william.scherk

The opportunities to be a splitter or a lumper** abound with the question, What Is Consciousness. I liked the opening post, with its link to Wikipedia's overview of Consciousness and its reference to Sutherland. Sutherland was tasked with defining consciousness for the International Dictionary of Psychology, in 1995. He wrote (in part): "Consciousness: the having of perceptions, thoughts and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means... Nothing worth reading has been written about it." It's too bad he gave up. But we don't have to. Alerted to the softness of the term, we go forth. What is (the meaning of) Consciousness. Is it true that 'nothing worth reading' has been written in the 17 years since Sutherland threw in the towel? Ayn Rand may be cited next, as has done PDS, telling us about actions of consciousness, bringing together consciousness as it pertains to meaningful sensations: the action of his consciousness is perceptionthe action of his consciousness is evaluationthe action of his consciousness is emotionthe action of his consciousness is thoughtthe action of his consciousness is reminiscenceSutherland matches Rand in these aspects: perception/perceptionsthought/thoughtsemotion/feelingsevaluation/----------reminiscence/-------------------/awarenessExamining these, can we regroup re-lump, extract the differences, rank? I think so. Although Rand has not explicitly mentioned awarenss, I suggest this is a sina qua non of Consciousness. The binary conscious/unconscious gives us a clue to the necessity of being conscious as opposed to being unconscious. In a being with 'consciousness' the ability to be responsive to the environment is the very beginning ... Aware ('conscious') Sensing (able to 'sense' - hearing, proprioception, sight, touch, taste, smell) Perceptive (able to -- in the Randian sense -- form perceptions from sense data) Feeling (able to feel in the sense of feelings, emotions, embodied 'value reckoning') Evaluative/Cognitive (able to evaluation, analyze, integrate, plan, etc) [Reminiscent] To be unconscious is to be mostly unaware of and unresponsive to the necessities of reality. Doctor: is she conscious? Nurse: I don't know. She is not alert to her surroundings, but I think she is in there. Doctor: has she shown brainwave response to physical stimulus? Nurse: no. Is she breathing on her own? Nurse: yes Doctor: do her pupils dilate when stimulated? Nurse: yes. Doctor: does she feel pain? Nurse: not below the neck. Doctor: has she shown brainwave response to her family's voices? Nurse: yes. -- I will only add these further notions to my preliminary ranking or hierarchy. Consider 'locked-in' syndrome, consider the kinds of brain and spinal injury where the very questions asked by the doctor cannot be answered without further inquiry. The worlds of neurology told by Oliver Sacks and Antonio Damasio show us odd outliers. Add comas, dissociative fugue, amnesias, focal deficits of the agnosias, phantom limb, 'missing morality' in psychopathic brain injury, and so on. For me it is very difficult to get a grasp on 'What is (meant by) consciousness' without a lot of, conscious and deliberate thought. I will return to the next stage of my analysis by responding from within the heuristic outlined above. By thinking of defects of consciousness in the outlier and anomalous situations, consciousness impinged, consciousness imperfect, I can later introduce such notions as Executive Consciousness, the 'I', and a few other lumps and splits -- and answer the four intriguing questions raised by PDS†. But first, an aspect of consciousness (threat assessment) that is augmented by neuroscience. Assistive computer tech for binoculars. It looks like a particular kind of consciousness has been enhanced by 'the machine.' Much more fascinating than my stab at the subject. From Linking human brainwaves, improved sensors and cognitive algorithms to improve target detection ____________________________________________________ ** Lumping and splitting refers to a well-known problem in any discipline which has to place individual examples into rigorously defined categories. The lumper/splitter problem occurs when there is the need to create classifications and assign examples to them, for example schools of literature, biological taxa and so on. A "lumper" is an individual who takes a gestalt view of a definition, and assigns examples broadly, assuming that differences are not as important as signature similarities. A "splitter" is an individual who takes precise definitions, and creates new categories to classify samples that differ in key ways. † 1. How is that which we think of as "consciousness" seperate from that which we think of as "self"? 2. Is the full breadth of our thinking the full breadth of our self, and thus our consciousness? 3. If our thoughts are objects which can be "observed" (e.g., "why is my mind racing so much today?"), what do we call that which does the observing? 4. Rand has said that consciousness is identification--what then is the identity of consciousness?

I should mention his fabulous new studio:

They already imply that. This is from the fiends at HuffPo, "Glenn Beck Returning To TV With Dish Network Deal." I emphasize the snarky undertone: I don't know. Sometimes the Progressive railroaders get a few facts right. Glenn is making money and having fun and feeling good about himself -- if he can build a larger national audience on DishTV, cable and satellite, good on him.

It isn't really fair, Carol, my interjection -- the young gent was handled by PDS in a much more Canadian way than I was able to. PDS looked past his mode and his mood. There is something in there, an intelligence, a drive, a fury to understand and be heard. An implacable hostility (from me) is not going to help him get to his goals, so on reading the other thread I wish I had not put this up. I like English, love it at times, find it delightful to consume and occasional fun-work to produce. It can sing, it can dance, it can take you places in your mind. A basic orthographic competence does not do damage to the ideas embedded in the prose, but incompetence leaves the wrong impression of slop and disarray. Sad but true. A case could be made that it is triumphantly selfish to use standard orthorgraphy: it shows you care about your tools ...

You heard the wrong thing, Pope, maybe? Having mastery of the English language, or having a standard of written English is one thing. An 'idea' is another. Consider what you think when you read an illiterate rant. Would it sound any more intelligent or analytically-sound if it was transcribed to audio? Me, I feel sorry for people who cannot regularly use standard English forms in their communications. This may or may not be you. Maybe you do know how written English looks like -- its standard and non-standard forms -- and so maybe you are capable of writing it. Maybe you do write it in some part of your life where it matters (like examinations, job applications, reports in writing to your worker). Maybe you don't. Thing is, Pope, we know nothing about you. As MSK points out, you could be crazy like Janet, crazy like Victor, or crazy like any other short-term wonder here. Lots of folks show up on the beach over time, you see. Some barely cough the water from their lungs before ranting about their particular bugaboo. Some introduce themselves in some way. Some add pertinent commentary without revealing a thing. If we knew something about you, maybe the reception would be different. For example, there is another relatively new person here who has cornered the market on blurry sketches of splendid-if-uncomfortable 'couture' and who has some sketches of murky interiors of fantasy palaces. He engaged in conversation, let us know of his particular challenges in life, and -- when challenged on some things in his communications -- accepted counsel. There was some kind of exchange, a real human interaction. Though perhaps he does not have any fans here to encourage him in his mania, he seems human. You, so far, seem human only so far as a belligerent, antisocial illiterate is human. We don't know you. We don't know where you live, if you are instititutionalized, if you lost your English facility after a blow to the head, nothing. All we get is a 'one-minute' set of extremely stupid talking points about WTC. So, you know, some of us might think, What the Fuck? Who is this guy? Does he really buy all the crap about 'controlled demolition' ? Has he never thought any of this through? Is this kind of bellicose scrawl of a thought worth consideration? Bear in mind that the subject has come up before. But back to spelling. If there was no brain damage or other cognitive impairment, that you are sloppy and uncaring about your presentation suggests you are unskilled in making your points get across without distraction of illiteracy. 'Cause that is what it looks like. It doesn't look like you are using a cute new form of English orthography (some who do not use capitalization can spell just fine). It looks like you are incompetent, lazy and stupid. So, in just a couple of days, you left an impression you swallow whole the 9/11 conspiracy pill, you got restricted to five posts a day, and made absolutely no headway in being taken seriously. Is that success, in your world?

Robert, I liked the Tom Friedman article, and the Memri article. They are both sobering, but what they report is not new to me. And here I sigh. I am no fan of religion, I really am not. Sigh. I liked who Friedman targetted as his audience (obviously, not a page four hit in Egypt). I wish he had more currency, and wish instances of ugly religious polemic was pitched back at any government official (MENA) who blabbed on about religious defamation ... In the end, the President, the religious 'authorities' all said the right things about attacks on diplomatic missions, and so did not inflame. I am glad but not surprised they did. The cost of more serious unrest in Egypt or more flames is just not bearable right now. I wish America (or 'Western' values) had more clout in Egypt. Sigh. I wish Morsi could be confronted with his actual reactions to the inflammatory bullshit from Ali Muhammad. I wish he could be tasked to explicate it to somebody. But. I think the kinds of materials collected for Friedman would make a perfect line of questions for Morsi, should he ever do US interviews! I will leave it there. We agree all the way to the far boundaries on the greater issues, sigh sigh sigh. I will scuttle back to my usual habits. Thanks for digging up the parts of the background that make sense and need to be heard.

No. We shouldn't. [We should not mention 'sodomy for humiliation' (whatever that is) in the Arab world, unless we have some credible evidence that this is common, true, wide-spread, culturally-bound; nothing in this supposed fact supports the malicious claim that Ambassador Stevens was raped/sodomized for humiliation.] Well, then I should. For sure you should. If you are right then you of course should tell us more about sodomizing for humiliation in the Arab world. That was the challenge, Maestro. If you should (and if you should you must) tell about sodomizing for humiliation in the Arab world, then tell it! We can't do it for you, since you have the knowledge. Whether I am some blue book fiend is besides the point. You have the floor on this point. Putting me into a drawer or narrative category is all well and good and no-doubt worthy (we all need verbal corralling sometime, or at least a fierce sorting of enemy/friend drawers), but it still doesn't let any of us off the hook of reason. Oh and as for the image Carol projects, I think this shot captures it perfectly for me. Carol on her way shopping, in winter gear. Properly anonymous on the cold-eyed streets of Canada's hideous social experiment, Toronto, but with a hint of old country widder lady Ms Whistler glam:

