Now Reading

[Michelle]

We - Yevgeny Zamyatin

Ah, what a miserably depressing book.

Have you read The Master and Margarita?

Not yet.

Should I?

As to being depressing, nothing sours my mood quite like Brave New World. It's the greatest satire ever written and a joy to read, purely on a literary level. But whenever I read that book and then happen upon something like Jerry Springer, I just go into a slump for the rest of the day.

Not necessessarily. Someone lent it to me, I read about half with some amusement before, due to an unexpected job opporutnity, I had to retyurn the book. Much better than We. But them, anything would be better than We, including late term abortions for fun. I read Brave New World at about age 14 or 15. Struck me as very literatury, not as good as 1984. Never felt the desire to reread either.

I like We. It's a clever little novel that set the template for one of the twentieth century's most influential literary genres.

1984 is alright, but you only really need to read it once. Fascism bad. Got it.

Animal Farm is definitely the superior Orwell novel.

Brave New World is great because it's one of those few examples of capital L Literature that is actually fun to read. The writing style is probably the best I have ever seen. It would definitely be the example I'd use if someone asked me to show me a book that is extremely well-written. Moreover, the characters all pop, the plot is hilarious and disturbing in turns, and it becomes more and more socially relevant as time goes by. Most novels are artifacts of the past, but BNW is continually fresh. The sci-fi in the book such as genetic engineering and cloning is only just becoming an issue today. The vision of a dumbed-down and doped-up society of whim-worshipping puppets who hold nothing as sacred and have no notion of individuality mirrors our own decaying society disturbingly well. And this was a book published in the early 1930s!

The book is almost perfect. It's only problem is that Huxley seemed to be a fairly pessimistic individual during this period and offered the savage no alternative between primitivism and collectivism, the mud hut and the "great social stream." Faced with this kind of a choice, it is no wonder he ends up doing what he does at the end.

We was a slog. The only reason I kept reading it was because I figured such a miserable story must be redeemed by heroic action and a happy ending. It wasn't. I can't recommend it at all to anyone. The friend who recommended Margarita did so when seh saw I was reading We, she said it was much better, and although I didn't finish it, she was right about the first third.

I read BNW so long ago, and well before I was mature enough to appreciate Shakespeare. It struck me as on the same level as Lord of the Flies, worth having read, but not something I would want to repeat, like I would, say, Time Enough for Love, or Chapterhouse Dune.

Of Orwell's books, I disliked Animal Farm - too obvious. I enjoyed 1984 mostly because I am a linguist. But my favorite books by him are Down and Out in Paris and London and Homage to Catalonia. And to his fiction I prefer his essays, which I have collected in four volumes.

Currently I am reading:

Caesar and Christ, Will Durant

The Puppetmasters, Heinlein

Chesterton Collected Works Vol IV

Ordeal of the Union, Vol I, Allan Nevins

How was Animal Farm obvious? It was a really clever little allegory. Although it isn't something I'd read as often or with as much enjoyment as, say, Watership Down.

So you enjoyed 1984 because of Newspeak?

It's probably the only genuinely frightening aspect of that novel. A language which shrinks with every passing year so that language, and thus thought itself, falls under the control of the State.

The only essay by Orwell I've read is Politics and the English Language.

I'm not a huge fan of Heinlein. His stuff is largely hit-or-miss for me.

Most of Dostoevsky's stuff demands to be re-read at least once.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Michelle R

[kiaer.ts]

We - Yevgeny Zamyatin

Ah, what a miserably depressing book.

Have you read The Master and Margarita?

Not yet.

Should I?

As to being depressing, nothing sours my mood quite like Brave New World. It's the greatest satire ever written and a joy to read, purely on a literary level. But whenever I read that book and then happen upon something like Jerry Springer, I just go into a slump for the rest of the day.

Not necessessarily. Someone lent it to me, I read about half with some amusement before, due to an unexpected job opporutnity, I had to retyurn the book. Much better than We. But them, anything would be better than We, including late term abortions for fun. I read Brave New World at about age 14 or 15. Struck me as very literatury, not as good as 1984. Never felt the desire to reread either.

I like We. It's a clever little novel that set the template for one of the twentieth century's most influential literary genres.

1984 is alright, but you only really need to read it once. Fascism bad. Got it.

Animal Farm is definitely the superior Orwell novel.

Brave New World is great because it's one of those few examples of capital L Literature that is actually fun to read. The writing style is probably the best I have ever seen. It would definitely be the example I'd use if someone asked me to show me a book that is extremely well-written. Moreover, the characters all pop, the plot is hilarious and disturbing in turns, and it becomes more and more socially relevant as time goes by. Most novels are artifacts of the past, but BNW is continually fresh. The sci-fi in the book such as genetic engineering and cloning is only just becoming an issue today. The vision of a dumbed-down and doped-up society of whim-worshipping puppets who hold nothing as sacred and have no notion of individuality mirrors our own decaying society disturbingly well. And this was a book published in the early 1930s!

The book is almost perfect. It's only problem is that Huxley seemed to be a fairly pessimistic individual during this period and offered the savage no alternative between primitivism and collectivism, the mud hut and the "great social stream." Faced with this kind of a choice, it is no wonder he ends up doing what he does at the end.

We was a slog. The only reason I kept reading it was because I figured such a miserable story must be redeemed by heroic action and a happy ending. It wasn't. I can't recommend it at all to anyone. The friend who recommended Margarita did so when seh saw I was reading We, she said it was much better, and although I didn't finish it, she was right about the first third.

I read BNW so long ago, and well before I was mature enough to appreciate Shakespeare. It struck me as on the same level as Lord of the Flies, worth having read, but not something I would want to repeat, like I would, say, Time Enough for Love, or Chapterhouse Dune.

Of Orwell's books, I disliked Animal Farm - too obvious. I enjoyed 1984 mostly because I am a linguist. But my favorite books by him are Down and Out in Paris and London and Homage to Catalonia. And to his fiction I prefer his essays, which I have collected in four volumes.

Currently I am reading:

Caesar and Christ, Will Durant

The Puppetmasters, Heinlein

Chesterton Collected Works Vol IV

Ordeal of the Union, Vol I, Allan Nevins

How was Animal Farm obvious? It was a really clever little allegory. Although it isn't something I'd read as often or with as much enjoyment as, say, Watership Down.

So you enjoyed 1984 because of Newspeak?

