Posted by: graemebird | January 26, 2010

Mini-Treatise On Philosophy/Plug For Fuzzy Logic As Potentially The Ultimate Cognitive Tool/Plug For David Stove And Others.

From Jason Soon’s new project “Sick Of Politics.”

Theory of “number.” I’m with skepticlawyer on this one. For the purpose of critiquing this bugger I wish I went to one of those schools that were grammar-Nazis. Like most of our schools were in the 19th Century. If I was adept at breaking language down into various categories I could more easily explain what this pretentious Frenchie is doing. What does he mean by “number”. Does he mean something more than “numbers?” He’s trying to get fucking cosmic on us is what he’s doing. Its not the first time a Frenchman has acted pretentiously. I guess we ought not be shocked.

Once you get to talking this way, straight-forward philosophy goes out the window. Before reading further, we ought to assume that this fellow will be making yawning omissions in his thinking. Omissions rather than logical errors. The philosophy fraternity aren’t bad at weeding out obvious one-step logical error. But they’ll turn out one new Professor after another with the unique ability to write a thousand pages, without much in the way of logical error, yet able to ignore massive segments of real-world understanding. Like nearly every leftist philosopher in the world never coming to grips with economic life.

This is one reason I find blokes like David Stove and Robert Nozick so very good. Also Rothbard as philosopher. If you are not an anarcho-capitalist yourself, you can still work around Rothbards act, since he’s so straight-forward. Actually he may be the best if you are able to make your own adjustments. And also remembering that he does stand on Rands shoulders, no matter how upsetting it would have been for him to have to admit it.

Funny the fatwah Rafe has on Stove. I think Rafe is a marvelous intellectual. One of the most sound in this country. But his official epistemology dogma is not the way he actually operates. He has a personal religion which is mostly Popper. But his excellent habits of thought are more akin the the South African economist Hutt.

The reason I’m dredging up this old controversy is that I am of the opinion that you cannot get enough of David Stove. There is simply no way to overdose on David Stove and make a complete prick of yourself. I think Rand is last centuries most important philosopher. But some people can indeed get too much Rand.

Too much of a good thing. Like a diet exclusively of pickles in the morning and ice cream at night. But you cannot get too much Stove. This is why I say you ought to regard anything the Rafe says carefully and with much consideration. Where Stove and Rafe clash over Popper remember that Rafe is this countries leading Popper-scholar and not the late Stove. Stove is allowed to make mistakes with regards to Popper.

But having said that you ought not be hung up on Rafes version of epistemology nor on his fatwah against David Stove. Rothbard says that they always specialise in the things they are no good at. Rafe is a cool guy. And good at everything. Except for epistemology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Back to this pretentious frog. The idea in philosophy is to use words the way that Hemmingway determined to use words in his prose. Hemmingway may or may not have been an honest fellow. But he had a sort of ideology of prose. He was after choosing the most honest word. The most simple and closest in terms of what he was describing. I don’t know whether one ought do this in prose. But this ideology is a must for philosophy. For the philosopher not to try and gyp his audience, but still more importantly for the philosopher to refrain from gypping himself.

Pretentious language is the enemy of sound philosophy. Pretentious language may not always be the enemy of sound fiction. But it is always the enemy of sound philosophy. We ought to adopt the Hemmingway ideology of prose when we discuss philosophy.

There is an economics text. George Reisman’s “Capitalism”. In my view his way of doing things is not only appropriate for economics. It would also be just the best way to go about philosophy. Where you keep cycling all the tools at your disposal. Without sticking to only one too long. One wants to approach any one problem coming in from many angles and using many different tools.

The philosophers fraternity demands that one overuse certain tools and scrimp on others. They want you to have the pretense of using deductive bivalent logic …….. converted into prose. Not exclusively but as much is as possible. They want a mega-bias in this direction.

Unbelievable but true. So in philosophy you are supposed to go in for this pantomime where you have sussed everything out in your spare time strictly by staring out the window, and then when you gather your thoughts, converting them directly into symbolic logic, then converting that symbolic logic into books no shorter than Norman Mailers “Ancient Evenings.”

Page after page of straight conversion from the bivalent deductive logic, into endless prose on matters philosophical. This is more or less straight bullshitartistry and why I took to calling philosophers “Godless theologians.”

The above priesthood-biased, way of going about things, is all wrong for philosophy. Rather what is needed is a bit of an update of the Aquinas methodology. Where you approach the problem from one angle, then another, then another, then you add your own thoughts drawn holistically from all over the place. Then you lay down a summary wherein the truth of the situation is either clearly described, or a sort of boundary is made wherein the truth must lie somewhere within those bounds. Nozick was a force in the right direction. As was Stove.

Deductive bivalent logic is just so inefficient. It reminds me of this cartoon I saw where this fellow was carving out steps for a mountain-climbing party. One of the characters was saying that he was very slow but also very safe.

Juxtapose that lack of effectiveness to the kids game of twenty questions. A smart kid who really concentrates ought to be able to guess the man, woman, thing, concept or anything else you are keeping secret, in the space of twenty questions.

I’m no good at this game. I get frustrated and lose my patience and yell out “SHAKA KING OF THE ZULUS” But nonetheless a serious approach, should have the kids getting the right answer, no matter what it is you have in mind. A focused group of kids who are serious ought to almost always get the right answer, within the 20 questions.

The 20 questions deal shows the immense power, efficiency and effectiveness of tools other than bivalent deductive logic. In this case the 20 questions are analogous to Venn Diagrams. An awesomely powerful tool of philosophy if used right. Boolean logic is like Venn Diagrams at one step. And we see the power of Boolean logic each time we consult google.

The one tool that came and went and nobody took seriously outside of some makers of consumer products is fuzzy logic aka Multivalence logic. This is the way forward. This is the ultimate tool. Though we throw no tool away, fuzzy logic is the Rolls-Royce of conceptual tools and one that no-one is using.

Unfortunately fuzzy logic runs counter to every priesthood. It runs counter to the Philosophy priesthood, the computer programming priesthood. It runs counter to everyone. We need to go in for this most righteous of tools bigtime. Fuzzy logic is potentially the ultimate tool of philosophy, natural science and the humanities, and practical human life. And yet fuzzy logic has been rejected as some sort of 90’s fad that came and went, and is really old hat, and yesterdays news.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The correct technique in philosophy is therefore to not do what the priesthood does. Be aware of the laws of logic and even do the exercises in the Shaums outline. Go get the blackbelt in the formal stuff. But you aren’t going to use it that much. Mostly you need the straight logic background to help you know when you are being a complete prick and taking your mistakes along with you with the other baggage that you refuse to throw away.

Instead never throw any of your tools away. Always cycle your tools for any problem. Approach any problem from as many different angles as you can. Even going so far as to adopt the Edward De Bono, many hats, approach to matters as a subset of the convergence in methodology that you are looking for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Most of all read this very post many times. And as well read my defining essay on this subject, rudely excluded from the Club Troppo inaugural blog competition. Where it ought to have won. And where there can never be a way for the Club Troppo miscreants to make up to me for excluding the best blog post for that year.

Short of Club Troppo giving me a lifetime achievement award as soon as possible. I’m not after the Nobel prize. The Nobel prize has been horribly tainted.

https://graemebird.wordpress.com/2006/05/03/deductive-bivalent-exactitude-versus-rightful-certitude/

Advertisements

Responses

  1. “You don’t have a lot,
    But its all that you’ve got and you can turn it into more than it seems….” (Steinman).

    I know that Lady Gaga is all the rage right about now. I really like her. And part of why I like her is when I first saw her I thought to myself …….

    “You know you aren’t really all that naturally beautiful. You don’t even move that great. But look at what you are able to do with what you got”

    So I’m really sympathetic to her. To Gaga-the-female and not just Gaga the artist. But then this is no sensitive new age guy confession. Since I suspect one of the reasons I like her so much is that she has a talent, in her videos, for redirecting attention, specifically to between her legs.

    You hear her talk, she sounds like some sort of almost valley-girl airhead. But clearly she is an authentic artist who is able to control all aspects of what she is doing. Rogers Nelson isn’t overworking himself the way he used to. One almost hopes that the two might work together. But for the moment Gaga seems to be going strong on her own.

    Another thing I like about her, is that when she first starts singing you don’t necessarily say….. “there is a great female vocalist…

    But she is a fantastic vocalist in the sense that she can integrate hook-lyrics, music, and her voice into a really powerful tag-line, the likes of which you would find it hard to imagine another female vocalist quite pulling it off.

    Nowhere is this more easily demonstrated in this youtube clip where we get Christopher Walken reading the lyrics of the verse and Lagy Gaga doing the chorus.

