I too am a fan. Reasons..

- It's extreme. Ahhhhhh.

- Always tightly weaves theme & plot, and is super-efficient in delivery. No excess.

- It does not mock, or do cheap shots. It's ruthlessly serious at getting to the core of what's wrong with an idea or person, often by letting them speak for themselves.

- Timmy! Race-war, whites win again! Cripple-fight!

- It's imaginative, and uses visually basic resources cos it's about the ideas.

- Has fart jokes

- It's not pretentious, or too clever by half.

- It dishes it out to everybody

- There's a rough innocence to it. 9 yr old boys working out the world.

- It's merciless on hippies

Time to watch Imaginationland III.

Oh that's where Hsiekovian originates from. Have been wondering for a while, thinking the person some type of Objectivist theoretician or similar, but a Google only bringing me back to SOLO

 As for markets, Elijah, I'm sitting here with some trepidation to see, after the DOW's dump last night, and Asia's today, what will hold forth tonight. Markets always seem to do the big dips on the weekends, just to to put me in a blue funk.

is what I am trying to do! ...I am supposed to be working right through until the markets close at 10am tomorrow! but trading gold and cattle when somewhat 'tight' is not recommended...

... as a glass of Cab Merlot too many! Pull yourself together boy!

sorry ...just my wee joke ..(I could not resist)...I have had 1 glass of Cabernet Merlot too many ...lol

Believe it or not, not everything is about you!! It was over the fatwa. Before your time. Some things were.

right. Diana Hsieh.

Cannot say the name rings a bell..but...oh right..well..splendid

When you say she has 'flounced' from solo...ummmm....was it something I said?

"Diana" is Diana Hsieh, Mistress of the Flounce, Parroter of the Party Line, obedient voter of Dem-Scum, as demanded by Peikoff. Hence, "Hsiekovian." She has the distinction of having done not one but TWO flounces from SOLO. Do keep up, old bean, there's a good chap!!

good enough.

have mentioned the dear Lady twice this evening, Lindsay...but..ummmmm......who is 'Diana'?

Just because God doesn’t mean anything to you doesn’t mean you have to view everyone else who does find something in it as a retard.

You don't have to, but it's a damn good idea. I certainly view all believers that way. Retards writ large. But I practise "live and let live" with them, as long as they do with me.

For reasons passing my own capacity to grasp, I still like the show.

James has a mind-body dichotomy. James is a whim-worshipper. James is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!!! Tell Barbara Branden!!!! Tell Peikoff!! Tell Binswanger!! Yes, above all, tell Binswanger, the best denunciator in this sorry world where good denunciators are so hard to come by!

And don't forget Diana!!

Denounce! Excommunicate! Shun!

Oooooooooooo! Denunciation! It's better than sex, and not nearly as expensive!!! Ooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

The South Park guys are not completely on your side or even mine on everything. Hell I think Officer Barbrady went as far as to call Atlas Shrugged ‘the worst piece of crap I’ve ever read’ but if you had to agree with the message behind a joke in order to find it funny you would barely ever get the opportunity to laugh. What’s important is that it’s told with wit, agreeing with any given episodes message is simply and added bonus and with South Park I find I get that bonus 80 odd percent of the time. They’re certainly not anti intellectual. They understand atheism and they’re very good friends with Penn Jillette (I trust you all know where he stands). The point they were trying to make with their Go God Go saga was that atheism is often too dogmatic and that without religion people would always find something to fight about. I think that’s a point worth making. I’ve never been a fan of the ‘religion is the cause of all wars, pain and grief’ line of argument (a line of argument that, to his credit, Dawkins doesn’t really pursue) and I think there’s no problem in being religious so long as you don’t force your beliefs on other people. If something makes you feel good, who am I to jeer at you? I don’t know what’s best for you, just stay the hell away from me and we’re fine.

Jeering is actually a good word; I think that’s what the episode is about. When Stan says that there could still be a God after hearing the theory of evolution Garrison calls him a retard and asks him if he believes in the flying spaghetti monster too. Stan while looking rather perplexed says, ‘But…I’m not talking about spaghetti.’ And that’s just it. Just because God doesn’t mean anything to you doesn’t mean you have to view everyone else who does find something in it as a retard. They put Dawkins in a positive light in that episode. He represents a reasonable atheist while Mrs. Garrison represents the more dogmatic and intolerant wing of atheism, convincing Dawkins that it’s not enough to change people’s minds through reason and discussion, “you have to be a total dick about it too.”

It’s a great show that pretty much always nails every topic it covers or at least makes a few though provoking observations but if on occasion you find yourself watching an episode that isn’t tailor made to suit your beliefs…‘relaaaaax guy!’

Forgive the length of this post, but I wanted to share with Matty my previous analyses (okay, way too much analysis) of South Park episodes here at SOLO. It actually has a bearing, I think, on this recent three-part saga about imagination. (Last night, the final episode aired here.)

Of the famous "Chicken Lover" episode, I wrote:

"Well, I could be totally wrong, but in the Chicken Lover episode, we can detect a libertarian strain -- e.g., note the mayor's low character, as well as Barbrady'e illiteracy (and idiocy), and their relationship. Brutal. And, yet, the minute, nay, the very second after the officer stops working in order to go back to school, anarchy and chaos breaks out in an orgy of looting and pillaging. Thus, Cartman is once more given 'authori-tie,' and plays out a very funny episode of COPS. In the end, 'cops' are seen as a 'necessary evil,' or maybe just a 'necessary stupidity.'
"The... er... colorful hippie weirdo book-pusher can hardly be seen as the real attack on Rand's sensibilities. No, I think that this episode is South Park's refutation of anarchism -- which they confuse with Rand's politics.
"The more fascinating aspect is how that episode treats the subject of books and reading as such -- they're stupid and 'gay.' It is almost nakedly anti-intellectual."

Of the Dawkins Saga, after seeing episode one:

"They think that Dawkins is saying that there would be no war without religion. The guys of South Park respond by asserting that 'atheist' factions would pick right up with war for other reasons in the future -- an obvious point with which, of course, Dawkins would likely agree...
"What the boys don't seem to grasp is the relationship between faith and force and the relationship between reason and freedom.
"In the priest-molestation scandal episode, do recall, the characters who left religion soon started expelling feces from their mouths. And, the pro-Rand book-promoter WAS the 'chicken lover,' also recall. (Rand being identified with anarchism, for some reason.)
"And, now, we have the spectacle of Dawkins being taken in by Garrison who just wants a date. (In their minds, the equation of the flying pasta menace with 'God' is absurd, as if 'God' were somehow inherently more plausible than that wonderful image.)
"My official reaction to this episode: Boo!! Hiss!!! The we-think-atheists-are-shit-speaking-chicken-fucking-transsexual-deceived-oppressors-of-Stan is the worst part of the show -- a show I dearly love."

And, later, after the second installment:

"I'm afraid that my previous analysis, though essentially correct, was far too kind. 'Anti-intellectual,' they are -- in spades. But, okay, this two-parter was much worse than anything they've ever done.
"Not only haven't they the first clue why reason and violence are fundamentally incompatible, but they brazenly impute religious attitudes to any who might value reason -- without the barest consideration of the matter.
"Still worse, of course, is the rank subjectivism -- and... nihilism.
"'Maybe just believing in God makes God exist,' according to the 'Wise One.' (And... they're on the Wise One's side and it is his violent attackers they oppose as intolerant.)
"In the 'good future,' they have learned that '"isms' always lead to violence,' including, presumably, pacifism, South Parkism, and Eclecticism (or whatever they're calling that future approach to diversity).
"With astonishing absolute finality the whole episode is summed up as one single answer, that 'No one single answer is ever the answer.'
"Literally everyone at whom they've leveled their own powerful attack could defend themselves with this sort of 'reasoning.'"

In the current three-part epic, it's almost as if they are clarifying the suggested message of the Dawkins Saga. They are still insisting that the imaginary is, in an important sense, "real," but that they do admit of a distinction between it and reality.

For reasons passing my own capacity to grasp, I still like the show.

It kicked ass 10 years ago and kicks even more ass now.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!