Monday, July 05, 2010

Let the Dead Bury the Tenured

I'm not sure if this post will have anything to do with the title, but it's where we left off on Friday, so it's fifty-fifty. We're still discussing faith, or belief, and have already explained how it is that everyone -- most especially, the tenured -- has faith, but that only the religious generally do so consciously (or are called to account for it).

In other words, the religious person explicitly says Yes to a set of first principles that cannot be proved in the usual way. To be sure, they can be proved, but as Schuon has noted, these types of metaphysical or ontological arguments are not the causes of certainty, only the consequences.

That is, I doubt if too many people are convinced of the reality of O through metaphysical argument, even though the arguments are, on their own plane, incapable of refutation. But to even get into a riposting contest with a skunk is beside the point, because the atheist's first principles are also irrefutable on their own plane, which begins with faith in those very principles, i.e., an act of will.

Or usually something a little deeper than faith, something more like feeling, or intuition. The bottom line is this: the believer just senses something more, while the unbeliever just senses "nothing."

Which is not a negative judgment; rather it is the affirmation of a feeling that there is just nothing there, and that it is therefore not worth the effort to entertain that hypothesis and venture down that avenue. Again, as Polanyi has discussed at length, this is really how all science proceeds -- with a feeling that this would be a potentially fruitful avenue of discovery, while that wouldn't be. (Or in the case of a corrupt science such as "climate change," that "this would be a remunerative avenue to pursue.")

Which is why I don't believe any truly visionary scientist -- say, Einstein -- would ever absolutely exclude the "God hypothesis," for he is far too respectful of the mystery of the cosmos. Plus, Einstein, as much as anyone, was aware of the danger of accepting the conventional wisdom of science as some kind of last word on the nature of reality. It was only because he explicitly rejected this last word that he was able to utter the "first words" of the relativity (and later quantum) revolution.

Schuon makes the additional critical point that ontological arguments for the existence of God do not so much appeal to the intellect as the substance . They will not be operative in a "mutilated intelligence" that is alienated from its own ground and substance.

For example, imagine a man who has convinced himself that reality may only be understood "quantitatively." In order to believe such a thing, the person must already be so far from the cosmic center -- and so lost at the periphery -- that such an explanation "satisfies" him. Note that last word: no matter how "quantitative" the person, no matter how big the nerd, he still has to be "satisfied" with the numbers, so that an element of "aesthetics," as it were, still enters through the back door.

The point is -- and ironically, both atheists and literalists will disagree with this -- that neither science nor theology can be "closed systems" in relation to metaphysics. Or, they can do this, but at the cost of certain inevitable absurdities. The atheist exploits these absurdities -- or splinters -- of exoteric religion in order to reject religion altogether, while failing to notice the beam in his own metaphysical eye.

I realize that I have a number of readers who are unashamed of being what are called "fundamentalists" or "literalists," and they are obviously welcome. But this blog is clearly not coming from that perspective, nor is it aimed at such readers. I am quite sure that there are thousands of such blogs catering to them, but ours serves an entirely different purpose.

For we say that revelation is not true because God revealed it; rather, we insist that God revealed it because it is true. In other words, truth is prior to revelation. Or, as we have expressed it in the past, the mischievous Raccoon always asks of this or that religious truth, by virtue of what principle?

For example, you say that the third person of the Trinity incarnated as the man Jesus. We say -- and not in a blasphemous way, mind you -- by virtue of what principle? Things only happen because it is possible for them to happen. Please note that we do not approach the question in the spiritually corrosive manner of the committed atheist or the "Jesus seminarians."

To the contrary. We do so in the spirit of Toots. Which, by the way, goes to the question some people ask of the B'ob, "hey, why don't you commit to one path, say Catholicism, as has Mrs. G?" One reason is that if I were to do this, it would too easy for the tenured to dismiss me as "just a Catholic thinker" instead of "just a crank blogger."

Anyway, Schuon makes the critical point that theology is in need of metaphysics, not necessarily for its own sake, but for the sake of the very people to whom it is addressed, which is only "everyone." And not all of the people to whom it is addressed are "simple people of faith," so to speak.

And when we say this, I'm sure you realize by now that we are not being the least bit coondescending. I can always relate to the "simple person of faith" much more compatibly than the "complicated person of no faith," because I can easily convert my language to that of the former, whereas this is basically impossible in the case of the latter, who have neither the interest nor the aptitude.

