"...you know Sarah Palin is an interesting story.” The crowd booed. “No, she’s new!” Obama said. “She hasn’t been on the scene, you know, she’s got five kids and my hat goes off to anybody who’s looking after five. I’ve got two and they tire Michelle and me out!"
Poor guy's pooped. No wonder he voted "present" so often. Palin doesn't appear to be tired out.
"You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.... You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."
Is Palin the pig and McCain the old fish? Who knows? But ol' Barack has lost his Mojo. Panic time for the party of grievance and envy.
21 comments:
If by 'pooped' you mean he occasionally says nice things about his opponents, then yes, I'd agree with you.
Seems the Obamas just can't get it right with you guys. Not the first time that I have seen an Obama remark which to me seems empathetic to someone else, in this case the Palens, interpreted negatively --
I haven't yet had time to go through Luke's 9/11 post, but I do hope that the day remembrance of that horror and that loss will cause reflection on what are the truly monumental issues to be decided -- war, peace, terrorism, civil liberties, who gets health care and who doesn't, education, whether women control their own bodies, the environment, separation of church and state, the economy-- because we have 4 candidates from 4 parties which offer very different futures regarding these issues and others.
P.S. I am grateful that Tom introduced us to Andrew Sullivan and "The Daily Dish":
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/a-first.html
Judi (Signing my name since I am going to post as Anonymous for fear I will lose this if I try any other way)
Yup, 4 candidates from 4 parties, and they all suck.
It's too bad they don't make a pill eLectile dysfunction.
Don't we have five candidates...?
Luke, that may be because they're politicians. Somehow they always sweep elections.
Pfft, Luke, just be glad you weren't alive to vote in 2000 and 2004. Bush/Gore? Bush/Kerry?
I'd take McCain/Obama over either of those elections any day. It's not great, but at least I get to vote for someone I have a little bit of respect for.
I would take John Kerry or Hillary Clinton (VERY BEGRUDGINGLY) over any of McCain, Obama, Bush, or Gore.
I could go on and on about why I don't like McCain, but in a nutshell it comes down to 2 things:
1. McCain's non-stop explicit endorsement of the evil of altruism. For the most part, I'm less concerned with what the candidates say they will do when it comes to specific practical issues, than I am with their actual fundamental ethics. The latter tends to determine what the candidates will actually do once elected. McCain boasts patriotism for a very un-American America, one of sacrifice, selflessness, service, and duty. There is nothing ACTUALLY patriotic about this rhetoric. I don't see anything changing for the better in any significant way until altruism has been defeated, and right now, believe it or not, McCain is very intentionally out altruisming Obama.
2. The party that McCain is running for. I actually consider the party to be more important than the candidate. The Republican theocrats need to be defeated before they destroy this country. Thus I won't vote for ANY Republican anywhere until the evangelical movement ends (unfortunately I don't see this happening within the next couple decades). I would vote for almost any Democrat in order to vote against the religious right. Unbelievably (but then again not surprising at all), the Democrats managed to scrounge up a more pathetically lifeless second-hander of a candidate then I ever could have imagined in my wildest dreams.
Barack Obama is the incarnation of Peter Keating. Both he and McCain are the epitomes of second-handers, just watch their faces. They look CONSTANTLY terrified of everything around them. Obama is better, more practiced, at being a second-hander, and can cover it up better, but it still sure as hell is there.
"McCain's non-stop explicit endorsement of the evil of altruism."
Just clarifying, by this I meant his endorsement of altruism, not of its evil. The evil part was my identification of it, not his.
Luke, what is a second-hander?
"A [second-hander] is one who regards the consciousness of other men as superior to his own and to the facts of reality. It is to a [second-hander] that the moral appraisal of himself by others is a primary concern which supersedes truth, facts, reason, logic. The disapproval of others is so shatteringly terrifying to him that nothing can withstand its impact within his consciousness; thus he would deny the evidence of his own eyes and invalidate his own consciousness for the sake of any stray charlatan’s moral sanction. It is only a [second-hander] who could conceive of such absurdity as hoping to win an intellectual argument by hinting: 'But people won’t like you!'"
