william.scherk

On further investigation, I find out that the Twitter and Facebook accounts are maintained by a scribe. Scant and brief postings simply lead back to the online podcasts . . . which of course do not appear at Youtube. On his Youtube channels are videos from the dawn of time. It might be fun if someone other than a functionary maintained his web presence, if we could engage the man himself. But, as seems obvious now, Peikoff doesn't quite understand the function of Facebook and Twitter for personal expressions and social engagement. In other words, the Man Himself does not bother visiting or commenting at these places. The sites merely glorify him.

I got a lovely email from the Estate of Peikoff this morning:

Phil, you know I like you, and you should know I am glad to have lots and lots of folks 'back' on OL, and so am glad to have you back . . . but in my opinion you should give serious thought to answering a question that lurks in several minds. When you stopped posting earlier this year, you wrote (indicating MSK), "I will never post on your site again." Now you are back posting. The questions lurking will not go away, but will reemerge in different forms over time, I think. So, my friendly advice to you is to address the disjuncture between the 'never' post and the present physics thread. Just do it. Just ask yourself, "Hmmm, big guy, why are you posting on OL again after storming off?" And then answer. Each time you are again addressed with what is a pretty basic question, and each time that you ignore the question, the disjuncture becomes deeper and deeper. So, cut to the chase and please just answer the question in a way that satisfies you. I doubt very much MSK will enter and question you about this, since he doesn't really give a shit one way or the other what you do, but would it not seem strange to you if the positions were reversed, if MSK had stormed off your forum?

Michael mocks and misunderstands personalities and powers of the Egyptian revolution. I object to his several of his inaccurate observations. Five months after the fall of Mubarak, there he is on his bed in the cage, with his two sons, his first trial day behind him, now on the medical wing of the prison in Cairo, back to court on the 7th. <img src="http://images.smh.com.au/2011/02/02/2162804/mubarak-420x0.jpg" width="339px"><img src="http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-110803-mubarak-trial/ss-110803-mubarak-trial-01.grid-9x2.jpg" width="339px"> I keep close watch on Egyptian news media/new media and am heavily involved in tracking and understanding events in Syria as well (which explains most of my non-posting at OL recently). Michael is surely right to point out that generic 'leftists' 'bash' the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. The wonder of present-day Egypt for me is in its burgeoning, newly freed media and public civil space. The 'leftists' in Egypt range from Mona Eltahawy to Mohamed ElBaradei. I don't think this is quite accurate. No one is losing their public voice in Egypt. This is a time of great drama and political import, as the details of the transition are negotiated and contested in a vast and energized population that takes its revolution seriously. There are several strains of Islamists in Egypt right now, as the political skirmishing continues. The Muslim Brotherhood is riven in several sections, with four breakaway parties, expulsions and extreme disagreements between youth and autocracy in its internal affairs. The youth wing members (expelled and otherwise) have an alliance with the secular youth and the several broad Jan 25th political formations. The demonstration and hysteria by Salafists was widely reported and critiqued in Egypt, Michael. The grotesqueries of the hardcore Salafis at Tahrir gave added force to secular arguments against their stances. That altercation was bad news for Islamists. One has to check against the actual alliances on the ground. The MB itself has 17 allies in its electoral coalition, including the largest left party, Tagammu. It's the MB, with their paltry 12-17% poll showings, who need the embrace of the secular, youth, 'leftists' and others to hope to dominate the new parliament. Moreover, polls show a secular like ElBaradei or Moussa will thump any Brotherhood-tainted candidate for President under the new constitution. In the Egyptian context, citizens used and still use many media to express themselves and to influence the course of momentous events. Facebook and Google were a small part of the wave of revolt that passed by word of mouth and streetside organization by activists. Among them, perhaps in a news-clearing, reporting, coordinating and disseminating information, these tools were useful -- Michael is mostly correct to downplay any magnificence claimed for social media. A vast vanguard role for these media, no, but a remarkable tool for organizing and disseminating information. We need neither excessively valourize nor vilify. The greatest event, to my mind, is the vast expansion of ordinary freedoms suppressed by the Mubarak regime: Facebook, Twitter, Google, broadband, free television and radio. Freedom of movement and assembly. Freedom to demonstrate, freedom to speak out, create, criticize, protest -- freedom from arrest by secret police or thugs. There is a panorama unfolding, freedoms that we Westerners take for granted. Others might find the most momentous event to be Mubarak, sons and killer cronies in the cage . . . This is garbled nonsense. Sanctimonious youngsters like exactly who? "Feel-good stuff" means just what? Egypt is dismantling its old regime, trying its criminals, and moving forward without tanks and bullets. I myself am proud and supportive of the Egyptian revolution gains. They brought down the old system, hold the SCAF to account, and now have their former rulers in a courtroom ready for justice. That looks good to me, and is deeply satisfying to Egyptians repressed for so long by the old regime. Wael Ghonim is one of tens of thousands of fully-engaged Egyptians who influence Egyptian events. I have no influence except in very small ways to witness and counter inaccuracies. Ghonim is not my enemy -- I respect him and his commitment to secular democracy. To my eyes, Ghonim is no one's enemy, nobody's clown, not at all an idiot. It disheartens me to read this kind of off-kilter contempt from an opinion-leader on OL. Ghonim's live interview on Egyptian television four nights before Mubarak's departure was an effective mobilization tool -- it galvanized Egyptians to pour into Tahrir for the final showdown, and captured the public heart for the revolution from that evening on. If western media latched on to Ghonim's interview, it was because the human drama of Egypt was easily personified. He wept for those killed and millions wept with him. <img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/02/07/world/middleeast/07lede_dream/07lede_dream-blog480.jpg" width="339px"> Contempt and slurs against Ghonim puzzle me. Especially when it seems the contempt for his person and his activities shows no awareness of what he has been doing the last four months. With regard to the apparent strong dislike for other unnamed elements of the Egyptian revolution, I wish I could know whose side we should rightly be on -- if not supportive of Ghonim and his ilk, what side or group or person or movement or stance from inside Egypt deserves support, in the end? What would we do if we each had an Egyptian vote? As rational, objective observers with small and large interests in Egypt, what should we know before we mark our ballots? Meanwhile, back at the ranch . . . . "Lawyer repeats claims that Mubarak is dead during opening session" (!) Source: Egypt's Arab Spring