It's probably the only genuinely frightening aspect of that novel. A language which shrinks with every passing year so that language, and thus thought itself, falls under the control of the State.

The only essay by Orwell I've read is Politics and the English Language.

I'm not a huge fan of Heinlein. His stuff is largely hit-or-miss for me.

Most of Dostoevsky's stuff demands to be re-read at least once.

Well, Animal Farm was an allegory, so of course it was obvious. I read it in 7th grade, in 1981, long before I read Rand. (Well, three years - which used to be a long time.) I was a huge anti-communist Reaganite. I simply found it obvious.

Orrwell's essays are incomparable. You should read Shooting an Elephant. I'll post it below.

[kiaer.ts]

Here is Orwell's Essay Shooting an Elephant: (Wikipedia Article)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Shooting an Elephant" is an essay by George Orwell, written during the autumn of 1936. Orwell tells of shooting an elephant in British-controlled Burma as an Imperial Policeman in 1926.

Publication history

Orwell first published the essay in New Writing First series No. 2 in 1936.[1][2] After his death it was republished several times, including: Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays by Secker and Warburg in 1950;[3] Inside the Whale and Other Essays by Penguin Books and Secker and Warburg in 1957;[4] and Selected Writings by George Bott in 1958.[5]

Context

Britain conquered Burma over a period of sixty-two years (1823—1886), during which three Anglo-Burmese Wars took place, and incorporated it into its Indian Empire. Burma was administered as a province of India until 1937 when it became a separate, self-governing colony; independence was attained as a result of the Aung San–Attlee agreement which guaranteed Burmese independence. Aung San was assassinated after the agreement was formalized, but before it took effect and Burma attained its independence on January 4, 1948.

With a strong interest in the lives of the working class, George Orwell (born 1903 in India to a middle-class family but brought up in Britain) held the post of Assistant Superintendent in the British Imperial Police from 1922 to 1927. Obliged to enforce the laws of an imperial power with which he came to disagree, Orwell's distaste for totalitarian regimes developed. His criticisms of totalitarianism that came to fruition in Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm have their foundations in his years in Burma.

Shooting an Elphant

In Moulmein, in lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people – the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me. I was sub-divisional police officer of the town, and in an aimless, petty kind of way anti-European feeling was very bitter. No one had the guts to raise a riot, but if a European woman went through the bazaars alone somebody would probably spit betel juice over her dress. As a police officer I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so. When a nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way, the crowd yelled with hideous laughter. This happened more than once. In the end the sneering yellow faces of young men that met me everywhere, the insults hooted after me when I was at a safe distance, got badly on my nerves. The young Buddhist priests were the worst of all. There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans.

All this was perplexing and upsetting. For at that time I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better. Theoretically – and secretly, of course – I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British. As for the job I was doing, I hated it more bitterly than I can perhaps make clear. In a job like that you see the dirty work of Empire at close quarters. The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey, cowed faces of the long-term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who had been Bogged with bamboos – all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt. But I could get nothing into perspective. I was young and ill-educated and I had had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East. I did not even know that the British Empire is dying, still less did I know that it is a great deal better than the younger empires that are going to supplant it. All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible. With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, in saecula saeculorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts. Feelings like these are the normal by-products of imperialism; ask any Anglo-Indian official, if you can catch him off duty.

One day something happened which in a roundabout way was enlightening. It was a tiny incident in itself, but it gave me a better glimpse than I had had before of the real nature of imperialism – the real motives for which despotic governments act. Early one morning the sub-inspector at a police station the other end of the town rang me up on the phone and said that an elephant was ravaging the bazaar. Would I please come and do something about it? I did not know what I could do, but I wanted to see what was happening and I got on to a pony and started out. I took my rifle, an old 44 Winchester and much too small to kill an elephant, but I thought the noise might be useful in terrorem. Various Burmans stopped me on the way and told me about the elephant's doings. It was not, of course, a wild elephant, but a tame one which had gone "must." It had been chained up, as tame elephants always are when their attack of "must" is due, but on the previous night it had broken its chain and escaped. Its mahout, the only person who could manage it when it was in that state, had set out in pursuit, but had taken the wrong direction and was now twelve hours' journey away, and in the morning the elephant had suddenly reappeared in the town. The Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless against it. It had already destroyed somebody's bamboo hut, killed a cow and raided some fruit-stalls and devoured the stock; also it had met the municipal rubbish van and, when the driver jumped out and took to his heels, had turned the van over and inflicted violences upon it.

The Burmese sub-inspector and some Indian constables were waiting for me in the quarter where the elephant had been seen. It was a very poor quarter, a labyrinth of squalid bamboo huts, thatched with palmleaf, winding all over a steep hillside. I remember that it was a cloudy, stuffy morning at the beginning of the rains. We began questioning the people as to where the elephant had gone and, as usual, failed to get any definite information. That is invariably the case in the East; a story always sounds clear enough at a distance, but the nearer you get to the scene of events the vaguer it becomes. Some of the people said that the elephant had gone in one direction, some said that he had gone in another, some professed not even to have heard of any elephant. I had almost made up my mind that the whole story was a pack of lies, when we heard yells a little distance away. There was a loud, scandalized cry of "Go away, child! Go away this instant!" and an old woman with a switch in her hand came round the corner of a hut, violently shooing away a crowd of naked children. Some more women followed, clicking their tongues and exclaiming; evidently there was something that the children ought not to have seen. I rounded the hut and saw a man's dead body sprawling in the mud. He was an Indian, a black Dravidian coolie, almost naked, and he could not have been dead many minutes. The people said that the elephant had come suddenly upon him round the corner of the hut, caught him with its trunk, put its foot on his back and ground him into the earth. This was the rainy season and the ground was soft, and his face had scored a trench a foot deep and a couple of yards long. He was lying on his belly with arms crucified and head sharply twisted to one side. His face was coated with mud, the eyes wide open, the teeth bared and grinning with an expression of unendurable agony. (Never tell me, by the way, that the dead look peaceful. Most of the corpses I have seen looked devilish.) The friction of the great beast's foot had stripped the skin from his back as neatly as one skins a rabbit. As soon as I saw the dead man I sent an orderly to a friend's house nearby to borrow an elephant rifle. I had already sent back the pony, not wanting it to go mad with fright and throw me if it smelt the elephant.

