william.scherk

And I am Marie of Roumania.

Invective can be satisfying for the person who utters it, and invective can be effective in rallying support in a campaign, but I seriously doubt that kookiepants invective as rhetoric is the best means of influencing or convincing a reader of the truth value of such utterances. Here Leavitt mixes invective with some dubious 'facts'. - this seems to imply that bin Laden may still be alive, despite the evidence and the acknowledgement by Al Qaeda. The Soros comparison is not convincing. - again, maybe bin Laden is Alive! seem to be Leavitt's underlying premise. - I read this as a confident assertion that the American President is more evul than Osama bin Laden. It reminds me of the more feverishly kooky anti-Bush rhetoric over the years of his presidency. More evul than Hitler, a fascist, a monster, yadda yadda - here we have Leavitt confounding his own opinions with the great unwashed, and making a simple statement that cannot possibly be true: bin Laden is seen as (the ultimate) evuldoer not because he and his organization committed gruesome atrocities, but because the press puffed up. Certainly the western press ran with the trope of Evuldoer in Chief, but to conclude that Osama's standing in the rankings of evul was solely due to The Press Puff . . . dull reasoning. - this is an ignorant and unreasonable statement - what utter bullshit. If the victims of this atrocity were 'war casualties' then so were any other innocent non-combatants, like every victim of every other terrorist atrocity. If no distinction can be drawn between combatants and civilians then any civilian is a legitimate target . . . - pernicious twaddle - are you insane? If by your lights there is no difference between a civilian passerby and the leader of an armed faction of jihadi nutcases, then ben Laden is simply a war casualty like any other corpse and could be bulldozed or torched or dragged through the streets as were American and Canadian soldiers in Somalia - Hitler's death was reported on German radio by his willed successor Admiral Doenitz who told his countrymen to mourn their Führer as a hero. His ultimate fate, death, was broadcast, dumbfuck -- Leavitt, if you think that Alinsky was a totalitarian, then what room on the political spectrum is left for such folks as Pol Pot and Gaddafi? By the same token, what room is left on the other margin of the US spectrum? would the last Bush be described fairly as Hitlerite fascist? If Obama is a neo-Bolshevik destroyer akin to Lenin, then Gingrich is a neo-Hitlerite. Anyhow, if you would give a link to the Rasmussen poll in its fullness (here), your readers might see that the polls suggest Obama does not enjoy enough solid support at the moment to be elected today, and that the trends over the past two years suggest that his approval rating will continue to slide. In other words, the portents are rather good for Obama opponents . . . Seriously, your rhetoric is a wonderful combination of slop, illogic, bluster, stupidity and incoherence. Congratulations on demonstrating that you are a Kook of the first order.

Another thing I had always wondered was what Atlas Shrugged's continuing book sales actually meant in context. In other words, if AS sold some number between 200 and 400 grand every year, were there other books from yesteryear that came close to its numbers? What do you find out if you compare its sales to other books? I had got the impression that the year after year sales of AS was a singular phenomenon, but also thought it might be one of those lack-of-comparative-data factoids that are easy to trumpet and hard to interpret without more info. I will rerun the query if I can remember how I did it at Amazon, but I found out that there were many classic books that topped the Amazon sales-ranking list ahead of AS.

Thanks, Ninth, for the non-frasmotic eluctrifaction. I once hunted down the details of the Famous Study when Perigo raised his trumpet a few years back, and of course have seen the many chinese-whispers re-renderings. The New York Times had a wee report in one of its book notes back in the day, it seems, and reported these additional details: The survey was financed by the book club and conducted by the Information Analysis System Corporation of Mansfield Center, Conn., which sent its survey to 5,000 Book-of-the-Month club members, 2,032 of whom responded, the corporation said. Beating book-reading in general, however, even among avid readers, was television. Respondents said they spent an average of 12 hours a week watching television, but only 9 hours a week reading books. Here is the survey's list of the most influential books: 1. The Bible. 2. "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand. 3. "The Road Less Traveled," by M. Scott Peck. 4. "To Kill a Mockingbird," by Harper Lee. 5. "The Lord of the Rings," by J. R. R. Tolkien. 6. "Gone With the Wind," by Margaret Mitchell. 7. "How to Win Friends and Influence People," by Dale Carnegie. 8. The Book of Mormon. 9. (tied, in alphabetical order by title) "The Feminine Mystique," by Betty Friedan. "A Gift From the Sea," by Anne Morrow Lindbergh. "Man's Search for Meaning," by Viktor Frankl. "Passages," by Gail Sheehy. "When Bad Things Happen to Good People," by Harold S. Kushner.

