william.scherk

. . . and then I would indulge in an orgy of investing it and giving it away. I have read the sad statistics of those who had immense sums drop into their lives like a bomb. I realize that statistically I am likely to go down the same rabbithole as any other winner of a huge windfall, so I would get the best financial and psychological advice, for my investments and for my mental health.

Why did Ayn Rand quit smoking? Such a tough, tough question. First, she got lung cancer (no one knows how). There were a few symptoms. Then she went to her doctor. He said, you have lung cancer. She said, oh? He said, Yup. She said, what can you (we) do? He said, it's non-squamous cells with a delimited tumour body. I believe we can get a surgeon to cut out the tumour, though this will leave you only a part of that lung. She thought about that. "What else?" He said, let's get you on the table and then talk. Are you still smoking? Help yourself to my Chesterfields while I write the referral to the surgeon. She said, well, smoking, hmm. It is painful to draw breath at times, but yeah. I don't smoke Chesterfields. I smoke Black Cat. He said, well, we can't give you your breath back. You show signs of pulmonary disease. Your heart is labouring to get oxygen to your cells. We'll cut that pain out, though. She thought about that, longing for a Chesterfield from the box on the doctor's desk. She asked, does smoking have anything to do with pulmonary disease? Is it progressive? Will it kill me? He thought about that, exhaling slowly. She heard in her mind the satisfying click of the lighter on her writing desk. She breathed in slowly. He said, smoking does not help pulmonary disease. Smoke in the lungs (not just cigarette smoke) is smoke in the lungs. People with shitty chimneys get pulmonary disease. It's why you generally get out of a room when it fills with smoke. Why don't I show you a few X-rays and a couple of post-mortem photographs -- a smoker's lung and a non-smoker's lung. She said, Okay. Hmmmm. Is this dark splot the tumour? He said, yes. "And what's this here and here? Is that normal? "Those are the signs of pulmonary disease" The both exhaled at the same time. She asked, how much of the lung will come out? He indicated a region of the lung. She looked to the photos. He said, can you guess which is the picture of the smoker's lung? She looked at him with those big black eyes. She looked at the pictures again. She sighed, wincing a little bit. ******************** It is not known at what point she quit, or why. The picture of a smoker's lung may or may not have played a part in her decision. Who knows? Who cares? [EDIT -- I might make a few more edits as I discover my errors in cancer diagnosis and symptomatology and look up the details of early diagnosis. Though Diana Hsieh might scorn me (being an acknowleged expert), I think Ayn Rand was lucky -- my hunch is that she listened to her "stomach feelings" and otherwise paid attention to her body. If hers was a non-squamous cancer, she may have caught the cancer at an early stage, thus making its surgical re-section likely to completely remove the tumour. I will have to look at the Barbara Branden biography for the story to remember what symptoms were reported there. My mother died of lung cancer, but was diagnosed late in the disease progression. It was a painless (though not unsymptomatic) cancer. One last thing to consdier are answers to a few questions. After lung surgery (cracking the chest open and getting in there), how long is the recovery? In the year (I forget) she was hospitalized in New York, how long before she went home? Finally, what was the practice in that hospital, what was the protocol for recovery from lung surgery (meaning, did the staff stick one in your mouth in the recovery room (a la Patsy from Absolutely Fabulous), or did the staff subtly discourage the practice and wait until she got back to her room? I am sure there are more questions to be answered, but we are not detectives, are we? I mean, we can just sit in a chair and figure it out, no? So the question, that dratted question remains. Why did she quit? One more -- when did she quit? Maybe her symptoms were such that she quit before the diagnosis. Maybe the symptoms were like a cold, and she was one of those people who when cold symptoms hit, stop smoking because of the discomfort. I have such sympathy for her, whatever her symptoms. She had her chest opened and a part of lung removed. She beat cancer and gave herself life. I am glad we take the time to puzzle over these things. It takes my mind off America's slide to destruction.]

For those who want an excellent resource for following verified news in the Middle East (primarily, Syria and Egypt, I recommend following the blog at http://www.enduringamerica.com/ . This is run by two westerners (a Brit and a Yank) and contains the best curated news. Massive amounts of reports from the ground (along with rumours) are culled and particularly indicative reports are presented.

Kyle is one of those rare Objectivish people who participates at the trio of OL/SOLO/RoR. I think he should get kudos just for being ecumenical.

I think Morsi made a serious mistake in issuing his constitutional decree, and I hope some sense comes to the parties. I hope against hope that this chapter in post-Mubarak history ends with the least damage to Egypt's polity. Here I add a few paragraphs from the New York Times story today, one that suggests my hope may not be mere Pollyanna Party wishful thinking. I include only the explanatory paragraphs that do a fair job of laying out the chain of events behind the sloppy assertion and usurpation of authority. The title of the Times piece is "Seeming Retreat by Egypt Leader on New Powers." That summarizes the situation: a Constituent Assembly (dominated by a majority, but not a super-majority of Islamists) whose job is to get a new Constitution in place to allow for fresh Parliamentary elections. The Parliament from the free elections was dissolved by the (Mubarak-appointed) courts. If the Constituent Assembly is dissolved, then there is actually nobody in a position to govern except Morsi -- without a functioning parliament to challenge and supervise his Cabinet. This dissolution would start the whole thing over again. Maybe some of these details are well-known to those with the self-administered Gold Stars on their prediction books. I wish we could talk about the details and express our hopes and nightmares without assuming we already know the full contours what is going to happen. Otherwise, as Adam might say, otherwise we are on a progressive march to the death camps of reasoning.

This is sentimental, over-orchestrated, verging on histrionic ... but (like almost all Dusty Springfield) it raises the hairs on my neck, and gives me a little shock, a thrill in the heart, when she kicks in the afterburners. Is that a love song? (this thread makes me think of Phil Coates and the one thing we agreed on: the wonderful schmaltzy awful goodness of Ginette Reno's famous duet Donne-moi la tendresse ...)

If I was truly unkind, I would call the Paleo extremists the Food Salafis ... all would be perfect if we just did what we did in The Old Days. Enjoy that beer, Trog.

Honestly, I don't have a clue. The entire industry of Modern Paleo is riddled with hooey. It is as dire as any Magic Perfect Diet peddled anywhere. As Diana (wrongly) points out, nutrition sciences are in their infancy. While this child-science soils its pants and wobbles on its pins (according to Diana), the newborn Paleo congregation get to construct an entirely fresh Cult of Food Fancies ... outside the purview of what is actually known. I find it sad that she is struggling to make a body of law, the Rules of the Gut, on such specious flummery. One potato, two potato, three potato, four ...

I am about to fork up Diana Hsieh's promised reaction to the Peikoff post-electoral apocalypse podcast. I imagine she has cut her lifeboats from the mother ship entirely, but we'll see. Her blog is still active, barely, but she has lost her commentariat. In the last week she has been on her usual extended murk about the Modern Paleo diet. Follows a couple of samples: It goes on ... Here's her plain-thinking on the Obama Apocalyse: And, best for last, a selection from her just-published reaction to Peikoff's election post-mortem, "Leonard Peikoff on the “Catastrophe” of the 2012 Election." You know where these opinions live, no link necessary ....

Carole, tipped by the progressive Marxist death-camp media in TO, I had a gander for Twitter reaction to the "Roblessness" ... If Rob now gives way to Olivia Chow, it'll be like Nickelback opening for Kate Bush. They threw the book at Rob. He still hasn't read it. Breaking news, Rob to replace Mark Carney at the Bank of Canada. Justice Hackland's ruling today it doesn't change much from my perspective. Rob has been absent from his duties for sometime. An unscientific poll running at the Globe and Mail has some 70% supporting this: the penalty is appropriate. -- I also get a shiver of pleasure on reading from Hackland's ruling: Rob 'showed a "stubborn sense of entitlement" and a "dismissive and confrontational attitude"' Heh.

