Come on, Isn't This Kinda' Hilarious?

I was traipsing through the blogosphere and came upon

I don't mean to call out this college professor for writing in that way that academics have but come on. It struck me as funny because it's so intellectual gobbldeygooky that it's almost satire. Here's just the first sentence of Patrick S. O'Donnell's on...well to be honest I still don't know what the heck he's talking about.
The regnant ideological doctrine in theory if not praxis of this nation’s particular incarnation of post-welfare capitalist democracy can be described as a neo-liberal technocratic plutocracy suffused with a Constitution-transcending or constitutionally defiant legal ethos defined by an institutionally entrenched insecurity and paranoia that generates panoptical surveillance ambitions and totalizing information-gathering practices by both public agencies and private firms within the terms and constraints of a feverishly financialized turbo-capitalism on the one hand, and a colossal Orwellian National Security State on the other hand.
He has to be doing this on purpose, right?

Who talks like that?

Oh wait, I know what he's saying? I just figured it out. He's telling us he got a thesaurus for Christmas. Be careful man, those things can be dangerous.

*subhead*We talkin' 'bout praxis.*subhead*


  1. Well, it made me laugh out loud. Seriously it must be satire.

  2. I like to try to translate from one language to another. This time Google Translate didn't work, so I tried by myself.
    "In plan, if not in actual practice, the vision of all-encompassing power, manifesting itself in this nation’s post-welfare capitalistic democracy, can be described as rule by rich and powerful, technological savvy, but insecure and paranoid, liberals who assume they are above the Constitution in their need to know everything about everyone. Within the workings of either the current powerful capitalistic system or of a colossal Orwellian national Security State, they will use all means, including public and private sources, to gather total information on everyone."

    Gee . . . who do we know who fits this picture?!

  3. That's a hoot.

    The scary part? I understood exactly what he's saying. Then again, I've read a lot of Hegel, and this is reads like USA Today compared to Hegel. The real problem is that there are people who take Hegel seriously, admire him, even, then write like this.

  4. You do have to admit that he writes a awful lot St. punctuation, except for an occasional period thrown in only if absolutely necessary!

  5. Irishnana4, both are Greek to me.

    (My resolution is to start writing on my blog again. Trying the popular culture route this time.)

  6. In he hard sciences we write in a way so we can be understood. We know science is confusing and to communicate science and get funding we need to be clear. Ironically, the humanities and soft sciences know how wispy washy their opinions are from year to year and try desperately to sound smart and presume to elevate even mundane ideas using jargon heavy communication. All this guy said was the left hs created what Orwell wrote about. Hopefully he compares where Orwell wa right and wrong by overlaying details of current practice. Sadly, none of this is difficult, but the perpetual revolution is being lived out, except the revolution is under the guise of equality and tolerance. So you better be tolerant and treat everyone equally or you will be oppressed and mcked.

  7. I looked this guy up and he always writes like that. I think he wants us to know how really smart he is. Can you imagine having him for a class?

  8. Occasionally, I'll go to , copy and paste something onto the site's readabilty index. A higher score indicates easier readability; scores usually range between 0 and 100. O'Donnell's sentence gets a negative 67.9
    Not 67.9 but MINUS 67.9

  9. NiceLady, all I can say is: Great minds think alike! I enjoyed everyone's comments, but I am here to offer my own "translation".

    The main idea of this country's capitalist democracy following the welfare state can be described as a democracy where the true leaders are the rich and the brainy, who long to find economic growth while all along looking for social justice. Added to this is a so-called moral custom of disregarding the Constitution, one which is defined by insecurity and paranoia established with the help of social institutions. This custom generates desires for total surveillance and for combining the information-gathering practices both of public agencies and private firms; all within terms and constraints: on one hand, those of an emphasised capitalism unnaturally excessive in its focus on money; on the other, those of the State and its gigantic focus, per Orwell's style, on national security.

  10. Yippppeeee! I find these people to yet be the fun "fest" of them all! ;) Please, may I have a go at this guy?

    Don't even try to follow this guy into his made up make believe world! He is already on the crazy train ready to self destruct. This narcissist is so disconnected to reality, he shouldn't be left alone for a minute unsupervised! This is what happens when you hit the progressive liberal, academic brick wall. It's all fantasy psycho-babal from here on out.
    Hey, wasn't "Praxis" a "Klingon" moon that was destroyed in a movie?
    Sounds like he is suffering post organic, liberal progressive, brain rot. Too bad, just a matter of time before he needs a dribble cup. Keep all sharp objects put away and out of sight...and check in on him...frequently.

  11. I agree with his thesis - and the use of the special terminology helps to underline the substantive argument.

  12. Underline. Undermine. So hard to know.


Post a Comment