Well it seems not everyone is crazy enough to go for Prince Charles' (and too many other's) NewAge nonsense:The best hope for the monarchy is that Prince Charles dies before the Queen. We spend our lives here educating a new generation to understand that rational behaviour requires us to reach conclusions and make decisions by examining evidence. Yet now we have the heir to the throne demanding — not in a throwaway remark, but in an entire book to which he has just put his name — that we should reject science and evidence in favour of following our instincts. This is surely disturbing.
"Disturbing"? Surely he must be joking! It's gum drops and caviar! Why, trying to stop this attitude was recently described by Ann Althouse's "second" husband, Meade, as a "dead end" and a "New Age witch hunt" rather than any kind of worthy attempt to assist rationality in regaining a foothold in Western society. How can it be "disturbing" if it isn't bothering good ol' Meade? Meade reads The New York Times. Meade knows everything.
(And is it just us or is there one hell of a lot of smug in the Althouse/Meade household(s) when a camera shows up?)
But then what can we expect when, in a recent debate on the Althouse blog, Meade's "second wife" - top lawyer Ann Althouse - countered the charge she's a NewAger by spelling words backwards and making anagrams? Now that's disturbing,...An acquaintance of the Prince argued to me recently that we should not worry about his behaviour because anybody who spends time with him quickly sees that he is potty, and thus harmless.Yea, we've heard that before. Why, we're pretty sure it's exactly what Meade has in mind, too.
Crack, you missed the context of both of our pictures that you used.
ReplyDeleteThe picture of Meade isn't just "reading the NYT." He's reading an article about him and me. The picture of me, isn't me being "smug." It's a picture my son took of me — with a stamped-on date from the future — to jokingly prove a point about cameras. My expression is supposed to mean: Oh, no! I came from the future. It was play acting for a blog post about how the time-stamp on a photograph isn't conclusive proof of when the photograph was taken.
These were jokes, showing my sense of humor. So were the anagrams and backwards spellings. I know you have a sense of humor, but you don't seem to credit me with having a sense of humor. You don't have to share my sense of humor, but if you want to stand for science and rationality, you ought to be interested in what is really going on in the photographs and other evidence you use.
Point taken, Ann, though I find it fascinating that photo context is all that concerns a sharp mind like yours, in light of the topics being discussed here:
ReplyDeleteFor instance, try putting Meade's "dead end" "New Age witch hunt" comments in context with these quotes about Prince Charles' views being "disturbing" and my wife's murders.
Somebody's lying and it's not me.
What evidence do you have that "photo context is all that concerns" me? You pose as a proponent of rationality and science, but you don't see the gaps in your own reasoning. You have chosen to appropriate and exploit images of me and my husband. If you think my mind is so fascinating, try to understand why I was not motivated to engage with you on other issues you've raised.
ReplyDeleteYou're choking, Ann. That's disrespectful when you know I respect you.
ReplyDeleteStop playing around and engage.
"Somebody's lying and it's not me."
ReplyDeleteI agree, sort of. Creatively distorting other people's images and words is not technically "lying."
You two are a trip:
ReplyDeleteDo you want me to find Ann's posts where she guessed my technique for creating blog posts - and was applauding me for it?
Why don't you quit dodging the point of these posts about you and get off the dumb photo thing? I can replace you with water buffalo or something, but then I'd have to do a post about your hypocrisy regarding this.
Why can't you be brave and deal with the real issues instead of making up new ones? I expected more out of you than this chicken shit stuff.
"Do you want me to find Ann's posts where she guessed my technique for creating blog posts - and was applauding me for it?"
ReplyDeleteI remember that, and I still think you have an impressive technique that uses image, stream-of-consciousness, and expressionism. But that is also to say that your method isn't science and reason. I would appreciate your sense of humor more if you showed that you saw the irony of that, when your pose is all about science and reason.
"I can replace you with water buffalo or something, but then I'd have to do a post about your hypocrisy regarding this."
ReplyDeleteOkay. Or how about replacing me with a yak and her with a sacred cow?
If you remember it then why bring it up now like I'm doing something wrong?
ReplyDeleteYou two will do anything but deal with the issues.
Fine - I'm embarrassed for the both of you. Like I said, Ann, I worry about you teaching kids if this is the consistency of thought you direct at them. There's no through-line, what-so-ever (just as there isn't with this whole "marriage" idea you two are trying to pull - you both have already been married - it's not a twice-in-a-lifetime deal, kids. You're like Zsa Zsa Gabor - don't bother sending gifts.) I noticed your style a long time ago, Ann - bam, bam, bam with the ideas but no clear thoughts or identifiable values anyone can hang their hat on - just a bunch of "stuff" adding up to nothing. But you do get offended easily if anyone notices - pure NewAge, that part. (How DARE you glance at the empty core at the center of my being!) So I guess it's just me, now, since Jon Swift is dead. Oh well, it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it.
Especially since you two would obviously rather be known for bullshitting than getting real.
"I worry about you teaching kids if this is the consistency of thought you direct at them."
ReplyDeleteare you kidding? This "consistency of thought" is endemic in today's professorial class. That's why Althouse cultivates it and parades it like she does. She thinks it's something to aspire to, that we are impressed.
I think "getting real" is kind of a New Age concept.
ReplyDeleteOoh, baby, are you confuuused!
ReplyDeleteOh, and BTW:
ReplyDeleteCrack, you missed the context of both of our pictures that you used.
The picture of Meade isn't just "reading the NYT." He's reading an article about him and me. The picture of me, isn't me being "smug."
I was saying Meade looked smug, so - now that you've explained things - means I was correct.
Reille gets really really real as she lies with Oprah:
ReplyDelete"Yes, there's an energy where he was... he had it going on... something alive, authentic, and real about him."
Next on Oprah: Real macho liars and the men who love too much the women who love too much the real macho men who love to lie to themselves too much!
Quoting NewAgers on what's real?
ReplyDeleteLike I said, you two are really confused.
No we're not. You are.
ReplyDeleteThe both of you would do a lot better to admit you don't understand NewAge than to keep trying to play with me about it. You're amateurs - that's why I said having Ann teaching about religion is scary. How can you teach what you don't know? The other day on her blog, she lumped NewAge in with religion, when NewAge is defined as "spiritual, not religious" - why didn't you know that? Now the concept of "reality" is defined by what NewAgers think? Hilarious! They also think water is medicine, are you going along with that?
ReplyDeleteLook, if you can't stomach me giving you lessons, talk to Traditional Guy and, I'm sure, he can bring you up to speed. And Meade, you, especially, need help from somebody - you're flailing!
Fine. I'm embarrassed for you.
ReplyDeleteNo, Crack ( as if your name were really "Crack"), you are the one who is flailing. You make up rules from which you exempt yourself but condemn others when you (mis)judge them breaking those same rules.
ReplyDeleteas if your name were really "Crack"
ReplyDeleteIt seems like I have to do this about once a week:
Find it yourself.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete