Jenny McCarthy, dangerous quack and ignorant fraud, has just signed a contract with that professional peddler of pablum, Oprah Winfrey, to put on a syndicated talk show, among other media puffery. It’s quite a step up. Oprah only spreads a kind of fuzzy mind-rot, but McCarthy actually promotes death and disease.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Could be worse, she could be representing your district in Congress.
Wonderful. Just wonderful. Oprah yet again allows more nonsense in the world. Now all of Oprah’s braindead followers will hail to what McCarthy says.
Fortunately, most new talk shows fail. Lets hope for a quick cancellation.
PZ’s next round of intemperate bellowing about Terry Eagleton starts in 3, 2,…
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/god-talk/?em
McCarthy is a single-subject ranter who will run out of ideas by the second show.
Poor, brain-dead Oprah.
At the risk of mounting an ad hominem attack: She certainly has the credentials to make pronouncements on scientific data. Not.
Is there any wonder she doesn’t know the meaning of “population study” “p-value” etc., that are needed to understand the actual data? Tear-jerking testimonials are just so much more fun than boring old science …
I’m pretty sure it is on XM / Sirius where Oprah has her own channel. Chances are she controls all the content on there and makes decisions on adding or removing shows. I know that is how Howard Stern’s channels work for the most part.
In other news of gross medical negligence. An Australian homeopath is being charged for killing his child by refusing to treat the baby for eczema:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25428128-421,00.html
I foresee the day will come when the Big O has to backpedal the way she did when she was promoting The Secret and the lady with cancer called in to say that she was going to stop her traditional (read: evidence-based) treatment.
There’s a free speech issue here. Shouting “FIRE” in a packed theatre is not a proper exercise of the right to free speech.
Jenny McCarthy, dangerous quack, from what I’ve heard about her, seems to be disseminating medical advice. Does the law grant her the right to do that?
Sadly, I guess this falls into a grey area.
True, there is no god, but Jenny McCarthy is proof that there must certainly be a Satan, because how else can you explain this?
Do you think her rise from magazine eye-candy to her eventual post as Surgeon General (according to the prophesy) is just coincidence? Nay, her career has been guided by the invisible hand of the dark lord for some time. Didn’t you watch The Devil’s Advocate? Our lord of the flies works in mysterious ways.
Enjoy the coming intellectual apocalypse.
Dunno about Oprah’s being dumb, exactly. Sure seems to know how to make money, anyway.
So I only wish I could believe she doesn’t know what she’s doing, here, or that she doesn’t have some clue what an ugly business this is, really. I could just as well believe it’s more that she really just doesn’t give a flying fuck. If it’s what they’ll buy, what they’ll watch, she’s all over it. So hey, so what if McCarthy’s full of shit, a menace to herd immunity, and an obsessed shill for that one issue–Ms. W crunches the numbers, figures the nutter-for-hire’s got enough of a following to bring in the listeners for a run of a season or so before it gets too incredibly repetitive even for her zombie horde, and hey, what the hell, let’s do this. Dollars, people, that’s what it’s about, and ethics be damned. She’ll paper over any niggling natterings of her conscience with relativist BS about alternative voices needing play, holistic blather that, new age blither this, and away we go.
Ms. O has given us “Dr.” Phil, Rachel Ray, beef scares, and consumerist idiocy in huge steaming polluting piles. Anyone who listens, watches, or references this idiot should be summarily ridiculed. So much money for so little benefit to humans or their societies. A parasite to be excised and perhaps put in a bottle of formaldehyde for future studies.
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/
Let’s hope this bores people out of believing her. Of course, I’d have thought Oprah would have done the same, so I can’t hope too much.
Oprah has the power of fame and money, and this is what happens when these are divorced from the powers of intellect and knowledge.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Well, now we have Conquest and Death together, only two horsemen to go…
JJWFromME @ # 4, this article is crap. For example,
By theological questions, Eagleton means questions like, “Why is there anything in the first place?”, “Why what we do have is actually intelligible to us?” and “Where do our notions of explanation, regularity and intelligibility come from?”
The fact that science, liberal rationalism and economic calculation can not ask — never mind answer — such questions should not be held against them, for that is not what they do.
This is feckin’ crap. The questions are philosophical in nature. Science can potentially illuminate the answers to these questions. The first question is currently outside scientific understanding, The second & third questions do have science-derived answers.
Religion & any other kind of mumbo-jumbo can provide so-called answers too. But as religion has no basis in reality, its answers won’t be any different.
I don’t know much about Stanley Fish, (Arts and Sciences Professor of English and Professor of Law at Duke University from 1986 to 1998, etc.). He must be a religious apologist.
They just have to use the psychic disclaimer.
“For entertainment purposes only”
Born to poverty, skipped two grades in school, won a scholarship, majored in media and then went on to create a gigantic commercial empire. So what has “Scaryduck” done with his or her life?
I’d just like to note that while this further disproves the Intelligent Designer theory, it does lend credence to the Sadistic Bastard Creator theory.
Whereas I thought that Jenny McCarthy nude in Playboy was proof that there is a god.
I…I just don’t know what to think any more. Reeling, reeling, my worldview is collapsing in upon itself.
I may have to consult the oracles spoken by Dembski to make sense of it all once more.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Oprah has so much power. She could use her show promote scientific evidence. Oprah is evil if she supports leaving children vulnerable to deadly diseases.
Two of my least favorite media people are joining forces. (Three, if you count Jim Carrey.) Yet more shit I ignore. But “kudos” for Oprah for giving support to a person who is even worse than the “stinking thinking” fool behind the secret.
Damn, I dislike Oprah so much, I even avoid any book that has her book club’s endorsement. I know this is silly. If I had not read The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullars, I never would read one of my all time favorite novels.
Isn’t that sad, Janine? The Poisonwood Bible is quite possibly my favorite book of all time, and then Oprah had to go and read it and now I’m embarrassed to even say that I know what it is any more.
I’m pretty sure I now what you mean. When I heard she’d endorsed The Road, I found it… kinda insulting, really.
The questions are philosophical in nature.
You bet they are:
http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/published_works/ac/divorce.pdf
And certain people have all the philosophical answers, right?
There have to be some overlapping objective realities and one must give science its due in the physical world. Empirical truths ought to be respected. The point remains, however, that when it comes to a world with different, unobservable, properties, one must use the proper equipment.
Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.
WTF! “…unobservable, properties …” If there are properties that are unobservable, how can we know they even exist?
Well, you can’t blame that muddled thinking on Isaiah Berlin, eh!
Damn, who needs waterboarding when you can show the detainees this?
Oprah is getting to be quite a menace, giving Mehmet Oz his own show and probably much control over the content of her Discovery health channel.
“The point remains, however, that when it comes to a world with different, unobservable, properties, one must use the proper equipment.”
I use my B.S detector. It went off the instant I clicked the link, verifying I am using the proper equipment.
Maybe I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion there? I presumed that, “…unobservable, properties …”, was a special pleading for dualism.
Otherwise if we don’t ‘know’, then we should carry on building up our knowledge, & that doesn’t, (except in a trivial sense), come from religion.
Maybe she’ll host swine flu discussion panels and talk about exogenenous retroviruses with her guest Amy Winehouse.
Oh boy, what channel?
Look under your seats. There’s a little vial – open it. YOU get an infection! YOU get an infection! And the rest of you get it too!
*rimshot*
…how can we know they even exist?
It’s a philosophical question.
Lots of intangible things are very important. I think the key is the distinction between Naturwissenschaften and Geisteswissenschaften. Daniel Dennett doesn’t believe in it.
But who the fuck is Daniel Dennett to tell me the distinction doesn’t matter?
But the New Atheists just shout their talking points louder. To me that sounds more like talking heads on Fox News than serious philosophical conversation.
Meh. Another standard-issue hyperpneumatic, generically pretty blonde. Mind you, female nudity is never boring, but generic “playmates” like McCarthy (or any of the 2.374×108 other similar-looking women any one of you could no doubt name) come about as close as possible.
Of course, I’m the guy who would’ve picked Janeane Garofalo over Uma Thurman in The Truth About Cats and Dogs, and who thought Kate Jackson was the hottest Angel… so consider the source!
She is going to shout out loud for the freaking lord on the Oprah Windbag show. Amazing how many shouters there are, and all shouting to the brainwahed rabble if not to the wind.
And Awesome Janine @ 22:
I have read THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER three times over the years, the first time before Winfrey was ever heard of. A good story, and a lot better than the movie. THE MEMBER OF THE WEDDING is another good one if you have not read it yet. Let’s hope Windbag doesn’t despoil it by recommending it to her great unwashed.
Oh, you see?, this kind of news just makes me want to sit down and cry, knowing that she’s going to lead even more families with autistic members into doing crazy-assed things in the pursuit of her so-called cure.
People people.
Please refer to the virus’ new proper name.
Hamthrax
Am I the only heterosexual male alive that thought she was a step down, even by Playboy standards?
Even with the magazine’s army of airbrush experts, she still looked like a skank to me. Playboy has had a great many models that are/were WAY more attractive than Jenny McCarthy.
My impression was that the only reason she got noticed at all after the mag was that she started doing soft porn.
I can’t help but think that there’s a chance she’s not as insane as we all think and that she’s actually choosing to do the anti-vax thing in order to keep her face in the limelight (since age has certainly dulled whatever talents she might have had).
Whether I did or did not think she was attractive at one time is totally distorted now by her public promotion of rank stupidity.
I’ve heard that the hamthrax snoutbreak could turn into a hamdemic of aporkalyptic porkportions!
Nah, Jaclyn Smith for me… Although Kate was a close second.
That deserves a bacon cluster.
Oof. Another kick in the scientific gut. But the good thing is, if its on Sirius, nobody will hear her. That isn’t to say that nobody likes Sirius, I’ve been a subscriber from day 1 and love it, but the Oprah channel is a snoozer. A “tradio” channel would get better ratings. Beyond that, Oprah won’t promote the channel on her TV show, or even do a show for the 50 million that Sirius is throwing her. I’m hoping that they figure this out and let her contract expire.
EvolvingSquid:
You realize how comprehensively we’ve just dated ourselves, don’t you?
Hey, Kate Jackson was the hottest Angel.
But Christianity was never meant to be an explanation of anything in the first place. It’s rather like saying that thanks to the electric toaster we can forget about Chekhov.”
Eagleton likes this turn of speech, and he has recourse to it often when making the same point: “[B]elieving that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world . . . is like seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus.”
This joker Eagleton cannot be serious. Anyone who knows anything about religion knows that religion is EXACTLY about explaining the world. If you deny that, you’re a liar. Epic fail.
JJWFromME But who the fuck is Daniel Dennett to tell me the distinction doesn’t matter?
You don’t seem to like rationalist thinkers, do you? Too bad. You’ll go chasing after things that just aren’t there, (according to the evidence).
They just have to use the psychic disclaimer.
“For entertainment purposes only”
How about this one:
“For epidemic purposes only.”
“For bubonic plague purposes only.”
“For welcome back to the freakin Dark Ages freakin purposes only.”
…religion is EXACTLY about explaining the world.
Um, right. The Bible is a bunch of “Just So” stories and that’s it.
Do you think it’s just a technical manual for the universe? If that’s what you think you would flunk out of any humanities class you took on the subject.
That movie always bothered me. I can see her not being some people’s “type,” but casting her as some sort of unattractive character was strange.
They’re all beautiful, but I’d say Cheryl Ladd and Jaclyn Smith were the best.
[As for my participation in this conversation, I plead temporary insanity brought on by extreme grading.]
Oh excuse me, I thought the Bibble had all these chapters about how the Earth and the sky and the animals came about, and where disease comes from, and how to solve your problems with prayer. Or is that all of a sudden metaphorical?
You don’t seem to like rationalist thinkers, do you?
Do I have a choice in your world? You know, there’s a word for that, and it’s illiberalism.
Early in the show, Jenny explained her motivations to http://autism.about.com/b/2008/09/24/jenny-mccarthy-on-a-mission-from-god.htm
Oprah. When her son Evan was diagnosed with autism, Jenny said, she made a pact with God. If God would show her how to heal her son, she would share that knowledge with the world. Jenny, it seems, believes that God has kept His end of the bargain. Now, she is keeping up her end by sharing her experiences with everyone she can reach. In other words, God has given Jenny the knowledge of how autism can be cured – and Jenny is now on a mission from God to spread the good word.
Sorry about the formatting with my previous post. (Dunno what happened!)
That’s how it all starts. McCarthy started out with the whole Indigo Child craze until she discovered that the call of anti-vaxx fear mongering was her life’s work rather than inane New Age woo…
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55744
It’s a shame that her bundle of apparently highly evolved, semi-transcended (in a lake Woebegone way, I admit) joy has autism but that’s no excuse to dive into anti-corporatism and pseudoscience done on behalf of injury lawyers to make sure more kids die of mumps and measles.
Sheesh who in their right mind but Oprah would give that quack the time of day. I don’t know what makes me more upset,McCarthy blaming the MMR vaccine for causing her son’s autism or her promotion of a gluten free diet as a cure without any evidence to back her up what so ever. Well, not if you consider “mommy instincts “ evidence. McCarthy has the right idea about one thing I admit; she says “”It is amazing what celebrity can do if you do it with 100 percent good intention and heart…” Well, they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It’s a shame that celebrities can easily use their status to garner a response of potentially dangerous actions like reducing the number of vaccinations in children. Lovely. There goes herd immunity. Thanks Butt face :P
That’s how it all starts. McCarthy started out with the whole Indigo Child craze until she discovered that the call of anti-vaxx fear mongering was her life’s work rather than inane New Age woo…
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55744
It’s a shame that her bundle of apparently highly evolved, semi-transcended (in a lake Woebegone way, I admit) joy has autism but that’s no excuse to dive into anti-corporatism and pseudoscience done on behalf of injury lawyers to make sure more kids die of mumps and measles.
JJWFromME @ 51
The bullshit, er, the bible, is the worse place to formulate a theory of life. This dreck screed should be required resding for every insane asylum. At least they cannot be faulted for not comprehending that worthless pile of insane dribble.
We can see the planet Jupiter with the naked eye, through a telescope, and from the fascinating pictures from the great Hubble Space Telescope. You will never see or find your imaginary god with your eyes, through a telescope or a microscope. Because it just isn’t there to begin with and never will. Can you comprehend this bald-faced fact?
PZ should stop complaining, and start manifesting. And don’t forget to take those Co10 pills.
Bill Dauphin @ 34 wrote:
Am I correct in guessing you would chose Mary Ann over Ginger?
On a mission from god? Is she riding shotgun for Jake and Elwood
SC:
The casting of “ugly duckling” stories is always a bit disingenuous: The “ugly” girl is always played by an actress who’s at least adorably cute, and sometimes stunningly gorgeous, but who is [a] not blonde and [b] possessed of breasts that, while otherwise lovely, are slightly smaller than the generic Playboy/Miss America standard. She is then “uglified” by the addition of glasses (this part is problematic for those of us who think girls in glasses are hot), and by putting her hair up in some schoolmarmish ‘do, so that her transformation into a beautiful swan can be accomplished simply by removing the glasses and shaking her head.
Of course, these stories would be more honest if they cast people who were actually unattractive (“ugly” is such an ugly word) by real societal norms… but I confess I give producers a pass on this: It’s entertainment, after all, not a sociology seminar. ;^)
Party foul!: Original cast members only, please. (But I stand by my choice, even if later Angels are included.)
No excuses required: Sexuality is such an inherently vital part of the human experience that, while I recognize it sometimes reflects the larger gender inequities of society, talk about the hotness of our fellow humans is always, IMHO, ultimately life-affirming.
Of course, it’s possible I’m just making excuses for my own inveterate horndoggedness, eh?
I must disagree with the title of this post. There are plenty of alternate hypotheses to explain Winfrey-McCarthy connection besides “there is no god.” (Consider, for example, the possibility of an evil god.) I think Orac got it right on this one: it’s proof that Oprah is beyond redemption.
I’m sorry you don’t like the Bible. But it’s not the only thing ever written to tell me about the human condition. But let me get this straight– you’re telling me the best place for me to answer my questions about the human condition and how I should organize society is to watch old episodes of Star Trek?
(Was answering #57.)
It just made that particular film totally implausible to me.
That was not stipulated prior to my comment. :)
“Life-affirming” is extremely broad, and I think you need to pay more attention to the first part of that sentence. But I don’t want (or have time) to have another one of these conversations (or even to go back and finish the last one, at least for a few more days).
@ 49 SC wrote:
Doesn’t seem at all strange for a movie. Consider: Renee Zellweger, Drew Barrymore, and Sandra Bullock have played “the unattractive woman.”
That’s a tough one for me, because I’m a sucker for red hair (even if… or maybe especially if… it’s “enhanced”). But on balance, yes, I’m a Mary Ann guy. (And last I checked, Dawn Wells has held up pretty well, given that she’s now in her early 70s.)
BTW, have we successfully hijacked this thread? IMHO this digression has more value to offer than anything we could say about Jenny McCarthy’s nonphysical “attributes.”
Remember the good old days when her claim to notoriety was farting? She was so much more eloquent back then …
JJWFromME @ 63
I made no reference to Star Trek, and even if I had it still would be far superior to that bullshit book. Don’t like the bible? I don’t like anything in word, print or thought that smacks of insane nonsense. The human condition? This existed long before weak brains formulated that book of make-believe crap and pathetic drivel. Your imaginmary god is in your brain, just as is the seat of all insanities.
SC:
No worries: I was mostly just being cheeky, with no intent to start a serious sociopolitical conversation (and certainly no intent to lure you away from better uses of your time).
Move along, please; nothing to see here. ;^)
Oh, great, another “You guys are so stupid why do you even talk so stupid don’t you know that [insert name of philosopher or philosophical concept] just shows you don’t know about the bible so stupid why do i waste my time”-troll.
So, JJWFromME, your point is that the New Atheists aren’t as philosophically grounded as you?
Fine. Great. Have a cookie. Happy 22nd birthday, whenever you happen to hit that (fuck me, but first-year philosophical students really need to be quarantined or sequestered for the good of all.)
Which films are you referring to? I may have found them implausible as well.
No. But at least the vast majority of people acknowledge that Star Trek is make believe.
OTOH, maybe we’re a Star Trek Nation…
But at least the vast majority of people acknowledge that Star Trek is make believe.
Is this make believe?
http://tinyurl.com/keithward
I think even if you don’t agree with it, it’s still serious philosophy.
The morning news channel I watch shows the big O about the time I get home. The other day I turn it on and see Jenny McSmartypants so I figure I’ll watch a little to see her say something dumb. They interviewed a PET psychic shortly after I turned it on. Oprah and the other guests were dubious and started rolling their eyes so Jenny pipes in and says something to the effect of “don’t roll your eyes! I really believe in this!”. This is where I turned the channel.
I don’t know about Zellweger or Barrymore, but I assume the Bullock reference was to Miss Congeniality.
That one’s a little different, in that she’s never portrayed as physically unattractive; instead, she’s portrayed as unattractive because of her tough, unrefined, one-of-the-boys behavior.
Of course, the opposition of “mannishness” to “prettiness” opens a whole ‘nother can of sociological worms… but I think we just discussed not going there at this time, right?
Errrr… Kate Jackson for Molly?
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are your reading skills that poor?
As for your original point about Dennett et al in #33: Since you framed it as a philosophical question, I would imagine that Dennett being a philosopher might be who the fuck he is to respond to it. Point taken on the talking points/Fox News comparison; Can you cite times when a “New Atheist” argument, having been sufficiently addressed, was simply repeated in a louder voice? Note that the qualifier is important there. I’ve seen video of Hitchens and D’Souza… both tend to repeat themselves. The difference being the Hitch does so when D’Souza slimes his way past an issue rather than actually addressing the argument, and D’Souza does that as his argument.
As for your distinction: regardlesss of from whence it came, the argument is valid. There is no cause to delineate between human and natural sciences, when human science is clearly a subset of natural science, given that humans are naturally evolved organisms. Our pre-Darwin anthropocentrism is the only thing that has a cling to that distinction. That being said, if it’s a useful division for you to make when dealing with the subject, by all means use it. You simply have to acknowledge that your using a constructed division as opposed to one that follows logically from the organisation of the natural world. Perhaps Dennett fails to elucidate that clearly enough for your liking, but it’s the basis for his disbelief.
Does this guy write works of make believe?:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10025
The morning news channel I watch shows the big O about the time I get home. The other day I turn it on and see Jenny McSmartypants so I figure I’ll watch a little to see her say something dumb. They interviewed a PET psychic shortly after I turned it on. Oprah and the other guests were dubious and started rolling their eyes so Jenny pipes in and says something to the effect of “don’t roll your eyes! I really believe in this!”. This is where I turned the channel.
JJWFromME @ 74
Philosophy? Never mind the references to quasi-crap, and just stick to your bullshit, I mean the bible, for there you will find all you need and have to know. Complete your education and life’s simple end by joining a momastery, and then you can’t be faulted for being bonkers.
Anyway, enough links and comments for one topic… (I realize most of this is OT. I don’t even like Oprah).
I thought bastion might be talking about While You Were Sleeping. I guess the thing that struck me as specifically strange about The Truth… was that they didn’t really ugly her up, there wasn’t (IIRC) a transformative moment at which she was revealed as more attractive than she had seemed, and it was more about her being physically unattractive than a hermit or disheveled or socially inept or whatever. It was like she was just her, and people were responding to her as though whe were much more unattractive than I think she is. I thought it was strange.
Wow, psychics are using positron emission tomography? Who knew?
JJWFromME @ 79
Taylor sells swamp land in Florida to those who will buy his theories and maunderings. Give him a call; he’ll set you up with a photo shoot with an indifferent alligator.
Taylor may not write works of make-believe, but he’s rooted in Wittgenstein and Cartesian dualist horseshit too much to be valid. His criticism of naturalism is that a) it’s too narrow and b) it came from something else? Really?! Profound The author of that article is incoherent in places, so I hope for the sake of your little idol that he’s misrepresented his ideas. Otherwise, you could as easily have quoted Steiner or some other metaphysician.. same tired old argument, same lack of basis in reality.
Hell, I loved her in that. The really screwed-up Bullock role was in Murder By Numbers. Now there was a character with issues. Loved the flashback to her sister’s wedding reception. That was “ugly” with a capital “OMFG”.
SC:
Every time I think I’m out… ;^)
Well, you know I’m right there with you on JG being less unattractive than the movie (or general commentary) makes her out to be… which is to say, she’s not unattractive at all. I’ve often wondered if her politics don’t figure into it: We all know how unpretty it is to be all filled up with them there hateful libruhl idears. [sigh]
JJWFromME,
You entered this thread with a derailment. You followed up by imputing some ridiculous argument from authority to Daniel Dennett, as if he never actually made an argument for his position. You then ignore Richard Harris’ question, choosing instead to post an irrelevant link. Next you invent some absurd argument about Star Trek and try to pretend it came from Holbach. Finally, you wrap up your cerebral diarrhea with two links to reviews of other philosophers’ work.
I have yet to see you answer a question intelligently, let alone present an argument. If you think I’m going to bother reading and refuting every volume and essay from each philosopher whose work you link to when you yourself can’t be arsed to string three coherent ideas together, you’re doomed to disappointment.
Watchman,
Are you sure you’re not blending together Murder by Numbers and 28 Days? (OTOH, I could well be forgetting part of MbN…)
Wrong PET. The psychic was, in fact, made of polyethylene terephthalate.
You then ignore Richard Harris’ question, choosing instead to post an irrelevant link.
It’s only irrelevant if you didn’t bother to read it.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I’d take Star Trek over the Bible any day, mainly because the Bible is a horrible, oftentimes murderous guide to how to organize society. Say what you like about die-hard Trek fans, but at least Star Trek doesn’t admonish them to stone to death anyone who tries to get them to watch other TV shows.
I’ve often wondered if her politics don’t figure into it: We all know how unpretty it is to be all filled up with them there hateful libruhl idears. [sigh]
Interesting idea.
JJWFromME @ # 48, Do you think it’s (the bible) a technical manual for the universe?
It ain’t even that by any sane reckoning. It’s the mis-copied, mis-translated, Bronze Age, mythological ravings of ignorant, superstitious goat herders, edited to suite the agendas of ruling priesthoods & kings & emperors of various epochs.
LOL @ Bill and Emmett. And here I was, thinking “Parent Effectiveness Training.”
SC: Yup, I’m sure. I’ve never even see 28 Days (a fact which, I suppose, provee me to be a failure as a Bullock fan, heh).
Rob in Memphis, you must not have seen what Star Trekism can become when taken to the extreme. See Futurama for a perfect example. And its topical for a Jim Carey dig, too!
If it weren’t for the need for herd immunity, I’d say this is the best idea for lowering overpopulation yet. Get her equally-idiot hubby on and maybe we can get those population figures down to a reasonable level. They might even bring the Black Death back.
I did. Nowhere does he present any evidence that Daniel Dennet supports the use of any sort of force or coercion against people who disagree with him. Even if he did, it wouldn’t be relevant to the question.
If you had hoped your links would convince me you actually understood these authors and had some sophisticated argument to make, rest assured your inability to follow a simple discussion renders that very unlikely.
Bill, some accumulation of evidence may prove me wrong, but I don’t buy it. Hollywood is a hotbed of liberalism, dontcha know. I haven’t seen Susan Sarandon’s looks being downplayed much, even at her current age, and she and Tim Robbins are two of the most widely despised H’wood liberals of our age.
A more parsimonious explanation for the percption of JG is this: She doesn’t fit any of the standard molds for beauty or hawtness. She is merely “cute”, or something. Those molds don’t mean much in the everyday world, of course, but entertainment media doesn’t live in that world any more than H’wood does.
Hollywood Homely as a rule will never die.
Well, don’t you know that all liberal women are ugly lesbians and that we all hate racist, sexist, fraudulent, psychotic douchewad Ann Coulter just because we’re jealous they’ve got attractive women and all we’ve got is Michael Moore? (Yes, I’ve actually encountered plenty of far-rights who honestly believe this.)
