william.scherk

Thanks for letting us know you are reading the thread.

Objectivists don't argue about feed, food and nutrition, do they? Dashed. We have Dr Mrs Doctor Diana dispensing her findings on Objectivish Eating (via her Paleo-diet community/cult). Here's a lovely looking muck pie called Raw Vegan Cheesecake, from the people at Raw Objectivism ...

We know the artist has control over every aspect of a picture [...] If he has the conviction that man is a being of volitional consciousness, the painting or fiction should usually reflect this in content, style, etc. [...] 'Doing something' is present in many artworks [...] But a "voluntary" action [...] is not necessarily - and often not- redolent of a man or woman of stature, of purposeful action, overcoming adversity and achieving goals and unique character. Sometimes I have to work a bit to get at just what Tony is trying to illustrate. I think his point is more or less this: -- If a given painter is convinced that man is a being of volitional consciousness**, then the painter's control over every aspect of a painting means that his paintings usually reflect his sense of life. This can make sense, if I understand what volitional consciousness is, and if I understand what sense of life means, and if I understand that in content, a Romanticist painter will show people of stature, of unique character, in purposeful action, defeating adversity, achieving goals. A Romanticist painter (as opposed to a Naturalist painter -- as if they were the only two divisions of 'school' possible) will paint uplifting and beautiful scenes in which people act as if they were in control of their lives and destinies. It's a crapshoot whether I understand Tony or not. I am with those folks who wish he would illustrate his contentions with reference to actual paintings. I get the feeling that Tony knows what is Romanticist painting, and has many favoured Romanticist artists and would post such paintings if he felt his collocutors were operating in good faith. Could it be that Tony has the goods on art, but is not really wanting to argue about particulars? Tony cites a painter! Though Tony hasn't really tied together the notions explicitly, I think he is saying that Degas has a good 'sense of life' and that he therefore viewed human beings as possessing a rational will** -- and thus Degas' paintings represent a Romanticism through and through. To paraphrase Tony again, if a given painter is convinced that man is a being of volitional consciousness, then the painter's control over every aspect of a painting means that his paintings usually reflect his sense of life. _____________________ ** the more times a see "a being of volitional consciousness," the less I like it. Volition is, in most dictionaries, a kind of will -- the kind of will that compels action, which action has been chosen by a rational mind. By my own volition. His action was volitional. He meant to do the action. By your own volition you came here today. (but, his action was voluntary. You volunteered the information. Your voluntary admission. The action was not automatic, it was voluntary. Fudge. By adding 'volitional' as a modifier to 'consciousness' the concept seems to mean that a subset of human beings achieve a consciousness beyond mere conscious awareness and knee-jerk or conditioned actions. These better humans' consciousness is volitional. Their minds' wills are informed by reason, by decisions taken in full light of knowledge. Their consciousness wills things to happen, and happen the things do. (how this volitional consciousness can be portrayed by an artist, and how one can close-to-objectively discern such portrayals, I have no idea, really. I hope someone can help me out with my lack of discernment as to 'volitional consciousness' and with a method of testing for it) That confusion aside, glad that Tony brought up Degas. This is my favourite Degas. These are beings of volitional consciousness, but probably having an early evening after their busy day backstage ...

I don't know a lot about how the Ku Klux Klan inducts its members, or exactly how recruitment efforts stress their Christian heritage -- though I do know the founder was a Christian pastor. I did find an article at the Christian Post with quotes from one of the KKK's Imperial Wizards (excerpts below). It does seem likely that newer racist extremist groups -- as instances among the larger Christian Identity movement -- explicitly graft their bigotry and stupidity upon a religious stock. A Christian stock. It's really too bad that some of us here quit trying to understand the scope and breadth of Islam, too bad that some are satisfied with what little they know of Islam in the world so far. It makes for cartoonish versions of complicated reality. It's a fruitless conversation if one side insists their cartoons map to reality, without distortions due to simplification. -- I am thinking to myself something like this: "I bet both Greg and Richard could tell us things about Islam that we don't all yet know. Things like how the Ismailis differ from Twelvers and how Twelvers differ from Seveners and how Seveners are different from the Ahmaddiya, and how Indonesia's version of Islam is not the same as, say, Pakistan's version. And how many ostensibly Muslim countries from Egypt to Malaysia have condemned ISIS ... and which religious leaders have condemned ISIS... " Sadly for me, I haven't learned much from either of these expert/informed/interested parties. I perhaps should by now know what they mean by "Real Islam," but I don't. I do know that Richard finds it scary indeed, and that Greg's koanic ignorance leaves him fairly placid no matter the subject.