I wonder if you might get some value out of the irreligious PZ Myers' disquisitions about 'dictionary atheists,' and if you would have some epistemological fun with 'faitheist' and 'accomodationist' and other festive schisms in the non-believer community of thought . . . I used to be pretend to be a 'dictionary atheist,' as a line of defense against the kind of irrational charge that claims 'atheism is religion/belief,' or 'atheists believe they KNOW gawd don't exist,' or 'Atheism is faith anyway' . . . But, of course, few people make those arguments face to face, so I was armed against an assault that has only happened once or twice. Around my parts, folks rarely inquire about faith, they simply assume. Still, 'dictionary atheism' (in its stripped-down, benign connotation) remnains a line of defence against boring and stupid discussions wherein the other party wants to rant about what I believe. So, Angela, if anyone tries to hound you with the Peikoffian dicta that Agnostics Are Cowards, you can proudly counter that you are a [dictionary] atheist too . . .

A flurry of concern backstage regarding OL`s nicest and most talented Canuckistani. All is well in her life, but expect her to expostulate mightily on Technical Issues once she is posting again in the next few days.

I will add my best wishes too. Many happy returns, Barbara!

I don't get the impression that LM has the slightest idea why anyone would ever become an atheist. It is likely not an interest of his . . . to understand a non-believer point of view. That is really too bad, because if he had a bit more knowledge or understanding of non-believers, he might understand his audience here at OL. I suspect we are in the >80 non-believer range. And, of course, we are probably fairly diverse in our non-belief and our particular epistemic stance toward a 'spirit world.' But maybe that is why a few of us here tend to be fairly puzzled as to how LM forms his opinions and conclusions. I wish he had more time or inclination to discuss these kinds of things.

William, I thought poster Scottmkiv was also the author of the article he linked to because the name in the caption (Scott Connery) is the same as listed in his profile. You get the I Can Follow A Lead statuette. Thanks for pointing out my error. I did not check his profile (and I get the Look Who's Talking golden turd). I will offer a correction to Scott at the RPR site.

Bal, I have lots of thoughts on what you have written, but: a. I am not Objectivist, nor even Objectivish, and there are far more listmembers better qualified and educated about Objectivism to comment intelligently and comprehensively b. my thoughts are not yet marshalled for parade; I realize I have little beyond some lurking and brief observations of General Semantics, and so can only make a useful testimony of our one listmember here who was an adherent of GS. I will do some boning up so I understand some of your terminology and figure out what could we 'weak spots' in a GS frame of understanding for a later reentry into discussion . . . I do wonder about one aspect of your experience of General Semantics. In your experience of the forum you participated in, was there a cohort that were rather insulated from 'revisions' to the corpus of its founder? I noticed with our departed friend here that he had never read any Rand at all. Never read a book or an article by her, not her fiction, not her non-fiction, and had no interest in doing so as far as I could tell. In a few topics I figured out also that he did not consult research or scientific publications to extend or optimize his GS wisdom, let alone revise it. So, as with a few Objectivish folk who dismiss certain scientific conclusion because they might require a certain revision of Objectivist tenets, and almost treat Rand herself as never having published an incorrect thought, did some of your Semanticist adherents evince curiosity and a willingness to change their opinions?

