Friday, January 18, 2008

Steven Colbert Dirtbag Extraordinaire


I despise Steven Colbert and his communist variety show.

Colbert lampoon's the right by hosting left wing academics and then utilizes the most cliched talking points to ridicule their position.

The result is brainwashed viewers who then think that the most extreme left wing position on any issue is the correct one.

This is the intellectual equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel.

This annoying shtick is as irresponsible as it is repetitive and obnoxious.

I wonder how long Steven will do the same thing over and over again.

I guess the answer would be as long as it makes money.

Like fellow socialist crackpot Michael Moore, Colbert makes a handsome living delivering naive criticisms of Capitalism.

Hey I bet I can be just like Colbert, only a right wing version poking fun at the left.

Let's see how hard it is!

"Obviously it's the governments responsibility to take care any problem a person might have"

"What we need to do is plan every aspect of the economy, pay for every one's
health care and personal bills while having a $20 an hour minimum wage and a 20 hour work week".

"Financial responsibility isn't important, we should be spending as much as possible on every government program, it's OK because we can just tax it from the rich people who stole it from the poor. That won't cause financial problems and inhibit growth at all".

"Obviously we should never be allowed to eat meat, which is the moral equivalent of murder".

"Unborn children should be aborted when convenient, but serial killers and murderers should never be executed, that would be downright wrong".

"All cultures are uniquely deserving of respect, except western culture which is evil racist and sexist".

"Industrialism is wrong, in order to save the planet we have to move back to the forest and live off the land. That way we can build a hairy pitted matriarchal eco society".

"If we only coddled our foreign enemies more and handled them with kid gloves everything would be better, I mean appeasement was a really successful policy in the 1930's".

"Corporations are all evil, except of course Starbucks and Apple which make great coffee and computers"


Whew, that was really difficult! Colbert sure is a genius.

The sad thing is that an entire generation is being misled by this nonsense.

Colbert is willing to distort facts and interrupt his guests to push his ideological agenda. He is no different than those he purports to ridicule.

We should honor the hard working people that built this country, not the Kook's and Whiners who hate it.

Sex In The City Or Slut's In The Sewer?



I prefer the latter.

I hate this show more than just about anything. The sound of that intro music turns me into a howling monster, thrashing about until the source of the disturbance is eliminated.

In this disgusting series and it's clones, women are told that cheating on your husband or partner is a "fun and exciting thing to do". We also learn that the only important thing in life is being a licentious, self indulgent, materialistic tramp.

Or what about "Desperate Housewives"? Let's wait until our husband leaves and then go screw the neighbor, hell the whole family can watch!

The sad thing is that these programs provide "life lessons" for the moronic modern woman.

So we can treat people and our partners disrespectfully because "You know they just weren't doing it for me".

Or...

"Wow, that man has lot's of money and a girlfriend, I sure do want to go fuck him".

The star of this show is so called "sex symbol" Sarah Jessica Parker who is no great beauty by the way.

The woman is old and looks like someone smacked her in the face with a 2 X 4.

Judging by the damage, this attack was most likely perpetrated by professional wrestler Hacksaw Jim Dougan.

Of course, no left wing media shit burger would be complete without tales from People Magazine on our wonderful celebrity benefactors.

Nobody actually knows these people, but we all love their dedication to knee jerk left wing causes with their surplus millions.

We also get important information like which whore sucked some guy's cock that particular week. Or which lowlife vomited all over themselves on Sunset Blvd.

Women can spend hours conversing about this reprehensible trash.

The only thing I can say's is that it's amazing.

Amazing that values in the West have degenerated so far, and that the most contemptible individuals and irresponsible behavior is placed on a pedestal for a whole generation of scum to worship.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Could My Dinner With Andre Be The Worst Film Ever Made?




My Dinner with Andre is a famous film based on a single shot of a postmodernist conversation at a restaurant in NYC. It features that bald guy from The Princess Bride

The movie focuses on two men. One is a struggling playwright, who moonlights as an actor in order to pay the bills. The other is Andre a successful playwright who leaves town in the midst of some kind of mid-life crisis. The protagonist arranges to meet Andre and is nervous. He is jilted by Andre's success and his long absence.

Initially the conversation delves into Andre's experience's in experimental theater with a polish director named "Brutowski" in Poland.

