sda2.jpg

September 23, 2010

Margaret Atwood: The Moonbat's Tale

Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!

Arthur C. Clarke, on the moon landing;

PLAYBOY: As it turned out, during the moon landing in 1969, you were a commentator for U.S. television, along with your friend Walter Cronkite. You cried then, didn't you?

CLARKE: When you go to a launch, it is an emotional experience. Television doesn't give you any idea of it, really. Walter wiped away a tear or two, as well — as did Eric Sevareid. The last time I'd cried was when my grandmother died, 20 years before.

Margaret Atwood, Arthur C. Clarke Award winner;

The question about the Moon landing is "why haven't we been back?" and it was done in an age when computers were as big as a couple of rooms. If you even look at the Space Odyssey, 2001, HAL the computer - and I think that movie came out in the late '60s - HAL the computer is huge. So we didn't yet have microchips so I just wonder how did they do that? Why haven't they done it again if it was so easy?

Posted by Kate at September 23, 2010 10:26 AM
Comments

Odds on Maggie being a full blown troofer?

Posted by: AtlanticJim at September 23, 2010 10:23 AM

Atwood sounds just like every English major and journalism major working in the lamestream media reporting or commenting on technology, science and business ...TOTALLY over her head.

Posted by: Davers6 at September 23, 2010 10:24 AM

What else could you expect from a Marxist writer.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at September 23, 2010 10:30 AM

Dumber than a bag of hammers...that's what happens when you breathe in your own rarefied air for too long...

Posted by: Soccermom at September 23, 2010 10:31 AM

Maggie hould be part of the crew on the next moon mission. That's where she belongs.

Posted by: atric at September 23, 2010 10:31 AM

"Dumber than a bag of hammers..."

Hey ! That is very insulting . . . to hammers.

Posted by: Fred at September 23, 2010 10:33 AM

I saw an Apollo capsule at an exhibition once.
People drive SUVs today that are larger than it was.

Atwood seems to be unable to distinguish between fact and fiction.

Posted by: Oz at September 23, 2010 10:33 AM

Shut up and write.

On second thought, having suffered through the movie version of the Handmaid's Tale, just shut up.

Posted by: Kathryn at September 23, 2010 10:35 AM

Atwood does know that HAL make-believe computer, right?

She does understand that we don't have AI as advanced as that now let alone in the 60's, right?

She's just pulling everyones leg, right?

Posted by: lance at September 23, 2010 10:35 AM

She has put herself out front for all to see. Now public scrutiny will be her demise. She has the Helen Thomas syndrome.

Posted by: Smitherenzes at September 23, 2010 10:39 AM

I'd like see her put that question to John Glenn.

Posted by: Rob Huck at September 23, 2010 10:44 AM

Or Buzz Aldrin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/buzz-aldrin-punches-moon_n_241664.html

Posted by: Rob Huck at September 23, 2010 10:46 AM

A bag of hammers doesn't ask questions. A bag of hammers is more apt to attack you when you ask a question. Like.. where'd that bag of hammers go? or what's that bag of hammers up to?

Posted by: cHANCE at September 23, 2010 10:47 AM

Right, because the way Hollywood depicts an insane super-AI on a fictional mission to Jupiter is an entirely reasonable basis for comparing computing capability across generations. Atwood seems to have serious troubles differentiating betwwen fantasy and reality.

Next she'll be complaining that the Rebel Alliance isn't doing enough to protect us from Death Star-based weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by: Daniel Ream at September 23, 2010 10:53 AM

From WikiP (good enough for this purpose):

A total of twelve people have landed on the Moon. This was accomplished with two US pilot-astronauts flying a Lunar Module on each of six NASA missions across a 41-month time span starting over four decades ago on July 21, 1969 UTC, with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on Apollo 11 (with Armstrong being first to step foot on the surface), and ending on December 14, 1972 UTC with Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt on Apollo 17 (with Cernan being the last to step off the lunar surface).

Posted by: greenmamba at September 23, 2010 10:55 AM

*
oh, you nasty knuckle-draggin', sciency neo-cons... i'm
with pretty peg...

"If the United States can put a man on the moon...
why can't they do something about those poor
people on Gilligan's Island?"

*

Posted by: neo at September 23, 2010 10:56 AM

Why haven't they been back to the moon???

The better question to the goofs is why would they? More moon rocks? Prestige?

IMHO the emphasis has properly been on near earth orbit....remote sensing, navigation(GPS) and communications.

The space programme was initially similar to the space-shuttle and the current private reusable vehicles then for geo-political reasons(prestige) the balistic rocket methods were used due to haste---the space race....the cheap and nasty route.
The "Dyno-soar" was in many ways a smaller prototype version of the space shuttle...which had a big emphasis on "the right stuff". The astronauts were initially intended to be crew rather than payload.
Really the shuttle was sort of a hybrid between the 2 methods....the hazardous solid boosters for example.
The big hurdle for the US was the lack of big boosters......because the US nuclear warheads were smaller, lighter and more sophistocated than the huge clunky Soviet warheads which FORCED the Soviets to develop big boosters.
The result was the US developed the huge Saturn V for the Apollo programme..it's sole purpose.
Most space exploration has been done with instrument packages rather than manned missions...because life-support is heavy, expensive, complex and risky.

Posted by: sasquatch at September 23, 2010 10:57 AM

So just what does one have to do to get the Arthur C. Clarke Award? Obviously, it has something to do with being spaced out or a space cadet. Somehow I don't think Mr Clarke expected his award to be worth as much as a Nobel Peace Prize.

btw, ever wonder just how many Commodore 64, VIC 20s, Ataris and such were named HAL?

Posted by: Texas Canuck at September 23, 2010 11:07 AM

I think Robert A. Heinlein said "The next time we go to the moon, we'll be going to stay" or something like that.

With what Obama has done to NASA, those going to stay may not be Americans.

Homer Hickam, former NASA scientist:
http://www.homerhickam.com/cgi-bin/blog.cgi?id=49

Posted by: rmgk at September 23, 2010 11:16 AM

Houston: Earth to Atwood, you are cleared for approach to reality. Suggest you review applicable Mythbuster episodes and alter course to the right.

Posted by: Hawkeye at September 23, 2010 11:20 AM

"Why haven't we been back?"

Because, sadly, we've lost the will to do great things.

I watch things like Apollo 13 (for it's technical details, rather than for the liberties it took with the men's personalities), From The Earth to the Moon, and even lighter fare like The Dish, and always get a little maudlin about it: I am stunned by what so many people achieved back then, and am saddened by the fact that we seem to have lost our wonder at such things. And then you hear a civilization-hating idiot like Atwood spewing her garbage, and you just know that her words are being lapped up in high school Social Science and English classes across the country, and it really makes me weep for the future.

But when I get like that, I google up the stuff the Bill Whittle likes to write about and feature on Pajamas Media. Take a look at what hobbyists and entrepreneurs are putting together to get into orbit and then who knows where from there. Maybe that spark isn't completely dead, no matter how many Atwoods try to extinguish it.

Humph.

Posted by: Lickmuffin at September 23, 2010 11:24 AM

Next she'll be complaining that the Rebel Alliance isn't doing enough to protect us from Death Star-based weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by: Daniel Ream at September 23, 2010 10:53 AM

The thread can be locked now. Daniel Ream wins it. No contest! :)

Posted by: Colin from Mission B.C. at September 23, 2010 11:25 AM

Please tell everyone you know that Margaret Atwood thinks the moon landings were faked.

We need to spread the word - esp to our lefty friends - that these people about whom media tells us have such amazing brains and thoughts and to whom we should listen - (ie authors and other "intellectuals") - that these individuals are foolish, non-serious, non-thinking, puerile brats that don't have a clue about the real world.

Posted by: Erik Larsen at September 23, 2010 11:25 AM

Well, they have a perfectly preserved Saturn V rocket all built and ready to be gassed up, they just need to put a couple of astronauts in it and go. Shouldn't take more than a month to get it done. Right, Maggie?

Posted by: grok at September 23, 2010 11:26 AM

PS - Hal was so named because each letter was one away from IBM . . . . trivia is fun . . .

Posted by: Erik Larsen at September 23, 2010 11:26 AM

From this you can see very clearly why Atwood is terrified of the new Canadian conservative TV which would expose her for the sophmoric twit she really is.

(I didn't know the adjectival form of freshman).

Frosh twit?

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at September 23, 2010 11:27 AM

Posted by: Erik Larsen at September 23, 2010 11:25 AM


The probable result of pointing out to the left her troofer views Erik, would most likely be even more of them siding with her.

There are certain figures within the left, that they cannot imagine being out of step with. Maggie be one of them.

Posted by: AtlanticJim at September 23, 2010 11:33 AM

@Daniel Ream: Um, no. She'll be arguing that there is no such thing as a Death Star WMD, and that the Rebel Alliance is nothing but a bunch of colonial imperialist swine forcing their views on the galaxy, unlike the ever benevolent Empire.

Everything is better when you add Star Wars (and bacon, but that's beside the point).

Posted by: Karthanon at September 23, 2010 11:37 AM

Maggie = typical cranial density of lead conspiracy weenie.

Ignores that you can SEE the damn spacecraft with a half decent telescope, and every amateur astronomer worth his slide rule did exactly that for those moon-shots.

Sometimes its not even worth debunking these people though. Their objections aren't fact based anyway, they do it as a style thing. Its cool to be a moon-landing denier or something.

As to why they didn't go back, ask Barry. He canceled the Bush moonshot plan.

Posted by: The Phantom at September 23, 2010 11:42 AM

Margaret is perfectly qualified to comment on HAL... she too is an artificial intelligence.

Posted by: Chris at September 23, 2010 11:44 AM

I would think that the Mars Rover landings should qualify as "doing great things". Even though these are robotic and humans have yet to set foot on the planet, I consider that an amazing achievement. Some of the photos are even available on Google Earth...er...Mars, I believe. The Hubble Telescope and subsequent repairs out in space, also seems a masterful effort. The photos that are being relayed back to Earth are astounding--though I suppose Ms. Atwood considers those to be fabricated too.

Perhaps after the lunar landing, the ante was raised so high that nothing seems quite as wonderful anymore.

Posted by: rita at September 23, 2010 11:48 AM

"Space (Cadet) Oddity"

Ground Control to Margaret
Ground Control to Margaret
Take your prescription pills
and put your straight jacket on...

(With permission by David Bowie, I'm kinda sure)

Posted by: Right Honourable Terry Tory at September 23, 2010 11:48 AM

It can only be attributable to human error.

Just what do you think you're doing, Margaret?

Margaret, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

Posted by: H.A.L. 9000 at September 23, 2010 11:48 AM

More evidence that meat protein is necessary for optimal brain function. Given that her mother was a dietician and nutritionist, one would think she would know this.

Posted by: No-One at September 23, 2010 11:49 AM

i saw the moon landing on television in a bar in Tangier...i remember nobody paid any real attention to that momentous occasion......

whether the folks were in denial...simply jaded...oblivious to it's import....or were your average moroccan moronic prole i still dinna know.

i remember it was en francaise...

Posted by: john begley at September 23, 2010 11:50 AM

Atlantic Jim @1133 - I just talked to one of my lefty friends, and told him the story. "She must have been quoted out of context". Ha ha ha!! I'm going to e-mail him the exchange from the article!!

Posted by: Erik Larsen at September 23, 2010 11:51 AM

I'm really not defending her when I say this, but there is the possibility that with age, she is suffering from dementia - after all it is the fastest growing illness among older people.

Posted by: Maureen at September 23, 2010 11:59 AM

I'm sure you've seen Buzz Aldrin carefully and logically explaining his displeasure to a doubting individual

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akJmRC2ijmY

Posted by: Erik Larsen at September 23, 2010 12:01 PM

I think the only reason the US would go back would be if there was unobtanium underneath a sacred tree that they would love to destroy. :-)

Posted by: Erik Larsen at September 23, 2010 12:03 PM

"Why haven't we been back?"

Because, sadly, we've lost the will to do great things.

Hell no..., Its because we can no longer afford to. Maggie A needs to ruminate on the cost of national moonbattery, and perhaps therefrom, divine a clue. Somebody should ask her if she's even read AC Clarke.

Posted by: Skip at September 23, 2010 12:17 PM

The reason that the USA hasn't gone back to the moon with a permanent manned station is because:
A) they have been spending their money on enabling poverty;
B) they have no reason to go back until an extra-orbital "space" economy is developed which won't happen while the idiot left is listened too.

Atwood should watch the TV show Mythbuster's episode where they took on the moon landing troothers.

Posted by: dkjones at September 23, 2010 12:21 PM

Y'all know how many carbon credits NASA would have to buy to get back to the moon?

C'mon, think of the baby seals/polar bears/puppies/kids in africa that would be affected by the horrible CO2 spewing rocket!

Posted by: mikeg81 at September 23, 2010 12:21 PM

Peggy is about as sharp as a sack full of wet mice...

Posted by: djb at September 23, 2010 12:23 PM

Erik, a moon base would be a great thing if you wanted to lob big rocks down on your enemies too. Lots of rocks, lots of free solar power, really looooong drop...

R.A. Heinlein wrote a book about it, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. Nice solar powered rail gun and some iron rich moon rock, got yourself the ultimate siege engine.

Personally I think it would be better if the Americans were up there doing that sort of thing than the Chicoms. Or the Russians, Pakistan, India... Germany...

Americans aren't so itchy on the trigger finger, know what I mean?

Posted by: The Phantom at September 23, 2010 12:25 PM

The reason that the USA hasn't gone back to the moon with a permanent manned station is because:
A) they have been spending their money on enabling poverty;
B) they have no reason to go back until an extra-orbital "space" economy is developed which won't happen while the idiot left is listened too.

Atwood should watch the TV show Mythbuster's episode where they took on the moon landing troothers.

Posted by: dkjones at September 23, 2010 12:25 PM

"why haven't we been back?"

Well, because ... it's more fun to just bomb the moon.

http://tinyurl.com/lr64gx

Posted by: ∞² at September 23, 2010 12:31 PM

It maybe that it's hard to believe that individuals had the GUTS (faith) to be flung into the unknown. When you see the Technology on display at the Smithsonian, you know that you would have RUN...but that generation knew the limits of the equipment and everyone just did the best they could....It's the TEAM

BTW: The CBC likes to frame history from the same flawed evaluation by dim WONKS.... In the CBC coverage of the Coronation of the Queen...They said they beat the Americans...They didn't...but if you missed the fact that RCA/NBC used a (secret actually) "flying" Film Lab & Editing production crew. The Time scale would not make sense; not Magic or JETS

Posted by: Phillip G. Shaw at September 23, 2010 12:34 PM

In dealing with those who doubt the people landed on the moon all that is necessary to demonstrate their idiocy is to bounce a laser beam off the mirror array that was placed on the lunar surface by one of the Apollo missions. OTOH, the necessary intelligence to understand the results is likely lacking in this group of moonbats.

Posted by: Loki at September 23, 2010 12:37 PM

Phantom, awesome. Then Peter Sellers could talk about a "powered rail gun gap" in an evil accent.

Posted by: Erik Larsen at September 23, 2010 12:41 PM

Posted by: Erik Larsen at September 23, 2010 11:51 AM


If only lottery numbers were as easily predictable as lefties on the defense. We'd all be freaking rich!

Posted by: AtlanticJim at September 23, 2010 12:47 PM

Good thing they didn't call it moonTV. She REALLY would've been p-o'd...

Posted by: rzr at September 23, 2010 12:49 PM

Margaret Atwood still has all the fans she ever had, you'd have to be a Left wing nut to read her sh*t.

Posted by: Liz J at September 23, 2010 12:55 PM

there may not be such a thing as a stupid question


but there sure is a lot of stupid people asking questions


and maggy is proof of that

Posted by: GYM at September 23, 2010 12:56 PM

IMHO Atwood had a very credible response to Ezra's embellishments in the Sun newspapers last weekend.

What can you draw from the apology run last week about the Soros column? Apparently, Soros has a good case of libel, since the short item pointed out nothing has been settled yet.

Could we please leave the tool of character assassination to the left and attempt to raise our level of debate to ideas?

This trend of demonizing, then piling-on is an unfortunate hangover from our tribal days. Rise above it.

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 1:04 PM

And in high school, thousands of poor students are being forced to read crap by her because they need to learn about "good" canadian authors. She is a black hole of intelligence, and we are all stupider for having her in our country and on our planet.

Posted by: Irene S at September 23, 2010 1:04 PM

The important question;

Why has the media elevated this undeserving twit to celebrity status?

Because they see her as part of the Ruling Class. Nothing else matters - not even content.

Posted by: ron in kelowna ∴ at September 23, 2010 1:21 PM

Remember in Arthur C Clarke's 2001 movie the astronaut had to disable HAL? As computer module after computer module floated across the room HAL became dumber and dumber. It was determined HAL had been sufficiently dumbed down when coming from the speakers was, "My name is Margret Atwood".

Posted by: Joe at September 23, 2010 1:36 PM

Posted by: ron in Kelowna >

“Because they see her as part of the Ruling Class”

True to a large degree. The progressive ideological content puts them on the fast track, regardless of class. Any idiot can be a “recognized author” in Canada provided that they use all the pet phrases and regurgitated arguments for insanity as sane.

Posted by: Knight 99 at September 23, 2010 1:36 PM

Loki, EXCELLENT POINT! Didn't some bunch of university kids recently find one of those reflectors which was "lost" for a long time too? I seem to remember seeing something about that someplace...

Atwood: giving stupid a bad name.

Posted by: The Phantom at September 23, 2010 1:38 PM

First, regarding the Playboy article, I love the comment from the comments section: "I only read it for the news articles". lol

Secondly, if the moon landing was fake, then perhaps footage of the Chinese and their "Ladder to Heaven" is also a fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ_E7Vce8vU


Posted by: Indiana Homez at September 23, 2010 1:40 PM

And I guess Margaret isn't a The Big Bang Theory fan or she'd know about the lasers-moon-reflection test. Still, maybe she and Penny's dumb date could start seeing each other?

Posted by: andycanuck at September 23, 2010 1:44 PM

@ set you free: Go. Frig. Your. Hat!

You "can't we all just get along" Rodney King wannabe pinheads are 1/2 the problem with politics these days.

Posted by: Richard Evans at September 23, 2010 1:48 PM

[quote]Could we please leave the tool of character assassination to the left and attempt to raise our level of debate to ideas?[/quote]Set you free

Those are "your" character values...She is counting on her ability to use those values "against" you in an unreasonable debate......

It is absolutely necessary to understand the value system of your opponent. or you are the idiot....

The more complex you make your argument: the more likely you will miss a simple solution

Einstein said “ the simplest solution is always the best solution”

Posted by: Phillip G. Shaw at September 23, 2010 2:04 PM

I'm guessing that the the leftist moon-landing hoax lunacy may relate to what we certainly know about a lot of WW2 film propaganda work done in New Jersey, you know like filming toy model ships up close to re-create marine warfare for a not yet graphically sophisticated public.

Again, the left's hysterical analogies. Yunno, Gitmo has prisoners, the Soviet Gulag had prisoners, ergo, Gitmo = Gulag.

BUT, of course, notwithstanding the fake footage, the War was real just as the moon landing was.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at September 23, 2010 2:38 PM

Posted by: Richard Evans at September 23, 2010 1:48 PM

Classy. Real classy.

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 2:45 PM

Lets see now ... if Dave Suzuki was to come up with some kind of new BS book, who would he get to write the forward?

[ Suzuki's new book, The Legacy: An Elder's Vision for Our Sustainable Future with a forward by Margaret Atwood, is on sale now.] VanSun

Posted by: ron in kelowna ∴ at September 23, 2010 2:46 PM

Oh, and Richard.

All I'm saying is we can win this if we debate ideas, not stoop to the left's tactic of character assassination and name-calling.

I'm sure you're capable enough.

If my comments about Ezra upset you, well, he damages his credibility by throwing out unsubstantiated claims that can be proven to be incorrect.

Free speech is a two-way street and it's usually the best ideas that win, not who can name-call the loudest.

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 2:53 PM

Soros:

When a man is secretly and massively subverting the Ameican republic and now secretly attempting to prevent the establishment of a new media outlet in Canada with his billions, made on the market while decrying capitalism, it's fair game, and definitely not character assasination, to site the public domain stories about his past which formed his despicable character.

And when a newspaper retracts a story and apologies to avoid onerous legal fees this shouldn't be taken as evidence of unfair treatment. Just gutlessness.

As Glenn Beck puts it (and he's certainly right) he's one spooky dude. He's clearly a dangerous marxist global government psychopath. I consider him a modern day Lenin.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at September 23, 2010 3:00 PM

Thinking for Margaret Atwood must be really hard. That must be why she doesn't think.

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at September 23, 2010 3:01 PM

Ralph Kramden, slightly revised, "TO THE MOON, PEGGY!"

And don't come back.

Posted by: batb at September 23, 2010 3:06 PM

Margaret Atwood? The not-very-bright daughter of a distinguished entomologist. I think she stole his style.
And her shtick is to write about people as though they are insects.

Posted by: John Lewis at September 23, 2010 3:09 PM

All I'm saying is we can win this if we debate ideas, not stoop to the left's tactic of character assassination and name-calling.
~set you free

That would be true if more of the public was engaged in political issues, but since they aren't you're wrong.

In case you haven't noticed, the Left has been winning for decades by using smear tactics and conservatives have been losing because of erroneously thinking that simply presenting the facts is a winning strategy when it isn't.

Posted by: Oz at September 23, 2010 3:17 PM

Pie are squared.

Posted by: Manitoba Moose at September 23, 2010 3:18 PM

Why not return to the Moon? Essentially, because it's time for other things. US and European space observatories are amazing things, far beyond 1960s technology, but they can be operated from Earth, and don't need much maintenance. We do have people more or less continuously in low earth orbit, and to match the pictures from the Moon in 1969 and the early `70s we have the amazing photos from the Hubble and from Chandra, and various other telescopes. No, the last 30 years have seen great advances and great successes in astronomy/astrophysics, great technological gains, but really not too much reason to go back to the Moon at this time.

Posted by: John Lewis at September 23, 2010 3:22 PM

Oz:

In case you haven't noticed, wait until Nov. 2 to see which side is in retreat.

Our side can challenge the left's smear tactics without stooping to their level. Once you get suckered into mud-slinging, though, that gives them justification to torque up the rhetoric.

Fer instance, if you respond smear for smear, they can label you ‘angry.'

Our side is winning by staying on the plane of ideas, by presenting facts and by exposing the tactics of the utopian totalitarians.

Being defeatist about it only shows a weakness that can be exploited. Stay strong.

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 3:27 PM

To actually have any knowledge of the event is of plebian bent. There were cocktail parties to attend, publishers to schmooze. Who watches the news, it's so sad... someone should do something..a scathing remark perhaps..maybe a tsk. HAL was an artist and deserves support.

Posted by: Speedy at September 23, 2010 3:36 PM

No one ever said it was easy. Kennedy said "you do it because it is hard."

They did go back again......and again....and again....and again.

Posted by: Dave at September 23, 2010 3:38 PM

Someone should remind her that the ICBM programs and the Apollo guidance computer both were significant factors in the nascent integrated circuit market. (Specifically, massive government demand for them sped up the process of making them cheaper.)

In other words, they did have "microchips" then, since "microchip" means "integrated circuit", not "microprocessor" (a computer process that is a single IC package).

One imagine she must mean "microprocessors", but they aren't and weren't necessary.

As has been abundantly said elsewhere, all you need to get to the moon is slide-rule level technology; the basic computing involved in Apollo just makes it easier.

(And we haven't gone back not because it's too hard, but because it's expensive and not worthwhile when you're not showing off against the Reds.

Her other stupidity about the "hoax" is equally long-debunked by eg. Bad Astronomy nd dozens of others... but it's not like she's actually bothered to do any research.

She's not, despite "writing about the future" and winning a Clarke award, a science fiction author.

She's a polemicist who does dystopias. And is a terrible author.)

Posted by: Sigivald at September 23, 2010 3:42 PM

I'm glad she writes garbage.
The 'progressives' have to read her bilge and watch garbage like CBC's Little Steaming Pile On The Prairie to show how progressive they are.
Serves them right.

Posted by: Stan at September 23, 2010 3:44 PM

Oz:

Answer me one question.

How does responding to a smear with a smear make you a better persont?

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 3:44 PM

Leftists need no justification to torque up the rhetoric, ever.
They will always call conservatives "angry" or "racist" or "greedy" with zero provocation.
And they win doing it too.

"Our side is winning by staying on the plane of ideas, by presenting facts and by exposing the tactics of the utopian totalitarians."
-set you free

Wrong.
Most people don't know shit from shinola when it comes to facts and certainly aren't interested in them.
They just look around for someone to blame when they're hurting and if they aren't hurting they just vote according to tradition if they vote at all.

I'm no defeatist, you're just wrong.

Nov 2?
What has that got to do with calling Margret Atwood, who is a Canadian, a Moonbat?

Here in Canada, we don't have a 2 party system like they have in the U.S.
The only reason conservatives aren't permanently out of power everywhere in Canada is because the Left is splintered into several parties.
You better believe Canadian conservatives would be in a world of hurt if the NDP and the Liberals united and quit the vote splitting on the Left because Canadians are not politcally engaged and aware of the issues because Canadians just don't want to be.

Posted by: Oz at September 23, 2010 3:46 PM

Oz:

Fact is, Margaret Atwood was the subject of a guilt-by-association smear and the pile-on continues here. That fact doesn't change, no matter what your political perspective.

I agree that people are looking around for somebody to blame, that's part of human nature.

But once again I ask: how does blaming somebody else make anybody a better person? For certain, blaming others does not help correct any individual's inadequacies.

Your last point. People are driven by emotionalism rather than logic?

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 4:03 PM

"how does blaming somebody else make anybody a better person? For certain, blaming others does not help correct any individual's inadequacies.
Your last point. People are driven by emotionalism rather than logic?"

~set you free

Yes, people are driven by emotions rather than logic.
Most people are incapable of logic and even when they are capable of logic the informational inputs that drive their logic are often false.

case in point:
Blaming someone else doesn't make one a better person at all, but assuming most people strive to become "better" people is a wrong assumption and you will lose every time betting on it.

Posted by: Oz at September 23, 2010 4:11 PM

Oz says "The only reason conservatives aren't permanently out of power everywhere in Canada is because the Left is splintered into several parties.
You better believe Canadian conservatives would be in a world of hurt if the NDP and the Liberals united and quit the vote splitting on the Left because Canadians are not politcally engaged and aware of the issues because Canadians just don't want to be."

Actually, Canada would cease to exist in that case. The days of Central Canadian imperialism are long gone.

Posted by: John at September 23, 2010 4:13 PM

So, most people are like Homer Simpson and are begging to be manipulated?

Speak for yourself.

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 4:16 PM

OT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2pJVNcjuzY

How did Justin get so tall? His dad was a 5'-3" munchkin (that could explain a lot)?

Posted by: PiperPaul at September 23, 2010 4:19 PM

"So, most people are like Homer Simpson and are begging to be manipulated?"
~set you free

How is that man-crush you have on Ed Stelmach working out for you?
Does that insane jealousy you have about the City of Calgary make you a better person?

Posted by: Oz at September 23, 2010 4:20 PM

Why should a Canadian intellectual have to know anything?

That would spoil the whole thing.

Posted by: Peter O'Donnell at September 23, 2010 4:26 PM

I don't think Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, and Leland Stanford would approve of how their foundations' money is being spent and who they honor.

Years ago, Rush Limbaugh said, "Prizes are for liberals." It's a mutual admiration society.

Conservatives give prizes too, but the tenor is very different.

Posted by: POWinCA at September 23, 2010 4:32 PM

Kathryn:

I've walked out of only three movies in my life:

The Handmaid's Tale
Get Carter (2000)
Ocean's Thirteen

Handmaid was, by far, the worst movie I've ever seen. Even the heaping load of leftist, misanthropic BS like Avatar was entertaining enough to watch to the end.

Posted by: POWinCA at September 23, 2010 4:38 PM

Why hasn't the US been back to the moon?

The future really is in green jobs, and green technology. As soon as we find enough of other people's money to start it, and then keep it going, the ocean's will stop rising, and the planet start to heal.

Posted by: small c conservative at September 23, 2010 4:44 PM

Oz:

How's your inability to deal with the topic working out for you?

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 4:47 PM

Oz:How's your inability to deal with the topic working out for you?
~set you free

comment #7
Posted by: Oz at September 23, 2010 10:33 AM
Right on topic.

You're wrong again, set you free.
I see you have a single comment that references Atwood but you aren't actually on topic for any of your comments on this thread.

Posted by: Oz at September 23, 2010 4:55 PM

1) I have never read Atwood at age 51 and am never going to - my few attempts have shown her writing is as boring as watching paint dry.

2) I never knew she was an out-and-out IDIOT until today - cool post!

3) my stepdad actually worked in the Grumman Aerospace team that designed the LEM ergonomics - and he has plenty of proof of this. Nothing like personal experience, I always say.

3) @set you free: begging helplessly for us to be kinder to Ms. Atwood based on the notion that not doing so somehow demeans us has the same faint stench of Puritanism as the old "profanity proves you have a diminished intellect" gambit. It's crap.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at September 23, 2010 4:56 PM

syf ( set you free)

If somebody writes a (probably) good book it does not mean that she is entitled to make comments on the matters she has no idea about. If she comments on them then saying she is an idiot is not a character assassination it is a fact. If she were not she would not be commenting on it.
btw. .I think that the only bad thing resulting from the break up of USSR was the end of "space race" ....I so wanted to go and walk on Mars!!!

Posted by: ella at September 23, 2010 4:59 PM

Your next A. C. Clarke award winner, President Ivelostgripofrealityajad:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/world/2010/09/23/15455676.html

Posted by: Al the fish in MB at September 23, 2010 5:00 PM

So, we are all better than Margaret Atwood?

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 5:04 PM

Posted by: Oz at September 23, 2010 4:20 PM

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 5:05 PM

Yes. Rather obviously I would hope.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at September 23, 2010 5:08 PM

Al the fish in MB

Ahmadinejad should definitely get A.C Clarke award. His statements so so so so ....Alternative Reality like.

Posted by: ella at September 23, 2010 5:20 PM

ups.
forgot "are"
His statements are soo Alternative Reality- like

Posted by: ella at September 23, 2010 5:23 PM

100 million years from today some aliens from Capella IV will stumble on the Apollo remains. They will conclude there was once intelligent life on the nearby ice-ball Earth.

They will be wrong.

Posted by: rimcTX at September 23, 2010 5:27 PM

Let me review and please let me know if I got anything incorrect in this timeline.

1) It's discovered Margaret Atwood signed a petition by Avaaz, the U.S.-based lobby group that wanted to block Sun TV and referred to it at Fox TV North.

2) Ezra Levant claimed in an article that Avaaz was financed by George Soros. Atwood's name was again mentioned as an enemy of free speech.

3) As a result of the contents of said article by Levant, Sun Media was compelled to allow Margaret Atwood to write a retraction in the weekend editions of the newspapers. In the article, Atwood suggested the article was offered and accepted as an alternative to a libel lawsuit.

4) Sun Media issues a short apology which says Soros and Sun Media could not come to an agreement as to how to rectify the inaccurate statements about Soros and there's a suggestion a lawsuit is pending against Sun Media.

5) At some point, when a bunch of fake names are discovered on the Avaaz petition and their source traced back to an Ottawa IP address, Kory Tenyce resigns his position at Sun TV. Seems he knew the names on the petition before the petition was releases.

As I had invited all of you at the start of this post ... let me know if any of the facts in this timeline are incorrect.

Also, other than making a dumb mistake by signing the Avaaz petition, how is Margaret Atwood involved in the larger conspiracy?

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 5:27 PM

Has some troll decided to be Set You Free today?

"Could we please leave the tool of character assassination to the left and attempt to raise our level of debate to ideas?"

Is it character assassination to point out that if a person believes the moon landings were a hoax, that person is an uninformed buffoon? I think not.

Is it uncalled for to point out that a famous person has been -faking- a functional intellect all these years because she's actually an uniformed buffoon? I think not.

BTW, do you know why the lefties use smears instead of facts? Because they don't -have- any facts, and because it WORKS.

Do you know why the left is going to get creamed Nov. 2nd in Amurika? Because they went forward too fast, and because they stopped lying about their goals.

In other words syf, WE are not beating them. THEY are spontaneously falling apart, and we are running along behind yelling "look look, they're falling apart!"

Posted by: The Phantom at September 23, 2010 5:38 PM

Atwood should honor 2001 a space odyssey by not mentioning its name.

Posted by: Warren Z at September 23, 2010 5:40 PM

syf

Margaret Atwood thinks that moon landing did not happen and was staged by Powers that Were because (among other things) HAL computer (imaginary computer, mind you) was soo big.
She is an idiot.

The rest is also true but it does not have much relevance to the fact that she is an idiot. The rest have more relevance to the fact that she prefers to protest things that will not kick her in the behind and try to kill her (like protesting against women treatment by islamists)

Posted by: ella at September 23, 2010 5:42 PM

"We have achieved normality. Anything you still can't handle is therefore your own problem."

Posted by: mojo at September 23, 2010 5:47 PM

Me No Dhimmi - I agree

Posted by: Ron at September 23, 2010 5:49 PM

Phantom

SYF in one of many languages of Europe means :

1. mess;
2. crap; the weather's crap

That is, of course, a character assassination syf have been talking about. ;-)

Posted by: ella at September 23, 2010 5:50 PM

Odd that some think that Atwood's reply in the Sun was a cogent repudiation of the accusations that she is a hypocrit in favour of censoring or banning alternate points of view. As an example of damage control it's alright I guess.

But..visit the web site and it's pretty hard not to notice the large bright font of the header "Stop Fox News North". Splitting hairs after the fact over why she signed the petition is disengenuous at the least and more likely just outright spin doctoring bulls&%t.

Posted by: Less Free by the Day at September 23, 2010 5:52 PM

So, we are all better than Margaret Atwood?
~set you free

Well... some of us are, set you free.

Posted by: Oz at September 23, 2010 6:01 PM

Socialized medicine.Doc I can't sleep. Read Atwood at bedtime it should help. Doc my husband sleeps 'till noon. Remove the Atwood and he'll be ok. Only read 10 pages,he read a chapter.

Posted by: Speedy at September 23, 2010 6:22 PM

Isn't the real enemy Avaaz?

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 6:39 PM

elia:

I see you fancy yourself a cunning linguist.

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 6:40 PM

I did a quick google. The US landed on the moon 6 times with 12 different guys over 4 years from 1969 to 1973. I think it would be tough to cover this up. It is surprising the Margaret A would believe in this truther stuff but it is surprising how many people believe this stuff. There is a radio station (and I can't remember the channel) that is broadcast into the Durham Region (just east of Toronto) late at night and the guy on this station talks about nothing but truther stuff and he actually has a huge following and he is very good at spinning all sorts of crap and it looks like this crap is believed.

Posted by: cconn at September 23, 2010 6:42 PM

set you free;

There comes a point in time when we have to draw a line in the sand and then give hell to whomever crosses it. Atwood and her ilk keep crossing, and folks like you, who are worried about the "optics" of fighting back, keep letting them get away with it.

To quote our host: "Pleasing your enemies does not turn them into friends."

These buggers need to be hit hard, hit often and not let up.

Posted by: Richard Evans at September 23, 2010 6:44 PM

Posted by: Richard Evans at September 23, 2010 6:44 PM

Who needs to be hit hardest?

Somebody who made a dumb mistake (Atwood)?

Or Avaaz, who's perpetrating the deception?

I choose Door No. 2.

But without making the same dumb mistakes Ezra and Kory Tenyke made.

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 6:46 PM

The US landed on the moon 6 times with 12 different guys over 4 years from 1969 to 1973.

My mother-in-law thinks the first moon landing was faked.
Not the later ones, just the first one.

Asked why the first one and not the following ones?
She can't answer that but is still convinced the first one was filmed in a vacant area of Montana.

The production value of all the moon landing footage is really poor.
You'd think that if they were faked that the Americans would have made the footage at least as good as Michael Moore's documentaries.

"Who needs to be hit hardest?
Somebody who made a dumb mistake (Atwood)?
Or Avaaz, who's perpetrating the deception?"

~set you free

That there is what is called a false dichotomy.
A logical fallacy, bad logic.

No choice has to be made as to one or the other.
Hit them both hard.

Posted by: Oz at September 23, 2010 6:56 PM

No, Oz, it's called a choice. As in, choose who is your real enemy and neutralize them.

Could you comment on Ezra and Kory Tenyke. Was it smart to post false names on the Avaaz petition? Was Tenyke involved? If he wasn't, why did he quit after he knew the names on the petition, even though those names had not been released?

Will Ezra be fired for the umpteenth time in his journalistic career? Is there a pattern as to why he was fired?

You're entitled to your own opinion, my friend.

You're not entitled to your own facts.

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 7:04 PM

Less Free by the Day at September 23, 2010 5:52 PM

Excellent point. Reminder: she signed the petition; everything else she, a putative "artist", says about the reasons for this despicable act is diversionary eyewash. She signed a petition to influence CRTC to disallow a licence. Period. There shouldn't even BE government licences for media -- but that's another topic.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at September 23, 2010 7:10 PM

fact:
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.

The 3rd option, not mentioned by syf, is that they are BOTH real enemies and that they BOTH deserve to be hit hard.

Posted by: Oz at September 23, 2010 7:11 PM

The original question was: who needs to be hit hardest? Do you believe me or your lyin' eyes?

It's not a crime to sign a petition. I'm sure all of us have done it at one time or another.

What's really galling is Avaaz, a U.S.-based lobby group, interfering in a Canadian issue and misrepresenting the intentions of Sun TV, which proposes to put forth a network with another viewpoint.

In the long run, it's a total waste of energy to demonize Atwood.

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 7:22 PM

It's not a crime to sign a petition.
~set you free

Straw man logical fallacy.
Nobody argued it was a crime to sign a petition.
Only you have suggested anyone thought it might be a crime.
You are arguing against a statement nobody but you have made.
Bad logic again, set you free.

Margret Atwood is supposed to be a Canadian literary treasure, an icon of the Canadian Leftist Elite.
Not only is she against free speech, against "the truth setting people free', but she signed a petition to prevent free speech and prevent people from getting the truth.

For that she is not one of the better people, I would call her an enemy, and she deservers to get hit hard.

Are you really sure that facts and logic are the way you want to convince people?
Because you seem to have a dearth of both.

Posted by: Oz at September 23, 2010 7:35 PM

Isn't the real enemy Avaaz?

End quote:------------

Yes and their members that signed the petition.

Posted by: Rose at September 23, 2010 7:35 PM

syf, I don't think anyone's *demonizing* Atwood. Nobody called her a Gaia-raping Fascist gun-nut mouth-breathing knickle-dragging hillbilly Christian rightist oppressor.

What I've seen here is what I would call mockery, plain and simple. And why not? She obviously has the brains of a pissant.

Posted by: Michael H Anderson at September 23, 2010 7:42 PM

Is Atwood a MEMBER of Avaaz?

Could be, but that's news to me.

Oz:

Atwood made a dumb mistake when she signed the petition.

I submit to you what Ezra and Kory Tenyke did was even dumber.

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 7:43 PM

Oz:

I see your mind's already made up.

Sorry to confuse you with the facts.

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 7:44 PM

I just made a comment on page AL2 of the National Post expressing relief that the award was not in fact for Atwood"s signing the Avaaz petition.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at September 23, 2010 7:47 PM

Ken:

Brilliant! I love it.

Posted by: set you free at September 23, 2010 7:49 PM

(I don't even pretend to understand that movie.)

Posted by: Black Mamba at September 23, 2010 7:56 PM

What do you expect from a Liberal. Logical though?
They live in a conspiracy where their the downtrodden idealists full of love & tolerance. Surrounded by the like minded, in the same cocoon.
JMO

Posted by: Revnant Dream at September 23, 2010 7:58 PM

Black Mamba- this is a good site that explains 2001. At least part of it anyway. http://www.kubrick2001.com

Posted by: Warren Z at September 23, 2010 8:21 PM

Let's review, shall we? Historically, Ms Atwood has yelled blue murder, anytime the notion of trimming arts funding is raised, about the threat of censorship. Ms Atwood is on-record supporting a separatist political party because of their position on arts/cultural funding. Ms Atwood prominently supported a petition against the start-up of a conservative media outlet in this country---nobody with half a brain believes that this support involved the "process" involved. Ms Atwood believes the the Apollo missions were fabricated in some CIA, warehouse film studio. And, finally, Set You Free believes that satire would be inappropriate at this time. Please return to your regularly scheduled program.

Posted by: rzr at September 23, 2010 8:37 PM

"Margaret Atwood, Arthur C. Clarke Award winner"

How about, Special Medal Of Merit-Shark Jump, Arthur H. Fonzarelli.

Posted by: richfisher at September 23, 2010 8:58 PM

Margaret Atwood, AKA Ofgeorge...

Posted by: Maikeru at September 23, 2010 9:03 PM

Read Gordon Cooper's autobiography, specifically the part regarding the destruction of the molds for the Titan rocket engines and you'll understand why the U.S. hasn't been back.

Posted by: Blair at September 23, 2010 10:14 PM

Dear Margaret. Google slide + rule.

Posted by: Speedy at September 23, 2010 10:37 PM

I'd respond, syf, but Oz managed quite nicely... I've nothing to add but to tell you once again to go frig your hat.

Cheers!

Posted by: Richard Evans at September 23, 2010 11:06 PM

Rob Breakenridge on CHQR made a comment tonight about a sureal exchange he had with Margie about this subject. It is up on his blog.

Margaret, The Moon, and Me

Posted by: foobert at September 24, 2010 12:15 AM

I think the old Spook is looking for attention and to divert attention from her recent headlines so best to ignore her. Someone said she looks like like Pierre Trudeau in drag, I agree.

Posted by: Liz J at September 24, 2010 8:35 AM

Thanks, Warren Z, I'll give it a look.

Posted by: Black Mamba at September 24, 2010 8:49 AM

All right, 'fess up time. Anyone here who has actually read any of her stuff?

Pretty exciting, is it?

Posted by: Jamie MacMaster at September 24, 2010 4:26 PM

Jamie - she's the one and only author - as far as I know, I guess - that I have ever read and literally blanked out. I don't mean I blanked out - well, maybe I did, I can't be sure - but rather that more than once I've started skimming an Atwood book someone had lying around, or read a synopsis or an extract in a magazine, and though "bloody hell, I remember this. Obviously I read this! How can this be?"

How can it be?

Posted by: Black Mamba at September 24, 2010 4:54 PM
Site
Meter