nonché le varie
inondazioni, terremoti, uragani, etc. che la bontà divina ha
predisposto per massacrarci, mutilarci, o handicapparci ( ivi compreso
il rischio alla nascita ), sono anche d'accordo con te.
Il bello è che la " Ginestra " leopardiana si avverò storicamente nel
balletto " Excelsior " del Manzotti, e l'inequivocabile rovesciamento
si ebbe con le guerre mondiali alle quali le conformazioni
territoriali direttamente, e quindi la Natura, indirettamente,
contribuirono non poco, assieme all'assoluta impossibilità di
tracciare dei confini etnico-geografici del mondo che abbiano una
qualche parvenza di attinenza realistica.
D'altronde la Natura sarebbe parto di Dio, e l'uomo di Dio
indirettamente, della Natura direttamente ( ma, anche qui, c'è chi la
pensa al contrario ), il che è un po' come dire:

A sua immagine e somiglianza li creò.

Sì, sono d'accordo.


subject: Re: vrkah

text:
Orso

---

*

orso, ma che idiozie vai dicendo!
pensa piuttosto alle sette sataniche che adori e frequenti, quanti
morti hanno fatto.

e per mano dell'uomo! sia chiaro!
swan

*


subject: Re: vrkah

text:
On 12 Gen, 11:08, Swan <[email]> wrote:

Mah! La Blavatsky, Crowley, McGregor Mathers ( che tra l'altro faceva
Qabbalah cristiana ), Dion Fortune, Kenneth Grant, e tanti altri che
io adoro e frequento non hanno fatto alcun morto, anzi, esaltavano la
vita.
Tommaso d'Aquino invece sì, molti, per non parlare di S. Cirillo, che
fece una sola vittima, ma di gran pregio: Ipazia, filosofa
neoplatonica e sacerdotessa fatta a pezzi con cocci gusci di
conchiglia.
Gli altri non li conosco: la delinquenza si dà tanti nomi, ma rimane
solo ed esclusivamente delinquenza.
Il vero Neopagano adora le Leggi come Divinità, qualunque Legge, ed ha
con esse lo stesso rapporto che poteva avere, poniamo, un Socrate, o
almeno, si sforza ogni giorno di prenderlo a modello.

Anche, anche.


subject: Re: vrkah

text:
On 12 Gen, 14:30, Orso_Grizzly <[email]> wrote:

*

Gesù non ha mai fatto male a nessuno! Lui ci ha trasmesso il vero
Amore! Gli *invasati* sì, che si definiscano cristiani o seguaci del
male, sono un danno immisurabile per la società! Vuoi che ti
rinfreschi la memoria con articoli di giornale? Le bestie di satana,
tanto per citarne una di sette, conta i loro morti! contali e
vergognati!!!

Si dice che in un gruppo si è liberi di postare ciò che si vuole, ma
fino a un certo punto: ci sono invece regole ben precise per la
salvaguardia dei lettori! Informati! Potrei denunciarti alla polizia
postale per messaggi dannosi. questo ng è seguito anche dai minorenni
e la tua scrittura è malata, dannosa!

Falla finita! e se vuoi rimanere su iap cambia registro! tu e i tuoi
demoni andate a*!

Swan

*


subject: Re: vrkah

text:
On 12 Gen, 14:56, Swan <[email]> wrote:

Non mi pare di aver mai parlato male di Gesù, né di aver preso mai in
considerazione le bestie di Satana.

Potrei denunciarti alla polizia

Scusa mi spieghi che reato avrei commesso? Cmq se vuoi ti porto
Baudelaire, Lovecraft, Poe, e tanti altri malati come me, che hanno
fatto la storia della cultura.

Sì, denunciami anche alla Santa Inquisizione.
Ciao.


subject: Re: vrkah

text:
On 11 Gen, 19:37, Phillip <[email]> wrote:

narasya hi naro vRkaH iti iidRzam caturtham caranam zreyaH syaat iti
me matiH/


subject: Re: vrkah

text:
On 11 Gen, 23:44, Orso_Grizzly <[email]> wrote:

Sono davvero felice.  Dillo in una poesia.


subject: Re: vrkah

text:
"IAP"
 "Swan"
---

*

denny, sei tu? quel *cristianesimo* che mi inviti a leggere appartiene
agli uomini! Gesù ci camminava sulle acque, ma non le confondeva.
l'uomo sì! per suo uso e consumo! non viene certo da Cristo questo
orrore! l'uomo ha fatto i danni in nome di un dio, e questo in ogni
religione! la religione è un disastro, ma nulla ha a che fare con
Gesù! col Verbo! trovami un solo difetto in Gesù. Lui è l'amore in
terra! io non mi perdo nella chiesa degli uomini, parlo della Chiesa,
ovvero, il cuore di Cristo!

definire Cristo un criminale va oltre ogni mia comprensione.
swan

*


subject: Re: vrkah

text:
"IAP"

*

ehiii, te tu e le bollicine. siamo ot?, non direi: tutto è nato da una
serie di pseudo poesie e come tale vanno colloquiate. te tu e le rose.
maddaiii, ci sei?

maddaiii!!! :)))

cin cin!
swan

su gesù non si possono avere opinioni.
gesù come uomo.
che puoi mai dire se non il bene.

*


subject: Re: vrkah

text:
On 12 Gen, 21:06, Swan <[email]> wrote:

*

a.meno.che non si voglia scrivere su un autobus, come in spagna, -dio
non esiste, goditi la vita-.
ma dio, santoddio! possibile che nel nostro tempo lo si viva come nel
medioevo?

lo si vive come una punizione? ma ci siamo evoluti o siamo ancora
legati all'età della pietra? sì, al collo! allora ho ragione quando
parlo con sophie (nove mesi) in modo onomatopeico. ma la bimba perché
mi guarda come se fossi an.data? forse nella sua età incontaminata è
più evoluta di me? credo! fermamente!

ma quanta ignoranza regna su questa terra. oppure è solo mancanza di
personalità? la torta (la vita) non la si ama fatta in casa? con tutti
quei profumi, con tutti quei valori... una casa grande, una grande
cuccia-mondo: io tu gli animali la natura, io tu i nostri figli e
quelli degli altri, tu i bambini, gli animali e dio, insieme! perché
non esiste ateo che non abbia a cuore dio! prova a parlargliene male e
vedrai la sua reazione!

ci si adatta a tutti i nomi giganti e quel che è peggio ai saggi
promossi da un deficiente alla tv.

siamo accecati da una stella esplosa. che poi era quel piromane del
vicino! ed è colpa del nostro nervo ottico se non ci porta le
immagini? e siamo sordi al nostro tempo? un cieco ci *vede* meglio!

non vogliamo evolverci, non sappiamo dove sbattere la testa se non
contro un *nulla* più duro di uno sperone di roccia.
ma poi, sì, poi si portano i riferimenti con tanto di link.
nomi. cifre, nomi, dati, nomi, date, o p i n i o n i ! come un
picador.

ah, carol ha risposto ad un allarme silenzioso, bristol 1329 chiede
rinforzi! bristol 1329 chiede rinforzi!
quel picap rosso è un veicolo sospetto... al riparo, al riparo...

potrebbe avere a che fare con un povero cristo..

passo.
swan

*


author: biancastella

subject: Re: vrkah

text:
"Orso_Grizzly"

Mah! La Blavatsky, Crowley, McGregor Mathers ( che tra l'altro faceva
Qabbalah cristiana ), Dion Fortune, Kenneth Grant, e tanti altri che
io adoro e frequento non hanno fatto alcun morto, anzi, esaltavano la
vita.
E' vero! Dipende dal tuo cuore, che cuore?
Ciao
Tommaso d'Aquino invece sï¿½, molti, per non parlare di S. Cirillo, che
fece una sola vittima, ma di gran pregio: Ipazia, filosofa
neoplatonica e sacerdotessa fatta a pezzi con cocci gusci di
conchiglia.
Gli altri non li conosco: la delinquenza si dï¿½ tanti nomi, ma rimane
solo ed esclusivamente delinquenza.
Il vero Neopagano adora le Leggi come Divinitï¿½, qualunque Legge, ed ha
con esse lo stesso rapporto che poteva avere, poniamo, un Socrate, o
almeno, si sforza ogni giorno di prenderlo a modello.
eppoi, ufff! troppi "nomi".

Anche, anche.


author: IAP

subject: Re: vrkah

text:
"Swan" <[email]> ha scritto nel messaggio

consiglierei questi seri e molto documentati tomi:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storia_criminale_del_Cristianesimo

e naturalmente
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caccia_alle_streghe


subject: Re: vrkah

text:
"Swan" <[email]> ha scritto nel messaggio:

(((io non capisco come faccia questa femmina terribile
ogni sacrosanta volta ad intuirmi il mantello. Non capisco, non capisco)))

mah... mi sembrano molto piï¿½ serie ed amorevoli le bollicine di prosecco
che qu'innanzi* m'invitano al folpetto affogato nel pinzimonio...

ma ï¿½ un'opinione. Magari correlata da seri dati storico/filosofici... (no
eh?)
e come tale va rispettata.

