william.scherk

I was fascinated by the county-by-county electoral breakdown from the 2012 Presidential election you all suffered through down there. I found a site that takes a more 'nuanced' (read 'progressive' if you like) analysis and presents colour maps that show a different way to picture the breakdown of red-county/blue-county stats. Indeed we can say "statistics don't lie" but the presentation of statistics can be tweaked or fitted to support different stories. As an aside, I haven't seen any compelling work that shows there is something like "The Conservative Brain" or its counterpart. It is a rough approximation at best of observed psychology, to my eyes. That said, here's a couple of images derived from the county-by-county breakdown of votes. These images are from "Outside the Beltway" blog. -- this is the standard county-by-county depiction, with saturation of colour standing for margin of victory. -- here's a more 'pointilist' depiction of the same election data: Here's one more, from Chris Howard's Facebook page (very large image that lets you zoom in): -- and one more county-by-county map that let's you dig right in to the vote totals for each county (from the Los Angeles Times): http://graphics.latimes.com/2012-election-results-national-map/#county

Thanks for this reminder of the wack embedded in Nursing Sciences. What you did not mention is that the precepts of Rogers (and her cough science) led to the rampant idiocy called "Therapeutic Touch," which is not touch and which is not therapeutic. Lovel Sokal, love his co-author Bricmont, love anyone who takes an axe to murky 'science' such as TT. For those who aren't familiar with Therapeutic Touch, Wikipedia has a decent balanced article.

Tony, are you referring to the Golden Dawn party when you mention Greek fascism? If so, are you sure there is no difference between the programmes of the 'socialist' parties in Greece and Golden Dawn? I don't see any 'bounce' ... whatever you may mean by that. I am not Greek, but I believe there are vast differences between Golden Dawn and the ruling (Socialist) coalition.

Here's the British MP George Galloway on Iran's PressTV, selling his own zany anti-imperialist leftist conspiracy theory. It is short and punchy. The Joos gave Al-Qaeda the chemical weapons. http://youtu.be/kPzvy808pr8 Meanwhile, another story that suggests "rogue elements" of the Syrian military ...

Michael, I know you are trying to lighten up grimness. I remain sad, but it doesn't have much to do with whether you in particular have come to firm conclusions about what happened in Ghouta on August 21. I was trying to be persuasive, not argumentative. As for Rush, from his transcripted remarks on Bodansky: 'Beyond repute? This is promotion, an appeal to authority, followed by a misnomer: "Scholarly" is patently false for anyone who has read Bodansky's report at the Global Research site. That Rush thinks the piece was scholarship is cringe-worthy in itself, but in so saying he also indicates that he hasn't read reports like HRW and the work of Brown Moses and others, work that gives sources and operates in the reasonable zone. In my opinion, there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the Ghouta attacks came from the regime. I have yet to see a coherent and credible story that not only assigns guilt to 'rebels' (or Al Qaeda or 'terrorists') but that accounts for all the evidence -- and nowhere is the actual counter-evidence (to Syria-was-framed stories) rebutted. So, that's what I believe, and where I stand. I hope I presented a worthy case, gave pertinent reasons why we can consider Bodansky's tale as disinformation. I am interested to seeing how debate develops on the "what if Syria was framed' stuff. We all probably feel variations on the same sense of horror and anger and impotence. A most brutal war, not between two states, but within. Outrageous death tolls and no end in sight. Rush indeed just put the Bodansky stuff out there, the 'Was Assad Framed' confection. He comes closer to my "beware" above with his closing remarks, but I must mention his intro again. How is an article 'scholarly' that gives no references, no hyperlinks, nada, squat?

