william.scherk

I asked above about the Copts in Egypt, what might befall them. Today's Egyptian news highlights this fearsome confrontation between Mr Hitler and Men with Hats: President-elect Morsi receives acting pope of Egypt's Coptic Church

It is kind to offer correction, at least sometimes, but you need to consider context. Is the intent kind, helpful? Is the correction perceived as kindly given, and are the true intentions apparent to the corrected person? For questions like this we used to consult The Schoolmarm. But. Theodore is going to un-school his and his partners's spawn/children, as told. If an un-schooled child is given the choice, "Do you give a shit about spelling and grammar?" and the kid says "Fukk No, D@ddy" to Theodore, the other Dad and the Mom, who cares? That is liberty that you can get behind, Champ. One more illiterate in a restricted-reading household in Objectivist County is no big deal. You should know this, Champ, having brought yourself to the eptitome of primate empathy, learning and insight.

Adam's copy/paste of the World Nut Daily report tells us what about Morsi and Fear? That a former Congressman (Jew)'s wife (Sunni Muslim)'s mom (Saudi) is a close colleague (among bureau of 60-odd ladies) to the wife of the new President of Egypt (Hitler). The wife's mother and President's wife are affiliated with the Muslim World League started by terrorists in 1962. The Muslim married to the Jew wife works with the Methodist Secretary of State and the Secretary of State has met with the wife's (Saudi Terror) mother, even praised her. What are the facts and what are the fears -- as they pertain to Morsi and Egypt (and Israel). then? Well, judging by the All-CAPS, spies and traitors are at issue. The Secretary's Muslim married to a Jew secretary peddles USA secrets to her Saudi Terrorist mom, who peddles them to the Saudi government, and also calls up her girlfriend in the tent with eyeholes to give her the secrets her daughter has stolen. Plus Sandusky (cover-up). So says former Muslim Palestinian now American fundamentalist Christian end-times reporter. If I follow this correctly, there is now a direct line between USA secrets and The Terrorists of Al Qaeda. And ... Something must be done about it. Maybe it is worse than that. The Secretary herself may be implicated. She covered up the blowjobs, has lap-danced the Saudi King, and now covers up the terror-monger tented Sisterhood of Evul that advises (or does dishes, bears children for) the Muslim Brotherhood (Nazis). She may even be passing military secrets to the Sisterhood so that Al Qaeda can bomb away. If you read only Walid Shoebat, and follow none of the murky references to their end-points, what have you got? A creepy international terror Sisterhood led by the triumphant evul of Hillary.. I want something done about that. Ladies who live in black tents and/or marry politicians are not to be trusted. They are terrorists. With the chief scary Hitler on earth in Heliopolis Palace -- not Mubarak, who is dying in prison -- the terrorist Sisterhood has won. It is as simple as that. Perhaps. But the FEMA camps await. Meanwhile more good/bad news from Egypt. A court has rejected the military's right to arrest civilians. How long will Americans tolerate the Terror Queen consorting with ladies-in-tents? Wahhabi bitches who cook for (but not drive for) Terrorists? Ever since Bush kissed and lap-danced the last King of the Wahhabis, USA middle east policy seems conflicted. What is it you guys want, and why do you consort with Evul? Why is Hillary not in the terminal ward with Hosni?

Chimp chomp champ, chump.

Glad to see the Nazis made an early appearance in this thread. That always helps discussion. Although I have said more than enough about Fear and Morsi in the thread about the botched Breitbart story, I wanted to encourage our own Libertarian Muslim in his sense of liberation. So, LM, sorry to come after the Nazis were introduced. What irks me about Ba'al's non-arguments about The Jews and The Muslims is how easily he slips into clanhood. As do you, LM, in this instance, attaching secular hopes and dreams to The Revolution that are not entirely evident in the person and policies of the new President of Egypt. That said, I share the good feeling that (whatever mucking monster got most votes), a clean, well-supervised French/Indian style national election was accomplished. So, I understand the jubilation of those who feel they, and their party have won, but mine is a more abstract pleasure in the mechanics of democracy: neither Morsi nor Shafiq can I champion. The speech Morsi gave was good as these things go. To bring in the Nazi analogy -- which is so handy -- we now can compare and contrast his political speeches and promises to the Fuhrer. Since Ba'al seems wedded to the Hitler hypothesis (any Muslim/Islamist elected is like Hitler) ... his knobs go to ten. It seems odd that Ba'al is concerned about what is after all, a mostly symbolic turning of the page, a bittersweet turning, and not in itself a revolution. The day after tomorrow is not picnic time in Egypt, and the grip of Old Regime and old economic clientelism and the old security state is still firm. Nothing is decided or made by the election except hope (and fear). Not, especially a fearful day for Israel. Not now. Morsi will not control the Egyptian military, nor cause its jets to pound Tel Aviv. Sad that the only Atheist Jewish Aspie on list cannot see the wisdom of Netanyahu's timely congratulations. All is fear, all is war, all is Nazi death camps for Jews. All knobs to ten. The most objectivge questions to ask of Mr Hitler, savage monster straddling the Egyptian state (except for the all-powerful SCAF) is What About The Economy? Will Copts die, churches be attacked, foreigners flee or be at risk? Will electricity flow and roads be repaired and the business of life be tackled with a purpose? Will markets decline or surge? Will tourists and Western investment return? Will housing be built and jobs burgeon and education proceed for Egypt's illiterates? ____________________________ For those who fear and those who cheer Morsi might ought also have some objective standards to judge performance -- that is if MSK's preferred option fails to obtain. If Morsi/Hitler/KKK is not assassinated, by what benchmarks do we rate his office as it proceeds? Although he now has the title, Morsi will preside over only a part of government, unlike Mr Hitler at his peak. Here below is some hack judge (or respected legal scholar) of the Egyptian bench, in the (free-est and most independent press in the entire Arab world). Could Mr Hitler have tolerated such a commentary in The Reich? Will Mr Hitler/Morsi ban A Shark? Let us all be ultra-vigilant, gentlemen (and quiet ladies who may be listening at the smoking room door). But let us set tests for Mr Hitler. From the Saudi-financed and Saudi-directed Asharq Al-Awsat, a 'pan-Arab' daily in London: Muslim Brotherhood want to carry out counter-revolution – Egyptian judge