    I actually think that here Walken adds to the artistry of the song. Because in the orginal the verse is ho-hum musically. But extremely clever and beguiling lyrically. And its only the way Gaga handles the chorus that bursts forth as just a snatch of musical dexterity. Its the focus on her snatch, and the incredible ability to produce these powerful little snatches of musical power as a subset to the song entire, that really separates gaga out from her peers right at the moment.

    Take the lyrics:

    Can’t read my, Can’t read my,
    No he cant reada-my poker-face ….

    Now thats such an ordinary few words isn’t it. And she is a pretty ordinary girl in some ways isn’t she? But you just look what she does with her talents. Look what she achieves with these lyrics?
    She can turn a little into so much. I hope the girls love her as well. I would want her to be an inspiration to other women to take the talents that they have and use their artistry to multiply them.

    Lets look at that snatch again:

    See if you understand what I’m saying by this composite video

    Can’t read my, Can’t read my,
    No he cant reada-my poker-face ….

    Se how well it pans out in the song:

  2. I know you are just dying for the original now. But its readily available. The topic is Gaga. But the topic is pussy also.

    I quoted some Steinman lyrics. As luck would have it, part of that song is available. And you will see that the song, video and theme of the video and song is all about what I like so much about Gaga. The ability of a girl that isn’t a born movie star to emphasize her talents.

    It may be a shallow angle I’m taking. Even a sexist angle. Men are from Mars. Women are from Visa.

    But there are some women that seem to be able to soak up all the electricity from the galaxy, that is on its way to the centre of the earth, and redirect it between their legs, without ever being crude, ( to the witness of more than one person, at any one time.)

  3. I thought I was posting the complete version just above and was about to wipe my original post. I recommend the complete version.

    But you may either be feeling ripped off, or you may be wondering who this female vocalist you’ve never seen before is.

    Well the lead female in the video is only lip-synching and dancing. However I feel this is acceptable. Since the video was made two decades or so after the song was recorded.

    Sure the main chick is a honey. But the actual vocalist is the absolutely gorgeous middle aged woman you see for two or three seconds, starting exactly one minute into this more truncated video.

    The camera spots the actual vocalist, pans right to the girl who APPEARS to be singing. Then the camera pans right to a couple of other women, thirty/forty-somethingzzzz, dressed for a good time.

    So its that girl on the left. She’s the real singer.

  4. So all this is based on a blurb that was cited by Jason? Why don’t you read the ‘pretentious Frenchie’ directly, instead of drawing inferences from your imagination? And where do you get the cojones to prattle on about ‘real world understanding’? Your own take on things makes Lord of the Rings look like documentary realism.

  5. No thats not right THR. You cannot be more realist then me.

    Take for example fellow conservatives. Fellow conservatives are ashamed of their conspirational brothers.

    Whereas I am so much the realist that I realized that a commie such as yourself would be having a multitude of conspiracies on the fly.

    Even if you weren’t really trying hard to be involved in conspiracies you would still be up to something since hard marxist leftism is a conspiractional philosophy.

    Turns out I was right. And why? Because I’m a mega-realist.

    Also you asked me the question of what I was going to do now that three years of trying to push my anti-fractional reserve deal had failed.

    Contrary to your gloating it was all by no means for nothing. Because a thread opened up on unleashed where the argument came up and no-one even so much as stood a chance. Three years of dealing with the stupidity, and faux-religious nature of this practice meant that when the argument came up again I quickly stomped all comers. So it wasn’t a waste and I’m not thwarted.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Now listen here. Who should hold rank? Philosopher or Physicist?

    For the answer see below:

    You let this riff-raff on here Soon? Either my shadow goes or I do.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The philosophers, because of their lack of commitment, and due to their priesthood hanky-panky, then to have a bit of a inferiority complex when it comes to the physicists. Their lack of moxie when it comes to dealing with the physicists, runs in parallel with what we have seen from Bernanke. Bernanke’s utter gutlessness when it came to dealing with various numbers-raketeers. One day historians will scoff at the pretense that Hank Paulson had thinking of himself being a “banker.” Since in a well-run setup the banking function, more than any other undertaking, ought to attract the renaissance men.

    Getting confident with ones economic understanding means never feeling like you need to take crap from an idiot banker who happens to have deep pockets. Likewise, getting the full spectrum of ones understanding of philosophical matters means never having to look at a physics insider, except downward and with the slit-eyes.