In contrast, many "simple believers" have the aptitude, but it just doesn't interest them all that much. Especially women, if I may make a broad generalization about broads. For example, Mrs. G enjoys and appreciates my writing, but I think it's safe to say that she enjoys going to communion much more. I mean, whatever you think of my writing, I will be the first to acknowledge that it can't do that. True, cut this blog, sir, and it bleeds my blood. But I do not commend it as a beverage.

So, just to wrap up this line of thought, I think it is especially important in this day and age -- the age of tenured stupidity -- to realize that a religion is not truly "complete" without a foundation in esoterism and metaphysics. If nothing else, failure to appreciate this leaves some gaping holes that secularists are just itching to exploit in order to make their adversaries look stupid.

As Schuon expresses it, exoteric religion has certain intellectual "fissures" that "only sacred science can fill lest the powers of darkness intrude." Only esoterism "possesses sufficient lights to face all possible objections and also to give a positive explanation of religion."

And please understand that this is hardly a bulletin. Rather, this is precisely what Thomas attempted -- and succeeded in doing -- with the Summa. In it, he made the bold attempt to integrate science, philosophy and revelation -- and to answer "all possible objections" in a perfectly sufficient manner.

But again: it is only sufficient to the person who hasn't already alienated himself from his own spiritual substance, not to the person who has placed his faith in matter or number or sensation or whatever. Only he who already bears the truth in his substance can recognize and "hear" it when it is given to him. And it can only be given, not imposed; just as it can only be rejected, not disproved.

55 Comments:

Blogger Van said...

"For we say that revelation is not true because God revealed it; rather, we insist that God revealed it because it is true. In other words, truth is prior to revelation. Or, as we have expressed it in the past, the mischievous Raccoon always asks of this or that religious truth, by virtue of what principle?"

Sums it up in a nutshall. And, for the life of me, I can't see how you find your way back to the source without that as your basis?

"One reason is that if I were to do this, it would too easy for the tenured to dismiss me as "just a Catholic thinker" instead of "just a crank blogger.""

From one crank blogger to another, that does mean a lot.

;-)

7/05/2010 08:54:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Related: Loss of Language, Loss of Thought.

7/05/2010 09:12:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

This post was a very useful clarification which I thinks help clarify what OC is and isn't about. In my own humble opinion, I'd say that a sincere atheist of good faith and at least partially open mind would be as welcome here as the various flavors of Christian, Jew and N/A we have here (of course I'm not the one setting the rules -- just hypothetically speaking).

I've valued OC for two big reasons:

1. It has given me solid intellectual food which nourishes my spiritual/religious side (the main portion of which, like Mrs. G., resides in the Church). I am that sort of person for whom although faith is ultimately "enough", it is far more vibrant when reinforced by the sort of dynamic, light-hearted metaphysical thinking that goes on here daily.

2. OC is the M1 Abrams main battle tank of web sites when it comes to refuting garden-variety atheists tooling around in their Toyota pickups with a .50 cal welded to the bed. Their bullshit certitudes and lazy mocking of exoteric religious dogma are blown apart just as surely as a sabot shell disintegrates a jihadist pickup.

I'd also put forward that many kindred spirits (brothers under the pelt) past and present were/are committed Christians of various stripes, though I take your point re the more "materialistic" strains of in your face Bible thumping. You'd think such folks would get the message that their message isn't getting through, but that never seems to occur.

Anyhow, I for one am very happy that OC is a big tent sort of place and not "only" a Christian site.

7/05/2010 09:16:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

(Actually I think you'd use a HEAT shell against a pickup, not a sabot, which would probably put a surgically clean, smoking 2 inch hole right through it -- one of my colleagues in the late 1990s was a former M1 commander in Gulf 1 and I heard lots of tech talk like that from him ;-))

7/05/2010 09:23:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

BTW,
"Let the Dead Bury the Tenured"

Isn't that a bit of circular reasoning?

In case of infinite loop, remember "ctrl-esc".

7/05/2010 09:24:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Who last week likened OC to the flavor enhancer on your Doritos? That's about as succinct and apt as it gets.

OC is -- for me anyway -- no substitute for the "food" provided by religion, and without OC it's not like I'd starve spiritually, but the enhancement effect of OC is highly valuable nonetheless.

7/05/2010 09:32:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Night of the living tenured.

Amazing post, Bob.

7/05/2010 09:32:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Funny NB, when Van commented I thought, "Isn't that a bit of circular seasoning?"