It's sort of a non-university. On its web page it says, "Prager University is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas. But it is a place where you are free to learn." On the Youtube home of Prager, it says: "Prager University is a virtual institution of higher learning with one unique feature -- all of our courses are only 5 minutes." I thought the video by Robert Florczak was funny/sad. Some guy tells the world how to turn back the tide of so-called bad art in museums in a five minute video. I tend to think that any efforts to produce 'good art' just takes us back to the days of official art that serves noble goals. Like Soviet Realism or the edicts of the Nazi art arbiters. Here's a few of Florczak's fine art works, from his website. They are lovely examples of a talent for illustration. They have the soul of a nicely polished boot, in my humble opinion. Winter Rose: Distant Thoughts: Moonlit Lovers:

Do you remember anything else about the interview, like which program or host? I'd like to know who that expert is. There are advocates for the whole range of options, from do nothing to 'crush ISIS.' I am interested in knowing who the expert was referring to ... who would be further 'radicalized' in the event of further US military action, and what 'radicalize' meant in context. It's the case for military action inside Syria that interests me a lot -- in that Syria has warned any such action will be interpreted as aggression. Syria is battered, divided, and the Syrian government has not shown willing to make ISIS its main target (it continues to bomb civilian areas not under its control). The territory outside Assad's control is large once you include the Kurdish cantons in the north, and the ISIS areas in the northeast, not to mention the areas under control of various non-ISIS factions and groups. Tony, one can make a strong and principled argument for zero US military action beyond what has already occurred (in Iraq). There are plenty of arguments out there which take the 'anti-imperialist' or 'resistance' line. This is that section of political thought that sees the USA as a demon and the Assad/Hizbollah/Iranian alliance as a frontline against American hegemony (and a lot of other big bad analytical words). This is the demented section that supports Assad's dictatorship no matter what. There are of course other demented-Western sections like the right nuts Anti-War coalitions. It is almost in American strategic interests to do nothing more in Syria, since action inside Syria could strengthen Assad's regime. Almost, because Assad has not brought the full fury of his war machine to ISIS. In other words, Assad has let ISIS grow in strength in order to better illustrate his line that all armed opposition are takfiri 'terrorists.' He has continued to relentlessly bomb 'rebel' areas that are not under ISIS control, and even facilitated ISIS movements when it plays to his need for sectarian fear. The latest example is in the city of Salamiya. Here it looks like Assad may soon abandon his defenses in the area. This could bring on a Sinjar situation. Salamiya is the centre of the Ismaili community in the Middle East. Ismailis are not at all the kind of Muslims that ISIS 'protects.' So one scenario is that Assad will pull his forces out of the area, leaving the religious minorities to the whims of ISIS. So, what might the US do if Assad does not defend this minority against ISIS (he has built his appeal as 'protector of the minorities' -- Shia, Ismaili, Christian, Syriac, Alawite, Druze)? What should the US do if this scenario came to pass? I certainly don't know. I envy those whose certainties are solid and unwavering.

Could you edit your piece for eye-appeal or better readability, maybe? I suggest paragraph breaks and using Bold and Italic instead of colours and underlines. You could also prepend a summary of what your main points are. Otherwise there might be a few more like me whose appreciation of your argument is marred by its presentation. Here's how you might edit the first few giant clumps of text: If you don't do the work of rendering a post readable, then folks tend not to do the work of reading it. Here I have tried to edit the very last long block of text:

Here's an offer from Francois Hollande that the EU take part in the enforcement of ceasefire provisions -- notably restarting the Europeans border presence at the Gaza crossings. From Asssociated Press.