Five months after the fall of Mubarak, there he is on his bed in the cage, with his two sons, his first trial day behind him, now on the medical wing of the prison in Cairo, back to court on the 7th. <img src="http://images.smh.com.au/2011/02/02/2162804/mubarak-420x0.jpg" width="339px"><img src="http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-110803-mubarak-trial/ss-110803-mubarak-trial-01.grid-9x2.jpg" width="339px"> I keep close watch on Egyptian news media/new media and am heavily involved in tracking and understanding events in Syria as well (which explains most of my non-posting at OL recently). Michael is surely right to point out that generic 'leftists' 'bash' the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. The wonder of present-day Egypt for me is in its burgeoning, newly freed media and public civil space. The 'leftists' in Egypt range from Mona Eltahawy** to Mohamed ElBaradei. I don't think this is quite accurate. No one is losing their public voice in Egypt. This is a time of great drama and political import, as the details of the transition are negotiated and contested in a vast and energized population that takes its revolution seriously. There are several strains of Islamists in Egypt right now, as the political skirmishing continues. The Muslim Brotherhood is riven in several sections, with four breakaway parties, expulsions and extreme disagreements between youth and autocracy in its internal affairs. The youth wing members (expelled and otherwise) have an alliance with the secular youth and the several broad Jan 25th political formations. The demonstration and hysteria by Salafists was widely reported and critiqued in Egypt, Michael. The grotesqueries of the hardcore Salafis at Tahrir gave added force to secular arguments against their stances. That altercation was bad news for Islamists. One has to check against the actual alliances on the ground. The MB itself has 17 allies in its electoral coalition, including the largest left party, Tagammu. It's the MB, with their paltry 12-17% poll showings, who need the embrace of the secular, youth, 'leftists' and others to hope to dominate the new parliament. Moreover, polls show a secular like ElBaradei or Moussa will thump any Brotherhood-tainted candidate for President under the new constitution. In the Egyptian context, citizens used and still use many media to express themselves and to influence the course of momentous events. Facebook and Google were a small part of the wave of revolt that passed by word of mouth and streetside organization by activists. Among them, perhaps in a news-clearing, reporting, coordinating and disseminating information rôle, these tools were useful -- Michael is mostly correct to downplay any magnificence claimed for social media. A vast vanguard role for these media, no, but a remarkable tool for organizing and disseminating information, yes. We need neither excessively valourize nor vilify. The greatest event, to my mind, is the vast expansion of ordinary freedoms suppressed by the Mubarak regime: Facebook, Twitter, Google, broadband, free television and radio. Freedom of movement and assembly. Freedom to demonstrate, freedom to speak out, create, criticize, protest -- freedom from arrest by secret police or thugs. There is a panorama unfolding, freedoms that we Westerners take for granted. Others might find the most momentous event to be Mubarak, sons and killer cronies in the cage . . . This is garbled nonsense. Sanctimonious youngsters like exactly who? "Feel-good stuff" means just what? Egypt is dismantling its old regime, trying its criminals, and moving forward without tanks and bullets. I myself am proud and supportive of the Egyptian revolution gains. They brought down the old system, hold the SCAF to account, and now have their former rulers in a courtroom ready for justice. That looks good to me, and is deeply satisfying to Egyptians repressed for so long by the old regime. Wael Ghonim is one of tens of thousands of fully-engaged Egyptians who influence Egyptian events. I have no influence except in very small ways to witness and counter inaccuracies. Ghonim is not my enemy -- I respect him and his commitment to secular democracy. To my eyes, Ghonim is no one's enemy, nobody's clown, not at all an idiot. It disheartens me to read this kind of off-kilter contempt from an opinion-leader on OL. Ghonim's live interview on Egyptian television four nights before Mubarak's departure was an effective mobilization tool -- it galvanized Egyptians to pour into Tahrir for the final showdown, and captured the public heart for the revolution from that evening on. If western media latched on to Ghonim's interview, it was because the human drama of Egypt was easily personified. He wept for those killed and millions wept with him. <img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/02/07/world/middleeast/07lede_dream/07lede_dream-blog480.jpg" width="339px"> Contempt and slurs against Ghonim puzzle me. Especially when it seems the contempt for his person and his activities shows no awareness of what he has been doing the last four months. With regard to the apparent strong dislike for other unnamed elements of the Egyptian revolution, I wish I could know whose side we should rightly be on -- if not supportive of Ghonim and his ilk, what side or group or person or movement or stance from inside Egypt deserves support, in the end? What would we do if we each had an Egyptian vote? As rational, objective observers with small and large interests in Egypt, what should we know before we mark our ballots? Meanwhile, back at the ranch . . . . "Lawyer repeats claims that Mubarak is dead during opening session" (!) ________________________ ** Mona El-Tahawy has a wonderful, incisive twitter presence: http://twitter.com/#!/monaeltahawy

I had to rant at Bobby Allen aka Aristocrates, as he comes three semesters late to the 499 hour Gawd Seminar (J Neil Schulman's "I Met God" thread). Bobby Allen, you ain't done your homework. My point of intersection with Objectivish thought is at the science/rationalist front, and you will find no post here at OL that skirts science in favour of dogma, and plenty posts here that defend science against intrusions of religious or loony twilight zone crap. I also resolutely critique science studies and cultural studies and all that tosh along with murky reasoning, fallacious thinking and rabbitholes of delusion . . . But a fan here has already chided you for your blank homework book. I thank her and address your implication that George and I have been especially unfair or snide to Neil -- or that there has been some crime against humanity here, some series of awful verbal crucifixions. I direct you to my last post here, in which I apologized to Neil and wished him the best, and gave my blessing to his concept of indwelling god where I understood it. I did my best and with full heart. I do not like to be accused of bad faith by somebody so frigging late to the lecture, chumley. Do your penance, change your avatar to Bart for an hour, and I will be avenged. Neil gave me a reasonably cheery sendoff from this discussion after my closing post, so please do also read that response. I had a very long engagement with Neil and I would be surprised if he now assessed me as a dogmatic, bad-faith enemy of scientific progress . . . I said what I said, I stand by it, and I shall hereby scuttle back into retirement from this topic. Source: Is J. Neil Schulman justified (logically) in believing in God?

Bobby Allen, you ain't done your homework. My point of intersection with Objectivish thought is at the science/rationalist front, and you will find no post here at OL that skirts science in favour of dogma, and plenty posts here that defend science against intrusions of religious or loony twilight zone crap. I also resolutely critique science studies and cultural studies and all that tosh along with murky reasoning, fallacious thinking and rabbitholes of delusion . . . But a fan here has already chided you for your blank homework book. I thank her and address your implication that George and I have been especially unfair or snide to Neil -- or that there has been some crime against humanity here, some series of awful verbal crucifixions. I direct you to my last post here, in which I apologized to Neil and wished him the best, and gave my blessing to his concept of indwelling god where I understood it. I did my best and with full heart. I do not like to be accused of bad faith by somebody so frigging late to the lecture, chumley. Do your penance, change your avatar to Bart for an hour, and I will be avenged. Neil gave me a reasonably cheery sendoff from this discussion after my closing post, so please do also read that response. I had a very long engagement with Neil and I would be surprised if he now assessed me as a dogmatic, bad-faith enemy of scientific progress . . . I said what I said, I stand by it, and I shall hereby scuttle back into retirement from this topic.

The horrifying terror killings by the anti-multiculturalism 'Justiciar Knight' dominate the news in Norway, of course, and top the headlines worldwide. The most gruesome comments I have heard are from zealots at Israeli news sites (commenters): among the addled are a few voices that say Norway got what it deserved. Are those voices explained in the Ellison book, I wonder? Of course, from my opinion, the writings that 'explain' the killer and his plots are his own. The milieu that grew him was contemporary Norway, where for nine years he had been completing preparations for his crimes. That milieu included English-language opinion-makers from our side of the pond. That culture of xenophobia nurtured death. Noxious instant pseudo-expert commentary abounds, of course, with a particularly awful explanation piece by Bruce Bawer in the Wall Street Journal today. I would like to compare his to Ellison's, but figure Ellison will win. The saddest part about Bawer's piece is the way he explains how the killer cited his, Bawer's opinions, 22 times in the purportedly plagiarized manifesto. It shall be very interesting to see how those who support the killer's political fanaticism extricate themselves from scrutiny for their own rhetoric. Bawer is not the only notable Western enemy of Islam or enemy of multiculturalism cited by the killer . . . Pedlars of the Eurabia myth, like Mark Steyn? Anti-jihadis like Robert Spencer? Will they blame Norway too for its follies, and urge we take a closer look at and restrict and expel dangerous Muslims? Will Norway abandon its non-racialist immigration/refugee policies on the recommendation that the killer's stances were justified by Islamist menace? The hate market, the MoozlimsAreScumDogKillers pedlars, the merchants of odious tracts and all those who sell trinkets and touchstones of religious war -- they too fueled this killer's fantasies. The merchants of fear, the merchants of hate, the merchants of hysteria will be having some attention paid to them. And they know it. Thankfully or not, most Objectivist sites will not touch this story with a bargepole. It is odd to find no comment on this at SOLO, where Perigo's Death To Islam warrior cry remains policy. I am sure Richard Wiig can be coaxed into giving us a lesson on They Brought This On Themselves. Or, here is Glenn Beck on the 'disturbing' political camp shooting. "What is going on is exactly what I said would happen" blah blah Geert Wilders from Denmark blah blah We are in deep, deep trouble. He said Islam is evul, I don't say that, but Amedinejad blah blah is evul blah blah this kind of understanding of Islam is evul, period blah blah we don't want to stone people to death blah blah sharia law has no place in today's world, period blah blah I warned that what is coming in Europe last fall is going to go into trouble with radical Islam blah blah the cities are overrun blah blah they are like on the city council making all the rules blah blah squeezing the neck of Europe blah multiculturalism is killing Europe blah blah Spain France blah blah what is coming to Europe is the right wing blah blah blah leftist communist giant government or anarchy blah blah that's the left and right here in America blah blah they didn't replace it with We The People blah Nazis and Communism blah blah blah the shooter is from the Right Wing different from our Right Wing doing the work of people who want Big Government blah blah blah blah this is the act of a madman who needs to be in prison for the rest of their life no difference between him and the 9/11 bombers or bin Laden . . . <object width='320' height='240'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201107250006'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201107250006' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='240'></embed></object> Source: Harlan Ellison explains the Norway Killer

