I agree with you about this in relation to the 'hacker ethic', but....
"Well, this was an interesting review of a fifteen year old film. "
Yes, classic sci-fi, and a recent (five or six months ago) new release of the special edition on DVD. You seem to forget that there is a Star Wars topic in this forum, and the Bill Gates icon has Borg implants. This review DOES belong here.
Though I may be a liitle curious, I have little need to see the 'happy-ending' version of this film. Brazil stands as my all time favorite film. One would be pleased to learn that the 'director's cut' had made irt to release rather than the one that the studio and producers wanted in the theaters. As a fan of this film, I am happy with the standard edition. The second disk hasmuch to offer. If I can get this alone, I would do so.
What does it have to do with the hacker ethic? That is a little stretch of the imagination to get the review in this forum it seems.
Anyhoo... If you have not seen this film, watch it. It will change your life. It also has some great performances by DeNiro and Hoskins.
The idea of fasting for health purposes is absurd. I know there have been many books on the subject with some of them being recent best sellers. The concept that there is always some amount of fat or red meat in your colon if you do not fast or get an enema is a myth. The same goes for the need to fast on a frequent basis to remove toxins. Fasting may be necessary as a ONE TIME event if they are going from a terrible diet and lifestyle to some sort of change in eating or habitual vice (sugar, caffeine, smoking). The kidney, liver and colon of the human do an excellent job of removing toxins on a daily basis. So if you make the change to vegetarian or vegan a one-time fast or none all at would work fine to eliminate toxins on a regular basis.
This is a letter I have planned on writing for some time, a letter that I insist is extremely important and one that surely must be heeded if we are to undo the damage caused by Jon Katz. And that's why I feel compelled to say something about incompetent numskulls. It would be nice to say that virulent racism doesn't exist anymore, but we all know that it does. Rest assured, if I have a bias, it is only against slimy rubes who let drugged-out soi-disant do-gooders run rampant through the streets.
In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the whinges of uncontrollable pettifoggers, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant grievances. Just to add a little more perspective, Jon might doctor evidence and classification systems and make blathering generalizations to support stupid, preconceived views faster than you can say "mechanicocorpuscular". What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome? A trip to your local library would reveal that he has been known to say that voluble rabid deviants are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. That notion is so ultra-counter-productive, I hardly know where to begin refuting it.
In retrospect, Jon has always been more insensitive than most empty-headed prevaricators. He believes that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. That's just wrong. He further believes that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. Wrong again!
He can write anything he wants about how things would be different were we to give into his demands and let him revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook, but his epigrams always follow the same pattern. He puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that all literature which opposes extremism was forged by pestilential morons. I just want to say that Jon has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, unless we bring the communion of knowledge to all of us, no real changes will ever occur. That's the sort of statement that some people believe is callow, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because I should note that it's scary curmudgeons like him that give me reason to drop to my knees and beg for mercy. We can therefore extrapolate that as that last sentence suggests, the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, if I didn't sincerely believe that he is chomping at the bit for a chance to dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. Jon's jibes are intellectually and morally indefensible. This applies first and foremost to a group under whose negligent brand of cameralism the whole of honest humanity is suffering: sullen deluded know-nothings. Jon wants to take over the world, even though, for most people, this desire is neither necessary nor instinctive. The same holds true for phlegmatic doctrinaire cult leaders.
To put a little finer edge on the concept, I must ask that his cronies renew those institutions of civil society -- like families, schools, churches, and civic groups -- that weaken the critical links in his nexus of rotten frotteurism. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. He is typical of disorderly mystics in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his manuscripts. Jon's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g. that what I call neo-insecure hackers have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion.
Others may disagree, but I contend that Jon teaches workshops on solipsism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. It may not seem to be very important right now, but given a choice of having him lure the recalcitrant into his camp or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. Call me old-fashioned, but we can divide Jon's nostrums into three categories: contumelious, antihumanist, and despicable. I don't just maintain that Jon's lackeys must be exposed and neutralized wherever they lurk; I can back that up with facts. For instance, Jon's beliefs are not witty satire, as he would have you believe. They're simply the feral ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking.
I, for one, am tired of hearing or reading that lawless pissants and uncivilized paranoiacs should rule this country. You know that that is simply not true. You know what I mean? Jon's obtuse egocentric ideals use paid informants and provocateurs to elevate his announcements to prominence as epistemological principles. Jon then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.
I'm merely suggesting that I myself unequivocally feel that he has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. Jon obviously has none, or he wouldn't disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of Dadaism. I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with dastardly jokers. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to force us to bow down low before the most dotty freeloaders I've ever seen. Prissy lummoxes don't think like you and me. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: The next time he decides to make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks, he should think to himself, Cui bono? -- who benefits? I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that Jon has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that his recommendations are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying".
Jon whines about impudent fault-finders, yet he enthusiastically supports the most destructive clowns I've ever seen. Who else but Jon would have the brass to tour the country promoting loathsome jingoism in lectures and radio talk show interviews? No one. And where does that brass come from? It comes from a sure knowledge that he can retreat into his "victim" status if anyone calls him to account. You might think that anyone who doesn't know that Jon is unreasonable must be inhabiting a different world. Well, if that's the case, then I'm afraid Jon's henchmen must have spent the past month on Mars. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but he asserts that he has a "special" perspective on vandalism which carries with it a "special" right to cause riots in the streets. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie.
When we tease apart the associations necessary to his horny ribald criticisms, we see that I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about his theories. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that when I first became aware of his covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how if we let him win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats, then greed, corruption, and exhibitionism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the media and educational institutions. Jon will hate me for saying this, but I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that disloyal morally crippled shirkers with stronger voices than minds would revert to disgusting behavior. But someone has been giving his brain a very thorough washing, and now Jon is trying to do the same to us. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly Jon Katz himself or one of his assistants, will write an intransigent piece about how utterly insidious I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.
...to that rumor of the 'Time Cop' Star Trek series where that cheesey hunk from 'Hercules' was to be the captain running around the Galaxy fixing disturbances in the continuum?
No consultants in my situation... Though I have seen that before, and would use the same 'snake-oil' analogy- I am amazed at how some external consultants can devastate an organization, get paid millions and while getting patted on the back doing it.
In my spare time, I work for a large corporation in a stuffy and typically conservative line of business (as a system analyst). We had an outlook several years ago where we could go with the kind of outline that is discussed in Cluetrain (before it was published). This made us very attractive to customers and the first in the industry to make many of the steps that we did. Now that this text has achieved the level of popularity that it has now, it has become a buzzword in such circles. I do believe that this text will become a path for many to follow, and instead of trying to emulate the 'big players', startups and existing companies alike will look to Cluetrain for insight.
...and will sales tax be the next 'turning point'... 'e-commerce' seems to be the most powerful thing that drives the internet. This kind of US legislation could also apply to other countries.
While you're probably sick of hearing about Jon Katz, it is crucial that you read this letter. I would like to start by discussing Jon's publicity stunts, mainly because they scare me. The thing I'm the most frightened about is that these issues are actually political issues. To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. All kidding aside, his older sophistries were duplicitous enough. His latest ones are truly beyond the pale. You know what we'd have if everybody wanted to till the salacious side of the exclusionism garden? Total chaos. Just look at the bill of fare served up in recent movies and television programs, and you will hardly be able to deny that Jon's consistent lack of regard for others will harm others, or even instill the fear of harm, before the year is over.
Is that such a difficult concept? Well, let's get our facts straight. I contend that it needs to be taken into account that anyone who thinks that Jon's modes of thought won't be used for political retribution has never been hauled before a tribunal and accused of larrikinism. Jon invents problems in order to provide himself with an excuse for making a fuss. Interestingly, Jon doesn't seem to care about that. Perhaps I'm reading too much into his ramblings, but they don't seem to serve any purpose other than to expose and neutralize his enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. After watching his cronies create a regime of immoral colonialism, one might conclude that Jon et al. would lay out their own ideas of philosophical pedagogy, textual interpretation, and moral philosophy. Surprisingly, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Jon can back up his viewpoints only with empty, inflammatory rhetoric, the very thing he vacuously accuses his opponents of using.
He can write anything he wants about how things would be different were we to give into his demands and let him peddle the snake oil of insensitive chauvinism, but his sound bites are very much in line with self-serving hedonism in that they turn our country into a witless cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. As will be discussed in more detail later in this letter, identifying and naming rancorous maniacs is fundamentally different from using their bromides as an instrument of rebellion. Not only have delusional miscreants decided to glorify their morals by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their threats are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. Anyway, the consequence of all this is that those who are the most sensitive about this are not the average destructive apostates, but a minority of petty silly riffraff.
I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with loathsome raucous mouthpieces for saturnine barbarism. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness. Isn't it historically demonstrated that Jon is unable to deal with a world populated by human beings? We can't stop him overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to take personal action and argue about his zingers. I used a phrase a few moments ago. I referred to his lackeys as "depraved profiteers." You ought to memorize that phrase, because, frankly, I unhesitatingly don't want my community tainted with such blatant anti-intellectualism.
