The Ecstacy of Barack

Townhall.com ^ | February 22, 2008 | Kathleen Parker

[Kaslin]

WASHINGTON -- Much has been made of the religious tenor of Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

Reports of women weeping and swooning -- even of an audience applauding when The One cleared his proboscis (blew his nose for you mortals) -- have become frequent events in the heavenly realm of Obi-Wan Obama.

His rhetoric, meanwhile, drips with hints of resurrection, redemption and second comings. "We are the ones we've been waiting for," he said on Super Tuesday night. And his people were glad.

Actually, they were hysterical, the word that best describes what surrounds this young savior and that may be more apt than we imagine. The word is derived from the Greek hystera, or womb. The ancient Greeks considered hysteria a psychoneurosis peculiar to women caused by disturbances of the uterus.

Well, you don't see any men fainting in Obi's presence.

[Jeff Head]

His rallies are Marxists revival meetings attended by a myriad of useful idiots who are the product of our government daycare and indoctrination schools and who swoon and hang on his every word. Sadly...tragically, there are tens of thousands at each one.

[A_perfect_lady]

I understand this perfectly. If I were still mindless and 24, I'd be madly in love with the guy. Liberalism prepares you perfectly to be led by such a person. I remember being told "You have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything." At the time I didn't understand that at all.

Of course, my own personal opinion is that the cure for Obamaism is to be doused by a cold bucket of Ayn Rand. *splash* ... you'll never fall for some manipulative, vague-talking messiah again.

[massgopguy]

The irony of Ayn Rand is that Liberals look at a book like Anthem and would use it as a blueprint for the society they would be in charge of.

[r9etb]

Of course, my own personal opinion is that the cure for Obamaism is to be doused by a cold bucket of Ayn Rand. *splash* ... you'll never fall for some manipulative, vague-talking messiah again.

Unless the manipulative, vague-talking messiah happens to be Ayn Rand herself.... It's interesting: if you ever try to take Rand at her word, and derive her philosophy from first principles, it turns out that you cannot do so, in the absolute, objective sense she claims to have derived it. The problem is that she starts out by telling you that a bunch of things are true, and you're expected to accept it. If you dig into those claims, however, her entire philosophy collapses.

This is quite relevant to the Obama phenomenon -- if you look at him without reference to the real world and simply accept the philosophical basis from which he starts, he's remarkable; of course you'd follow him!

It's when you start looking at him in a big-picture sense; and when you start digging into the foundations of his rhetoric ... then you begin to see him for what he is: an engaging lightweight.

[Hazwaste]

I heard one of the funniest lines from an Obama supporter on the radio last night. Our local AM talk station was asking a young lady at the Houston Toyota center where Hussein was speaking, “Aren’t you concerned about Obama’s lack of experience?”.

Her reply, “Well I think that’s just a load of cr**. Everybody has to start SOMEWHERE!”

[windsorknot]

We need hope; we need change. Change is hope; hope is change. If you don’t have enough change in your pocket, there is always hope.

[Don Corleone]

The Kool Aid concession is already taken. Sorry!

[Greg F]

Obama v. Hillary is the lightweight championship of the world, now entering round 32.

As an aside, every argument can be attacked by attacking the premise of the argument. No syllogism can prove its own premise. Arguments are just extended syllogisms but there is generally a shared premise or two competing premises underlying the two sides of the argument. A tool the “crits” and intellectual leftists often use is to simply reject the shared premise that leads to a conclusion they don’t like . . . even where the premise seems self-evident. It works best in intellectual environments like grad school or university, where the world at large can’t you tube their rejection of motherhood, apple pie or whatever it is they’ve chosen to attack (although I really think the kids out to start to film and you tube their wacked out Profs for all of us to watch and ridicule).

[Hacklehead]

Whe it comes to Messiahs the MSM’s position is that Obama=good, Jesus Christ=Bad.

[Blood of Tyrants]

He is the Obamanation of Desolation.

[Iron Munro]

This is the sad outcome of our modern “education” system where students are inculcated with groupthink but punished and drugged with ritalin if they show individualism.

[Greg F]

Whe it comes to Messiahs the MSM’s position is that Obama=good, Jesus Christ=Bad.
_____________________________

Isn’t that amazing?

[Greg F]

Bump

[socialismisinsidious]

When I lose my house b/c I’m one of the forgotten men (woman actually)...when I can’t pay for my kid’s college education b/c I’m taxed at 52% will the Liberals care? No. It’s strange how they want to enable people who don’t work and think that the rest of US aren’t going to shrug.