Human Rights Watch released its report on the alleged chemical attacks yesterday. It has pictures of dead children on the cover, but also includes the results of its investigation. Attacks on Ghouta: Analysis of Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria I follow the Brown Moses blog, which has been examining and cataloging arms use in Syria for some time. He has amassed the best collection of images of arms, and in this instance, his last five posts have delved deeply into the details of the particular rocket and launcher of which remnants were found in at least six of the alleged attack sites. I am impressed by his production over the years, but not with his article at the Global Research site. Here's a bit more on Bodansky, from Foreign Policy: Just a sample of the Global Research article illustrates my issues. Bodansky writes: "The Commando eventually seized an opposition warehouse containing barrels full of chemicals required for mixing “kitchen sarin”, laboratory equipment, as well as a large number of protective masks." -- there is a hint of a truth in this sentence. The Syrian media did run with one report, with pictures of gas-masks, jugs of whatever, and claimed a rather incoherent line. No followup. No story of further tests performed by the Syrians -- and the Syrian reports merely implied these jugs were of interest; it did not claim specific precursors. It claimed no delivery system. It provided no map, no video, no testimonies. I note especially that Bodansky claims "laboratory equipment" was found. He made that bit up. Another sample from Bodansky, his introduction: "There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition." This is without warrant, the hinge of untruth being that 'Syrian opposition' provided a volume of evidence. It did no such thing. If it had, Bodansky could cite it. The entire point of his article was to provide cover for the Syrian regime. I am not surprised that Rush took the bait. Domestic politics rule here ... That's the question, isn't it? Did the monstrous regime make a grave error and unleash chemical terror? From my perspective, fixated on Syria news for a while, I review a large amount of information. I urge those who are undecided on the issue of culpability to spend some time consulting information sites that have done the meticulous checking that results in reasonable conclusions. A resource that lays out the claims and warrants is the Wikipedia article, Attacks on Ghouta. It is a lengthy read, but it details what is known and what is likely, covering the timeline and covering almost every question. If anyone swallows whole the Bodansky confection on Rush's recommendation, I am sad. It is just not good enough, and is tied to a partisan, pro-Assad agenda. It is classic disinformation, confidently asserted but without supporting documentation. Multiple lines of independent, converging evidence disproves its contentions. The dictator and his cronies will say anything, do anything, to win. Theirs is a war of annihilation. The very threats given to America by Assad on Charlie Rose are the same kinds of threats he has carried out within Syria, against civilian populations. He has escalated the arms used in the conflict on a long steady trajectory, from snipers to machine guns to tanks to artillery to rockets, to fuel-air bombs, to cluster bombs, to Scuds. The 'sparing' use of chemical weapons by his forces have been documented since April of this year. I don't know what arm or fist of the Syrian forces took the bad decision to go beyond limited tactical chemical strikes. If there are ever war crimes trials in Syria, the details may come out in our lifetimes. I am glad that the Iranian/Russian/Syrian axis floated a plan to move toward containment of the chemical weapons stores. I don't support an American war on Syria, but I am also glad Obama has used the threat of destruction against Syria. That is the only language the Syrian leadership understand. The threat of force still hangs over Syria, despite the hogwallow in Washington and the frenzy of instant experts across the board. That threat of US force is what will help contain Assad. One last thing to mention: the Syrians are experienced time wasters. The foreign minister of Syria 'welcomed' the Russian/Iranian proposal to contain. This does not mean agreement or acceptance. It likely means a lengthy diplomatic dance of negotiations, during which Assad can continue to pursue his military programme. At least one third of the Syrian population has been driven from its homes -- internally displaced or outside the country in refugee camps. It is a daily horror. But now that the Syrian crisis has ramped up to the top of the news again, I would say we need calm logic and sharp knives of reason to understand events. I hope no one at OL underestimates the duplicity and connivance of the Syrian dictatorship and its stooges, and so takes a critical stance in examining any 'facts' adduced to further its aims.

dupe

I wish I was able to offer more help, RB. You yourself are probably going to be the best therapist to your wife. Serious depression can be and is addressed as a medical issue, so I would first bring it to the attention of your doctor. At the very least he can assess you and lay out the options for treatment. Among them may indeed be a focused adjunct psychotherapy for depression via CBT. The only quick fix is likely to be a late-model antidepressant medication. For a more protracted or disabling depression he would likely also set you up with a psychiatric consult. Therapy is the add-on here.

Robert B -- how did you choose the therapist and what were the credentials offered? By credentials I mean the achievement of some line of study. Some therapists may be Marriage and Family Counsellors, others may have a BA or MA or more in Social Work. Some therapists may be 'psychotherapists' without a particular school of thought and without a particular 'line.' Others may be doctors of Psychology or masters of Psychology. Some may be simply accredited in some skills (say, with cognitive-behavioural therapy, etc). Still others maybe educated in a particular modality -- from the NLP practitioner to the utter bounds of woo-woo (i.e., 'sensitives'). Sometimes a therapist may publish -- from case studies to chapters to books. Some may have websites and publication arms. It's a nice mess. The only thing I could suggest is a form of interrogation from your side. I think it pays to ask a lot of questions about the particular therapist's client-base, formal training, licenses, accreditation, etcetera. The best part of psychotherapy is as you suggest: a private, confidential conversation with an empathetic and intelligent interlocutor, whose sole focus for the fifty-minute hour is you/your wife and the presenting problem. In my province (BC) there are no laws or regulations covering the practice of psychotherapy. Thus, anyone may put up a shingle saying "Psychotherapist" and get to business. In your state it may be the same. Generally speaking, a good psychotherapist is an excellent communicator with broad experience talking to folks with common problems and issues -- and with some kind of a track record, or at the very least some evidence that they have achieved something above the baseline of opening an office with a box of kleenex and a billing system. I guess the point of the paragraphs above is that there is no single profession, but a multitude, no single body to supervise the casework (as in internships), and no single body that holds a particular therapist to a standard of care. Buyer, be wary. Ask a lot of questions and ... know what you want from the encounter, if only to be told that you cannot have it. -- what were the moronic 'quick fixes' and judgments made?

The site is back in business.

Worth reading to get a perspective on the multiple businesses that fall under the to-be-renamed Washington Post Company (WPCo) is this Wall Street Journal article, Without the Newspaper, What’s Left at the Washington Post Company? Also see the New York Times report from late 2010, Scrutiny Takes Toll on For-Profit College Company. The NYT story gives some perspective on the 'for profit' sector of the higher learning business, with a focus on Kaplan Higher Ed and the machinations/lobbying by WaPo owners fearing a regulatory scheme that would shrink their business badly.

Bezos's article in the Post yesterday speaks to two important issues, editorial control and income:

Doug Bandler's particular fears and hatreds come into focus with his passionately whiny blamefest at SOLO. Also in focus is the state policy implications, the state being the Principality of Linz. Blame women for your lack of love and partnership. Blame ahistorical nonsense phrases and fiends in human guises. Lay the blame on with a big fat brush. Psychologically, Bandler's expositions illustrate, perhaps, what a middling achiever can do to get his game together, that game being Life, and the interim, pending life goal being to acquire a love partner for a long haul through parenthood -- while still viewing women as objects to be attached to his penis. What can we learn from Doug and his claque? We already knew he was plenty cranky and bigoted, and that he was swift to kick out at imagined demons who had stood in his path or thwarted his desires. And we knew that the weedy lot at SOLO is at times nothing more than a crankfest. I think I can learn a little compassion for those who fall down and cannot ever stand tall again -- in their own self-estimation. The three generations of evul leftish women changes means -- we hear -- that Doug cannot find a mate. How sad for him. How funny his words are on the surface.

While digging, I came across a site of exuberantly ecumenical tastes in woo. Educate-Yourself.org. One contributor named Zuerrnnovahh-Starr Livingstone (I kid you not) writes on atmospheric 'sylphs' who eat chemtrails. On each page of said site, a compendium of links awaits. Check out 'sylphs,' if you dare. My favourites so far are Forbidden Cures, Sylphs, Mind Control, Orgone Adventures, FEMA, and Insights on Aliens. Your mileage may vary.

Carol, I hope you will appreciate my new avatar -- a picture of me and Jerry in happier days. You are of course right that I have no idea if Edmontonian Jerry and Torontonian Diggle are citizens. I regret jumping to conclusions ... In other news, those who have more than a surface wonder at How Do Folks Believe Such Things, I can recommend Evan Harrington's report "Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia: Notes from a Mind-Control Conference," published in 1996. An excerpt on Gunderson: At the conference Gunderson related Bonacci’s description of a slave auction in Las Vegas in which 25 to 30 vans pulled up, airplanes landed, and foreign men with turbans bought children and took them away. According to Gunderson: "Nobody knows what happened to those kids. They use them for several things: body parts, they use them for sacrificing, for sex slaves. But this is a big market. Does anybody have any idea what a blue-eyed, blond-haired eleven- or twelve-year girl would sell for? Fifty thousand dollars.” Gunderson claimed that there are currently 500 satanic cults in New York City alone, each averaging eight sacrificial murders a year, for a total of 4,000 human sacrifices every year. Gunderson did not explain how the cults remove bodies in the asphalt jungle of New York. Gunderson believes in the threat posed by the New World Order, as do Marqui and militia members. Gunderson has appeared on Dateline NBC, at militia conferences (Witt 1995), on Michigan Militia member Mark Koernke’s shortwave radio program, and on the cover of Spotlight (May 13, 1995), stating that the U.S. government intentionally bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in April 1995, in order to remove our rights through anti-terrorism bills. Gunderson informed the audience that Spotlight “tells it like it is,” and urged audience members to call the subscription number, which he read aloud. On top of this, Gunderson gave an interview to Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review (May 25, 1990), in which he described FBI special agent Ken Lanning as “probably the most effective and foremost speaker for the satanic movement in this country, today or at any time in the past.” Gunderson and Marqui seem to me to be attempting to introduce therapists to racist conspiracy theories and reactionary propaganda, while at the same time groups such as the LaRouche organization endorse satanic conspiracy theories to draw in new members.

PDS, the genesis of the story is so much worse than my brief sketch suggests. There are even bits of the tale-building that are slightly more funny than sad. For example, there actually was legislation in Georgia that was meant to 'solve' a problem in state executions of criminals. The problem was (circa 1995) that electrocution rendered a criminal's body parts of no use -- in transplants, whether or not the criminal willed his or her body so. A state house bill got as far as second reading; it suggested that the state code governing executions be amended to include the use of a guillotine.** The bill never made it to the state senate ... but this fact did not register. I have not checked to see if the 'problem' remains, or what means Georgia uses today in its death chamber (of course not one single repeater station of the 'Congress passed guillotine purchase bill' bumf has managed to come up with a reference to legislative action in fact. It doesn't seem to matter to the repeaters that there is no warrant for the claim; moreover, critiques of the claim that suggest that there is no there there are countered by the suggestion that it is all top secret. Which begs the question. More pointedly, how the hell could one corroborate such a plot if all traces are secret? Why would there be no 'whistleblower'? Etc.). Another sad/funny bit of the genesis is influence of the late Ted Gunderson. He was active in the Satanic Ritual Abuse tragedy, in the eighties and nineties, overactive, even -- and there was no aspect of true or imagined official skullduggery that he could not fit -- like Tinkertoy parts -- to the Big One as he aged in place. The big one, the over-arching plot, was always connected with every 'little one.' So into the gloppy, sticky mix of Gunderson's big story was rendered not only Satanic ritual abuse, but Area 51, torture, mind-control, One World Order, child sacrifices, the Oklahoma bombing, 9/11, Las Vegas child-auctions, and so on. All wrapped up together. For a rueful take on the Ur conspiracy of Gunderson, see 'Death of a Public Paranoid.' The FBI 'was after' Gunderson for some good thirty years, so he said (he was himself a former Agent in Charge for the FBI), and some believe they finally got him. By cancer. At age 83. ______________________ ** [in part] All persons who have been convicted of a capital offense and have had imposed upon them a sentence of death shall, at the election of the condemned, suffer such punishment either by electrocution or by guillotine. If the condemned fails to make an election by the thirtieth day preceding the date scheduled for execution, punishment shall be by electrocution.