7/05/2010 09:34:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Funny too, that Bob would say, mutilated intellect. I think that's what he said.. Anyway, was trimming the hedges this morning, before riding off on the women, when I noticed on one of the shrubbery, this little branch growing that was not colored at all like the rest of the thing. A mutation, as they say. Looked at it with Coonvision and thought, mutation maybe doesn't mean error, but maybe more like "purpose".

7/05/2010 09:39:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Re-reading the post again, I heartily cooncur that spirituality is for everyone. That of course works both ways: the simple person of faith who hasn't the interest and/or ability to study metaphysics is no less dignified or worthy than the Pope (as though that needs saying here). Coonversely, it is the case in the West today that smart people are short-changed when it comes to spirituality and religion in that the coup d'culture effected by the Left in the 20th century has meant that only the nihilist creed is considered culturally acceptable (cf the Tenured).

OC absolutely plays the critical role of a place where smart people can come to understand that the intellectual questions are far deeper -- and the answers almost always vastly different -- than what is surveyed in academia, the media or in the entertainment complex.

For quite a while I kept hoping Bob would do talk shows or write a best-seller or something. Eventually I came to understand that to do so would likely collapse the elegant wave function into a pile of useless particles.

wv: stable

7/05/2010 09:42:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Request for Van or anyone else here who knows the technical details: What does epistemic closure mean in basic terms? I've heard this thrown around by the chattering classes over the past 6 months (mainly, but not only, by liberals). I looked it up in the encyclopedia of philosophy but their explanation is a tetch technical (although it confirmed my suspicion that the chattering classes are employing the term incorrectly).

7/05/2010 11:57:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

It's really just a fancy term for having a closed mind, a trait which close-minded progressives project into conservatives. Ignore.

7/05/2010 12:00:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I mean, it takes some impressive cluelessness for people who reduce everything to race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and imperialism to accuse others of being closed minded!

7/05/2010 12:06:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

This looks like a very interesting book coming out next month: The Axe and the Oath: Ordinary Life in the Middle Ages. I can't tell if it bears out what I said in my book, or refutes it. I don't mind if it does, because I'm really curious about it...

7/05/2010 12:14:00 PM  
Blogger Sal said...

You know, when people fault Bob for not 'doing something' (not you, NB- trolls), I always wonder what they think OC is?
Certainly 'something'. In fact, if you want to get technical, it's a real spiritual work of mercy: instructing the ignorant in as necessary a way as any other.
It is a rareified vocation, difficult to pigeonhole, and liable to misunderstanding.

But 'something'.

7/05/2010 12:15:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"mutilated intellect."

That terminology caught my attention as well. (Having just seen a living example on my hubby's FB wall...)

I've said it before...the true fundies wouldn't have me despite my views on inerrancy. I won't go for hype, hip-ness for hip-ness' sake, or loosey-goosey theology. Not liturgical either (though I've no objections to others finding meaning there), so that often comes across as superfluous, depending on the presence of the Spirit or lack thereof. In short, it's most difficult to find a comfortable niche.

I'm working off the dOrito analogy too. :)

7/05/2010 12:26:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"I mean, it takes some impressive cluelessness for people who reduce everything to race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and imperialism to accuse others of being closed minded!"

Which is just what hubby said to the FB denizen...in so many words...

wv: outalsin

7/05/2010 12:36:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Sal, I think when they do that it's because they're annoyed that he doesn't support their world view. IMHO the trouble comes because clearly, truth is spoken here, so they like the parts that validate their way of thinking. But the parts that don't make them upset. Instead of testing the objectionable parts against reality (which in all likelihood would mean they'd have to deal with a metannoyance), they demand that Bob recant.

In other words, they want Bob to shape god in their own image. At least, that's how it usually looks from where I'm sitting.

7/05/2010 12:38:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Re. The Axe & the Oath, *sigh.* I'm already never going to get through my reading list, and it just keeps growing and growing. That one looks fun, though. I may have to move it toward the top...

7/05/2010 12:40:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

It's a little confusing, because I recently read a book by Rodney Stark, in which he says that people in the Middle Ages have been caricatured as mindless believers, when they were actually quite skeptical and that churches were largely empty back then. I don't really trust his scholarship, but that sounds like a pretty bold claim....

