The 5 most idiotic books of all time

[boolean]

5) The Way Things Ought to Be, by Rush Limbaugh

Once you realize that you're taking in the opinion of a prescription drug addicted fat faced douche nozzle, Ought to Be is actually quite the thriller. After reading this, you'll suddenly realize that the way it ought to be is as kindling for your fireplace.

4) Myths, Lies, and Outright Stupidity, by John Stossel

Finally! A book with an accurate title! You'll find more myths, lies, and outright stupidity in this screed than you'll find at a bush press conference. Make sure you take everything you read here with a grain of salt. Against all odds, actual honesty sometimes slips though the cracks, but for the most part, if you think it's a lie, you're probably right.

3) Godless: The Church of Liberalism, by Mann Coulter

If you can get past the initial urge to vomit all over your new rug, Godless is about as interesting a read as the back label of a bottle of ketchup. The only difference being that the ketchup label has original material.


2) The O'Reilly Factor for Kids: A Survival Guide for America's Families, by Bill O'Falafel

Hey, kids! Come gather 'round for a story. Once upon a time, there was a loud mouthed Irish asshole with high ratings who thought he could get away with spinning conservative talking points into "fair and balanced" "reporting". Then, one day, he sexually harassed a coworker with a falafel and his audience (average age: 71) began to die off and his ratings started plummeting. The End.

1) My Pet Goat

This is quite possibly the most idiotic book of all time. The wording is simplistic. The pages are made of cardboard. The illustrations are crummy. Don't go near this book, as you may just be caught like a deer in the headlights while reading it. Unless you have the mental capacity of a 6 year old, or you are the president of the United States.

[station agent]

1. Pairs Hilton's book

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743266641/ref=jw_store_ph_i_2/002-1477839-9296803?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=13304981&s=books&v=glance

Just flip through it.

[JohnnyRingo]

2. Well done....Funny

O'Reilly shouldn't really have a connection to anyone under 13, and I think Limbaugh has John Fund ghost write his marching orders for disadvantaged, yet successful white men with small penises.

[WoodrowFan]

3. No Ayn Rand or Savage Weiner? (NT)

[mr715]

5. HEY!

Ayn Rand is great.

Tho I am partial to Nathaniel Brandon's school of objectivism.

[SteppingRazor]

7. "Ayn Rand is great."

:wtf:


If the world were run according to Rand's economic principles, it'd be in far worse shape than it is -- and that is truly saying something. Her stalwart -- and, as always with Rand, utterly uncompromising -- defense of laissez faire capitalism would result in tremendous loss of workers' rights.

Moreover, I tend to reject her theory of art as merely serving cognitive purpose, as well as one of her most basic tenets, that the individual must give up no fundamental rights to the collective. This represents a complete rejection of the social contract, which is the very basis for liberal political thought. Thankfully, Objectivism has been relelgated by academic philosophy to the area in which it truly belongs -- the garbage bin.

[mr715]

9. My reply

Its a question of practice versus academics.

Objectivism believes that there is an objective reality independent of perception, which I take to be true and beneficial. Postmodernism and and political correctness have weakened the structure of truth. I believe some things are objectively better than other things - personal liberty, individuality, and rationality.

Religion is inherently disempowering, irrational, and unnecessary.

The world operates on the economic principles of Ayn Rand. Human society does too, and should. Its just a question of assigning value to things not in terms of their most base, economic value.

I am in favor of public schools because it is in my own best interests to have good public schools. I am in favor of clean water because it is in my own best interests to have good water to drink. I am in favor of whales not going extinct because it lessens my life to not have whales.

Thats how it works for me.

And never, ever should the individual sacrifice for the collective. Ever.



Mat

[SteppingRazor]

11. "never, ever should the individual sacrifice for the collective. "

Of course they should. Be signing on to be a member of a society, you give up a great deal of freedoms -- as well you should. For example, it may be in your own personal self-interest to not pay taxes. After all, you get more money that way, and can still use all of the facilities provided by the suckers who pay. Of course, you then could be arrested for tax evasion, merely for exercising your personal liberty.

A true Objectivist would argue that no one SHOULD pay taxes, but I hope you would see this idea as bogus on its face.

I also reject the Objectivist idea that there is an objective reality independent of perception -- or at least, if there is, it's completely irrelevant because our perceptions color our ideas of it the moment we behold reality.

As for the global economy operating on Randian principles, I certainly don't think that's true -- how is it in a corporation's best self-interest to not have slavery?

Going back to the taxing analogy, one could argue that Objectivism only works when all parties involved operate on some sort of equal moral plane (i.e. we each pay taxes because we each want the benefits thereof.) For starters, Rand explicitly rejected this Kantian "moral imperative," though she did build off it.

When you avail yourself of the benefits of society, you express your consent to be governed by that society. And in doing so, you give up many of your own rights and priveleges. That's the social contract. It's what lunatics like Rand and her current crop of followers (which includes such luminaries as White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and many of the batshit crazies at the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation) have fought hard against. Their ideas of limited governance would so limit government that it could no longer provide for its weakest members. I reject any idea of government that so casually dismisses public financing of a social safety net.

A truly Objectivist society would eventually boil down to Might Makes Right, as those with more power, will and capital impose their interests on the weak, the idle and the poor. I find such a dystopia not only despiccable to my own tastes, but, I would hope, to progressive thought in general.

There's a lot to be said for civil libertarianism. In fact, I would find a lot of common ground with Objectivists along these lines -- I don't believe in drug laws, seatbelt laws, helmet laws. I don't believe in criminalizing pornography, hate speech or obscenity. But Objectivism takes things a step further, and argues that government has no right to interfere in oppression by private industry, saying such things will balance themselves out. For example, an objectivist would argue that if a corporation makes use of sweatshops and slave labor and that is abhorrent to people, that business will go under simply because people will shop elsewhere. Wal-Mart proves otherwise.

Whew! That's an awfully meandering response to your response, but I think I'll cut it off here and avoid further bloviation. Here's to ya! :toast:

[mr715]

12. Once again, its academic vs. practical

And Ayn Rand was to objectivism what Plato was to political philosophy - a root from which more nuanced philosophy grew.

Rand does draw on Kant's categotical imperative but not on the ground that he does - that its the only way to allow for a rational understanding of morality. Do unto others...

Rand says that the imperative is because of the contract. Laws protect the weaker from the stronger, but the laws must also protect the individual from the laws. The imperative is the result of the individual taking an action to protect his own liberty.

The economy of nature IS might makes the right. Im an ecologist. The biggest trees survive and kill the weakest. This isnt immoral, its amoral. So is economics. What determines morality is where we place our values... think like this.. If we assign a value to everything we have, we can come up with an economic calculus which is both progressive and objectivist.

It is a nexus of thought somewhere between Rand and Mill, I guess. The greatest felicity for the most is the best, where felicity requires maximizing personal freedom.

A true objectivist would not say one need not pay taxes, but rather he should be personally invested in what he pays for. He ought to CARE about the schools he pays for. He ought to NOT pollute the water he drinks. In a perfect objectivist world, we'd have the moral imperative of Kant.

The world of theory doesnt match the world of fact. I like Rand's individualism, and i stand firm that one ought not to surrender to the collective (I say that as a member of a Fraternity, which is kinda funny in a sick sorta way). The eternal "I am" keeps me alive and there is a value to recognizing that.

Also, I find it hard to believe that torture isnt an objective moral evil. That liberty isnt an objective moral good. That (and I got in trouble on this board before for saying it) that the USA is an objectively better country than N. Korea.

I dont know, its not an easy line to walk - but I think progressive thought and objectivism arent so cleanly cut. Ayn Rand is perhaps the worst spokesman for her theory, but like I said in a previous post, Nathaniel Brandon is more clear.

The individual matters. Government does not.

[SteppingRazor]

13. Thanks for that...

one of the more meaningful exchanges I've had on DU over the past few days. I'll let you have the last word :hi:


(ahem. Well, technically, this is the last word. But I'll let you have the last words of any substance.)

[ellie]

4. You forgot

"100 People That Are Screwing Up America" by pasty troll Bernard Goldberg.

[reichstag911]

6. So many books, so few teraflops...

...on DU's servers. :shrug:

[SPCAworks]

8. I had

had problems reading Zell Millers second book (don't remember name) but it was like blah, blah, blah I helped GWB WIN in 04, blah, blah, blah... John kerry did this that and the other thing, blah, blah, blah....
It was really boring an dslow.

[HughBeaumont]

10. The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman.

Never mind that a ROUND earth is more interconnected than a FLAT one, dollboy.

Oh yeah, Thom Friedman is apparently very, VERY rich . . . , so naturally, HIS ordinary Joe voice should be the one defending globalization and job offshoring.:eyes:

[hughee99]

14. The Enemy Within

by Michael Savage. I got this from my brother for Christmas a few years back. I did read it, and now it is adorning our local landfill. What a waste of paper and time.