    Just for arguments sakes how ought a philosopher talk to a physicist? Well we ought to talk with respect to eachother sure. But now that the physicists have somehow found themselves the ranking priests in the overall schematic, the only way a philosopher can go forward is to up front turn the tables on that unnatural situation. He must use a combination of condescension and abuse to reorder the status unto that which any just God could be happy with.

    Below is a fictional example of how the philosophically adept might succeed in doing so, in the face of invasions by a person, nominally part of the physics priesthood:

    “Don’t be ridiculous fatty. You are not able to weigh a single neutron. Nor will I bust into your place with the SAS and find you casually weighing a billion neutrons on your bathroom scales.

    Any attempt you have on the fly to weigh a parcel of a billion neutrons, must as of necessity contain some element of circular reasoning and therefore be a thing awash in wishful thinking.

    I’ve watched a bunch of your lectures and you are an excellent lecturer. But where you say parallax can give you the accurate distance of 200 stars or so, you assume (like a babe in the woods) that when that gig runs out, you still have the ability to deduce the distance of the other stars. But to suggest so, is to not be vigilante against circular reasoning. You have no such certitude.

    Only CONVERGENT evidence gives us rightful certitude. Only ranking paradigms in parallel, shows us the way forward from the point of view of epistemology and the greatest detective story.

    I thought you were just a stupid fucking fathead. I’m not flaying myself alive over that initial conclusion. Since I still think that. But clearly you have talent as a lecturer. No question. You are a natural teacher. But if you want to take your act further, you have to integrate parallel paradigms into your didactic schtick.

    You ought not have run that lecture on stellar development, without running the electric universe jive in parallel.

    Go forth and sin against epistemology no more.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    So you see the above. The attitude of my fictional narrator, is one conducive to restoring the natural hierachy of things. Even an amateur philosopher ought hold rank against a lecturer in physics with a paid daytime gig.

    That the philosophers last century let their ranking slip, just shows how lacking in commitment and aptitude for their field they were.

  6. I’ve responded at Jason’s blog, Graeme.

    Maybe you should question some of your own ideological assumptions. You seem to think that FRB (which, for you, represents collusions between state and crony capitalists) is a bug, whereas in actual fact, it’s clearly a feature of the system. A ‘pure’ capitalism of the Rothbardian sort is about as likely to exist in reality as my wardrobe is likely to lead to Narnia.

  7. Doesn’t matter. Its a gyp. Inconsistent with a level playing field and a just and free republic.

    Insofar as there is or might be non-government bigshots running international conspiracies only fractional reserve allows them to do this.

    Cecil Rhodes would have no act at all without his pal Mr Rothschild.

    Cecil, Rothschild, and the Maxim Gun were a team.

  8. I cannot find your discussion on Catallaxy.

  9. Posts from elsewhere:

    Ever since they adopted the new format I’ve found it difficult to navigate this discussion. Why did “THE DRUM” take over unleashed and make it so hard to navigate? Oh the mysteries of internal ABC power plays.

    What you perceive as high strategy is actually neo-Ludditism and disorganisation.

    You leftists are like sheilas, in that you have legitimate concerns but this is not necessarily what you are going to be bitching about.

    We must deal with thousand year environmental issues. Because the subconcsious of the leftist is really worried about these things but its all being focused on the Lord-Of-Life CO2.

    You guys got to come on in out of the rain. We have to find a better version of capitalism that even after a hundred thousand years will leave plenty of space for all of Gods children. That is to say all her species and not just the Sapiens.

    Its not the CO2 thats burning you up.

    Reply Alert moderator
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Thats a wishbone steve. You are trying to hope and pretend that this racket isn’t going be the devastating scourge that its shaping up to be. This is your pretense steve, that this science fraud, isn’t going to kill tens of millions of humans.

    But in fact the first and most easiest way to expand liquid fuels, when oil from traditional wells levels out (actually it pretty much did so in 2005) is by liquifying carbon solids.

    We have to go with the accessible stuff for the moment. If we don’t there will be misery. But I’m not trying so much to get you into my particular version of soothsaying.

    You should just understand that any lie is a bad lie. We can plan to fill the deserts with heliostats as a sort of long-term heritage project. Right now we have a lot of energy problems to solve and no time for lies of any sort.

    Many scientifically minded think about the reality of the exponential series. The general principles that the understanding of the exponential series tells us. Thats why many scientifically minded people are going along with this foolishness, because there is all this non-foolishness hiding underneath not being addressed.

    We can all go some place and talk about the reality of the exponential series. But the anti-CO2 rubbish has to stay outside.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Doc this global warming racket is all about REFERRED PAIN.

    There are a lot of ecological matters that may be being attended to in the short term in some ad hoc way. But there is a lot of very legitimate concerns that are simply not being attended to. Not on any sort of heritage-millenial level. I’ve got the message Ok. I say we attend to the legitimate side of things with extreme prejudice. And I say we do so with the thousand year view. Maybe staring into the distance ten thousand years ahead.

    But we have to leave this anti-CO2 nonsense behind.

    We need a strategic plan. But bizzare referred-pain directed at CO2 has no part of any strategic plan.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  10. I quite liked Hemingway in my teens but then my grandfather would say he really liked him for his plain unadorned prose and then in my 20s someone I liked much better than Hemingway (Anais Nin or p’haps Henry Miller?) critiqued his male, stiff upper lip pared down prose and I decided then I didn’t like him either much. Haven’t re-read him since.

  11. You liked Henry Miller? Remember the cosmodemonic telegraph company. He was pretty funny.

  12. Funny yes and with a marvellous gustatory enthusiasm for food and a whole body pleasure in women. The Rosy Crucifixion (Sexus, Plexus and Nexus) I liked best. Damn it, not a single Miller in the house. I’ll have to download the Tropics to the Kindle.

  13. THR has failed utterly to stick up for the philosopher. Alain appears to be just another obscurantist.

  14. A general post. Here is the scattering-absorption region for the various gases in our atmosphere:

    We can see here a number of things.

    1. the massive amount of incoming blocked by water vapour. And thus the impossibility of runaway warming while we have our oceans.

    2. Where CO2 is not blocking incoming it is pre-empted entirely by water vapour. And therefore the transparency of the global warming fraud.

    3. The craziness of thinking that Methane is a serious warmer. And therefore the nuttiness of molesting innocent cattle.

  15. You’re right Birdie, Badiou is a verbose pretentious wanker who has nothing original to say and uses convoluted dense jargon to conceal that fact.

    Epic fail. Useless.

  16. Listen to this. I’m listening now.

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2803516.htm

  17. Light speed broken for the millionth time:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100126175921.htm

    But thats alright so long as

    1. You are in the priesthood and

    2. You explain the faster than light speed with lashings of quantum voodoo jive.

  18. can we rename this blog to ‘Graeme Bird being high’?

  19. Look Bird at how poor Rothbard was treated

    http://mises.org/daily/4074

  20. What do you mean by that. Where light speed is broken now, whereas in the past they would play it straight, now they get rid of the heresy by talking about it like its a quantum effect.

    I’m not quite sure what you are on about. Its been a number of years since when its been pointed out to you that light speed has been broken. This is utterly mundane. But now they don’t talk about it without dressing it up in quantum voodoo.

  21. “Recent experiments on speed of light can be listed into two categories, those involve subluminal speeds of light, and those involve superluminal speeds of light. An example of the subluminal category is the Hau experiment, in which a subluminal speed of 17 ms-1 is achieved. Among the experiments of the superluminal category is the Nimtz experiment, in which Mozart’s 40th Symphony is sent at 4.7c to a microwave receiver……”

    But this is a heresy. So these days they have to call it wormhole tunneling or some other such bullshit:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJD-494HKGV-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12/31/2003&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1185047251&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6caad8c681f88c79e79d6dbabf2b0838

    Same experiment. But now its called tunneling. I don’t know why you thought I was having you on about this.

  22. We went over this in great detail on your blog. They are always breaking the speed of light. They are just not able to say this. Wiki had a big list of experiments where lightspeed had been broken. And then all these science-maffia nazis appeared. And the examples are there no more.

    But I have mentioned Nimitz many times. He is well advised keeping up the pretense that this is a quantum effect. Else his days getting funded will be over.

  23. Enhanced effects on slow light and superluminal propagation in cesium vapor,” Meetings , – ()

    http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ol/viewmedia.cfm?id=105044&seq=0

    This is all old hat Jason. We went over it on catallaxy years ago. What is wrong with you? Too much fluoride in your water? Too much Mercury in your fillings?

  24. A tear or three for J.D. Salinger

    “There is a marvelous peace in not publishing,” J.D. Salinger told The New York Times in 1974. “Publishing is a terrible invasion of my privacy. I like to write. I love to write. But I write just for myself and my own pleasure.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/books/29appraisal.html?hp

  25. Very retiring fellow hey? You’d have to expect he’s well enough off not to sell his output.

  26. Did he just die yesterday?

  27. Salinger would’ve been immensely rich from the royalties of Catcher, Franny and Zooey, Raise High the Roof Beams, Carpenters, alone.

    Less monetarily well-rewarded writers including on blogs such as this that so many people read, feed off and enjoy, have a PayPal button which allows appreciative readers to contribute $ to the writer.

    You should investigate putting one on your blog Mr B. Many writers of your calibre do and presumably get some joy out of it. Nothing to lose by doing so.

  28. Sure. Good idea.

  29. I did love Catcher in the Rye though it was more of a boy’s book I thought. But it was Franny and Zooey above all that floored me. I read it – this slight book not much longer than an essay – when I was feeling very low working in a crap job and living in a town I loathed, just busted up with the last boy. It was given to me by a friend who guaranteed it would cheer me up. It did. Oh boy it did. It was like mainlining joy.

  30. Wow that good.

  31. Well Philomena, I lack the gift of second sight, like all the people I argue against. But you seem a little restrained lately. And if Salingers work is as you say you may be feeling less then the goddess of provocation that you usually represent.

    So I will try and cheer you up with a youtube. I have a youtube featuring a Brad Pitt lookalike playing a violin. I don’t know if you are in the mood for such a thing.

    For some girls that would be a trick question. But then I don’t want to embarrass one of Guy Clark’s musos, by over-promising.

    I’m sure that Brad Pitt lookalikes, who can play the fiddle, are legion down South where Guy Clark comes from.

    I hope the mood of the song is consonant with your general vibe.

  32. Thank you so much, my Hurdy Gurdy Man. That was great.

    “Thrown like a star in my vast sleep
    I open my eyes to take a peep
    To find that I was by the sea
    Gazing with tranquillity.”

  33. MODERATED ELSEWHERE:

    There needs to be some sort of understanding of just how much electrical energy reaches our outer atmosphere:

    “According to the team’s calculations, 300 meters (984 feet) of copper wire, attached to a two-meter-wide (6.6-foot-wide) receiver and a 10-meter (32.8-foot) sail, would generate enough power for 1,000 homes.”

    http://news.discovery.com/tech/solar-wind-energy-power.html

    But thats just the beginning since these guys are only talking about the theoretical implications of harnessing less than half of the power of the solar wind with these dimensions.

  34. Torpedo the birthers:

  35. BAMA-MAMMA-NUDEY-DRAMA:

    http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/ann-dunham-nude-pics/

  36. The dimwitted PZ Myers claims that everything is normal and according to Hoyles with the usurper ….. guess how …… . The dolt PZ Myers claims that Jack Cashill is a creationist. And thats supposed to be enough to let all evidence slide.

    Good Lord Myers is a shit-for-brains. One wonders if the other radical atheists realise the scope of the dead wood they have as a colleague.

  37. Mark Hill adopts an authoritative tone and buggers around with the wrong metric:

    “I strongly believe in a lower target but more variability. The cash rate should have been tightened a long time ago but ow it ought to remain as is.”

    As far as it goes he’s right about the greater variability and winging it when he talks about the lower rate.

  38. The new Hawaiian Governor, an Obama partisan, more shocked than anyone, at the fact that there is no record of Obama being born in Hawaii.

  39. Obama has been using a fraudulent social security number that originated out of Connecticut. A state for which he has no connection too, and with a number different to the one he held as a student at Occidental College.

    The shadow government may be all-powerful in the longer-medium term. But they are pathetic and inefficient. Efficient management hierachies are flat. Flat with wide spans of control. But conspirational lines of communication as of necessity must be linear. With the big-money spook, reinserting himself along the chain, for quality-control purposes……. THE SHADOW-GOVERNMENT SPOOK MUST DROP HIMSELF INTO A LARGELY LINEAR CHAIN OF COMMUNICATION LIKE KAISER SOLCE.

    It has to work like that but note how powerfully inefficient this would be????

    These assholes can be taken down. If we get rid of fractional reserve then we can go after them.

  40. “Dearest blog. Cheapest Thinktank. Deepest Philosopher. Most Holistic Prophet.. ”

    Don’t forget it:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: