Today, CC's righteous mockery would have come in handy.
I have a discussion over at Olaf's place with a LindaL.
I assert that Call me biased, but I have found Harper to be the most divisive, dishonest, and slimiest PM in recent memory. Harper doesn’t care about anyone, except himself. And that comes off him whether he’s attacking Dion, Linda Keen, Dalton McGuinty or brushing off citizen’s concerns.
To which LindaL replies: You [Catelli] are an excellent example of how foolish, unfounded personal attacks have come to dominate our political discourse and perceptions.
Well damn! The logic of that (given the last parliamentary session) a little hard to take.
I’m living up to the example of our fearless leader who castigated Linda Keen as a Liberal and therefore unworthy to head the nuclear safety commission.
Unfounded personal attacks from a leader that operates from a position of cool logic. A little contradictory perhaps?
If Mr. Harper were only about cool logic, I would have supported him a long time ago.And LindaL comes back with this: If you indeed value logical thinking, then I suggest you take a close look at your personal prejudices and unsubstantiated assumptions. You are a text book case for “the myth of the rational voter.”
Its fascinating isn't it? I attack Stephen Harper, admittedly harshly, but as a voter, that is my right. We are a democracy right? However, LindaL calls me on it, says I'm an "excellent example of foolish unfounded personal attacks" and goes on to imply I'm an irrational voter.
I guess her personal attacks on me were founded in logic and were not foolish at all. That little scream you just heard was the sound of logic vacating the premises.
I get involved in a discussion about arts funding at Macleans. I voice support for government funding of arts and culture, and well, read:
20. comment by jwl on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm:
Mathew F, Catelli
Why did Mozart continue to play the piano after he was a teen and not become an engineer instead? There was no welfare or subsidies for artists back in his day.
21. comment by Catelli on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm:
Because he was a brilliant composer that relied on wealthy patrons for his income? That income was uneven leading to times of financial stress and uncertainty.
So your point is only the brilliant will have marginal financial success and the rest will fall by the wayside?
22. comment by jwl on Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 4:54 pm:
“So your point is only the brilliant will have financial success and the rest will fall by the wayside?”
I removed the word ‘marginal’ from your quote but that would be the gist of my argument, yes.
Anything would be better than what we do know, where we subsidize no-talent clowns while the capable achieve fame and fortune on their own.
I would also argue Mozart had passion for his art and money was neither here nor there. I bet there would lots of people like that now, as well.
Did you get that? As long as you are brilliant at your art and don't care about the money, jwl supports you. The rest of you can fall in the gutter and rot for all he cares.
The twists of logic here are astounding. First with his example of Mozart. Many hold him to be the most brilliant composer of all time, and yet, for much of his life he was poor. But hey! At least he wasn't subsidized, he loved his music and didn't need the income. Mozart's financial situation, which in 1790 was the source of extreme anxiety to him.... Well then again, apparently he did worry about money. Inconsistent income and periods of penury will do that to a man.
Next the assertion that we subsidize no-talent clowns while the capable achieve fame and fortune on their own.
Do I really need to go there? Do I really need to point out that the most successful actors and musicians may not be the best, just the most popular? Do I really need to point out that it is really, really hard to make a living as a musician, author, actor, painter etc. regardless of your level of talent? That you have to be "discovered" and promoted? Its not like most normal careers, where you see and ad in the paper and apply, get interviewed, and get hired with a regular salary. Artists live by different rules, gigs and the resultant income can be inconsistent and infrequent. Talent and love of their art is a very small part of their success, which is unfortunate.
Maybe that's not a complete argument FOR public funding. But that was one of the worst arguments AGAINST public funding I have ever seen.
Anyway, LindaL and jwl are prime examples of conservative values in the modern Conservative movement. I can feel Dred Tory's quaking rage from here....