He describes his first experiment. He asks Brutowski to give him"40 Jewish women to play harp in the forest" and that they "do not speak English". He emphasizes the nature of theatrical improvisation and its importance in helping solve the question of "Who am I, Where am I going, What am I doing here? He then tries a beehive, or a mass concentration of human beings interacting randomly. He remarks that their is a striking similarity between the "Group Trance" he experienced and the Nuremberg rallies.

Andre describes himself as completely flabbergasted by these experiences. He calls these random interactions an example of "surrealism" and the art of Jackson Pollack. The next stage in the conversation is his trip to Morocco and a desert oasis. It is here that he "eats sand, and throws up". He also meets cuson, a Japanese Buddhist monk who helps "enlighten" him.

Later he returns to NYC with kuson. He decides to make a flag based on the Tibetan swastika which is just "hideous". Later it is destroyed by some random women. It is here that he begins ruminating on Finhorn. This is an experimental artistic colony in Scotland where he enjoys carrying out his experiments. He exclaims that while there he "could see what if alive in those leafs" and describes "drinking instant coffee out of the top of my shaving cream with brutowski in the bathroom". Throughout these episodes is constant drinking, and dancing until "7:00 AM" as described by Andre. With the last bizarre comment I wondered if the participants in these "experiments" were possibly jacked up on psychedelic drugs.

Eventually he describes writing his last will and testament and "being photographed naked and then buried alive". Then he begins attacking his identity and likening himself to Nazi industrial minister Albert Speer and describes his artistic record as "horrific". The existentialist leanings of the conversation and its reminiscence of Sartre and German Nihilism is revealed when he says

"I feel like I am just washed up, I feel as though I squandered my entire life"


Andre attempts to show how perspective can be diluted through emotional confusion. He describes a doctor expresses optimism at his mother's failing health when he actually knows that she is dying. This is complete nonsense. The woman is either sick or she is not sick, just like an object is its identity or it is not. For example you cannot say that "the piano is a piano but also not a piano". Fact in objective reality is unyielding. Human emotions have no implication on the actual existence of objective reality. A is A, B is B. A is not be and also not A. Just because a doctor is uncomfortable with a sensitive topic and chooses to articulate in a careful way does not mean that perception of reality in itself is changed. These arguments echo the moralistic interpretations of duty and skepticism of sensory perception common in today's Postmodern/Existentialist philosophy.

Andre emphasizes that suppressing emotions is abnormal. By this method of reasoning , perhaps I should interrupt the teacher in class every time a point that i disagree with is made. Since I am a savage male perhaps I should express my sexual libido to females whenever the instinct tells me. This nonsense is rooted in the German and Austrian school's of mental repression. Sigmund Freud argued that all human interactions are predicated on thoughts and feelings which are suppressed in the sub-conscious mind. Freud also believed that cocaine was good for you, and regularly "interpreted his female patients dreams to mean they wanted to have sex with him".

Consider the story of Joe Sixpack as articulated by the postmodern left. Joe Sixpack works a 9-5 job a an industrial factory doing a repetitive task. Before he comes home he purchases beer, a product of mass manufacturing. He guzzles his beer and sinks into his comfortable chair. He then turns on the television, and for several hours is bombarded by advertisements and erroneous information. As he does this the phyco-active effects of the beer slowly comforts him and dilutes his inhibition and perception of the world around him. When he becomes tired he goes to sleep and then repeats this process indefinitely.

This the postmodernists say, is how all reality can be predicated on sub-conscious reality and the pervasive effects of technology and society. These themes are common in the writing of Chomsky, Parenti, and Postman. Not included however is a more important factor, free will. Individuals in a free society can choose to go about their lives in any way. Joe Sixpack can watch survivor and work at the factory while I build a business and rehearse a piano concerto. A woman can get a tatoo above her rear end and then watch sex in the city while I write a song and read Sir Edward Gibbon. Most people are ignorant and stupid and always have been. If the postmodernists have such contempt for "Joe Sixpack" than why do they so fervently wish to liberate him? Just like abstract socialist thought, the school of repression aims to influence individuals who have no concept of these arguments much like Marxisms intellectual relationships to the proleteriat.