It is googleable, yes, with only one hit on the exact text ... But, hey Carol -- it might be fun to tell OLers about the 'Robless' Toronto. I can only imagine how such a constitutional/administrative removal from office will be treated ... my only reaction is a bit of schadenfreude. You get what you pay for, Toronto. Refunds. Hint to the uninitiated: Toronto + Rob (googleable) [Note on Synecdoche, Metonymy and Metaphor, from Wikipedia: metaphor: changing a word from its literal meaning to one not properly applicable but analogous to it; assertion of identity rather than, as with simile, likeness. metonymy: substitution of cause for effect, proper name for one of its qualities, etc. synecdoche: substitution of a part for whole, species for genus, etc. ]

Is it metonymy? Something like "The Chair decided ..." or "All hands on deck" or "She was a flower" ? I cheated on the quote. Didn't read the book, didn't see the Oscar-rewarded film. [cross-posted with Reidy. Thanks. Synecdoche. What a word. What a concept.

So much for progressive predictions...they always end up in death camps... I recall writng several times (with links to news/analysis) on perceptions of the FJP and the free market. Richard does not accurately represent those posts, which were previously summed up with links and which can be found here. It's hard to respond to the 'progressive predictions ... always ... death camps' line. It's a pithy epigram, but hardly holds truth. I think Morsi made a serious mistake in issuing his constitutional decree, and I hope some sense comes to the parties. I hope against hope that this chapter in post-Mubarak history ends with the least damage to Egypt's polity. For those who knew how everything would and will turn out, give yourself a gold star and issue fresh predictions, progressive or not. -- I know, I know that all my posts on the Middle East/North Africa have dried up. There is just so much information, so many details, and I cannot do events justice for readers here.

What makes the memory and suggestion research of Ofshe and Loftus so compelling is that they scope out suggestion fully, show how many kinds or levels of suggestion and suggestibility exist. So, attending to the science investigating suggestion of all types (hypnotically-retrieved 'memories' to eye-witness errors) can only add a systematic oomph of reality-testing to your very own interests in cult-ish persuasion, coercion, 'thought control,' mass effects of propaganda, and so on. For your further interests on hypnosis, I can also recommend anything by Steven Jay Lynn, another stalwart of the memory wars. Along with Scott Lilienfeld, he cuts through the cant and claims of fringe-ish psychology. Across the landscape of 'We can help you' products, therapeutic or commercial, are those who claim efficacy (make women fall into bed!) or accuracy (know what others are thinking) or potency (control yourself and others) or any other success (walk on hot coals). The literature and authors I recommend help pull all the shambling outliers and core procedures into a coherent field. Here's a little something newer and more on-topic, a book from the Chris Mooney, godless liberal and author of The Republican War on Science: The Republican Brain I include a song of praise from a customer review.

Lots of 'peoples' have the same problem with memory. We can start anywhere in the world, and dig a few feet (or metres) to find oppression and sore racial memories of horror and brutality. The Jews have the same kind of memory as the Armenians (not to mention the Azeris), as do those who are non-Jewish and live in the Gaza strip. The Armenians have the same kind of memory as the Chinese, who recall their torments under Japan. The French of Quebec live each day (some of them) in a vengeful hurt. As the Japanese of Canada still hurt for wartime detention and confiscations and camp life. The Jews were singled out for particular mechanized atrocity last century, and since self-supervised the population transfers of the last sixty years, when the world's Jews either self-deported or were bought or expelled gently or otherwise (esp from the Eastern and Arab worlds). The meme of the Jews in exile is powerful, as is their return as a nation with mighty arms. Luckily, the land of opportunity, America, invites and gives refuge to all kinds of memories and all kinds of peoples. There are Jews who are ever-so-Jewish (like Bob here) but who do not think like he does, not least on the subject of the righteousness or the wrath of the Jews, or the punishment due to enemies. And right in front of him in the supermarket checkout a Palestinian. More luckily, Bob is atheist, and cares not for Thor or Jahweh or Haile Selassie (so it's not about gods, just conduct). While we witnessed dispirited wrangling on OL over how best to saddle a flying unicorn and then overturn the election, a small war in the Middle East came and went. Real catastrophes for the dead and grieving on both sides of the ceasefire line. We are given to believe (if we can believe Hillary Clinton or the foreign minister of Egypt) that everyone was a winner in the game just played in Gaza and southern Israel. The deaths, destruction and injuries are not important, though the score was no more than a day's death in Syria. What is important is who won. Hamas won because they got a few concessions. Egypt won because it led the negotiations with as much finesse as Mubarak (but quicker). Israel won because they got their basics (calm for calm). They have agreed to stop shelling by land and targetted assassinations. In a day or so we will see what else was negotiated. Most likely is an easing of the Israeli blockade. The reason we had no comment on Gaza war/truce is probably because these are minor 'seismic' events, hardly even felt, compared to larger thumpings and crushings. The big kabooms take our notice. The most seismic activity is next-door. Which fades into the background anyway. Which maybe can give us a bit of perspective on those who single out the Jews as particularly this or that. Here is another means of appreciating the perspective of our times: one thousand years of war in five minutes. Good for all audiences. No blood or gore shown.

Amazon features Franz de Waal's new book, The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates From the blurb and from editorial reviews:

He only has four minutes and thirty-eight seconds to panic, so he kind of has to simplify. My favourite bit is his Romney port-mortem. Romney's campaign was empty, and had no appeal to those who only care about "am I getting my contraceptives, am I getting my welfare, etcetera." Add to that Peikoff's panicky reach for the big adverbs like 'vastly.' Did you know that the US military will be 'vastly' reduced? One sad affect of age is slackening vocal control. Peikoff sounds three Chivas up on all of us.

The issue of secession or independence or sovereignty is alive in the world. If the Texans who hope for a separate nation can convince a thumping majority of their people that this is the way to go, the object lessons in how to do it are many (and the lessons of how awfully wrong secession movements can go are also many). I mention Texas because it is apparently the sole state able to muster five times the numbers necessary for a White House written response. One object lesson in successful and rapid secession is Lithuania. When the chance to depart the Soviet Union was upon the Lithuanians, they voted in a straightforward In/Out independence referendum, and the winning majority was 93%. Another example is Slovenia. Another is Timor Este, another is South Sudan. There are more examples throughout the 20th century. In the next couple of years, a couple of important independence referendums are likely to be carried out, one in Scotland, and one in Catalonia. In Canada, there have been only two Quebec referendums related to independence. The first asked voters to approve something called 'Sovereignty-Association.' It failed. The second referendum was based on 'sovereignty' with an optional 'partnership' with Canada. It too failed (but by a narrow margin). The problem with both referendums in Quebec was the question and the percentage of the vote that should lead to independence (or sovereignty murk mumble**). The Supreme Court later ruled on both issues. A future referendum could certainly deliver a vote that must be respected by the rest of Canada (and lead to a negotiated Quebec secession), but in the Supreme's ruling, the question must be unequivocal, and the process subject to stringent democratic rules. An act of the Canadian parliament laid out the actual means by which a province could vote to depart Canada (see the Clarity Act). The problem the Supremes reference case hoped to illuminate, of course, was between fifty-percent-plus-one advocates -- and those who believed this was much too narrow a margin of approval. Consistent with long-standing objections to the ambiguous nature of the two referendum questions, the new legal regime lays out reasonably democratic procedures for secession. Thus, should Quebecers ever vote over sixty percent for a clear call to secede from Canada, the way forward is laid out in law, and the federal government is bound to accede to the wishes of the majority -- and negotiate terms in good faith. I don't know how this would be accomplished in Texas. It seems an issue of long-standing, but not an issue that has yet even attracted a plurality of voter intent. If and when any US state votes unequivocally for secession in a free and fair referendum, wake me up from my realist slumbers .... Of more interest to USA-based OLers, I think, are the results from the two tied questions put to Puerto Ricans on the last ballot.† It looks like Statehood (which was the preferred alternative) is plausible if not probable. If the desire to become a state of the Union is made clear by a constituent assembly, and legislation enabling statehood in Congress is green-lighted by Obama, the US may welcome a fifty-first state, and its first state with a Spanish-speaking and non-Protestant majority. This is I believe a great advance over the odd arrangement currently in place for the 3.7 million US citizens of the Commonwealth. But you Americans will decide. What say you? ¿Quién va a ser el amo del estado? ¿Quién tendrá dominio del Estado? (who shall rule/take domination of/be the heart of the state/State) _____________ ** This was the background 'partnership' that the PQ government thought would be a winner for the separatist cause (from Wikipedia). customs union; free movement of goods; free movement of individuals; free movement of services; free movement of capital; monetary policy; labour mobility; and citizenship.