Nope. Faulty question -- affirming the consequent. The right question, or the right sort of question, is one that puts a claim to a test, examines and analyses chains of reasoning. No doubt you use this kind of reasoning daily as you figure out how to avoid surveillance drones, death squads, bots, infiltrators and militias on your way to leafletting your local TIm Horton. My questions, "Did the USA government assemble 30,000 guillotines? Did the USA government acquire guillotines? Did the USA Congress mandate the purchase of guillotines?" You seem to have answered those questions in the affirmative, Jerry, but without giving any indication of how you formed your answers, or what in particular warranted the answers. Or perhaps you simply accepted the claim as true without testing, without questions of any kind, without further thought. Luckily for humankind, Snopes does a little checking the claims. And guess what? -- the bald assertion is all that could be found. Some nutter 'news' site asserts this and such -- with zero evidence. Honestly Jerry, I wonder what kind of hideous minefield of risk and ambush and kidnapping and assassination you navigate through in a week, or how you get from home to Costco and back without falling into The Trap. From all sides, evil and malevolence, and bulging over the border at the 49th parallel a crazed regime building prison camps for millions. Do you ever give your head a shake, brother, and wonder if some percentage of your beliefs/fears/warnings might be based on crazy and unreliable bullshit? Image from http://www.tomsachs.org/work/chanel-guillotine-breakfast-noo linked at the Snopes page. See the following link for one of the founts of nutterdom, where the rumour/guff/confabulation erupted: http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/why-did-the-u-s-government-recently-purchase-30000-guillotines/ -- check out the video embedded there to see the scriptural basis on which the lunacy seems to be based, eg, 'I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast." Why oh why oh why did the beastly US Government recently purchase 30000 guillotines, indeed. A new low for we Canucks on OL.

Technical difficulties saith the perpetrators:https://www.facebook.com/checkingpremises?fref=ts Something else like what, shame? Checking Premises Org is still 404 ... since May. I think the verklemptitude of the Modern Objectivist Shunning site is due to simple feebleness.

Here's the Oakley article at the WSJ: Pathological Altruism: A simple concept that could revolutionize scientific and social thought. I her book on hold from my local library. It looks to be an interesting and challenging read. Not only that, but she sounds like a fascinating person from her biographical notes. Here she is on Youtube with an interview from Red Ice Radio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlZVt6JsiTs I've been labeled a Progressive here a few times, which label implies I have been bathed or soaked in the gospel of Progressivism like a teabag, until the tannins have turned me into a dank Obama-brown, but I think it is an error to mix up the label with the thing, or to reduce a person to an attribute. It could be that this one attribute ('Progressivisticism') is far and away the most fundamental attribute of my personality, but this is unlikely, I think. This may be true to some degree, but it makes me wonder how these afflicted persons manage to get through the week. Impenetrable to logic and evidence -- this suggest to me a person who has basic problems in getting out of bed and to work. As ever, illustrative examples of this general class of miscreants behaving as you predict would be helpful to discussion. It should be clear that Oakley is not actually doing any work against so-called 'altruism' per se; as she notes in the Freeman interview (emphasis added): This is actually pretty racy talk -- attempting to perform an altruistic act. I imagine an individual in full Objectivish lockdown (at a conference) attempting to perform such an act amongst his or her peers. Such a behaviour 'seems' to be something Not Quite Right -- at the least it is an act that needs relabeling, perhaps to a 'pro-social' act, perhaps to a 'selfish' act. How about "pathological selfishness"? Would that even be discussable in an Objectivish framework? Never mind. I am not surprised. My leftist friends on Facebook are way too involved in their own lives to take note of my deep reading. They would rather see pictures of food and gardens and reports of criminal stupidity. I should mention that one of my leftish friends can always be expected to lurch out of nowhere should I mention Ayn Rand or Objectivism. It seems that this one person considers my interest in and engagement with Randian thought and activism and sociality to be as if I were a bloodthirsty maniac, or an Objectivist myself. Perhaps our leftish friends should be cross-pollinated (you can find me on Facebook as Bill Scherk, should we not mysteriously connected there already) I need to finish listening to her interview to fairly answer this, as my first reaction is that tired old progressive subterfuge of "can you give evidence of a biological propensity for spirituality?" followed by the equally tiresome hope for an illustrative example. When she says "actually," stiff little hooks in my mind-gullet grab the implicated notions -- a sentence composed of her 'actuals' like "the biologically-based pull for spirituality simply shifts to something else" is really tough to swallow whole. I have to break it down and see if the parts make sense. She says, "Modern atheistic (progressive) thought [has] much in common with religious fundamentalism." I wonder, does she mean some or all or what? I wonder if this phrase would go down like nectar in non-progressivist craws if it were rephrased to comprise another body of thought: "Modern atheistic Objectivist thought has much in common with religious fundamentalism, right down to shunning and demonizing." What might make the medicine go down, what makes the mental throat-fangs do their job of filtering gross generalizations ...? What looks to be the most interesting for me is her concept of bias, altruistic bias. This looks to have both a leftish/progressivish slant, and a right-thinking Objectivish slant. If this were a class, and I Phil Coates, I might ask, "Who can give me examples of altruist bias on OL?" Anyhow, I should mention my appreciation for the introduction of Oakley's work. It looks like a good feed for the mind.