No. We shouldn't. We should not mention 'sodomy for humiliation' (whatever that is) in the Arab world, unless we have some credible evidence that this is common, true, wide-spread, culturally-bound; nothing in this supposed fact supports the malicious claim that Ambassador Stevens was raped/sodomized for humiliation. Seriously. Rape is real. Does that mean the accusation of rape against this or that person is true? Adam confidently asserted that sodomizing enemies is common in Southern Africa (whatever the fuck that had to do with Benghazi). Robert suggested it is known, a fact, that sodomizing enemy dead and near dead 'happens' in Libya. What kind of evidence do you require before judging this humiliation-by-penis/knife/gun/broom/stick to be 'known'? This is the kind of incurious cognitive gate-keeping that I abhor, the slack and lazy epistemology of 'everybody knows.' You can do better at identifying this thing than with some off-hand comments. These things do happen in Libya ...

You are telling her to stop withholding adjectives. Not me. Exactly. If she wants to get along, she had better toe the line, and adapt her adjectives to your guidelines. Yeah? You do not want Carol to be 'fair' and call out the evul you see in proportion to her calling out evul that she sees? What did I miss in your chastisements? Yikes. Here is the kind of 'commentary' given: YOU believe the USA President should be personally involved in such matters YOU mean the USA President should get personally involved and use the massive power of his office to intimidate people YOU keep making equivalencies like comparing the "two-bit" of a virtual nobody who is suddenly in the center of a controversy with "two bit" of a long-time major political figure in Pakistan and current Railroad Minister. YOU are making excuses for evil from the Progressive Narrative, YOU believe it's OK for a government official or leader to abuse his power so long as this abuse is for a cause you believe in YOU constantly blast traditional villain figures according to the Progressive Narrative at a ratio of about 99 to 1 YOU are polarized at the buzz whrrrrr bing level, but take umbrage when I mention this. YOU have very harsh adjectives for the villains in the Progressive Narrative YOU have no adjectives at all for actual proven villains who preach the Progressive Narrative when they are caught with their pants down YOU claim a film-maker has blood on his hands and not a word about the actual killers until called on it YOU: Progressive Narrative villains - Highly charged emotional outbursts, harsh adjectives and lots of posts. Bad people who reflect poorly on the Progressive Narrative - No mention at all unless pushed to, then no adjectives or emotion when you say you do not condone them. YOU are being reasonable when equating that stuff and I will keep on calling it what it is--unreasonable bias. Personalizing debate (You you you You YOU) degrades discussion. Discerning 'true motives,' sniffing out intentions, and accusing, trying and judging the ratio of adjectives also degrades discussion. Assigning people a role in a retro-fitted and arbitrary narratives does not make them such people, with such interior defects in reasoning, without independence, without integrity. What does 'power stuff' in human relations mean? Did I talk about it all the time this week? Can you give concrete examples? I do not understand the haughtiness and vituperation loaded on Carol at times, Michael. It seems disproportionate and personal, and not your most effective rhetorical gambit. The only person wagging the corrective finger seems to be the Man Who Sees All Narratives Clearly And Perfectly.

Progressive Railroader asked of Worried-about-Rumours why the President of Egypt ought be involved in the rantings and threats of a two-bit mullah? In reply we learned of a 'two-bit mullah' who thinks that Jews cannot be relieved of their moral corruption unless their hearts are cut out, the Director of Islamic Education at Al-Azhar, and now we learn the name: Isma'il 'Ali Muhammad, from Al-Azhar. Noted that any whackjob with an internet account can issue a fatwa (religious decision), and that Tom Friedman quoted Ali Muhammad as part of his editorial: Yes, anti-Muslim video was awful, but radical Muslims say awful things, too According to Friedman, there are two things that need to made clear: "One is that an insult — even one as stupid and ugly as the anti-Islam video on YouTube that started all of this — does not entitle people to go out and attack embassies and kill innocent diplomats." Friedman suggests that those like a demonstrator in Cairo he quoted need to look in the mirror, or turn on the TV and listen to what is said about Jesus, Jews, blah blah. Great point to make. One made by many among Egyptian/Arab intelligentsia (Mona Eltahawy foremost). Friedman introduces the MEMRI project, and notes the eruption of stupid from Ali Mohammad: So, we learn (or are told) by Friedman that a 'senior Al-Azhar scholar' made a hate-filled video that the prototypical demonstrating Achmed should watch. I agree. Except that the named person did not make a hate-filled video (but six articles on the Ikhwan website; stupid and hateful enough, but not as widely trucked as wildly-inflammatory Youtube videos). Now, the Progressive Narrative Railroader question could be restated, "Why should Morsi give a shit about an online religious education series (rantings and threats) by Dr. Isma'il 'Ali Muhammad Tubitmula?" Response: 1) Ali Muhammad wrote that "Jews cannot be relieved of their moral corruption unless their hearts are cut out. 2) He is the Director of Islamic Education at Al-Azhar —and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood That's why, apparently. Apparently Morsi should keep track of all the senior scholars at Al-Azhar University. Maybe that is true. Maybe of the 5,000 scholars Morsi should listen to the top. Maybe to the top guy at Al-Azhar, the Mubarak-appointed Grand Sheikh. Maybe to the second top guy, the Grand Mufti. But Robert compared the "rantings of some Iranian Grand Ayatollah to the Iranian President" as if it were comparable. Any Islamic cleric can issue a fatwa, but in Egypt, there is an actual department at Al-Azhar, Dar al-Ifta, that takes care of such things. A department not headed by Mr Tubitmula Ali Muhammad. Tubitmula is not the equivalent of a Grand Ayatollah ... and so it does not parallel the circumstances in Egypt. This is likely true. But the idiot jew-hater translated by Memri is NOT able to give fatwas ... the most important fatwa from Al-Azhar came already, and was cited above in my last post. So, the two most important leaders of Al-Azhar come down on the side of reality, in the present day. As of today, we have not heard a word from Ali Muhammad -- nowhere is he quoted commenting on the riots and destruction in Cairo. And nowhere is there a fatwa from Ali Muhammad, with weight or not.