The horrifying terror killings by the anti-multiculturalism 'Justiciar Knight' dominate the news in Norway, of course, and top the headlines worldwide. The most gruesome comments I have heard are from zealots at Israeli news sites (commenters): among the addled are a few voices that say Norway got what it deserved. Are those voices explained in the Ellison book, I wonder? Of course, from my opinion, the writings that 'explain' the killer and his plots are his own. The milieu that grew him was contemporary Norway, where for nine years he had been completing preparations for his crimes. That milieu included English-language opinion-makers from our side of the pond. That culture of xenophobia nurtured death. Noxious instant pseudo-expert commentary abounds, of course, with a particularly awful explanation piece by Bruce Bawer in the Wall Street Journal today. I would like to compare his to Ellison's, but figure Ellison will win. The saddest part about Bawer's piece is the way he explains how the killer cited his, Bawer's opinions, 22 times in the purportedly plagiarized manifesto. It shall be very interesting to see how those who support the killer's political fanaticism extricate themselves from scrutiny for their own rhetoric. Bawer is not the only notable Western enemy of Islam or enemy of multiculturalism cited by the killer . . . Pedlars of the Eurabia myth, like Mark Steyn? Anti-jihadis like Robert Spencer? Will they blame Norway too for its follies, and urge we take a closer look at and restrict and expel dangerous Muslims? Will Norway abandon its non-racialist immigration/refugee policies on the recommendation that the killer's stances were justified by Islamist menace? The hate market, the MoozlimsAreScumDogKillers pedlars, the merchants of odious tracts and all those who sell trinkets and touchstones of religious war -- they too fueled this killer's fantasies. The merchants of fear, the merchants of hate, the merchants of hysteria will be having some attention paid to them. And they know it. Thankfully or not, most Objectivist sites will not touch this story with a bargepole. It is odd to find no comment on this at SOLO, where Perigo's Death To Islam warrior cry remains policy. I am sure Richard Wiig can be coaxed into giving us a lesson on They Brought This On Themselves. Or, here is Glenn Beck on the 'disturbing' political camp shooting. "What is going on is exactly what I said would happen" blah blah Geert Wilders from Denmark blah blah We are in deep, deep trouble. He said Islam is evul, I don't say that, but Amedinejad blah blah is evul blah blah this kind of understanding of Islam is evul, period blah blah we don't want to stone people to death blah blah sharia law has no place in today's world, period blah blah I warned that what is coming in Europe last fall is going to go into trouble with radical Islam blah blah the cities are overrun blah blah they are like on the city council making all the rules blah blah squeezing the neck of Europe blah multiculturalism is killing Europe blah blah Spain France blah blah what is coming to Europe is the right wing blah blah blah leftist communist giant government or anarchy blah blah that's the left and right here in America blah blah they didn't replace it with We The People blah Nazis and Communism blah blah blah the shooter is from the Right Wing different from our Right Wing doing the work of people who want Big Government blah blah blah blah this is the act of a madman who needs to be in prison for the rest of their life no difference between him and the 9/11 bombers or bin Laden . . . <object width='320' height='240'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201107250006'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201107250006' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='240'></embed></object>

Yes, indeed, Carol. For our curious Yankee friends, the last two entries refer to Jack Layton, the headman of the New Democratic party, leader of the Opposition in Parliament. He was under treatment for prostate cancer, and now has stepped down to follow treatment for newly discovered non-prostate tumours. He announced his cancer in a straightforward media statement. He looks drawn, and the whisper of the grave has stilled partisan rancour for the moment. He takes temporary leave from his position as party leader, hopes and plans to be back when the House sits in September . . . but the sad fact remains that he is gravely ill and in a battle for his life.

I cannot remember right now how many times I complained about depression in myself and my family here at OL. Probably not once, but perhaps backstage. I would be way too wary of jeering to dig up my mental yard and basement for spectators, perhaps. But count me in as one of those who seems to have budded off a tree of established dark depressive sap. I have been sapped by this thing, and I struggle manfully to resist it. Andre, do keep in touch with those you feel you can trust whom you met here: but maybe travailing over mental woes on a forum is too fraught with pitfalls. I would say, having walked the track along with you and Kat, that your best ally (beside yourself) is the doctor and his professional, evidence/science-based suggestions, at your pace and with your full, actively-informed participation. Collaborate with him on your mental health, and wisely ignore ignorance and malice. 2 cents from a daemon in Vancouver . . .