What happened in the wedding-reception flashback in Murder by Numbers? I remember her character in it being dark, but I don’t remember that part.
Nowhere does he present any evidence that Daniel Dennet supports the use of any sort of force or coercion against people who disagree with him.
I don’t think it’s “force or coercion”, but I think it’s intolerance. I think there’s a lack of reasonable appreciation for the merits of views other than his own. I’d suggest listening to this podcast:
http://www.radioopensource.org/is-god-in-our-genes/
The man is scornful of non-scientific-materialist views, to the point of dogmatism. I could see how it might be hard to be collegial with him if you worked with him and didn’t agree. If you’re in the process of trying to win the public over for science, who needs this kind of aggressive dogmatism?
Also, remember that she was the cheesecake on “Win Ben Stein’s Money” back in the day (later replaces by bad comic Jimmy Kimmel).
Lucy Liu is the hottest angel.
Mary Ann vs. Ginger?? While I lean Mary Ann, why not both?
When is someone going to invent the replicator from Star Trek?? Simulation ON!!!
As have I. Coulter herself promotes this train of thought as frequently as possible. Her coverage of the 2004 DNC in Boston was a classic example.
SC:
You may not remember it well because it’s such a minor thing in the movie, but it really stuck with me.
Ok, old movie, but still:
*** SPOILER ALERT!
(When it’s her turn to toast the bride and groom, she’s already three sheets to the wind, and starts spouting various unflattering and uncharitable observations and opinions about her sister. At least, that’s how I remember it. It’s brief, but oh so painful, even more so for the undramatic-yet-stark portrayal. No histrionics, just self-centered, malignant carelessness on her part, and silent shock on her sister’s.)
*** END SPOILER
JJ: you don’t know what dogmatism means.
Watchman:
Well, at a minimum, I think it is, as you suggest, more complicated than my original glib comment. There are certainly a lot of liberals in the entertainment industry, but I’m not convinced it’s true to characterize the industry per se as liberal. Notwithstanding all the individual liberals in Hollywood, the industry strikes me (admittedly a nonexpert) as oddly conservative in institutional terms.
As for the individuals, it’s hard to quantify the extent to which vocally political actors like Sarandon, Robbins, and (for another instance) Martin Sheen have suffered in career terms for their activism: Great as their careers have been, how many more roles and awards might they have gotten had they “known their place”?
Further, as vocal and active as those examples have been, I’d say JG is in a different category: None of the others hosted an Air America show, for instance, and I suspect their beliefs are neither as far left nor as JG’s (at least, if I’m recalling her old AA show correctly).
Still…
…there’s much to recommend this interpretation (with the caveat that neither the word merely nor the scare quotes reflect my personal opinion). I’d say that Susan Sarandon is hawt enough, in a sufficiently conventional sense, that it overwhelms the fact that she’s a political pain in the collective institutional asses of the industry; JG is cute and pretty and hawt (but perhaps not beautiful) in a nonstandard sense that lacks the broad power to counteract her relatively louder political mouth.
But all this is just a working hypothesis; I’m open to persuasion otherwise.
PS: Is Scienceblogs going through some sort of page redesign, or has my browser just had a mini-stroke? Suddenly I’m seeing some weirdly laid-out pages (though I’m getting all the keystrokes, AFAIK).
So he would let you disagree. Then, he would criticize your position.
That’s so mean. Let me get you a hanky.
That’s so mean. Let me get you a hanky.
I don’t give two shits, personally. I just think it’s foolish politically, and it’s a kind of know-nothingism on the part of an academic who should know better.
BTW, anyone who failed to click on Blue Fielder’s Hollywood Homely link (@101) should reconsider. A fascinating resource for the conversation we’ve been having.
Funny, I haven’t seen you offer any sort of rebuttal, just a lack of reasonable appreciation for the merits of his views, to the point of dogmatism.
I guess you must not be an academic who should know better.
I don’t think she looked like a skank back in the day. I actually thought she excelled at her former career: being naked. Definately one of the hottest playmates. Who knew that she was going to be a retarded Typhoid Mary, spreading disease among children? Well, I guess Playboy doesn’t pick them on IQ.
I don’t think she looked like a skank back in the day. I actually thought she excelled at her former career: being naked. Definately one of the hottest playmates. Who knew that she was going to be a retarded Typhoid Mary, spreading disease among children? Well, I guess Playboy doesn’t pick them on IQ.
Tv Tropes will ruin your life!
It’s somewhat interesting to see how far its influence has spread though. Spread like cancer.
Funny, I haven’t seen you offer any sort of rebuttal, just a lack of reasonable appreciation for the merits of his views, to the point of dogmatism.
I appreciate the view (I understand why he would hold it, and what it has going for it) just not the dogmatism.
I have my reasons for my views. He has his (which I don’t find compelling, but whatever).
And I’m not an academic, just an amateur working stiff.
Doesn’t matter. Oprah has been an uncritical advertisement for bullshit for many years now. Either she’s unable to reason or she’s evil.
Er, who the fuck was Dilthey to tell you that it does? Your anti-authority stance here seems a little bit inconsistent.
(from the Charles Taylor link)
O RLY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance
(If you are going to retort that that’s philosophy, not science, there is in fact plenty of research into how this emerges in infants and primates)
And Eagleton with his mocking of “Ditchkins” is a regular Mr. Collegiality*, I suppose.
(*sorry, couldn’t help myself with all the Sandra Bullock references)
Yes, TV-tropes link was good!
Huh. That sounds strikingly similar to a scene in 28 Days.
Good point, Mr. Myers. What omnipotent god could possibly let someone so stupid be born? I mean, can’t god use some “Supernatural Selection?”
Er, who the fuck was Dilthey to tell you that it does?
Um, someone whose epistemology doesn’t deserve to be reflexively flushed down the shitter by the New Atheists? I don’t mean you have to agree with him. Just don’t sound like a right wing talk radio gasbag when you do.
You sound like a fucking moron. All I did was turn your question around on you. Your argument was essentially:
“Dilthey tells me this matters, so who the fuck is Dennett to tell me it doesn’t?”
JJWFromME @ 115
Just an amateur working stiff with a mind stiffened by religion. Not much working there.
You sound like a fucking moron.
Just following local custom.
All I did was turn your question around on you. Your argument was essentially…
No. My argument was that there are different traditions in philosophy. The New Atheists make assumptions certain strains of English philosophy like to make, for instance Bertrand Russell (whose name comes up in this Terry Eagleton essay). But why not make the assumptions the Germans tend to make (who tend to be idealist instead of empiricist)?
I’m talking like this because it’s the only kind of language you guys seem to relate to.
You guys need to chill. out.
You guys need to chill. out.
Dude. This is Pharyngula.
We do, after all the libertarians have been refuted, and all the godbots have been put in their place.
Dude. This is Pharyngula.
Yeah, more like ultimate fighting than philosophy. If the School of Athens took place on Pharangula Aristotle would be biting the other guy’s finger off and smashing his face. Plato would be saying, but Aristotle, I taught you everything you know, and isn’t that the Ethics in your hand?
Jenny McCarthy autism and anti-vaccination issues covered here…
http://www.stopjenny.com/
On 2/12/09 a panel of U.S. Court of Federal Claims judges (referred to as “special masters”) having reviewed 5000 pages of transcript, 700+ pages of post hearing briefs, 939 medical peer reviewed articles,50 expert reports and 28 expert witnesses ruled that MMR immunization (please don’t call them vaccinatiions unless you’re referring to Variola) does not show a connection to autism and or Asperger’s syndrome and or any other pervasive developmental disorder. There are still issues unsettled about thiomersol, so that is still being investigated. Denial of the importance of this exhaustive effort which involved researchers from all over the world clearly spells out a mind that will never be changed regardless of what more is done. What is being denied here is the importance of the scientific method. Right now there is far less evidence that MMR causes autism than breast implants cause autism in the offspring of the implantee. I would bet any amount of money that this professional celebrity antiscience advocate would never take up that cause. What we are witnesssing here is guilt displacement. Pathetic.
Whatevs, man. Different strokes and all that, right? There are plenty of more genteel places on the web to hash out these things. But if you want to come in here confrontational-like, you’re going to get it back.
And style-issues aside, the most accurate generalization I can make about the crowd here is that they do expect you to back up your position with arguments and/or evidence. So far, you’ve expressed disdain for Dennett and a preference for idealism over empiricism, with no support other than some links. If this were Ultimate Fighting, you would essentially have told us how big and mean your older brother is, without bothering to step into the ring.
That’s not totally surprising, given the subject matter of the latter. The description recalls the Michael Keaton recovery movie, Clean and Sober.
Georgia and Under the Volcano were fun, too. ;-)
What a coincidence! Azura Skye is in 28 Days.
Hmmm, so is Alan Tudyk.
You know, SC, I’m going to have to reconsider my comments thus far. Maybe I did see 28 Days. It seems vaguely familiar. Damn, can’t even trust my own memory anymore.
Steve Buscemi as the counselor? Yeah. I saw it. *facepalm*
Bill Dauphin: We’re on the same page here. Neither your opinion, nor mine, do a very good job of reflecting the consensus. I agree that Hollywood isn’t as liberal as the conservative liberal-media-conspiracy crybabies make it out to be (a point that my “dontcha know” was intended to suggest, but may not have). That’s another topic, though.
Uh… are we still on general perception of hawtness, or have we somehow moved on to the effect of an actress’s politics on her career arc?
Speaking of …
Oops, tag fail. Speaking of controversial actresses…
That may have been your point, but you did not actually make much of an argument.
Because we don’t agree with them. If you have something against English philosophy, how about making the assumptions certain Swedish philosophers tended to make. Dawkins is a pussycat in comparison.
Sorry, I don’t have the patience today to hold your hand until you get over your transparent double standard.
JJWFromME @ 126
This is Pharyngula. We are omnipotent, unlike your imaginary god which is nothing. Why don’t you get it to come down and kick the crap out of us. Bet you can’t do it.
Because it’s sucky crap that never worked for science or any other “real world” endeavor (and you wouldn’t want idealism to rule in courts of law).
And its philosophy sucks, too. I would not wish to follow anything Heidegger says, as he’s barely more than a neo-neo-Platonist.
Communism is certainly one argument against German philosophy.
Kant, meanwhile, was idealist in philosophy, very much like the British empiricists in science. Which helped him to understand what Hume did not. We, however, don’t need Kant’s heuristic of idealism any more, for we can (if hazily) understand the “categories” and the rest of it by bringing up the evolution of the brain. And actually, evolution is primarily what cuts into idealist assumptions, for it makes no sense in evolution to suppose that our “idealistic thinking” has any connection with reality whatsoever, save that the organism has to make reasonably good models of whatever “reality” is in order to survive.
Quantum mechanics developed in German thinking largely according to Kant’s model (we don’t have to get to Hegel, Heidegger, or anything coming from those strands of thought). So it’s not like idealism can’t be of value in modeling, yet wherever empiricism rules, we have to get back to the proven rules of empiricism.
Einstein certainly cognized along the idealistic mode of thought, but in the end he stated that an “unperceivable being” does not facilitate our understanding of the “perceivable world.”
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Sorry, I don’t have the patience today to hold your hand until you get over your transparent double standard.
That one’s going in my Pharyngula scrapbook.
I would not wish to follow anything Heidegger says, as he’s barely more than a neo-neo-Platonist.
*sigh* I feel it almost a requirement any more to say that he was a
boozy beggar
my apologies.
New Atheists
Hasn’t someone made an internet rule about people who use that term on a forum thread yet?
If not, someone needs to, as whenever I hear it, I tend to immediately consider the person who said it, if said seriously, to be mostly clueless.
Actually, there was an episode of Oprah about evolutionary psychology the other day… positive, too
I was stunned that there wasn’t more praise from the copmmunity
Different strokes and all that, right?
No, not for you guys. There aren’t different strokes.
Because it’s sucky crap that never worked…
Yup. Philosophy is supposed to work like a freaking machine. That’s perfect.
Sorry, I don’t have the patience today to hold your hand until you get over your transparent double standard.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. For instance, I don’t agree with Daniel Dennett. I understand his arguments. But I don’t agree that mind as a phenomenon can be reduced to matter. Do I hold him to a different standard? No. I don’t think materialism *or* idealism can be proven. And I think idealism has different implications than materialism. I don’t see how that’s a double standard.
OK, I said it before. This is like a freaking adolescent game. I’m done with it.
That’s what all the trolls say, and then they return.
I don’t agree that mind as a phenomenon can be reduced to matter.
Don’t be reductionist then. Do you think biology can’t, in principle, be reduced to chemistry? Why or why not?
What else have you got? Vitalism? Ectoplasm? We’re having a lot of success on our end with empiricism. What kind of results can you show with something better, that’s different?
Only certain episodes.
I was stunned that there wasn’t more praise from the copmmunity
which community?
this one?
or this one?
evo pysch is filled with those who have forgotten the ethologists who went before, and perhaps most of negatives surrounding sociobiology, but there is hope. Natural and sexual selection (as a subset) do still operate on human traits, after all.