Hey! no fair. I want bonus points. I live for bonus points. Mr Pinocchio is the writer of the Post's Fact Checker blog, Glenn Kessler. I am going to guess who gets awarded long-nose points: members and top politicos and news generators of both parties Republicans!. Let's check. The last ten 4-Pinocchio entries are: 4 Pinocchios for a truncated, 14-year-old Obama clip New anti-Romney ad: same steelworker, tougher message (revised) 4 Pinocchios for an unproven Romney claim of ‘crony capitalism’ 4 Pinocchios for Romney’s claim on an Obama health care pledge Whopper: White House adviser David Plouffe on Romney’sjobs record and GOP strategy 4 Pinocchios for Obama’s newest anti-Romney ad Over-the-top attacks on Obama’s green-energy programs Four Pinocchios: small business tax cut will ‘create 100,000 jobs a year’ (Part 2 on claims about the bill) Rick Santorum’s ‘kitchen sink’ slam at Romney Now, I seem to have got it wrong. Dang. No points at all for me. Robert? I forgot about the McCain rumour (if it registered at the time), so had to dig it up. This is the New York Times handling the 'sodomized and murdered' beat, from For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk: The whole report is worth reading, to absorb the sleaze, and especially the appended Correction and Note to Readers ... Yeah, the same NYT that published a whiny mea-culpa dodge on the issue: Reticence of the Mainstream Media becomes a Story in Itself. -- I think Progressive Railroader was pointing to the bogus sodomite murder story as an instance of malicious rumour that many were tempted to believe in (while acknowledging your balanced assessment). Earlier in the thread, Robert, you styled it credible that Stevens was "carried through the streets, and not everyone involved was doing so with helpful intent" ... and you told us that "These things do happen in Libya" (meaning sodomizing corpses). Similarly, Adam helpfully assured me that "[f]urther South in the African continent sodomizing the enemy is a routine practice in inter tribal conflicts." To separate fact from fiction, malicious bullshit from 'possibly' true, crap from reality, this needs collaboration, not mere retailing wholesale 'everyone knows' canards. While we on the Progressive Railroad to World Socialism tend to attract stern looks, and while we Railroaders give stern looks to the valiant strivers for a Randian Tomorrow, we can still help each other get to the facts. Carol, your must stop withholding adjectives. Michael is asking you, as Grand Vizier of everything OL, to conform to his narrative, and to accept his narrative of your interactions here. It is perhaps the least you could do to better serve the OL community, where we strive to be on the same side of reality as best we can.

The "two-bit Mullah" who thinks that Jews cannot be relieved of their moral corruption unless their hearts are cut out is the Director of Islamic Education at Al-Azhar—and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Who are you (we) meaning by the 'two-bit mullah'? Are we (you) meaning the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar Ahmed al-Tayyeb? Or are we talking about the 'Salafist' preacher Mahmoud Shabaan -- or another 'cleric' (mullah) or prayer leader (imam) or religious authority (Sheikh)? I found quotes attributed to Sheikh al-Tayyeb, in which he asks the UN (Ban Ki Moon, by name) to 'criminalize the defamation of religion.' This is from the Egypt Independent, translated from a story in Arabic at Al-Masri Al-Youm. (the whole statement from Al-Azhar is translated at OnIslam.net) Yes. It carries the weight of religious authority. It is the place of fatwas (religious decisions or edicts). I think I mentioned the 'dial-a-fatwa' and internet fatwas of Al-Azhar in an earlier post). For me, it is necessary to keep an eye on all the 'balls' in play, and not to rely on 'once-removed' reportage or analysis. What happens in Libya is of intense interest to Libyans themselves, of course -- and if we want to understand events, we need to be as informed as we can be, informed on the range of opinion and actions in that country -- as they pertain our (Western) alliance with the government in place.

