Sad, because the only real ground breaking she’d ever accomplish will be for her casket, her litany of finished projects notwithstanding. In our school there were a handful of famous brand-name architects that were highly influential amongst the “intellectual” students and professors. Hadid of course; Koolhaas and Tschumi had status as design gods.
A few of us that felt strongly that Architecture had gone off into the twilight zone. We had Sterling and the PoMo crowd making cartoons and visual puns, we had Hadid and her ilk rabidly avoiding aesthetic merit and any sense of scalar dialogue, and we had brutal mediocrities like Philip Johnson desperately trying to play catch-up whilst hogging the magazines. (Don’t get me started on Moshe Safdie.) This crowd could talk a great design, but in the end they were like the clowns writing an “artist’s statement” or the chef waxing elegant about his anchovy swirl parfait.
The better design students (we knew who they were) were rather more attuned to Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Alvar Aalto, Eero Saarinen, and to marvelous contemporary artists such as Frank Gehry. Yours truly’s heroes?… Saarinen, Peter Behrens and Christopher Wren. (And you, Gus Da Roza!)
Beauty is where one finds it.
Over the years you have repeatedly shamed the Conservative movement and your listeners with your ugly behavior towards call-in guests. On Friday March 25th, you treated a perfectly polite and intelligent caller – #3, Dennis (~32:25) – with contempt and utter rudeness. You continually talked over him, put words into his mouth and then referred to him as “stupid” after having hung-up on him.
Sir, I’ve had it with your attitude and with your show. You could learn a great deal about professionalism from the gentlemanly attitude of many of the “backbenchers” to whom you regularly condescend.
A talk show is not a free-for-all blog comment section. When you shame and embarrass a good man on your show, you do so in public before millions.
You have competition. I shall tune in there. It is particularly sad, because as an observer of the political scene, you are one of the very sharpest. Unfortunately as a man, you fail the grade.
With sincere regret,
Shorter David Brooks:“Gee Mr. President, is That a Crease in Your Pants, or Are You Just Happy To See Me!?”
“Oh the fun we’re all going to have when Brooks discovers Fast & Furious, the IRS Scandal, “Richard Windsor,” and the ramifications of the deal with Iran sometime in February of 2017.”
Brooks’ reputation isn’t helped by his “cordless bungie-jumping into the abyss of self parody.” [Is that Dan Riehl’s phrase?] Neither is the Old Grey Lady’s, who abjectly failed to vet and then report over the last decade that which was staring them in the face.
Our point being, we’re observing historical revisionism occur in real-time. Look forward to the gulag archipelago, comrade.
Ace of Spades: “The media [the Left in general, IMHO] has two wings: The Pious Concern Troll wing, and the Nasty Attack Dog wing. Why no, they’re never asked to reconcile these wings.”
There is also the phenomenon of The Missionary Troll to the Prols: He of the Left who dresses in pious Conservative garb whilst holding a Bible (or candies) in one hand and a cattle prod in the other. His role is a combination of The Pious Concern Troll and The Nasty Attack Dog.
Always his purpose is to nudge us sheep (those of us in Conservative and Libertarian camps) to the Left in small steps, administering candy or shock as necessary.
That every tyranny of central planning and control is antithetical to the Bible – and outright heresy – doesn’t matter to him. The more souls this man “saves”, the greater his share of “collective redemption.”
His style is marked by condescension, running auto-hagiography, sympathy at this moment and at the next flame, and a string of really cr@ppy arguments. Fine, we get the role of comic relief in debate – but how enjoyable is it really, when the Missionary Troll doesn’t realize that the joke is on him?
Chimes in Right Guy:
“But that’s the mark of a progressive, left or right. One, that the government has to be used to promote their beliefs and execute their agenda. On one side it’s social justice on the other is to make the world safe for their twisted version of crony capitalistic democracy. Two, that man is flawed and needs to be saved from himself. Only through the government and control can this happen. Both are basically religion and it’s just a softer version of what the caliphatists want. Robert Heinlein understood all this and broke it down quite simply:
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.“
– Robert A. Heinlein
Or another favorite:
“When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives.“
– Robert A. Heinlein
“And yet we still have seeming smart people championing white hat over black hat. For a couple reasons. Some people have greater affinity to groups and the power they perceive and possibly get from them. They want to be on the winning team. It’s people like this that usually want people controlled. This is why the liberty movement fails. People that champion individuality don’t like to be in groups. This makes it difficult to move things in that direction.”
Thank-you! Full agreement here. “People that champion individuality” – or just want to be left alone – “don’t like to be in groups.” Perhaps this is why ‘liberty movements’ are rare events.
If we may take a swipe at William F! Buckley, jr… Buckley’s “Conservatism” was rather as Gore Vidal believed – merely an elegant tolerance of fascistic principles. That neither of them came to argue from first principles is to their shame. While Gore was apologizing for the Soviets, Buckley was eschewing – and destroying – principled Libertarians and Conservatives such as Rand and Welch.
Even Thomas Paine didn’t see the full extent of the motives behind the French Revolution: That turned out to be the Officiate overturning the Monarchy, the inverse of what Joseph had done to the Priests when he’d handed vast powers to Pharaoh. In the final result, Liberté is antithetical to Égalité and Fraternité.
“[Thomas Paine] was freed in 1794 (narrowly escaping execution) thanks to the efforts of James Monroe, then U.S. Minister to France. Paine remained in France until 1802 when he returned to America on an invitation from Thomas Jefferson. Paine discovered that his contributions to the American Revolution had been all but eradicated due to his religious views. Derided by the public and abandoned by his friends, he died on June 8, 1809 at the age of 72 in New York City.”
Happy Christmas everyone!
(Our thanks to Hoyt at InstaPundit)
“If you understand that feminism is, in part, a leveling mechanism used by less-attractive women against more-attractive women, it will make sense.” – Glenn Reynolds
Right. And if you understand that socialism is, in it’s entirely, a leveling mechanism used by less-attractive and competent men against more-masculine and capable men, it all falls into place.
Via Instapundit’s Ed Driscoll:
SEVEN SURPRISING DOWNSIDES OF BEING EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT.
The last one on the list isn’t a “downside” at all. So it’s Six, really, to which we might add two very critical downsides missed:
7) Extremely intelligent people very rarely mature psychologically or socially. The ability to perform mental gymnastics and to achieve extraordinary success typically leads to a brutal, adolescent condescension towards “lesser” creatures. Life becomes a permanent state of suspended adolescence. Maturity first requires the inner strength to recognize and admit failure, and then it requires self-correction. It’s a stimulus-response system of human growth. Alas, very intelligent and successful people most often deny themselves that necessary stimulus for growth. (Count for yourself the number of people you’ve met who are brilliant and truly humble.)
This leads to …
8) The Flipside of the Dunning–Kruger Effect: Intelligent people typically fail to recognize the limits of their abilities. One often finds these people assuming omnipotence much removed from their core metier. Arrogance. This is an extension of [Seven], above, though it takes on a life of it’s own. Sure, the Dunning–Kruger effect is real, but it’s rare enough that brilliant individuals are forced to spend the time and effort to come to grips with their weaknesses.
Sometimes this stimulus occurs in the scientific – where doubts about the veracity of one’s findings and analysis are necessary strengths. Too, one sometimes finds it amongst the truly religious where, again, doubt and truth are daily struggles. Outside of these disciplines, chaos reigns. (Count for yourself the number of people you’ve met who are brilliant and truly wise.)
. . .
In your humble scribe’s experience it has been found that humility, wisdom and intelligence hardly ever coexist in the one man. They seem rather at odds.