Just don’t need to overapply it, as there are other mechanisms withing the realm of evolution theory working to shape human traits, too. And then there’s all that “learning” stuff we do.
Post it here. Post it there. Post it everywhere.
I hope to see this page start coming up on the first search results page for Jenny+McCarthy on Google. Right now it comes up number one for Jenny+McCarthy+Death.
But let me get this straight– you’re telling me the best place for me to answer my questions about the human condition and how I should organize society is to watch old episodes of Star Trek?
why not?
one fictional story with moral examples is as good as another.
why are you on about how YOU should “organize society”, anyway? Are you one of them thar Straussians?
Should there be a contest to see who can be the first to get banned from JMc’s blog for posting too much truth?
JJWFromME said:
This coming from someone that seems prone to putting not just words, but entire screeds into other people’s mouths, just so he can knock down one straw man after another. How very amusing.
@Carlie (#16):
I think that you may have meant that Jenny represents Pestilence, seems like a more better fit IMO. “Death” is giving her too much credit.
Gah!
seems
like a moremore like a better fit IMO.oops…
Great. Now she can spread even more misinformation.
I hesitate to click on any links to TV Tropes. The site is a black hole of nested links, capable of sucking in time itself.
Should you ever manage to surface again, it may take you some time to adjust to the changes society has undergone in your absence. I recommend rushing up to the first person you see in the street, grabbing them by the collar and screaming “What is the date? …THE YEAR???“
Of course you deliberately misrepresented what I wrote.
In the same vein, I could note that to many philosophy is supposed to give job security to a bunch of people who never produce anything, and never come up with working thoughts.
And that does appear to be about what you want, something that has nothing to do with anything that can be experienced, but it sure keeps people busy with scholastic ponderings.
Meaningful philosophy never worked like a machine, which a non-ignoramus knows. It works, though. Philosophy actually tells us about logic, mathematics, and science (unlike what some philistines here deny–without knowing anything about it), probably mostly through its considerations of language and its relationships with phenomena (at least once the rules of logic were worked out reasonably well).
Only a truly egregious idiot would portray the useful bits of philosophy as supposedly working like a machine, in order to support the useless speculations of too much of philosophy.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
In no particular order.
1. Mary Ann over Ginger.
1.a. Blondes may have more fun but give me a Red or a Raven Haired Beauty any day.
42. @ Truthspeaker (if that is your real name…) It is just like you Trekians to pick and choose which episodes you believe and which you can discard. Either Star Trek is the Truth as Revealed by the Roddenberry or it isn’t!
11. Garafalo is always frumperized – she is easy to frumperize – she already wears frumpy glasses, and she comes out of stand up, where being goofy and somewhat funny looking is an asset.
Alphabong. I made a vow never to watch another Sandra Bullock vehicle after Demolition Man. Fortunately, I break many vows, as she has done some good stuff since that time, and I have enjoyed her Raven Hair immensely.
Oh, dear. Not good. I would suggest calling one’s congresscritters, but that’s useless as none of them has anything like the clout Oprah carries in any one of her flabby digits. So I guess an advertiser boycott is the next best strategy. BTW I’m Canadian, so I can only wish y’all good luck with getting rid of La McCarthy.
You are proof that anyone can have a following on the internet. I think I just discovered a new species. The biolo-jerk.
So you don’t agree that injuring the brain can damage the mind? That mental cognition maps to brain activity? Interesting. I’d argue that all indications point to the brain creating consciousness, that we can (and have done) experimentally demonstrate this notion. That we can see mental activity correlating with decision making before the subject is aware of doing so. That if you injure the brain in certain ways, you can lose mental function including the loss of consciousness. It’s not “proof” that the mind is a product of the brain, but having the brain to explain the mind works.
Everything happens for a reason!
@72, SC asked:
Which films are you referring to? I may have found them implausible as well.
Zellweger: the two Bridget Jones movies; Cold Mountain; Jerry McGuire.
Drew Barrymore: Never Been Kissed
Sandra Bullock: As You Were Sleeping; Miss Congeniality. As for Miss Congeniality, it wasn’t just Gracie Hart’s acting like “one of the boys” which made her unattractive. She had to be beautified–hair restyled, makeup applied, learn to walk in a more “attractive” way (yes, kind of like Anne Hathaway’s transformation in Princess Diaries, another example.)
Oh, and I just thought of another example:
Daryl Hannah in Steel Magnolias. Give me a break!
“What has become of the Soviet Union?! Did we win?!”
I think that you may have meant that Jenny represents Pestilence, seems like a more better fit IMO. “Death” is giving her too much credit.
True – I was trying to shoehorn her into being one of the horsemen, and thought pestilence was just a subspecialty.
I’m sorry I missed JJW, that looked like a fun one. But then again, those who flounce off most often do return. In fact,I wonder if he/she just morphed into “Al Einstein” there.
If the School of Athens took place on Pharangula Aristotle would be biting the other guy’s finger off and smashing his face.
Of course, because mocking someone for making bad arguments on the internet = physical violence.
Hopefully something will go wrong and Jenny McCarthy will jump the shark somehow but you can’t count on it.
I agree that anti-vax is craziness. However might it help to understand Jenny McCarthy in order to stop her, get her to understand how her ideas are not working out or get other people to understand how her ideas are not working out.
She is a mother, a new mother who’s child suffered a developmental problem. This can happen, it is the biggest gamble of choosing to be a parent. Could you child be born with a hole in their heart, no arms, a brain problem. Her dream of parenthood was sidetracked into a slightly more demanding reality. Others have had it worse and others have had it better.
She has responded by expressing incredible grief and victimhood. She has responded by pledging to fight what she believes caused her sons problem. Wouldn’t you do at least the second part? She sees herself as saving other parents and children (possibly in that order).
I think we should respond not by calling her an airhead but by showing parents and children NOT served by her advice. Find parents who’s child has died from lack of vaxination and ask them to speak out. Show parents so poor they wish they could get vaxinations for their children.
Show the harm caused and always ask her to change her advice. Show the harm, personal harm and always let anti-vax parents know they can get with the immunization schedules today. You win not by denigrating someone else but by making your case. Make it emphatically and with as much zeal as the unhinged make theirs. Your case -is- more important and more weighty than theirs.
Hopefully something will go wrong and Jenny McCarthy will jump the shark somehow but you can’t count on it.
I agree that anti-vax is craziness. However might it help to understand Jenny McCarthy in order to stop her, get her to understand how her ideas are not working out or get other people to understand how her ideas are not working out.
She is a mother, a new mother who’s child suffered a developmental problem. This can happen, it is the biggest gamble of choosing to be a parent. Could you child be born with a hole in their heart, no arms, a brain problem. Her dream of parenthood was sidetracked into a slightly more demanding reality. Others have had it worse and others have had it better.
She has responded by expressing incredible grief and victimhood. She has responded by pledging to fight what she believes caused her sons problem. Wouldn’t you do at least the second part? She sees herself as saving other parents and children (possibly in that order).
I think we should respond not by calling her an airhead but by showing parents and children NOT served by her advice. Find parents who’s child has died from lack of vaxination and ask them to speak out. Show parents so poor they wish they could get vaxinations for their children.
Show the harm caused and always ask her to change her advice. Show the harm, personal harm and always let anti-vax parents know they can get with the immunization schedules today. You win not by denigrating someone else but by making your case. Make it emphatically and with as much zeal as the unhinged make theirs. Your case -is- more important and more weighty than theirs.
Me, I’m always puzzled by the ‘me likes blondes’, ‘me likes redheads’, ‘me likes whatever’ thing…
I find my reactions pretty much entirely unpredictable, at least along that axis. Seems to be more a whole package thing. Blondes can be lovely, brunettes can be lovely, redheads can be lovely. I cannot even report statistical tendencies in any particular direction, there, as yet. Mebbe somethin’ slight toward dark hair, in retrospect, carefully considering the historical record to now, but I’m pretty sure proper stat work would reveal it to be insignificant…
(/So clearly, this needs more study.)
I think Jenny McCarthy is a moron, but I do have some sympathy for her. I couldn’t imagine what it would be like to have a child with Autism.
I just don’t understand how the grief turns into trying to push dangerous practices on the general public. I would think it would push me to look for the actual cause and the best treatments available.
I think what happens is an opportunist pushes these ideas so they can then peddle their “treatments” that can help with it. Turn the parents against medicine and they will rely more on you. This is just speculation, but its not like it hasn’t been done before.
If I would have known that I could be making it rich by picking my boogers on national television…
Oh wait. I have SOME standards.
Don’t you mean glide, not walk? “It’s all in the buttocks!”
Of course. IMHO humans are intellectually hardwired to categorize populations according to traits, and talking about one’s “type” in terms of sexual attraction is no exception. But it’s ridiculous to think that categorization is determinative of how you’ll feel about any given individual. For every trait about which I might say “I’m not particularly partial to…” I can think of at least one (and often many) counterexamples of women who embody that trait and whom I nevertheless think are freakin’ gorgeous.
For myself, I tend to disfavor traits that are overwhelmingly popular (e.g., blonde hair and “huge tracts of land”), not because I’m some sort of elitist snob, but because, at base, what really turns me on is variety. A group of statuesque bosomy women with uniformly sun-kissed blonde hair (e.g., a group of pageant contenstants… don’t laugh; my wife likes to watch pageants) just looks like a clone army to me, but the one woman in that group with red hair cut in a somewhat shorter, more sophisticated style stands out in that group like the one red rose in a field of daisies.
Now, of course, if you look closely enough, each daisy is a distinct individual, different from each other in many of the same ways as they are different from the rose. But I think our eyes are naturally drawn to the most visible difference. Then, too, when it comes to the entertainment industry, I suspect that generically pretty people get ahead by looking like other generically pretty people who are already famous, but different-looking people get ahead because they are truly striking looking, or beautiful in a profound way, or because they’re talented in a deeper sense than simply being pretty… so it may be that there’s a deeper sameness — beyond the gross characteristics of hair color or figure type — among people who conform to the dominant “pretty” paradigm than there is among those who confound it.
Then again, maybe I am really just a contrarian snob, and all this is shameless self-justification. Who can say for sure?
Another classic example of the Beautiful All Along trope is Allison Reynolds (Ally Sheedy) in The Breakfast Club
Bill, keep in mind that “pretty” often equates to “has features that are very close to average”. Interesting, isn’t it? Clone Army, indeed. Sure, that’s easy to explain. We’re drawn to people who don’t have three eyes, or teeth coming out of their nostrils. And yet, we’re sometimes attracted to people who have a look (sometimes perceived as “exotic”) that is distinctively different from the norm. This makes sense, too: It’s as if we instinctively know that some variation is good for the gene pool – but not too much, of course.
I’m humbled by the fact that you managed to say in one sentence what took me ~12 column inches to ramble around to.
Speak for yourself! Nostril teeth are HAWT!! ;^)
She was way hotter before Claire (Molly Ringwald) dolled her up, imo.
This isn’t proof that there is no god. It’s proof that Oprah thinks SHE’S god.
“Ms. McCarthy, aren’t you aware of the studies that show no link between mercury in vaccines and autism?”
“I won’t believe that while there’s a molecule of mercury within a mile of a vaccine.” (smiles)
“But don’t you know what dose response means?”
“I’m sorry, I don’t speak Spanish.”
I know for a fact that you’re not alone in feeling that way. ;-)
(Regardless of our opinions on that, it’s still an example of the Beautiful All Along trope.)
The real question may be this: How on earth can she be “prettier” after (or before) the makeover, when she’s the exact same person at the end of the day as she was at the beginning? Did her detention experience change her THAT much?
I hope I haven’t broken the Innertoobz by posting that question.
Bill: I’m searching for a witty come-back to the “nostril teeth” thing, and I’m coming up empty. (Thank god.)
What I find interesting about the “average features” beauty effect is this:
Apparently, perfectly average equals perfect beautiful. I realize we’re talking about two different scales, but it’s interesting that the midpoint of one scale is at the nominal positive extreme of the other. The implication is that variation in appearance is the norm, and that the idealized morphological “norm” is relatively rare.
My work here is done! ;^)
Now I know why Tim Minchin mentioned Oprah and Deepak Chopra in the same breath in his (highly recommended) beat poem “Storm”
That it is–it’s also a good example of the Unnecessary Makeover trope. Hurray! A twofer! ;-)
That it is–it’s also a good example of the Unnecessary Makeover trope. Hurray! A twofer! ;-)
D’oh! Stupid “posting timeout”….
This almost makes me wish that Oprah would go back to promoting Scientology celebrities. At least none of them have dissuaded people from having their kids receive life-saving vaccines as this actress/former playboy model has. It would be the lesser of two evils. I do not consider it an ad hominem to point out her lack of credentials, since it is directly relevant to the subject matter at hand. The doctors in her entourage, however, have no such excuse. Shame on them.
Here is a poem I made about Jenny:
http://maltemanchester.blogspot.com/2009/05/jenny.html
Please leave a comment.
Actually there seems to be a lot of cross connections between Scientology websites and anti-vaccination sites, but the “Church” claims to take no position on it.
And you know you can trust them.