Tony, yours is a good point to consider. I have wondered why the journalists penned up in Tripoli bother, since they cannot report and since they all apparently cannot wait to get the heck out of Libyan confinement. What if, as the end approaches, Uncle Curly and/or his mad minions decide to seize some of them? he knows that this would be another war crime to add to the ICC roster, but would he be mad enough to something like that? What will he offer? "Hi, I have two hundred foreign citizens in a bunker. I want to trade them for continued power. Whaddaya say?" You are in Africa. I gotta tell you that I think the funniest/saddest Libyan commentary comes from the AU peacemakers. "We are the only people who have a viable peace plan! Oh, poor Libya! Why will no one listen to us?"

Sometime what seems is not real. It seems to you that your President is introducing 'just assassinations' as official policy. It seems to me that targeted assassinations have been policy for a long, long time. As you know, US ally Israel has a fairly explicit policy to kill heads of terrorist groups (and head lieutenants). That is why Hamas head organizer is in Damascus, why Hizbollah's head is heavily guarded in Lebanon. Considering that a raft of heads of state and government and party were assassinated in Lebanon, starting with Gemayal and recently with Hariri, and that death squads killed less well-known leaders such as Izz El-Deen Khalil (Hezbollah), Brig Gen Mohammed Suleiman (Syrian) and Imad Mughniyeh (Hamas), it is kind of an open secret that the USA, its enemies and its proxies have used targetted assassination since, oh, at least the accession of Castro. As for Libya, the current euphemistic catchphrases are 'attacking command and control.' This has plausible deniability. If the head of a military is believed to lead his forces, and uses a phone to direct operations, and the operations are against civilians (such as incontestably is the case in Misurata), then the legalities are nicely covered when kaboom goes one of the many military facilities in the Gaddafi compound at Bab al-Azizia. Why do you think Uncle Curly was pictured all trembly and insignificant in this morning's news, seated in a heavily secured hotel in Tripoli? Well . . . perhaps because that is where the journalists are penned up, and he has no rathole left. The cover is, of course, the protection of civilians. I look forward to the news that a NATO attack on a 'command and control' facility in Libya turns Gaddafi to mush -- though the INC in Benghazi says it prefers he be captured and tried. When the Gaddifi dies, is captured, or flees, his regime collapses and the wholesale assaults will stop. That is what I want. I don't give a shit what blab blah blah the Russians and Chinese have to say about, since they have filthy hands themselves . . . if four hundred demented Pakistanis out of 130 million want to yap and dance, they can have at 'er. No one in the Middle East gives a shit about Gaddafi. He is finished. No one of any importance in any of those lands cares about the legalities of killing the Libyan head of state, let alone bin Laden. Apart from particularly stupid remarks from the particularly stupid and brutal Hamas and the particularly stupid Hizbollah minions, as well as some pro-forma bumf from the Brotherhood ranks in Egypt, events have moved on from bin Laden. It is only the good old Americans, led by such tireless dissidents as Chomsky and assisted by hand-wringers and comfy-butts who are expending the energy to examine legalities in that particular case. Or so it seems to this peaceable Canucki.

From the same RPR story cited by whatsisname Scott Connery: According to the study, Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland, have ever increasing levels of atheists. The Netherlands had the lowest population of atheists at 40%, and the Czech Republic was the highest at 60%. -- Angela, the sloppy commentary in the whosit's post is excerpted from the actual linked RPR story, not from whatsisname's pen. The 'nine countries' list comes from the research article "A mathematical model of social group competition with application to the growth of religious non-a," which took the underlying data from national census reports. I think the only direct comparison that would make sense is to use similar census data from the US, if it exists. I will need to take a stats course and some graduate work in math to grok the article, but at first glance it will tell me that Canadian atheists are somewhere between 40 and 60 percent. That would be just as surprising to me as the figure from Gallup of 40% yeehaw YEC believers. +++++++++++++++++++++= PS - as you suspected, Angela, the slophound writer made a category error. The study I cited above does not even mention 'atheism' -- the authors use 'unaffiliated.'