Andre says that individuals often "really don't know what they are talking about". This may sometimes be true, but I assure you I and many others KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. If I say please pass the ketchup, than please pass the Ketchup. There is no sub-conscious agenda in passing conversation for most individuals. Consider that relativist epistemology and postmodernism have absolutely no application to any of the technical fields. I suppose a mathematician doesn't know what hes talking about when he addresses a complex problem, or a biologist doesn't actually understand the micro-biotic events taking place in a petri dish.

Andre exclaims that people place no value on "the perception of reality". He goes on to ridicule the idea of individual goals and plans.

If this is the case than postmodernists can go about life in an aimless and pointless manner while I set practical goals. Postmodern theorists and educators are themselves examples of planning and individual goals. They hate America, the west, reason and fervently study relativistic epistemology and sociological issues to enumerate points to this effect. When contradictory philosophy becomes a matter of principle, it is easy to make non-sensical arguments based in emotional feelings.

Andre eventually asks "are we really hungry, or is it just a habit". I will answer this succinctly. Yes I am oftentimes hungry. In fact when I woke up today I was hungry and then made a sandwich. I ate the sandwich and my hunger was satisfied. The reasoning wasn't predicated on any "habit" accept my own need and desire. Andre than ruminates on how an "electric blanket" misinterprets reality because it eliminates perspective on "all those poor people in the cold" or the starving children of Africa. Once again postmodern contradiction is evident. Technology is bad but it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.

I am not responsible for starving children in Africa or the bum on the street. My material comfort is created by wealth produced by myself and my family. I have no moral responsibility to society besides respecting other peoples individual rights and safety. My goals are my own just as your goals are your own. Altruism is a concept rooted in religion and contempt of reason. It is not abnormal that people should reflect their own rational self-interests. Perhaps all my friends should give me a foot massage because it is a "nice thing to do". I'm also pretty broke right now. Maybe society should give me money so i don't have to work, I sure do hate working.

In conclusion I despise My Dinner with Andre and its philosophical overtones. The film is boring, pretentious and biased in its presentation of philosophical concepts. The movie implies that it has done a great service by "liberating" the protagonist from his blind perceptions of reality and daily habit. I think however that this film has actually done a dis-service to humanity. It emphasizes emotions, perception, altruism, contempt of technology, and anti reason as the most important factors in understanding "truth". Curiously absent however are arguments based on individual rights, private property, goals , reason, science, liberal capitalism and rational self-interest.

The Myth of New Deal Economic Recovery


In almost every scholarly discourse concerning the origins and eventual cause of the Great Depression; it is implied that the recession was a result of the runaway excess and instability of capitalism. Traditional wisdom in American History Books asserts that the go-go 20’s aided by the lassiz-faire non-interventionist policies of Herbert Hoover assisted and then accelerated the process of economic decline. Most intellectuals then argue that the unprecedented state interventionist and regulatory initiatives spearheaded by F.D.R quote “saved capitalism from itself”.

It is my purpose in this essay to show that contrary to popular belief, Hoover’s administration was one of the most interventionist in American History, and that its policies were among the principal causes of the Great Depression. I also intend to show that legislation enacted by the US government after the stock market crash exacerbated the recession. (Smoot-Hawley Tariff, Federal Farm Board). I will provide evidence that F.D.R’s state regulatory schemes and initiatives were actually economically harmful and lengthened the depression. Finally I intend to show that real economic recovery did not occur until after WWII, when reduced government spending and the elimination of new-deal legislation spurred economic recovery.

Herbert Hoover was a hyper-interventionist who sought to rigidly regulate the functioning of the American Economy. As commerce secretary he increased his own budget by more than 50 percent, expanded the commerce department into thirty divisions, and hired more than three thousand additional government bureaucrats. While Commerce Secretary and then as President he advocated legislation that included.

1. Government enforced wage controls (propping up wages to increase purchasing power.

2. The Railway Labor Act- The first law to interfere with private labor relations.

3. Providing “Easy Credit” government enforced initiatives on lending.

4. High Protectionist Tariffs including the notorious Smoot Hawley act.

5.Government Cartels controlling specific Industries- Limited Broadcast Licenses to regulate radio. The Bureau of Aeronautics to regulate civilian aviation.

6.“Work Sharing” or limiting hours worked to spread employment (while conversely creating more unemployment).

7.500 Million Dollars in Public Works spending or approximately 13% of the Federal Budget in 1931.

8.The Revenue Act of 1931- A massive tax hike in the midst of recession.

9.The Norris-LaGuardia act – Union protection Legislation.