Passo e chiudo (anche perchï¿½ siamo molto, ma molto OT)
(I)

*licenza iappiana


author: newclear

subject: Re: vrkah

text:
biancastella ha scritto:

..giï¿½letta o giï¿½lletta?

facci sapere

:)

-


author: Chomsky Lecture

text:
12/13/02 POWER AND TERROR: NOAM CHOMSKY theatre dates

1  New York...Film Forum... opens Nov 22

2  Milwaukee...Times Cinema...Jan 10-16

3  Los Angeles...Nuart...Jan 24-30

4  San Francisco...Castro Theatre...Jan 29-Feb 6

5  Boston...Coolidge Screening Room...Jan 31-Feb 13

6  Rhinebeck, NY...Upstate Films...coming in February

7  Portland, OR...Cinema 21...Feb 7-13

8  Chicago...Music Box...Feb 7-13

9  San Rafael...Rafael Film Center...Feb 7-13

10  Pleasantville, NY...Jacob Burns Film Center...Feb 11

11  Cleveland...Cleveland Cinematheque...Feb 21-23

12  Santa Fe, NM...The Screen...Feb 28-March 6

13  San Francisco..Red Vic...March 23-26

14  Bellingham, WA...Pickford Cinema...March 28-April 3

15  Columbus, OH...Wexner Center For The Arts...April 18-19

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
POWER AND TERROR: NOAM CHOMSKY IN OUR TIMES
Opened in New York on Friday, November 22 at Film Forum

Please see the following url for information on the film:

http://www.filmforum.com/chomsky.html
http://www.firstrunfeatures.com/th/Noam%20Chomsky/thmain.html

Upcoming screenings in Chicago, San Francisco and other cities
See the following url for the showing in your area:

http://www.firstrunfeatures.com/th/Noam%20Chomsky/thplaydates.html

VISIT www.firstrunfeatures.com for updated theatre listings and
VHS/DVD information

"Everyone's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really
easy way: Stop participating in it."
     -Noam Chomsky

Whether Noam Chomsky, the MIT linguist and political philosopher, is
"the most important intellectual alive," as The New York Times once
famously called him, is open for debate. But without a doubt, Chomsky,
now 73, is one of the most straight-talking and committed dissidents
of our time. A steadfast critic of United States  foreign policy for
decades, his profile took a quantum leap in the aftermath of the
terrorist attacks of September 11 as he provided much-needed analysis
and  historical perspective to concerned citizens throughout the
world. In the months that  followed, he gave dozens of talks on four
continents, conducted scores of interviews, and published a book --
9-11 -- that was published in 22 countries and became a surprise
bestseller in many of them, including Japan, where POWER AND TERROR:
NOAM CHOMSKY IN OUR TIMES was produced.

Chomsky's voice may be unpopular (he is almost totally ignored by the
mainstream American press) but his incisive arguments, based on
decades of research and analysis, deserve to be heard and considered.
POWER AND TERROR presents the latest in Noam Chomsky's thinking,
through a lengthy interview and a series of public talks that he gave
in New York and California during the spring of 2002. As he has done
countless times since 9.11, he places the terrorist attacks in the
context of American foreign intervention throughout the postwar
decades -- in Vietnam, Central America, the Middle East, and
elsewhere. Beginning with the fundamental principle that the exercise
of violence against civilian populations is terror, regardless of
whether the perpetrator is a well-organized band of Muslim extremists
or the most powerful state in the world, Chomsky--in stark and
uncompromising term--challenges the United States to apply to its own
actions the moral standards it demands of others.

What emerges from the footage is a compelling portrait of the activist
intellectual, who has been called the "rebel without a pause" by Bono,
lead singer of the band U2. Chomsky is the most important voice of
dissent in the United States today.

Opens November 22 in New York City at Film Forum
209 West Houston St., New York, NY 10014
Houston St. stop on the 1/9 subway line.
Showtimes: 1:10  4:45  8:10  10:00
Theatre Info: 212.727.8110
Buy Tickets Online!  www.filmforum.com

Plays January 10-16
The Times Theater
Milwaukee, WI

Plays January 29 - February 5
The Castro Theatre
San Francisco, CA
www.thecastrotheatre.com

Opens February 7
Music Box Theatre
Chicago, IL
www.musicboxtheatre.com

VISIT www.firstrunfeatures.com for updated theatre listings and VHS /
DVD information

Or email [email]

POWER AND TERROR: NOAM CHOMSKY IN OUR TIMES is directed by John
Junkerman, director of the Academy Award-nominated HELLFIRE: A JOURNEY
FROM HIROSHIMA.

Producer: Tetsujiro Yamagami. Photography: Koshiro Otsu. Editors: John
 Junkerman, Takeshi Hata. Sound: Yutaka Tsurumaki. Japan. 74 minutes.
A First Run Features Release. Unrated.

Film has been shown in Japan and South Korea already.

Please contact your local theatre to ask that they show the film!

Thanks!


author: Tom S.

subject: Re: 12/13/02 POWER AND TERROR: NOAM CHOMSKY theatre dates

text:
"Arnold" <[email]> wrote in message
news:QcOL9.5215$[email]...
notice
anything
but

I see your point. My e-mail addy above [email] is not a legit address.
I figure if someone can strip away spam blockers, so can an algorithm. I
haven't gotten a single piece of spam in months.


author: Lord of Terror

text:
"Tom S." <[email]> wrote in message news:<ZdyL9.79328$jf7.5208647@new
s2.west.cox.net>...

ohhh, spammers... It's been so long we haven't had a "become rich in
just thirty days" or "Thanks to my secret solution, I made a million
dollars in record times" or "Free porn. SEX.XXX>> just follow this
link". THe ole times of spoofing IPs, anonymizers, fake proxies, EVERY
GOOD THING in this world is going down. Filters, overhunting have made
the Old School of Spamming not only bankrupt (not even a halfwit would
follow their links), but almost an endangered specie. The evil face of
racism, elitism, discrimination is praying on helpless spammers. I
think Spammers qualify as usual subjects of unacceptable bias on the
net. What if one of them is an African American?

YOU FASCISTS!!! Just because your OPPINIONS differ from a spammer's,
that gives you no right to discriminate them against!!!

Regards,
niggbrotha, lord of fascists' terror, friend of jews, famous
niggerlover, diehard vegetarian, MASSIVE fan of Animal Planet, John
Lennon and Spielberg movies.


author: Arnold

text:
"Tom S." <[email]> wrote in message
news:ZdyL9.79328$[email]...

a
I

I use hotmail as a precaution against spammers. At least one can abandon a
spam attacked hotmail address easier than one's main address. It might be
overkill to block all hotmail posts.
Arnold


text:
"R Lawrence" <[email]> wrote in message
news:r_mL9.53097$[email]...
could

I use Outlook for e-mail adn they are isolated from each other.  I notice a
few good people on yahoo, but I can't for the life of me remember anything
of value from someone on hotmail. Not that there's not anything there, but I
can't recall anything other than trolls and spammers.


text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Does anyone know a way to block all posts from a certain domain such as
hotmail in Outlook Express?


author: R Lawrence

text:
"Tom S." <[email]> wrote:

You would go to the menu item for "Tools > Message Rules > Blocked Senders
List" and add the domain name (e.g., hotmail.com) to the blocked list.
Please note that this will cause the domain to be blocked from *both* your
email and your newsgroups in Outlook Express. I would be wary of such a
sweeping block, especially against a popular domain like Hotmail. You could
end up missing messages that you would prefer to see.


text:
[email] wrote in message news:<72af3ec0.0212151312.29b95dd4
@posting.google.com>...

Communism again... Kennedy family was the most heinous kind of
populist rats, who only won votes thanks to EQUALLY corrupt media and
intellectual world, where marxism roamed in those times, as well. JFK
was among worst presidents in American history. He incorrectly handled
the Guantanamo bay crisis, let us not take into account the even
greater disasters of Vietnam. Although playing the populist card,
Kennedy was the first to create contacts with then isolated regimes of
communist terror and the simple fact he was assassinated DOESNT MEAN
SHIT. Perhaps he deserved it...

Another "hero", MLK was a known kid-fondler, a whores passionate, a
plagiarizer and even worse, a man payed by his Russian comrades to
spread revolution among discontented niggs. He conveniently died to
became an hero, whose life and personality are kept aside criticisms.

Regards,
Your racist, rich, homophobic, phalocentric, European friend and
ultimately your
LORD OF TERROR


author: [redacted]

text:
In memory of a good friend and his wonderful burden. John F. Kennedy
Jr. was murdered because he was a good Prosecutor and an independent
Journalist. We cannot blame the weather again. Every single bad
Journalist and every single bad Prosecutor is partly responsible for
the murder of John F. Kennedy because these abusibve propagandists
[Rush Limbaugh in particular] are responsible for creating a world
where bullshit triumphs and the truth is routinely buried. God Bless
JFK Jr.

                         http://www.johnjohn.2ya.com

Please link to his homepage, to keep his vision alive !


author: Robert Kolker

text:
[email] wrote:

John John was a bad pilot who had an estimate of his flying skill well
in excess of the facts. He took of nearly at sunset and he was not a
good enough pilot to fly IFR in the dark. So he killed himself and his
passengers. Like many of the Kennedy's he did not no the difference
between Can Do and Can't Fail.

Bob Kolker


text:
Remind me to miss all of these.

"Chomsky Lecture" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 26, 2001
URL: http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/horowitz/2001/dh09-26-01p.htm

WITHOUT QUESTION, the most devious, the most dishonest and -- in this hour of
his nation's grave crisis - the most treacherous intellect in America belongs
to MIT professor Noam Chomsky. On the 150 campuses that have mounted
"teach-ins" and rallies against America's right to defend herself; on the
streets of Genoa and Seattle where "anti-globalist" anarchists have attacked
the symbols of markets and world trade; among the demonstrators at Vieques who
wish to deny our military its training grounds; and wherever young people
manifest an otherwise incomprehensible rage against their country, the
inspirer of their loathing and the instructor of their hate is most likely
this man.

There are many who ask how it is possible that our most privileged and
educated youth should come to despise their own nation - a free, open,
democratic society - and to do so with such ferocious passion. They ask how it
is possible for American youth to even consider lending comfort and aid to the
Osama bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins (and the Communists before them). A
full answer would involve a search of the deep structures of the human psyche,
and its irrepressible longings for a redemptive illusion. But the short answer
is to be found in the speeches and writings of an embittered academic and his
intellectual supporters.

For forty years, Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet after
pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one message alone:
America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the world. In Chomsky's
demented universe, America is responsible not only for its own bad deeds, but
for the bad deeds of others, including those of the terrorists who struck the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude he is the medium for all
those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not for the victims and the
American dead, but for the "root causes" of the catastrophe that befell them.

One little pamphlet of Chomsky's - What Uncle Sam Really Wants - has already
sold 160,000 copies (1), but this represents only the tip of the Chomsky
iceberg. His venomous message is spread on tapes and CDs, and the campus
lecture circuit; he is promoted at rock concerts by superstar bands such as
Pearl Jam, Rage Against the Machine, and U-2 (whose lead singer Bono called
Chomsky a "rebel without a pause"). He is the icon of Hollywood stars like
Matt Damon whose genius character in the Academy Award-winning film Good Will
Hunting is made to invoke Chomsky as the go-to authority for political
insight.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Noam Chomsky is "the most often cited living
author. Among intellectual luminaries of all eras, Chomsky placed eighth, just
behind Plato and Sigmund Freud." On the Web, there are more chat room
references to Noam Chomsky than to Vice President Dick Cheney and 10 times as
many as there are to Democratic congressional leaders Richard Gephardt and Tom
Daschle. This is because Chomsky is also the political mentor of the academic
left, the legions of Sixties radicals who have entrenched themselves in
American universities to indoctrinate students in their anti-American creeds.
The New York Times calls Chomsky "arguably the most important intellectual
alive," and Rolling Stone - which otherwise does not even acknowledge the
realm of the mind - "one of the most respected and influential intellectuals
in the world."(2)

In fact, Chomsky's influence is best understood not as that of an intellectual
figure, but as the leader of a secular religious cult - as the ayatollah of
anti-American hate. This cultic resonance is recognized by his followers. His
most important devotee, David Barsamian, is an obscure public radio producer
on KGNU in Boulder Colorado, who has created a library of Chomsky screeds on
tape from interviews he conducted with the master, and has converted them into
pamphlets and books as well. In the introduction to one such offering,
Barsamian describes Chomsky's power over his disciples: "Although decidedly
secular, he is for many of us our rabbi, our preacher, our rinpoche, our
pundit, our imam, our sensei."(3)

The theology that Chomsky preaches is Manichean, with America as its evil
principle. For Chomsky no evil however great can exceed that of America, and
America is also the cause of evil in others. This is the key to the mystery of
September 11: The devil made them do it. In every one of the 150 shameful
demonstrations that took place on America's campuses on September 20, these
were the twin themes of those who agitated to prevent America from taking up
arms in her self-defense: America is responsible for the "root causes" of this
criminal attack; America has done worse to others.

In his first statement on the terrorist attack, Chomsky's response to Osama
bin Laden's calculated strike on a building containing 50,000 innocent human
beings was to eclipse it with an even greater atrocity he was confident he
could attribute to former president Bill Clinton. Chomsky's infamous September
12 statement "On the Bombings" began:

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the
level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no
credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing
unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at
the UN and no one cares to pursue it).(4)

Observe the syntax. The opening reference to the actual attacks is clipped and
bloodless, a kind of rhetorical throat clearing for Chomsky to get out of the
way, so that he can announce the real subject of his concern - America's
crimes. The accusation against Clinton is even slipped into the text, weasel
fashion, as though it were a modifier, when it is actually the substantive
message itself. It is a message that says: Look away, America, from the injury
that has been done to you, and contemplate the injuries you have done to them.
It is in this sleight of hand that Chomsky reveals his true gift, which is to
make the victim, America, appear as an even more heinous perpetrator than the
criminal himself. However bad this may seem, you have done worse.

In point of fact - and just for the record - however ill-conceived Bill
Clinton's decision to launch a missile into the Sudan, it was not remotely
comparable to the World Trade Center massacre. It was, in its very design,
precisely the opposite - a defensive response that attempted to minimize
casualties. Clinton's missile was launched in reaction to the blowing up of
two of our African embassies, the murder of hundreds of innocent people and
the injury to thousands, mostly African civilians. It was designed with every
precaution possible to prevent the loss of innocent life. The missile was
fired at night, so that no one would be in the building when it was hit. The
target was selected because the best information available indicated it was
not a pharmaceutical factory, but a factory producing biological weapons.
Chomsky's use of this incident to diminish the monstrosity of the terrorist
attack is a typical Chomsky maneuver, an accurate measure of his instinctive
mendacity, and an index of the anti-American dementia, which infuses
everything he writes and says.

This same psychotic hatred shapes the "historical" perspective he offered to
his disciples in an interview conducted a few days after the World Trade
Center bombing. It was intended to present America as the devil incarnate -
and therefore a worthy target of attack for the guerilla forces of "social
justice" all over the world. This was the first time America itself - or as
Chomsky put it the "national territory" - had been attacked since the War of
1812. Pearl Harbor doesn't count in Chomsky's calculus because Hawaii was a
"colony" at the time. The fact that it was a benignly run colony and that it
is now a proud state of the Union counts for nothing, of course, in Chomsky's
eyes.

During these years [i.e., between 1812 and 1941], the US annihilated the
indigenous population (millions of people), conquered half of Mexico,
intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the
Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half
century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the
world. The number of victims is colossal. For the first time, the guns have
been directed the other way. That is a dramatic change.(5)

Listening to Chomsky, you can almost feel the justice of Osama bin Laden's
strike on the World Trade Center.

If you were one of the hundreds of thousands of young people who had been
exposed to his propaganda - and the equally vile teachings of his academic
disciples - you too would be able to extend your outrage against America into
the present.

    a.. According to Chomsky, in the first battle of the postwar struggle with
the Soviet Empire, "the United States was picking up where the Nazis had left
off."

    a.. According to Chomsky, during the Cold War, American operations behind
the Iron Curtain included "a 'secret army' under US-Nazi auspices that sought
to provide agents and military supplies to armies that had been established by
Hitler and which were still operating inside the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe through the early 1950s."

    a.. According to Chomsky, in Latin America during the Cold War, U.S.
support for legitimate governments against Communist subversion led to US
complicity under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, in "the methods of
Heinrich Himmler's extermination squads."

    a.. According to Chomsky, there is "a close correlation worldwide between
torture and U.S. aid."

    a.. According to Chomsky, America "invaded" Vietnam to slaughter its
people, and even after America left in 1975, under Jimmy Carter and Ronald
Reagan, "the major policy goal of the US has been to maximize repression and
suffering in the countries that were devastated by our violence. The degree of
the cruelty is quite astonishing." (6)

    a.. According to Chomsky, "the pretext for Washington's terrorist wars
[i.e., in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, Iraq, etc.] was
self-defense, the standard official justification for just about any monstrous
act, even the Nazi Holocaust." (7)

    a.. In sum, according to Chomsky, "legally speaking, there's a very solid
case for impeaching every American president since the Second World War. They'
ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war
crimes."(8)

What decent, caring human being would not want to see America and its war
criminals brought to justice?

According to Chomsky, what America really wants is to steal from the poor and
give to the rich. America's crusade against Communism was actually a crusade
"to protect our doctrine that the rich should plunder the poor."(9) That is
why we busied ourselves in launching a new crusade against terrorism after the
end of the Cold War:

Of course, the end of the Cold War brings its problems too. Notably, the
technique for controlling the domestic population has had to shift. New
enemies have to be invented. It becomes hard to disguise the fact that the
real enemy has always been 'the poor who seek to plunder the rich' - in
particular, Third World miscreants who seek to break out of the service
role.(10)

According to Chomsky, America is afraid of the success of Third World
countries and does not want them to succeed on their own. Those who threaten
to succeed like the Marxist governments of North Vietnam, Nicaragua and
Grenada America regards as viruses. According to Chomsky, during the Cold War,
"except for a few madmen and nitwits, none feared [Communist] conquest - they
were afraid of a positive example of successful development. "What do you do
when you have a virus? First you destroy it, then you inoculate potential
victims, so that the disease does not spread. That's basically the US strategy
in the Third World.".(11)

No wonder they want to bomb us.

Schooled in these big lies, taught to see America as Greed Incarnate and a
political twin of the Third Reich, why wouldn't young people - with no
historical memory - come to believe that the danger ahead lies in Washington
rather than Baghdad or Kabul?

It would be easy to demonstrate how on every page of every book and in every
statement that Chomsky has written the facts are twisted, the political
context is distorted (and often inverted) and the historical record is
systematically traduced. Every piece of evidence and every analysis is
subordinated to the overweening purpose of Chomsky's lifework, which is to
justify an idï¿½e fixe - his pathological hatred of his own country.

It would take volumes, however, to do this and there really is no need.
Because every Chomsky argument exists to serve this end, a fact transparent in
each offensive and preposterous claim he makes. Hence, the invidious
comparison of Clinton's misguided missile and the monstrous World Trade Center
attack.

In fact the Trade Center and the Pentagon targets of the terrorists present a
real political problem for American leftists, like Chomsky, who know better
than to celebrate an event that is the almost predictable realization of their
agitations and their dreams. The destroyed buildings are the very symbols of
the American empire with which they have been at war for fifty years. In a
memoir published on the eve of the attack, the 60s American terrorist Bill
Ayers recorded his joy at striking one of these very targets: "Everything was
absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds
were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to
them."(12) In the wake of September 11, Ayers - a "Distinguished Professor of
Education[!] at the University of Illinois - had to feverishly backtrack and
explain that these revealing sentiments of an "anti-war" leftist do not mean
what they obviously do. Claiming to be "filled with horror and grief," Ayers
attempted to reinterpret his terrorist years as an effort to explore his own
struggle with "the intricate relationships between social justice, commitment
and resistance."(13)

Chomsky is so much Ayers' superior at the lie direct that he works the same
denial into his account of the World Trade Center bombing itself. Consider
first the fact that the Trade Center is the very symbol of American capitalism
and "globalization" that Chomsky and his radical comrades despise. It is Wall
Street, its twin towers filled on that fateful day with bankers, brokers,
international traders, and corporate lawyers - the hated men and women of the
"ruling class," who - according to Chomsky - run the global order. The twin
towers are the palace of the Great Satan himself. They are the belly of the
beast, the object of Chomsky's lifelong righteous wrath. But he is too clever
and too cowardly to admit it. He knows that, in the hour of the nation's
grief, the fact itself is a third rail he must avoid. And so he dismisses the
very meaning of the terrorists' target in these words:

The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries,
firemen, etc. It is likely to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other
poor and oppressed people.

Chomsky's deception which attempts to erase the victims who were not merely
"janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc.," tells us more than we might care to
know about his own standard of human concern.

That concern is exclusively reserved for the revolutionary forces of his
Manichean vision, the Third World oppressed by American evil. Chomsky's
message to his disciples in this country, the young on our college campuses,
the radicals in our streets, the moles in our government offices, is a message
of action and therefore needs to be attended to, even by those who will never
read his rancid works. To those who believe his words of hate, Chomsky has
this instruction:

The people of the Third World need our sympathetic understanding and, much
more than that, they need our help. We can provide them with a margin of
survival by internal disruption in the United States. Whether they can succeed
against the kind of brutality we impose on them depends in large part on what
happens here.(14)

This is the voice of the Fifth Column left. Disruption in this country is what
the terrorists want, and what the terrorists need, and what the followers of
Noam Chomsky intend to give them.