[6] Of course, this smacks of the same deal that Scotland presently has with the UK (shared citizenship, customs union, etcetera). I wonder what kind of 'deal' the Texas (or other state) secessionists have in mind. It seems to me that the White House petition project is a stunt, or at best an indication that some folks would like sovereignty but have no concrete notion of how to accomplish it. When the number of Texan votes on the Texan secession petition reaches above ten million, I'd say it would be time to get excited. Otherwise this just seems a sideshow, with no hope of going anywhere. At the present time the electronic signatures have topped 110,000. Not one of the Texas sponsors of the petition has stepped forward for the fight. There is a long long road ahead. Consider: how many state representatives/congressional representatives from Texas have been elected on a plank of Texas independence? How many have even attempted? Compare/contrast to the Scottish National Party, the Parti Quebecois or the Bloc Quebecois at its height in Ottawa, when outright secessionists can command hours of the airwaves to weave their spells. If there is will to change a legal regime of sovereignty (the real goal), that will become evident at the highest tables. In my opinion, this is absent in the US. As for Alex Jones, he is a freak of the conspiracy fringes, to my eyes. Independence is a flavour of the day for his site Infowars. Next week, back to FEMA camps, 9/11 wahoo, UN overlords, Satan Speaks, and whatever seems attractive to the paranoid style of thinking. For those too worried about 'reprisals' from the powers that be, the White House records your IP address, your email address, whatever name you gave (there are 5 Krusty the Clowns signed up so far), and your claimed postal code. This could lead to such 'reprisals' as, well, I guess, surveillance, arrest, torture, detention and a midnight burial. Or a spot on Maury. Or at least a database for a future direct-mail assault: "Dear Texas Secessionist Jason P 90210, have you heard of the All-In-One Family Bunker BBQ and Spa? Follow these links to receive special offers ... " ++++++++++++++++++++ † (from Wikipedia) "In a 2012 status referendum a majority of voters supported statehood over two other non-status-quo options. There is currently an active Puerto Rico statehood movement."

Michael, I hope you have added to your suggestion bookcase some of the tonic works of the 'memory wars' years, chief among them Elizabeth Loftus and Richard Ofshe. With your love of narrative, you will appreciate real stories of those caught in society-wide moral panics, the incubation facilities (MPD clinics), the literature of suggestion (The Courage to Heal), and the hunt for truth and accountability where suggestion meets coercion. My studies during those years led to taking action as part of a 'rational community' -- the literature on suggestion, suggestibility, coercion, and those most vulnerable to suggestion and why, all this deepened my personal value of rational inquiry. Reason is what we depend on when things go wrong, when coercive or other more or less menacing 'communities of belief and practice' emerge. Here's a blurb on Loftus from Wikipedia, followed by a couple of specific recommendations. Loftus is best known for her ground-breaking work on the misinformation effect and eyewitness memory,[3] and the creation and nature of false memories,[4] including recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.[5] As well as her prolific work inside the laboratory, Loftus has been heavily involved in applying her research to legal settings; she has consulted or provided expert witness testimony for hundreds of cases The Myth of Repressed Memory; Witness for the Defense Richard Ofshe is another great. His bailiwick was the intersection of cults, suggestion, interrogation, and persuasion, "coercive social control." Check his Wikipedia page for some available articles (you will love a couple of the titles!), and see if you can find one of these. They are classics, so they all should be in your closest big library: Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, And Sexual Hysteria; Therapy's Delusions: The Myth of the Unconscious and the Exploitation of Today's Walking Worried

