The ignorance of this woman is truly astonishing, as this 21 second video shows. Cloud storage is literally in the clouds above us which, by the way, are not physical! But she cares so much, and she is not Trump. Surely these positives outweigh her ignorance of science, engineering, weaponry, history, geopolitics, economics . . . . And anyway, what does a puppet need to know?
We are in extreme danger, worse than that of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962. Our geopolitical adversaries are licking their chops . . . .
Bill Vallicella
One response to “Kamala Harris Explains Cloud Data Storage”
Unwilling to acknowledge her own intellectual and moral deviancy, Kamala Harris projects her abnormalcy into the likes of J. D. Vance. She is followed in this by her sycophants in the mainstream media. This is psychological projection so extreme that it takes the breath away. "The flamboyantly incompetent imbecile Harris," to borrow an apt appellation from our friend Malcolm Pollack, is the weirdest cackling gasbag of vacuity to come along in a long time. I don't have time at the moment to rehearse the litany of inanity on this sick specimen of flip-flopping mendacity, but in the run-up to November I will not hesitate to do so.
The mountain bike beckons so I'll hand off to Tucker.
Manebant vestigia morientis libertatis: there still remained traces of dying liberty (Tacitus).
Liberty on the wane, yet traces remain. Traces enough for a foothold forward. Time to join the fight, Fight, FIGHT. Which side are you on? Trump-Vance 2024. Long live the republic!
I am having trouble understanding the above Latin expression. I encountered it in Theodor Haecker, Kierkegaard the Cripple (tr. C. Van O. Bruyn, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950) in the passage:
Not only for Augustine, but also for that Christian whose teaching is most perfectly harmonious, Thomas Aquinas, the evil in the world was always in the majority. Melum ut in pluribus. This must never be forgotten, nor was it in Kierkegaard's judgment. (pp. 29-30)
My first question: why melum and not malum?
Second question: where in Thomas can we find melum ut in pluribus?
Now mēlumn (genitivemēlī) means apple, and malum, mali means evil, adversity, torment, misery, punishment, etc. This answers my first question but gives rise to a third: Is there some connection here with the Adam and Eve story in the Garden?
Fourth question: I don't recall ever seeing the word 'apple' in my English versions of Genesis. Is there in the original text of Genesis a word that translates as 'apple'?
Fifth question: I don't understand ut in this context. Wiktionary says it can be used as an adverb or as a conjunction. But it doesn't seem to be used in either way in melum ut in pluribus.
Here are some other Latin phrases most of which my astute readers already know.
More tellingly, this charge is an example of something I call the “celebration parallax,” which is explained here. In brief, the celebration parallax holds that the same fact pattern is either true and glorious or false and scurrilous depending on who states it and, crucially, the perceived intent of the speaker.
So if someone says that the U.S. is experiencing levels of immigration that are unprecedented in human history, if it’s presumed or suspected that he might have doubts, then he is an evil racist. But when Bill Clinton or Joe Biden makes exactly the same point, well, that is A-OK! Because they are “good guys” who welcome “an unrelenting stream of immigration, nonstop, nonstop” (Joe Biden’s words). By the way, I leave to readers to intuit the difference between “unrelenting” (Joe’s word) and “ceaseless” (my word) and the reasons why the former is A-OK but the latter is somehow “racist.”
An eight-line stanza having just two rhymes and repeating the first line as the fourth and seventh lines, and the second line as the eighth. See Sandra McPherson’s “Triolet” or “Triolets in the Argolid” by Rachel Hadas.
Return
The taste is strong as ever,
figs and cheese and wine.
I recall each savor;
the taste is strong as ever,
even if it will never
be quite so fresh again.
The taste is strong as ever,
figs and cheese and wine.
……………………
I will now try to write a triolet.
Hooked
The ancient lures entice me still,
Property, pelf, and power.
Even if against my will,
The ancient lures entice me still.
Despite advancing age and wisdom's rise,
Their grip on me is unreleasing.
The ancient lures entice me still,
Property, pelf, and power.
…………………………
But I'm no poet, and I know it, so there's no way I could blow it.
What does "sub-distinguishing the lie" mean in the following passage from A. J. A. Symons, The Quest for Corvo: An Experiment in Biography (NYRB, 2001, p. 73):
He [Frederick Rolfe, a.k.a. 'Baron Corvo'] was wont to condemn the alleged laxity of the Roman Communion in the matter of truthfulness, and its sub-distinguishing the lie. He himself, brought up a strict Anglican, had all the Anglican horror of lying and equivocation of every description. He seemed to be quite serious about it, which surprised us, as he was universally regarded as about the biggest liar that we had ever met.
What I want to know is what it means to sub-distinguish a lie, and I need examples of this alleged laxity of the Roman Communion in the matter of truthfulness.
Paging Dave Lull. And a tip of the hat to reader Hector C. for recommending Symons' intriguing book.
……………..
Addendum (8/2/24): Dave Lull to the rescue. Mr. Lull writes, "I wonder whether the author means the distinguishing of the lie from “mental reservation.” That's it, I think; bang on the link and see if you don't agree.
The philosophy of lying is especially germane these days inasmuch as the Biden administration is composed from top to bottom of serial, brazen liars, bullshitters, and prevaricators of every conceivable stripe, not to mention Orwellian language subverters. (The Orwellian 180, as I like to call it, goes well beyond lying as I will explain later, and is far more pernicious.) A first-rate example of language subversion was provided by Alejandro Mayorkas, head of — wait for it — Homeland Security (sic!), when he said that the border is secure "as we define secure." Alright buddy, but then you are literally a horse's ass as I define horse's ass. What's your game, pal? Are you the head honcho of the Reconquista?
Now who is this Dave Lull fellow? Here is a tribute of mine from 2011, with links to tributes from others:
If you are a blogger, then perhaps you too have been the recipient of his terse emails informing one of this or that blogworthy tidbit. Who is this Dave Lull guy anyway? Patrick Kurp of Anecdotal Evidence provides an answer:
As Pascal said of God (no blasphemy intended) Dave is the circle whose center is everywhere in the blogosphere and whose circumference is nowhere. He is a blogless unmoved mover. He is the lubricant that greases the machinery of half the online universe worth reading. He is copy editor, auxiliary conscience and friend. He is, in short, the OWL – Omnipresent Wisconsin Librarian.
For other tributes to the ever-helpful Lull see here. Live long, Dave, and grease on!
As polls show America’s young men are lurching rightward at a rapid pace, the Democratic brand has finally evolved into the party of scolding shrews, nagging Karens and “preachy females,” as Dem dinosaur James Carville calls them.
Its image is tied to a type of unserious, self-involved, neurotic, dogmatic Dem-fem who insists on telling you her pronouns and whose highest goal is abortion on demand right up until the moment of birth.
She is terrified of men unless they are transgender or submissive “white dudes for Kamala” with man buns.
Now that Scranton Joe is out of the picture and Kamala is at the helm, the feminizing trend is accelerating the party into certain electoral oblivion (with the obvious caveat for election fraud).
I am glad that the astute Miranda threw in the caveat. After all, we know a priori that the Dems will cheat their asses off come November. If the end justifies the means, why not? It worked last time, so they figure it will work again. Compare the race card. The Dems have been playing it for years despite all the respectful, careful, and eminently sane explanations by conservatives that our positions are in no defensible sense of the term 'racist.' Why then don't the lefties listen to sweet reason and stop playing the card? Why don't they be nice and play fair? Because it works for them in attaining and maintaining power and control, which is what they are out for first, foremost, and forever. Power to do what? To tear everything down, so that, somehow, by some magic, utopia will arise.
For the same reason they can be expected to cheat in the upcoming election. You need to wake up from 'woke' and realize that our political enemies are just that enemies. They are enemies not just of us, but of the attainable good. They are not good people. I am mainly referring to the cadre Left (the core or skeletal drivers of the movement comprising the true believers, in Eric Hoffer's sense, and the cynics) and not the much larger group of useful idiots, who are morally and intellectually obtuse mediocrities.
It is foolish to underestimate the Kamala crazies, as Newt Gingrich has pointed out.
…………….
If any Kant aficionados are lurking about, my use of a priori above is the relative sense of the term Kant refers to in the second edition of his Critique of Pure Reason (1787) at B2:
. . . it has been customary to say , even of much knowledge that has been derived from empirical sources, that we have it or are capable of having it a priori, meaning thereby that we do not derive it immediately from experience, but from a universal rule — a rule which is itself, however, borrowed from experience. Thus we would say of a man who undermined the foundations of his house, that he might have known a priori that it would fall, that is, that he need not have waited for the experience of its actually falling. But he still could not know this completely a priori. For he first had to learn through experience that bodies are heavy, and therefore fall when their supports are withdrawn. (NKS tr., p. 43)
Who is Kamala Harris? The Language Nazi cannot resist pointing our that the author of the linked piece confuses 'errant' with 'arrant' about five paragraphs down.
This entry examines Richard C. Potter's solution to the problem of reconciling creatio ex nihilo with ex nihilo nihil fit in his valuable article, "How To Create a Physical Universe Ex Nihilo," Faith and Philosophy, vol. 3, no. 1, (January 1986), pp. 16-26. (Potter appears to have dropped out of sight, philosophically speaking. PhilPapersshows only three articles by him, the last of which appeared in 1986. )
What I argue is that similar Potterian moves can be used by an atheist to argue that the universe caused itself to exist. The upshot is that we remain stuck with the problem of reconciling the two principles.
A technical post, not for the faint of heart or weak of mind. You will have to put on your 'thinking caps' as Sister Ann Miriam said back in the first grade.
Bill Vallicella
3 responses to “On Reconciling Creatio Ex Nihilo with Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit”
An egregious example of present-directed gaslighting of the American people by the regime and the regime media is their dismissal of the numerous videos depicting Joe Biden's physical decrepitude as 'cheap/deep fakes.'
What then are we to call the lie being currently spread by the regime and its shills that Kamala Harris was never the 'border czar'? I call it past-directed gaslighting. This form of gaslighting is promoted by 'scrubbing' the historical record, a tried-and-true totalitarian tactic. Totalitarians want total control, and thus they want control over the past. They cannot erase the past, which is what it was, no matter what anyone says or writes. But they can bury the past in oblivion by altering the historical record. The burial in oblivion, the destruction of collective memory, suffices for their nefarious purposes.
Now the meaning of Christopher Wray's ludicrous 'shrapnel speculation' falls into place. Its purpose was to prepare the way for a future denial that the Trump assassination attempt ever happened.
How do I know that? Well, I don't know that, but what I do know about these deep-staters makes my speculation reasonable. Or do you have a better explanation for Wray's remark?
One response to “Kamala Harris Explains Cloud Data Storage”