And:
"Isn’t that the root of every despicable action? Not selfishness, but precisely the absence of a self. Look at them. The man who cheats and lies, but preserves a respectable front. He knows himself to be dishonest, but others think he’s honest and he derives his self-respect from that, second-hand. The man who takes credit for an achievement which is not his own. He knows himself to be mediocre, but he’s great in the eyes of others. The frustrated wretch who professes love for the inferior and clings to those less endowed, in order to establish his own superiority by comparison . . . . They’re second-handers . . . ."
"They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They’re concerned only with people. They don’t ask: 'Is this true?' They ask: 'Is this what others think is true?' Not to judge, but to repeat. Not to do, but to give the impression of doing. Not creation, but show. Not ability, but friendship. Not merit, but pull. What would happen to the world without those who do, think, work, produce? Those are the egoists. You don’t think through another’s brain and you don’t work through another’s hands. When you suspend your faculty of independent judgment, you suspend consciousness. To stop consciousness is to stop life. Second-handers have no sense of reality. Their reality is not within them, but somewhere in that space which divides one human body from another. Not an entity, but a relation—anchored to nothing. That’s the emptiness I couldn’t understand in people. That’s what stopped me whenever I faced a committee. Men without an ego. Opinion without a rational process. Motion without brakes or motor. Power without responsibility. The second-hander acts, but the source of his actions is scattered in every other living person. It’s everywhere and nowhere and you can’t reason with him. He’s not open to reason."
- Ayn Rand
More here:
http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/secondhanders.html
Terrorism. Socialism. Volunteering. Religious wars. Authoritarianism. The Holocaust.
One of those things is not like the other.
To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
In his acceptance speech at the convention, McCain said:
"If you're disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our Armed Forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read."
It was about 1/60th of his speech, and his only mention of anything related to "altruism" all night. To describe any of things he encouraged as "evil" is to completely destroy the meaning of a meaningful word. Are those the most efficient and productive ways to make a difference in the world? Probably not. Are they evil? Hardly. And when you use the same word to condemn feeding hungry children and flying a plane into the world trade center, you lose all traction with rational people.
Oh, and Rand's description of a "second-hander" above sounds nothing at all like McCain. It sounds a lot like Bill Clinton, and John Kerry. I don't know about Obama.
First thing Caleb is you seem to be making the same mistake that everybody makes in misunderstanding the meaning of the word "altruism," treating it as equivalent to "compassion."
I actually say that genuine compassion is only possible for an egoist, and logically impossible for an altruist. A rational egoist, in seeing that his own life has value (that it is in fact his standard of value), does not allow himself contradictions. Thus he sees value in the lives of others so long as they are deserving of it. An altruist sees no value in his own life, and thus no value in anybody's life. Observe the disdain which true altruists have for all people who don't sacrifice and who actually live (the movie Dr. Zhivago portrays this perfectly in parts). This is something that I see enormously in so many members of the military who really express hatred for civilians (ignoring the fact that these are the same civilians that they are fighting for). When I was at the peak of my altruist days in ROTC I pretty much literally hated everybody. Now I prefer civilians, typically.
You have to be very specific about altruism. Altruism is the moral code that says the good lies in SACRIFICING yourself for others. If you have a lot to spare and you use some of it to feed a hungry child, it's not a sacrifice and it's not altruism. That is just kindness. If, however, you forgo feeding your own child in order to feed another, THAT is a sacrifice and that is altruism.
Also, if you think that I think that the root of all the evils you mentioned, "Terrorism. Socialism. Volunteering [I don't condemn all forms of 'volunteering' as evil, just to clarify. In and of itself it's a vague term]. Religious wars. Authoritarianism. The Holocaust..." is altruism, then you're mistaken. I think the roots lie deeper than that, but altruism certainly plays an enormous part. If I had to pick one essential characteristic of all these things I would have to say just straight-up irrationality.
I will look for the multiple McCain quotes about service and sacrifice that I have read or heard. I will say that most of the ones I'm thinking of he said a while ago, at which point I became pretty disgusted and stopped following the whole thing in detail. Maybe now he has changed his angle of attack a bit. As for the one you gave me, you're right it's pretty mild. The false package deal dichotomy sold to us by the altruists is of two ethical opposites: either sacrifice yourself for everyone else or sacrifice everyone else for yourself. The sacrifice part is often lumped together with regular kindness and compassion to mask altruism's true nature.
Rational egoism says, to quote Rand again, "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Again, refusing to live for the sake of another man does NOT mean refusing to ever offer help to anybody. I hope I don't have to explain that further.
