« »

Because it’s good to laugh

on May 13 2009 at 10:58 am | Filed under: Uncategorized

You’ll laugh when you read this.

Be Sociable, Share!

Related posts:

  1. “It is to laugh”
  2. My belly laugh for the day
  3. A laugh to start your weekend

Email This Post To A Friend Email This Post To A Friend

4 Comments »

4 Responses to “Because it’s good to laugh”

  1. on 14 May 2009 at 9:08 am 1Ymarsakar

    I cannot remember if Skippy was an Obama supporter or not, but he certainly went on about the Bush economic years as being devastating. Course, cynics never understand what devastating really means, because they are too self-absorbed in complaints.

  2. on 14 May 2009 at 9:37 am 2Ymarsakar

    http://fareastcynic.com/?p=3565

    Skippy is not an equal opportunity cynic. he is not a philosophical cynic. He is an apologist for Obama.

    http://fareastcynic.com/?p=3591

    It is not that people believe in Obama because they are all idealists. Some are pessimists. Some people believe their personal views outweigh certain other human factors. Others believe their cynicism gives them special insight into the world and the people. Others believe their education or particular IQ score gives them special insight into the world, political policies, and politicians like Obama.

    Whether all of these do truly indicate an accurate insight into human nature or behavior will be born out by the facts and by the events.

    What will not be born out by the facts or the events is the nature of people. That is constant. Personality is destiny. And the personality of cynics more than most. Political cynics are not particularly hard to manipulate while philosophical cynics are incredibly easy to predict, but you cannot truly get them to deviate from their skepticism of all new, or even old, claims. Thus in this philosophical cynics are predictable, but not prone to manipulation. Cynics like skippy, however, at least on the subject of the Iraq War, inevitably are the creators of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They exclaim this prophecy not depending on whether it is true or not, or whether there is knowledge and evidence to back up their claims, but because these claims serve a personal goal of one sort or another. Thus the normal political cynic is easily manipulated. Because they have personal goals and we all know personal goals are the gateway to corruption or at least leverage by others that can give us what we want. This means that all news or data or evidence favoring the view of Iraq taken by the cynic will be reinforced while all other views are downplayed. This is extreme ramifications for the economy, military preparedness, Presidential character selection, and a whole host of other factors. It is not limited to skippy, he just happens to be the most convenient example at this time from Book’s link. I could easily have used Mitsu from Neo-Neocon’s pages, for example.

    This aspect is only one facet of the greater whole that people call by the name “character”. Cynics do not have an optimistic character or a particularly pessimistic character. We call eternally pessimistic people, morose, and certainly they are. Please be clear on this facet. It is not that they are too positive or too negative. Their problem is that political cynics view events through the prism of their own exultations and objectives. This does not make them special, only typical. What makes them special is that they harbor a special pride, a special hubris, in predicting the downfall of others, but they do not apply the description or the prophecy to themselves or to the people that they oftentimes back or protect or defend. It’s an inherently protracted human weakness which widens the flaw in human nature for pride. It greatly magnifies the potential damage that can be done, because it isn’t pride by itself doing the deed.

    This brings us to the subject of leadership. While it’s fine for me to describe the weaknesses of cynics and the differences they have with philosophical cynics that simply either refuse to believe or refuse to believe quickly or on scanty evidence, what then should replace cynicism as a correct political philosophy? What personality should decide our destinies?

    For that, simply look at leadership. Anyone that excuses and downplays Obama’s obscene luxury incident with Air Force 1 as 1. sub-ordinate’s fault or 2. not a big deal while 1. lambasting the price paid in Iraq and 2. stroking the goat bladder concerning Bush’s economy demonstrates which aspect of good leadership, inspiration, or initiative? I say none of the above, just like on ballots.

    Bush at least had the guts to take responsibility for his actions as President and anyone who has watched Taking Chance is talking out only one side of his mouth when he speaks only about the “cost” of Iraq. Nobody can meet with as many family members as Bush has met, while also knowing that they died ultimately on his orders, and be… how shall I say this, as cavalier about American potential rewards and actual losses in Iraq as skippy is.

    Now we have people telling us it is not a big deal because Obama didn’t give the okay for the fly over, as if a leader is not responsible for everything that happens on his watch, including the point he appoints to positions of power. That’s the Obama supporters for you. Iraq is a disaster and will be a disaster and they need take no responsibility for it, just like Obama, but not like Bush, cause the economy and recession was his fault. Bush takes responsibility like a leader, while everybody else are his children. Including skippy.

    A person that overreacts in one case and then acts subdued in an opposite case, simply because there happens to be a political or philosophical divide, is not a person that gives due consideration to all the facts or even most of the facts and the personalities involved. It is not that facts are wholly ignored, like self-delusional Leftists in Hollywood, but more like facts are… de-prioritized. Some things are more important than other things. Why? Because that’s how the cynic sees it, cause it is his perspective.

    Curiously, this is part of the motivation for a “gap” in the communication concerning the Obama incident in New York.

  3. on 14 May 2009 at 1:24 pm 3Mike Devx

    Ymar #2:
    >> Now we have people telling us it is not a big deal because Obama didn’t give the okay for the fly over, as if a leader is not responsible for everything that happens on his watch

    Well, every President delegates, and the president, in general, doesn’t track everything his underlings are doing. So I can accept the argument that Obama didn’t know that this was occurring until after it occurred.

    Responsibility does flow upward, it is true; but only in the sense that the measure of the leader is the wisdom with which those he (or she) hires perform well. In this Obama Administration, the mistakes are mounting with such rapidity that it is fair to say that Obama is delegating very, very poorly because he has shown terrible judgment in hiring. His people suck, in other words. And he hired them.

    This is evidence of great incompetence and arrogance at the top, and extremely poor wisdom beneath them. But then, we already knew that! Each of these incidents is just additional proof.

  4. on 16 May 2009 at 8:24 am 4suek

    This really belongs on the “Star Trek” thread, but it’s disappeared – so this will have to do…

    http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2009/05/deficits-final-frontier.html

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.