william.scherk

Don't forget that Ozone is one of those causes about which the enviromentalists now claim victory. They got their legislation through, and now the problem has gone away. Never mind that there never was a problem. You are correct - one that really pissed me off and affected me personally was the banning of 1,1,1-trichloroethane, also known as methyl chloroform. We bought it in the form of Mystic Metal Mover [name still exists but product has changed]. It was a miracle fluid for drilling stainless steel and cleaning. The ban (in the USA) was only for 'non-essential' aerosolized products. As for bug killer/repellent, DEET is the best and has fewer killer side-effects on humans. But, as I noted, the Objectivish default is that any CFC-reduction goals and achievements were junk science, that any concern with CFCs as 'greenhouse gases' is misplaced or fraudulent or deluded; that concern with ozone depletion was and is part of a hoax or fraud. This is all settled, you see. No need for evidence or discussion.

It is clear that when you have different groups of closely related peoples you will have different IQs - Chinese IQ is 108, the Ashk Jewish IQ is ~119, some African groups [67-71] , and blacks in the USA 87. Europeans are known to have a wide curve of high and low - some Asians a tighter and higher average distribution, other Asians a different story. I irks me that the default Objectivish position on Climate Change or Anthropogenic Global Warming is scoffing and superior. I have yet to have had a proper wrangle with anyone on this list. To my eyes the anti-AGWA opinions are bought wholesale and distributed to the Objectivish as badges, shibboleths. It is disturbing that a majority of Republicans oppose AGWA explanations and a majority of Democrats embrace them -- another set of politicized shibboleths. To veer off the well-trod road of anti-AGWA slogans so quickly, to veer off into flat-out racist Superiour Intelligence/Dark Continent Doomed Subspecies world ... this disturbs me even more. Peter Taylor has shown quite a gift for nationalizing insults (with Angela); here he runs off into Two Species Wonderland, and it ain't pretty. Dennis, I suspect your 'race' research is cringe-worthy. The confident assertions of 'racial' superiority are signal.

sorry I forgot the quotes there .."out of airy nothing/ a local habitation and a name" I don't remember who wrote it (Shakespeare?) Shakespeare's line is spoken by Theseus: ". . . as imagination bodies forth/ The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen/ Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing/ A local habitation and a name." I also liked the casual description of Bizarro/Archie-World Objectivism: "an uncharacteristically menacing Mr. Lodge" Who is playing Mr Lodge at the Objectivish Class Reunion (well, of course, there would have to be at least seven separate reunions, to accommodate all the factions and their snits)? I accept that. I am a lumper, I am sad to say, but I do sort you out into the non-Ick lump (my first use of that term was with that numbskull ARI-release Tsunami OpEd back when two hundred thousand dead meant something). Barbara Branden has been careful along the way to point out that same thing (mostly with reference to the sociopathic and/or self-drunk Objectivish I poke at). On the other hand, why do Peikoff's mad uninformed run-ons get such an obeisant, if not fawning, reception? Are his students and grateful readers still that stupefied by authority? It just makes me shake my head. Did my mother raise me wrong, to side with those subtly pre-judged as deserving, of presumed harlots and temptresses and sluts and sirens? What am I (and Carol, and you, and PDS and 9th et al) getting wrong here? This is the issue where I sorta partially stand with Doctor Comrade Diana -- if and when and rarely she critiques ARI for authoritarianism or wild or undisciplined whacks at the ball. She would ordinarily ROAR over a woman's body ... But then she does go as sweet and silent as a Kremlin wife at times, doesn't she (or, perhaps, allow Paul Hsieh's straightforward rejection to stand for hers, canny thing)? Too many times. Is it too much to publicly remark upon Ick?

Just to wrap up and confess to my blunders in re Big Ethel ... As established by the 1990 TV movie "Archie: To Riverdale and Back Again," the Archie gang gets together for a high-school reunion, and we learn this about the characters: Whew!