[oblomov]

>>Of course, my own personal opinion is that the cure for Obamaism is to be doused by a cold bucket of Ayn Rand. *splash*

My cure, at age 23 or so, was HL Mencken.

[r9etb]

As an aside, every argument can be attacked by attacking the premise of the argument. No syllogism can prove its own premise.

Well, yes ... but it's not so much a matter of "attacking premises," as it is one of verifying them against the available evidence. And the problem is that the premises of her philosophy (as stated, e.g., here) simply do not support the sort of absolute philosophy she claims to have derived. In fact, they're logically incompatible among themselves, and certainly don't square well with the real world.

For example, she claimed that, "Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival."

All well and good, but this idea of "reason applied to observable evidence" is clearly incompatible with her further claim that "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

For example, Rand's worldview would pretty well require her moral philosophy to account for the Theory of Evolution: absent an acceptance of the supernatural, evolution (or something like it) would form an important part of the "objective reality" to which she refers, and mankind would be a product of that process. To sharpen the point, so-called evolutionary psychologists theorize that even our moral choices are the product of evolution -- and thus are formed in response to an ever-changing environment. The problem is then obvious: if the development, behavior, and moral choices of "every man" are part of an on-going process, it is not possible to state that he is "an end in himself," at least not in an absolute sense.

The point is simply this: you can pray to St. Obama, or St. Ayn, both of whom hold out the keys to their particular kingdoms. And not all parts of either one are bad... The problem is that both also require a credulous acceptance of questionable premises; and the mismatch between those and the real world ends up causing problems.

The problem with praying to St. Obama is easy to spot: he requires one to accept the idea that everybody wants essentially the same things -- peace, to be left alone, and so on. And since most people want that, it's plausible at first glance. The trouble is that there are lots of rather unsavory folks who don't want either of those things.

[Greg F]

I agree regarding Rand. She shares the same brittleness of thought that the Soviet Marxists had . . . having grown up in that environment. She was a reaction against it but she used the same mode of materialist rationalist thought that they did she just substituted different premises.

[Mac from Cleveland]

It’s the “bigger idiot” principle at work—when you see a big idiot filling an important position, it’s due to bigger idiots putting him/her there. What we’re seeing is the end result of years of dumbed-down schools, unchecked PC, misplaced guilt and self-loathing, and our enervated, coarsened culture, along with the old media’s still powerful sway.

[Charles Henrickson]

Reports of women weeping and swooning. . . .

I DON'T KNOW WHY I LOVE HIM
(From the musical, "Barack Obama Superstar")
Tune: "I Don't Know How to Love Him"

I don't know why I love him,
My Barack, my Obama;
I've been charmed, yes really charmed,
By his trim physique, so slim and sleek--
I'm awed by his mystique.

I don't know why he's running,
I don't see any substance;
No real plan, flash in the pan,
And I've heard such empty words before
That when I close my eyes
He's just a bore.

But I like his face,
And I like his voice;
Makes my heartbeat race!
Makes me feel all moist!
I never thought I'd come to this:
Obama is my choice.

Don't you think it's rather shallow
I should vote for this fellow?
I'm the one who's always been
So pure, so pissed, so feminist;
I don't need men, oh no--
He scares me so.

But I like his face,
And I like his voice;
Makes my heartbeat race!
Makes me feel all moist!
I never thought I'd come to this:
Obama is my choice.

Yet, like in a romance novel,
I'm in love with a male model;
I've got to look! He signed my book!
My heart runs wild! I'll bear his child!
I want the world to know:
He's my "Big O"!
Obama, go!
I love you so!

[A_perfect_lady]

Unless the manipulative, vague-talking messiah happens to be Ayn Rand herself.... It's interesting: if you ever try to take Rand at her word, and derive her philosophy from first principles, it turns out that you cannot do so, in the absolute, objective sense she claims to have derived it. The problem is that she starts out by telling you that a bunch of things are true, and you're expected to accept it. If you dig into those claims, however, her entire philosophy collapses.

I don't know where you get the impression she was vague. She was very precise, and if you read her non-fiction, you'll find that the only things you have to accept on "faith" is that you are here, and alive.

[r9etb]

I don't know where you get the impression she was vague. She was very precise, and if you read her non-fiction, you'll find that the only things you have to accept on "faith" is that you are here, and alive.

Well, no. She seems precise, until you start actually trying to reproduce her logic -- and then you discover that in order to arrive at her conclusions, you end up having to make a great number of assumptions in order to avoid coming to drastically different conclusions. And at that point, you realize that for all her stridency, Rand's thinking was in fact quite vague -- she waved her arms past a host of difficulties.

Dragging us back to the topic of Obama ... that's the same issue with him. His "yes we can" and "change" mantras are all very well and good, until you try to get to the point.

"Yes we can .... do what?" "Change ... what?" And then you see that there's a lot less to Mr. Obama than a first glance would indicate.

[Jim Noble]

Won't last.

When Hillary folds, the air will start to go out of the balloon.

[A_perfect_lady]

Perhaps you should read Peikoff's Objectivism. He lays it out pretty well.

[r9etb]

I've read pieces and parts of it.... and the problem is that you have to accept his assumptions, and there's no compelling need to do that. Remember, the whole point of objectivism is that "reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears."

Well, ok then. An objective moral philosophy must therefore account for things like evolution, man's place in it, and how moral principles fit into an evolutionary process. But Rand's objectivism utterly fails to account for it.

[A_perfect_lady]

An objective moral philosophy must therefore account for things like evolution, man's place in it, and how moral principles fit into an evolutionary process.

Why does a moral philosophy have to account for a scientific theory?

[DMZFrank]

Michelle Obama hasn’t said one thing about the US before the year 2007 that would make her proud to be a citizen of the greatest nation in the history of mankind that has placed her amongst the most privliged of the elite in this country.

I never thought that I would see a spouse of a presidential candidate who was more of a radical, narcissistic, arrogant, hubristic, self-entitled, and maddening solipsist than Hilary Clinton. To the nation’s dismay, I think we have found her.

The ascendency of BHO is the realization of the efforts of all the Cultural Marxists whose ideas were nurtered by the Gramcians who set up the Frankfurt School and spawned cultural radicals like Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodore Adorno. Their intellectual progeny are thoroughly ensconced in the MSM, academia, Hollywood, and most importantly in the George Soros directed modern day Democratic Party which is the nest for all the Vipers on the left, the racial identity determininists, the radical feminists, the sexual deviationist lobby, the “watermelon” environmentalists, the open borders crowd and the anti-war seditionists who seek to steal from our magnificent armed forces the victory that they have earned with their blood and valor in the SAME MANNER as they stole our hard earned victory from those of us who are Vietnam vets.
Their apotheosis is the religion of Obama, the Lucifer deciever who would lead this great nation to Fabian Socialist HELL!!!
Spread the word!!!
http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

[r9etb]

Why does a moral philosophy have to account for a scientific theory?

Let's seed the discussion with Rand's own essay, Introducing Objectivism.

Rand's first premise is that "reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears." Moral principles are supposedly part of objective reality ... they have a status not unlike laws of nature. And by Rand's own claim, those moral principles must not contradict other aspects of objective reality.

Her second premise is that "Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival." Science is a very powerful example of this process, and Rand could hardly ignore scientific results if her goal is to derive her philosophy from objective reality.

A philosophy which puports to be based on such premises pretty much has to account for scientific theories, since they represent the confluence of her first two premises, reason and objective reality. This is especially important for any theory which impinges directly on the topic she addresses.

Which brings us to her third premise: "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others." But how does such a claim square with what science has to say about evolution? Evolution suggests that we are much more a means to our offspring's ends, than to our own. And if the evolutionary psychologists are to be believed, even our morals are a product of evolution -- far from being "objective" in the Randian sense, morals are reduced to being a response to particular environmental conditions, and therefore are not truly "objective" at all.

Beyond that, I will note in passing that Rand's moral reasoning relies rather strongly on human exceptionalism -- an idea which does not rest comfortably with an evolutionary world, in which mankind is part of a continuum of change -- physically and mentally, and therefore morally as well.

[A_perfect_lady]

Rand's first premise is that "reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears." Moral principles are supposedly part of objective reality ...

Not at all. Moral principles are what humans must develop in order to DEAL effectively with reality.

Her second premise is that "Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival." Science is a very powerful example of this process, and Rand could hardly ignore scientific results if her goal is to derive her philosophy from objective reality.

There's a difference between ignoring science and having to stop and verify every theory that comes along. This is not the job of ANY philosophy. Science is a process, theories are developed, proven or disproven, improved upon, abandoned, rediscovered... it's how man tries to survive, to fight disease, to battle the elements of nature, etc.