Things are interesting in Libya this week. The Financial Times reports today: There is a fair bit of knock-on from Friday. It is reported on AJE right now that two more militias in Derna have disbanded. The President of Libya, Mohammed el-Megaref, said that all militias must come under government command or be disbanded. AP goes on (in a story reported widely): Two-bit Progressive Railroader Daunce Lynam is no doubt appalled. I get the impression she is on the side of the Libyans in this matter, but no doubt she will back off from the Narrative if challenged.

I watched it all, Jerry. All twenty one and a half minutes. I even took notes. A lot like a cooking show where no one does any cooking, just a lot of scarey banging of pots: Infowars Nightly News by Alex Jones. Earth First Death Cult. Some bearded (Rob Dew**) guy says "basically we have these upper-crust level ... who think humans are bad. Their mission is 'off yourself.' They don't come out and say "you need to die.' Blazers with elbow pads. Equations. Time Magazine "How to Die." Hate yourself. Hate life. Clip of Al Gore. Talking to the kids to become good little Green Police. Our generation told our parents that it was wrong to have segregation. Equate fake Climate Change with racism. Tell your parents. Change your lightbulbs. It slowly creeps through. There was a TV network. Professor Schpinkee's Greenhouse Calculator. Find out when you should die. How big of a Greenhouse Pig are you? Indoctrinate the kids. UC Professor Richard Cardullo WHO all this other stuff. Skipped the first part. Into Science, Physics, Harvard. His job is now to go around telling kids the Earth is overpopulated. Stop having children. Hell, maybe get sterilized. Going to analyze each one. Tarpley. Malthus. Population versus food supply. Famine, disease, war. Control population by having people starve. Quotes from Malthus. Make streets narrower. Court the return of the plague. Real smart man. Charles Darwin, grandfathers of the Eugenics Movement. Children must perish. Don't impede the operations of morality. Malthus. Blah blah blah. Blah. When I have ants in my yard I use hotwater or boric acid. Paul Ehrlich quotes. Entire planet is vastly overpopulated. Enough room in Texas for an acre for everyone. Ehrlich doesn't care. Engineered catastrophes by NGO famines, genocides. Development of a long-term sterilization capsules. Eco Science. Tarpley Eco-science. Science Czar. Peas in a pod. Shift to cutting out of the cancer. Brutal and heartless decisions. Population bomb. After-birth abortion. Brainwashing our children. Recycling was the start. Now electric cars. I am all for solar. Killing brown people in Afghanistan. Dumb people down. Cull the population. We need to combat this mind control. More unvaccinated kids is what we need to make a better earth. More people will make it better. Youngevity products. Erin Dykes lost 82 pounds. I wasn't even trying to lose wait. I want to challenge our radio listeners. Sign up. Enhance your stored food supply today. Get all your Youngevity Products such as Beyond Tangy Tangerine, the Alex Pack and Pollen Burst. These supplements are a great way to get your essentials vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and other beneficial nutrients. ProPur Water Filtration ________________________ ** Rob Dew is the News Director for Infowars.com and the Infowars Nightly News. In 2010 he co-directed with Alex Jones Police State 4 The Rise of Fema, a hard hitting documentary which covers the Fema Internment Camp Plan, The Pittsburgh G20 protest where the police and military used sound cannons on the American people for the first time, and covers the false flag terror attack known as the Underwear Bomber which was the pretext to put radiation spewing naked body scanners in our airports and has evolved into the TSA putting their hands in our pants. Rob is a graduate of West Virginia University with a BFA in Theatre.

A poster who no longer posts on OL (but someone I like), Kevin Haggerty, once came up with a really cute phrase in the middle of a heated discussion. He said people were condemning and denouncing due to "guilt by free association." In discussion of Lindsay Perigo's demented 'speech' againsts Barbara Branden, Haggerty pointed out the limits of Perigo's epistemology: Pithy and effective. Looks like Haggerty used 'assembled reason' (and its tools of inquiry) and applied a nice hammer-tap to just the right place.

The first time I read the phrase 'politically correct' was in the Men seeking Men want ads of a Toronto weekly newspaper for the Lesbian/Gay community. This would be >1980 or so. I recognized it as shorthand: "Seeking aged-in-wood sporty senior with a swimmer's body. Must be politically-correct." This puzzled me. What was the shorthand for? I looked further and discovered it meant 'support human rights' or 'support gay liberation' or 'support social forces that are liberatory.' This added extra complications. What does 'liberation' or 'liberatory' mean in context? What were the acknowledged common values implied to be strong on the side of Gay Liberation? How could this be tied to the PC (a new daily 'correct' political line delivered by the People's Daily, the course corrections of official party analysis). In the sociology of science, Politically Correct was a different thing. The essential distinction between 'incorrect' meant that liberatory marxism trumped all other lines in certain British humanities departments. In those places (Edinburgh among others). It was a cheat, as it turns out. It was a dodge. To enforce a 'political line' in academia may seem a trifle; after all the very name 'humanities' suggests a universal doctrine humane. But. But as ever, there was dissent. To have to toe a regnant Trots line in your work can chafe when you are a non-Trot. Who is right? I now wonder if the chafing among commies at The Line led to the first non-ironic stipulation of Correctness, which was borrowed by teh gays with a tincture of irony. It became apparent that to be PC in the gay want ads meant being NDP+. Not only would the PC partner be expected to be vaguely leftist (the New Democratic Party, is the only electable left party in Canada, grown out of the Saskatchewan founding of the Cooperative Commonwealth Party), the PC partner would support as a matter of course all 'oppressed' peoples; be they women, gays, transgenders, visible minorities, unions, teachers, Yanomami Indians, whatever. I tucked away my impressions of political correctness in the gay community until I joined the staff of Vancouver monthly rag ANGLES. The news editor was a Trotskyite, and a local commie honcho. The statement of purpose was explicitly PC, liberatory, on the side of the oppressed. I learned a bit more, that the Chinese Communists originated Politically Correct as the standard for re-education (in Re-education Camps). To say in your Meet a Guy ad that you wanted a Politically Correct partner was implying that he had already been to Re-education and did not need further training. It was a way to guard against a Rob Ford-style boyfriend, irreconcilable differences. The sly adoption of the Chinese nomenclature was supposed to be arch and funny. It was bit later that the term took on its Tone Troll/Language Police connotation for me. At the time, I understood in my work at ANGLES that we were in an oppositional stance to The Injustices of System. In practical terms the liberatory suffusion meant that any time there was 'victim' of some kind of state or patriarchal abuse, the 'right-thinking' man or woman would be at the barricades with the Tibetans, the Transgendered, the Doukhobors, Abuse victims, 'the poor,' yadda yadda yadda. I ran straight into the awful side of Politically Correct when I realized that PC at ANGLES included a raft of issues of abuse. It became or had become 'correct' to side with the abused (Of course), to be aware of social realties like child sexual abuse, Residential School abuse, Catholic institutional abuse, etcetera. This left the way open for a collision, however, when ANGLES published its Ur-PC "Abuse" special issue. It had what you would imagine: honest tales of child sexual abuse and domestic violence, shameful secrets and insufficient justice. But it also had an interview with three anonymous survivors of Satanic Ritual Abuse. The article (by a local feminist gay lady) suggested in no uncertain terms that we Must Support, Must Believe the bullshit these ladies were spouting. The moral of the story suggested that it was PC to disregard any science or criticism of the ritual abuse scenario. The lines were drawn for the first appearance of William Scott Scherk, bullshit detector. I bet there is a tome or two -- at least a thesis -- where is done actual historical work of the genesis and spread of the terminology of PC in Western use. You may be right that it was British Lefties who would have not-so-archly first used the term in the dreary sociology of science whoopups. Do you have any tips for tracking down the details? The term spoiled for me when it accrued too much meaning. It became a prototypical weasel-word, able to throb with borrowed 'bad vibes.' Its (probable) borrowing from communist literature already had a unpleasant cachet, and all that really did need to be done to stink it up bigtime was to attach it to stinky things. The 'campus speech codes' and 'chilly climates' and (real and bogus) campus sexual grifting by professors, the 'human rights tribunal' fumbles, all these things and more could have the PC brush slapped on. An all-purpose term of denigration that is none-too-precise, but with emotional punch. I tend to disregard it now since it carries too much meaning for a cognate. I now read it as if the writer meant bad/stupid/authoritarian. The term just has too much flab for me. As the only two exemplars of the Socialist Horde, you and I, Carol, we should expect to be tarred with the broad brush. You seem to be carrying the sins of several generations of communist nitwits as judged by Robert's addressing his arguments in personal terms to you. Not PC.

Michael, your main point is good, in that many drugs are derived from or synthesized to exhibit specific qualities of compounds from nature. So, the essential component of Aspirin is the chemically manufactured acetylsalicylic acid also found in bark. Your point about the abundance of analogues or 'discoverable' properties in the natural world can also be illustrated by noting the hardcore big pharm money hunt in remote biomes of the world, looking for the unusual plants, organisms and animals for pharmacologically-active signs. Penicillin, belladonna, morphia, curare, botulism toxin ... nano-robots to deliver bee-venom to cancer tumours. A bounty of already existing ingredients we have chewed or sucked or smoked or boiled and drank at some time in prehistory. There is no 'common chemical' derived from valerian that turns up in valium, however. Valium is the trade name for one type of psychoactive agent called the benzodiazepines. Their introductiion was the relative end of more dangerous chemical methods to induce happy-time than the extant chloral hydrate, opiates, and the more gruesomely efficient stupefiants (barbiturates) on the market in 1950. The inventor of the Valium first invented Librium, and more, but he did not start with valerian either conceptually or accidentally. None of the benzodiazepines are thus chemically-related to the active agents supposed to drive valerian's similar effects. It is probably better to stress the common action in your illustration, the measurement-omitted effect, one drug an ancient sleep and relaxation aid, one a Jetson-age downer. I had to look it up. Is that what you live for now, Marotta? For those like me who had to look it up, Zymurgy comes from Zymase, the enzyme mix (Zyme zyme zime) that catalyzes fermentation of sugar and leads to drunkenness and the downfall of society. It is the applied science of brewing/meading/winering. Elegant word for the exhalations of the mighty yeast, which has brought so much pleasure and madness by its secretions. What libations are your favourites, Mr Marotta? May I briefly hijack? In my day I was partial to sour, even bitter drinks, and now my favourite is the Italian bitter water from San Pellegrino. As for the psychedelics, one day, near the end, we can have a peak-experience round-robin memoir of OLers' most fabulous drug experiences. I think too many drugs witlessly taken longterm fry the brain and cripple functioning (and if the drug is Krokodil, Russia's cheapest opiate, leads to bone-deep lesions and gangrene), too much is too much. I gave up hallucinogens many years ago, figuring I had only so many brain cells. The after-effects, the after-euphoria, were far too mentally cleansing (think of bleach in your brain) to continue. The only things to take away from it into the present day were perceptions, sometimes useful creatively, but more often not world-changing. I find the most interesting thing about drugs is how mad we humans have been for them, to try them, to make them, how exuberantly primate-like it is to wallow in intoxication or well-lit false euphorics. Despite the grotesque knock-ons, something in the human endures self-destruction for the brief artificial sense of well-being.

What the heck is this? "The ambassador was raped and killed." Where are you coming up with this crap, Adam? As has been stated earlier, it was reported through many sources. And, the reason that I did not disregard these reports is that the same reports were out there about Gaddafi's demise. "Many sources"? You have not cited or excerpted a single originating article, nor shown any indication that you looked at the chain of reportage. You do not seem to have discovered the original source, nor critically examined any source to establish baseline credibility of the original 'report.' This is, in my view, lazy-minded. To confidently accept a questionable source via second or third-hand 'reports' is sloppy thinking. To not understand the need for sustained rational inquiry and to not use its tools to discern crap from fact, this disturbs me. I object to the casual epistemology, Adam. I object to any apparent habit of mind that does not closely consider information coming in. It further concerns me that Objective-ish folks sometimes dick around with this kind of rumour-formation and do not use assembled reason to understand how such a rumour was initiated and propagated. I apologize for a tone that seems too aggressive for the circumstance in my earlier query, but strip out the exclamation and the word crap and the bolding and please forgive. Respond to the challenge and give us the information you used to put forth the rumour as fact. Here are some interesting comments on the "all over the news" Raped Ambassador: I don't feel like investigating this further But as I said, the possibility was reported and discussed all over the news. And it was. Do you really need more links? How serious the speculation or investigation went, I don't know. I didn't look into it. I just skimmed headlines and a paragraph here and there This stands plainly averse to inquiry. The poster does not feel like investigating. He gives "let me Google that for you" as a response to a query, and informs us that the Google search returns lots of links, so hop to it, he doesn't feel like assessing credibility. Lots of links! Lots of stories! Even Salon 'reported' ... Of course, the question remains, did Salon report that the Ambassador was raped? Is it enough to know that someone somewhere mentioned the rumour? Is it enough to get some Google hits? Is it okay to pretend that those hits support the original contention? No. It is not okay. I don't accept slackening reason. By accepting goods without inspection, we tend to abandon standards of reason clear and dear to us all here. If we later cannot see how shoddy goods -- unexamined -- entered play, and if we cannot accept responsibility for mistakes in assessment, how can we pretend to be cognitive gatekeepers and great experts at discerning reality? If we misidentify malicious tale-telling as Fact, what hope do we have of a proper evaluation or analysis of Value? See, Adam, I like you. I can like you a lot without cutting you any slack on Reason. Take the challenge in good spirit, as a reminder to be vigilant, to check premises, to use critical faculties when examining incoming information. But back to the LINKS we must go now, as I spank Carol thoroughly for her impertinence and her spirited comebacks. Carol, grab your club, we are going to the links! What was the Salon link? Hmmm. Maybe it was this: Rumor-mongering surrounds Chris Stevens' death We will 'investigate' a little bit later -- it's a stupefied-by-Marxism online mag, after all, what would they know? First, more links. I'll give you links, Ms Progressive Finger-Pointy Blah Blah Blah. This was all ovah da news. There was reports all up the wazoo, widder lady Here: US Ambassador Raped by Muslims Before Killing - Debbie Schlussel Atlas Shrugs: US Ambassador to Libya Was Raped Before He Was Tortured The Rape of Christopher Stevens | FrontPage Magazine Is that enough for you, Carol? If it isn't, hmmm, let us see what that sewage farm of vile bongo-playing cough reporters at Salon had to say, the beasts. Here follows the whole freaking Salon report, from some shyster named Jillian Fairfield Rayfield, or so they say. To hell with fair-use, here is their whole sorry MO and obvious bias resplendent in full-text with links, glorious links. Published Monday, Sep 17, 2012: Twitter @jillrayfield or email her at jrayfield@salon.com. Let's nail this beeyotch.

What the heck is this? "The ambassador was raped and killed." Where are you coming up with this crap, Adam?

Yeabut PDS, remember the glory days of yore? We had gawd himself posting here for a while. We do not want to censor Jerry, just help him use reason's tools to hack back the cognitive overgrowth that so haunts him. Editorially, how can a reasonably free and open Objectivish site deal with Jerry's hauntings, with Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, the NWO-reptilians etc? , I don't know how I would treat him any other way than has Michael. But I do feel the crank-pool expand here from time to time.

Here is Mitt-in-the-Headlights, grinning and scuttling away from the fourth question at his impromptu media-availability at 10 PM last night. I am no expert in body language, but this was not a strong performance at first glance. I note that the stupefied-by-abundance US Media corps has found a plaything for the week, new cat-treats for the politicos, a new bird to stalk and toy with. In the lounges where pundits scuffle and bark, on news cable, on page ones across the world, on blogs, and inside the mad scrum of internet commentariat, there is no other story today but Mitt's Secret Tape. Not a good day for Magic Underpants. The tape was the signal for Dogpile on Milton, and he looked a bit staggered in his first attempt to counter the shitstorm. He is also expected to address the storm in another media-availability in a few hours. He may knock this out of the park and get the week back, feeding frenzy nothwithstanding. What do your remarks portend? A lot of anger for Romney (or his campaign strategy/staff?) and a bleak prognosis, or a conviction that 'things can change' like Brant's? I think maybe you have joined PDS and Ghs and me in expectation of defeat. Obama has been well ahead in PA for months, currently up 9 points on Romney, and the Romney campaign has shifted its focus elsewhere. Virginia, Obama up 8 points. I grant you Nevada and Ohio are more in play. It would be interesting to see your crack at the electoral college numbers.

From the Toronto Star:

1. Because of 'hot-linking'. 2. No. Rense's 404 notice (unavailable web content) is probably due to 'hotlinking.' This is when we simply paste the URL of an image into content at OL. Web servers can be configured to notice image-only requests. When a (Rense) site server script notices that someone is wanting to see only a picture without looking at the page full of survivalist advertisements, it redirects the request to 404. Rense is the culprit here, not the reptilian OL censors. For situations like this, or if you think an image might soon be disappearing, Jerry, you can use online product Pixlr at pixlr.com. This lets you save a copy of any image and allows hotlinking. Rense's site front page does not source this image at first glance (beyond DDees.com, resideny mash-up artiste), but I sense this is what you wanted to get all cross-eyed about? Have you looked for other instances or the actual first source? 3). You will need Michael's assistance. I have so far not been able to source it past the underlying image. I expect it is a lovely little sculpture. But while you are in the mood, Jerry, here's an official video on micro-machines of war. It's from the US Air Force and has scary music ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhidOTccwNQ

Mother Jones thinks it has slung a hook into Mitt Romney, obtaining video/audio from a fund-raiser earlier this year: http://www.motherjon...vate-fundraiser It might be good but not new news to OLers that the Guv thinks the forty-seven percent polls show favouring Obama are shiftless moochers. Romney sounds like a reasonable-ish, if rich, Objectivist. It's not our job to worry about those people. He is talkiing about the people behind the polls. "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what …These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Found it. But, sob, sob, what about me, though? I called it back in March as we faced the final four Rebublican candidates and tanking support among women compared to the Marxist-in-Chief. George and you might just be coming around to my way of thinking. George calls it: Carol calls for 'open borders' in the aftermath of the End of America: Tit for tat explulsions? Population transfers? The New Northern Cuba versus Harper's Holiday Camp for Capitalism? It's a cinch, Carol. I do advise not reading from Politico, though, when you go visit Adam in his jumpsuit at the Refugee Welcome Centre.