Ipanema is worse.** Count your blessings, ma. But yeah, good thing Ethel and Archie and them stayed in high school. They did not ever have to get drunk chimpanzee-style at zesty new post-modern college frats (though Seymour Faucoult Quouque-Toque may opine otherwise ...) ___________________ **

Here is Uncle Grandpa teasing his curious courtiers: From his papal self's endless supply of Preston Manning impersonations, pratfalls, bulls, encyclicals, and other painful stumbles. http://media.blubrry.com/peikoff/www.peikoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2012-02-06.202_B.mp3 A striking Geezenstacks TV episode (of series Tales From The Darkside) was made back in the day. This video has spoilers, so let Uncle G have his tease, and don't watch the stunning ending. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b6zni9I6uQ

I finally twigged to the Ethel (unless it was to Ethel of Lucy fame)

Then it seems you side with Peikoff. He cannot imagine that when a woman says, "Kobe, please stop that!" or our fair Carol Jane in a clinch said, "Um, how about we go watch TV. Don't do that anymore, Seymour. I don't like it. I'm not ready. Just get off me, okay" -- Peikoff can barely get his aged head around the issue from a woman's point of view. Which is the whole fucking problem. The law in my country is pretty clear. Assault is charged when someone touches you or holds you or strikes you or grabs you without your will. The body is inviolate. Assault can also be charged when someone howls in your face in public. Sexual assault is one of the charges up here, one of the crimes, that cover what used to be rape. So, all one has to do when asked a question, as Dr Uncle Grandpa Kookiepants was asked, was -- do NOT just jump into the pool without your waterwings. Look. Check. Do NOT use the Kobe Bryant case to re-litigate for the defence, especially if you cannot remember the frigging details. Manswers it is, Manswers it remains, and men write the book on rape. Until it gets to court, where the men who do not respect women's autonomy over their body learn the new reality. The sexual being Seymour (the blogger) presumably has not been in a position to defend another woman from a horny drunken fratman in at least a few years, even though Seymour spent some fifty years at school, going to school, going back to school and hanging around the school. Right. Questionable. You mentioned all that already. So, Uncle Grandpa the law arbiter questions and answers and you like what he said. Manswers! Let the ancient penis rule in all its withered majesty. Law and morality depend on skimming past the concept of 'get off me, please,' so that the rational-but-with-a-raging-hardon does not have to control his wang. The ick factor of Objectivism. Brought to you in so many fresh ways ...

In case anyone thinks I have been unkind to Eric Allen Bell (author of the Kos pieces, referred to above as dumbfuck), you can leave him a large donation at his website, which is subtitled "Expanding Individual and Collective Consciousness..." He needs a miracle, folks! Or, as he puts it: Yes, his global TV brand needs money. So if you can join him with Richard on the ramparts, click here.

Wow, the cut-and-paste. A splodge of ranty hoohaw from elsewhere. No summary or introduction, no background for those mostly uninterested in MENA affairs. A clue that it has something to do with Pamela Geller, Loonwatch, and Jihadwatch and Daily Kos. That really could make an inviting and appealing post, if marketed with some aplomb. No such luck. So to the background. Jihadwatch is a website that looks out for Murkans creeped out and whipped into a frenzy by Them. Them Terrists. Them Islamic Terrists. Jihadwatch is owned/run/mostly full of articles by Robert Spencer, a site complete with creepy-crawler commenters. Yay! Pamela Geller is, in my opinion, a nightmare version of a rationalist. A rationalist on ninety-five cups of coffee, in a state of ketosis, fusing with Jihadwatch and Terrorwatch and IslamWatch and EvulWatch and the prophets of Israel and the endtimes maniacs of Liberty Baptist University. Pamela Geller is a LOON. So, LOONWatch watches over the kooky, unsupported and occasionally flat-out hysterical and nuts -- on the subject of Skeddy Terrist Muslim Menace. Those suffused with paranoia who make shit up and use diatribes, misinformation, hate and suspicion against a class of Americans (especially). Those who skirt the margins of rational discourse -- zealots, propagandists, polemicists. Loonwatch nails Jihadwatch when it fucks up and LIES. It nails Geller when she stumbles and LIES and misinforms. That is its job description. And so dumbfuck author of the Kos diary article is an ostensible Leftist Progressive (nutcase) who fell into a mild crush on the anti-Evul principles he thinks might underlay the sloppy and hysterical presentations of Geller and fellow loons and kooks and crackpots on the I HATE Islam wagon. Here is dumbfuck winding up: It seems that Loonwatch is pretty much exclusively concerned with exposing the perceived enemies of Islam, including a compulsive and obsessive tit for tat over anything that Robert Spencer, of JihadWatch.com had to say. Unlike Pamela Geller or that nut in Florida who was preoccupied with burning the Koran, Spencer, whom I don't see eye to eye with either (I feel he might also be religiously motivated), presents himself in a rather rational, sober and scholarly fashion and I might add that neither he nor the other "Loons" have bombs strapped to them - only words. Something we cannot say for so many, many defenders of Islam. And, just in case that remarkable claim is not enough, he tosses his curls, stamps his Leftish Boots, and rumbles on: if you are affiliated with this site: Loonwatch.com you are perhaps unknowingly supporting a group with terrorist / Islamist sympathies. Think of those Germans who did not stand up against or speak out against Hitler. And note the distinction between being a German, which is of course perfectly fine, and through silence giving ones consent for the atrocities of the Nazi regime, which is quite another thing entirely. I, sad as I am now, having read the original articles, have several questions. But the subject only really deserves one, and it is directed to the dumbfuck with Leftish Boots all a-walkin. Why, sir, did it take you three paragraphs to make a connection with Nazis and Loonwatch? Adam, your comment was priceless, I hope I remember it. Meanwhile I am scrubbing my skin with bristle brushes to get the stupid off.