My first thought was 'Nope. This cannot possibly be true.' So I headed to Gallup and had a look. Yikes:

Afraid of what George? I was in super secular countries like Syria and Lebanon. There's no apostasy rulings there and anyone guilty of harming someone for their beliefs get punished very severely in the courts. No, I have never traveled to the Middle East. But I have spoken before many secular and atheist groups over the years, and in the process of doing so I have met a number of atheists from the Middle East. George, many thanks for the reports on non-believers. It is interesting that LM brings up Syria as a case where an atheist enjoys religious freedom. If I remember correctly, LM had his most extensive Middle East visits in Syria, although he may have visited other countries as well besides Lebanon. On the face of it, he is correct that Syria is ostensibly secular, and that apostasy is not a crime under civil law. But, as ever, but. Firstly, Syria and Lebanon are exceptional. If LM is trying to tell us about the Middle East vis a vis atheism by reference only to Syria and Lebanon . . . the pertinent phrase in Arabic is تأكيد انحياز I invite LM to review Amnesty International's detailed look at capital punishment in the Islamic world. The information may surprise him. Secondly, that trite Objectivish notion of 'context' applies. Syria's constitution says that it its laws spring from Islam. The President must be Muslim. LM is correct that there are no apostasy rulings in civil courts, but, but but but . . . personal status codes mean that if you are Muslim, family law, marriage law, inheritance and so on is ruled by Sharia court, if you are Jewish, you are subject to Jewish law, if you are Catholic, you are ruled by Catholic law. If you are Druze, in these matters you may be ruled by Druze law. For all other folks you will be ruled by Muslim code. You must register your religion with the state on a mandatory civic register (though your religion does not appear on your travel documents; Jews are prohibited from contact of any kind with Israelis; Jews are excluded from the military and from the civil service; Jews may not leave the country without permission. I have taken these following further details about religious freedom in Syria from this report. - The Government does not recognize the religious status of Muslims who convert to Christianity. - In the event of a conversion to Christianity, the Government still regards the individual convert as Muslim and still subject to Shari’a (Islamic Law). - A Muslim woman cannot marry a Christian man - All religions and religious orders must register with the Government, which monitors fundraising and requires permits for all religious and nonreligious group meetings - State radio broadcast the dawn, noon, and afternoon Islamic prayers; State television broadcasts recitations from the Qur'an in the morning - Orthodox Christians are personal status law for Muslims, except for marriage and divorce. - Alawites hold dominant positions in the military and other security services disproportionate to their numbers. - Conscientious objection to military service is not permitted - There is mandatory religious instruction in public schools for all religious groups, with government-approved teachers and curriculums. - Religious instruction is provided on Islam and Christianity only - membership in the so-called Muslim Brotherhood is punishable by death - membership in a so-called 'Salafist group' is punishable by death - All groups, religious and nonreligious, are subject to surveillance and monitoring by government security services. - state media outlets such as Teshreen, Al-Ba'th, Al-Thawra, and the Syrian News website published anti-Semitic images alleging Jewish control of the United States and the world. Ahem . . . on to atheists and their relative freedom or presence in Syria. The most famous atheists of Lebanon/Syria are Ammar Abdulhamid and As'ad AbuKhalil. Abdulhamid lives in exile in DC, AbuKhalil lives in California. The atheist/agnostic blogger Tal al-Mallouhi was arrested in 2009 and sentenced to five years in prison last month. When she was arrested, she was 17. Her trial was conducted behind closed doors by a secret court. Although the disgusting Emergency Law (1963) was repealed last month, any Syrian can be seized and held incommunicado at any time. Thirdly, and obviously, the elephant in the room is, um, current events in Syria. Though no one can predict the next year, the greatest present fear in Syria, I think it is fair to say -- is fear of sectarian slaughter. The secular regime in Syria, as LM will acknowledge, is what it is and what it is is not pretty. Although a carefully circumscribed religious freedom is promulgated on the books, I think we all know what that means. If you are a free thinker of any kind, you had better keep your nose clean and your mouth shut -- and even that will not keep you out of prison. Probably the reason LM can give a rosy picture of the Syrian Religious wonderland for religious freedom is because Syrians know very well not to talk about religion under any circumstances, and so the folks he met were happy to keep their mouths shut for fear of the State and its dungeons. As for LM's understanding of atheism/agnosticism, I honestly think it is nil. He accused Xray of being a fanatical atheist (when she has honestly announced to be agnostic). I can only imagine what he thinks of my actual atheism. LM is not stupid, not unkind, not full of unreasoning hate, but I believe he is trapped between commitments to two imaginary worlds: a wonderland of Islamic Pollyanna loveliness and a wonderland of pure, sweet Western values in action. I appreciate his rather sweet naivete about human nature, but wish he could admit to the conflicts in his mind. He will always keep his Western citizenship, I bet. His harsh, flip denunciations of Muslim authorities (such as Hassan of Morocco) reflect his delightfully arrogant assumption that he knows better than anyone the perfect True Islam. Since he cannot read or effectively communicate in Arabic, has never received religious instruction -- while demanding that no one can speak for Islam except after a grueling formal education (viz. Hassan), his self-appointment as an authority on Islam resembles that of Richard Wiig. Absurd.

