tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post7995329556654898564..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: "Mad Men": Villains, Victims, and LiesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-11032976971342145202016-12-02T07:05:46.289-05:002016-12-02T07:05:46.289-05:00Are you paying over $5 per pack of cigarettes? I&#...Are you paying <b>over $5 per pack of cigarettes?</b> I'm buying high quality cigarettes at <b><a href="http://cigarettes.syntaxlinks.com/r/DutyFreeDepot" rel="nofollow">Duty Free Depot</a></b> and this saves me over <b>60%</b>.Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287821785570247118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-38122451845821051632013-05-09T20:49:01.356-04:002013-05-09T20:49:01.356-04:00@madmax: I mostly agree with you.
What I meant is...@madmax: I mostly agree with you.<br /><br />What I meant is there's little philosophical difference between modern-day Democrats and Republicans; they are two sides of the same Statist coin. They differ in the areas of our lives that they want to regulate, but neither party believes in individual rights, and both believe that Big Government is a good thing. They quibble over minutia, in what looks more like theater than anything substantive. It's not Beck vs. Matthews; it's the Patriot Act vs. Obamacare -- or Romneycare vs. Obamacare.<br /><br />That doesn't mean there aren't some truly evil Dems and some well-meaning Repubs.<br /><br />I agree that it's not right to include true small-government conservatives in the Republican camp. However, they are currently in the minority.<br /><br />Regarding being out of the country: what I was trying to say is that propaganda is much easier to see when you're not in the middle of it every day. Having a different culture for contrast is more important in that process than what the values of that culture are.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12106767072760310420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-10461746507300508662013-05-09T19:18:32.370-04:002013-05-09T19:18:32.370-04:00For anyone who's interested, I maintain a blog...For anyone who's interested, I maintain a blog specifically devoted to analysis (from an Objectivist perspective) of contemporary television commercials. I have analyzed over one hundred commercials within the last three years, and I've discovered that while the <i>artistic</i> creativity of today's TV advertising is, in my view, just as strong as it has ever been, the <i>philosophical</i> creativity is completely non-existent (read: destructive). It all boils down to today's prevailing philosophical trends. It has been interesting to grasp first-hand how advertising has devolved into a detractive, disintegrating, destructive element in the culture - where advertisers, desperate to make money in the short-term, exploit some of the worst philsophical corruptions around - from it's essence as a positive, informative, and even uplifting element. Of course, this is only because of the mixed economy (and the fact that it becomes more "mixed" with each passing day) - which is why it's especially ironic that people like Madmen's Weiner struggle with the "creative - profitable dichotomy." If not for their leftist philosophies - which causes the mixed economy - such destructive "art" wouldn't be profitable, as it is now. They attack the inevitable results of <i>their</i> philosophies as the inevitable results of their ideological enemies'. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.<br /><br />In any case, this is the link to my blog: www.commercialanalysis.wordpress.comGDWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09996586199024780592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-74466190712533747012013-05-09T18:18:07.925-04:002013-05-09T18:18:07.925-04:00In fact, if anything, there seems to be a growing ...<i>In fact, if anything, there seems to be a growing understanding that at their philosophical core, there really isn't that much difference between them.</i><br /><br />I don't agree with this. There is NO equivalence in the threat between Leftism and Conservatism. Modern Conservatism is misguided. Leftism is EVIL. You are just repeating mainstream Objectivist ignorance regarding this. I'm sorry to be rude, but that pisses me off. <br /><br />Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc are NOT EVIL PEOPLE. Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Tim Wise ARE. Yes, Conservatism is very flawed at its foundation but most of today's mainstream Conservatives are not really Conservatives. They are watered down Classical liberals (far too watered down).<br /><br /><i>The degree of omnipresence didn't really hit me until after I spent quite a bit of time out of the country.</i><br /><br />Its worse out of the country if by that you mean Europe or South America. The Asian world is better in that it hasn't accepted multiculturalism or feminism; and egalitarianism for that matter. What is better is that in Eastern Europe and Russia, there is much less feminism but they are still pretty much Marxist in their political economy. It seems that the Left has done more damage to the culture in the Anglo-sphere largely because it is wealthier and poorer countries can't accept nonsense like multi-culturalism and feminism. Poorer countries can't demonize white heterosexual males. That is a luxury only wealthy countries can afford. <br /><br />So Rick, I see you as the typical Objectivist in this regard (Left vs Conservative). Think of it this way, where is there the equivalent of Thomas Sowell, Walter williams, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, Geert Wilders, Diana West (a one woman army of truth), Andrew MacCarthy, etc on the Left? There are NO GOOD LEFTISTS. NO EQUIVALENCY in the threat from each side. Not knowing that is cultural ignorance. <br /><br />I know. I'm acerbic. But I'm right. madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-49488776258999963352013-05-08T23:49:42.254-04:002013-05-08T23:49:42.254-04:00If it's any consolation, most of the Objectivi...If it's any consolation, most of the Objectivists I know understand that the Left and liberal culture are as much of a problem as conservatives and the Right. In fact, if anything, there seems to be a growing understanding that at their philosophical core, there really isn't that much difference between them.<br /><br />One of the challenges we face as a movement is that Leftist propaganda is not only omnipresent in the US, it's also very powerful -- to the point where it influences even seemingly rational thinkers. The degree of omnipresence didn't really hit me until after I spent quite a bit of time out of the country.<br /><br />Yaron Brook gave an interesting talk recently where he pointed out that secularism should mean a belief in the objective world, not just the lack of a belief in God. The Left, like the so-called atheists of the Soviet Union, simply preach sacrifice to our neighbors and to the State, rather than to God.<br /><br />The good news is that I think it's possible to show and explain this to open-minded O-ists. The bad news is that I suspect quite a few people who call themselves O-ists really don't understand Objectivism as well as they think they do.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12106767072760310420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-76272608626087044522013-05-08T23:16:03.681-04:002013-05-08T23:16:03.681-04:00Stay tuned. But, the series is definitely Leftist,...<i>Stay tuned. But, the series is definitely Leftist, and that fact has been entirely missed or overlooked by Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, and all the screaming squirrel critics and fans. </i><br /><br />And Objectivists too. But that is one of my central complaints; i.e. that we live in a Left-liberal culture which is shaped by Leftists and Leftist ideology. But the Objectivist movement somehow thinks that our fundamental enemy is Christianity as well as Conservatism. This is everywhere in the Objectivist movement. Its dumbfounding to me.<br /><br />The only group that correctly sees the Leftist nihilism in 'Mad Men' is the alternate Right blogosophere. I don't agree with their entire philosophy but they are the only group in America to understand that Leftism is the primary evil we face, with Islam being the second great evil. <br /><br />I know I'm acerbic but when the "drooling beast" is staring you in the face and no one wants to acknowledge it, it can make you angry. madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-868521832844730382013-05-08T22:09:45.643-04:002013-05-08T22:09:45.643-04:00MadMax: Your other blog comment was spot-on. I'...MadMax: Your other blog comment was spot-on. I'm taking notes for a follow-up column on Mad Men to cover points I didn't have room to develop in this column. Stay tuned. But, the series is definitely Leftist, and that fact has been entirely missed or overlooked by Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, and all the screaming squirrel critics and fans. Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-57347297234626695562013-05-08T18:06:38.547-04:002013-05-08T18:06:38.547-04:00Here is a comment I wrote about 'Mad Men' ...Here is a comment I wrote about 'Mad Men' on another blog:<br /><br />"The Left is like Islam. Islam sees everything before the time of Mohammed as "the time of darkness". The Left sees the same but only the demarcation point is the 1960s. Pre-1960s, or pre-modern liberalism, was a time of oppression and inequality, a time of the evil white male patriarchy. 'Mad Men' is a condemnation of pre-liberal America."<br /><br />By "liberal" I mean Leftist. And 'Mad Men' is Leftist nihilism on display. But IMO organized Objectivism should be actively exposing the horrid philosophy of Hollywood and the artistic "elite". (Instead the 'TOS' is praising Ann Hathaway's work ethic. Some activism there.) Isn't that what Rand did in "The Fountainhead"? That novel was her condemnation of the cultural Left. Or do Objectivists think it was her condemnation of the "imminent Christian theocracy"? <br /><br />With the death of post-Enlightenment Christianity and the traditional morality that governed America up until the 1960s, the Left has created a nihilistic, soulless culture. The challenge for Objectivism is to create a secular value oriented one and to prove that Objectivism can provide for mankind's spiritual needs. So far the movement has not even tried to do this. And futher, most Objectivists share sympathies with the cultural Left because they are secular.<br /><br />madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-88223143472416882052013-05-07T05:23:41.234-04:002013-05-07T05:23:41.234-04:00You´re not alone in suffering from "cultural ...You´re not alone in suffering from "cultural claustrophobia." As I read about your personal experience of using literature and music as an antidote to our value deprived culture, I saw myself. Not only, could I relate to the antidote but the type of people you’ve described from Mad Men are the same type I desperately avoided when I worked in the public sector. School bureaucracies are but a microcosm of the authoritarian state, the sure place where the scrupleless power lusting cheats and frauds rise to the top. These self’ perpetuating bureaucracies, where socialism and altruism are the lesson of the day, day after day, are the principal culprits of our cultural value deprivation. It´s no wonder that the liberals who are mostly products of the indoctrination camps that are public schools, are the very ones to spurn values. Only someone who has been fed the propaganda of the state via the subjectivist methods of John Dewey, can have such a warped view of love and happiness, and such disdain for individualism and capitalism. <br /><br />HildaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-83292292768297868842013-05-07T00:42:41.331-04:002013-05-07T00:42:41.331-04:00Rick: I sent a link to this column to Mattwhew We...Rick: I sent a link to this column to Mattwhew Weiner's and Jon Hamm's Facebook pages. I don't expect a response, or that either of them will bother reading the column. Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-33135966608835620412013-05-06T23:14:22.077-04:002013-05-06T23:14:22.077-04:00I watched the first few seasons of Mad Men. At fir...I watched the first few seasons of Mad Men. At first, I enjoyed seeing their recreation of the 60s. The characters were obviously flawed people, but a few were likable, and I expected them to learn and grow as the series went on. Instead, the reverse seemed to happen. For example, Joan started out as a strong, capable and admirable office manager, and look where she ended up. It took me a while, but when I finally realized what the writers were really trying to say, I was so repulsed I couldn't watch another episode. In retrospect, the series is not as much a commentary on the 60s as it is on the dominant philosophy of today: whim-driven emotionalism.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12106767072760310420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-53976282113607343232013-05-06T15:15:01.375-04:002013-05-06T15:15:01.375-04:00Readers: I could have gone on for six more pages o...Readers: I could have gone on for six more pages on "Mad Men." I chose to limit my critique of the series to the role of lies in the story. I could have focused on the shallowness of most of the characters, its progressive (no pun intended) development from 1960 through 1966 and the beginning of the "counter culture," the evasiveness and dishonesty of other characters than Don Draper, and other topics. I might write a follow-up review later. So, please don’t take me to task on other subjects. Mention them, but I do have word limits to these columns. I'll be happy to discuss other topics concerning "Mad Men."Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.com