I am afraid to look at Noodlefood for Doctor Comrade Diana's possible comment on Peikoff's latest and greatest howler. Has anyone peeked? When our Ninth posted the link to the OOnline Men-Only Whoop-up on papal infallibility, I had a long gander. So, apparently, did the OO member dianahsieh. If she is not torturing herself and her personal cult members with news of her latest tuber recipe or her latest physical torture (exercise till you fall down) regime, perhaps she will find the time to comment ... but I expect this would first necessitate a loooooong think (followed by more tubers, more torture). She would need to calculate the benefit of criticism. She would need to understand that Manswers are perhaps most appropriate in all discussion of Rape or sexual assault in the Objectivish worlds. Personally, without giving details, I should mention that men have extra weight. There has been at least one time I have left the tangled duvets after only a preliminary attempt at a shag, rolling off or from under the suddenly-loathsome lothario ... and answering the question posed with an "I am putting my clothes on and going to watch TV, that's what I am doing." If a lady/woman/damsel/devul temptress/slut/girl/sex object should find yet another panting, pushy, lamprey-mouthed hulk on top of her, ploughing her nether field like a drunken farmer on a tractor ... I think her "Get off me, you need practice, and you aren't gonna practice on me" should be respected. The penis has no particular rights in this or any other case, to my mind. The gloriously socially-retarded papal nuncios at OO, of course, may be correct to defend what seems to many of us a declining Grandpa ranting once again. They may be right, and we here wrong, and we the stupefied-by-dogma cultists. That the discussion at OO has had (correct me, please!) zero female interlocutors ... does that tell us anything?