10.The Federal Farm Board – A Government agricultural cartel used to artificially prop up prices.

Hoovers attempts to regulate Agriculture were pervasive and harmful. In 1929 the Agricultural marketing Act was passed. This created a Federal Farm Board that sought to control farm surpluses and bolster prices. It essentially created a legal cartel that would artificially “fix” prices. Ironically the major heads of almost every agricultural corporation served as administrators on this board. Predictably they used this power to drive up consumer prices while using the government as an enforcer to stifle free-market competition.

Amazingly while starvation and grinding poverty plagued Americans, The FFB purchased surplus wheat from farmers to “drive up prices”. When farmers continued producing agricultural products en masse the FFB concluded that “Overproduction was driving prices down”. The next step was to begin paying farmers not to farm. By 1931 the Federal government had purchased 67 million bushels of wheat that it was keeping off the market.

Eventually the FFB would insist that land be withdrawn from cultivation, surplus crops be destroyed and livestock be slaughtered in order to maintain artificial price ceilings. F.D.R continued and expanded these policies, burning crops, subsidizing farmers not to farm and enforcing arbitrary price ceilings. The result was predictable, chronic food shortages, exorbitant prices, inflation, conspicuous waste, and increased unemployment in the agricultural sector.

Perhaps the single most harmful piece of legislation enacted by Hoover was the Smoot-Hawley tariff of March 1930. This intrusive tax instituted 60% tariffs on over 800 products. Several countries immediately retaliated with equally reactionary tariffs on American products. By 1933 global trade had been reduced almost 83 percent, from 3 billion dollars a month in 1929 to half a billion a month by 1933. The United States suffered the worst with a 53 percent reduction in exports from 1929 to 1933.

The international ramifications were catastrophic. The tariff exacerbated the effects of depression on global economies and heightened political instability around the world. With little or no demand for exports more workers were laid off. In Germany, the Tariff precipitated complete economic collapse, runaway inflation, massive unemployment and greatly aided the instability that enabled the Nazis to seize power. Data from the US Department of Commerce substantiates the devastating effect the tariff (along with other schemes) had on unemployment. In 1930 the unemployment rate stood at 8.7 percent, by 1933 it had skyrocketed to 25% the highest in American History.13 By 1931 The Federal Deficit stood at 2 billion. Clearly Hoover’s regulatory initiatives stifled growth and made the recession worse.

In 1933 F.D.R came to power promising radical social change and economic recovery in the form of the First New Deal (1933-1938). It is commonly asserted that the policies and programs that F.D.R instituted, contributed to the alleviation of unemployment and the gradual restoration of prosperity in the United States. A closer look however reveals that unemployment was extraordinarily high during the great depression, and did not substantially improve during the first or second Deal. In fact unemployment was higher in 1938(19.0) than in 1931(15.9).Unemployment did not substantially improve until millions of men were sent overseas to war, a fate far worse than being out of work.

The Gross National Product lagged behind the 1929 level until 1940. Eventually arms exports and manufacturing did significantly increase the GDP. However this is not a validation of New Deal economic policies. Many countries briefly benefited economically from massive arms build ups and manufacturing. These included Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Like the United States they also succeeded in building innumerable tanks; ships, guns, ammunition and aircraft while providing their citizens with temporary work in wartime industries. Personal consumption data shows a similar story. Consumer spending was approximately 8 % lower in 1938 than in 1929 that’s without considering shortages as a result of government price controls

Temin, in “The Spoils of War” argues that it was government interference and mismanagement in the maintenance of the gold standard that primarily contributed to the depth of the depression. He states that after World War I financial policies contributed to “Great strain in the operation of the interwar gold standard, the asymmetry forced countries lacking reserves to contract more than reserve rich companies expanded". The result was a "deflationary monetary policy during the 1920's and 30's".

An interesting microcosm of Temin’s conclusion is F.D.R’s gold standard policy during the new deal. In 1934 FDR nationalized the gold stock by making the private ownership of gold illegal and nullified all contractual promises to pay for anything in gold. F.D.R hoped that the measure would inflate prices, but instead it greatly assisted in deflation. This is indicated by the stagnant and or declining personal consumption data that was common throughout the 1930's, The combination of arbitrary price ceilings and deflationary monetary policy clearly had a devastating effect on average Americans during the Depression.

Perhaps the most bizarre, misguided and harmful legislation enacted by F.D.R was the so called N.R.A or national recovery administration. This act organized each industry into a federally supervised trade association called a “code authority”. These “codes” then determined production, prices, and distribution methods all according to government policy. Each code was essentially a government backed monopoly headed by an unholy alliance of businessmen and government bureaucrats. Just like with Hoover’s FFB, the codes used government coercion to prop up prices to the detriment of consumers while prosecuting free-market competition. The AAA or agricultural adjustment act was essentially a continuation of the bewildering and wasteful policies of Hoover’s Federal Farm Board.

Eventually the First New Deal became such a debacle that in 1935 the NRA and AAA were declared unconstitutional by the U.S Supreme Court. In 1934 a senate commission headed by attorney Clarence Darrow described the NRA as “Harmful, monopolistic, oppressive, grotesque. Invasive, fictitious, ghastly, anomalous, preposterous, irresponsible, savage, wolfish”. The government “make-work” programs like the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation were also a complete disaster. In fact FDR advisor Harry Hopkins told the president in 1935 that “I’ve got four million at work (in federal jobs), but for gods sake don’t ask me what they are doing”. These “make work” policies led to greater government spending and temporary employment but did not help alleviate the great depression. This is indicated by the economic data concerning GDP, Personal consumption and unemployment which show decreased personal spending, a stagnant GDP and high unemployment.

Many economist’s and historians argue that the New Deal was essentially modeled after fascist and planned economic systems in Europe and Russia. In fact, Rexford G. Tugwell, F.DR.’s principal economic advisor was a great admirer of Soviet Russia’s central economic planning system. The New Deal government cartels closely mirrored the systems then in place in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Under these arrangements business and government colluded to create legal monopolies that fixed prices, regulated labor and eliminated competition. These schemes were clearly harmful and distinctly un-American. Given these disturbing correlations, it is amazing that generations of American intellectuals have maintained that these oppressive measures helped “alleviate” the Depression.

Even if these points are true many New Deal apologists maintain that at least the New Deal was an attempt at an altruistic social experiment that attempted to help the neediest in American Society. An economic study conducted by renowned economists Jim F Couch and William H Shugart directly contradicts this assertion. In the “Political Economy of the New Deal” Couch and Shugart conclusively show through economic data that the hardest hit sections of the country (the south) received proportionately less aid than better off areas. In addition New Deal largess was doled out in a greater percentage to constituencies that supported F.D.R and the Democratic Party. They eventually conclude that New deal social legislation was nothing more than pork barrel politics used to coerce support for the Democratic Party and New-Deal legislation.

The most damning indictment of these policies is the economic data after World War II. The Data shows that personal income substantially increased after WW2 as a result of decreased taxes and government spending. It is true that personal income did increase during World War II and even surpassed the 1929 level. But temporary wartime employment and production is not a true indicator of economic prosperity. An analysis of peacetime economic data is a more reliable indicator of economic well being. The GDP data reveals a similar story. In 1938 at the height of the “Roosevelt recession” the GDP was almost 20 points lower than in 1929.23 By 1950 the GDP was almost 3 times the 1938 level! Roosevelt apologists will argue that this was a result of New Deal legislation. The real explanation is that the massive reduction in government spending after 1945 sparked investment, personal savings and economic recovery.

In conclusion I believe that the Great Depression was a result of misguided fiscal and trade policies implemented by quasi-socialist and fascist governments in The United States and Europe. The combination of fluctuations in the value and maintenance of the gold standard, massive government spending, and reactionary government intervention in the free market and protectionist tariffs caused the Great Depression and lengthened its effects.

Neil Postman and Postmodernism


In "Amusing Ourselves to Death" Postman makes the argument that the nature of the visual entertainment medium degrades rational public discourse, political debate and public participation in government. Throughout Chapter 4 "The Typographic Mind" Postman cites countless examples of how 18th and 19th century American culture was print based, and how public involvement in politics was a national passion rather than a unnecessary nuisance as is commonly regarded today. Postman discusses the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates and their fundamentally different character from current political discourse. He wonders at the audiences ability to "cheerfully accommodate themselves to several hours of oratory". In today's culture he argues, it would be difficult or near impossible to engage an average citizens attention span for seven minutes, much less seven hours. In this fundamental premise he is correct. The average American today is possibly the "most entertained and least informed in the world". However, this "ignorant" American is capable of accessing almost unlimited information. He chooses television and limited corporate outlets because of the ease and relaxing nature of media information/entertainment as opposed to print. Postman makes several troubling epistemological arguments in his introduction and unfairly maligns technology and symbolic information by citing religious/ethical examples.

In Chapter 2 pg 29 Media as Epistemology Postman states that

" The invention of the printing press is itself a paradigmatic example. Typography destroyed fostered the modern idea of individuality, but it destroyed the medieval idea of community and integration. Typography created prose but made poetry into an exotic and elitist form of expression. Typography made modern science possible but transformed religious sensibility into mere superstition. Typography assisted in the formation of the nation state but thereby made patriotism a sordid of not lethal emotion."

This is a preposterous statement. Medieval society and its domination by the catholic church represented one of the most unfortunate and oppressive eras in human history. The "community" was composed of corrupt priest's and nobles who controlled all the wealth and ruthlessly terrorized impoverished peasants. Serfs were tied to the land, unable to move freely, and prohibited from reading and writing. The invention of typography directly led to greater literacy, circulation of scientific and political ideas, the protestant reformation and liberty from the tyranny of the Catholic Church. Typography enhanced all forms of written expression and made it generally available not "elitist". In addition the absence of the "religious sensibility" that Postman laments represents an ethical/moral judgement. No reasonable person could possibly envy the "religious sensibility" of the medieval era. This would probably include witch burnings, executions for homosexuality, arbitrary punishment,coercive religious taxes(indulgences) and the brutalization of women.

Postman claims that he is no epistemological relatavist yet he states on pg 24 that

" We must remember that Galileo merely said that the language of Galileo is written in mathematics. He did not say everything is. And even the truth about nature need not be expressed in mathematics. For most of human history, the language of nature has been the language of myth and ritual. These forms, one might add, had the virtues of leaving nature unthreatened and of encouraging the belief that human beings are part of it. It hardly befits a people who stand ready to blow up the planet to praise themselves too vigorously for having found the true way to talk about nature"

This is a relativist epistemological argument typical among neo-Rousseauian socialist thinkers. The essential premise is that technology is bad and human beings are morally superior in a primitive state. He asserts that it is absurd for human beings to claim "the true way to talk about nature". He also states the the "truth about nature need not be expressed in mathematics". These are anti science, anti reason arguments which deprecate the scientific method. Science is not perfect, but it is certainly a more accurate interpretation of the natural world than religious ceremonies or superstitious beliefs. Postman's assertion that the process of language inherently changes the context of information is also absurd and relativist. If a symbol depicts the number zero in one language, and zero is depicted in another by a different symbol, it does not change the essential information which represents the numeric value of nothing.

Postman resorts to more ethical/moral based judgements by citing Decalogue, from the Second Commandment

"Thou Shalt not make unto thee any graven image, any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth"

Postman than comments that

" It is a strange injunction to include as part of an ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between forms of human communication and the quality of a culture."

Postman finally asserts that iconography and symbol based representation is "blasphemy" although he admits that

" If I am wrong in these conjectures, it is , I believe, a wise and particularly relevant supposition that the media of communication to a culture are a dominant influence on the formation of the the culture's intellectual and social preoccupations."

Postman then goes on to define humanity, which of course can be done in two sentences

"Speech , or course, is the primal and indispensable medium. It made us human, keeps us human, and in fact defines what human."

This passage suggests a moral superiority of monotheistic culture over polytheistic culture. It also suggests an inherent ethical inferiority of symbolic representation. The greatest civilizations of the Ancient World including Egypt and China(to this day) utilized pictographic information in the formulation of their language, history, culture and architecture. Television by the nature of its medium, degrades the transmition of symbolic information. But to indite symbolic information in its entirety by using religious scripture is absurd and prejudicial. It is also predicated on "Judeo-Christian" values and is certainly not an objective source. Postman's statement on speech is even more ridiculous. Is a man that cannot speak or hear not human? Or perhaps it is his mind and ideas that make him human. Speech is nothing more but a system of grunts to convey ideas and information.

Webb Brothers Live at Harry Nillson Tribute Show @ The Bordello 11/15/08

The Global Warming Hucksters by Pat Buchanan

Here is a great article on Climate Hysteria by Pat Buchanan
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/apocalypse._now.html