I'm gathering that you are Christian. Rand's stance is that man's survival depends on his reasoning faculties, and she is right. Polio was not prayed away, a vaccination was discovered. But previous attempts to fight it obviously failed. This does not mean that science must always and everywhere be infallible; it means that man must use his reasoning to figure out why something fails, and try again. Continuing to pray to God to make polio go away will not work.

But remember, she was concerned with survival. It sounds like you might be more concerned with salvation. These are simply two different things.

Which brings us to her third premise: "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others." But how does such a claim square with what science has to say about evolution?

It doesn't matter. Her philosophy is not about explaining how humans came to be. She also doesn't address whether humans came to America across the Bering Straits or not. Should she? Does it matter? It's a purely arbitrary requirement on your part that one particular theory in one particular branch of science must be incorporated into her philosophical reasoning in order to explain why man must have the right to pursue the best possible means for his survival, and must be allowed to use his reason to do so.

[DarthVader]

The way you hear Borat Obama talk and the way you see his followers worship him you would swear they are all on Ecstasy.

[Kaslin]

They have to be

[A_perfect_lady]

By the way, this was not addressed to me, but I'm curious about it:

"reason applied to observable evidence" is clearly incompatible with her further claim that "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

How on earth are these two ideas incompatible? One is about logic and scientific procedure, the other is about altruism. What does one have to do with the other? It's a little like saying that "I notice water makes plants grow" is incompatible with "I refuse to go broke giving money to charity." Can you tell me what you mean, because I can't follow your line of thought at all on this one.

[Doctor Don]

Airheads swooning over the Ultimate Airhead!

[r9etb]

Not at all. Moral principles are what humans must develop in order to DEAL effectively with reality.

That's not what Rand said, though. John Galt's interminable speech is very clear on the idea that morals must be discovered, not defined. (That's what an "objective" principle means.) Rand claimed that reason and logic were sufficient to derive her moral principles -- they're like laws of nature.

There's a difference between ignoring science and having to stop and verify every theory that comes along. This is not the job of ANY philosophy.

However.... there is plenty of scientific evidence in favor of evolution and, absent any supernatural alternatives, Rand's philosophy is required to deal with the implications of evolution, many of which impinge directly on her ideas. (Quantum physics likewise assaults her definition of objective reality.)

But remember, she was concerned with survival. It sounds like you might be more concerned with salvation. These are simply two different things.

If Rand was concerned with "survival" (which she wasn't, btw, as a primary moral imperative), then evolution would most certainly have been a requirement for her philosophy. It brings up the question, for instance, of what "survival" actually means -- is it physical survival (a guaranteed losing proposition), or is it genetic survival, or something else? Note that "genetic" survival makes us a means to our children's ends -- which is in conflict with Rand's claim, but which is also much more in accord with the real world.

I'm gathering that you are Christian.

I am, but I am not making a Christian argument -- I'm taking Ms. Rand at her word, and seeing if her premises and conclusions stand up to logical scrutiny. They don't.

It doesn't matter. Her philosophy is not about explaining how humans came to be.

Ah, but that's a problem, then, since reason applied to objective reality -- in the form of the Theory of Evolution -- strongly suggests that what she claims are "objective moral principles" are instead evolved, and therefore contingent on various environmental factors. And she relies strongly on a brand of human exceptionalism which fails when exposed to the light of evolutionary theory -- the idea that there can be "more evolved" humans opens the door for relative morality.

[r9etb]

How on earth are these two ideas incompatible? One is about logic and scientific procedure, the other is about altruism.

Again, we point to the theory of evolution. The evolutionary psychologists suggest that altruistic behavior -- which is observable in most or all higher species -- is an evolved trait: it's natural and helpful from the perspective of a species or community, albeit not necessarily helpful to the individual. It suggests that Rand's view of the individual is at odds with nature, i.e., objective reality.

[A_perfect_lady]

John Galt's interminable speech is very clear on the idea that morals must be discovered, not defined. (That's what an "objective" principle means.) Rand claimed that reason and logic were sufficient to derive her moral principles -- they're like laws of nature.

Oh, did she? Okay. I actually haven't read her in about 8 years. I tend to perceive reality as part of the physical world, and ideas like objective moral truth as human-constructed abstractions.

But then, I hope you will not be shocked to discover that I might disagree with her. After all, I said I'll never consider anyone a messiah again, and that includes Rand. Her depiction of Elsworth Toohey cured me of that kind of hero-worship.

However, to do as you said and take her at her word, I think you are misunderstanding her stance on altruism. I think you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that her theory does not account for love or self-sacrifice. It actually does: although she never had children herself, she had imagination. I don't know if she ever experienced the kind of love that would lead someone to sacrifice himself for another, but she described it. John Galt was willing to sacrifice himself for the woman he loved, because she was his highest value, and without her he didn't feel his life would be worth continuing.

What she did preach against was altruism for its own sake. If you will, look again at Toohey's remarks about how he destroys people's spirits. He advises them to go against their natural gifts. If a boy loves music and is gifted, Toohey tells him to abandon it and learn accounting, (or something along those lines, as I said, it's been 8 years) because you must sacrifice yourself purely for the sake of sacrificing yourself, that this is noble and helps you destroy your vanity and your ego and your self-worth.

She wasn't saying "Never help anyone." Certainly, she said, if your highest value is helping others and this brings you pleasure and satisfaction, do it. What she was against was altruism as a means of deliberately destroying the ego. Does this make sense to you?

[r9etb]

I think you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that her theory does not account for love or self-sacrifice.

Actually, no ... I'm saying that there is a school of scientific thought (evolutionary psychology) which claims that behaviors such as altruism are evolved -- and that morality, such as it is, is likewise an evolutionary response. Rand's insistence on the primacy of objective reality means that her stance on things like altruism is in great danger -- how can a fundamentally situational process such as evolution, based on a string of (helpful) random mutations, ever hope to approximate a truly objective moral system? Indeed, evolution would seem to be the physical embodiment of utilitarianism, which is a far cry from "objective" -- it's closely akin to Rand's hated "mystics of muscle."

It actually does: although she never had children herself, she had imagination.

Which is to say, she didn't have a f***ing clue. It's a very common sort of thing that the best parents are those who don't have children -- they certainly have an answer for every problem!

What she was against was altruism as a means of deliberately destroying the ego. Does this make sense to you?

Oh, it makes sense ... it's just not what Rand said. At Galt's Gulch, for example, there was no such thing as a favor -- everything was paid for. Rand said that the only thing that mattered was "enlightened self interest." Well, OK ... "enlightened" is her weasel-word, into which she can shove inconvenient objections. But note: when she praises the virtues of selfishness, she must denigrate the idea of duty in equal measure.

Oh ... fwiw, here's Atlas Dined, which amusingly highlights pretty much everything wrong with Rand's style....

[A_perfect_lady]

I guess what I don't understand is your stance that if Rand's philosophy is incompatible with a theory put forth by evolutionary psychologists, then Rand must be wrong. Is it because you have great faith in evolutionary theory, or because you think that any philosophy that extolls the virtue of science must then corroborate every scientific theory?

As for your response to her not having children, I'm sorry if I touched a nerve. But if you read enough of her writing, you will see that she did indeed understand that love will sometimes lead to self-sacrifice, and that this is appropriate if there is a reason for it.

And yes, her stance against altruism was very much about altruism for altruism's sake. I think you've only read bits and pieces... well, you did say that you had... so you have rather a patchwork idea of her mindset.

[r9etb]

I guess what I don't understand is your stance that if Rand's philosophy is incompatible with a theory put forth by evolutionary psychologists, then Rand must be wrong. Is it because you have great faith in evolutionary theory, or because you think that any philosophy that extolls the virtue of science must then corroborate every scientific theory?

I did not say "every theory," that's your construction. However, I think her materialist philosophy must account for and agree with scientific theories that are a) widely accepted, and b) impinge directly on her conclusions.

As for your response to her not having children, I'm sorry if I touched a nerve.

You didn't touch a nerve -- it's just that theoretical knowledge about parenthood is pretty much useless, when one at the same time talks about the virtues of selfishness. Any parent knows -- even bad parents know, albeit honored in the breach -- that "selfishness" of the Randian sort is not realistic when applied to one's children, for whom we sacrifice and struggle in order to raise them properly. And thus we again see evolution raising its head: we are a means to our children's end, not our own.

[A_perfect_lady]

Well, this notion that we are a means to our childrens' ends is very culturally specific. Western and modern, specifically. Many very old, large, and successful (in terms of survival) cultures regard children as property of and servants to the parents, begat specifically to work the farm, care for the elders, or be sold into marriage. Think of some... dare I say "most"... Asian and Arabic cultures.

I think your approach is too dependent on an ethnocentric interpretation of evolutionary theory. As such, I can hardly decide that Rand's notions should be abandoned wholesale for failing to satisfy it.

[HIDEK6]

When Hillary folds, the air will start to go out of the balloon.

Yup.

[r9etb]

I think your approach is too dependent on an ethnocentric interpretation of evolutionary theory. As such, I can hardly decide that Rand's notions should be abandoned wholesale for failing to satisfy it.

Which is to say, what ... accounting for evolution leads to an even more relativistic moral environment?

Be that as it may, you're the one who is making rather a hash of family connections in other societies. Western culture is certainly much more individualistic than Asian or Arab cultures, which are much more based on family and tribal ties. And it seems that Rand's take on an individual-centered morality doesn't carry over well to the larger cultural picture. And since, as you note, those other cultures are old, large, and successful, Rand's predicted gotterdamerung was bluster that had to have consciously ignored the empirical evidence.

But notice that, in those cultures, having many offspring is considered a blessing; and sons -- especially the firstborn -- are very highly prized. Daughters, it is true, are less highly prized (see, e.g., the demographic effects of China's one-child policies), but you perhaps mistake what "being sold into marriage" is often about; namely, forging ties with other family groups.

In any event, "man -- every man" certainly is not an end in himself in such cultures.

[A_perfect_lady]

Be that as it may, you're the one who is making rather a hash of family connections in other societies. Western culture is certainly much more individualistic than Asian or Arab cultures, which are much more based on family and tribal ties. And it seems that Rand's take on an individual-centered morality doesn't carry over well to the larger cultural picture. And since, as you note, those other cultures are old, large, and successful, Rand's predicted gotterdamerung was bluster that had to have consciously ignored the empirical evidence.

Okay, I'm really not trying to make you mad, but having read through that paragraph three times now, I have no idea what you are trying to say. That Rand's philosophy doesn't square with Eastern or Western thought, albeit for completely different reasons? Okay... so? A philosophy is not intended to account for scientific theories or various cultures. Indeed, how could any philosophy account for two cultural tendencies that we have both noticed are wildly different? As far as I can tell, your evolutionary theory doesn't explain much of what goes on in other cultures either. At least not in your initial terms of parents being means to the children's end.

But notice that, in those cultures, having many offspring is considered a blessing; and sons -- especially the firstborn -- are very highly prized.

Sure. But they're prized for what they can do for the parents, and your altruistic assumptions are turned on their heads.

In any event, "man -- every man" certainly is not an end in himself in such cultures.

Of course not. They're collectivist. She's not describing how most cultures are, she's describing a philosophy.

[r9etb]

Of course not. They're collectivist.

They're not collectivist in the sense of communism. They're simply ... families. Which is precisely the point. We know that families work very well as a social construct. A supposedly "objective" philosophy that cannot abide families is not really objective at all.

She's not describing how most cultures are, she's describing a philosophy.

Oh, come now. Are you really going to state that a philosophy which claims to be explicitly grounded in "objective reality" should not be compared against other cultures, to see if it even holds water?

[A_perfect_lady]

Well, yes. She’s describing a philosophy. You can take it or leave it... but to demand that everyone leave it because it doesn’t explain everything from evolutionary theory to communism to tribalism is rather inexplicable.

[gathersnomoss]

“The ancient Greeks considered hysteria a psychoneurosis peculiar to women caused by disturbances of the uterus.”

McCain is going to need a transformation if he plans to win the “Deloris” vote.

[KC_Conspirator]

His rallies are Marxists revival meetings...

Thats exactly what they are.

I do take comfort in that revivals flame out quickly.

[gathersnomoss]

If McCain can’t beat this Muslin and his lack of experience, then “Houston, we have a problem”.

[wtc911]

We were at a party over the weekend with friends my wife has known since childhood. Many of them are avowed dims. A few of us are staunch conservatives. There is always a Glenlivet fueled lively discussion with this group.

Not this time though.

Before going I stopped by a general store in Queens that caters to a large Hindian neighborhood. I picked up a half dozen pairs of those little finger/thumb cymbals that the Hari Krishnas used to play at the airports.

When things got started I handed them out to the usual suspects and suggested that they dance around in a circle chanting "obama". Hey, I told them, if you're going to check your brain at the door you might as well have something loud and shiny to play with.

[r9etb]

Well, yes. She’s describing a philosophy. You can take it or leave it... but to demand that everyone leave it because it doesn’t explain everything from evolutionary theory to communism to tribalism is rather inexplicable.

You like that word "every," don't you? Too bad for you that I haven't used it. I've called you on it more than once, and you persist. I have no choice but to mark you as a person who is dishonest in debate.