My memory is a little foggy on this, but when I was studying in Montreal -- and obtained a precious McGill Library card -- I was struggling to understand 'critical theory' in film and literature. I came across a book that was originally written as a PhD thesis. The book, as I remember it, attempted to 're-write' several notable items of literature. All I recall beyond that was that the writer was CRAZY. Why? Well, the entire re-narrativization of the texts went like this: And then ... and then ... and then ... and then ... and then ... and then. I kid you not. So, bear in mind that a few nutters have taken your notion to the wall and jumped over the wall and ran into the far distance, beyond we mere mortals. I learned so much in my early struggles to countermand insanely wrong narratives emerging from the Recovered Memory Therapy cult. The first thing I learned was to check sources in any paper or article or paraphrase of earlier studies/books/literature. Inductiions/generalizations must be explicit, and supported. Anything that smacks of "everyone knows" is specious if not supported, warranted, backed-up (if the generalization is true, then the easiest thing is to provide concrete examples; moreover, if the generalization is true, their will be no counter-examples, no falsification). The work to get at the truth or value of specific statements or claims is absolutely necessary in any rational inquiry.** This work was onerous at times, but paid off big time; all too often the re-telling was corrupted by confirmation bias, and non-sequitur. And when confronted, the last link in the chain would often turn on a dime into a classic crackpot. They were so heavily invested in the final link in the chain, that they would not go back on their conclusions. They would not even attempt due diligence. As for the "Lies My Father Told Me," or "Lies of the Media," I have a simple standard that I try to apply -- and it goes right back to what I learned about RMT kooks. Go back to the sources, and look for all the types of bias and re-telling that can corrupt whatever bits of fact that were the raw material for the item. You will be familiar with my MO from when we tussled over Beck's claims ... So, yes, I think you are part-way there to appreciating what the article describes (I have the full-text). This is, I think, a grave intellectual mistake, to presume 'it's a lie.' It is the same thing as presuming 'it is true.' For me, it is only work, honest and painstaking work, intellectual work, that allows a firm conclusion one way or the other (or that may lead to a necessary qualification of the claim). What reinforced my feelings that I was on the right track was when I landed in a psychology class in College (as a mature student). I discovered that what I thought were arcane rules (from APA, or MLA conventions) were designed to give folks like me the `bread crumb trail to follow, so to speak. Each claim needed a warrant. Each claim of earlier authority needed a cite. And all of them could be examined, and (in a perfect world) were examined. This was wonderful. I learned the conventions, and used them in my critical essays, but understood they were just the formalism of skepticism (in the scientific "SHOW ME" sense, not in the nihilist/philosophical sense). This stance of skepticism was also useful in every other course I took (History/Geography/Anthropology). This stance of mine can be extremely annoying, sometimes infuriating. As you intuit, the investment in a conclusion (even in science, where such investment is a bias that need exposing and correcting) can be very large, and the larger the investment, the stronger the attachment, right or wrong, reasoned or not. It is, as we have gone over many times in the past, amour-propre. I will give you an example of how infuriating this can be, from real life: Buddy and me were working a renovation/painting job for what seemed like a lovely man. The boss did not dominate his workers by testosterone expressions or simian/primate displays. He was much more of a churchy, nicey leader ... though of course he had to maintain both standards and control of his team. He decided to take all his team for lunch, at an Asian restaurant. As the eldest, and the host, he dominated conversation, set the topics, led discussion. All the the good until he was going on about his travels and the things he had learned. At one point he was talking about India, how Indian culture kept men and women apart. He pointed to two groups of people who had sat themselves (at different times, I had noticed) at nearby booths. One was a group of (to my eyes) Persian ladies. The neighbouring group was a set of Punjabi men. Our boss said that it was "Their religion" that caused them to do that (site ladies at one table, men at another). By this time I had had quite fucking enough of his bullshit, so I piped up my best sweet Scherkian tones: "Which religion? Hindu, Muslim, Jain, Parsee, Thomasite, Buddhist?" His face engorged with blood. He was grievously offended at my challenge. The table fell silent, He shouted something about "Smart Ass!" and we all dipped our faces to our noodles and endured the resulting Social Awkwardness ... Of course the folks in the booths were not even fucking related whatsoever, regardless of their race/ethnicity/sect. Boss was full of shit. And he DID NOT like to be exposed. Me, I like it. Of course! The moment we feel confident in our conclusions while having not done the work of thoroughly testing our own argument -- that is a moment of danger, of self-deception. I catch myself doing it every single day, and (despite a similar reaction to that of FullofShit Boss) I take correction gladly. Correction is essential. This is what I consider the essence of what is called Peer Review, and the open publishing standards of the mature sciences (and in some cases, softer, more qualitative social and psychological sciences). We always need others to check our premises and our arguments. Not to put too fine a point on it, there is no "default wiring" in the brain. The enviroment impinges on the brain and rewires it pre-natally and beyond. But what you mean, I agree with. Notwithstanding training and education, the default, evolutionarily-speaking, is to believe authority. If authority lies, dissembles, bullshits or otherwise slops out on the truth gambit, some people can turn on a dime and Trust No One. Of special interest to me are what I callconspiracy apostates. These are those folks who have been fully immersed in the dogma and dicta and shibboleths of whatever conspiracy (notable the 9/11 'truthers') but have renounced their earlier cultism. If you like I can dig up a link of one or two such exemplars. It is hard, hard hard to leave a cult-of-belief. We see this with those who have been damaged by Objectivism, like Phil. To leave the cult can lead to self-annihilation (if that is not too strong a word) because of the enormous investment in it. ______________ ** An example here on OL was that thread on 'Tapping' / Thought Field Therapy [Five Minute Phobia Cure]; when the originator of that thread was challenged to provide some frigging backup for his assertions, he became abusive. In a word, he revealed himself to be so deeply invested in his (shonky) conclusions that he had left his presumed rationality behind. Even when Monica Pignotti entered the thread, directed attention to her peer-reviewed (and insider) conclusions, the originating poster remained in High Dudgeon, fuming and reactive and (to my eyes) utterly un-equipped for a rational discussion. Tap your way to mental health. Nathaniel Branden recommends it ... blah blah bullshit blah. Same with the discussion over 'criminality/evul' -- when challenged to provide examples, answer questions, back up assertions with evidence, what? Fainting dead away, clutching pearls, High Dudgeon. Ick, ick, and double-ick.