Many of the rockets are homemade right in Gaza. Others are assembled from components smuggled in via Sinai and then through tunnels along the Gaza/Egypt border. Those tunnels have been mostly destroyed by Egypt since the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood. Gaza has no seaport. It cannot thus land large vessels. The three-mile limit imposed by Israel on Gaza fishers tends to restrict any transfers on the high seas. Here's a few article excerpts that give a sense of the rockets' manufacture, and smuggling routes. -from the Economist in July: Israeli jets have targeted what the IDF calls “operational infrastructure”. That includes missile launchers (prioritising longer-range systems), command and control centres, stored missiles and missile-production sites. If the IDF's claims are accurate, about half of the Hamas/Islamic Jihad inventory may be left. ... Before the current operation, Hamas was thought to be producing some 30 medium-range missiles a month using components smuggled in from Iran and Syria. That is quite a significant quantity given that Egypt in recent months has shut or destroyed around 95% of the tunnels on its side of the border, and little coming from the sea gets past Israeli patrol boats. However, under Israel’s bombardment it is likely that production has now been drastically slowed. - from the World Tribune: Egypt has reported the capture of Soviet-origin rockets from the Gaza Strip. Egypt’s official Middle East News Agency said several BM-21 Grad surface-to-surface rockets were intercepted as they were being smuggled to the Gaza Strip. MENA said the shipment consisted of 20 rockets and launchers, meant to be transported in the tunnels that connect Rafah, divided between Egypt and the Gaza Strip. “There was a battle with Palestinian Islamist militias at the opening of one of the tunnels,” MENA said on July 12. - from the New York Times. JERUSALEM — The rockets are smuggled via ship and tunnel from Iran, Libya, Sudan and Syria and, increasingly, manufactured from water pipes and household items in what a senior Israeli intelligence officer called Gaza’s “high-tech” sector — about 70 makeshift factories staffed by 250 men and overseen by a few dozen engineers and chemists. Ely Karmon of Israel’s International Institute for Counter-Terrorism said arms — and experts who trained the locals to use them — were imported from Hamas’s Shiite allies through the Mediterranean Sea and the Sinai Desert during the second Palestinian intifada in the early 2000s. Israel’s 2005 pullout from Gaza and Egypt’s subsequent closing of its Rafah border crossing spawned a network of underground tunnels, where, experts said, traffic reached its peak during the one-year presidency of Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, a Hamas ally who was ousted by the Egyptian military. Though Egypt’s new government is hostile to Hamas and shut down hundreds of the tunnels, the Israelis say some smuggling continued, and local production picked up. “Rocket production is one of the prosperous sectors of the Gaza Strip — there is a very organized array of research and development and production,” said the senior intelligence officer. “Technologically, we are speaking about very simple rockets. They are not accurate at all. They make them by using very simple raw materials, mostly.” Materials like 6-, 9-, 10- and 12-inch water pipes. Filled with propellant mixed from fertilizer, oxidizer, ammonia perchlorate, aluminum powder and other ingredients. Capped by warheads shaped by ironworkers. Under the tutelage, in some cases, of moonlighting chemistry or physics professors. Instructions are also available on the Internet. “You need to be an engineer, but it’s not too difficult to learn it,” said another military official. “After you have the basic design, after you have the specific plan, you can do it. You don’t need a huge factory to do it. You can do it in a garage, you can do it under a mosque.” - from the Business Insider. Hamza Abu Shanab, an expert on Islamist groups in Gaza, said Israel, which maintains a naval blockade of the territory and tight restrictions at its land border, faces a big problem. "It cannot end Hamas rockets because Hamas does not depend on imported weapons and is making its own, so fighters may be engaged in combat and others are making them the ammunition," he said. "Israel cannot estimate the size of Hamas's arsenal because the tools are being made locally. So for every rocket fired, another ten are made." Hamas and Islamic Jihad, another more militant armed faction, have announced new grades of longer-range rockets delivering heavier payloads in the latest conflict and boast of "surprises" from other, secret ordnance. ... Besides Israel's tighter curbs on Gaza-bound imports since Hamas took power there in 2007, Egypt has demolished hundreds of smuggling tunnels through which weapons and commercial goods had been brought. Hamas lost an important ally in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which was ousted by the military last year.

My friend Tony sometimes prefers not to directly quote in his fearsome ripostes to my fiery tirades. I add in here enough context so that I make sense to myself, at the risk of boring and annoying OLers. It is a reconstruction I can use in order to see my errors and misperceptions. That's what I said after the last war there. Would you, William, accept a peace treaty signed with ISIL? A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is the subject I discussed above. My opinions on the terror state you probably know. I take your underlying point: if I personally reject a peace treaty between (who?) and ITS, then I should also reject a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. Even though peace treaty with mumble doesn't mean ceasefire. That's called conflation. It's fallacious. If you have an argument about what I stated above, I'd be happy to hear it. Baghdad. As "conflation" or comparison with Hamas and Israel - my question is should the Iraqi government (such as it is) ever sign a peace deal with Isis? You have imagination, I ask that you use it. Thanks for filling in that blank. Conflation, in this instance is done by the treble sort. Iraq stands in for Israel. ITS stands in for Hamas. A "peace treaty" stands in for a ceasefire. This is fallacious. If you are asking me if I would support a peace treaty between the government of Iraq and the Islamic Terror State, I say hell no. If you are asking me if I would support a ceasefire between the IST and Iraq, I would say it hardly fucking matters, since the USA, Turkey, Kurdish Regional Government, FSA, Al-Nusra, Shiite militia, Iraq and Syria (separately) are conducting war against ITS. A peace treaty is nowhere on the horizon. So, I was just pointing out that the comparison fails. It conflates things that aren't the same, and builds an argument upon a false equivalence. Look at it as being like arguing by analogy, where the analogy is not a good fit, using the analogy to do the work. This fallacious reasoning can lead to irrational conclusions (like, I would say, Hamas is the same thing as ITS). Look at what gets left out. Iraq was a unitary state fighting an insurrection of its own citizens (plus plenty Islamist migrant warriors). That's so not the same situation as Gaza vis a vis Israel -- and of course leaves out the important concept of Palestinian, Palestinian Territory. Israel is on paper looking to a future where the Palestinians will form a state. Iraq is most certainly not looking forward to a future demented terrorist enclave state. If you are asking me if Israel should make peace with Palestinians, I say yes. I don't substitute that complex treaty for the simple cessation of hostilities by mutual agreement. Frankly, this is just pipe smoke to me. I will confidently state that if Israel had acted in exactly the same way (against the magically invisible Palestinians) over all these years, the situation would be similar: a face-off between The Resistance and the Jewish State. "The Resistance". There's the problem, writ large. Identifying who wants to live and let live - and who actually doesn't give a damn about their own people. Why is this such a hard pill to swallow? Is there something admirable about self-sacrifice, or something abhorrent about some choosing to live at all cost? I asked who will be the arbiter of our imaginative schemes. Your pipedream may be as unlikely as mine, don't you think? I see a stalemate, like today, you see Arab Nevada and big buddy Israel. As they are both guesses, what makes your Las Vegas Gaza more likely in the improbable scenario you sketched? These lines get obscure, I will be honest. I have to guess at exactly what you refer to. A set of white/black distinctions, I think. Arabs/Palestinians/Gazans/Hamas do not want to live and let live. Israelis do. Arab/Pal/Gaz/Ham do not give a damn about their own people. Israel alone cares about its own people. 'Choosing to live at all cost' (in terms of mumble) cannot be abhorrent! (to whom? mumble) This is all great, if you want hold these positions. But it's not necessarily the whole story, nor even an interesting story. The world had little taste for suicide attacks, as you well know. Suppressing these evil acts since 2007 has been the task of the Palestinians as well as Israelis. We were each taking a turn at guessing what would happen if a magical world media blackout occurred over Palestinian lands! Come on, Tony. Be fair ... we were each conjuring against that background. Well, help us out, Tony and be clear about the tragedy of my words. If there are precise reasons that I voiced (which weaken Israel), please quote them. It's important. Ah, so general, so emotive, so sure. What might comprise these 'massive concessions' ... ? You merely insult me as being blind if I don't agree with you that every last Palestinians does not see it in their interest to declare long-standing peace. I don't know what you are arguing for or against now. It's so nebulous. Even now knowing that I have made some tragic rhetorical error in lining up some reasons I am glad glad glad there is a ceasefire, I can't get purchase on the particulars. I'll wait till you get to a well-delimited subject I am competent to write on before I get back in the saddle.

That's what I said after the last war there. Would you, William, accept a peace treaty signed with ISIL? A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is the subject I discussed above. My opinions on the terror state you probably know. I take your underlying point: if I personally reject a peace treaty between (who?) and ITS, then I should also reject a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. Even though peace treaty with mumble doesn't mean ceasefire. That's called conflation. It's fallacious. If you have an argument about what I stated above, I'd be happy to hear it. This doesn't make sense to me. It's counter-reality, or science fiction, or alternate history. One can make any argument if we just use magic -- magical removal of the world's attention to Palestine. ("if we hadn't paid attention to what the Palestians have been saying, then they would have got down to the business of figuring out how to turn Area C into real estate gold") Frankly, this is just pipe smoke to me. I will confidently state that if Israel had acted in exactly the same way (against the magically invisible Palestinians) over all these years, the situation would be similar: a face-off between The Resistance and the Jewish State. Which magical arbiter could rate each of our pipedreams more or less plausible? This is if you close one eye and pretend that only Palestinians matter to the hundreds of millions of Europeans. Which European country has done a tenth of what rogue Ecuador did to display its displeasure at Israel's war on Gaza? So, if the Palestinians (writ large, all of them, West Bank, Gaza, in camps elsewhere) made an appeal to humanity, to the World, and the world (and the BBC) let their appeal be heard, and the appeal was heard, and so ... if only they had no appeal, then everything would be something something. I can't follow this. I am quite glad there is a ceasefire. You are not that glad. Fair enough. I have no idea, and neither do you. If Hamas led the way back to another intifada in the Palestinian territories, and/or if Hamas and Islamist former allies conducted bus-bombings or other suicide attacks against civilian Israeli targets, your assumed international bias could likely swing the other way. And if I had green gauze wings I could fly to the moon. I get the impression that great emotions move your opinions on the ceasefire. I'd suggest you put those emotions to work in a tighter and more specific argument if you are looking for a fruitful discussion. Here's a starter: what do you think of the Israeli government's settlements policy in the West Bank?

What are you suggesting, Peter, by 'serious USA action'? The rebels who took the Quneitra crossing from Assad forces are no threat to Israel, their guns are not aimed at Israel. Israel treats rebel wounded in the Golan. In other words there is an understanding between Israel and the Syrian rebels in the area. If a shell lands in Israel, Israel will return fire to the launch site which has turned out multiple times to be under Assad's control. If Assad moves arms to Hezbollah, Israel bombs the convoys. This has happened in Syria several times. Israel obeys its own rules, strikes when it wishes in Syria, but otherwise plays no role in supporting one side or the other. What I am pointing out is that Israel is not acutely worried about the Quneitra crossing, despite the operational inclusion of Al-Qaeda afflilate Al-Nusra in its taking. In addition, the USA has always supported the weak, secular Free Syrian Army, who were part of the rebel force that took the border crossing. From DW: The seizure was confirmed by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which said fighters of al-Qaeda's Nusra Front and the Western-backed opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) had taken the Quneitra crossing. The London-based monitoring group said there had also been fighting in a number of surrounding villages and that at least 20 Syrian government forces had been killed. It wasn't clear how many rebels had died in the fighting. General Ibrahim Jbawi, spokesman for the FSA's southern front, informed the AP news agency of the takeover, which was yet to be confirmed by the Syrian government or the Israeli military. [...] The FSA said its forces weren't looking to push Assad's troops from all of Quneitra, where one border post remains under government control. It also said opposition forces posed no threat to Israel. "Our aim isn't Israel right now, and we in the FSA haven't targeted Israeli lands," said spokesman Kenan Mohammed, adding that the rebels' focus is on Assad and the extremist Islamic State [iS] group. "The matter of Israel - it's not for now." The capture of the post along Syria's Golan frontier holds more symbolic value than strategic, but the FSA said it would provide relief to nearby villages that were under siege by government troops. (note that the FSA and Nusra are each fighting not only Assad but the Islamic Terror State) As for the other end of Syria, the USA is flying surveillance, with no reaction by Syria's air defences. The intelligence is necessary for any air operations in Syria directed at the ITS . You can't rush these things, Peter, not without compromising reason. If you have an air campaign against ITS in Syria ready, pass it on to Washington. The gunfire you hear might be in your head. A bit more detail from the Times of Israel: Earlier in the morning, Israeli farmers in the northern territory were told to stay away from their lands near the border as heavy fighting raged for the crossing point near the city of Quneitra. Tourist sites in the area were also closed as Israeli officials sought to keep civilians far from the fighting, Israel Radio reported. As a result of the fighting on the Syrian side of the plateau, the level of alert was raised on the Israeli side, an army spokesperson said, without confirming that it had been increased to the highest level. Spillovers of violence from Syria and even intentional attacks by militants and Syrian forces are not unheard of in the region. On Sunday, five rockets were fired from Syria into Israel. Last month a rocket from Syria prompted Israeli artillery to shell Syrian army positions. In June Israeli warplanes attacked Syrian military headquarters and positions after an Israeli teenager was killed in a cross-border attack by forces loyal to the Assad regime.

One of the Palestinian parties to the ceasefire agreement said this: "There is another topic that we will address, namely: what next? Gaza Strip alone suffered from three wars in 2008-2009, 2012, and 2014. Should we expect another war after a year or two? Until when will the cause remain unresolved? We will put forward our vision to the leadership and will continue consultations thereof with our brothers and the international community. However, the vision should be very clear, very specific, and understood from A-Z, because engaging in vague negotiations is something we cannot continue to do." I like the term "mindless, ignorant compassion," though it is unmoored in your remarks, Tony. (ie., who has had mindless, ignorant compassion for whom? who has mindful and informed compassion and for whom?) I think this agreement was the best either side would accept right now. I don't think it is possible to crush Hamas out of the Gaza strip. If every combatant, security service, leadership figure, arms cache were destroyed, a million Hamas supporters would remain. For better or worse, it is a political force as well as a military force. Its roots in Gaza are deep. I think there were some good-for-Israel ingredients in this indefinite ceasefire agreement. And I think the Palestinian Authority benefited in important ways: primarily by extending its own control to the border crossings that will be reopened into and out of Gaza. For the Hamas-bedeviled people in Gaza, the ceasefire promises discussion on further demands/hopes/requests, primarily to do with reconstruction of infrastructure, but also including a possible future opening of an airport and a seaport. Tony, Israel and Hamas agreed to stop this round of war, after a couple of thousand people died. One can be dismayed as you are at the bare minimum agreement signed in Cairo, or disappointed, curse the unnamed allies and their unspecified perfidy, and even wish war had continued more strongly. I am on the other side of the street. I am glad there is a ceasefire. I am glad the PA is strengthened. I am glad nobody's children have to die this week. Public opinion be damned.

Are you for real, or is this just some fine-netted trolling? You remind me of somebody.

Yeah. Stick around, maybe he will call Angela (a German) a Nazi again. In this thread he is pretending to be clear and succinct and realist. I just get racial prejudice under a translucent mask. Like this: "people in the 50 to 70 IQ range which is in the normal range for some minorities." What a jerk. I just needed those last two posts of his to remember why I have him on my ignore list.

What evidence do you have of Comcast's dislike for Beck? The evidence seems to come from Beck's side. For example, in congressional hearings, Rep. Louie Gohmert had this to say, according to The Wire: There's some more of Gohmert questioning Comcast's David Cohen at Mediaite with a video of the questions and testimony. which gets testy. I suppose that we can read anything into Comcast's unwillingness to add BlazeTV to its roster.

Sorry, Brant, the context was lacking. I think you were expressing dismay that Canada too has controversial cop shooting unarmed citizen situations (and hasn't otherwise escaped urban gang violence, cop-killings, school massacres, suicide by cop and hundreds of missing and murdered aboriginal women). For those not following the Canadian case, a Toronto police constable was charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder for the on-duty shooting death of a teenager on a streetcar. The cop's name is James Forcillo, and the 18-year old's name was Sammy Yatim. That's the context for Brant's use of "meld." For you googlers. Brant, the Crown (prosecution service) moves slowly. The trial may begin as early as next month.

I always like Brant's intermittent calls to Bomb/Blame Canada. It isn't always clear what this forsaken country is to blame for, but still. Here he is waxing kindly, with a brief memorandum on our northern socialist hellhole.

Here's my output from the same test at the link. I am in between the Dalai Lama and Gandhi. Adam, what do you know about this test/chart?

I had to laugh at the might or might not succeed' part. You give the devil the most awesome powers. Who wants an ISIS terror dictatorship on their territory? Not one of the Sunni nations. The sense of revulsion at ISIS spans the Shia/Sunni divide, moreover, and makes your prognostics pretty dismally off-base. It is wrong to declaim that ISIS's attempt to seize power is part of an Islamic orthodoxy, by way of an assumed yearning to live under a caliphate in the world's Sunni nations. It's unwarranted to think that ISIS will only grow. That might be your open fear, but it is far from supported in the Muslim reaction to ISIS. So, your argument's central legs have no muscle. Another howler: Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is also powerful, is it? What are its powers, then? And Erdogan supports a/the caliphate in his heart of hearts? Perhaps, but it is not in his power to anoint one, and not in Turkey's interests to support one. Your argument makes it seem like any mainstream Muslim country is happily on the road to a caliphate at some rate of advance, while ISIS brutality a mere short-term impediment to this inevitability. The real situation is entirely different. Of course Muslims will hope and sometimes howl for the abstract or real forms of unity. Right now it is unity against ISIS. But the Muslim world is anything but a unified thing politically or socially or economically, and the road to such unity is barred by reality right now -- whether the unity be under outlaw maniacs of Islam like ISIS, or under a Muslim Union. I think a period of advancement both materially and in basic freedoms will be necessary before supranational things like OIC and the other useless Arab councils get anywhere near power. So, you lay out your fearful prognostics, but they don't ring true.

Any forum member can make a principled and Objectivish case for Do Nothing. We haven't seen a full case yet applied to current US kinetic operations in northern Iraq, but its contours are fairly apparent from Do Nothing arguments on other foreign policy issues in the past. They tend to list a panoply of ugly conflicts America provoked, enabled or was complicit in, and the awful results, and caution against adventurism, urge the USA to retract its snout from foreign shores. Who can make a principled and Objectivish case for Do Something? This is one of those situations that one can only react to, probably, with zero influence on the likely actions to come. The US Air Force is already bombing the shit out of ISIS in Iraq -- ostensibly to prevent further tragedies, ethnic cleansing, threats against American allies in Kurdistan (KRG). I figure that Obama can only increase US strikes against the world's newest and biggest boogeyman, ISIS. Some Muslims who hate America grudgingly accept a US application of force to repel the beast right now, to weaken if not destroy it, to crush its supply lines and destroy its armour. I just don't see a lot of material out there that is counselling USA stop hurting ISIS, except from the LaRouche-ites and Loony Left antiwar coalitions. No one is cursing the USA for hurting ISIS but its loony self and its international keyboard corps. Some speculation I have read from Mideast wonks suggests that the President will authorize air attacks on ISIS emplacements in Syria, so we still can build a case against intervening directly in Syria, even though Syria was and is the brutal Mideast equivalent of North Korea. It's a pretty uninformative bit about Baath parties holds on 'two relatively peaceful countries,' Syria and Iraq. "Not ideal" does not do justice to the authoritarian regime in Damascus, and also suggests that Saddam Hussein did nothing but 'not ideal' things to the Kurdish population (and the Yezidis), like, oh use Sarin to kill thousands. In any case, the USA and UK oversaw a no-fly zone for some years while Saddam ruled, just to keep his wrath from striking the north. You might say that Hussein's cruelties in the north incubated the crisis many years ago. I don't get your last line. Can you support America to a fault while being pissed off at somebody? Who are you pissed off at? You are not, I hope, laying responsibility for the murder of James Foley on some American position, policy or military history? Here's a couple of instances of UK front pages, below. Their media is going apeshit today. (there are no US troops in Saudi Arabia, but there are in Bahrain, Turkey, Jordan and Iraq [if only as Special Forces]. One of the illogical ISIS talking points is that it is okay/necessary to behead Americans [innocent reporters] because, because, long list of complaints starting with the Crusades, ending with the bombs at Mosul Dam. I figure that this does not matter a fuck with a majority of Americans today, who relish, like the British, the punishments to come for the murder of Foley and for crimes against humanity committed by ISIS. To unpack your metaphor, Roger, USA waved red flag at beast, beast gored USA, so leave the beast alive (or at least do not kill it). ISIS is the beast, the red flag is long long list of complaints, topped by US strike forces driving ISIS from Mosul dam. -- where does that leave you, Roger, but in the Do Nothing (Militarily Imprudent) camp? Given that the USA is going to be spanking ISIS in Iraq for a length of time, is it your counsel that this is a mistake, and the best policy is to retract? I am not saying you are wrong, but wondering if you think about the US sense of life, sense of justice -- the emotion that is driving revulsion to ISIS from almost every quarter. How do you argue then with someone who is gung ho to grind some ISIS butt?) Jerry, not that you didn't know, but you are sometimes a fucking idiot, and one of those times is now.

Anecdotally, based on personal experience with black Americans [...] I'd say that there is a deep-seated, incurable resentment among U.S. blacks of my generation that prosperity cannot fix. Resentment is tolerated and amplified by political, institutional and corporate policies that give the unearned and steadfastly denies their mental handicaps. I have not grown up either around people of West African ancestry, or in a society that even has them in a representative number, so I ask you with extreme candice: what have you perceived as mental handicaps? This is not a loaded question, I am genuinely intrigued as I've heard people from all walks of life (from bleeding hearts to scientists, i'll leave out the outright racists) making or suggesting timidly the same point. Wolf has already suggested all race scholarship is dubious, and he should know, not being a scholar. The code words are 'their mental handicaps' ... I must assume this refers to the black people Wolf has acquaintance with, but by the form of his last sentence this refers also to a larger conglomeration of The Blacks. I think Wolf is saying this: "The Blacks have a mental handicap, and that mental handicap is resentment (of white people or institutions or racism or whatever pisses them off)." Implied is that the resentment is irrational, unfounded, and improper. He could also mean handicap in a kind of golfing sense, a rating of global deficiency/efficiency at the game of life, I suppose, but that doesn't sound like Wolf. He would never make such sweeping statements about a collective noun. That said, If you are angling for a long disquisition on the handicaps or inferiorities of The Blacks, I don't think anyone is prepared to utter strong straightforward comments here. We must get by on dark hints, slopping around words like 'thugs,' casting a whole town in a clear morality play, implying that They Get What They Deserve. I would find it hard to argue that the Resentment Wolf intuits for all The Blacks is completely irrational or unwarranted, if it is indeed universal among Them. The most curious part of Wolf's dog-whistle is the sin attributed to political, institutional and corporate policies (in a nice large non-speciific sense). The policies 'steadfastly' deny the mental/moral handicap carried by The Blacks. It would be interesting to see some examples of this.