7/05/2010 12:55:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

That is bold. I can't help wondering, if that were true, how would Medieval towns ever have mustered the manpower and support needed to build cathedrals, or send men off to the Crusades? I suppose there could have been cynical reasons for both of those (basic capitalism and opportunism, maybe). But if that were the case, how does Stark explain the general tendency toward belief in the supernatural? Witch trials, fairy tales, etc. While some or even most of the stories were presumably known to be just stories, wasn't there enough belief that, for instance, people were sometimes willing to kill their children if they thought a changeling had been substituted for the "real" child? Or is that impression proven to be an element of modern folklore?

I think it's fairly self-evident that people will always find something to believe in, even if they don't realize it. What does he posit as the dominant belief system, if not Christianity? Cynicism and atheism?

I should probably just read the book...

7/05/2010 01:09:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Time says there ain't no such thing as free will.

I can't help wondering whether, if enough people become convinced that most of their actions are dictated by forces beyond their control, it will become self-fulfilling. That is, will they surrender their free will to the whims and demands of the horizontal?

Going hand-in-hand with the earlier linked piece about language over at Inside Catholic, if upcoming generations are not even developing the tools to critically think about what is happening, how they behave and respond and why, how long will it take for society to devolve just halfway to the world of Idiocracy?

Yeesh.

7/05/2010 01:30:00 PM  
Blogger Jim said...

Just saw an ad with R. Lee Ermey playing a graduate of the B'ob school of sensitivity :-)

7/05/2010 01:37:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Who said that? Who the f*ck said that? Who's the slimy little communist shit, twinkle-toed bastard who just signed his own death warrant?"

7/05/2010 01:47:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

NB, regarding epistemic closure, yes, it’s their new fancy pants incantation for ‘closed minded conservative reactionary’, and this from the link Gagdad left above, gives a good clue towards it’s roots:

“…The ubiquitous confusion between "there" and "their" may still be considered a quaint and negligible fluke that nearly creates a new orthographic norm; the inability to express lucid arguments must not.
What is being lost is the capacity to think in terms of cause and effect, of distinguishing between differing levels of argument, and particularly any appreciation for abstraction…”

What epistemic closure really means, is that it is sooo pre-modern (meaning bad (but not in a judgmental way, nooo)) to actually ask for proof or to expect consistency among your premises. When they say “Everyone has a right to free healthcare”, it is just endemic conservative epistemic closure to question or (God forbid!) examine the destructive impact their pet causes will have on not only the economy, but upon the very concept of rights.

To not accept what they want to be ‘true’, is a sign of epistemic closure, your mind is closed to anything that hasn’t been proved to your satisfaction, and that is ‘proof’ that you are a pre-modern Neanderthal, someone to be snickered at and brushed aside, and if ‘too many’ people should listen to you or buy your books, then as Kagan argued, the authorities should step in and see that your views are ‘balanced’ with ‘redistribution of speech opportunities’, or your books should be banned… should the FEC choose.
(sigh... break)

7/05/2010 02:22:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

(cont)
Picking just one branch of modernity to trace this back to, Hume said “We can’t know causality”, with that parasitic weed safely embedded into every leading branch of scientistic philosophy (Kuhn, Popper, etc), it has helped to develop modern philosophy and its ideas of education that have made it much more difficult to realize and stand for what is truly logical, meaning conclusions based upon premises which not only agree but which are deeply integrated into all else that you know to be true – modernity is an assault on reality and our ability to know it – and by that token, demanding true logic and proof is perceived by them as a direct assault on them and their vision – and it is.

If you can’t know causes, it is silly to demand Proof of what is unprovable, they've undermined the source of all proof, as well as certainty and imagination. From one of
my posts on Hume

"…How this pertains to Hume, is that because of his peculiar manner of making his observations, he observed what he did not see [causality] and succeeded in convincing others that his myopic perspective was in fact the whole vista of what was there to be seen. In his blindness was sown the seeds of not seeing what was clearly there to be seen with two good eyes - but necessarily missed with a single microscope. He not only convinced others that what he didn’t see, was there to be seen by all, but that in order to claim to see, you had to shut one eye and refuse to see the full picture. "

To the Modernist's mind, Causality was out, as were Quality, Virtue and Morality in favor of disconnected and relativized quantities, or as put in today’s post:

“For example, imagine a man who has convinced himself that reality may only be understood "quantitatively." In order to believe such a thing, the person must already be so far from the cosmic center -- and so lost at the periphery -- that such an explanation "satisfies" him. Note that last word: no matter how "quantitative" the person, no matter how big the nerd, he still has to be "satisfied" with the numbers, so that an element of "aesthetics," as it were, still enters through the back door.”

With that firmly entrenched in every branch of modern philosophy – science, literature, history, education – it should be obvious that this,

“…What is being lost is the capacity to think in terms of cause and effect…”

, is not seen as a bug, but a feature. It is their whole point, and if you look closely at everything from modern art, to politics and pelosi’s recent idiocy about unemployment checks being the best way to grow the economy We The People need to recognize that it is that old rejection of causality which is the cause behind these effects blatantly staring us right back in the face.

That's also a clue as to how to fight them, using what they most fear and have no defense against - Proof. Ask them why. When they insult them, ask them why again. When they threaten and abuse you, continue asking why, ask that they support their claims, that they prove why you should discard reality for their mockery of it.

Eventually their heads will explode.

I'm looking forward to that 4th of July!

7/05/2010 02:22:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Julie said "In other words, they want Bob to shape god in their own image."

Awesome and exactly right!

7/05/2010 02:28:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Julie said "Time says there ain't no such thing as free will."

Yeah... especially when it's used to not buy Time, or the New Orc Times... time to redistribute speech opportunities....

7/05/2010 02:31:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Van,
To the Modernist's mind, Causality was out...

There's one important exception: Root causes, of course! As in, "the root causes of terrorism/crime/illegitimacy/any other behavior to be justified, not rectified are poverty/brain chemistry/unconscious and uncontrollable mechanisms, therefore they can't help it and we shouldn't make them feel bad about it. Maybe we should give them a reward instead, for being such troopers in the face of the bad root causes!

Funny how they never ask what are the root causes of success or morality...

7/05/2010 02:43:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Julie said "Funny how they never ask what are the root causes of success or morality..."

Heh, O they know... and it burns....


wv:jugstoge
Is Hooter's selling cigars now?

(I am sooo sorry, the wv made me do it)

7/05/2010 02:48:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

It is interesting, when you think about it, that the whole liberal concept of "root causes" is a kind of faux verticality.

Also interesting that the Christian is enjoined to judge acts, not souls. But the liberal essentially removes this distinction by asking us to judge the soul of the criminal -- i.e., the "root causes" that really motivated him -- and to forget about the act. Various causes no doubt exist; in fact, so many, that no one could possibly discern and understand them all, much less understand how they interact.

Which is why it is much more workable just to judge acts and not souls. When you start judging souls, it's easy enough to prove that all of us are innocent or guilty, depending on the judge.

7/05/2010 02:58:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Sheds a whole new light on "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Seems to me he was referring to souls and not acts with that directive, but of course people tend to take it the opposite way. Especially leftists.

7/05/2010 03:25:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To Julie re:

"Time says there ain't no such thing as free will."

How do they explain their falling readership if there is no free will? Time is an ass. An ass only found in Dentist's offices with Highlight magazine. Shoosh.

7/05/2010 03:45:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To Julie re:

"I can't help wondering whether, if enough people become convinced that most of their actions are dictated by forces beyond their control, it will become self-fulfilling."

"Springtime for Hitler and Germany,
Winter for Poland and France...

Rhineland is a fine land, once more..."

Anything important, has been said in song.

7/05/2010 03:50:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I'm not sure if I said that right, but I think I made my point in spite of myself....

7/05/2010 03:53:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To Gagdad re:

"Also interesting that the Christian is enjoined to judge acts, not souls. But the liberal essentially removes this distinction by asking us to judge the soul of the criminal -- i.e., the "root causes" that really motivated him -- and to forget about the act."

Nicely said. A good point to remember.

7/05/2010 03:55:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Gagdad said "But the liberal essentially removes this distinction by asking us to judge the soul of the criminal -- i.e., the "root causes" that really motivated him -- and to forget about the act. "

Yep, which is interesting from a couple different directions. One being that they claim that there is no way of knowing the real nature of the world around us and no way to determine causality... and here are those facts we know from the world around you that are the root causes for your behavior.

(blink)

But also not only do they declare that they can know your root causes, but that in so doing they claim to know, and comprehend, peoples inner thoughts - by virtue of there being no inner thoughts, only reactions to outer stimulus. Those claims to determining the 'root causes' of behavior, are declarations that, at root, there is no 'you' within you, and they are capable of knowing it.

Er... who knows it? (Shhh!).

Honestly, they are the most worthless of opponents, they have zero substance and not a single argument for any of their positions, other than your willingness to feel embarrassed when they claim their 'ideas' are superior to yours.