Your suspicions are borne out by fact, Brant. You obviously are keeping track of the details -- the SCAF issued a constitutional declaration that sharply reduced the powers of the President. This President simply will not be able to exercise the power of a Mubarak-style military dictator. You may or may not be familiar with a few other facts about Morsi. He has five children. Two are US citizens, having been born during his academic years in the USA. His doctorate in Engineering came from USC (University of Southern California). His wife lives in a tent (with eye-holes). Since the Breitbart-highlighted May 1st speech by Reverent Wright (er, Higazi), Morsi was forced to respond, and to issue pointed answers to the fraught questions raised by Higazi. Does Morsi seek a Caliphate? No. Does he intend to install an FJP premier? No. Will he tear up the Israel/Egypt treaties? No. Or so he says. The good things about Egypt are Egyptians. No one has a monopoly, and SCAF will not allow a monopoly. As you have alluded to, Brant, the military holds trump cards, and it will be a slow process to return power to civilians. Defense and Foreign Affairs will -- for the foreseeable future -- be decided by SCAF. What I will look out for is the identity of the Prime Minister and the composition of the Cabinet Morsi summons. Will the PM be FJP or from a 'civil' party? We do not know for sure, but Morsi has indicated he will appoint a non-FJP personnage, a 'consensus' candidate. I reject your analogy, as usual. But I do see its persuasive power, its 'marketing' appeal, so to speak. Better to be vague about just what is feared, and to rely on third-hand (botched) analyses from media in the Comfort Zone. Yes, fear Morsi and the future (or be apprehensive). Be alert to all the promises made that can be broken. Be alert to the words and actions of Morsi. Be vigilant (as the USA is) and use the enormous economic power and influence of USA subsidies to guide the former FJP leader to What Is OK and What Is Not OK. I agree with the import of the awkward phrase/hope that "the trappings of power ... soften Morsi on his radicalism." Of course, accurately assessing Morsi's presumed "radicalism" is not so simple. What makes his radicalism different from Khater`s radicalism, or Ghannouchi`s radicalism, or Saudi radicalism or Qatari radicalism? Can one measure and assess this radicalism? Indeed, does "radicalism" need to be demonstrated or merely assumed? I tend to go with the Alarmists -- fear the Worst (the worst imaginings) and give hard alarmist spin to any news out of Egypt -- reinforce that fear alarm. Alarmism pays the bills, after all, whether at Breitbart or Woods Hole. Better to be alert to the possibilty of murky horrors rather than dismiss them as unlikely ... If anything, Morsi to me sounded like a Jesus Republican in his speech today (carried live by Al-Jazeera), a God-bothered Republican accepting office; the speech was long on Gawd, 'unity' boilerplate, recognition of Egyptian social reality (enduring civil society, non-Muslims) and the margin of maneuver left to him by SCAF ... and not-so-oddly, repeated assurances to women, Copts, secularists and those hoping for a time of stability to usher in necessary economic reforms and reconstruction. Independent judiciary, a reduction in the scope of the ability of the military to arrest, try and jail civilians, a flowering of independent economic enterprise ... blah blah blah.

Reaction from Israeli officialdom is striking. From Haaretz: Mixed messages from Israel as Islamist Morsi wins Egypt presidency From the Jerusalem Post: Mohamed Morsy wins Egypt presidential election From the Egyption Independent: Israel respects Morsy's win, seeks cooperation Also from the Independent: Meet your president: Mohamed Morsy Michael's uneasiness with Egypts first democratic presidential election is justified, I think. The uneasiness is justified by the Unknown. It is part of the human repertoire of behaviour to fear (or at least anxiously anticipate) an unknown future. I do not think it is important or useful to simply cringe or wail on the sidelines -- especially if the cringing and wailing (Hi Commander Wiig) is accompanied by bone-deep ignorance and a depresing bigotry. The uncertainties in Egypt are many. The uncertainties are firstly what power will the new president have -- since the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces issued a decree limiting the power of the presidency. Added to the uncertainty is the dissolution of the entire newly elected Parliament by Egypt's highest court. The constitutional decree by the SCAF is in dispute, but at the moment, they have the power, and it is the SCAF's decisions to relinquish power to civilians that are under scrutiny. I suggest to all who follow Egyptian news to follow Egyptian news directly, read Egyptian media and analyses -- the filter of USA and other Western media outlets is constant. The filters are (rightfully) US and European (and Israeli) interests. The interests of the USA were long served by the Egyptian military dictatorship under Mubarak. The interests of the USA are not entirely clear. Objectivist Living commentators can certainly write their prognostications and their perceptions and their fears, but it is difficult to assess the future prospects without understanding the past. Easiest to do is to imagine the harshest, most demented sectarian/ideological tirades (as from the cleric) will be the policy of the new government, once it is announced and begins its activities. A mirror to American political propaganda provides a partially-corrective angle on events in Egypt. Did the nightmare vision of Obama Nation come to life? Some may say indeed it did, that FEMA camps await dissidents and that the Deep Government in control is moving swiftly towards the Final Days. To those who prefer a swamp of fear and ignorance (like OL's resident talking chimpanzee), Morsi's win can only be a cheerful thing: Morsi is a follower of the US-based conspiracy movement surround the attack of September 11th; like the chimp and a large handful of OLers, Morsi believes it was an inside job ... Here is an article from an agent of Deep Government, in Foreign Policy. The author, Shadi Hamid, asks "Should Americans be worried?" [about Morsi] and details his interactions with the new Head of State. Brother Number One Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

[Added: Hsiekovian Radio-Show video version.] I hate to see America humbled by a power like Russia, but in this case, I will take it, if it results in hawks in Washington prevented from US military action in or on Syria. Only concerted action can do the job of outside intervention, a real concert of nations, and there isn't one. There is no taste for more Libya-style action so close to Jerusalem. I like that the USA plays realipolitik now on Syria. Putin is due in Jerusalem and Amman, as well as Ramallah. Like the USA, Russia has a constituency and a relationship with Israel. What Putin will hear from the Israelis and the Palestinians and the Jordanians is just what Obama told him: Face Up, Putin, Assad rule is not necessary or justified. Look at that Putin face. Once he comes out of the Kremlin and the construct he himself has built, the bubble of 'guided democracy,' he faces up to his worst nightmares. The USA and Europe (and the remaining 'West' is far more rich, populous and powerful than Russia, and the NATO alliance is opposed to it by treaty and by arms. The world really does intend to hem him in. The Putin face does not show the same smug arrogance as it does on State TV in Russia. It shows lockdown. The only way out for Putin is to help. What will he do after his visits to the theatre? Obama will not respond to hawkery from any quarter in Washington. He is the most cautious military leader of late in the USA, a real conservative at lending American lives to slaughter. I hope he withstands the forces that seek to push for escalation in Syria contra Russia just now. That said, I do think belligerent war talk (as from McCain) is good and serves its purpose (freak out Russia & China). Same with raging opposition to Obama's `assumed supine stance. Russia winces when America talks like that, and I like it. On another, oft-lunatic thread about war, Syria and Putin and the forces left over from the Cold War and the many Middle East wars are invisible to discussion -- the cockpit seems always Iran andéor some murky transnational military-economic electro-magnetic pulse mass starvation struggle (if not the giggle-worthy Beck notion of It Starts In Greece ...). Why not entertain the thought that WWIII yes has begun, but its initial theatre will develop Greater Syria, not Iran? Shall we then stand with Obama or with Putin? With Israel, Jordan, Turkey (allies) ... or with Putin? Whose rhetoric should we applaud and ape? It seems easy to me. War rattle but otherwise let the Syrians settle. Arm if necessary and assist, but not bombs from afar. What would you tell Putin to do that Cameron or Obama (or Reagan) would not? ++++++++++++++++++++ Meanwhile, CIA covertly vets border traffic in arms via Turkey-Syria border, and pools intelligence with Arab allies (in Doha, Riyadh, Amman). Ratchet by ratchet. NATO/USA military planners plod through the "we would never do this" scenarios. From mad nuclear firestorms over The Temple, to calibrated two-step of covert force, ratcheting pressure via proxy. War at your fingertips, gentlemen, but you prefer The Final Conflict with Satanic Islamic Iran? My only reason for not wanting more USA involvement or real 'foreign intervention' of full military force, is fear. Fear of headlines like the one below becoming a memory of early days of war, rather than penultimate battles. Headline (from Now Lebanon) reads "Nearly 170 Syrians Killed In Clashes, Activists Say. Illustration with story is the devastation of a bombed Douma, suburb of Damascus. The USA (and OL war porn aficionados) can have more war if it wants. What does it want?

Here is some Haidt straight up, in conversation with Will Wilkinson. Click image to reach the Bloggingheads page featuring the raging socialist (by OL standards) and the Objectivish. Fresh insights via Moral Psychology for the discussion introduced at the top of this thread? 60 minutes, as Haidt says, much more depth than a scholarly article. Just enough context for a yawn, perhaps. Talks about his research on the morality of dog-eating in Brazil and Pennsylvania at 12:08.

I am disturbed by this story, as is Dennis. Apparently, from reading the few sources available (including several interviews with Drapela**), he simply cannot find out why his contract was not renewed. As a 'senior instructor' at OSU, he is an 'at-will' employee, and no labour laws or university strictures that attend union/faculty tenure-track professors apply, it seems. So, the guy is left with no answers to a basic question: Why was I (Drapela) let go? That on the face of it is shit. Shitty HR, shitty PR and shitty handling of a man who deserves an answer. (this statement has nothing to do with his activities on behalf of 'skepticism.' The OSU governing instruments take special care to protect speech of instructors, explicitly, and have built-in safeguards and grievance procedures to prevent or correct red-lining profs for their opinions. I do not care if Drapela is a skeptic or not. No explanation for a non-renewal of a teaching contract is shit). _____ ** -- SoundCloud interview with Drapela from the Don Larson radio show. -- Local TV KVAL report on the non-renewal non-explanation. -- The Examiner's take: "Climate change skeptic fired from university" Dr Drapela's work on denying global warming or knock-on effects is not first in class, and his snark towards his colleagues is apparent, but no reason given for being let go? Shit. Here's some Drapela from a 2008 opinion piece, reacting to James Hansen's Congressional testimony (worth a read in full): Of course, the hardened and most bitchy alarmists have a ready explanation. In the commentary at David Appel's blog, this from Dhogaza: The Oregon University System will see an 11 percent cut in state support over the next two years after final passage of its budget bill in the Legislature today. The Oregon House voted 43-15 to approve a $709 million in state general fund and lottery money for the state's seven public universities for 2011-13. That marks the third biennial decrease in a row for the university system, bringing its state funding to a level lower in actual dollars than it received a decade ago. Six straight years of heavy budget cuts and a guy with a PhD in Chemistry who hsan't made it beyond Senior Instructor after 10 years at the University doesn't have his contract renewed. OSU (and other oregon university faculty) took unpaid furloughs starting a couple of years ago, in order to avoid layoffs, but another 11% cut on top? I think the picture's pretty clear here.

I loved the picture of Gay Naturist Grandpa. I saw it earlier at Free Republic, in the context of a comment thread rant about the Castro district in San Francisco. The last Pride Parade I attended in Vancouver had a contingent of naturists. Middle-aged if not elderly, with sun-hats, walking shoes, socks, watches, fanny-packs -- but nothing covering the genitals (this was also a big Topless day, of course, with many bared female breasts). My reaction to the waggling grandpas (yes, all those who marched under the Naturists banner were men) was similar to the young kid in the Castro pic.** There was no theme 'of a little boy looking out on a gross world' intended. Dennis uttered his recondite "Does his mommy know?" remark, and I responded. Win some, lose some, as I said. Michael, I am glad you said this (without saying it), for it is wrong. My fault you intuited a non-existent 'theme' but still wrong. My plaints about mom were meant to be humourous ('pack mule'). I rather enjoyed the shopping, and mom in her finery. A trip downtown involved lunch at The White Lunch (a fave) and lots more. The Electric Photographer was also much fun. So, no, I am not telling you that the gross part for the little boy (me) is a good-looking mother shopping too much, there was nothing gross about the world except for stupidity and violence from my six-year-old vantage. I apologize for being unclear and using the fine humour brush in my remarks. Embedded in my remarks was a clue that I was kidding around: the wet socialist plaster setting in my mind, etc. No invidious comparison to Auschwitz or child soldiers was designed. The value on the table (for you) was jazzing up a petty feud? That was also not intended. I intended to illustrate Brant's "Bitch-slap" comment. I contrasted the tetchy remarks of Dennis to his earlier blowout on the 5 minute phobia thread -- the 'unvarnished evil' blurt. Do I consider Dennis among the bugs below? Nope. The thread subject is interesting to me and actually led to doing some more research on Jonathan Haidt's work on morals and political stripe. I will post those comments later, and perhaps help to return the thread to its rails -- after having contributed to running it off the rails. A petty feud between Hardin and Scherk would be a dire and uninteresting thing, I believe. If I have left the impression in your mind, Michael, that it is a feud, my mistake. I do not know how closely you followed argument in the 5 minute phobia thread, so I understand. I also understand that the comment I made was probably far too long and involved and suffused with a cheekiness that did not translate well. To recap, my criticism of Thought Field Therapy was principled and on point. Dennis's reaction was over-the-top and off-point. His invocation of Ellsworth Toohey and unvarnished evul was hilarious. That said, my remarks and the video of my remarks in this thread may have missed their targets. I want to say 'huh?' Michael, if you grasped a theme of looking down my nose at people, my mistake. I want to say you may have missed the actual remarks and their intent. I want to say that this is not all I want to do. I want to say, "I need to unpack this sentence." -- WSS was once a heifer looking out a gross world -- now a cow, WSS moos louder than the herd -- WSS is a cow, a moo cow -- loud quirky mooing Now it is unpacked, I want to put that mess back in its case. But, like Grandpa's waggly bits, it's out there and no repacking into the Speedo can undo the assumed damage. I want to say, "I never actually had decided to be a metaphorical cattle." I also want to ask myself, "If MSK can so miss my points, what can I do to correct his misapprehensions?" To that unposed question, I have no answer yet. However, this particular remark deserves a response: Is the premise true, that I do not like criticism? No, not really, but I may be biased or too wrapped up in amour propre to admit it. More importantly, I do think, is responding to and using criticism. Addressing criticism, whether I or you or anyone likes it or not, that is important. So, to MSK's criticism. The original complaint was that the video was a stinker and a dud. Fair enough. I pulled it down from Youtube (not because of the bogus privacy concerns). I thought about the criticism. Some of MSK's remarks I did consider closely, some I did not: -- I am trying too hard on the target people -- I am trying too hard to position myself as oh-so-superior This could be true. An over-eager effort to target and position (as viewed from MSK's POV) can lead to missed messages. The message can be entirely overlooked because of problems in delivery. Is this a problem (over-energetic targetting/missed messages) with many people MSK sees coming from 'the liberal mindset'? Yes. Now, Michaels says this is honest feedback from a friendly voice, and that I am starting to find a glimmer of a unique voice of my own. That is indeed encouraging. I am better than just a troll. ************************* In the end, the puzzle remains from the TFT thread: if few here have actually done the work to understand both the claims/evidence and the debate over TFT/5 Minute Phobia Cure, how can they have such firm opinions on its value? Why does their intuition trump the actual scientific labours to prove TFT effectiveness? If we cannot reach agreed-upon facts or methods for determining facts, why not? We all adhere to reason as our best and most precious tool. What, ultimately, is at issue? Reason, facts, evidence? Personalities, putdowns, snarkfests? Anyway, in the end, the thread is derailed. I will do my best to put it back on track, leaving aside the Scherk-Hardin feud. What tweaked my interest (besides Hardin's misspelling of Jonathan Haidt's name) was this notion of All or Nothing. That a moral, principled case can and should be made for laissez-faire, without reference to scriptures or consequentialism, I think we can all agree. But Dennis's point (among many) seemed to be that making a non-moral case for capitalism is both wrong and unnecessary. A yawn. On this point, I tend to agree more with our glamourous Australian, and with Brant: [A] moral defense of self-interested action is necessary for us to win, but 1) necessary =/= sufficient, 2) the necessity of a moral defense of self-interested action does not preclude the usefulness of other defenses of market economics, and 3) as stated before, consequentialist arguments and natural rights arguments are fundamentally compatible via the logic I previously explained. PS to Carol: Mom picked my outfits. She had the cash. Luckily I passed for a normal child most of the time. The only time I resisted mom's outfit choices for me was over The Hand-me-down Cowboy Boots. I refused to wear them to school (I said, "We are not allowed"). That is another story, of madness, nervous breakdowns, parental bondage, yadda yadda. ___________ ** Similar, but not identical. I was not offended or disgusted, and actually enjoyed the Wagglers appearing right behind our Mayor (on inline skates) and in front of the Scotiabank float featuring fully-packed Speedos and attached dancers. The only contingent in the Parade that raised my ire was the collection of 9/11 Truthers (also on inline roller skates). I actually told the guy who jammed a brochure at me to Fuck Off Completely. Their creepy authoritarianism marred my appreciation of the Anything Goes atmosphere and I will not go to another Pride Parade they are invited to.

[media=] I have eliminated the image that gave rise to privacy concerns, and added visuals that are non-denominational. I deeply regret that Dennis brought my mother into this. Meanwhile, on Facebook, the same picture of dark lady shopping brought 72 'likes.' I will just have to settle for that, sob sob. Thinking of you, ma, the Electric Photograph, and the lessons I am learning here at OL. Another night without dinner alone in my room, I think. Mooing like a cow.

Oh well, win some, lose some ... I do not know if I should apologize to Dennis Hardin, but in the meantime I have to figure out how to respond to a warning from Youtube. Apparently someone was upset by their personal information being made public in the video. According to the complaint I received,** privacy was violated at 0.09, 0:28, 0:51, and at 2:09. Though the Youtube note explaining is expansive, it isn't clear just how I can fix the issue. Yes, you see this problem with people who come from the liberal mindset. Whether we get around to fleshing this out, who knows? But I appreciate the alert. I would like to think that I am better than just a troll who makes weird troll videos to feed his vanity, but maybe I am not much better than that troll. I mean, here is a video, a dud, a stinker, a video that raises the problem you have seen (whatever it is) in people who come from the liberal mindset, and on top of that, the weird troll video has likely violated some poor person's vanity, er, privacy, so, I am not so sure I do not resemble that implicated 'troll' ... Still, the issues are important to me, such as they are. Having highlighted the Fainting Spell that afflicted Dennis once Monical Pignotti was on hand to explain her disenchantment with Callahan's claims for the 5 Minute Cure and TFT and VT (on evidentiary grounds, as detailed in the thread referenced earlier), and having counselled Brant that he was not, after all, pure unvarnished evil like me (according to Dennis), and having underlined my contempt for vituperation delivered without associated discussion, I can and should compare my attempted goal with the goal actually reached. Did I achieve my aim? Should I worry about the liberal mindset? Should I worry about murky put-downs? Probably the best think I can do is acknowledge error ("Mistakes were made"), express sorrow ("I am sorry you feel that way, Janet") and go replace the privacy-invasive images in the video with more appropriate images. Althought the images at the timecode in the Youtube warning do not actually correspond, I think the problem (derived from a leftist mindset) is the picture of a Fountainhead cover with Dennis's avatar inserted over Roark's face. Now, Youtube privacy policy is extensive. It first of all tries to shield personal information so that no noisome or possibly dangerous people contact or harass a person identified in videos. Of course, that the image planted over the fictional Roark's face is an avatar, a public avatar, and the Youtube warning tells me 'tags, avatar names and address information in which the individual is not named" are exempt from removal. This could mean that an avatar itself is exempt, especially when the avatar is not exactly correspondent to reality. However, it is to be considered that Youtube is determined to protect privacy. If the video remains as is, it is possible that Youtube's review (after 48 hours) will find the the individual is uniquely identifiable by "image, voice, full name, Social Security number, bank account number or contact information (e.g., home address, email address)." Finally, I have to consider whether Youtube, when deciding if my video has violated privacy and needs to be removed, will account for "public interest, newsworthiness, and consent." I could ask for consent and wrap this up, I suppose. Dennis, may I have your consent to use the following image mash-up in the video, please? If you say no, no, no, it violates my privacy, I will take down the video immediately, and then go to my room without dinner. ________________ ** PS -- After spending time in my room without dinner thinking about what I have done, and the liberal mindset, I will revise the video so that it causes no more fainting spells or complaints, at least complaints that are articulated to Youtube. At OL, I always expect complaints. It's a problem I see coming from people who are in the non-liberal mindset, sadly. I note that I received one note of support backchannel. The privacy-invasive Avatar+Roark mashup image, it is said, contains an image that may not actually be Dennis Hardin. We do not know who the image actually represents. The note included a link to a real picture of Dennis Hardin, a picture that invades his privacy deeply, while being posted at a public website celebrating the novel "The Living Image." This privacy-destroying image, then, may be the real Dennis Hardin, and the avatar I pasted on the fictional Roark face, that may be a fiction, too. Who knows? Who dares discover? See: http://www.thelivingimage.com/theauthor.htm PPS -- If the murky reference to mommy was made in reference to the late Marcia Damon (née Enwright), ouch. Oof, even. Here is a picture of me and my mommy in 1964, during a glamourous shopping trip. My mother used me as a pack mule on her expeditions to downtown Vancouver, and also used the Electric Photographer to document her outfits and her spoils, as well as my socialist bondage. I wonder if this is where the liberal mindset began to firm up. Hmmm. I will think about that in my room without dinner. I may still be in bondage. Look at my face in the picture. Surely a glimmer of anticipation, incipient awareness of the Mindset firming up like wet plaster in my brain, of the next horror-show at Sweet Sixteen fashions. "Do you like this dress?" mummy would ask, repeatedly. I would answer Yes, Yes, Yes, anything to escape the torture. But then she would say "What was wrong with the first one?" -- surely a question no six-year-old should be tasked with. Yes, that is where it all began, methinks.

Too bad he used the same title as Carl Sagan's book "Contact," which got turned into that fabulous J Neil Schulman movie with Jodie Foster. I asked Monica Pignotti about Callahan's book "Contact." She never heard of him writing such a book -- but, as may ask the man on the fainting couch when he comes to, "what would she know?" Here is the Spooky Tale of an OL Superstar put in Diana Hsieh-style video Radio Show format:

A brutal secular authoritarian dictatorship, officially without religion, dealing death to its citizens, and you see The Muslims. I once thought you might have a peach-sized heart, Bob, but gosh, maybe it is only large as its pit. You are brutal in your monomania, and learn little from your peers on this subject of The Them People, My Enemy Of Another Faith. And now a space-bomb for the temple in Jerusalem. Glad to know we have you aboard, Bob, as we inch our way through the ethical icebergs

Only if you do ... Seriously, in Syria I see more of the same but worse. More militarization, more arms, more killing, more massacres, more torture, more children abused and more summary executions. As the UN pulls out, and the government (and Russia) thumbs its nose at decency and deals wholesale destruction, more of the same. War. Expectations for WWIII erupting from the Syria conflict are very high, but only on condition that Russia/China/Iran want to stare down the world with their ally in his redout in Damascus. War, hideous full-on war, between a government and its 'rebels' ... with all the consequences of war. Now you, then me/Egypt, then you, OK? In the sweet meantime, a series of images that tell you what I mean by more of the same. Click the image to see the other brilliant work at the Atlantic.

You got off easy, Brant. The tetchiness of Dr Hardin is capable of much much more. Here for example, when touting the benefits of the Five Minute Phobia cure, I become a vile thing: Once again, the silly fool has no idea what he is talking about. Once again, he is the cyber equivalent of Ellsworth Toohey doing all he can to discourage people from pursuing individual growth and achievement, giving them excuses not to take actions that could potentially improve their lives. It would be one thing for him to admit that he lacks the personal courage to pursue a technique that has helped so many people improve their lives. But he wants to raise a quasi-scientific smokescreen to prevent others from doing it. He is enshrining his own ignorance as a self-righteous bulwark in the path of those who might wish to try Callahan's approach. If this is not pure, unvarnished evil, I would like to know what on this earth would qualify as evil. See, Brant? You are just wrong about Objectivism, according to the Doctor. Me, I am pure, unvarnished Evul. EVULLLLLLLL. Of course, Dr Hardin did not leave much room for invective against the former number two in the world of Five Minute Phobia Cures (Monica Pignotti). Since I was pure unvarnished evul, what was she? Well, as can be seen from the end of that thread, when Dr Hardin's loopy, crabby, tetchy adherence to Callahan was challenged by Dr Pignotti (who was indeed Callahan's deputy and supporter for many years) on facts and science and her work to dismantle the bullshit undergirding the Callahan Techniques, he disappeared from view and comment. He appears to have fainted dead away, unable to be revived. Perhaps Dr Pignotti was just far far far too Evul to be responded to. So count your blessings, Brant, you are not evul, just stupid and non-Objective. Dr Hardin will no doubt still buy you a drink at the OL November Election Party, with a smile, while he fixes me with the cold stare of Reason and Justice and Science.

The comparison between Jew and Muslim fails if it does not consider the breadth of opinion. Bob can and may make a distinction between The Muslims and those Muslims who are extremist clerics (such as, say, Adnan Arour). He can distinguish between Sufis, Alawi, Ismailis, etcetera. He may know that The Muslim/s is not a useful term. Similarly, The Jew/s is not a very useful term. Obvious and stark differences obtain between, for example, Ba'al himself and the rabbi of Tunis. Ba'al is not a religious Jew, but identifies with the ethnicity and historical peoples as he understands it. He may be for all intents and purposes, an atheist Jew. Such thing as an atheist Muslim -- does this correspond? In any case, just as there are secular (Reformed) Jews, Conservative Jews, and Orthodox Jews, there are also Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Lubavitchers and other anti-Israel Jews who are practically urban American Jewish Salafis, deeply disturbed as they are by modernity, uncovered women, menses, ritual and purity. When Ba'al deeply discounts the influence of a whackjob nutter Jew, it could be seen to be similar to you, LM, deeply discounting the influence of Arour, or other whackjob nutter clerics who curse and condemn to death entire groups. Or when we discount the influence of Salafis (in America) or the influence of the Mormon FLDS. You may not, and should not, LM, carry the weight or responsibility for every action or word spoken by a nutter extremist Muslim. Nor should Ba'al, as a secular (atheist?) Jew carry any weight other than his own particular opinions. See his rather reformist take on Mozhdah Jamalzadah** ... Note, finally, LM, that though you (earlier here at OL) refused in discussion to openly adhere to any one body of jurisprudence under cover of Isam (in other words, whether you follow Shia or Sunni, Sufi, Alawi, Ismail, Yazidi, etcetera precepts) ... at the time you seemed to wish that Islam be seen as a whole, and regard you as Muslim without distinction. So, here Ba'all (here at OL, over time) sees you as you the Muslim wishes to be seen, without a particular creed or distinctive beliefs. As part of the continuum but not especially distinguishable from those he considers evul, nutty or worse. Let it be said though, that Ba'al no longer itches for the nuclear button in Afghanistan. He no longer appears willing to turn the Middle East into nuclear glass, perhaps even sparing Iran from that fate -- because of those strange remaining anomalies, the Jews of Iran. The less lumping, the better, I say. Be true to your own beliefs, but do not pretend to speak for any other Muslim but yourself. We can then expect Ba'al to make a fair trade and consider your individuality and your multiple (perhaps conflicting) loyalties. And he then can refrain from instructing you what The Muslims are or what The Jews think. He is loyal to The Jews, but not to the nutter Kahanists. You are loyal to The Muslims, but not the nutter Salafists. As Martha suggests, this is a good thing. Treating each other as individuals and not simply One Of Them ... the price we must pay to be considered a fully-functioning human being. For you and Ba'al are, before you are Muslim or atheist Jew, human. _____________ ** "This is an interesting Vid. I am able to see the Afghani folk as human beings, not Islamic cum Amalekite demons. I no long wish to nuke the lot of them, if it is avoidable to nuke them. I hope in the future they can keep on singing and clapping. And I would like to see them going back to the bushkazi (an Afghani version of capture the flag)."

Free burning fuel, that is what we need, Brant (as we wait for Dennis to enter discussion). But as for the Oregon Institute of etcetera, the name conceals a crank (from http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/OregonInstituteOfScienceAndMedicine.html ):

[media=]

Yes, fair enough. As a teacher, you do not have much truck with 'core curricula.' Do I have that right? For example, the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic can each be presented in differing programmes. Phonics-based language instruction, for example, starting in first grade, could be contrasted with another programme offering whole-language lesson plans. The goals (reading, writing, numbering) are not the curriculum. The curriculum is the settled posts by which the teachers/districts/lesson-planners/unit-devolopers/textbook publishers set their fences and corrals ... on their cattle. As a teacher, you will formulate your own plan (if able to by contract) and carry out the curriculum assigned to you, and the text available. The core may be so simple: By the end of First Year, the student/yearling will be able to recognize and name the letters of the alphabet, print them, sound them, and combine them in simple words. it would be a surprise to me if the first grade core curriculum is more hellish and socialist in English. However, as we move into the final stretch of 3R, trouble. Arithmetic. How to teach it? Should the calves in their stalls be instructed on division, multiplication, addition, subtraction and the Mighty Zero, or not? Oh, the bloody struggles over arithmetic, the stains of gruesome hand-to-hand battles over exponents ... Wait a minute. I understand a teacher rejecting core curriculum, but this is Adam the Political Guru talking now, right? I am not sure that this is an accurate statement of my position about what you refer to as "a public policy accepting of anthropogenic global warming as a reality." So what? I meant to mark the difference between us. You reject AGW. I do not. I support teaching the consensus view as the science of climate change. I support the teaching of the consensus view of evolution as science. I support teaching the consensus view of the age of the universe as "what scientists say today." This is my aim for science education in K-12, whether in public schools or in private schools. It is a wonder and a thrill that many religious institutions (eg, Catholic Schools) provide this kind of science education as a matter of internal policy, rather than state prescription, at least in Canada. We have several times almost approached the lip of the active volcano of learning on the subject of climate change, AGW, Adam, and it seems to me you shied away from the kind of difficult ongoing inquiry I proposed. To come back later and tell me that your opinions are different from what they were then, great! This means, perhaps, you now agree that human emissions can and do warm the earth's atmosphere above and beyond the processes that give rise to generalized climate. You might even pinpoint the point of nagging concern: by how much? By when? And of course, we can then argue about the finger in the nose or what if anything could or should be done about this warming, or even whether to be alarmed. But. At the moment, I am concerned with the narrow point coming from the Heartland materials. I will be frank. The Heartland Institute is not a scientific body, and its charter is private. I have no faith in their usefulness as an interlocutor in terms of State Science Standards (since there are such things). I prefer the National Academy and other such actual scientists weighing in. Fuck me, Adam, now your Debate Maven hat is on. I have to dial back to the context of the remarks at dispute, to re-orient me and you to what I was stressing in my approach. So, as a Randian, you can urge Zero state supervision or provision of schooling. I get that. I understand your position. I understand that the whole notion of a big government (International treaty, etc) intrusion into economic matters to be utterly contemptible from your political vantage. And I understand the aversion to Alarmism and the worst sort of hasty 'collective' action. I understand a sober, 'the facts are not yet in' kind of watching brief. But you have sided against the AGW position, strongly, with harsh invective at times. This is then not a science discussion, or an education discussion, but a political discussion, and one that I cannot win. This is my opinion: IF (if if if if IF IF IF) there is a subject called Science to be taught in school (hardly in K, more so in 6+). I seek the instruction materials to be based upon the best and latest knowledge, the consensus, the broad picture, the settled material. Controversies are and should be part of instruction at the appropriate age ("Cindy, we are not doing fingerpainting now, honey. We are examining the warrants for the claim that hydrological data do NOT provide sure means of proxy data in interpreting tree ring chronology. Please take your finger from your nose and pay attention."). As for the rest, just credit our differences to the socialist tea I was steeped in since before birth. I will send you five bucks via PayPal. Because I agree with the outline. IF there are competitive theories .... such as, oh, the earth is flat, the earth is not flat, God created all living things, oh, um, God had little to do with it, then parents can teach their children whatever the hell they want (short of incitement to murder or assault). IF there are schools (and not incubators or Training Centres or Slave Indoctrination Feedlots) then it is necessary for someone to tell the difference between 'competing theories' (suitable for Current Affairs) and the science (of biology, for example, or climatology). IF there is to be a state education system controlled (in theory) by the people, I will stand with the people who seek the best scientific advice on science curriculum. You, I hope, stand with me there, despite our political differences. IF you stand with those who wish to 'teach the (phony) controversy' then I will thank you for a lovely date, kiss you chastely on your cheek, and get back on the C train headed back north, past Yonkers, all the way north to the Socialist Hellhole ...

There is no consensus and never was. Odd that you write this, Dennis. "Consensus" is a simple term. It denotes, firstly, 'a majority of opinion,'per most dictionaries and usage notes. Consensus can also refer to a style of decision-making. Consensus decisions, for example, reflect agreement in the whole, but does not denote 100% line-by-line agreement. A scientific consensus can be demonstrated. The first sign of consensus is to read the 'consensus' statements of scientific bodies charged with reflecting the views and opinions and conclusions of its members. For example, what do the national organizations of scientists in your county, Dennis, put forward as their consensus opinions? You may disagree with that consensus, but to claim that there is no consensus is sophistry. To insist on this point in the face of strong evidence, to dismiss that evidence -- to my eyes this is bad faith. There are six inter-related claims in this paragraph. Picked apart, your claims comprise: A 'dominant' media Attempt to circumvent the scientific process Attempt to use 'government influence" Approved' scientific groups push "It" Political critical mass (sought) Put into law the largest wealth transfer in history Dennis, if your claims are true individually, they can be demonstrated. If each claim can be demonstrated, the inter-relations and actual acts and motivations can be proved. Although you provide a summary (your own personal consensus) of your beliefs, you have not provided any specifics -- this generalized coyness was what I referenced above. I feel those who wish to discuss a subject should be willing to do their elementary homework. Welcome to Dodge City, stranger. This is on the face of it, feeble. Feeble and disingenuous, in my opinion. More that once you have been directly challenged to reference or describe these touted essential basic experiments (in climatology). I have asked for detail: what exactly are you talking about. Then it goes all coy coy coy. Here you switch from addressing me and my questions to addressing THEY. Taking you at your word, I will say it again: tell us what the elementary experiments were (or should have been). Tell us what you know that we may follow your argument. Dennis, you may utterly disagree with and have contempt for my opinions. That is as it should be. But I am not the only voice here, and not the only listener and inquirer. If for some personal distaste you will not provide a clue as to what you are actually referencing, fair enough. But the challenge is broader: can you provide to a Generic Reader here more details about these crucial experiments? I say you can. I challenge you to do so, again. Again, an over-general summation. Do you think that the relatively sophisticated readers here simply know what you are referring to? What possible 'field experiments' were required but not performed? Can you not give dear generic Reader the information necessary to verify your impressions? I think you can, but you seem to prefer to remain unforthcoming. In any case, Dear Reader may wish to read evidence of multiple experimental regimes that did and do just what Dennis says has not occured. Rather than as he attests, without evidence, "NO FIELD EXPERIMENTS WERE EVER DONE" -- we need only examine the record of research. Ooops, there is the European Arctic Stratospheric Ozone Experiment (EASOE) and the Second European Stratospheric Arctic and Mid-latitude Experiment (SESAME). Oh, and the Third European Stratospheric Experiment on Ozone (THESEO). However we view it, Dennis's claim is untrue on its face. This is better -- a clue. "Various compounds" ... could mean compound gases I suppose. Going with that, you seem to be claiming that we (We as consumers of scientific information) have no credible or tested information on the the lifetime of (murk murk) in the actual atmospheric conditions. Well, Dennis, we can verify your assertion. There may be a point of information (say, the lifetime or 'cycle' of water in the atmosphere) we can check. By considering the generic reader, you may see that if you named one (or two, or several, or all at issue) compound, your assertion can be verified, if true. Once that is accomplished, you could explain the discrepancy between your claim/observation and reality. I will separate out the confusing jumble here: "the sources [of atmospheric compounds] in the actual atmosphere" and "the sinks [of atmospheric compounds] in the actual atmosphere]" and "actual experiment" and "actual field experiments." (at some point in the future, you could explain to dear reader the difference and the importance of the difference between "actual experiment" and "actual field experiment") Let us consider the first item from the jumble: "The sources of atmospheric compounds." What are the 'atmospheric compounds"? Well, let me guess what you would say if you weren't so coy about the details. I guess Oxygen (nope, not a compound), Nitrogen (compound), Argon (compound), Carbon Dioxide (two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom). Okay, so we have perhaps one compound you may be referring to: CO2. If is then one of the 'atmospheric compounds," then we can check to see if you are correct in the general claim: The lifetime of CO2 in actual atmosphereic conditions was never determined."Is this true? Moreover, if it is not exactly true, is it true on the narrow grounds you have laid? If we can find data that suggests we do indeed know the lifetime (cycle in the atmosphere) of CO2 in the actual atmosphere ... is this 'fact' verified by experiment? or even 'field experiment'? Untrue. If you meant 'fine particulates. At best, "Water vapour is a wild card" is debatable. If you are contending that nothing is known about the precipitation cycle/water cycle -- because of lack of experiment, I do not know how you could support this statement beyond a simplistic 'variable' (water vapour as a variable) observation. I do believe you have an idiosyncratic world-view pertaining to science. Sciences that do not proceed from initial 'basic experiments' would seem to exclude sciences from the mantle which originated in observational or correlational data. For example, how does one do basic experiments, or rather -- What would comprise a 'basic experiment' in geology? Which are the basic experiments in geology that must be performed first lest the entire science be sorted into Junk? What experiments, basic or not, inform or test the presumptions of evolutionary biology, for example. IF this science (or rather grouping of disciplines within Biology) did not perform 'basic experiments' before going hog-wild, then what? What 'basic experiments' did Darwin do, or not do that seal his reputation as a scientist? This is a good point, I think, or another good point of departure for inquiry. If you are an expert or experienced hydro-dynamic modeler and also a modeler of electromagnetic dynamics, you have a lot of information and practice from within your field(s). Helping us see the connection between 'basic' experiments in your field(s) and the fields you consider corrupt -- this would be great, if you wanted to do so. Your next point is what we call Bald Assertion, however. On the surface, the parallels between 'copper' / 'steel' experiment/observation are unclear. Testing materials for their stress and breaking points and patterns seems wise and necessary to materials engineering. I will set aside any questions on how this type of 'testing' (field experiments?) can be applied in atmospheric sciences, or for you to further explain the parallels. I see the bullet points on the blackboard but wait, along with Dear Reader, to see how 'testing' gallium arsinide pertains to climate science ... Here is a possible area of understanding. Putting aside the murky 'They' argument from enemy formations trope, I can see how you might answer a straighforward question from Generic Reader: -- "How could 'field-testing' copper/steel be applied to the science surrounding Ozone in the Atmosphere?" You seem to know in your heart how matters should have proceeded in understanding Ozone formation and depletion in the atmosphere -- via 'field tests' -- but we have yet to hear anything specific. In a nutshell, when an argument states, "that kind of experimental field work" has never been done, the reader wonders WHAT kind of experimental field work. And a reader would be wondering why the answer is not forthcoming. From you, Dennis. To support your points and assertions. To provide warrants -- not sweeping claims, but their support. This is the basic to-and-fro of learning. It is as if you had turned into Phil Coates, telling us to do our homework, but failing to tell us what that homework actually comprised. Murk to the max. Here again the over-general, non-specific 'criticism' -- with details, the argument could only be stronger. What results? What predictions? Which 'they' are you addressing? These questions may seem noisome or unwanted, but imagine yourself in a forum, not with socialist bogeymen and skeptics like me, but with nice normal uninformed persons (Dear Readers). If a nice normal person asked you to put flesh on the bones of your contentions, would you be so coy? Would you show good faith and confidence in your own claims by backing them up with further details? I would like to think that yes, you would, Dennis. They, Them. Their conclusions. The Science. Ah murk, murk to the max. Through the fog, perhaps a name? An experiment? A failure? I am a little more forgiving on some science topics - where people have not done their elementary homework - than others. For hebbin sake, Dennis. "Some science topics." "People." "Elementary Homework." Brother, these are murky and unspecified. It is unclear who you are addressing and what you are addressing. I do not take issue with your personal coyness and bad faith with me -- since you may have an antipathy to me and thus personalize discussion. But, again, think of Dear Reader. Tony has yet to address my question: if Skepticism is so awful, what then explains your (Tony's) skepticism about Anthropogenic Global Warming? Your own skepticism on climate science, Dennis, is much more understandable, rooted as it is in a firm political conviction rather than engagement with the materials (and working scientists) you so murkily slur. If I understand this correctly, Quantum Mechanics (the basis of our electronic superstructure today) is complex and if people do not understand your discursions on its minutia, that is okay. If you say the reigning cosmological theories are fucked, hmmm, well, maybe that needs explaining to the unwashed and uninformed. You will take the time, perhaps to explain your issues and worries in detail, even provide links to your unpublished and un-reviewed physics articles. As most of us understand Quantum Mechanics, it is the set of equations that somehow give us positron emission tomography, details available. That no basic experiments were done to disconfirm the equations' adherence to real-world materials and physics, hmmmmm .... Ah, Godwin's 'law,' in all its splendour. If an argument wobbles on its wheels, invoke the Nazis and for good measure 'the Soviets.'