In his address before Congress on September 19, President Bush reminded us:
"We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous
ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their
radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they
follw in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow
that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of
discarded lies."

President Bush was talking about the terrorists and their sponsors abroad. But
he might just as well have been talking about their fifth column allies at
home.

It's time for Americans who love their country to stand up, and defend it.

(1)Noam Chomsky, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Tucson, 1986 (interviews with
David Barsamian)

(2)Ibid.

(3)Noam Chomsky, Propaganda and the Public Mind, Interviews by David
Barsamian, Cambridge, 2001 p. x. In the endpapers of this volume the NY Times
is quoted praising Chomsky as "an exploder of received truths." The Guardian
(London): "One of the radical heroes of our age.A towering intellect." The
Times Literary Supplement: "Chomsky's work . has some of the qualities of
Revelations, the Old Testament prophets and Blake."

(4)Available at www.znet.org

(5)Interview, September 19, 2001. www.znet.org

(6)What Uncle Sam Really Wants, pp. 8, 18, 29, 31, 32, 56-58

(7)Chomsky, Profit Over People, NY 1999, p. 102

(8)What Uncle Sam Really Wants, p. 32

(9)Ibid. p. 79

(10)Ibid. pp. 82

(11)Ibid. pp. 56-7

(12)Bill Ayers, Fugitive Days, NY 2001, p. 256

(13)Statement on the publisher's website, www.beacon.org

(14)What Uncle Sam Really Wants, p. 100


text:
"Tom S." <[email]> wrote in message news:<n2TK9.61826$jf7.3999485@new
s2.west.cox.net>...

W.O.W. What a fantastic article. Your analysis about Chomsky seems
well balanced and full of insights. Indeed, he's the head of a
widespread cult of revolution and destruction. And because most humans
have no notion of abstract, Chomsky must EMBODY these views. I wonder
whether his supporters after Chomsky's death won't buy a piece of
clothing of Sensei's personal belongings to protect themselves in the
future from temptations of CAPITALIST GREED, AMERICAN IMPERIALISM and
INEQUALITIES of all kinds.


text:
"Tom S." <[email]> wrote in message news:<n2TK9.61826$jf7.3999485@new
s2.west.cox.net>...

This is Ilya Ehrenburg(*) at its finest. A MAJOR plot of joint
capitalist and fascist criminals against the prosperity and social
justice of communist countries... Executions expected...

Another Ehrenburg classic. The legacy of fascism in Western
democracies (the only democracies), a major propaganda item during the
end of Stalinism.

These "legitimate governments", financed by Soviet Union, were liable
for thousands of executions, torture, property-seizings and other
outright violations of human rights. Communism is perhaps the LEAST
egalitarian movement in history. It's simply a return to primitivism,
when if you had power, there was nothing to restrict you doing
ANYTHING you pleased. This is why in all totalitarianisms, the
struggle for power replaces any conceivable alternatives. It becomes
the INNER engine of the Party and its subjects.

Only movie-maker Spielberg is a worthy competitor for this propaganda
classic. His flicks are masterpieces of propaganda and gross lies:
Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List. As any spineless Yid,
he promotes his lies by wavering the Hollocaust golden ace. His
Germans are, as in all Ehrenburg movies, fascists, evil and corrupt
capitalists. Look at Schindler's List opening, with that PURE
EHRENBURG sequence of a "rightist" feast, where we are left to
contemplate greed, decadent individualism and lack of "compassion". IN
LOVED IT. It's a propaganda collector's item, just as Chomsky's best
books.

Au contraire, America's only fault was it accepted to succomb to
communist subversion. US should never have left Vietnam into the hands
of the communists. After the departure of US troops hundreds of
thousands of natives have fallen into bondage. Concentration camps in
the jungles were already working at full potential...

This is the most contemptible man, the very personification of coward,
leftist, whiney Yid of Nazi propaganda. "It" deserves a death than
only his beloved Khmer Rouges brother in arms could give. This
cocksucking faggot should get the "Popular Justice" of Pol Pot and his
underaged armies.

Pol Pot. I claim thee, my lord...


author: Chris Cathcart

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Atlas Bugged" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

like

That Kelley-Anne Whatever isn't at all bad, if the present is 10 years ago.


author: moorehead

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Robert Kolker wrote:
you
there

Coulter is hot!  Nice rack, too.  I hear she smokes like a chimmney and
drinks like a fish.  I'll bet she could suck the chrome off a trailer
hitch.


author: Mark N

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Atlas Bugged wrote:

Or sexism in this case? Coulter's status as a female is supposed to make
her views more palatable somehow?

Well, isn't she of Asian descent? If so, there shouldn't be any problem
with *her* saying stuff like that. :-)

I think you mean "Dhue."

Mark


author: Atlas Bugged

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Mark N" <[email]> wrote in message
news:A9LPd.54551$g16.39814@trndny08...

I mean DO ME! dude.


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Mark N" <[email]> wrote in message
news:kYpPd.18974$ya6.4775@trndny01...

It's all part of the package-scam.  It's like, "See, I can be hip, too.  I
don't necessarily hate sex (I wear sexy skirts,) and I am, after all,
female."  In fact, she's just Jesse Helms in a new package, just as dumb,
just as collectivist.  Republicans and conservatives have come in their
pants by playing the reverse-racism game in recent years, and using it
against the Dems and libs.

Same with Malkin, who argues that it's OK to lock up innocent Japanese and
steal all their stuff in WWII, then writes an entire book to support the
view.  She likes to say, "Well  Have you read my damn (eight-zillion-page
boring) book?"  And my answer is, no, but your choice of how to spend your
time, even in the unlikely event your book was right, displays that your
priorities are completely fucked up.

Ken has it right.  Save your hard-ons for otherwise neutral media babes like
Dhu.  I recoemmend (for less conventional tastes) Elizabeth Vargas, an ABC
newscaster.  Very hot if you prefer non-conventional beauty.


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Atlas Bugged wrote:

At the time it was not known how innocent the nisei were or were not. No
chances were taken. There was a war on, and it required stern measures,
even if some of them turned out to be unjust.

Bob Kolker


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Mark N wrote:
do
This
books:

She fails one my "stupidity litmus tests". She's in favor of a flag
burning amendment.

Ont the other hand she does like the Grateful Dead! :)


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
[email] wrote:

Of course. I could have guessed that one. It fits perfectly with the
rest of what I know about her. And I agree, that is a good test. Anyone
who is in favor of that is just a nitwit. Well, either a nitwit or
someone who knows better but is trying to appeal to nitwits. And she's a
supporter of the "war on drugs" too. The more I learn about her, the
more repulsed I am. How any liberty-minded person could have any respect
for her is beyond me.

Now that I wouldn't have guessed.

Mark


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Randroid Terminator" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Coulter and a few others, like Michelle Malkin, seem to form a new category
of brainless-though-educated right wing lunatics.  They're militant, and
frequently use the language of liberty.  But they devote their energies to
some vile, filthy stuff, and use politically correct collectivist tactics to
insulate themselves from criticism.


author: Randroid Terminator

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:28:31 +0000 (UTC), Atlas Bugged
<[email]> wrote:

Such as?


author: Don Matt

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
I am aware of Randï¿½s ideas. But such ideas simply do not sound good
to the people, to regular individuals.

 What I was discussing is that today the idea of free market is
becoming dominant on politics. Polititians, even former leftistsm, are
defending smaller states. This "new" politics happens today because
polititians talk to people promissing a better world. The speach
outside USA is "see how nice is the USA, how free is their land, how
they have beaten the soviets". Polititians do not walk around saying
"hey letï¿½s all be egoist and then have a better world".

 Mauri.


author: David Buchner

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Atlas Bugged <[email]> wrote:

    :-|

Something like that?


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
David Buchner <[email]> wrote:

... Could I trouble you for a brief overview of why this would be [PART
OF ] the Problem?


author: Reggie Perrin

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Agent Cooper wrote:
being
said,
very
academia
they
and

Hmmmm, faint praise indeed ;-). I think there is a strong tradition of
anti-intellectualism in this country, which can (obv.) cut both ways.
One tangible benefit, though, is that we're less likely to be taken in
by the rhetorical pyrotechnics of the Continental School.

Oxford

Proust, perhaps? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?


author: Steve Reed

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Randroid Terminator wrote:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to
Christianity." -- Ann Coulter, syndicated column, 13 September 2001

Rand would have despised her, even after this got her fired from "National
'To a gas chamber -- go!' Review." Even neoconservatives have some measurable
moral depths.


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:27:51 +0000 (UTC), Steve Reed
<[email]> wrote:

Yes, that's why I asked someone if Coulter would have been too
religious for Rand. But he said he didn't know, and bailed out of
here.


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Agent Cooper wrote:

book

I was at a party awhile back and someone was reading excerpts from her
book, "Treason", and I was very - like Coop, surprisingly - impressed
with what I heard. (It suggested to me that there is much more to the
McCarthy story than we've been led to believe, i.e. that the left -
suprise, surprise - has thoroughly twisted it). However, other than
that brief exposure, I haven't read any of her books, so I can't
comment on them.

I used to agree with Dan and looked forward to her TV appearances. I
like the fact that she forthrightly describes herself as a "right-wing
extremist". But recently I've been extremely unimpressed with her. It's
been mostly bark and no bite. In other words, very superficial mostly.
But she's compounded the problem by saying a few things that I found a
real turn-off, such as that the FCC should lift some network's
broadcast licence for showing some racy ad during a football game. And
then she made some off-the-cuff negative comment about Ayn Rand that I
found offensive.

The only "conservative" commentator I've thoroughly enjoyed recently
has been Christopher Hitchens - and he still describes himself as a
"Trotskyite" (but he's great on the War on Terror). I particularly
enjoyed an encounter between him and that fascist, anti-semitic asshole
Pat Buchanan. It's notable that he appears very infrequently on
conservative talk shows because (1) he's far too bright for them and
(2) he's an avowed and outspoken atheist. He used to appear regularly
on Chris Matthew's show, but I've stopped watching it. I got thoroughly
fed up with Matthew's election coverage.

Fred Weiss


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Evil Collectivist Pig Dog" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Typical Cat-Toy cluelessness.  Rand would have despised her.


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Dan Lind" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

"Not unattractive" sums it up accurately.  Novins will find you far better
mind and body with a more "broad" warrant.

I doubt you aspire to "not unattractive."  And I sense a very unattractive
personality behind the persona.

It's easy to separate out the religious (and other) aspect when analyzing
her from afar.  Up close, I'd predict a very different nightmare.


author: Thomas Clarke

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Atlas Bugged" <[email]> wrote in message

Because she is a blonde shiksa?


author: Mauri

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Randroid Terminator" :

 Iï¿½ve made a search on Ann Coulterï¿½s personal site, read her text about
Iraqï¿½s elections and was amused to see how simmilar, at least on a
superficial level, she is with the average "Randians". But she is not the
only one that is so simmilar with Rand. As Iï¿½ve recently talked to Fred,
today the sense that free/savage/laissez-faire-capitalism is the right thing
to do is a dominant notion. Iï¿½ve also pointed many times here that this
ideology has spread all over the world, on South America and Brazil -
everywhere. But since the very beggining Iï¿½ve discovered this group I was
curious to know why people almost never mention Rand. It should be her time,
shouldnï¿½t it?

  Rand is so unknown to the world because the whole ideology of
free/savage/laissez-faire-capitalism is becoming dominant not because of an
ideology of egoism (perhaps of course it contributes on a certain level). I
think L-F capitalism is becoming popular because intelectuals have linked
the effects of capitalism with a better and wealthier society. Iï¿½s a promise
of an utopy. The promise of better world, rather than an ethics of egoism,
is what is turning our world fanatic about extreme capitalism. Randï¿½s ideas
are not populist enough to create such a revolution.

 Mauri.


author: Dan Lind

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Atlas Bugged wrote:

analyzing

Point well taken.  And your point takes me down a track that would be
inappropriate to discuss on hpo.

I'll just say this.  If a man is open to learning to know women in that
way she has, from this man's perspective, enough of the "sine qua
non" characteristics to make it interesting to discover how much, or
if at all, it would be a nightmare.

I don't agree with what I think Fred meant in another post on this
thread, where I took him to mean that Coulter is "superficial" and
bombastic for its own sake.    If Fred is referring to things she said
as a "talking head," well those episodes have to be taken with
large grains of salt.  Those episodes are just an analogue of
professional wrestling, a bit less choreographed.  I've seen Coulter
as a talking head perhaps a dozen times, and I had to smile in approval
as she body slammed slimeballs like Bob Bechtel.

Somewhere I read her objections to what she called the libertarian
advocacy of drug legalization.  She brought to bear the same
methodological sarcasm and snideness that she does against things I
also oppose.  I found it a little annoying that she used similar
tactics against drug illegalization as she uses against things where I
agree with her.  So I need to chalk one up for Fred's position -
her contrary tactics may have a formulaic quality to them.

But I'm willing to give her the benefit of doubt.  She's said
enough astute things to have earned that.

Dan


author: Evil Collectivist Pig Dog

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Atlas Bugged wrote:
message

But only on Thursdays.

Didn't you read Binswanger? Coulter is a "man of the mind." Perhaps you
should write Binswanger and clue him in, too.


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Dan Lind wrote:

That's nice. Perhaps you should wear this the next time you're
espousing the virtues of savagery:

http://www.helmetsetc.com/detail.asp?product_id=nov_kaiser


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Evil Collectivist Pig Dog wrote:

Ah ha! I was right! I wonder if anyone has done an analysis of Ann
Coulter's chromosomes. I will bet there is a Y chromose hiding in there
somewhere.

Bob Kolker


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Dan Lind wrote:

Well, there you go. She's in favor of the "war on drugs." What more do
you need to know? Shouldn't that be enough to earn her the contempt of
any decent human being?

Mark


author: Ken Gardner

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Chris Cathcart wrote:

Even so, I miss the days when Kiran Chetry used to do the evening news
updates.  When Kiran reads the news, I have trouble even remembering my
name.

Ken


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Atlas Bugged wrote:

Not funny? Did you think I was joking? Let me assure you that I was not
smiling when I wrote that. There is nothing funny about the "war on drugs."

Well, duh.

Mark


author: Arnold

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Matt Barrow" <[email]> wrote in message
news:onxOd.38$[email]...

Perhaps, but it seemed to me that he was trying to say that Rand ideas were
irrelevant to the embrace of capitalism.


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Mark N" <[email]> wrote in message
news:iDIOd.14702$ya6.14094@trndny01...

Yes.  In Usenet context, it sounded as if you were saying not to condemn
based on a single view held by someone.

Indeed.  What's Usenet coming to?  Instead of those little smiley things,
pretty soon we're going to need an equivalent emoticon for "not kidding!"


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Agent Cooper <[email]> wrote:

Uhhhhhh, I haven't. Could I trouble you for a brief overview of why this
would be the Problem?

I looked briefly on the web, though -- and found (what I think is) an
amusing tidbit, which should please Bob Kolker: "At one time a Unitarian
minister, Emerson left his pastorate because of doctrinal disputes with
his superiors." Unitarians having doctrinal disputes, mm hmm.


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:59:04 +0000 (UTC), [email] wrote:

Then the answer is "no," Rand would not have liked Coulter's books.


author: Acar

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Lind" <[email]>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: Ann Coulter

How big a piece?


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Mauri" <[email]> wrote in message
news:cudfcd$62e$[email]...

Boy do you miss the point. Rand's idea was that the ethics of egoism was
what made Capitalism work, and this would promise a better world. Just
because someone never heard of Rand, doesn't mean her ideas don't affect
him.


author: Matt Barrow

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Mauri" <[email]> wrote in message
news:cudfcd$62e$[email]...
linked

They dont really understand the "cause and effect", but mere pragmatic
relationships. They're making the same association that libertarians,
conservatives, and other free-market types have been making for over 100
years. They know _THAT_ LFC works better and they have an inkling of _why_
(self-interest), but that's about all. Conservatives prefer regulated
"capitlaism" because it allows more wealth to be re-distributed and more tax
revenue to be available to grab.

Utopia? Then they most definitely don't undestand LFC.

Milch cows of another breed.

Yup! See above.

Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Arnold" <[email]> wrote in message
news:H4xOd.154462$[email]...

Um...Arnold? I think that WAS his point.


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Fred Weiss wrote:

I have this reaction to just about every talking head I see these days.
I would make a limited exception for Charles Krauthammer and Oliver
North, but that's about it.  The only good news these days is that
Laurie Dhue is apparently back from her vacation, or from wherever she
was for the last few weeks.  :)

Ken


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Mark N" <[email]> wrote in message
news:xmuOd.21535$s16.18235@trndny02...

Not funny, Mr. Mark.  Drug warriors *are* contemptible, every last one of
'em.  In essence, they go out, find innocent people, then kidnap them, rob
them, and, in most cases, torture them.  Their victims number in the
hundreds of thousands, and they constitute the closest thing America
presently has to an on-premesis, highly-respected Saddam Hussein.  Drug
warriors are either sick fucks or stupid, and I think we've established that
Coulter isn't stupid.  And don't get me started on the last right-wing fuck,
a supposed admirer of Ayn Rand, who turned out to be stuffing down handfuls
of illegal pills every day.


author: Absolute 'Truth' of the matter

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Atlas Bugged" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
you
that
fuck,
handfuls


author: Chris Cathcart

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
"Ken Gardner" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

You've placed impure thoughts in my head.  Very pleasant, very impure
thoughts.


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Randroid Terminator wrote:

Well, here's what Binswanger has to say about her:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3316

"The value of Ann Coulter's book (abstracting from its flaws) is not in
its concretes, but in the ideas that the concretes illustrate. Yes,
Coulter is savage, overstates, ridicules, and sometimes oversimplifies.
But she has a mind. Al Franken does not. She sees the big picture of
what's going on in this country. Franken not only doesn't, he twists
the picture..."

Rand would have loved her, no doubt about it.


author: Robert Kolker

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Evil Collectivist Pig Dog wrote:

Well, Rand was a man-worshiper, wasn't she?

Bob Kolker


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
It's her savagery that is my favorite thing about her.

Her style is based on the premise, If you give a liberal an inch he'll
take a mile, and she gives not one centimeter, gives no benefit of the
doubt, yields no quarter.

A typical liberal strategy is to make nice with an opponent, offer an
apparent olive branch, get consensus on one small point, and then, once
the bait is taken sink the hook in deep and reel in.

Coulter pooh poohs all bait.  Make her a piece offering and she throws
it in your face.

As to the content of her ideology, it is the typical conservative mix
of reason, mysticism and contradiction.  But her brain is sharp and her
heart is essentially in the right place.

Dan


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Dan Lind wrote:

Is her Adam's Apple in the right place too?

Bob Kolker


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Robert Kolker wrote:
mix
her

Don't know.  But I can think of worse things to do than to go looking.

She's not unattractive.  Perhaps Charles Novins could get me a search
warrant.

Dan


author: Mark N

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Randroid Terminator wrote:

Well, if the stuff that she writes in her books is anything like the
stuff that she says on political talk shows, then I, for one, could do
without reading those books. The term "loose cannon" comes to mind. This
article seems to confirm my suspicions about the nature of Coulter's books:

http://tinyurl.com/3jr5n

My guess is that Rand would not like Coulter. Coulter really doesn't
come across as a serious thinker. More of a... well, see the title of
the article that I've linked. :-)

Mark


author: Randroid Terminator

subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 01:46:17 +0000 (UTC), Mark N
<[email]> wrote:

Is Coulter too religious for Rand?

Your link took me to
http://cache.ultramercial.com/c/gm/cadillac_gateway_html.html

Nice job. Is it that Coulter drives a Caddy? Or what.

Try snurl.com for a change of pace.


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Randroid Terminator wrote:

Aw, shucks, Mal. You're too kind. Dude, do you get up on the wrong side
of the bed every day? Do you follow the maxim of always being sarcastic
because you would like all people to follow that maxim?

Anyway, I'll ignore your sarcasm and try to help you out. I think that
that page does something with the Macromedia Flash Player browser
plug-in, and it may not load properly if you don't have that plug-in.
(It's a pretty standard plug-in.)

Mark


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Agent Cooper wrote:

Fair enough. We'll log one more vote in the pro-Coulter column. :-)

Mark


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 02:52:00 +0000 (UTC), Mark N
<[email]> wrote:

Criticizing my "sarcasm" won't fix that bad link.

By the way, is Coulter too religious for Rand?


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Randroid Terminator wrote:

It works fine for me! :-)

I don't know! :-)

I'm done with this conversation now! :-)

Mark


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
Randroid Terminator wrote:

Is Ann Coulter a man?

Bob Kolker


subject: Re: Ann Coulter

text:
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:53:09 +0000 (UTC), Robert Kolker
<[email]> wrote:

No, just man-like.


author: neonprose @ gmail.com

subject: CYMBELINE:  Where Posthumous Got His Name . . .

text:
____________________________________________

The header was clipped off the comments below,
but it could be from Cockburn's book. The
note (G.B. Bacon's idea) refers to the fact
that the Union was, in fact, Bacon's idea and
he probably arrived at that view when he was
working on his brief for that landmark of
landmark cases, Calvin's Case aka Case of the
Postnati.

Posthumous = Postnati.

Some critic wrote:

  James had sought to unite two countries,
  England and Scotland, into a new one, to
  be known as 'Great Britain,' a place where
  Scots born after Jame's accession in 1603
  were called Post Nati, a label buried in
  the name of Cymblein's 'hero,'Posthumous
  Leonatus.  (G.B. Bacon's idea).


subject: Re: CYMBELINE: Where Posthumous Got His Name . . .

text:
In article
<b57c7cbf-f48b-47b7-9c63-
[email]
 "neonprose @ gmail.com" <[email]> wrote:

   Who is G. B. Bacon?

<http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/authors/read/11782>?

   "Some critic"?  Source?  "Some critic" is not very specific.

   "Some critic" wrote "Jame's" as the possessive of "James"?!  That
seems unlikely.  Is this supposed to be an actual quotation?  If so,
what it its source?  Or is it like the "quotations" that you
attributed to Dave Kathman, which turned out to be your own
fabrications?

<http://tinyurl.com/y93v959>

   "Some critic" wrote "Cymblein's"?  That seems unlikely.  Is this
supposed to be an actual quotation?  If so, what it its source?  Or is
it like the "quotations" that you attributed to Dave Kathman?


author: John W Kennedy

subject: Re: CYMBELINE:  Where Posthumous Got His Name . . .

text:
On 2011-07-04 19:48:11 -0400, neonprose @ gmail.com said:

A) The character in "Cymbeline" is named "Posthumus", not "Posthumous".

B) The history of the name "Posthumus" is complicated, but by
Shakespeare's time it was understood to signify that the bearer of the
name was born after the death of his father.

C) "Post-nati", on the other hand, was an expression coined to signify
those who were born after the accession of James VI of Scotland to the
throne of England as James I. Specifically, it was involved with the
legal question of whether a subject of James VI of Scotland was an
alien in James I's England.

In short, the two words have nothing in common except that both suggest
that the individual in question was born after something. Inasmuch as
everyone is born after /something/, it's not a very useful connection.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: YOU are morally responsible

text:
After brushing the fallout off his keyboard, aspiring mass murderer
Fred Weiss <[email]> wrote:

I applaud your honest statement of the real Objectivist position.
When push comes to shove, Rand and her demented bloodthirsty disciples
will jettison the NIOF principle whenever the rights of innocents
prove to be too inconvenient.  As you confess above, Objectivist
death-think doesn't even require the context of retaliation to violate
the rights of innocents; someone who consistently follows Rand as you
do might initiate force as an aggressor if you thought that it would
advance your precious "values."

All things considered, this is a pretty generous concession to my
thesis that Objectivists are in fact enemies of individual
liberty in spite of the philosophical window dressing to the
contrary. I leave it to others to figure out whether predation can
ever be prudent from the standpoint of rational egoism.  Instead, I'll
just observe again that Rand and her evil cult of death should be
counted among the predators and not among the champions of freedom and
capitalism.

-Coop


author: Jim Klein

subject: Re: YOU are morally responsible

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

All things considered, your cup runneth over on the point.

jk


author: Fred Weiss

subject: Re: YOU are morally responsible

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

As apart from the unreal Objectivist position? What are you talking about?
This has always been the clearly stated Objectivist position.

Inconvenient? Let's just say that when you ask your demented questions in
the future it would be nice if you specified what you were asking. You did
say "never" above. "Never" is not the same thing as "when it is convenient".
I'm only mentioning this because you are making a big deal about "honesty"
and such.

What did I "confess"? Was there some secret anyone has been hiding?

This is not exactly a revelation.

No, only if I thought it was absolutely necessary for me to stay alive and I
had no other choice. Staying alive is definitely one of my precious values.

Anarchist libertarians are the only people on earth who would drown rather
than swim to shore and breach a "no trespass" sign. On the other hand since
apparently they have nothing upstairs except hot air, maybe they figure they
can float indefinitely.

Earth to Coop, there is nothing new here. This is old hat stuff. You know,
been there/done that.

Whereas you anarchists, with brains the size of walnuts, are its mighty
defenders?

Uh, huh.

Fred Weiss


author: Derrick Everett

subject: Finding an ending: Reflections on Wagner's Ring (book review)

text:
FINDING AN ENDING: Reflections on Wagner's RING

Philip Kitcher and Richard Schacht.  Oxford Univ. Press, 2004.

In this recently published addition to the Wagner literature, two
professional philosophers, who are also amateur singers, offer their views
on the 'Ring'. The ending referred to in the book's title is "das Ende":
the outcome that Wotan seeks, even after he has given up all other
objectives and ambitions. As Erda tells him (and us), all that is, will
end: including Wotan and whatever order he is able to establish in the
world.  The central issue of the 'Ring' -- and Wotan's paramount concern
-- is, according to the authors of this book, the quest for an ending that
is meaningful for Wotan.  Rather than, as other commentators have chosen
to believe, making choices between love and power; because, as the
author's see Wotan's problem, neither love nor power are The Answer.

Kitcher and Schacht do not presume to present a full-blown philosophical
interpretation of the tetralogy but rather a "philosophical excursion"
through it. They argue that the 'Ring' is a work of philosophical
substance and depth, even though Wagner was by his own admission not a
philosopher. Although their discussion of the work is mainly concerned
with ideas and concepts, it is illustrated by references to the words and
music and clearly based on a close study of Wagner's scores.

Inevitably this "philosophical excursion" passes through aspects of the
tetralogy that have been much debated here and elsewhere.  The authors
have a well-defined point of view about the 'Ring' and on that basis argue
cogently for a consistent interpretation.  Their arguments are almost
entirely based on internal, rather than external, evidence; although they
have taken note of Wagner's statements about the tetralogy, in particular
those made in his letters respectively to Liszt and to Rï¿œckel.  In their
bibliography, the authors list the books that have been most influential
in developing their ideas about the 'Ring': they state that Tanner, in his
'Wagner', defines a position that is closest to their own, while that of
G.B.Shaw is "almost diametrically opposed".  As philosophers, naturally
enough it is the philosophical ideas expressed in the tetralogy that are
of most interest to Kitcher and Schacht; and they are not so much
interested in the political ideas underlying Wagner's text -- with the
exception of those concerning human freedom -- as in his ideas about the
possibilities of meaningful living and, in that context, in the value of
love and heroism respectively.

The book is divided into 21 short chapters, each of which should provide
enough material for an entire day of reflection.  The first concerns
Wagner's involvement with philosophy, as well as a brief history of the
development of the 'Ring'.  I found this better on Feuerbach than on Hegel
-- the Hegelian concept of the hero and his role in history is not
mentioned -- and I tend to the view that Schopenhauer had less of an
influence on the 'Ring' -- except for the so-called Schopenhauer ending --
than this chapter suggests.  The 'Ring' poems were completed in 1852 and,
as all readers of this newsgroup are well aware, Wagner discovered
Schopenhauer's philosophy in the autumn of 1854.  Admittedly, he did make
changes to 'Siegfried', much later; but I do not find anything in them to
suggest that Schopenhauer was responsible.  Wagner simply realised that
there were too many words in 'Siegfried'; some listeners might wish that
he had cut more.

If I have one major reservation about this book, it is the preoccupation
of its authors with authority and judgement; while these categories are
not entirely out of place in a discussion of the 'Ring', the emphasis that
is placed upon them by Kitcher and Schacht seems to me a little forced.
Therefore I found chapter 2, a discussion of authority and judgement in
'Don Giovanni', to be of little interest.

So the book only gets started, in my view, on the main course as it were,
with chapter 3.  This concerns Alberich -- whom the authors described as
basically innocent but innocently base -- and Fricka.  At the beginning of
the cycle, we meet Alberich and the Rhinemaidens, in a world at play, a
world of games in which there are winners and losers.  Alberich is one of
the losers, who progresses from innocence to the knowledge that he is a
loser, and so to bitterness.  He fashions the ring from the primordial
gold not, like Wotan's spear, as a means to higher ends "but out of a
pathological impulse to which the primordial state was always vulnerable"
(p.78).

I think that the authors are a little harsh on Fricka.  Granted, her
contribution to the story is mainly to remind Wotan of certain principles
and to shatter some of his illusions -- but I think that we should respect
Fricka (to whom Wagner gives some of the noblest music in 'Die Walkï¿œre'),
since she stands for principle against the political expediency of her
husband.  Kitcher and Schacht, however, call her intervention "myopic";
she does not care about the big picture, which is, for the authors, all
about "das Ende".

Gradually the authors turn their attention to Wotan, who is the subject of
the succeeding chapters.  Although Wagner started out to write an opera
about the hero Siegfried, he ended up writing a four-part drama in which,
as most commentators agree, Wotan displaced the hero as the central
character.  Kitcher and Schacht base their interpretation of Wotan on the
entirely reasonable belief that he was, from the very beginning, concerned
with finding meaning in (his) existence.  According to the authors, Wotan
decided (before we see him on stage) that this meaning could be found in
establishing an admirable order in the world.  Admittedly, Wotan does not
say this in so many words: in W-2-ii he says that, when "youthful love's
delights had faded", he had longed for power; but he does not say that he
longed for power so that he might establish an admirable order, in which
he might find meaning.  So the authors have read this between his lines:
and the key question for the reader is whether they buy into this reading.

Further, the authors speculate (p.44) that even before the start of 'Das
Rheingold', Wotan has recognized that the consolidation and perpetuation
of his system of law and order is beyond even his power; that system is
inherently unstable, as would be, most likely, any system of world order.
The desperate need for the stronghold, Valhalla, is an admission that law
and order are only weakly established.  By the end of 'Das Rheingold',
Wotan knows that Valhalla will not solve his problem; so Wotan, the
dreamer, comes up with a new dream, the "grand idea" that seizes him as he
greets Valhalla: "project Siegmund".  He seeks something else, a
second-best goal: to find an ending.  So when Erda counsels him to given
up the ring, Wotan knows that even by following her advice, he cannot
avoid the downfall of the gods; but by keeping the ring, the ending would
be different and it might come sooner.  Wotan wants an ending that will
make all his strivings at least seem worthwhile.  His despair in the
second scene of 'Die Walkï¿œre' act two is a despair of being able to bring
about a *meaningful* ending.  Thus: "only one thing to I still want: the
end - the end!"  Kitcher and Schacht argue -- with unassailable logic --
that Wotan is groping towards a conclusion that he never finds; although
it is found, in the end, by Brï¿œnnhilde.  This conclusion is, they say,
the following: that existence can be endowed with meaning (or
significance), and therefore vindicated, if a realization (however
transient and imperfect) of key values finds an ending that preserves and
enhances that meaning (or significance).

Kitcher and Schacht note that Wagner makes much use, in the 'Ring', of the
word "ewig" (eternal).  Characters sing of "ewige Gï¿œtter" (eternal or
immortal gods).  Erda appears to remind them that "all that is, will end";
and two operas later, she has to tell Wotan that "you are not who you say
you are"; he is not an immortal god.  Those references to the immortal
gods are dramatically ironic; and there is deep irony in the Norn's
statement that "the end of the eternal gods eternally is at hand" (der
ewigen Gï¿œtter Ende dï¿œmmert ewig da auf).  The authors cite a much-quoted
letter to Rï¿œckel of January 1854, in which Wagner explained: "Eternal
[ewig] -- in the true sense of the word -- is that which negates finitude
(or rather: the concept of finitude): the concept of finitude is unsuited
to 'reality', for reality -- i.e. something that is constantly changing,
new and multifarious -- is precisely the negation of all that is merely
imagined and conceived as finite".  Earlier in the same letter, he wrote:
"... the essence of reality lies in its endless multiplicity.  This
inexhaustible multiplicity which incessantly reproduces and renews itself
can be apprehended, however, by feeling, which perceives it simply as a
separate, ever-changing phenomenon: this sense of change is the essence of
reality, whereas only what is imagined is changelessly unending.  Only
what changes is real: to be real, to live -- what this means is to be
created, to grow, to bloom, to wither and to die; without the necessity of
death, there is no possibility of life; that alone has no end which has no
beginning..."

Loge is a much-debated character in the 'Ring'.  He tells us that Wotan
had once tamed him; and he seems to delight in doing Wotan's bidding in
ways that Wotan will come to regret.  The authors do not see him, as did
Wieland Wagner, as "the intellectual" of the drama; rather, they suggest
that, once in Wotan's power, Loge chose the survival tactic of being
clever.  They also suggest that it is wrong to think of Loge as a
trickster.  Rather, he is a character who is concerned only with means and
not with ends.  While he is not really a moral being, he delights in
taking the moral high ground; and suggests to Wotan, no less than four
times, the possibility of returning the ring to the Rhinedaughters.  Of
course, that is what Wotan should have done, once he had the ring; Loge is
clever enough to see it.  Wotan is not concerned with doing the right
thing, however; his order is not a moral order, and he dismisses Loge's
suggestions in favour of expediency that he believes will achieve his
ends.  Kitcher and Schacht suggest that Loge understands that those ends
are unattainable.

Wotan puts his hope in heroism and so fathers a race of heros in the hope
that they will achieve what he, the least free of all, cannot: the
recovery of the ring and placing it beyond the reach of Alberich.  After
Fricka has destroyed his illusions about "project Siegmund", Wotan
despairs.  After the death of Siegmund, his hope is rekindled by the news
that Siegfried has been conceived; and we see him watching from the
sidelines as Siegfried progresses through the next opera.  (Kitcher and
Schacht are intelligent enough -- unlike some producers -- to recognise
that Wotan does not provide any assistance to Siegfried).

Yet his hope turns out to be misplaced, since the hero does not achieve
anything.  Like his father before him, Siegfried is not The Answer; far
from being a free agent, he is easily manipulated, not by Wotan but by
Hagen.  The problem with Siegfried is not that he is Wotan's puppet, which
of course he is not; the problem is that becomes the tool of Hagen.  In
the end, there is a free agent, however, one whom Wotan never considered:
his rebellious daughter, Brï¿œnnhilde.  Her first step in that direction is
her decision to protect Siegmund; then, her divinity kissed away, she
becomes a mortal woman and is, according to the authors, torn between two
loves: her love for Siegfried (and perhaps also, the authors suggest, for
the heroism that he represents, the Hero as a type) and her love for Wotan
(the parallels with Cordelia and Lear, drawn in the book, are valid but
not very helpful).  Yet, as Kitcher and Schacht point out, love is
probably not a good basis for a stable order, no more than heroism: since
both love and heroism are more likely to destabilize any order based on
laws and contracts.

Kitcher and Schacht argue, plausibly, that Wotan acquiesces in his own
passing.  So he deliberately blocks Siegfried's path, so that the hero has
to shatter the spear on which those laws and contracts have been recorded.
 Although his anger at the boy's insolence is real anger.  It could be
said that Wotan's tragic flaw is his tendency to hasty action in anger;
but in this instance, the outcome is probably what he intended.  Kitcher
and Schacht seem a bit perplexed by Wotan's subsequent depression: isn't
the simple and obvious reason for this, that Siegfried has given the ring
to Brï¿œnnhilde, who shows no sign of giving it up?  Even less so, now that
she has given up some of her wisdom to Siegfried; it only returns to her
when he is dead.  Then she attains a new nobility and a new authority: "in
her new state she is enabled to love Siegfried anew and differently; to
love more wide-rangingly and compassionately, honoring some of the claims
of her former comprehensive love; to rise to a new kind of heroism; and to
accomplish a higher justice".  She has that new authority because she
knows (after talking to the Rhinemaidens) about the manipulation of
Siegfried; and she knows (say Kitcher and Schacht) that the rule of love
is not a solution of Wotan's problem of order.  One might object that she
didn't know this in the "Feuerbach ending" of the drama; although she
might do in the more ambiguous ending that Wagner finally selected.  It
might also be observed, although Kitcher and Schacht do not consider it,
that the importance of compassion displaces that of love in the
"Schopenhauer ending".  This is the result, as they should know, of the
primacy given to compassion in Schopenhauer's ethics.

Kitcher and Schacht observer that, after world has been cleansed by fire
and flood, we are not quite back "at square one".  We know something that
we did not know at the beginning of the cycle: "love may not conquer all,
or resolve all, or even preserve all; but the kind of love Brï¿œnnhilde
comes to know and to express can vindicate all..."  So the ending is not
accurately described, as Wagner sometimes described it, as a redemption:
rather, in these authors' view, it is a vindication.  All that is, ends;
"including all order and the very best of lives and loves; but in their
mere presence, however ephemeral, they have the power to illumine the
world in a manner that vindicates all".  That is their conclusion.

'Finding an ending' is a book that can be read with profit by all who want
to find meaning in the 'Ring', both those who know it well and those who
are discovering it for the first time.


author: Bert Coules

subject: Re: Finding an ending: Reflections on Wagner's Ring (book review)

text:
Derrick, many thanks for the review of what sounds like a fascinating book.
On the subject of Wotan as the central character of The Ring, it seems at
the very least dramatically inept that most productions deny him what is in
some ways his most important appearance, the one at the end of
Gï¿½tterdï¿½mmerung.

Bert
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk


author: michael

text:
Derrick Everett wrote:

Fricka is often not much commented upon, however IMO she represents
nothing particularly positive towards a classical heroic notion of
womanhood.  She is petty and as covetous as Wotan for the Ring (here I
am thinking of her queries to Loge asking whether a woman could use the
Ring for her intended purposes.  In this I'd agree that she may be
described as "innocently base", but innocent only provisionally.

Loge's admonitions must be seen in the light of high irony.  Obviously
he is less concerned with Wotan's world than his own.  We discussed this
a bit back, but IMO the character of Loge resembles Pilate.  He knows
the outcome but will persist in an ironic challenge to those whose
behavior he finds detestable while, at the same time, ignoring or
rationalizing his own behavior.

Siegfried is a paradox, but perhaps a not so uncommon one.  He is, in
essence, a saint without wisdom.  But better to be this, than its opposite.

Interesting, and (without reading the book) I'd guess your comment is
right on about not being 'helpful'.  Lear was a fool who made foolish
decisions.  Wotan could hardly be called a fool, though his decisions
were questionable.  Also, in many respects, Cordelia is a minor
character (though important for dramatic effect, and she is necessary in
order to understand the basic irony surrounding Lear).  Not so of
Brunnhilde.

Did the authors discuss the change of ending after RW digested
Schopenhauer?  I'd think this material and its implications should be
important for a book ostensibly about the Ring's ending?

michael


text:
"Did the authors discuss the change of ending after RW digested
Schopenhauer? I'd think this material and its implications should be
important for a book ostensibly about the Ring's ending?"

Curiously enough, Kitcher and Schacht seem to have little interest in
Wagner's struggle to find a satisfactory ending to 'Götterdämmerung'.
They discuss the revisions of Brünnhilde's narration only briefly.
In general they are concerned only with the final version of Wagner's
poem as it is used in the score, and not with the development of the
'Ring' from the initial concept for a Siegfried opera to that final
version.  That is a subject already discussed by other commentators in
the extensive literature about the 'Ring'.

As I noted in my earlier posting, the authors do not consider how
Wagner's conversion to Schopenhauer's philosophy, and in particular his
ethics, affected the ending of 'Götterdämmerung'.  Given that both
authors are teachers of philosophy, I find this a strange omission.

I consider it significant that, around the middle of the 1850's, Wagner
moved from a position in which "redemption through love" was a central
concept, to one in which compassion was seen as primary and love (of
various kinds) as secondary.  During the same years, he moved out of
his revolutionary world-view (although he never fully renounced his
anarchist-socialist views and his view of religion was still coloured
by the influence of Feuerbach) into one that was less worldly and more
metaphysical.

These changes in Wagner's world-view are reflected in the change from
the so-called Feuerbach ending (which could be characterised as a
political message, rejecting the authority both of state and of church)
to the so-called Schopenhauer ending (which is more religious in
character) of the poem.  In the Feuerbach ending, Brünnhilde says that
she leaves behind her a world without rulers, freed from treaties,
laws, commandments and social conventions; in the Schopenhauer ending,
Brünnhilde declares that she has become free of delusion and that she
now closes behind her the gates of eternal becoming.  As you know,
around 1872 Wagner removed this part of Brünnhilde's narration --
Cosima found it contentious -- and he added a footnote to the libretto
in which he said that the words were superfluous, since their meaning
was expressed in the music.


text:
Dear Derrick:

Thanks for your review of Kitcher and Schacht. I found little that is
new or even provocative in their entire book. I did agree with them
that Wagner's 'Ring' must be studied closely as a philosophical work. I
agree with you entirely that their emphasis on "authority", etc., and
their appeal to various parallels in such works as 'Don Giovanni' and
'Lear' are more or less crap. Tanner has made a fool of himself
praising their work in such a hyperbolic manner. They do indeed provide
some useful discussions of interesting issues, but quite frankly I
plowed all that ground 20 years ago, as will become evident in my
'Ring' chapters in my soon to be completed paperback version of my book
'The Wound that Will Never Heal', which I will be marketing online
hopefully by year's end.

My little piece of news is that I will be completing a shorter,
paperback worthy version of my book (first draft completed last
February) on the ten canonic Wagner operas (from 'Dutchman' through
'Parsifal') before year's end (currently, the ten chapters collectively
stand at 1,800 single-spaced typed pages, and I hope to reduce this
material to about 350 pages or so). I will seek an online publisher and
offer it for sale online.

By the way, I read Borchmeyer's book 'Theater and the World of Richard
Wagner (is that the title? I can't remember it exactly), which I found
largely excellent, suffering however from considerable overlap with his
earlier book 'Richard Wagner - Theory and Theater' (is that the title?:
for some reason I can never remember).

And I am in the middle of Kohler's new interpretive biography on
Wagner. If you read his chapter on 'Lohengrin', you will find numerous
instances where he may well have read my prior essay 'How Elsa Showed
Wagner the Way to Siegfried' (published in the May 1995 issue of the
British Wagner Society's scholarly journal WAGNER)but seems to have
garbled my ideas in transmission. This will be self-evident to you, who
have already read my published article and also the extended chapter on
'Lohengrin' from the first draft of my book. However, he botches his
interpretation badly by leaving these very useful insights behind in
favor his his preposterously strained effort to read Wagner's personal
life into his artworks. I'll gladly give you a detailed list of his
evident "borrowings" at a later date. There are also what appear to be
other borrowings from my work here and there, or at any rate I can say
that quite a number of his "insights" appeared in work I copyrighted
many years ago, in some instances 20 years ago.

By the way, I gave a talk on this subject to the Boston Wagner Society
on 12/4/04. It was very well received and I have now been invited back
to speak on 'Parsifal'. I am producing an extended version of this talk
entitled "How Elsa Showed Wagner the Way to Siegfried" for publication
as an independent essay, and will provide it to those members of the
Boston Wagner Society who indicate an interest (and also to anybody on
discussion board who indicates an interest), as an online attachment,
as soon as it is completed in a week or so.

Anyone wishing to learn more about my upcoming book 'The Wound that
Will Never Heal' can contact me, Paul Heise, at
[email], and/or at 1810 52nd St. South, Apt. 2,
Gulfport, FL 33707, USA; Home Tel: 727-321-7460.

Derrick Everett wrote:
views
Ende":
will
the
concern
that
chosen
philosophical
excursion"
a
concerned
and
the
authors
argue
they
particular
their
influential
in his
of
naturally
are
the
the
of
provide
the
Hegel
ending --
and,
make
them to
that
that
preoccupation
are
that
forced.
in
were,
as
beginning of
a
one of
a
primordial
vulnerable"
principles
respect
Walküre'),
her
"myopic";
all
subject of
opera
which,
the
concerned
Wotan
in
not
love's
that he
which
lines:
reading.
'Das
perpetuation
is
order.
law
Rheingold',
as he
given
would
will
bring
the


text:
Paul, thank you for your comments!  Yes I think Tanner did wax a bit
too lyrical in praise of 'Finding an Ending', although that might be
because his own view of the 'Ring' is very close to the position set
out in this book.

As I comment in the 'Wagner Books FAQ', Borchmeyer's latest book
consists mostly of material that has appeared elsewhere, collated,
reworked and in some cases significantly improved.  Some of that
material appeared in earlier versions in the collection 'Richard Wagner
- Theory and Theater'; I thought that in particular the essay on
'Parsifal' was greatly improved in the later book.  Unfortunately the
English translation of 'Drama and the World of Richard Wagner' omits
what is probably the most important chapter in the German edition, an
essay on Wagner and Heine.

Anyone who has not read your article, 'How Elsa Showed Wagner the Way
to Siegfried' (1995), should seek it out -- I found it
thought-provoking and original.  It does not surprise me either that
Joachim Köhler has used your ideas without attribution, or that he
mangles them to fit his purposes.


author: Janice Rosen

text:
Hi all,

Just a few rough thoughts on Shakespeare's influence on Wagner's
"search for an ending" to the Ring.

I bought a copy of Kitchner's "Finding an Ending:
Reflections on Wagner's Ring" last Spring through the NY Wagner Society
when the
book first came out.  As I read it I became intrigued by the concept of
what the ending should
or could have been.  Wagner had composed several endings to the Ring,
finally
deciding on the ultimate destruction of the gods after his reading of
Feuerbach
and Schopenhauer.  Starting even as early as Rheingold, there is a
forboding of
the "promised end."  Wagner was very much taken with Shakespeare's
works (and I
am sure he was familiar with the play "King Lear" - in which Lear, in
desperation, constantly asks "Is this the promised end?" - i.e. the end
of all
suffering and pain, which can only be achieved by the end of the
world.)   In
such respect, Wotan, too dreams of that "promised end." And in
Gotterdammerung,
when Waltraute visits Brunnhilde to beg her to give back the ring to
the
Rheinmaidens, there is a sense of dark Shakespearean tragedy, non
unlike that of
"King Lear" in which Wotan asks - but not directly, as we are not
witnessing it
- "Is this the promised end (to the gods - i.e. Gotterdammerung?)

Any thoughts on this?

By the way, I second Derrick's comment that any one who has not yet
read Paul Heise's "How Elsa Showed Wagner the Way to Siegfried," should
definitely seek it out and read it.  The detailed and fresh
perspectives on the Ring have added new insight to my understanding
that I had not thought of before.

Janice Rosen
Washington, DC


text:
Dear Janice and Derrick and other readers:

I just wanted to add not only that my chapter on 'Lohengrin' in its
relation to the 'Ring' in the first draft of my book is far more
extensive than the article which Stewart Spencer published in the
journal he edited for the British Wagner Society for so long, WAGNER,
but the new essay I'm preparing of the same title for the members of
the Boston Wagner Society who wished to have a formal version of the
talk I gave on this subject will be finished in a week or so, and I'll
provide it to those interested. I may well try to publish it as a
separate study more or less to advertise my upcoming online book.

By the way, my essay on the 'Ring' whose first three of four parts are
now posted on the web at www.bostonwagnersociety.org, and which has
been published by Dalia Geffen in her newsletter WAGNERIANA, is also
appearing now in translation, in both Finnish and German, in the
magazine of the Wagner Society of Helsinki, GRANE. The first of two
parts appeared in the November issue, and I believe the second of the
two parts will be appearing in the next issue, due out sometime this
month or next.

Yours from Wagnerheim,

Paul alias Alberich00

Paul Heise
1810 52nd St. South
Apt. 2
Gulfport, FL 33707
USA
Home Tel: 727-321-7460
Email: [email]

PS. I've just finished reading Joachim Koehler's chapter on Schelling's
influence on Wagner, and I regard this chapter as a significant
contribution to our knowledge of Wagner's various influences, though I
differ with Koehler on a number of other issues, including his
simplistic attribution of the inspiration which produced the music for
the 'Ring' to the influence of Laudanum and Liszt. I have long planned
to add Schelling to my list of studies but was never able to acquire
any of his books. Luckily, Feuerbach and Schopenhauer absorbed some of
Schelling's ideas so I was able to enter his thought-world indirectly
through their work, and of course through Wagner himself.

Janice Rosen wrote:
Society
of
end
should


text:
Janice Rosen wrote:

A sense of 'dark Shakespearean tragedy' could just as easily read a
'sense of dark Euripidean tragedy'.  I mean, dark tragedy is dark
tragedy.  Yet the more I think of the Ring less I think of Lear.  As I
mentioned earlier, Lear was a fool who made rash and foolish decisions.
  He eventually went mad.  Wotan was very intelligent, but conniving.
His decisions were not foolish in the usual sense of the word, but
certainly questionable.  Lear consciously abandoned power.  Wotan
consciously sought power.  Lear's daughters (Cordelia excepted) were
regicidal.  There is nothing comparable in the Ring.  I can accept that,
in a way, Lear's fool and Loge could be compared in that they both
understood their sovereign's faults, but Loge was no buffoon.

Maybe others think differently and have different arguments, but when
Derrick posted his book review some days back his mention of the
author's linkage of the Ring to Lear struck me as particularly odd.  So,
other than something very broad and unspecific which might apply to
tragedy in general I'd be inclined not to pursue the matter.  Also,
there are grounds for thinking that Wotan eventually found his peace.
Can the same be said for Lear?

michael


author: A.C. Douglas

text:
"michael" <[email]> wrote:

Neither was Lear's fool.

I agree with you that there's very little connection between Wagner's _Ring_ and
Shakespeare's _Lear_.  They're coming from two very different places, so to
speak, and no substantive connection can be made between the two except on the
most general of dramatic-tragic grounds.