You may, in fact, convince me that McCain isn't as bad as I think. However, like I said, I still won't vote for any Republitheocrat.
Referring to the McCain quote again, I offer an alternative way to make a difference if you don't like the way things are in the world. Live your own life and enjoy it, setting productive achievement as your noblest goal. In doing so, you set the example for others and inspire them to achieve their own happiness. Or, again, quoting Rand (I know it's a lot of quotes but she just puts things so perfectly IMO):
"Don’t help me or serve me, but let me see it once, because I need it. Don’t work for my happiness, my brothers—show me yours—show me that it is possible—show me your achievement—and the knowledge will give me the courage for mine."
"All lives are a struggle against selfishness...."
"I believe it is every American's duty to contribute something to the common good,"
"In the Roosevelt code," McCain writes in Worth the Fighting For, "the authentic meaning of freedom gave equal respect to self-interest and common purpose, to rights and duties. And it absolutely required that every loyal citizen take risks for the country's sake.... He distrusted leading financiers of his day who put profit before patriotism.... He respected the role business conglomerates played in America's emergence as a great economic power, but he also understood that unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism would crush competition from smaller businesses.... He fought the spirit of 'unrestricted individualism' that claimed the right 'to injure the future of all of us for his own temporary and immediate profit.'... He sought not to destroy the great wealth-creating institutions of capitalism, but to save them from their own excesses."
This is exactly what I'm talking about with the false dichotomy. Observe his package dealing of "individualism" with "to injure the future of all of us."
"'I am pleased to be participating in the ServiceNation Summit in New York City. The Summit will be an important remembrance of those that made the ultimate sacrifice serving their country and others as we focus on how to inspire others to serve causes greater than their own self-interest through national and community service,' said Senator McCain."
I really hate it when people say that those who die in battle or whatever gave "the ultimate sacrifice." They didn't choose to die, they wanted to live, they got killed. I sure as hell don't want to be fighting next to anybody itching to make the "ultimate sacrifice." What's next, suicide bombing?
"'Service is an idea whose time has come.' said Alan Khazei, CEO of Be The Change, Inc. one of the four organizations–along with City Year, Civic Enterprises and Points of Light Institute–that are helping to coordinate the ServiceNation effort. 'The entire Service Movement is energized by both Senators McCain and Obama making service a central theme of their respective visions for America.'"
Actually you should just read this whole article:
http://thepage.time.com/time-release-on-candidates-911-forum/
Again, I am NOT AGAINST CHARITY. I am against the notion that anyone has a DUTY to give charity, as well as the notion that what our country needs now is more service and sacrifice. I think we've sacrificed more than enough by now, damnit.
"Love of country is another way of saying love of your fellow countrymen — a truth I learned a long time ago in a country very different from ours. Patriotism is another way of saying service to a cause greater than self-interest."
"I hope that you'll go see other candidates and get involved in the political campaign and be involved in public service. And if you remember anything I said tonight, please remember there's nothing nobler than serving a cause greater than your self-interest."
"Like other environmental challenges - only more so - global warming presents a test of foresight, of political courage, and of the unselfish concern that one generation owes to the next."
"'Reform. Prosperity. Peace,' reads a banner of McCain's campaign website. 'I believe each and every one of us has a duty to serve a cause greater than our own self-interest....I hope that...you will see why I truly believe that I owe America more than she has ever owed me....I've spent my life in service to my country, and I've spent my life putting my country first.....'"
If you're interested, here is the first part of a 3-part article about McCain by Ed Cline:
http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/07/john-mccain-pseudo-maverick-i.htm
I had to do a little Wikipedia-ing, because my definition of altruism was pretty vastly different from yours. It's a huge concept in evolutionary biology, where a lot of research has been devoted to figuring out why people (and other animals) do things to assist others of their species without reward or even at their own detriment. I hadn't really realized there was an ethical doctrine of altruism. We were coming from different understandings of the word. I can see that McCain's constant references to altruistic behavior would be pretty contrary to your worldview, and I actually find it kind of annoying myself. I even see on Wikipedia that Ayn Rand said that most problems in the world come from Altruism. I find that incredibly hard to believe, but at least I see where you're coming from on it.