This is a useful line of thought for me, an acute point of contention that I explore in my own mind. George is unusually perceptive and knowledgeable on the progress and history of 'freedom ethics' and his book on atheism is a really great achievement (thanks again for posting the link to the free version, George! -- I would suggest that this book be read by our LM, if he wishes to get a bead on the history of 'free thought' or 'atheism' -- it is a rich and extremely valuable touchstone) Here's how I see the point of contention between MSK and Ghs: -- collective judgments can be faulty. Judging and punishing or discriminating against an individual for something attributed to a group can be fraught with injustice. Sloppily assigning a member to a group can mean that 'measurement omission' slurs over important distinctions. I think MSK and Ghs might agree more or less with these statements, even if I have put them awkwardly or in terms that do not exactly represent their understanding. I expect they agree on the underlying dangers of what I would call 'faulty generalizations' . . . -- George says Rand was dead wrong (to put 'all this' under a rubric deemed collectivism). It is important to understand the point George is making, the distinction he is making. The key, for me, is these two phrases -- setting aside Ghs's note on Rand: To judge people on the basis of their beliefs, whether religious or secular, is not a form of "collectivism." The fact that I hate all Nazis does not make me a collectivist. With apologies to Daniel Barnes, here I get concerned about definitions. "To judge people" "on the basic of people's beliefs" "form of 'collectivism'. I figure, using MSK's framework of the Principle of Charity, that Ghs means by 'judge' a general thing, a conclusion, the act of judgment -- either The ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions or simply An opinion or conclusion. By 'to judge people' I figure Ghs means 'to judge an individual,' and by 'on the basis of beliefs' means exactly what those terms imply: beliefs as held or stated or acknowledged but not merely suspected. In other words to judge someone on the basis of their actual beliefs. (by 'collectivism' I think he means an actual doctrine, akin to Marxist/Communist/Racist dogma, a fleshed-out entire way of thinking or philosophy or practice). So, to my best understanding, to judge an individual on the basis of their actual beliefs has little to do with formal 'collectivism.' I totally agree. And I think MSK would agree. Squabbling over 'collectivism' and Rand's intent and yadda blah is side issue to me . . . For me, the interesting thing to consider is the quality of judgment and the type of judgment. A purely social judgment could be "Bubba says he believes in Nazi ideals. Well, fuck him." Or "Nisrallah Ben QuQipantz says 'I believe Islam will crush the West, Infidel.' Blech, what a fuckhead." In this sense, we here at OL are constantly judging the other individuals. If an individual states or implies that he is a Socialist Monster/Killer or a Priestess of the Peikoff cult or a General Semanticist or a Nazi or a Jewish Supremacist or Beckbasher or says things like "I believe in multiculturalism" or whatever, fuck them. We don't always have time to make long dispassionate judgments about the fucked-up people on Ol. Summary judgments like "Oh, one of THEM," or "Bal Simon seems to be one of Those Stupid Enemies Of Freedom And Right-Thinking That I Battle From My Trailer" or "Fucking Canuckistani Moron" or "Belongs to Group A, obviously!" . . . well, who here does not judge? Seriously. Since no one here is in a position to effectively hobble anyone else in the real world, we can rant and sort and lump and condemn and rant some more to our heart's content. Nobody is a Judge, as far as I can tell. No one has the power to sentence someone or fine him or imprison her or cast the assorted fuckhead believers out to purgatory or Heck or Attica . . . Yup. Mind you, Rand seems to have happily sorted and lumped her erstwhile enemies into groups of lesser or greater Evul. Her judgments seem incisive and holy to some, to others deranged and sloppy and unwarranted. At the root of her expressed opinions on racism -- she condemns the raw determinism of racialist thinking, the notion that an individual be judged on any other terms but his individual attributes. To give her the benefit of the Principle of Charity, we none of us here support the notion that important qualities of mind are inherited, and if she sorts racism under the rubric collectivism, hey -- this is polemic, right? Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. Racism claims that the content of a man's mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man's convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical forces beyond his control. This is the caveman's version of the doctrine of innate ideas -- or of inherited knowledge -- which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of anmials, but not between animals and men. Oh, well, maybe not. Ignore my previous remarks. MSK is right and so is Ghs. Or whatever.

