william.scherk

"Too welcoming"? You calling this thread too welcoming? What do you expect, for MSK to come along and delete every birther thread someone wants to start? Or just about anything Chimp Twist posts?I have whined about this on other occasions, but not to the point of hoping for heavy administrative hand. More like wishing that folks on the margins were more helpfully critiqued when they go off the field of Reason. Jerry is the price we pay for our own freedom to rant at OL. So, on that count, yes, it is a shitty thing to say about OL/Objectivish milieu. There are cranks and nutters galore in every 'movement' that does not issue Party ID (and even then). And such as Jerry (and Orly) get their tails yanked plenty here. My whiny complaints have another strike against them. Back when J Neil Schulman and his part incarnation as Lord were a topic, that whole edge-of-rationality brought forth a long, long discussion, perhaps even a useful discussion. I don't know. My heart kind of sags for Objectivish things when Objectivish folks get in bed with Orly Taitz in re Obama, and can't quite separate the quixotic (and valiant) from the quixotic (and demented). I withdraw my hideous accusation of 'over-welcoming the nuts' on OL. It is unfair. Better a robust, weedy garden than a ordered, bland monoculture. Better OL than SOLO, Orly Taitz-boosters notwithstanding.

Well, I think maybe Ed Hudgins had better aim his next editorial about Apocalypsoism at you too, then.

Imagine if you could get her and Pamela Geller together on one stage.Yoicks! I can't remember how squeeze-tight Geller ever got to Taitz, if at all. I find Geller much more compelling as a speaker and writer. Taitz is oft times illiterate and incoherent. Her latest stuff, that the Sandy Hook shootings were an Obama mind-control plot, this is a bit too much for Geller, hopefully. I don't want to know. The point being, lurking under the surface of the swamp like an alligator, my old plaint about OL/Objectivish milieus being too welcoming to the kook wings of opposition to the President. One can be proudly, solidly, firmly and consistently against everything Obama, and yet keep critical of obvious nutters like the dentist/realtor/lawyer Taitz. Well, these things come out in the wash, dontcha think? If by now Taitz had a case, her record in the courts might show that. Unfortunately for your hypothesis, she is presently 0 for 258. That's a full rinse. There is no gold in that stream. That dog is dead. That horse is lame. That road goes to Nutter's Swamp. It does no harm to your fight against the foul usurper in the White House that you jettison the sad and demented from your alliances, that's all. No one will take your right to fight away, young revolutionary. Fight for the right to Yellow Margarine, Gulch! 'Fortunately, farseeing men in Congress are working to see that you get margarine the way you want it. Support them. Remember, the voice of the people is the voice of the lawmaker. Fight for the right to Yellow Margarine!'

ND, the performance of the well-caffeinated Taitz on MSNBC was what I had in mind as Kookrant. You noted the admixture of hysteria (I'd add the possibility of obsession/delusion). Mike E, have a gander at the Wiki article on Taitz, if only for the long list of 'birther' lawsuits and subpoenas that have failed, each and every one -- especially the ones where the judge rebukes her soundly for time-wasting, incompetence or abuse of process -- or in which he expresses a magisterial sigh at her fruitless quest. Why anyone would get behind another bogus subpoena attempt of hers is completely beyond me. Her record is 0 for 258 on her suits and motions and demands. ALL of her attempts have failed. Still she tries, grabs a headline, a failure, tries again. As a problem-solving activity, this seems, um, Kooky. As for head-drops, well ... It makes me think what Ayn Rand might have made of Orly Taitz. The name alone is good enough for Rand fiction. Perhaps Rand would have come down on the side of the birther maniacs, perhaps not.

At the bottom of the subpoena, a name. Orly Taitz. Orly Taitz. Pure kook. Why would anyone here get behind the efforts of a kook like Taitz?

Russia Today, Russia Today, Russia Today ... is this well-funded international channel a 'big media' concern? Depends on whose ox is being gored, I suppose. And it hardly matters just how big they are, if their programming is trustworthy, and their journalists do a straight-up job. I find that the saddest thing about RT is their pool of 'analysts' -- chosen for their attitude towards the US government, and not for their bona fides or expertise. Thus, many Americans are featured on RT, carrying the Kremlin's water. And in some of the cases of USA 'analysts' offering their opinions, the Americans are on the fringes of reliable, trustworthy reporting -- or beyond, from the Nutterzone. So, you get Webster Tarpley (and all manner of similar 9/11 wackaloons) and Jim Stachowiak and Stephen Lendman, and Tony Cartalucci, and Sharmine Narwani, and Jesse Ventura, and you get oddities like 'b' of Moon of Alabama. You even get the king of unsubstantiated nonsense, Alex Jones -- lots and lots of Alex Jones. http://youtu.be/EbCtHQsOXe8 I would say that in the leagues of international English-language 'news' channels, RT is in the top ten for viewership, with the big boys being BBC, France24 dominant with large audiences, and RT in the second tier behind Al Jazeera English among the lesser lights. PressTV has been removed from European satellites. It pays to watch RT, mind. Their slavish devotion to Kremlin policy tells you a lot about the Russian attitute to the USA. That some folks get 'used' in a way to promote Soviet-style perspectives is not really at issue (and some of them are not 'used' whatsoever, but parrot the RT line without prompting: Mahdi Nazemroaya, Lizzie Phelan, Thierry Meyssan). What struck me about the endless story via webcam upthread were a couple of facts. The lady and gentleman (and camera person) did have press credentials, and were on their way to the media availability they intented to cover. On their way they spotted Rand Paul, and decided to get some questions asked. He wasn't into them that much. They were later contacted (and the RT lady took a meeting) with the media controllers on Capitol Hill. And then nothing happened except a long, boring, self-regarding 'report' by a self-satisfied, smirking duo who made the story entirely about themselves. Such a credit to the actual meat on the bones of press freedom in America (and in Canada, where RT roams freely) and in the UK (which has an RT London bureau) that RT merrily spins its fables and offers its bill of goods. The only thing missing from Russia Today's programming is an actual critical look at Russia today ... but it is still an excellent resource for exploring the nutterzone.

So how's everyone planning to celebrate the end, that is the end that's coming tomorrow? Per the Mayans.I was so happy that October 21 came and went. If you have had a gander at histories of doomsday groups** (whether religious or alien-inspired), you know that the day after End-of-Days can be a troubling time. When the end of the world comes and goes (or the date for the descent of Jesus passes) and the event is not apparent to the senses, cognitive dissonance of the third kind entails. Oddly, some research shows that although some will indeed fall out of the doom-spell, a failure of the event can often reinforce the beliefs. All manner of cognitive whoopee is performed to keep the original prophecy intact. Thus for the Jehovah's Witnesses the end-of-the-world was explained as a dating and a conceptual problem. Same with variation for the Seventh-Day Advent. In this case the reason Jesus didn't appear was because he did appear, taking his place on the throne in the celestial places ... I think there was a doom cult operating on a date back in late spring. If I remember rightly, the failure of the end was ascribed to the very people who were expecting it: their actions in defence of jayzuss or something caused the lord above to spare humanity. The saddest things to hear about are the real zombie fearful folks in Russia and China, where their cults Go Wild. Because the Mayan calendar can be likened to gears, most of us will accept that a chronometer will sometimes show a whole lot of zeros ... and then start up again at 1. Funny/sad to think that a mystical belief can trump mechanics for some deluded humans. ______________________ ** "When Propecy Fails" is one though I can't remember the particular authors of bits of knock-on in since Festinger, but see this Wikipedia note on the psychological impact of failed predictions.

Meanwhile . . .

Republicans can support Hagel with a clear conscience on Israel. To say "my country right or wrong" is one thing, but reckoning national interest gets heated over the Jewish State and the Palestinian (future) State as part of the US policy leviathan

Yah, banning is neither here nor there. Michael our host here rarely bans. You are not banned here. I am banned at SOLO. I cannot answer whatever yap followed me there. I don't think Michael is going to picnic on our remains should we have a discussion. Start here for one of my more recent yawpings on emotion, from the thread: "What is Consciousness." See also this comment from "The Limitations of Reason." Try taking the Emotion Quiz! And maybe let me know of your studies or interest in emotion, what you know (or think you know) about Emotions, and how you might justify the claim "Emotions are not tools of cognition." Or not. I have been writing on this angle since my first Objectivish list post, which I might dig up for you. We have had some real fun discussing emotion on OL over the years, including postings of those hairy little balloon-hobbits illustrating the Scientology Tone Scale ... Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to correctly identify those eight 'basic' emotions ...

Yes. There you go. Any law that attempts to regulate or manage or control or restrict the sale, transport, use and possession of firearms faces court challenge. So, when I speak of the range of opinion on what the 2nd amendment means/says -- it is in the context of gun control and the likelihood of any new legislation coming to pass. Here is the way I put it: "Decoupling the right to bear arms from reference to a militia (be it well-organized/regulated), it still leaves the lawfulness of regulation/management of firearms open to argument." This is interesting to me. How indeed will a revived bill of control (say the 1994 gun legislation) fare? It is my present opinion that Congress will get fuck all passed. I may be wrong, but I think the primary obstacle to any control legislation is in the unwilling-to-act Congress. If I am wrong that a new or revived 1994-like bill cannot be passed, let alone signed into law, then the process of court challenges will begin on constitutional/2nd amendment grounds. A law could perhaps be passed that explicitly bans the sale of weapons such as the one used by the shooter in Connecticut (and the DC sniper, and others since the last ban lapsed). What then? Let me lay it out that way, PDS, and you may better understand what Canucki observations are worth right now. Here is the essence of the point I tried to make: In these gun discussions post-slaughter, those voices and arguments that you consider promiscuous (in blowing their inheritance) are not represented here; news items from the current debate are not making it here. So, you can have a chorus singing the same song (with minor variations), but this is not grappling with the issues. Can I make it even plainer? Considering the moves afoot to impose new regulation on semi-automatic weapons (the primary target of the 1994 laws), is there any chance of passage? The same constitution, the same amendment stood in 1994. What is different today? The takehome I get from your remarks is that the deaths in Connecticut are the price of freedom.

I started a discussion at a former sister-site, after having posted these my Objections to Objectivism (standing on one foot): wrong on emotion (emotions are not tools of cognition)wrong on language acquisition (a buzzing, blooming confusion)incapable of correction (absolutism of dicta)That venue being barred, and me finding it ironic that Lindsay contemplates sub-contracting discussion (and readership) to OL, it is hard to continue discussion with the others who seemed willing. I leave it to OL members alone to follow my responses that will not appear at the other place, to read my boring rejoinders, research and hooliganism at the blog Friends and Foes. If excerpts show up at the other place, more hilarity will no doubt ensue. In the meantime, are there any other things that can be entertained (at least) as on-one-foot objections? I don't mean as objections necessarity true, but also include objections found false. I was tempted to write "wrong about empathy" or "out of date on language acquisition/cognitive development" but I noticed I had put a foot down while thinking, so wiped the board and started again. I try to bear in mind that when I write Objectivism, it is as if I write Communism, or Conservativism or Liberalism, or Libertarianism or Kantianism. It seems unqualified. It is not. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, as stated by herself.

I owe something to Lindsay Perigo, it seems. That is to send to him (for posting on SOLO) what comprise my Objections to Objectivism. I will include links and excerpts from my struggle to adequately list and explain my objections ... This first stuff is my last exchanges with Doug Bandler and Perigo. From SOLO: Her presumably means Adam Lanza's mom. Doug seems to be thinking that blog Anarchist Soccer Mom is the blog of Nancy Lanza. Maybe.But. Might be that Liza Long is the writer, wasn't Adam's mom, and so Adam wasn't raised by an Anarchist. Not that Doug need deviate from his Those Bitches Are Responsible line.

Thanks to Jonathan and Ninth for their concern. I am sure I can manage this banning, as I managed the previous three bannings. I sent a note backstage to Kyrel. I am not certain that discussion of questions demanded at SOLO (but prevented from appearing at SOLO) should be continued at OL. I am of two minds, but could be convinced, I suppose. I somehow don't think that MSK would appreciate that kind of thing. One point sticks out in my mind, though: I think Lindsay Perigo is wise not to proclaim his website as the most free and open Objectivish place on the internets. Oddly, the discussion such as it is continues at SOLO. Here is the man of the month, Doug Bandler agreeing with me ...

I have been banned from SOLO, sob sob.

So the error in my description of the weapon was to mix up the automatic-reload of the cartridge, and leave the impression of a machine-gun. Thanks.

I did not see that. I hope he doesn't hold that against Barry Manilow. It is uncertain how many chicks were got by Barry. Doug's relationships with women are complicated, I imagine. He comes from a PUA milieu, which is indicative. That he hasn't been laid in a while seems obvious. That he really has a bone to pick with the Collective Them, that's also obvious. I would be shocked and horrified if Doug went on a killing spree. I would be quite surprised too. I think he is all mouth. His threats to beat the shit out of Jason Quintana were telling. But it is creepy to hear him justify/explain earlier mass killings of the recent past to Problems With The Bitches. Not so surprising that there is a paucity of empathy for anyone involved. It is like bickering after a sport game, as if no corpses were a result ... Here's Doug in all his splendour, after having IDed Lanza's mother as a crazy anarchist:

Adam tells us that this statement is inaccurate (though not yet how): "The weapon. A military-style weapon that fires automatic rounds from removable clips." Here's some specifications and promotional video from online gun marketer Cheaper than Dirt: is this the gun you refer to, Adam, or another one?

I don't know. What do you know about the weapon? If I am mistaken or inaccurate in describing the weapon, well, let us get more accurate and precise about the gun used to kill the children. Adam no doubt will issue a technical cut and paste. In the meantime, from the Atlantic:

Dude, I already posted this up-thread. And to be honest, I don't care what you have to say to me about my incorrectitude or whatnot. It is irrelevant to 'solutions' and to the issue of semi-automatic weapons. I would of course, be interested in you giving a 'solution' (aside from Brant's improvements) or arguing for the status quo. In the meantime, oh how keerazy sounds Lindsay Perigo? A titanic performance: Added: that statement is also inaccurate. How tantalizing. Maybe you could tell us what is known about 'the weapon' ... I may be inaccurate to describe it as a military-style weapon that fires automatic rounds from removable clip, but your response did not show us how.

What is the cost of trying to stop every instance of violence/insanity? Carol appears to be willing to force others to pay quite a high price.The weapon. A military-style weapon that fires automatic rounds from removable clips. Carol is irrelevant to changing law. Only you guys can do that. We are but neighbours saying what some of your householders are saying. We have no rights in your house. In other words I totally understand the Shuttup you Canucki Socialist Neighbour. What is the cost of trying to stop (another instance like that in Connecticutt) violence/insanity? That's a good question for which we have a bit of data. We could cost out Brant's recommendations of hard-shelling primary/elementary schools. All that will take money. All that will cost some intangible freedom, and make schools armed enclaves. Debate is free. These fraught issues are where Americans thrash out every last implication of the events. I understand that OL is kind of a cul-de-sac where mostly Objectivish opinions are lodged, but it certainly does not mirror America -- in that sense the 'wound-picking foreigners' seem to be standing in for detestable American ideas that are just not reflected here much,

I thoroughly agree with Jonathan's lampooning of Lindsay Perigo's truly awful "Two Lanzas, Two Americas." It combines so many hallmarks of Perigo. Poor research. Garbled sociology. Neologisms of excruciating obtuseness. Grindlingly bad analogies. Cognitive distortions. Nameless evuls. Shades of hysteria from purple to screaming fire engine red.

The fallacy of the excluded middle? Does this rhetoric suggest that there are only two alternatives: one being the status quo** and the other being a wholesale confiscation of all firearms from civilians? This is more of the same: imagine an insane 'solution' to a problem, a 'solution' obviously impractical. If that solution can't happen, then status quo. PDS has done more than hint. I don't believe that unless one is American one can never understand those Americans who are steadfast against any 'un-American' interpretation of the second amendment ... That the 2nd amendment matters very much to (some/most/all) Americans is one thing. That there is a range of opinion on what exactly it means is another thing. The 2nd amendment refers to 'a well-regulated militia'; are we to pretend that there is no debate or discussion about this -- that it has been settled forevermore in both the minds and habits of all Americans. Decoupling the right to bear arms from reference to a militia (be it well-organized/regulated), it still leaves the lawfulness of regulation/management of firearms open to argument. I asserted upthread that there would be no change in American gun laws in the aftermath of the slaughter by semi-automatic. I will amend that assertion to this: there will be a discussion in Congress that proposes new federal laws against possession of semi-automatic (assault) weapons. There will be gnashing of teeth and titanic feats of sophistry, and it will come to naught. Why is it bad form 'to keep picking at' this wound? There is no other wound that is off-limits to picking in a free society. And the very rhetorical device used to shame discussion? While PDS chastises Daunce for wound-picking and a lack of citizenship, Americans of many stripes are having wild discussions outside these precincts. Why should Daunce be charried for raising the same issues being raised across the board in the US today? Just because OL is not posting links or excerpts of that discussion doesn't mean that it is not occuring -- Daunce says little that is not currently featured in the mainstream and subsidiary media. Have all those Americans urging 'something be done' to control assault weapons become non-American also? The best take on PDS's evocation of The Americans is this: "It is complicated" ... So, is there any chance whatsoever that new regulations will be enforced against semi-automatic assault weapons? I doubt it very much (although several senators of the usual ilk will be tabling just such regulation ...). In the end, for some folks that we respect (like PDS) the issue boils down to the price you pay for gun freedom. What about the murder weapon, anybody?