Rich, my fellow madman iconoclast, there are a couple of us here (at least) who have been keeping in touch with Phil. From all reports he is doing well and feeling pretty sprightly. He shares with me from time to time some fun things he has written. I paste one such below in an attempt to turn mere drift into a tidal bore. Two things jump out. Don't say 'speak frog,' please. It suggests something about you that cannot possibly be true: bigotry. Bete noire is a fully-functioning part of the English language now, like rendez-vous, hors d'oeuvre, apéritif and va t'en faire foutre, bub. As we say in Canada, checkez vos premises . . . Secondly, yes, Steve throws red meat and George chomps. Comme toujours. Who could expect anything different (especially when he prepares the chomping by telling the dogs to be nice or he will be disappointed)? That said, you are the other face of the coin at times -- we all can be -- taking the part of competing Miss Manners, chiding and pursing lips and sighing and fainting at bad form in the other dog's performances. [in my own guise of Madame Etiquette, I would think that if Steve wanted discussion of the discussion and its points, he could have opened the gambit. It reminds me of someone standing at the kitchen counter, with a tin of Spaghettios and a can-opener, grizzling and keening: "Won't anyone help me with dinner!"] Finally, how dare you post the picture of that accordionist? Surely everyone knows Johnny Puleo deserves the honour! -- here is Phil the light-hearted:

And, sure enough, the citizenship ceremony was central to the royal itinerary today. I quote from the Guardian's Canadiana story and repost their photo of the duchess with her scarlet maple leaf hat . . . I love the ascerbic antiroyalism of the article. Carol Jane, I can only imagine the festival of festivity in your soul today, on Royal Socialist Federated Canuckistan's birthday, attended by tomorrow's king and queen! Me, I just enjoy the sombre pageantry of new Canuckis getting their tickets punched. -- and, heck, why not a video of the royal escalator into the Museum of Civilization in Gatineau, wherein the inevitable Franco-Scots-Afghan pipes screel in the visiting Brits. It's got a Mountie singing God Save The Queen, totem poles, our canucki flags, red stilettos and a mixed lot of newcomers hearing "Félicitations. Vous êtes maintenant les citoyens de Canada."

I liked Adam's neighbourly note on our national day off, and enjoyed MEM's cheerful ribbing about nomenclature. I also appreciate Brad's more-than-neighbourly lobbing birthday wishes northward. My first naive patriotic thrill came at age eight, when a 'Centennial Train' rolled into my town of Prince Rupert. This was the first time I felt a pride in the abstract Canada, a mythic peaceful nation composed of adventurous French and adventurous Scots English and adventurous tribal first nations. The first lyrics of O Canada, in French, are still a thrill. "Terre de nos aïeux" means 'land of our ancestors.' This was the ancient spine of the Canadian+Canadien identity that is so difficult to explain to outsiders, the deep roots and settled societies that came with european settlement of Quebec upon its founding in 1608.** My favourite emotional part of Canada Day celebrations are the citizenship ceremonies, where new Canadians are sworn in. It is almost exactly similar to American citizenship ceremonies, and I know that our US friends here can understand that we might feel an almost exactly similar pleasure when our new adherents join the club! For those Americans ever puzzled by Canada, it is best to think about the French-ness shot through our history and institutions. We are yes, pragmatic -- as pragmatism saved death and destruction for the French as they were conquered. We are collectivists indeed, since our nation cannot proceed without thinking of the all, of the us, of the we. And we may seek content, but it is the contentment of a peaceable, caring and welcoming hearth. The strong urge to live in peace together is what keeps us all safe against most of the horrors of the world to this day . . . To my American chums, I wish you an exuberant celebration on your national day. You have much to celebrate and treasure. Happy Fourth, y'all! May you prosper. ___________ ** a poll in the monthly magazine L'Actualité back in 1989 was called 'Le Canada dans le peau.' The cover showed a tank-topped torso with nationalist Quebec logo, a Canada tattoo on his shoulder. Inside the poll details showed one odd outlier. Generally, the respondents were lukewarm to an independent Quebec, except under certain circumstances -- Quebecers polled would vote independence in 90% if and only if the independent nation got to 'keep' parts of the former nation: its name, its symbols, its anthem . . . You read that right: A vast majority of Quebecers would have voted for a maple-leaved, beaver-laden, terre de nos aïeux, separate nation called . . . Canada.