The orderly came back in a few minutes with a rifle and five cartridges, and meanwhile some Burmans had arrived and told us that the elephant was in the paddy fields below, only a few hundred yards away. As I started forward practically the whole population of the quarter flocked out of the houses and followed me. They had seen the rifle and were all shouting excitedly that I was going to shoot the elephant. They had not shown much interest in the elephant when he was merely ravaging their homes, but it was different now that he was going to be shot. It was a bit of fun to them, as it would be to an English crowd; besides they wanted the meat. It made me vaguely uneasy. I had no intention of shooting the elephant – I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself if necessary – and it is always unnerving to have a crowd following you. I marched down the hill, looking and feeling a fool, with the rifle over my shoulder and an ever-growing army of people jostling at my heels. At the bottom, when you got away from the huts, there was a metalled road and beyond that a miry waste of paddy fields a thousand yards across, not yet ploughed but soggy from the first rains and dotted with coarse grass. The elephant was standing eight yards from the road, his left side towards us. He took not the slightest notice of the crowd's approach. He was tearing up bunches of grass, beating them against his knees to clean them and stuffing them into his mouth.

I had halted on the road. As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him. It is a serious matter to shoot a working elephant – it is comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery – and obviously one ought not to do it if it can possibly be avoided. And at that distance, peacefully eating, the elephant looked no more dangerous than a cow. I thought then and I think now that his attack of "must" was already passing off; in which case he would merely wander harmlessly about until the mahout came back and caught him. Moreover, I did not in the least want to shoot him. I decided that I would watch him for a little while to make sure that he did not turn savage again, and then go home.

But at that moment I glanced round at the crowd that had followed me. It was an immense crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute. It blocked the road for a long distance on either side. I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot. They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick. They did not like me, but with the magical rifle in my hands I was momentarily worth watching. And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly. And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East. Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd – seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the "natives," and so in every crisis he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it. I had got to shoot the elephant. I had committed myself to doing it when I sent for the rifle. A sahib has got to act like a sahib; he has got to appear resolute, to know his own mind and do definite things. To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail feebly away, having done nothing – no, that was impossible. The crowd would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man's life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at.

But I did not want to shoot the elephant. I watched him beating his bunch of grass against his knees, with that preoccupied grandmotherly air that elephants have. It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him. At that age I was not squeamish about killing animals, but I had never shot an elephant and never wanted to. (Somehow it always seems worse to kill a large animal.) Besides, there was the beast's owner to be considered. Alive, the elephant was worth at least a hundred pounds; dead, he would only be worth the value of his tusks, five pounds, possibly. But I had got to act quickly. I turned to some experienced-looking Burmans who had been there when we arrived, and asked them how the elephant had been behaving. They all said the same thing: he took no notice of you if you left him alone, but he might charge if you went too close to him.

It was perfectly clear to me what I ought to do. I ought to walk up to within, say, twenty-five yards of the elephant and test his behavior. If he charged, I could shoot; if he took no notice of me, it would be safe to leave him until the mahout came back. But also I knew that I was going to do no such thing. I was a poor shot with a rifle and the ground was soft mud into which one would sink at every step. If the elephant charged and I missed him, I should have about as much chance as a toad under a steam-roller. But even then I was not thinking particularly of my own skin, only of the watchful yellow faces behind. For at that moment, with the crowd watching me, I was not afraid in the ordinary sense, as I would have been if I had been alone. A white man mustn't be frightened in front of "natives"; and so, in general, he isn't frightened. The sole thought in my mind was that if anything went wrong those two thousand Burmans would see me pursued, caught, trampled on and reduced to a grinning corpse like that Indian up the hill. And if that happened it was quite probable that some of them would laugh. That would never do.

There was only one alternative. I shoved the cartridges into the magazine and lay down on the road to get a better aim. The crowd grew very still, and a deep, low, happy sigh, as of people who see the theatre curtain go up at last, breathed from innumerable throats. They were going to have their bit of fun after all. The rifle was a beautiful German thing with cross-hair sights. I did not then know that in shooting an elephant one would shoot to cut an imaginary bar running from ear-hole to ear-hole. I ought, therefore, as the elephant was sideways on, to have aimed straight at his ear-hole, actually I aimed several inches in front of this, thinking the brain would be further forward.

When I pulled the trigger I did not hear the bang or feel the kick – one never does when a shot goes home – but I heard the devilish roar of glee that went up from the crowd. In that instant, in too short a time, one would have thought, even for the bullet to get there, a mysterious, terrible change had come over the elephant. He neither stirred nor fell, but every line of his body had altered. He looked suddenly stricken, shrunken, immensely old, as though the frightful impact of the bullet had paralysed him without knocking him down. At last, after what seemed a long time – it might have been five seconds, I dare say – he sagged flabbily to his knees. His mouth slobbered. An enormous senility seemed to have settled upon him. One could have imagined him thousands of years old. I fired again into the same spot. At the second shot he did not collapse but climbed with desperate slowness to his feet and stood weakly upright, with legs sagging and head drooping. I fired a third time. That was the shot that did for him. You could see the agony of it jolt his whole body and knock the last remnant of strength from his legs. But in falling he seemed for a moment to rise, for as his hind legs collapsed beneath him he seemed to tower upward like a huge rock toppling, his trunk reaching skyward like a tree. He trumpeted, for the first and only time. And then down he came, his belly towards me, with a crash that seemed to shake the ground even where I lay.

I got up. The Burmans were already racing past me across the mud. It was obvious that the elephant would never rise again, but he was not dead. He was breathing very rhythmically with long rattling gasps, his great mound of a side painfully rising and falling. His mouth was wide open – I could see far down into caverns of pale pink throat. I waited a long time for him to die, but his breathing did not weaken. Finally I fired my two remaining shots into the spot where I thought his heart must be. The thick blood welled out of him like red velvet, but still he did not die. His body did not even jerk when the shots hit him, the tortured breathing continued without a pause. He was dying, very slowly and in great agony, but in some world remote from me where not even a bullet could damage him further. I felt that I had got to put an end to that dreadful noise. It seemed dreadful to see the great beast Lying there, powerless to move and yet powerless to die, and not even to be able to finish him. I sent back for my small rifle and poured shot after shot into his heart and down his throat. They seemed to make no impression. The tortured gasps continued as steadily as the ticking of a clock.

In the end I could not stand it any longer and went away. I heard later that it took him half an hour to die. Burmans were bringing dash and baskets even before I left, and I was told they had stripped his body almost to the bones by the afternoon.

Afterwards, of course, there were endless discussions about the shooting of the elephant. The owner was furious, but he was only an Indian and could do nothing. Besides, legally I had done the right thing, for a mad elephant has to be killed, like a mad dog, if its owner fails to control it. Among the Europeans opinion was divided. The older men said I was right, the younger men said it was a damn shame to shoot an elephant for killing a coolie, because an elephant was worth more than any damn Coringhee coolie. And afterwards I was very glad that the coolie had been killed; it put me legally in the right and it gave me a sufficient pretext for shooting the elephant. I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.

[sbeaulieu]

On my new Kindle -- the greatest invention since fire

I can't decide whether to get one of these or not. I've found the original version to be quite klutzy in my hands, although I've heard that the new version is only 3/4 inch thick. On the original I found that I had to blow up the font to nearly its largest size and thus have to turn the pages every two or three seconds. I just bought a new house a few months ago to accommodate all my books, and I'm already wondering where they're all going to go considering the rate at which I buy them, and something like this would be a big problem solver. On the other hand, things like illustrations in color won't work very well on a monochrome device. (Of course, most of my books aren't illustrated.) I suppose my biggest worry is that the format will become obsolete, and that I'll thus lose thousands or tens of thousands of books that way. I also like having and looking at my biggest treasures, i.e., my books, in hard copy. But when I travel, my luggage is usually overweight because of the large numbers of books I have to bring with me. Sigh. If only it were an easy decision....

Judith

Judith,

I'd say keep the hard copies in your library, and purchase the Kindle for trips. Personally, I don't mind buying a book twice. In your case, you seem to have quite an investment and probably not keen to repurchase such a large quantity.

~ Shane

[sbeaulieu]

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, by Robert Cialdini - just started it this week. Already I find myself smiling at some of the tactics which have been employed against me...specifically the approach used in selling cars, and all those nifty low-price features.

Let the Galaxy Burn, by various authors. Of all the game-turned-to-book ventures, Warhammer 40K novels by far surpasses many of the fiction franchises. The calibur of authors they have in stock is amazing. The basic premise of these books is the daunting task of humanity surviving against insurmountable odds across the known universe.

~ Shane

[Michelle]

How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must) by Ann Coulter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shane,

I am glad you are enjoying that. I think getting a Cialdini perspective is a very good idea before reading Rand in depth. It helps separate the wheat from the chaff and allows you to see clearly the part of her that was pure genius in its true light.

You will also be able to appreciate how skillfully she used these influence tools.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must) by Ann Coulter

Treason and Slander are excellent, well-reasoned, researched, and written books. How to Talk is simply hilarious. On the day Godless was published I rushed to the store to buy the book, and then again two hours later to return it, her arguments on evolution were so juvenile I can only believe she did not believe herself what she wrote. I have not read her latest, Victim, but look forward to it.

[Rich Engle]

This is good summer reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Single-Atom...y/dp/076792066X

[Michelle]

How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must) by Ann Coulter

Treason and Slander are excellent, well-reasoned, researched, and written books. How to Talk is simply hilarious. On the day Godless was published I rushed to the store to buy the book, and then again two hours later to return it, her arguments on evolution were so juvenile I can only believe she did not believe herself what she wrote. I have not read her latest, Victim, but look forward to it.

This is my second Coulter book, after Godless.

Well, she represents everything that's wrong with modern American politics. She's loud, intentionally controversial and offensive, given to large bouts of hyperbole, and is unable to reason coherently on most things. In other words, like most pundits in our society, left-wing or right-wing. I don't respect her. But, she's funny. And even if she is taken to controversy, I'm amazed and disgusted at how thoroughly the left in this country has assassinated her character.

Mainly though, something fascinates me about how juvenile our modern political culture is. Which is why I've got a book written by Bill O'Reilly and a book called "Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly" sitting side-by-side on the shelf. I also have Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" sitting next to "Godless." They all seem to complement each-other so well!

I especially get a kind of masochistic enjoyment when I read something by, say, Benjamin Franklin, or the Declaration of Independence, and read about battles in the war of independence, and think, these people sacrificed themselves and fought passionately so that Ann Coulter could make flatulence jokes in an attempt to disprove evolution and Al Franken could call people liars and Big Fat Idiots.

[Selene]

Michelle:

Our founders were willing to put their lives, their property and there sacred honor on the line to guarantee that the inane and inept would still be able to speak. Today, you cannot get an overtaxed citizen to switch off their electronic devices long enough to hear a speech.

McLuhan made an excellent point when he said "We create our tools and then our tools re-create us!" Recreation is a fascinating word both connotively and denotively.

However, you make an excellent point. Our language has lost its meaning. There is a linguistic lassitude in public sector speech.

One critical reason why O'Biwan the Magnificent was elevated to the Presidency was his apparent oratorical skill when placed in contrast to what current American speaker? Bobby Jindal? Hilary Clinton? They make deafness a value.

Reagan, Kennedy, King and Malcolm X are dead [keeping with the half black half white theme set by O'Biwan].

You used to be able to hear good to great oratory on the college "campi", but now the left wing leash around the necks of speakers borders on criminal.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must) by Ann Coulter

Treason and Slander are excellent, well-reasoned, researched, and written books. How to Talk is simply hilarious. On the day Godless was published I rushed to the store to buy the book, and then again two hours later to return it, her arguments on evolution were so juvenile I can only believe she did not believe herself what she wrote. I have not read her latest, Victim, but look forward to it.

This is my second Coulter book, after Godless.

Well, she represents everything that's wrong with modern American politics. She's loud, intentionally controversial and offensive, given to large bouts of hyperbole, and is unable to reason coherently on most things. In other words, like most pundits in our society, left-wing or right-wing. I don't respect her. But, she's funny. And even if she is taken to controversy, I'm amazed and disgusted at how thoroughly the left in this country has assassinated her character.

Mainly though, something fascinates me about how juvenile our modern political culture is. Which is why I've got a book written by Bill O'Reilly and a book called "Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly" sitting side-by-side on the shelf. I also have Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" sitting next to "Godless." They all seem to complement each-other so well!

I especially get a kind of masochistic enjoyment when I read something by, say, Benjamin Franklin, or the Declaration of Independence, and read about battles in the war of independence, and think, these people sacrificed themselves and fought passionately so that Ann Coulter could make flatulence jokes in an attempt to disprove evolution and Al Franken could call people liars and Big Fat Idiots.