For a demonstration, ask any of our anninymouses to explain and define their premises, and/or in any way to back up their arguments with a credible chain of reasoning... sit back and watch them run away while throwing insults over their shoulder.

Insults, lies and equivocations.

That's all they've got.

7/05/2010 04:05:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

I'm not sure if I said that right, but I think I made my point in spite of myself....

:D

I was thinking the same thing about my reply; I don't know if it made sense to anyone but me, though.

wv says storm. Skies look pretty clear here, though...

7/05/2010 04:11:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Julie said...
"Sheds a whole new light on "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Seems to me he was referring to souls and not acts with that directive, but of course people tend to take it the opposite way. Especially leftists."

It certainly does. Leftists abhor the appearance of being hypocritical (especially when it's true which is only virtually all the time), so they desperately cling to any and every "excuse" they can find (or make up) for their behavior.

It doesn't matter that it's not true, it only matters if it appears true on the surface.
Leftists count on folks not researching or thinking critically about their propaganda.
Indeed, that's their greatest fear (conciously or unconciously): being seen for what they ARE.

Which is why they support the supression and prosecution of free speech when they are in power with very few exceptions.

And when all else fails they pull the "good intentions" card.

7/05/2010 04:16:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Tigtog said...
To Julie re:

"Time says there ain't no such thing as free will."

How do they explain their falling readership if there is no free will? Time is an ass. An ass only found in Dentist's offices with Highlight magazine. Shoosh."

Nothin' but net! :^)

7/05/2010 04:20:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Have you noticed that the left never speaks of "root causes" of white collar crime?

7/05/2010 04:22:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Gagdad Bob said...
I'm not sure if I said that right, but I think I made my point in spite of myself....


LOL! I don't see how you coulda been more clear, Bob.

As Skully would say in response: F*ckin' A! :^)

7/05/2010 04:22:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Gagdad Bob said...

"Have you noticed that the left never speaks of "root causes" of white collar crime?"

Ho! You jest mutilated their entire premise!

7/05/2010 04:25:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To Gagdad re:

"Have you noticed that the left never speaks of "root causes" of white collar crime?"

Well it really depends on the color of neck within the white collar Bob. You ever hear of a gentleman named Franklin Delano Raines? I'm sure I can remember a few more if I tried.

Liberals are a cargo cult, and their favored minorities are merely tokins to ward off the evil spirits of racism, sexism, equality, and imperialism. Did I miss one?

7/05/2010 04:28:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

BTW, along the same lines as today's post and comments let's
Help Iowahawk Destroy America

Hilarious! Including the comments.

7/05/2010 04:30:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Thanks, Ben! I like this one:

Visit the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library; steal the book

7/05/2010 04:42:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Wo, dude a double rainbow. WHAT DOES IT MEAN?!!!!!

7/05/2010 05:10:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Iowahawk has a twitter account!

Finally a reason to use twitter!

wv: torper
More coming this week as mercury cruises past 100.

7/05/2010 05:12:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

I'll have what he's having?

7/05/2010 05:17:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Lots of roflol ideas.
I liked this one:

"Let Obama be clear."

Which is, ironically, the last thing Obama wants. :^)

7/05/2010 05:18:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

"Rainbowing," huh?

This guy sounds like a very sensitive soul. I wonder if he went looking for unicorns after that?

7/05/2010 05:31:00 PM  
Blogger black hole said...

CAn't you weenies attract any dissenters? C'mon now.

BTW I'm plenty tenured, and plenty alive.

I lunch with Zimbardo, m'kay? I am a big ass psychologist. You know me, yep you do but I'm not giving the name.

I am rich, filthy rich. I sleep with plenty of hard body students. I publish, people read, I influence. I am a great, big, huge success by any measure that matters.

So. There.

I got it going on.

7/05/2010 09:53:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Awesome. Even if you don't normally like this sort of thing.

7/05/2010 10:11:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

bh said "BTW I'm plenty tenured, and plenty alive."

You've shown us your thoughts and what you think passes for success in life.

The reports of your living may be greatly exaggerated.

7/06/2010 04:48:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Amazing what you start to notice after having read OC for a while. I'm in negotiations for a communications person and was referred to this guy who is at the top of the field. He really is good, but the interesting thing is that he draws a massive amount of inspiration from classic jazz, which he calls "naked communication". Hell, what else can you say about a corporate type who quotes Don Cherry in his materials:

"music is one of the arts that make a person completely naked."

Now to find a CFO who reads Bion... ;-)

7/06/2010 05:28:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home