Hapless trolls is good lingo -- it has been a painful pleasure to see Ghs deal with the hooded folk. It is not nice to see the mystery names visit only to park a slur and a sneer at George, while he lays open his life. It is a strange genre, isn't it? A confessional and polemic and wound debridement. I would definitely read a fictionalized serial, since it would take us all on a rollicking ride through decades of libertariobjectivish fiends and also-rans and snakes and lambs and others. Meaty, decadent, wonderful folks . . . George, could you squeeze some fiction out of this? I am sure it would sing. You are perhaps uniquely qualified to pen a 'must-read' romance/roman a clef. It would be a secreted treat for potentates and passersby of the last thirty-odd years. It just makes me think of those tested airport bookrack marketing blurbs: "A lusty, brawling saga of a lusty brawling family." The characters you know! Neil Schulman alone in a Bizarro Objectiville George H Smith Tell-All . . . other philosophically-damaged folk each a savoury chapter in itself.

I have it from Phil that Bertrand the terrier is another entity entirely. Phil would like it known that "It Ain't Me, Babe...No, NO, No,....It Ain't Me, Babe..."

Some cute turns in that piece -- I sure would have liked her to take a swipe at the two dudes who posed as phony lesbian personalities Amina Arraf and Paula Brooks. I was dismayed to hear the Gay Girl In Damascus was a poseur -- his vanity project was roundly condemned by LGBT folks on the ground in Syria. The other dude, 'Paula,' what a betrayal of trust, a sneaky, smutty way of getting jollies . . . What I mean is that what these guys did was not essentially funny to me but instead ugly, though the Guardian writer took a humorous line. This was kinda snickery, though -- the doofus duo coming on to each other undercover: “In the guise of Paula Brooks, Graber corresponded online with Tom MacMaster, thinking he was writing to Amina Arraf. Amina often flirted with Brooks, neither of the men realizing the other was pretending to be a lesbian.” [From Moon Of Alabama blog]

"some nice pics of his slut stable" Slut stable? So, Meagan Broussard, Ginger Lee, Gennette Cordova, and Lisa Weiss are sluts, Adam? Good to know, if true -- harlots, dirty girls, fornicators, sleazy dressers, trollops . . .

Looks like the original article was pulled entirely -- it originally appeared in the Washington Times, not the Post. Beyond that, I think it safe to say that the lady Benador was wearing her kookiepants when she penned her piece. I have no useful opinion on the scandal, besides suggesting that Weiner resign and look for a job in which no one cares if he sends pictures of his penis to strangers on Twitter.

You have got good advice on understanding time/space and relativity; that is the best that the human being can now propose as the relationship of subject, event, time, and 'objectivity.' The uncertainties can be solved by physics in the Out There world, but we still need to look into the mere mortals' wetware. A few scientific disciplines study 'biological time-telling' and give tantalizing glimpses of just what we can know at this time. If you cast your eyes around and dig a bit you will find some wonderful findings and theories to explain human time-telling; Objectivish considerations will generally come later, I think -- first figure out what is coming off the coalface and follow that. Have a look at the work coming out of the Buonomano lab -- I was struck by an earlier report of his model for 'time in the brain' (here via the Washington Post in 2007): FRIDAY, Feb. 2 (HealthDay News) -- Scientists have developed a new model of how the brain tells time, which challenges the popular theory of an internal clock that generates and counts regular fixed moments. Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, suggest that a series of physical changes to the brain's cells help it track the passage of time. "If you toss a pebble into a lake, the ripples of water produced by the pebble's impact act like a signature of the pebble's entry time. The farther the ripples travel, the more time has passed," Dean Buonomano, associate professor of neurobiology and psychiatry at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, said in a prepared statement. "We propose that a similar process takes place in the brain that allows it to track time. Every time the brain processes a sensory event, such as a sound or flash of light, it triggers a cascade of reactions between brain cells and their connections. Each reaction leaves a signature that enables the brain-cell network to encode time," said Buonomano, who is also a member of UCLA's Brain Research Institute. Using a computer model, the researchers demonstrated that this kind of network could tell time. Their new model is outlined in an article in the Feb. 1 issue of the journal Neuron [full text of the paper is available here: "Timing in the Absence of Clocks: Encoding Time in Neural Network States"]. "The value of this research lies in understanding how the brain works. Many complex human behaviors -- from understanding speech to playing catch to performing music -- rely on the brain's ability to accurately tell time. Yet no one knows how the brain does it," Buonomano said. More information The U.S. Institute of Mental Health explains how biological clocks work [dead link in original story -- see reproduction here; this deals with the understood 'circadian clock' and its problems in humans]. SOURCE: University of California, Los Angeles, news release, Jan. 31, 2007

Well-put, Jerry! Best wishes to Michael and his family.

That was the thread. Obviously, I read a lot between the lines. Perhaps too much. Thanks. You are welcome, MEM -- I was very curious about an argument that could be made for an Alien Intervention In Evolution, if you truly believe that Earth's evolution has been tinkered with. I hesitate to accept that -- I prefer to think that you find Alien Tinkering to be a fun Sci-Fi idea. I note that the four articles you featured on 'gaps' in evolution have nothing to do with alien intervention. -- the first makes several intriguing points about where 'gaps' in the dinosaur/bird lineage are expected to be found, and compares with the then missing fossil record of chimpanzees. -- the second -- a 1988 article by Sackett "[e]xamines three types of gaps in the fossil record: real gaps, imaginary gaps, and temporary gaps." -- the third article reviews a discovery that closed a gap in the fossil record, and suggests "cladistically-based predictions of pre-Jurassic choristoderes are themselves seemingly reinforced by this discovery." -- your fourth 'gap' article puts forward a non-alien explanation of 'Romer's Gap,' and details the authors' argument that "a precipitous drop in the oxygen content of Earth's atmosphere is responsible." In your first post in the RoR thread you wrote this: "Forces greater than we can muster and can only imagine in science fiction probably intervened in the "natural" evolution [ . . . ] and left a clear record." All in all, this is little more than a "God of the Gaps" trope, a fallacy -- as if things that cannot (yet) be explained are therefore probably due to supernatural actions by unseen forces.

Is this the thread at RoR? -- Regarding the discontinuous fossil record MEM: So, OK, maybe there is metaphysically no "creator" of the universe, but it is easy to suggest from the discontinuities in the fossile record that Earth has been interfered with. Forces greater than we can muster and can only imagine in science fiction probably intervened in the "natural" evolution --- if evolution itself is unplanned -- and left a clear record. MEM: The universe could not have had a creator. Earth could have. Even if Earth's existence were the result of "chance" it could have been discovered and managed (perhaps even for profit). The fossil record cannot violate the laws of reality. It can -- and does -- have gaps as the result of direct genetic manipulation of the plants and animals. Even the climates and their changes could be the consequences of planning. To admit to this is not to endorse omniscient omnipotent blah blah blah, but just to recognize that whatever we can do, others can do more of. Michael -- in the referenced thread from RoR, Ed Thompson did not jump on your case, nor did he accuse you of being a Born Again Christian. Perhaps another thread exists at RoR. I am reading up on the four 'scientific' papers you cited in that thread on the subject of 'gaps' . . .

MEM's reference to the Commerce Syndrome and the Guardian Syndrome is most interesting: from my read of Jacobs, no person can be one or the other exclusively -- indeed she urges that we understand the demands of each ethical system in context, and suggests we can learn to apply the ethics of one and the ethics of the other -- without giving birth to 'monstrous moral hybrids.' Jacobs: “...If any single precept can be called a key or central in guardian morality, it is Be Loyal. Governments regard treason as the most wicked crime, bar none.” -- MEM, our Ba'al is subject to Guardian Syndrome in all things National or Ethnic. As a former warrior (in missile tech, I believe) and a proud atheist Jew, his loyalties are to his family, his tribe and his nation, in that order. Jewish history provides the guide for his war thought, and as we all here know, he reverts to the fourth century BCE whenever comes a time to Blot Their Name. Them, the Muslims, The Them Folk tribe want to destroy him, so he thinks, so rivers of blood or speckles of dust can be the only solution to conflict. As of yet he has not murdered any Muslim, nor issued a serviceable death warrant for the world's Bad People, so we must simply hope that Ba'al operates under the Commerce Syndrome whenever bloody punishments and nuclear carpet-bombings are not the subject.