See http://www.roblox.com/The-Kookie-Pants-2-0-item?id=30929693

This is, I think, apropos for a few threads and a few posters at OL. This reports on a study from the University of Kent (UK). It shows up a pattern of thinking (non-thinking) that has always struck me. It may have struck a few others here at OL. As the years pass and the glory of OL grows, we seem to invite attendance from kooks of various stripes -- fledglings, nest-bound, and those in full flight. Whether a mix of Libertarian/Islamicist (LM) or God-infused Giant/Rational Perfecto (JNS), Dianetics/Randianism (Crazy belligerent lady) or Postmodernism/Peikoffianism (SB), folks seem to hold contradictory paradigms in their head. And they seem to be able to both rant at length (JNS/SB) and never give up an inch, even when confronted with strong evidence that they are wrong in whole or in part. This has always puzzled me -- both in my personal/work life, and in my online life. So, blah blah blah, here's a story that gives a gloss of the study. I think I might add a link to it in some other threads where the kookiepants meets Objectivist Living .... [From http://www.livescience.com/18171-contradicting-conspiracy-theories-mistrust.html ]

<p>One interesting video of interest to Da Jooz. In this video, the Right Reverend Bishop Long (yes, that Bishop Long) is crowned a King in his Atlanta church, with the aid of a 'rabbi.' I am sure Bob may have something to say about this. Me, I just gape in wonder ...</p> <p> </p> <p> <div id="-chrome-auto-translate-plugin-dialog" style="opacity: 1 !important; background-image: initial !important; background-attachment: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-color: transparent !important; padding-top: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; margin-top: 0px !important; margin-right: 0px !important; margin-bottom: 0px !important; margin-left: 0px !important; position: absolute !important; top: 0px; left: 0px; overflow-x: visible !important; overflow-y: visible !important; z-index: 999999 !important; text-align: left !important; display: none; background-position: initial initial !important; background-repeat: initial initial !important; "> <div style="max-width: 300px !important;color: #fafafa !important;opacity: 0.8 !important;border-color: #000000 !important;border-width: 0px !important;-webkit-border-radius: 10px !important;background-color: #363636 !important;font-size: 16px !important;padding: 8px !important;overflow: visible !important;background-image: -webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right bottom, color-stop(0%, #000), color-stop(50%, #363636), color-stop(100%, #000));z-index: 999999 !important;text-align: left !important;"> <div class="translate"> </div> <div class="additional"> </div> </div> <img onclick="document.location.href='http://translate.google.com/';" src="http://www.google.com/uds/css/small-logo.png" style="position: absolute !important; z-index: -1 !important; right: 1px !important; top: -20px !important; cursor: pointer !important;-webkit-border-radius: 20px; background-color: rgba(200, 200, 200, 0.3) !important; padding: 3px 5px 0 !important; margin: 0 !important;" /></div>

Yes, and I should add that Michael Marotta's links and suggestions to Buff Geek about utopian communities were quite good, in my opinion. All good. All but the last pearl-clutching.