In the first part of my post I was listing things that can usually be (and for the most part, have been by you) described as evil, with "volunteering" thrown in there to be the thing that's not like the others. It was to the main point of my comment, which wasn't that McCain doesn't advocate service and volunteering, but that doing - and advocating - those things is about as far from "evil" as your average koala bear. Koala bears aren't the most efficient, prosperous, or succesful animals but they can't be described as evil.
McCain's strategy is this "Country First," life dedicated to service persona, and I think a lot of the "Volunteer!" talk is a direct extension of that. I completely understand your dislike of the "gave the ultimate sacrifice" talk, but it's really just semantics. It's a phrase that's been overused forever, and has lost a lot of meaning. It pretty much is just a romantic sounding stand-in for "died."
I agree that McCain spouts a lot of babble about sacrifice and some anti-capitalistic sentiments too (but c'mon - compared to Obama's actual policy ideas?). I also agree with your second of the three posts above, in its entirety. That IS a superior way to make a difference. But really, he's not requiring anything of anyone. He won't be passing a law requiring charity. It's just what he likes, it's what he'd like to see. It's harmless, like a koala bear. There's really nothing evil about it, and I wish you'd stop riding that word into the ground.
There's a lot of good work on altruism (using the evolutionary biology meaning this time) out there, and it would behoove someone who views it as "evil" to study it. They don't really know why some animals behave in a way that doesn't improve their own fitness, but there are a lot of theories. In birds, it's certainly not because of Comte's ethical doctrine. I'd actually recommend studying evolutionary biology in general. It's just interesting, useful stuff.
Yeah I was fascinated by the Richard Dawkins videos about Darwin and evolution. I have major reservations, however, about studying ethics in humans with evolution, because I think there are no instincts for ethics, just choices. That's actually one big thing I don't like about Dawkins, even though overall I have a ton of respect for him.
I disagree about the talk of volunteerism being harmless. I think it's a facade for something that is, yes, ultimately evil. I don't really have time to post about it now though, maybe later.
I also don't think that the "ultimate sacrifice" thing is just an issue of semantics. I think you're right that most people, when they actually say it, don't think about what it really means. However I think there is a big reason (the cultural dominance of the moral theory of altruism, started by people fully aware of what it meant) why it is so common in our vernacular. McCain doesn't know these reasons, but that doesn't matter to me. This is the same reason why the word selfish carries such bad conotations today, and if you tell someone that you think it's good to be selfish, they think you want to rape children.
"I disagree about the talk of volunteerism being harmless. I think it's a facade for something that is, yes, ultimately evil."
Do come back and say more about that, I'd really like to hear an explanation of that, and how Rand can say that altruism is the root of bad things in the world.
"I think there are no instincts for ethics, just choices."
When biology (and the subsections dealing evolution, psychology, and the brain) will really mess you up is when it gets you believing that there really are very few actual "choices" made in the world, and that most things we do are in some way predetermined by our biology. The science is pretty strong behind a lot of that, and while it's a hard pill to swallow, it's pretty likely. That's one of the reasons I have a lot of trouble throwing words like "evil" around, though I do believe it exists. A good understanding of biology can really mess with a lot of ethical, philosophical, and political beliefs.
Caleb, it is logically impossible for biology to ever find evidence of determinism in the same way that one could never find evidence for creationism.
Man has no instinctual knowledge. He has certain hormonal urges and things like that, but no automatic actions (other than the involuntary organisms). Free will is self-evident, and causality must reconcile itself with it. You don't have to know *how* you choose, to know that you choose. Philosophy is fundamental to science, and science can not contradict it.
"Do come back and say more about that, I'd really like to hear an explanation of that, and how Rand can say that altruism is the root of bad things in the world."
Alright I'll get an explanation up here at some point. In the meantime, just chew on this tidbit. Sacrifice has been made the moral ideal, and that's exactly what we've been doing. Sacrificing.
OBama Worshippers:
If you really, truly, think that the Big O was just making a pleasant comment about, well, not his opponent, but his opponent's sidekick, then you are, certainly, entitled to your opinion.
But this is what he was saying:
"There is no way in hell that this "lady" could possibly take care of five kids and be VICE-president, much less president. After all, two kids tire me out, and I HAVE A WIFE!"
It was derogatory and sexist. It wasn't a lovely little sympathetic comment about his poor over-burdened opponent. But, by all means, believe what you will.
"But, by all means, believe what you will."
no u
Post a Comment