Well, if you want good, there's always the Orwell which I posted for you above. And it's not like Christopher Hitchens doesn't exist.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just a quick comment.

Not only are "the inane and inept" speaking.

I see great men and women speaking and marvelous things happening all around us that would not have been possible under the old monarchy system in place at the time of the American Revolution, even taking into account advances in science and technology.

I like to think the sacrifices of our ancestors paid for that and that "the inane and inept" are simply along for the ride (but getting a free ride of course). Think about it. Without the Internet, broadcasting and computers, where would most of them be? They certainly would not be able to make an Internet, broadcasting or computer, nor implement them into life-changing and society-changing resources.

Great men and women did.

Thank you, Ancestors, for the freedom our great men and women enjoyed that allowed their greatness to become manifest and provide abundance for all. And thank you for the freedom that allows our inane and inept people to become entertainment.

Michael

[Selene]

Agreed.

Should have made that point linked to the tools and re-creation.

Thanks

Adam

[Michelle]

How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must) by Ann Coulter

Treason and Slander are excellent, well-reasoned, researched, and written books. How to Talk is simply hilarious. On the day Godless was published I rushed to the store to buy the book, and then again two hours later to return it, her arguments on evolution were so juvenile I can only believe she did not believe herself what she wrote. I have not read her latest, Victim, but look forward to it.

This is my second Coulter book, after Godless.

Well, she represents everything that's wrong with modern American politics. She's loud, intentionally controversial and offensive, given to large bouts of hyperbole, and is unable to reason coherently on most things. In other words, like most pundits in our society, left-wing or right-wing. I don't respect her. But, she's funny. And even if she is taken to controversy, I'm amazed and disgusted at how thoroughly the left in this country has assassinated her character.

Mainly though, something fascinates me about how juvenile our modern political culture is. Which is why I've got a book written by Bill O'Reilly and a book called "Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly" sitting side-by-side on the shelf. I also have Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" sitting next to "Godless." They all seem to complement each-other so well!

I especially get a kind of masochistic enjoyment when I read something by, say, Benjamin Franklin, or the Declaration of Independence, and read about battles in the war of independence, and think, these people sacrificed themselves and fought passionately so that Ann Coulter could make flatulence jokes in an attempt to disprove evolution and Al Franken could call people liars and Big Fat Idiots.

Well, if you want good, there's always the Orwell which I posted for you above. And it's not like Christopher Hitchens doesn't exist.

Which books by Hitchens would you recommend?

Edited June 4, 2009 by Michelle R

[sbeaulieu]

Shane,

I am glad you are enjoying that. I think getting a Cialdini perspective is a very good idea before reading Rand in depth. It helps separate the wheat from the chaff and allows you to see clearly the part of her that was pure genius in its true light.

You will also be able to appreciate how skillfully she used these influence tools.

Michael

Michael,

Started into the Reciprocity chapter. What an amazing political trigger! I never knew this existed in such a capacity. It's turning into quite an eye-opening read.

~ Shane

[Michelle]

Just a quick comment.

Not only are "the inane and inept" speaking.

I see great men and women speaking and marvelous things happening all around us that would not have been possible under the old monarchy system in place at the time of the American Revolution, even taking into account advances in science and technology.

I like to think the sacrifices of our ancestors paid for that and that "the inane and inept" are simply along for the ride (but getting a free ride of course). Think about it. Without the Internet, broadcasting and computers, where would most of them be? They certainly would not be able to make an Internet, broadcasting or computer, nor implement them into life-changing and society-changing resources.

Great men and women did.

Thank you, Ancestors, for the freedom our great men and women enjoyed that allowed their greatness to become manifest and provide abundance for all. And thank you for the freedom that allows our inane and inept people to become entertainment.

Michael

Quite. People like the Birdman and Gene Ray have provided me with hours of amusement.

[kiaer.ts]

God is not Great is Hitchen's best. Some of his arguments are flawed, but who cares?

Letters to a Contrarian, (a bit self-serving) his books on Jefferson, Orwell, Paine. His various collected essays.

He is lucid, grounded, honest, cosmopolitan. He states his enemies' best case, and gives credit to those who present evidence against interest.

You say Coulter is loud and represents what is bad with American politics. The latter would be true if the liberals were not well practiced in the arts of down-shouting and the big lie. If there wasd a living Objectivist with one tenth of her wit and rhetorical skill, he'd be the most effective pundit in the country. Watch her being interviewed, she does a rare thing, she pauses and thinks before answering. As with most of the people I enjoy to listen to, Camille Paglia, Christopher Hitchens, Ralph Peters, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, (all of whom are smarter, but none funnier than her) she is best when pointing out the lies and inconsistencies of others. She can see the underlying fundamentals. If the price of the ticket is putting up with her fundamentalist bullshit, I'll gladly pay it.

[Michelle]

God is not Great is Hitchen's best. Some of his arguments are flawed, but who cares?

Letters to a Contrarian, (a bit self-serving) his books on Jefferson, Orwell, Paine. His various collected essays.

He is lucid, grounded, honest, cosmopolitan. He states his enemies' best case, and gives credit to those who present evidence against interest.

You say Coulter is loud and represents what is bad with American politics. The latter would be true if the liberals were not well practiced in the arts of down-shouting and the big lie. If there wasd a living Objectivist with one tenth of her wit and rhetorical skill, he'd be the most effective pundit in the country. Watch her being interviewed, she does a rare thing, she pauses and thinks before answering. As with most of the people I enjoy to listen to, Camille Paglia, Christopher Hitchens, Ralph Peters, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, (all of whom are smarter, but none funnier than her) she is best when pointing out the lies and inconsistencies of others. She can see the underlying fundamentals. If the price of the ticket is putting up with her fundamentalist bullshit, I'll gladly pay it.

I might get God is Not Great, but I've avoided it until now for a reason, which is this: the new spat of books by "Brights" criticizing 'religion' (why is it that they almost always use that umbrella term when they usually only criticize either Christianity or Islam?) are uninspired screeds that take a very shallow look at their subjects and seem to echo oneanother.

I own a book called The Case Against Christianity by Michael Martin. It is an exhaustively researched and well-reasoned book which analyzes Christianity epistemologically, logically, and ethically. it is a cold and thorough dissection of the religion.

Of course, this kind of sober and rational book isn't sensationalistic enough to be a bestseller when other people are willing to write books like THE END OF FAITH, GOD IS NOT GREAT: HOW RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING, THE GOD DELUSION, and whatever else has come out lately on this front.

I won't judge Hitchens' book until I read it, but the title doesn't leave me optimistic.

OK, now, let's take this one step at a time:

1) You said: "The latter would be true if the liberals were not well practiced in the arts of down-shouting and the big lie." What liberals? Liberals are not the Borg, and more often than not when someone invokes 'the liberals' they're doing so to avoid making any specific criticisms. Liberal has become a general boo word for many people on the political right, and it has lost most, if not all, of its contextual meaning.

2) "If there was a living Objectivist with one tenth of her wit and rhetorical skill, he'd be the most effective pundit in the country." Maybe. But would any self-respecting Objectivist not associated with the ARI-crowd really want to become a pundit?

3) "Watch her being interviewed, she does a rare thing, she pauses and thinks before answering." True, but I never accused her of being thoughtless. The problem isn't that she isn't thinking. It's that when she does think, the results are not impressive at best, and ridiculous at worst.

4) "As with most of the people I enjoy to listen to, Camille Paglia, Christopher Hitchens, Ralph Peters, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, (all of whom are smarter, but none funnier than her) she is best when pointing out the lies and inconsistencies of others." True again. However, there are liberal pundits and media personalities (say, like Jon Stewart and Al Franken) who are equally skilled at pointing out inconsistencies in their conservative opponents. This doesn't mean their own opinions have any real value, however.

5) "If the price of the ticket is putting up with her fundamentalist bullshit, I'll gladly pay it." Fine. I read her too, obviously. But the problem isn't her 'fundamentalist bullshit' so much as her contribution in helping turn American political debate into a spectator sport where the audience eagerly watches as each side tries to up the ante on the hyperbole. In recent years, however, conservatives, with the help of sensationalists like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, have been winning this war. I don't know that this is a war you'd want to win, however.

Have you read Wendy McElroy's work?

Edited June 4, 2009 by Michelle R

[kiaer.ts]

God is not Great is Hitchen's best. Some of his arguments are flawed, but who cares?

Letters to a Contrarian, (a bit self-serving) his books on Jefferson, Orwell, Paine. His various collected essays.

He is lucid, grounded, honest, cosmopolitan. He states his enemies' best case, and gives credit to those who present evidence against interest.

You say Coulter is loud and represents what is bad with American politics. The latter would be true if the liberals were not well practiced in the arts of down-shouting and the big lie. If there wasd a living Objectivist with one tenth of her wit and rhetorical skill, he'd be the most effective pundit in the country. Watch her being interviewed, she does a rare thing, she pauses and thinks before answering. As with most of the people I enjoy to listen to, Camille Paglia, Christopher Hitchens, Ralph Peters, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, (all of whom are smarter, but none funnier than her) she is best when pointing out the lies and inconsistencies of others. She can see the underlying fundamentals. If the price of the ticket is putting up with her fundamentalist bullshit, I'll gladly pay it.

I might get God is Not Great, but I've avoided it until now for a reason, which is this: the new spat of books by "Brights" criticizing 'religion' (why is it that they almost always use that umbrella term when they usually only criticize either Christianity or Islam?) are uninspired screeds that take a very shallow look at their subjects and seem to echo oneanother.

I own a book called The Case Against Christianity by Michael Martin. It is an exhaustively researched and well-reasoned book which analyzes Christianity epistemologically, logically, and ethically. it is a cold and thorough dissection of the religion.

Of course, this kind of sober and rational book isn't sensationalistic enough to be a bestseller when other people are willing to write books like THE END OF FAITH, GOD IS NOT GREAT: HOW RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING, THE GOD DELUSION, and whatever else has come out lately on this front.

I won't judge Hitchens' book until I read it, but the title doesn't leave me optimistic.

OK, now, let's take this one step at a time:

1) You said: "The latter would be true if the liberals were not well practiced in the arts of down-shouting and the big lie." What liberals? Liberals are not the Borg, and more often than not when someone invokes 'the liberals' they're doing so to avoid making any specific criticisms. Liberal has become a general boo word for many people on the political right, and it has lost most, if not all, of its contextual meaning.

2) "If there was a living Objectivist with one tenth of her wit and rhetorical skill, he'd be the most effective pundit in the country." Maybe. But would any self-respecting Objectivist not associated with the ARI-crowd really want to become a pundit?

3) "Watch her being interviewed, she does a rare thing, she pauses and thinks before answering." True, but I never accused her of being thoughtless. The problem isn't that she isn't thinking. It's that when she does think, the results are not impressive at best, and ridiculous at worst.

4) "As with most of the people I enjoy to listen to, Camille Paglia, Christopher Hitchens, Ralph Peters, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, (all of whom are smarter, but none funnier than her) she is best when pointing out the lies and inconsistencies of others." True again. However, there are liberal pundits and media personalities (say, like Jon Stewart and Al Franken) who are equally skilled at pointing out inconsistencies in their conservative opponents. This doesn't mean their own opinions have any real value, however.

5) "If the price of the ticket is putting up with her fundamentalist bullshit, I'll gladly pay it." Fine. I read her too, obviously. But the problem isn't her 'fundamentalist bullshit' so much as her contribution in helping turn American political debate into a spectator sport where the audience eagerly watches as each side tries to up the ante on the hyperbole. In recent years, however, conservatives, with the help of sensationalists like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, have been winning this war. I don't know that this is a war you'd want to win, however.

Have you read Wendy McElroy's work?

McElroy? No.

I found End of Faith okay, and I find Dawkins (every one of whose books I have read as a bio major) an offenseive, conceited creep.

Hitchens does not like the term "bright," he calls it cringe-making. Hitchens studies, understands, and sometimes respects the religious. His book is far better than and quite different from the others, and you should go buy it this weekend.

As for Coulter, she is simply hilarious. I am not concerned about the fact that the populace enjoys her because she scores points, and that they might be misled by her. I disagree with her on evolution and homosexuality (somewhat) but so what? She is simply dead-on when she talks about people like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Obam, Gore, Clinton and so many others. You compare her with Stewart and Franken? Why not Ali G? Stewart is a smarmy college smart-ass who should know better. Al Franken is a disgusting, hateful, syphilitic-souled creep whose death by strangulation in a rough trade triste with a street punk I will celebrate. The bottom line with Coulter is that I know how to think, and know what I think. No matter how wrong she is on 30% of the issues, she is not going to lead me astray, and I don't care who else she leads astray, I am not an altruist. Let me know your opinion of her after you read Treason and Slander. She is quite a scholar when she wants to be. And watch this short video of her on Book TV, watch her pause and think, and tell me she is not brilliant.

[Michelle]

God is not Great is Hitchen's best. Some of his arguments are flawed, but who cares?

Letters to a Contrarian, (a bit self-serving) his books on Jefferson, Orwell, Paine. His various collected essays.

He is lucid, grounded, honest, cosmopolitan. He states his enemies' best case, and gives credit to those who present evidence against interest.

You say Coulter is loud and represents what is bad with American politics. The latter would be true if the liberals were not well practiced in the arts of down-shouting and the big lie. If there wasd a living Objectivist with one tenth of her wit and rhetorical skill, he'd be the most effective pundit in the country. Watch her being interviewed, she does a rare thing, she pauses and thinks before answering. As with most of the people I enjoy to listen to, Camille Paglia, Christopher Hitchens, Ralph Peters, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, (all of whom are smarter, but none funnier than her) she is best when pointing out the lies and inconsistencies of others. She can see the underlying fundamentals. If the price of the ticket is putting up with her fundamentalist bullshit, I'll gladly pay it.

I might get God is Not Great, but I've avoided it until now for a reason, which is this: the new spat of books by "Brights" criticizing 'religion' (why is it that they almost always use that umbrella term when they usually only criticize either Christianity or Islam?) are uninspired screeds that take a very shallow look at their subjects and seem to echo oneanother.

I own a book called The Case Against Christianity by Michael Martin. It is an exhaustively researched and well-reasoned book which analyzes Christianity epistemologically, logically, and ethically. it is a cold and thorough dissection of the religion.

Of course, this kind of sober and rational book isn't sensationalistic enough to be a bestseller when other people are willing to write books like THE END OF FAITH, GOD IS NOT GREAT: HOW RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING, THE GOD DELUSION, and whatever else has come out lately on this front.

I won't judge Hitchens' book until I read it, but the title doesn't leave me optimistic.

OK, now, let's take this one step at a time:

1) You said: "The latter would be true if the liberals were not well practiced in the arts of down-shouting and the big lie." What liberals? Liberals are not the Borg, and more often than not when someone invokes 'the liberals' they're doing so to avoid making any specific criticisms. Liberal has become a general boo word for many people on the political right, and it has lost most, if not all, of its contextual meaning.

2) "If there was a living Objectivist with one tenth of her wit and rhetorical skill, he'd be the most effective pundit in the country." Maybe. But would any self-respecting Objectivist not associated with the ARI-crowd really want to become a pundit?

3) "Watch her being interviewed, she does a rare thing, she pauses and thinks before answering." True, but I never accused her of being thoughtless. The problem isn't that she isn't thinking. It's that when she does think, the results are not impressive at best, and ridiculous at worst.

4) "As with most of the people I enjoy to listen to, Camille Paglia, Christopher Hitchens, Ralph Peters, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, (all of whom are smarter, but none funnier than her) she is best when pointing out the lies and inconsistencies of others." True again. However, there are liberal pundits and media personalities (say, like Jon Stewart and Al Franken) who are equally skilled at pointing out inconsistencies in their conservative opponents. This doesn't mean their own opinions have any real value, however.

5) "If the price of the ticket is putting up with her fundamentalist bullshit, I'll gladly pay it." Fine. I read her too, obviously. But the problem isn't her 'fundamentalist bullshit' so much as her contribution in helping turn American political debate into a spectator sport where the audience eagerly watches as each side tries to up the ante on the hyperbole. In recent years, however, conservatives, with the help of sensationalists like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, have been winning this war. I don't know that this is a war you'd want to win, however.

Have you read Wendy McElroy's work?

McElroy? No.

I found End of Faith okay, and I find Dawkins (every one of whose books I have read as a bio major) an offenseive, conceited creep.

Hitchens does not like the term "bright," he calls it cringe-making. Hitchens studies, understands, and sometimes respects the religious. His book is far better than and quite different from the others, and you should go buy it this weekend.

As for Coulter, she is simply hilarious. I am not concerned about the fact that the populace enjoys her because she scores points, and that they might be misled by her. I disagree with her on evolution and homosexuality (somewhat) but so what? She is simply dead-on when she talks about people like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Obam, Gore, Clinton and so many others. You compare her with Stewart and Franken? Why not Ali G? Stewart is a smarmy college smart-ass who should know better. Franken is a disgusting hateful syphilitic-souled creep whose death by strangulation in a rough trade triste with a street punk I will celebrate. The bottom line with Coulter is that I know how to think, and know what I think. No matter how wrong she is on 30% of the issues, she is not going to lead me astray, and I don't care who else she leads astray, I am not an altruist. Let me know your opinion of her after you read Treason and Slander. She is quite a scholar when she wants to be. And watch this short video of her on Book TV, watch her pause and think, and tell me she is not brilliant.

She's a feminist who embraces free-market capitalism and is an individualist (ie. she rejects the absurd Marxist beliefs and tendencies of most feminists).

What gets me about End of Faith is how the guy rails on 'religion' but gets all warm and gooey when it comes to Eastern mysticism.

I like Dawkins, but his THE GOD DELUSION is poor stuff.

I'm afraid I won't be able to this weekend, but you've piqued my curiosity. I'll order his book soon.

As to your question, Sacha Baron Cohen uses his Ali G, Bruno, and Borat personas to elicit certain reactions from people to reveal underlying bigotries, but he doesn't argue for the truth of what these characters are saying. Coulter will argue for and defend what she says. Her hyperbole isn't meant to be taken as satire, like it is with Cohen.

And why all the hatred aimed at Franken? Really, has he actually done anything to deserve your ire?

[kiaer.ts]

God is not Great is Hitchen's best. Some of his arguments are flawed, but who cares?

Letters to a Contrarian, (a bit self-serving) his books on Jefferson, Orwell, Paine. His various collected essays.

He is lucid, grounded, honest, cosmopolitan. He states his enemies' best case, and gives credit to those who present evidence against interest.