<p>For someone who is so stern about induction in the realm of say, oh, hmmmm, let me think -- oh, yeah -- Psychology, it sure seems strange to see Bob indulging in such generalizations. At least he leaves the impression this is polemic, and not a reasoned statement, less an argument. </p> <p> </p> <p>It is such a dead end for discussion: Da Jooz, IMO. Of all the interesting things to learn about Jewish life, custom, differences, history, etcetere, to glom onto Rand and the Collective as Jooz is so sterile, to my mind. </p> <p> </p> <p>And, though I am not a fan of Rand the philosopher in many measures, she did have more than a few smart things to saw in re racism. I think she herself was a chauvinist (her tripe about folk dances), but she certainly pointed to a home truth. You do not get to put on the mantle of greatness simply by sharing a heritage or name or family or city or team or whatever thing was not in your control.</p> <p> </p> <p> But, hey, back to Da Jooz and what they are all about. More induction, Bob, to the max, baby!</p>

First, I would like to thank the Academy. Then, my mother, who taught me how to faint on cue, then I would like to thank the Smelling Salts Company of America for keeping me alive. Seriously, Michael Marotta, this is over-the-top nonsense. Why berate our host (when I think MSK's opinions are poorly stated or founded or expounded, I say that. I do not clutch my pearls, roll my eyes back in my head and perform a Dead Faint)? More seriously, why utter such storming phrases about anal-retention blah blah? Why? What does that get you but a half-price ticket to High Dudgeon? Seriously. On one point I almost agree, though. To point out obvious spelking errors in lieu of argument is petty and can redound on the corrector. But on the whole, have a Postum or another soothing beverage, and accept the Norma Desmond Award for most embarrassing performance of the day.

This is intriguing; reminds me of a Utopia Island story I wrote in Grade nine in my writing class. The teacher went cross-eyed, said, "write what you know about, Bill, not urban planning." I was still operationallly very shy back then, so I did not howl in her face, "I DO know about urban planning, bitch, and that is why I wrote my dumb story about it." Anyway, I think this is not only a good primer in the web of laws that constrain us and various polities at the sub-national level. My first bit of advice is to ground your project in a real state. Do some research into the state with the lowest taxes, the least onerous regulations, the best business climate, the least picky state-wide 'building codes.' Then drill down (call them up! get part of the research done by the drones in the civil service!) into the welter of procedure, law, common practice that surround the incorporation of municipalities in the state or states you have chosen. Here is a few questions I came up with: -- what are the smallest incorporated units? Village, town, township ... -- what are the limits of state/county/health oversight of a-city-in-all-but-name (Eg, the FLDS compound in Texas)? -- how do 'gated communities' regulate activities/behaviour/economic life, if at all -- are there pre-existing 'utopic' communities that could be bought/subverted For the questions about health and safety, environment, fiscal and monetary affairs, more informed folks than I abound here. I would also suggest you make a friend with your local librarian, or the person in your library that is in charge of inquiries. In Vancouver, for example, the public library has a research desk. I once called up for information on South Ossetia. I thought the lady at the other end would suggest I do my own fucking homework and get my ass in and get to work, but no -- she plodded off and plodded back and told me what she had found out. It was her job. So, get an ally in that building to help you, and give yourself at least half a year to answer your questions. Read about earlier Utopic movement, of the Fabians, Howard, Summerhill, Sointula, various other 'apart' communities ... Ultimately, you may discover that there is nowhere at all in America that is either free from the dead hand of Big Gummint or is so far from the rest of society that its 'apartness' would lead to its declince and death. You may wish to look at the Central American countries that have established Free Trade Zones, or other special zones which are guaranteed to be free from at least most non-safety/health (water, sanitary sewers, public health bodies, etc) tutelage. Sounds like you are having fun with this. Good luck.

From the website 3ders.org, an amazing story of a titanium + 'bioceramic' lower jaw built up in a 3D printer and implanted as a replacement ... I had thought 3D printing was far advanced already, but this is remarkable. My pre-valentines gift to OL friends ...

Reidy, that is lovely, terse and effective. Could you please, one day, serve us up a text of Plath, Cocteau and Schopenauer? A kind of mixed grill, lightly seasoned? No need to read them through anything, not least the boring tirades of a maniac, but simply tell us why they still sing straight through to your heart. And would it be much more savoury than the stale chop suey of gristle, stodge and muck that Janet has been slopping on our collective plate for her last six hundred posts?

Thank goodness for taste. I am happy you get pleasure out of the book, and look forward to more reading of Hunter through the Eco filter. As I mentioned, there is something wrong with me -- I can't get by the prose stylings no matter how I try. As for Seymour, the cross-gendered discoursing hurricane newly arrived at OL, although she is in the doghouse, I look at every fortieth post she makes, just to be sure she is still raving and still not quite yet with the programme here.

II have realized that Bob has no interest in this area. And I understand that. Why should he give a shit about Lebanon, anyway? Why should he think beyond an aphorism he can type out once every month? What's the payoff for him? Better to utter an irrelevant aside now and again and maintain his reputation as a Know Nothing. I disagree a bit with you, Michael, and first let it be said that Lebanon is a fascinating place. Of all the regional nations, it is the closest to democracy (with Tunisia and Egypt set to catch up). It has the most free media in any Arab or Islamic country (besides, again, Tunisia and Egypt at the moment). It is surely a mistake to judge a whole nation on the actions of the poor sad old Lebanese fascist fuck in the video above, and that their are still demented SSNP/Baathi holdovers from the cold war era is evident from the video above.. The 'territorial' notion you introduce could be misunderstood, so I will tell you what I know of the Lebanon-Syria shindig in terms of religious/territorial problem, in Coatesian point form. Lebanon's polity is organized on confessional grounds since the French mandate, and this is reinforced by the Doha agreement in 2008. This means that the President must be a Maronite, the Prime Minister must be Sunni, and the Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament must be Shia. This, of course, causes problems, and some of the problems are indeed territorial, in that many (not all) of the armed militias that were operative never gave up their weapons or organization from the last civil war. Viz, especially, Hizbollah. After the assassination of Rafik Hariri, and the 'Cedar Revolution,' the Syrians were forced to withdraw their armed forces from Lebanon (and presumably their Mukhabarat secret police). The Syrian army entered the civil war to protect the Maronites from slaughter, but since that entry allied with whatever corrupt armed political faction it could dominate. The Syrian occupation further corrupted the already corrupt sectarian 'pie' in Lebanon, and destroyed Lebanon's ability to act as a sovereign nation. This will not be fixed until Bashar Assad dies, is forced from office or hanged/shot. "Greater Syria" is the Ottoman province that comprised all the lands of Syria, western Iraq, Jordan, Palestine/Israel, Lebanon and the region of Alexandretta. It lives on in the hearts of Baathis and the sick and sad SSNP (Syrian Social Nationalist Party) inside Lebanon, notwithstanding those who have quit Lebanon for various reasons ... Syria was, and remains the most complex buffet of sect, religion, ethnic and nationalities in the region. It has distinct minorities, some with extremely ancient roots (the last remnants of Christians who speak modern Aramaic in three villages, the Alawite, the Yazidi, etc) and the more recently arrived (1 million refugee Iraqis, 40% Christian, Cherkess -muslims from the upper reaches of the Caucasus, Armenians and Syriacs who fled the Ottoman slaughter). It has over close to a half million refugees from Palestine. It has two million Kurds of several sects). It has four Jews. The border between Syria and Lebanon is mined on the Syrian side since July/August, but the border has never been finalized between the two nations. Syria refuses to open an embassy in Beirut. Now, territory, yes, but. As for Bob, he is so frigging thick on this subject (They are all Islamic Muslim Moslem Arab Mohammedans). To the point of retardation. But I still love him. We all have soft parts in our brains, I am sure.

If I didn't know better, I would think Janet was a bit of a slophound in the research area ...

The fun continues in TV studios in the Arab world. This is again concerning Syria, but the venue is the program Al-Ittijah Al-Mu`akis on Aljazeera Arabic. The combatants again a Lebanese supporter of the Syrian regime and an opponent of the Syrian regime.