Most likely. But what percentage of the African American population lives in that sort of suburban communities? 90% really? If you are wondering about Saint Louis, see a comprehensive 'race' map produced at the University of Virginia (link to Wired article overview): Here's a link to the map itself, and a screenshot of Saint Louis and environs. I have added an F to mark Ferguson. As for the city of Ferguson itself, this New York Times story does a little digging ... If you take a gander at aerial maps (I include a Google snapshot below), you can see that Ferguson is primarily suburban in land use patterns.

I am not placid on conspiracy theorists. Some conspiracy theories do damage in the sense of obviating rational conclusions and obscuring reality, evading real evidence, proclaiming false conclusions. I don't think one can go 'too far out' in putting conspiracy theories to rational test -- and if they fail, denouncing them as unwarranted and untrue. If the theory passes every test, it is not conspiracy, but more likely truth -- I don't think it's reasonable to do without the tests. A couple of recent articles in the Arab-world media tackled conspiracy theories. I excerpt one from al-Arabiya. It's pretty on point, and illustrates the kind of damage unrefuted theories can do in pragmatic terms. If a lie or an unwarranted conclusion or an evasion of reality -- an untrue theory tends to corrupt reason, in my opinion -- or at least leads to unjustified conclusions. Mind you, there is a lot of 'what we know that ain't so' that isn't conspiracy thinking at all, just plain old wrong, lazy, uninformed cogitation ... with conclusions based on faith, guesses, corrupted input, bias and cant. Here's a few signal paragraphs from "Enough lies, the Arab body politic created the ISIS cancer," by columnist Hisham Melhem. Here also a link to an article at the BBC, "The US, IS and the conspiracy theory sweeping Lebanon." The material ties in with a couple of other issues of current concern on OL.

I would ask: how can we quantify? In other words how does Greg know the numbers of good and bad Muslims? Very simple. By observing the dominance of the Islamic fascists and the lack of any real opposition from the Muslems. The Muslems who don't oppose the Islamic fascists are not good Muslems. I don't know what you know. I know that Muslims in the USA denounce ISIS, and stand by their air force pounding the shit out of ISIS today at Mosul Dam.** I know that the governments and religious authorities such as they are have denounced ISIS, in every country with a Muslim majority: Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, and so on. What is odd in your aphorism is that it is oblique to the question. The right answer to how to quantify -- is not to go by feel, but to count. Your illogic steers you past this obvious step in understanding that there is strong opposition from the Muslim world to ISIS and its atrocities. In the West, the major religious authorities or scholars of Islam have lined up to denounce ISIS. I won't post a lengthy list of instances, because it is just a fact that 'real opposition' registers in the real world (even if in a language you do not understand). If it doesn't register in your world, it is because you do not inquire, I think -- reason suggests your aphorisms need checking against the real world. I can understand you having a breastplate of righteousness moment in reaction to the atrocities, and even understand how you might think you have a superior knowledge of all things, er Muslem, but I cannot countenance your ignorance. Do you need a page of links and excerpts from speeches and videos and translations and citations of all the Muslims I have noted denouncing ISIS, Greg? Perhaps you will admit an error, and go do your own hunt for Muslim voices you've heretofore missed. You might find the facts encouraging -- even if you have to give up a mistaken assumption. Greg is unleashing the Wrath on Muslims as a whole in ignorance of what that hell that whole comprises. It is astonishing to me how someone can hold such an angry insistence on an untruth. That he doesn't welcome questions or criticism is another story. ___________________ ** this PBS video is just a few hours out of date, and features Liz Sly, who is one of the best Mideast reporters in the region. She is close to the front.