But when you are looking at the bad things, the really bad things, they are most often linked to the actions within the ecclesiastical part of religions (men, organizations, institutions). There are certain things that no true religion will condone--even if within its scriptures there is night language to be found here and there (older, usually) to the contrary. I like Richard Wiig's stab at philosophy of religion. He makes an important distinction, or several important distinctions. Replacing his Islam/Muslim with 'Christian' shows how important those distinctions are to his way of thinking: -- first distinction: Islam is best understood as a simply bad, simple thing at root. -- second distinction: sweeping general terms are the best kinds of things -- third distinction: I/We/Everyone is better off thinking like me, 'cause I know best -- fourth distinction: Looking at individuals is wrong, because Islam is a bad thing. You cannot, in general terms, distinguish between different kinds of Islam, because, um, Islam is bad at its root, and, um, Islam is bad, and um, making distinctions between bad Islamic people and good Islamic people/schools of thought is useless because I say so, and I am good. -- fifth distinction: only I can tell what propaganda is. My 'opponents' are stupid or dishonest or blind or something, because they don't see what I see. Why don't they see things my way. Islam is bad in its heart. Get it? -- sixth distinction: rather that say, "yes, I see your point, but . . ." it is best to say or imply "But you are so blind and stupid and dishonest and anti-freedom and doomed and Western Civilization and Evul and blah blah blah -- seventh distinction: "Listen, stupid anti-liberty fuckhead, I KNOW ISLAM! I read Jihadwatch and ignore all the commentary that says 'kill the mooslimes, all of them' because I make distinctions between fanatic nutcases on the side of truth and fanatic nutcases on the side of ugly fanatic religion of Evul that wants to destroy us and you are stupid and dishonest and fuck off. -- eight distinction: making comparisons is dishonest and stupid and fucked; I am not interested in the points you makes because Islam is the enemy. I hate Islam, okay, fuckhead? -- ninth distinction: can you not get it into your head that I know things and that you are blind. I hear you yapping, but I already know what I need to know and Islam is BAD and EVUL and you are too stupid and fucked in the head to understand me and we are DOOMED. -- tenth distinction: If you aren't with me you are against Western Civilization, and whatever you say is not important, not the point. I make points, you make excuses for terrorism and the death of Western Values. That's not the point. I make the points. You refuse to see my points. My point is important, yours, not so much, they are beside the point. That isn't important. What is important is my point. My point. You have no good points. My point. You are fucked. You refuse to discuss my point. My point is my point, fuckhead. -- the nicest thing I can say about this is "waffly bullshit." Glittering generalities. Ecumenical low-fat porridge. Wishful thinking. Me, I fear and loathe fanatics of all kinds. Them that think they know One Way To Think. Them that deny the humanity of The Other. Them that are lumpers. Them who are chained to the house of their group and think of themselves as guard dogs. Them who seethe with a hateful agression. So, on the important points, I stand with Richard against THEM. On the important distinctions, fuck yeah.

Rich, my brother, this is all a bit over the top, I think. Bal Simon has some hope for America. Steve not so much. You -- I dunno. I cannot read your heart or mind, just your words, and am left wondering what the fuck you are ranting about. Is there some unstated oath of America Is Fucked/Doomed that I forgot to swear? I think, raddled old Canuckistani socialist monster that I am, that the USA is not fucked, it just has its share of stupid dumbfucks. And Bal, in my opinion, is not one of them.

Well Michael, I must say, nice deflection attempt. But let me just end on this note: You're the one who repeatedly accused me of being a bully. Point of fact. Michael Stuart Kelly dislikes (if not hates) bullying, bullies and bully rhetoric. He has written a lot on this subject/word over the years. But here's the thing -- he has not repeatedly accused you of being a bully. I don't think he has ever accused you of being a bully. I spent a half hour searching the archives to check my memory -- going back a year. So the rest of the horseshit argument falls apart. If by your final comment here ('Don't think I'll be back') you mean you are flouncing from OL, I am of two minds. If you feel you cannot get a fair hearing or treatment from OL's owner and leader, you would only be frustrated by sticking around, so I support a departure that preserves your peace of mind. On the other hand, if it means that you are simply bailing on the thread, I wish you wouldn't. I wish you could put meat on the bones of your contention: show us where Michael repeated accused you of being a bully. Because, from my point of view, your charge is false. Do you want to head out the door of a thread or the list itself with a false charge?

I feel very sorry for LM, for several reasons. He is by citizenship Australian, born and raised. His (ethnoracial) background is Cypriot -- half Greek on father's side, and half Turkish on mother's. He is currently living, studying and working in New Zealand, in pursuit of a BA in Conflict Resolution/Criminology. He spent much time in the Middle East, and has experience of the marvelous religious tolerance of Syria . . . He self-identifies as a Muslim, yet does not say anything about his faith that would identify him as a follower of a particular branch of Islam. He may be Ismaili, he may be Sunni or Shi'a, and he may be an adherent of one of the many distinct branches of Islamic thought and jurisprudence. One of his blogs, The Vital Issue, is closed to all but invitees, and no one from OL has seen what it contains. However, one recommendation on the web praises it for its Shi'a quality; it is unclear if that praise is accurate or not. As a 'revert' to Islam, LM was raised in a Christian faith by may have taken on a religious colouration from his mom , but Cypriot Muslims are overwhelmingly Sunni, and belong to a trend of Islamic thought much influenced by Sufism. I note that LM has strongly condemned Wahhabi Islam and also Salafis, as well as terrorist acts in the name of Islam. He condemns bin Laden. He condemns the 9/11 attacks. He condemns Salafi attacks in Egypt. He condemns the regime of Bashar al-Assad, the Pakistani regime and its extremist jihadis. He also considers that the only Sharia-compliant nation on earth is the USA. Although LM maintains that Islamic 'sects' are not really sects (since he claims that a majority of Muslim scholars recognize each other group and therefore they are simply just schools of thought), he denounces 'sects' that do not conform to his reading of Islam. At the same time, he does not accept any criticism of Hamas and is silent on Hezbollah (the first is Sunni, the second Shi'a). Oddly, he reserves his utmost condemnation for condemns 'fanatical atheists' (Xray), comparing them to Salafis . . . All these observations underly my feeling of empathy for LM. In my opinion he is attempting to integrate multiple and contradictory identities, political leanings and politico-religious impulses. It cannot be easy to defend on one hand stoning of adulterers and on the other hand condemn those regimes (Talibani/Wahhabis/Salafis/Twelver Shi'as) who actually carry out such religion-based punishments. In sum, I think LM is a good and very decent man who is conflicted yet not aware of the conflicts -- as with most of us faced with cognitive dissonance, he does not accept that one or several held beliefs/stances are incompatible with the others, or that there is a lack of coherence to his personal philosophy . . . One discussion I would pay good money to witness and study would be between newcomer Bal Simon and LM. As for Boydstun's cryptic dismissal of LM as some kind of monster, to my eyes this is off-beam jingoism. LM is not spotted with evul, merely self-imprisoned within religious delusion and extremely naive about human nature and politics. it is signal to me that he shifts between 'you' and 'we' in discussion of The West/Them, having half-legs in some mythical Islamic wonderland and the other in some mythical Jeffersonian USA. May we have mercy on his confusions. Ultimately, he styles himself as a committed libertarian and as a freedom-loving American at heart. At OL, he is thus several rankings above me and my fellow Canuckistani statist monsters. _____________ Edited to correct a few details; thanks to LM.

Note to Adam Selene -- I was quickly searching for the word 'slut' on OL, and found this reference, and queried Carol backstage. It appears she was actually at the Slut Walk, but dressed something like Whistler's Ma. So you might think she did not report, but she did; the canuckistani cultural references were thick in this missive, so no points are taken for missing it. To return to the subject of the thread starter, boredom and Canucki politics, here are a few items to read over if you find you cannot get to sleep tonight: -- Canada's youngest-ever MP was elected, aged 19. He hopes to finish his political science degree after his time in Ottawa -- one of Canada's youngest MPs, Ruth Ellen Brousseau is 'missing.' She was a surprise winner, has yet to visit her riding, did no campaigning, was on a Vegas vacation during the 35 day campaign, and is now in hiding -- said to be cramming French, in an attempt to be able to meet the press -- who have made the search for her a major news item. -- seven aboriginals (Canada-speak for 'native Americans') were elected MPs. They include an Innu, two Crees, two Inuit, and two Metis. -- 76 women were elected; 29 'visible minorities' (untranslatable into American ethnoracial bafflegab); -- the competition for 'Excuse me, I don't mean to be rude, but how do you pronounce your name?' is a toss-up between new MPs Rathika Sitsabaiesan, Anne Minh-Thu Quach, and Djaouida Sellah. Here are those three new ladies of the House:

The trigger for the Slut walk was some reported remarks by a Toronto Police constable. He was speaking to some kind of 'campus safety' meetup at a TO law school. The Guardian cites his remarks: "You know, I think we're beating around the bush here," Michael Sanguinetti began, blandly enough, as he addressed the 10 students who turned up for the pep talk. Then he said: "I've been told I'm not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised." That is apparently the spark for last month's TO slutwalk. The constable has apologized for the remarks, but he probably deserves some credit for bringing the issue into the open once again . . . See the AP story reposted to Lawofficer.com for details on other slutwalks bruited for America, and check out the TO slutwalk site for a list of actions planned a few dozen US and Canadian burgs (and some coming online in the UK, Sweden, Netherlands, Argentina, New Zealand and Australia). Those kooky Canucks.

I have been keeping track of the box-office via Boxofficemojo.com -- it's a pretty good tool for watching trends and making comparisons. ASII has been on screens for 21 days, and has moved in between a rank of 14 and a rank of 22. It is currently holding constant around the twenty rank, and seems to be relatively consistent in its earnings after the initial drop-off, skirting up and down around a daily total of 50 thousand bucks, having earned an estimated gross of $4,143,344 to date. It could simply carry on at this rate, shedding a few theatres, but still chugging along. If we look at box office mojo in a month, in two months, in three, we might find that it is one of those rare films that keeps on bringing home the bacon for the producers over the long haul.