Adam, I don't know from your sketch if I could agree with what you propose, even on principle. Most likely not. I note that the old creationist tactic of "teach the controversy" is in play once more, and is subsumed in the Heartland proposals. Certainly the Heartland Institute has a responsibility to its supporters and board and its mission -- it is an advocacy and education organization -- and its K-12 strategy is justified by its aims and goals: to prevent the baleful consequences of a public policy accepting of anthropogenic global warming as a reality -- in education. It is in Heartland's interests to propose re-tooling curricula to reflect Heartland concerns and conclusions about the issue at hand. I do not know if it is in the interests of science education, even in principle -- since you and I reach opposing conclusions about reality, we are unlikely to agree on Reality of Climate Change learning units prescribed. Those who are most able to change curricula are not you and I, but the elected school boards, state standards (in science) bodies and commissions, and of course the elected officials in tne State House. I think of the state mentioned in the terrible video immediately above: Louisiana. In Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has climbed into bed with the Religious Right (and the anti-evolution wing) to 'reform' the state science curriculum. This might be a good place to start with an analysis of K-12 reform in real concrete terms. Do I support Jindal's attempts to reform the teaching of science in his state? Nope. And I do not think you will either, Adam.

It depends, Adam. Education begins at home, and parents have every opportunity to inculcate family values in their children. Source: The Junk Science of Climate Change