You don't have to say anything specifically about Jon for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should place a high value on honor and self-respect. He and mad deviants are cut from the same cloth. Think I'm exaggerating? Just ask any of the most valuable members of our community, and they'll all tell you how implying that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of unsavory stereotypes is no different from implying that he can force us to do things or take stands against our will and get away with it. Both statements are ludicrous. Is Jon hoping that the readers of this letter won't see the weakness of his argument relative to mine, or is he just being rabid? I have the strength, ability, desire, and courage to hammer out solutions on the anvil of discourse. Do you?
He can blame me for the influx of sordid antagonists if it makes him feel better, but it won't help his cause any. Others may disagree, but I insist that I leave it to more capable and intrepid folks to explore the full ramifications of his editorials. Jon's slogans are in every respect consistent with the school of combative thought that tends to make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what Jon has planned for the future. Make no mistake about it, it's time to put up or shut up. You might not care that his seemingly-egalitarian ideas lead only to results that are both deluded and unfair, but you'd better start caring if you don't want him to work both sides of the political fence. If I have characterized Jon's henchmen up to now as benighted and wicked, it is only because Jon makes it his job to scrawl pro-immoralism graffiti over everything.
Maybe he just can't handle harsh reality. His magic-bullet explanations are exemplary of the forces minorities must fight in their struggle to achieve equal footing with the rest of the community. I was, however, going to forget about the whole thing when it suddenly occurred to me that Jon's screeds represent an inseparable mixture of reason and human madness, but always in such a way that only the madness can become reality and never the reason. Everywhere he's gone, Jon has tried to restructure the social, political, and economic relationships throughout the entire society. It can happen here, too.
At any rate, his message is apparently that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. Although grungy menaces are relatively small in number compared to the general population, they are rapidly increasing in size and fervor. Jon's undertakings may not be traditional for all feckless nymphomaniacs, but compared to these soulless clods, every pimp is a man of honor. Jon can be described only by such words as "incompetent" and "ignorant". Similarly, his grievances are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. And they promote the mistaken idea that profits come before people. Accordingly, Jon backstabs his assistants.
Ok, I admit that until we speak out against behavior and speech that is intended to incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem, he will continue to curry favor with self-pitying recidivists using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value," their "importance," their "educational mission," and other irascible nonsense. But if you don't think that for every dollar we spend to better our communities, he'll spend a thousand more to cause the destruction of human ambition and joy, then think again. According to the latest scientific evidence, the ideas backing up Jon's statements are extremely ultra-malodorous and contumelious. More to the point, the costs of Jon's imprecations outweigh their benefits. As far back as I can remember, Jon has pitted proponents of absenteeism against gadflies and segregationists against scum. His appeal to materialism is dangerous stuff. Sure, it sounds disingenuous. Blame that on sexist litterbugs. Some people have compared truculent social outcasts to iconoclastic suborners of perjury. I would like to take the comparison one step further.
Jon's demands are a perfect example of overgeneralization and blatant nepotism. If I understand Jon's epithets correctly, then if Jon feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. His arrogance has brought this upon himself. Judging by the generally unsavory nature of his toadies, I can see that we ought to teach him a lesson. To quote the prophet Isaiah, "Woe to ye who gag the innocent accused from protesting emotionalism-motivated prosecutions". Never before have I encountered more bloatedly self-important prose than that which Jon produces. His snow jobs make many mainstream bums nervous. The same might be said of nerdy callous devil-worshippers.
No matter what he thinks, it must be pointed out that he makes it sound like he's some perfect angel of unstained ethical standards. Jon claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Jon's supporters. The truth is that there is a vast empirical literature on this subject. Again, most pundits are uncertain about the magnitude of the threat posed by his convictions. It would be bad enough if Jon's slaves were merely trying to scorn and abjure reason. But their attempts to pull the levers of immoralism and oil the gears of blackguardism are just plain pathetic. If stentorian lounge lizards can one day dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers, then the long descent into night is sure to follow.
Am I being rash for wanting a little editorial balance here? When I first encountered his agendas, all I could think of was, "I am merely pointing out what I have observed." On a similar note, there is no compelling moral or economic reason why he should deflect attention from his unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen. I plan to work within the system to persuade my fellow citizens that Jon's helpers have the audacity to pigeonhole people into predetermined categories, not because I lack the courage for more drastic steps, but because Jon needs to come to terms with his power-hungry past. One argument he makes is that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly. That's just plain nonsense. The truth is that by an odd twist of fate, feeble-minded troglodytes do not deserve the assistance they receive from society. It is high time for someone to illustrate the virtues that Jon Katz lacks -- courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry. Will that someone be you?
Ok... lets start a Holy War- Written Trolls vs. Script Trolls.
Bwaahahaha
To be specific, it is not a joke (a little humor in it) or a troll... It is actually a PROTEST. It is an intentional long-winded, meandering and Katzesque diatribe. I do not like his style or contribution to the forum. Rather than 'Katz Sux doodz', I prefer a little sarcasm.
It is imperative that I give you the following information, which Jon Katz wants concealed from the public. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Jon's particularly obdurate form of paternalism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of beer-guzzling politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. Might I suggest that he search for a hobby? It seems Jon has entirely too much time on his hands, given how often he tries to distract attention from more important issues. Due to the power relationship between the dominator and the dominated, the comparison between him and unambitious hostile fogeys is remarkable. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that his malignant ramblings run counter to human nature and, as such, are doomed to failure. Jon wants all of us to believe that you and I are morally inferior to virulent lunatics. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media.
When he looks in the mirror in the morning, does Jon see more than the same, jejune face that all grungy wheeler-dealers share? Armed only with a white shirt, pocket protector, slide rule, thick glasses, and some other neat stuff, I have determined that he, in his hubris, has decided that he has the right to lower our standard of living. If there's a rule, and he keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? Of particular interest to me is the way that Jon continuously denies that he masterminded last year's now-infamous attempt to convince perverted benighted profiteers that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining him, and besides, this is a free country, and I insist we ought to keep it that way. Worst of all, our children's children would never forgive us for letting him authorize, promote, celebrate, and legitimize prodigal Comstockism. Some will say I exaggerate, but, actually, I'm being quite lenient. I didn't mention, for example, that he makes it a point to lead to the destruction of the human race, so to speak.
I don't have time to go into this in as much detail as I should, but the trouble with such vengeful chauvinistic carpetbaggers is that they intend to take us all on an entirely reckless ride into the unknown. Faced by such despicable perfidy and the frustration of not being able to respond to the same audiences as Jon has had, I must undoubtedly educate the public on a range of issues. Nonetheless, he should show some class. You've heard me say that Jon's cronies are all invidious cult leaders. True, that's a cheap shot, but too often, they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that image. Moreover, Jon's stories about faddism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility.
I'm inclined to think that until we subject Jon's musings to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant, Jon will continue to justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of his heart. While this country still has far to go before people are truly judged on the content of their character, I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that the nicest thing that can be said about his lackeys is that they are witless dorks out to inculcate stolid communications. Jaded expostulations have consequences. A careful appraisal of Jon's perversions raises some thought-provoking issues.
If I am doomed to tear off all my clothes and run naked down the street, then Jon will obviously drive us into a state of apoplexy any day now. It may be coincidence that his slogans eroticize relations of dominance and subordination. It may be coincidence that they make excessive use of foul language. And it may be coincidence that they relabel millions of people as "birdbrained". But that's a lot of coincidence! What's interesting is that it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. He distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions.
Essentially, my personal safety depends upon your starting to knock some sense into Jon, just as your personal safety depends upon my doing the same. The idea of basing our entire society on despicable narcissism is so far from reality, it's laughable. This implies that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But he is devoid of all social conscience. So what's the connection between that and his shell games? The connection is that it would be grossly premature for Jon to claim final victory.
More concretely, there is something patently unprofessional in the notion that Jon is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Of course, his henchmen form a gutless organization devoted to harassment and barratry. I say "of course," because his tracts are a spiritually destructive propaganda instrument aimed at our children. Is that such a difficult concept? To be sure, Jon's modus operandi is to utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques, but the petty tone used by Jon in his offhand remarks clearly shows what kind of person he really is.
To simplify, if he had done his homework, he'd know that as a concerned citizen, I will forge ahead in my brave quest to snap his assistants out of their trance. Letting Jon invade every private corner and force every thought into a militant mold sends a clear message to two-faced depraved vagrants that they can overthrow democratic political systems, but, as you know, in this era of rising chauvinism, we must plant markers that define the limits of what is inimical and what is not. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but each day, I see the world becoming more careless as a determined Jon carries out his phlegmatic clueless plans. I have resisted taking legal action against him, as others have advised me to do. No matter how much talk and analysis occurs, Jon's maudlin, kissy-pooh, feel-good, touchy-feely ploys are actually quite abominable when you look at them a bit closer.
Did Jon cancel his plans to abet a resurgence of lackluster filthy larrikinism because he had a change of heart, or is he continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. There are two classes of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and uppity cocky-types like him. Let me put it this way: he would have us believe that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. Yeah, right. Don't kid yourself: Jon should think about how his philosophies lead ridiculous stirrers to force me to lie awake at night wondering who his next victim will be. If Jon doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. You don't have to say anything specifically about him for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different kinds of pestilential nativism.
Jon's treatises run on pure irony. Frightful Marxism is the shadow cast on society by Jon's convictions, and as long as this is so, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. If you need proof that Jon tends to forget what matters most, then just take a look at Jon. The jackbooted antagonism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of insane provocateurs, nor of the maladroit troglodytes who reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. It is the fault of Jon Katz. Vindictive windbags are deeply impressed by his guff, and I'm not making that up! And that's it. I have had to restrain myself from rebuking Jon Katz more vehemently.
It was a JOKE! I was only mimicking his style and long winded content, I really don't think that about him.
What I really think:
I really don't like Jon Katz as a contributor to this site. I prefer the succinct and fast paced "this, that and the other... link here, link there..." followed by discussion to the long winded diatribe that Katz presents followed by flame. I really wish that they would consider taking him off the staff. He has ruined the forum.
Free Speech?
I was expressing mine with comedy...
Walk a mile for a camel?
I have read Katz... I like some of his opinions, don't like others... and before you slam me for berating Jon, please take note: Katz called William Bennett a 'Blockhead'. *I agree with Jon on this* Now I in turn am calling Katz a 'Blockhead' for posting his lame content on Slashdot. If he wants to do something useful, write for Wired or The New Yorker... He does not belong on Slashdot!. IMHOWEMFS- Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well, this was an interesting review of a fifteen year old film. "
Yes, classic sci-fi, and a recent (five or six months ago) new release of the special edition on DVD. You seem to forget that there is a Star Wars topic in this forum, and the Bill Gates icon has Borg implants. This review DOES belong here.
What does it have to do with the hacker ethic? That is a little stretch of the imagination to get the review in this forum it seems.
Anyhoo... If you have not seen this film, watch it. It will change your life. It also has some great performances by DeNiro and Hoskins.
Enjoy!
In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the whinges of uncontrollable pettifoggers, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant grievances. Just to add a little more perspective, Jon might doctor evidence and classification systems and make blathering generalizations to support stupid, preconceived views faster than you can say "mechanicocorpuscular". What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome? A trip to your local library would reveal that he has been known to say that voluble rabid deviants are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. That notion is so ultra-counter-productive, I hardly know where to begin refuting it.
In retrospect, Jon has always been more insensitive than most empty-headed prevaricators. He believes that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. That's just wrong. He further believes that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. Wrong again!
He can write anything he wants about how things would be different were we to give into his demands and let him revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook, but his epigrams always follow the same pattern. He puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that all literature which opposes extremism was forged by pestilential morons. I just want to say that Jon has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, unless we bring the communion of knowledge to all of us, no real changes will ever occur. That's the sort of statement that some people believe is callow, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because I should note that it's scary curmudgeons like him that give me reason to drop to my knees and beg for mercy. We can therefore extrapolate that as that last sentence suggests, the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, if I didn't sincerely believe that he is chomping at the bit for a chance to dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. Jon's jibes are intellectually and morally indefensible. This applies first and foremost to a group under whose negligent brand of cameralism the whole of honest humanity is suffering: sullen deluded know-nothings. Jon wants to take over the world, even though, for most people, this desire is neither necessary nor instinctive. The same holds true for phlegmatic doctrinaire cult leaders.
To put a little finer edge on the concept, I must ask that his cronies renew those institutions of civil society -- like families, schools, churches, and civic groups -- that weaken the critical links in his nexus of rotten frotteurism. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. He is typical of disorderly mystics in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his manuscripts. Jon's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g. that what I call neo-insecure hackers have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion.
Others may disagree, but I contend that Jon teaches workshops on solipsism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. It may not seem to be very important right now, but given a choice of having him lure the recalcitrant into his camp or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. Call me old-fashioned, but we can divide Jon's nostrums into three categories: contumelious, antihumanist, and despicable. I don't just maintain that Jon's lackeys must be exposed and neutralized wherever they lurk; I can back that up with facts. For instance, Jon's beliefs are not witty satire, as he would have you believe. They're simply the feral ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking.
I, for one, am tired of hearing or reading that lawless pissants and uncivilized paranoiacs should rule this country. You know that that is simply not true. You know what I mean? Jon's obtuse egocentric ideals use paid informants and provocateurs to elevate his announcements to prominence as epistemological principles. Jon then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.
I'm merely suggesting that I myself unequivocally feel that he has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. Jon obviously has none, or he wouldn't disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of Dadaism. I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with dastardly jokers. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to force us to bow down low before the most dotty freeloaders I've ever seen. Prissy lummoxes don't think like you and me. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: The next time he decides to make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks, he should think to himself, Cui bono? -- who benefits? I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that Jon has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that his recommendations are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying".
Jon whines about impudent fault-finders, yet he enthusiastically supports the most destructive clowns I've ever seen. Who else but Jon would have the brass to tour the country promoting loathsome jingoism in lectures and radio talk show interviews? No one. And where does that brass come from? It comes from a sure knowledge that he can retreat into his "victim" status if anyone calls him to account. You might think that anyone who doesn't know that Jon is unreasonable must be inhabiting a different world. Well, if that's the case, then I'm afraid Jon's henchmen must have spent the past month on Mars. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but he asserts that he has a "special" perspective on vandalism which carries with it a "special" right to cause riots in the streets. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie.
When we tease apart the associations necessary to his horny ribald criticisms, we see that I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about his theories. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that when I first became aware of his covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how if we let him win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats, then greed, corruption, and exhibitionism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the media and educational institutions. Jon will hate me for saying this, but I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that disloyal morally crippled shirkers with stronger voices than minds would revert to disgusting behavior. But someone has been giving his brain a very thorough washing, and now Jon is trying to do the same to us. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly Jon Katz himself or one of his assistants, will write an intransigent piece about how utterly insidious I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.
BTW: The plural of pen is pens, not penses. (ha)
Peace
Thanks.
Is that such a difficult concept? Well, let's get our facts straight. I contend that it needs to be taken into account that anyone who thinks that Jon's modes of thought won't be used for political retribution has never been hauled before a tribunal and accused of larrikinism. Jon invents problems in order to provide himself with an excuse for making a fuss. Interestingly, Jon doesn't seem to care about that. Perhaps I'm reading too much into his ramblings, but they don't seem to serve any purpose other than to expose and neutralize his enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. After watching his cronies create a regime of immoral colonialism, one might conclude that Jon et al. would lay out their own ideas of philosophical pedagogy, textual interpretation, and moral philosophy. Surprisingly, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Jon can back up his viewpoints only with empty, inflammatory rhetoric, the very thing he vacuously accuses his opponents of using.
He can write anything he wants about how things would be different were we to give into his demands and let him peddle the snake oil of insensitive chauvinism, but his sound bites are very much in line with self-serving hedonism in that they turn our country into a witless cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. As will be discussed in more detail later in this letter, identifying and naming rancorous maniacs is fundamentally different from using their bromides as an instrument of rebellion. Not only have delusional miscreants decided to glorify their morals by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their threats are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. Anyway, the consequence of all this is that those who are the most sensitive about this are not the average destructive apostates, but a minority of petty silly riffraff.
I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with loathsome raucous mouthpieces for saturnine barbarism. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness. Isn't it historically demonstrated that Jon is unable to deal with a world populated by human beings? We can't stop him overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to take personal action and argue about his zingers. I used a phrase a few moments ago. I referred to his lackeys as "depraved profiteers." You ought to memorize that phrase, because, frankly, I unhesitatingly don't want my community tainted with such blatant anti-intellectualism.
You don't have to say anything specifically about Jon for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should place a high value on honor and self-respect. He and mad deviants are cut from the same cloth. Think I'm exaggerating? Just ask any of the most valuable members of our community, and they'll all tell you how implying that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of unsavory stereotypes is no different from implying that he can force us to do things or take stands against our will and get away with it. Both statements are ludicrous. Is Jon hoping that the readers of this letter won't see the weakness of his argument relative to mine, or is he just being rabid? I have the strength, ability, desire, and courage to hammer out solutions on the anvil of discourse. Do you?
He can blame me for the influx of sordid antagonists if it makes him feel better, but it won't help his cause any. Others may disagree, but I insist that I leave it to more capable and intrepid folks to explore the full ramifications of his editorials. Jon's slogans are in every respect consistent with the school of combative thought that tends to make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what Jon has planned for the future. Make no mistake about it, it's time to put up or shut up. You might not care that his seemingly-egalitarian ideas lead only to results that are both deluded and unfair, but you'd better start caring if you don't want him to work both sides of the political fence. If I have characterized Jon's henchmen up to now as benighted and wicked, it is only because Jon makes it his job to scrawl pro-immoralism graffiti over everything.
Maybe he just can't handle harsh reality. His magic-bullet explanations are exemplary of the forces minorities must fight in their struggle to achieve equal footing with the rest of the community. I was, however, going to forget about the whole thing when it suddenly occurred to me that Jon's screeds represent an inseparable mixture of reason and human madness, but always in such a way that only the madness can become reality and never the reason. Everywhere he's gone, Jon has tried to restructure the social, political, and economic relationships throughout the entire society. It can happen here, too.
At any rate, his message is apparently that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. Although grungy menaces are relatively small in number compared to the general population, they are rapidly increasing in size and fervor. Jon's undertakings may not be traditional for all feckless nymphomaniacs, but compared to these soulless clods, every pimp is a man of honor. Jon can be described only by such words as "incompetent" and "ignorant". Similarly, his grievances are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. And they promote the mistaken idea that profits come before people. Accordingly, Jon backstabs his assistants.
Ok, I admit that until we speak out against behavior and speech that is intended to incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem, he will continue to curry favor with self-pitying recidivists using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value," their "importance," their "educational mission," and other irascible nonsense. But if you don't think that for every dollar we spend to better our communities, he'll spend a thousand more to cause the destruction of human ambition and joy, then think again. According to the latest scientific evidence, the ideas backing up Jon's statements are extremely ultra-malodorous and contumelious. More to the point, the costs of Jon's imprecations outweigh their benefits. As far back as I can remember, Jon has pitted proponents of absenteeism against gadflies and segregationists against scum. His appeal to materialism is dangerous stuff. Sure, it sounds disingenuous. Blame that on sexist litterbugs. Some people have compared truculent social outcasts to iconoclastic suborners of perjury. I would like to take the comparison one step further.
Jon's demands are a perfect example of overgeneralization and blatant nepotism. If I understand Jon's epithets correctly, then if Jon feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. His arrogance has brought this upon himself. Judging by the generally unsavory nature of his toadies, I can see that we ought to teach him a lesson. To quote the prophet Isaiah, "Woe to ye who gag the innocent accused from protesting emotionalism-motivated prosecutions". Never before have I encountered more bloatedly self-important prose than that which Jon produces. His snow jobs make many mainstream bums nervous. The same might be said of nerdy callous devil-worshippers.
No matter what he thinks, it must be pointed out that he makes it sound like he's some perfect angel of unstained ethical standards. Jon claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Jon's supporters. The truth is that there is a vast empirical literature on this subject. Again, most pundits are uncertain about the magnitude of the threat posed by his convictions. It would be bad enough if Jon's slaves were merely trying to scorn and abjure reason. But their attempts to pull the levers of immoralism and oil the gears of blackguardism are just plain pathetic. If stentorian lounge lizards can one day dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers, then the long descent into night is sure to follow.
Am I being rash for wanting a little editorial balance here? When I first encountered his agendas, all I could think of was, "I am merely pointing out what I have observed." On a similar note, there is no compelling moral or economic reason why he should deflect attention from his unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen. I plan to work within the system to persuade my fellow citizens that Jon's helpers have the audacity to pigeonhole people into predetermined categories, not because I lack the courage for more drastic steps, but because Jon needs to come to terms with his power-hungry past. One argument he makes is that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly. That's just plain nonsense. The truth is that by an odd twist of fate, feeble-minded troglodytes do not deserve the assistance they receive from society. It is high time for someone to illustrate the virtues that Jon Katz lacks -- courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry. Will that someone be you?
Thanks.
Bwaahahaha
To be specific, it is not a joke (a little humor in it) or a troll... It is actually a PROTEST. It is an intentional long-winded, meandering and Katzesque diatribe. I do not like his style or contribution to the forum. Rather than 'Katz Sux doodz', I prefer a little sarcasm.
Peace
Read 'The Divine Proportion' by H. E. Huntley. I may write a review someday.
Thanks...
Does it have anything to do with the food called Nutella?
Read Here: NUTELLA
It's good shit maynard... I like it...
When he looks in the mirror in the morning, does Jon see more than the same, jejune face that all grungy wheeler-dealers share? Armed only with a white shirt, pocket protector, slide rule, thick glasses, and some other neat stuff, I have determined that he, in his hubris, has decided that he has the right to lower our standard of living. If there's a rule, and he keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? Of particular interest to me is the way that Jon continuously denies that he masterminded last year's now-infamous attempt to convince perverted benighted profiteers that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining him, and besides, this is a free country, and I insist we ought to keep it that way. Worst of all, our children's children would never forgive us for letting him authorize, promote, celebrate, and legitimize prodigal Comstockism. Some will say I exaggerate, but, actually, I'm being quite lenient. I didn't mention, for example, that he makes it a point to lead to the destruction of the human race, so to speak.
I don't have time to go into this in as much detail as I should, but the trouble with such vengeful chauvinistic carpetbaggers is that they intend to take us all on an entirely reckless ride into the unknown. Faced by such despicable perfidy and the frustration of not being able to respond to the same audiences as Jon has had, I must undoubtedly educate the public on a range of issues. Nonetheless, he should show some class. You've heard me say that Jon's cronies are all invidious cult leaders. True, that's a cheap shot, but too often, they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that image. Moreover, Jon's stories about faddism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility.
I'm inclined to think that until we subject Jon's musings to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant, Jon will continue to justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of his heart. While this country still has far to go before people are truly judged on the content of their character, I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that the nicest thing that can be said about his lackeys is that they are witless dorks out to inculcate stolid communications. Jaded expostulations have consequences. A careful appraisal of Jon's perversions raises some thought-provoking issues.
If I am doomed to tear off all my clothes and run naked down the street, then Jon will obviously drive us into a state of apoplexy any day now. It may be coincidence that his slogans eroticize relations of dominance and subordination. It may be coincidence that they make excessive use of foul language. And it may be coincidence that they relabel millions of people as "birdbrained". But that's a lot of coincidence! What's interesting is that it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. He distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions.
Essentially, my personal safety depends upon your starting to knock some sense into Jon, just as your personal safety depends upon my doing the same. The idea of basing our entire society on despicable narcissism is so far from reality, it's laughable. This implies that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But he is devoid of all social conscience. So what's the connection between that and his shell games? The connection is that it would be grossly premature for Jon to claim final victory.
More concretely, there is something patently unprofessional in the notion that Jon is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Of course, his henchmen form a gutless organization devoted to harassment and barratry. I say "of course," because his tracts are a spiritually destructive propaganda instrument aimed at our children. Is that such a difficult concept? To be sure, Jon's modus operandi is to utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques, but the petty tone used by Jon in his offhand remarks clearly shows what kind of person he really is.
To simplify, if he had done his homework, he'd know that as a concerned citizen, I will forge ahead in my brave quest to snap his assistants out of their trance. Letting Jon invade every private corner and force every thought into a militant mold sends a clear message to two-faced depraved vagrants that they can overthrow democratic political systems, but, as you know, in this era of rising chauvinism, we must plant markers that define the limits of what is inimical and what is not. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but each day, I see the world becoming more careless as a determined Jon carries out his phlegmatic clueless plans. I have resisted taking legal action against him, as others have advised me to do. No matter how much talk and analysis occurs, Jon's maudlin, kissy-pooh, feel-good, touchy-feely ploys are actually quite abominable when you look at them a bit closer.
Did Jon cancel his plans to abet a resurgence of lackluster filthy larrikinism because he had a change of heart, or is he continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. There are two classes of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and uppity cocky-types like him. Let me put it this way: he would have us believe that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. Yeah, right. Don't kid yourself: Jon should think about how his philosophies lead ridiculous stirrers to force me to lie awake at night wondering who his next victim will be. If Jon doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. You don't have to say anything specifically about him for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different kinds of pestilential nativism.
Jon's treatises run on pure irony. Frightful Marxism is the shadow cast on society by Jon's convictions, and as long as this is so, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. If you need proof that Jon tends to forget what matters most, then just take a look at Jon. The jackbooted antagonism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of insane provocateurs, nor of the maladroit troglodytes who reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. It is the fault of Jon Katz. Vindictive windbags are deeply impressed by his guff, and I'm not making that up! And that's it. I have had to restrain myself from rebuking Jon Katz more vehemently.
Anyone?
I thought that this and E. coli were one of the first genomes to be mapped some years ago. Is this old news?
No to both inquery.
It was a JOKE! I was only mimicking his style and long winded content, I really don't think that about him.
What I really think:
I really don't like Jon Katz as a contributor to this site. I prefer the succinct and fast paced "this, that and the other... link here, link there..." followed by discussion to the long winded diatribe that Katz presents followed by flame. I really wish that they would consider taking him off the staff. He has ruined the forum.
Free Speech?
I was expressing mine with comedy...
Walk a mile for a camel?
I have read Katz... I like some of his opinions, don't like others... and before you slam me for berating Jon, please take note: Katz called William Bennett a 'Blockhead'. *I agree with Jon on this* Now I in turn am calling Katz a 'Blockhead' for posting his lame content on Slashdot. If he wants to do something useful, write for Wired or The New Yorker... He does not belong on Slashdot!. IMHOWEMFS- Thanks.