I bet in retrospect most OLers could have written this thread back in June. In the thick of the punishing GOP primaries we got a look at a raft of persuasion techniques (as Michael notes, there is a timeless human ability to be hypnotized, or at least rendered more suggestible.) and we got a look at the offerings in terms of policy. The weakest parts of the Romney strategy could have been the strongest, in retrospect, so I am going to ask you to imagine Romney won, as his most favourable internal hypnopolls suggested ... Romney won by assembling a coalition. He appealed overtly or subliminally to a class of voters who could call themselves conservative. He topped the white vote out at 60%, beating McCain. He kept McCain's percentage of Latino votes, and took two percentages back from women voters. He took a vast majority (though not all) of Evangelicals. He also captured so-called Tea Party voters, fiscally conservative. He got 0.5 percent increase in the youth vote. He increased the Republican share of the seniors vote. He tacked on a small majority of Catholics. He attracted almost two more percent of Jewish votes. He increased his share of Independents by one percent. When you add together all these little bits of nibbles here and there from the numbers expected by the self-deluded Obama campaign, and the marginal appeal he had as the guy you'd rather sit and bullshit with, is it any wonder Romney won?

I am quoting myself from January, 2011, plugging for Weart in an earlier thread where global warming discussion stalled, but this time explaining why reading his stuff is recommended especially to skeptics or agnostics on this issue. If you doubt the procedures and actors of recent years in 'climate science,' this book (or website) will give you a long-view sweep.

Robert, thanks muchly for the note on Paul Drake. He is quite an impressive scientist to have on the TAS board of advisors. He has written a great article/chapter on 'State Science' that I can recommend. I have not yet read anything more pertinent to his stance on particular issues. I sort of want to write a brief query to him asking him about his 'beliefs,' but that seems a bit stupid and forward. Maybe a note asking him for recommended reading on 'warming' for interested Objectivish folks ... For those who do not want to lay out money for Spencer Weart's book "The Discovery of Global Warming," there is a companion website. From the index page:

Robert, happy to hear you have Weart's book in the house. I hope we could get a start on a discussion once you get into it. The best part of the book for me is the website. I respect that you don't like name-calling in global-warming discussions. I promise not to call anyone a denier.

Whoever those 'Fox News types' were, they were full of shit. Silver's models are a matter of record. If the types had checked that record for 2010 midterms, they would have found out this: Silver predicted that the GOP would pick up 7 Senate seats. The actual total was 6. Silver predicted a net gain of 54 GOP House seats. The actual total was 63. Silver predicted the outcome of 37 Governor races. He was correct in 36. (it's worth noting that -- according to his own confidence intervals -- each of the 2010 predictions was within the 'margin of error' ... since each prediction was accompanied by a statistical power explanation). I don't know what this means, "not that good." If that means "not that perfect," sure. But what is this about -- 100% accuracy (as with 2012), within the margins of error, or what? I do not know what to compare Silver's 2010 models to. Maybe there were some models that attempted to call the three races types and were significantly that much gooder ...? -- Adam has made a couple of compelling points in the varied pre- and post-Electoral Apocalypse threads. One that stuck in my mind was the disjunct between his strong assertions ('It's over' ... Mutton victory in sight for Pennsylvania) and his actual at the time lurking suspicions that he was wishin' and a hopin' -- that the internal polls (weighted against Obama turnout/Dem turnout) gave the Republicans false confidence. I think this shows what one major problem was within the campaign -- they believed their own best, sunniest predictions derived from 'weighted' polling internals, and did not consider (or breathe a word of) the possibility that their very framework of analysis was biased.

Garden-variety incompetence sure aids failure (of the 'ground game' of GOTV), but I find more fascinating the explanations of Obama's re-election coming from the right of centre: Republicans are going to build a new narrative of failure, perhaps. Here is a video compiled from a number of post-mortems. Somewhere from this grab-bag will emerge the new story: