Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Mind at Work | Main | Novelty, Boredom, and the Speed of Time »



Hugh Hewitt appeared recently, and he in a post on his blog he speculates that Colbert may be more conservative than many folks assume.

But I claim primacy on this idea.

Here's a link to my post from early February (which I think many people who used search engines to find the post were disappointed with which closet I was outing him from)

Also, I look forward to him hosting the White House Correspondents Association Dinner this Saturday, I hope he does the entire evening 'in character'.

Michael Reynolds

First of all, dobos torte? Excellent choice.

Second, no one, no matter how smart, can beat a comedian on his own show. The smartest guy in the world can't go on Letterman or Jon Stewart or Colbert and somehow prevail. The host owns the audience, and controls the timing and flow, and has long since established the dominant ethos. And by the way, the three guys named above are all highly intelligent on top of their institutional advantages.


What are you talking about. Sam Harris was the only one talking sense. Colbert was just talking over him and not listening.

Of course, he was being more crowd pleasing, what with his very biased audience.

Try that in front of a group of atheists.


Harris was a stuffed shirt, with no sense of humor about himself. If you're going to go on a show like that, be prepared to have fun poked at you -- and be ready to take part in the fun.

It looked like Harris takes himself too seriously for that.


Sam Harris is a tool.

Anyone who bashes religion on the bases of reason but can't concede to reason behing bashed by reason (deconstruction - adorno/horkheimer -- is a tool.


I have to agree with commenter Michael Reynolds concerning how a comedian owns his show and audience no matter who the guest.

However, I do think Harris has a point. He just seemed unaware of the fact he was never going to get it across on that kind of show. Why and how much we should tolerate faith is a very good question, especially in light of violence committed in the name of it. Colberts' lighthearted but constant "let's kick some ass" retorts just underscores one of the points Harris was attempting to make.

But I also think Harris might be a little short-shirted in reducing his argument to reason alone and in the name calling of believers (crazy or stupid).


If you agree with Harris, you'll think he was talking sense. And of course the comedian owns the show. All that's beside my point. My point is that Colbert was doing something very complicated and cunning -- parodying what may well be his own side in the debate. He has faith. He may be embarrassed by the rhetorical excesses of some of those who share his faith, so he gets to bash Harris from behind that mask. It's such a stealth strategy it makes your head spin.


Stephen Colbert is a riddle wrapped up in an enigma served on a bed of lettuce that speaks to you. Stephen Colbert is a bird chirping in an empty meadow with a song no one but you can hear. Comedy is a wreath of beautiful flowers that smell very, very bad.




It's funny and sad that some people still don't understand that Colbert Show is satire. He's play-acting a conservative. All of his interviews are full of these kinds of absurd remarks and idiocies such as the line quoted above: "Bible is inerrant because -- it says it is."

As someone who is sympathetic to the ideas espoused in this blog, it's a bit embarrassing to keep reading such clueless content.

Some more contact with the current popular culture, sarcasm and irony would do be helpful.


I love both these guys and Sam did wonderfully. I saw nothing that could be considered an intelligent point from the Colbert character and, judging from the actual substance of your post, neither did you. That you found anything other than parody and mockery in Colbert's performance says more about you than it does about Harris or Colbert.

Dr. Diogeron

It's amazing how many people don't seem to understand that Colbert is a satirist, first and foremost. Sam Harris is smarter than 95% of the people who watch Colbert (and 99% of people who don't.) To say that Colbert "ran rings" around Harris is just plain stupid. Harris has a Ph.D. and is a true intellectual who has written several books on the subject. Anyone who expects that a person of substance can actually make an argument (in the academic sense) on a show like Colbert's is smoking something really strong. On second thought, maybe they should to enhance their critical thinking abilities. It's a COMEDY show, dude.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004