Thursday, July 12, 2012

Five Things

Five Things That
Nostalgia Me





Yes, gammy liked porn

The Naughty Nineties: A Saucy Pop-Up Book for Adults Only

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Res Ipsa Loquitor
Not for mixed company.

That would be the eighteen-nineties. The dirty little secret we won't tell our kids, grand-kids, or great grand-kids, is that  prissy though we pretend to be, we enjoyed and collected pornographic filth too.  This book, The Naughty Nineties: A Saucy Pop-Up Book for Adults Only (for adults only), is a prime example, and will ship in a plain brown wrapper from Amazon.  Boin-ggg! 

Dwarf's Revenge

Gary Larsen
Dwarf Throwing

Pluto  is pissed about losing its planet status in a meaningless gesture by nerds with Kimchi breath.  and  is  seemingly raising a posse.  Ruh-roh.

Getting Inside Ayn Rand

    Rich Stuff

Hulu offers the full 82 minute movie Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged   in return for showing some  commercials' Or, if you have NetFlix,  there are none.  In any event, and even if you've read Atlas Shrugged—especially if you've read it, I encourage you to watch  at least 10 minutes.  Trust me.

Why closed-mindedness is an imperative for the left

The Politics of Cognitive Dissonance
Why closed-mindedness is an imperative for the left.

Res Ipsa Loquitor

'Don't repeat conservative language or ideas, even when arguing against them.'
That bit of advice, No. 1 on a list titled "The 10 Most Important Things Democrats Should Know," comes from the promotional material for "The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic" by George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling.

Many politicians, pundits and talking heads have taken Lakoff's recommendation to heart. This is why conservatives and liberals can't seem to have the simplest conversation: liberals intentionally refuse to address or even acknowledge what conservatives say. Since (as Lakoff notes) conservatives invariably frame their own statements within their own conservative "moral frames," every time a conservative speaks, his liberal opponent will seemingly ignore what was said and instead come back with a reply literally [sic] out of left field.

    Thus, he is the progenitor of and primary advocate for the main reason why liberalism fails to win the public debate: Because it never directly confronts, disproves or negates conservative notions--it simply ignores them. . . .

Res Ipsa LoquitorBy intentionally refusing to challenge, disprove, understand or even acknowledge the existence of the other side's argument, you allow that argument to grow in strength and win converts.

Such an attitude is the product of leftist intellectuals, not political professionals--and, as Zombie notes, the latter are foolish to follow it:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, is an exemplary Lakoffite, relentlessly hammering home her own framing of each issue, and utterly ignoring the Republican frame, except on rare occasion to mock it. How effective is this? A quick survey of conservative sites shows that she is regarded as the Queen of Buffoons, a figure meriting gleeful derision and eliciting relief that the Democrats have selected the worst possible spokesperson. She certainly hasn't changed a single conservative mind, I can assure you. But has she converted "undecided" voters to the liberal cause?
I posit that the answer is "No," and I'll explain why. . .(JAMES TARANTO continued)

This strategy will also explain perfectly how the media can ignore the very facts of a story that have previously, and publicly,  been laid out for them as though they didn't exist.  I might be the only one saying this, but how can meaningful dialog exist with these people?  And in its absence,  isn't the violent solution inevitable?  Sorry, it's not what I hope for, it's what must be.