You say Coulter is loud and represents what is bad with American politics. The latter would be true if the liberals were not well practiced in the arts of down-shouting and the big lie. If there wasd a living Objectivist with one tenth of her wit and rhetorical skill, he'd be the most effective pundit in the country. Watch her being interviewed, she does a rare thing, she pauses and thinks before answering. As with most of the people I enjoy to listen to, Camille Paglia, Christopher Hitchens, Ralph Peters, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, (all of whom are smarter, but none funnier than her) she is best when pointing out the lies and inconsistencies of others. She can see the underlying fundamentals. If the price of the ticket is putting up with her fundamentalist bullshit, I'll gladly pay it.

I might get God is Not Great, but I've avoided it until now for a reason, which is this: the new spat of books by "Brights" criticizing 'religion' (why is it that they almost always use that umbrella term when they usually only criticize either Christianity or Islam?) are uninspired screeds that take a very shallow look at their subjects and seem to echo oneanother.

I own a book called The Case Against Christianity by Michael Martin. It is an exhaustively researched and well-reasoned book which analyzes Christianity epistemologically, logically, and ethically. it is a cold and thorough dissection of the religion.

Of course, this kind of sober and rational book isn't sensationalistic enough to be a bestseller when other people are willing to write books like THE END OF FAITH, GOD IS NOT GREAT: HOW RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING, THE GOD DELUSION, and whatever else has come out lately on this front.

I won't judge Hitchens' book until I read it, but the title doesn't leave me optimistic.

OK, now, let's take this one step at a time:

1) You said: "The latter would be true if the liberals were not well practiced in the arts of down-shouting and the big lie." What liberals? Liberals are not the Borg, and more often than not when someone invokes 'the liberals' they're doing so to avoid making any specific criticisms. Liberal has become a general boo word for many people on the political right, and it has lost most, if not all, of its contextual meaning.

2) "If there was a living Objectivist with one tenth of her wit and rhetorical skill, he'd be the most effective pundit in the country." Maybe. But would any self-respecting Objectivist not associated with the ARI-crowd really want to become a pundit?

3) "Watch her being interviewed, she does a rare thing, she pauses and thinks before answering." True, but I never accused her of being thoughtless. The problem isn't that she isn't thinking. It's that when she does think, the results are not impressive at best, and ridiculous at worst.

4) "As with most of the people I enjoy to listen to, Camille Paglia, Christopher Hitchens, Ralph Peters, Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, (all of whom are smarter, but none funnier than her) she is best when pointing out the lies and inconsistencies of others." True again. However, there are liberal pundits and media personalities (say, like Jon Stewart and Al Franken) who are equally skilled at pointing out inconsistencies in their conservative opponents. This doesn't mean their own opinions have any real value, however.

5) "If the price of the ticket is putting up with her fundamentalist bullshit, I'll gladly pay it." Fine. I read her too, obviously. But the problem isn't her 'fundamentalist bullshit' so much as her contribution in helping turn American political debate into a spectator sport where the audience eagerly watches as each side tries to up the ante on the hyperbole. In recent years, however, conservatives, with the help of sensationalists like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, have been winning this war. I don't know that this is a war you'd want to win, however.

Have you read Wendy McElroy's work?

McElroy? No.

I found End of Faith okay, and I find Dawkins (every one of whose books I have read as a bio major) an offenseive, conceited creep.

Hitchens does not like the term "bright," he calls it cringe-making. Hitchens studies, understands, and sometimes respects the religious. His book is far better than and quite different from the others, and you should go buy it this weekend.

As for Coulter, she is simply hilarious. I am not concerned about the fact that the populace enjoys her because she scores points, and that they might be misled by her. I disagree with her on evolution and homosexuality (somewhat) but so what? She is simply dead-on when she talks about people like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Obam, Gore, Clinton and so many others. You compare her with Stewart and Franken? Why not Ali G? Stewart is a smarmy college smart-ass who should know better. Franken is a disgusting hateful syphilitic-souled creep whose death by strangulation in a rough trade triste with a street punk I will celebrate. The bottom line with Coulter is that I know how to think, and know what I think. No matter how wrong she is on 30% of the issues, she is not going to lead me astray, and I don't care who else she leads astray, I am not an altruist. Let me know your opinion of her after you read Treason and Slander. She is quite a scholar when she wants to be. And watch this short video of her on Book TV, watch her pause and think, and tell me she is not brilliant.

She's a feminist who embraces free-market capitalism and is an individualist (ie. she rejects the absurd Marxist beliefs and tendencies of most feminists).

What gets me about End of Faith is how the guy rails on 'religion' but gets all warm and gooey when it comes to Eastern mysticism.

I like Dawkins, but his THE GOD DELUSION is poor stuff.

I'm afraid I won't be able to this weekend, but you've piqued my curiosity. I'll order his book soon.

As to your question, Sacha Baron Cohen uses his Ali G, Bruno, and Borat personas to elicit certain reactions from people to reveal underlying bigotries, but he doesn't argue for the truth of what these characters are saying. Coulter will argue for and defend what she says. Her hyperbole isn't meant to be taken as satire, like it is with Cohen.

And why all the hatred aimed at Franken? Really, has he actually done anything to deserve your ire?

I don't spend any time thinking about Franken, but you brought him up. He is disgusting on every level, as a person, a writer, a pundit and a would-be politician. He is involved in stealing a senate seat. And they murdered Julius Caesar in the Senate? He is Toohey incarnate. I rank seeing him on TV just above seeing Michael Moore, and just below stepping in dog shit. Can you recommend a book or provide a link for a video of McElroy?

What do you think of Paglia? You should watch her In Depth interview at Book TV.

[Selene]

Michell:

"She rejects the absurd Marxist beliefs and tendencies of most feminists."

I would modify the word feminist by replacing the concept I believe you mean with "gender feminist".

Rand in being an individualist was placed with the feminists like Friedan, et al. because of her demand of equality under the law.

I am sure that a movement call masculinists would be treated equally.

Adam

[Michelle]

Michell:

"She rejects the absurd Marxist beliefs and tendencies of most feminists."

I would modify the word feminist by replacing the concept I believe you mean with "gender feminist".

Rand in being an individualist was placed with the feminists like Friedan, et al. because of her demand of equality under the law.

I am sure that a movement call masculinists would be treated equally.

Adam

Most socially prominent feminists are 'gender feminists.'

Edited June 5, 2009 by Michelle R

[kiaer.ts]

Michelle, here is the link to Camille Paglia's In Depth Interview at Book TV.

I am sure you are familiar with her, but if not, she is a non-Marxist feminist, a noted art critic, a cool lesbian with my taste in women, an atheist who studies and respects religion, and the person alive today most often compared to Ayn Rand.