Rand was right on gun control, I wager. And Carol is right to think that this is a "price tag" issue at some atavistic level. That the price for gun freedom is the occasional awful ambush. I find that support for the well-armed militia amendment is primary because personal. It is someone's possession that is to be controlled, not a shooter. It is somebody's home-protection locker that is to be outlawed, not the crazy spree killers. It is a them and it is an us. The other place where Carol is correct is having each child trained and armed. Surely this is easy to do. The freedom to responsibly use firearms (including the use for prevention and protection) as part of basic civil rights can be extended to the young. But before that happens, arm the Principals, reception staff, janitors, hall monitors, teachers, food service workers and crossing guards. Frankly, nothing, no amount of talk about guns will change the landscape, to my eyes. No more gun control in the USA, no matter the mass shooting. Still on the subject, I had never before looked at the history of the amendment, I am sorry to say. I now know that there was a whittling down (and a later split) of the amendment. These were the first, second, and last voted (from Wikipedia): The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Another bit I found shed more light on what the 'well-regulated' militia was in those days and what it meant in the aftermath. It looks like police were not yet an armed entity themselves. If a semiautomatic weapon brought to a school kills more than a knife would, and a situation where it was extremely difficult for a shooter to get hands on a semi-automatic might prevent greater death tolls, is it time for America to talk about 'regulating' its civilian militia? Nope. Nope. Not now and not ever.

There has been a world-class eruption of understanding here at OL. I stand in awe of successful communication, when those volleys of questions and statements that aim true and shoot straight are rewarded with returned volleys of information. Explosions of insight. Glimmers of knowledge fusing in the milky darkness. We start with Exhibit 2a, a claim by the Defendant that the Complainant admitted something epistemologically significant. I have a feeling you have no idea what I am getting at and do not care to know. Frankly, I prefer you to ignore my request for thoughts and bash the things you like to bash, or simply say, "I'm not interested," than to attribute me with bogus positions like the one above (that's not the only one) and go off on a mea culpa detour that sounds like a stretch. We revert first to consider the tort at issue. Defendant 'bashed' Judge, OL, Glenn and by extension, the Complainant. The Complainant sets the terms: From this basis, the Complainant requested a response of the Defendant. We adjudicate neither the 'authority' of the Defendant (be it 'world-class' or 'little-league') nor the proper name for the Complainant (be it Celebrity Expert or Help Me With My Homework). To recap: a 'story of money' by a former Judge. A critique by OL's self-styled authority on money. A rejoinder and request from the Coach. Is there a contractual issue to consider? Is there an implied duty of the Defendant to respond to the Complainant? Here, the request seems on the face straightforward: Give thoughts that make sense to a high-school kid without leaving out fundamentals. The Defendant says no: The Complainant withdraws his request for homework assistance: Me, I have an itch to scratch on the history of money, a reference I am trying to hunt down from faulty remembrance. It concerns rings of precious metals (picture a coarser slinky) that emerged in the Middle East (not the ring-money of the Celts, however). Once I track down the (I think National Geographic) story it came from, I will post it. I have sympathy for both Michaels in their standoff. On the one hand, the Michael whose deconstruction of Napolitano's errors is worthy, but whose expertise is unacknowledged. We can differ in assessing the awkwardness of proclaiming oneself to be 'world class.' For the other Michael, I feel for him too. I did not see any coherent theory emerge from his ramblings -- save that we should consider the power of story. If he wanted Marotta's help in figuring out a dumbed-down history to market to teens, he lost out. The history of money is fabulous and instructive, and is nine yards long. Anyone with an interest in explaining it to a new audience has to acquaint himself with the historical and archaeological work done to date. If the ultimate aim is to market a Distilled History pitched to sophomore-age audiences, as a Knowledge Coach or a Guru or Celebrity Expert, the pitch to Michael Marotta has failed. That's too bad, but to lay fault to one side or the other is unproductive. Perhaps the best way to approach the next step in the marketing is to collar some materials on the history of money and crib the major points. In my search for the missing story on money-rings or proto-money, I came across several layman-friendly sites, pithy and profound. I give a hint of one. Michael's rambles on money underline both the fun and the challenge of presenting coherent histories/narratives/stories. I will try to answer the gist of his observations in a separate comment. To be an explainer of complex matters is hard work.