House of Cards

By -
It had been recommended to me for some time, but when I started watching, I saw Kevin Spacey talking to the camera, and turned it off immediately. I hate that crap.

However, my son was watching it tonight, and so I began watching it again. It is not bad. Despite the talking to the camera.

What I found really hilarious while watching, however, is libertarians who think, "Wow, this is such a libertarian show!" Because politicians behaving badly.

People close to power become greedy for power. If anyone had ever thought it worthwhile to make a TV program about the behavior of the CEOs of ancap defense agencies, we would see them behaving just like Kevin Spacey in House of Cards.

Cause that's what people are like when they are around power. Whether there is an entity called "The State" around or not.

Comments

  1. Anonymous12:13 PM

    House of Cards is basically an updating of Richard III. And in the play, Richard talks directly to the audience. So Kevin Spacey taking to the camera is in keeping with the original source material.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more