I am not familiar with this. It would make a good story, I think. I am guessing there is another kind of 'bro' -- different in measurable ways from a communitarian. The Christie appeal is not perhaps unique, but is noticeably distinct from others on the 2016 presidential primary horizon. I get the impression that Christie wants to paint a thick line between himself and GOP faux-libertarians such as Rand Paul -- at least as far as votes on NSA funding fall. I am not familiar enough with what he considers his own selling points to rate him through Objectivish lenses. I think he did some good old school politicking in the aftermath of Sandy. It was a big story not only for its destruction but also for its gaming. Poor old Mitt was not an actor or executive in those days, he could lead no efforts to respond to the disaster, and so he got no political gain. In terms of old-school politicking, Christie positioning himself at the front of the disaster response with the then-current President was wise -- and Christie played his role as well as any of us here might have done in the same situation. I mean, it was a week of big news, tremendous media attention, and the roles of executive-level responders were already written for the President and the governor. Would it have made sense for Christie to play 'frosty' with the federal executive in the disaster response? I think that the role as written calls for close cooperation. The political golden light was there for the taking as long as a competent response was underway. Christie showed competence in leading, and was rewarded in public opinion. In terms of the House NSA vote, and the 'bad thoughts' Christie ascribes to Rand Paul among unnamed others, I would want him to detail his objections. On the face of it, he seems to be ramming anyone who votes to de-fund data-collection, and pointing to a dangerous split in GOP opinion on national security issues. Is there such a split? Is such a split actually dangerous for the GOP in terms of winning elections? Anyhow, I am sensing that a Clinton/Christie matchup in 2016 would be a fraught choice for US voters here at OL.

OL irregular Neil Parille notes that the Checking Premises website is 404, not available, verklempt, kaput, finito. It could be simply a 'forgot to pay the server bill' situation. Or, er, something else. Meanwhile, Dr Mrs Doctor Hsieh's Philosophy Inaction blog moves from success to success.

Now that you're shriven, tell me that you agree with all my posts. I have been a little outnumbered here. Verily, Shrove Thursday. What I can say is that I feel the emotion of all the posts in a different light than I did last year. The feelings of loss, the loss of a young life, the felt non-necessity of lethal force, the rejection of riot ... I hope I understand how the feelings arise. I think OLers, on balance, hope for a kind of tempered justice, not vengeance, not punishment, some kind of truth to emerge via the jury. For the parents of the dead kid, some closure. I think and feel your heart is in its heart-place, Carol. As are the hearts and minds of the rest of the commenters here. But here, there is a 'hung jury.' I wonder if in the near future, more neighbourhood watchers will consider carrying a firearm. I wonder if such watchers might prepare for the inevitable conflict or 'hooded nogoodnik' sighting or even punchup. Will the watcher rehearse such lines as "If you do not get off me, I will shoot you," or if they might consider leaving the sidearm at home. Thin gruel, I know, Carol.

I wrote a lot of stupid, knee-jerk things back in April of 2012. Here is the whole mess, with emphasis on what I find most stupid in my posting: I can't take it all back, but I can say I am ashamed of my own grandstanding.

85 percent for non-O me, how disappointing.

100 percent for non-Objectivist me!