william.scherk

I am not a regular watcher of South Park, so I too was initially puzzled that they would satirize Dawkins, so searched up some online clips of the two episodes (Go God and Go God II) in which his character appeared. I suspected before having a gander that the creators were acquainted with the mostly boring (and quite revealing) fisticuffs between the so-called New Atheists and the so-called Accomodationists, and that they found this fairly ridiculous - schisms in Atheism? I have huge respect for Dawkins' work over the years, and tend to be on his side of the phony 'schism,' meaning I find his stance that science and religion are incompatible to be more or less correct (contra Stephen Gould's boring and erudite Non-Overlapping Magisteria). At the same time, I really enjoyed the satire of Dawkins and the future warring atheist cliques. -- as it turns out, the obsessives at Wikipedia have searched out what looks like the genesis of the idea: indeed, the creators of South Park do not call themselves atheists . . . and had a bit of a ruckus with Penn Gillette over the distinction. Here's the link and an excerpt that if true tells us something about Matt Stone and Trey Parker: Trey Parker and Matt Stone briefly describe one part of the inspiration for "Go God Go" in their director commentaries for the Season 10 DVD. During an appearance by the pair on TV's Nightline, an interviewer had asked, "May I assume you two are atheists, since you make fun of religious beliefs so often?" Surprised by the question, Parker and Stone emphatically said that they did not consider themselves to be atheists—leading to a phone call shortly thereafter from their friend Penn Jillette, an outspoken advocate for atheism who had seen the interview and was evidently disappointed to learn that the two were not "on the Atheist team." Their subsequent conversations with Jillette about atheism and related topics (e.g., the difference between "atheism" and "agnosticism") gave rise to the idea of satirizing the "militant" or "evangelical" atheism as represented in the episode by Dawkins and Garrison. -- I also found the text of a Dawkins response to a question on South Park: I have repeatedly been asked what I think of South Park and of Ted Haggard’s downfall. I won’t say much about either. Schadenfreude is not an appealing emotion so, on Haggard, I’ll say only that if it wasn’t for people of his religious persuasion, people of his sexual persuasion would be free to do what they like without shame and without fear of exposure. I share neither his religious nor his sexual persuasion (that’s an understatement), and I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite. I wouldn’t have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn’t discern it. And then there’s the matter of the accent they gave me. Now, if only I could be offered a cameo role in The Simpsons, I could show that actor how to do a real British accent. ____________________ Boring postscript -- as for 'annoying accents,' I have sympathy for the man from Huntsville, as I have sympathy for the woman from Dundee and folks from upper Ottawa Valley, Come-by-Chance, Beauce, Witwatersrand, Puna, Delhi, Oxford and the San Fernando Valley. There are so many people who just get it their language wrong, doncha think? My favourite English accent is the educated Indian English, with a runner-up in standard Oxford 'Recieved Pronunciation' -- that of Dawkins. My favourite French accent is the educated Quebec City accent, a lovely, precise and archaic blend of Canadian sounds and metropolitan diction. -- further boredom: I feel a pang of nostalgia for Ted Keer's linguistic disquisitions, his lordly knowledge of such things as the alveolar fricative and the glottal stop. I always felt both informed and accosted when he rang those bells. One final extremely boring and instructive note. In the video below (from 2008) some more evidence that Canuckistanis are not like Murkins. These are some snippets from the French Debate amongst party leaders, three anglophones and two francophones. Those who listen to the various accents will realize that not only do these people speak a strange and unsettling version of French, they all use the now-standard Canadian accent; those who wonder why on earth we bother to have such debates during Federal elections will understand that above all are political calculations. Votes are votes, and the pols with learn the crazy language to get some.

A good and brief introduction to the phenomena is the article Hypnagogia at Wikipedia. Great references and further reading suggestions.

I have no idea what Big Things the prime minister hopes to do, really. He may be like Chrétien, and just drive the bus in the lane: reduce deficit, reduce deficit, reduce deficit. What great Canadian project does Harper have? Not much at all except boost economy, boost economy, boost economy. So, Carol, you may safely order that new wallpaper. You aren't going anywhere, since Harper is not as stupid as Harris. Now, that Quebec dumped its parochial party is perhaps the most interesting of all. An infusion of francophone socialist canuckis into the NDP can only be good for the NDP -- they can now fairly claim to be a national party. For the bored-to-sickness Americans, the upshot of the election was that two party leaders could not retain their seats (Duceppe and Ignatieff), the separatist party was crushed crushed crushed, and we won't have another election for four years. A very minor surprise is the first seat taken by a Green party member (the leader, Elizabeth May). At the moment, the seat rankings are (2008 totals in parentheses): Conservatives: 166 (143) New Democrats: 104 (37) Liberals: 34 (77) Bloc Québecois: 3 (49) Green Party: 1 (0)

A bit of a schocker, yup, for the NDP. Mr Harper can now turn into the lizard-monster his harshest opponents imagine him to be, a kind of authoritarian majoritarian. It is almost sad that M Duceppe may lose his seat in Parliament. It is the only job he has had for twenty years, poor fellow. Unlike in Syrian presidential 'elections,' we have losers.

It sure turned out to be an interesting election campaign after all. I have ten minutes to wait until the results from down east start showing. Me, I am keeping my eye on Laurier--Sainte-Marie. Monsieur Layton, comment ça roule? La poussée orange! (for those not bored and nauseated by our election, Monsieur Layton is the head of the NDP, which is poised for a breakthrough in the province of Québec at the expense of the sovereignist party, the Bloc. Orange is the colour of the NDP.)

It is interesting that Cato would have him speak -- but it makes sense when you realize he was one of the men on the panel who knew Hayek (and Popper) and he has a certain influence. Rather than demonize him and his shadow party, Cato puts him up to speak for himself, and in the process he makes a spark or two of sense to some Cato-ish folk. It looks like the full text of his op-ed is available on one page, at Politico.

The event -- a Book Forum -- includes a reading by Soros, with a video posted at the Cato site, all 85 minutes of it, featuring Bruce Caldwell, Richard A. Epstein, George Soros and Ronald Hamowy as moderator (Soros at 15:30).

I enjoyed the Smoking Gun's "Will Release Of Obama's Purported Birth Certificate Give Rise To New "Certer" Movement?" -- especially 'a few nutty points about the birth certificate sure to be seized upon by the nonbelievers' If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document's safety paper be so seamless? What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant? Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961? More sobering are the many many folks in the 245 following comments who did not get that the Smoking Gun writer was kidding:

I use and recommend Chrome. I can crash anything, but if I crash a page in Chrome, just that page dies off, the browser lives on, and re-instantiating the crashed page reinstantiates any text I might have been typing in a text box. Not perfect, Chrome, but clean and fast.

Sitting quietly at home with window open on the sweet spring night when suddenly stadium horns and cheers erupted from silence. I take it the Canucks are moving on.

Rebutting it is not the point of trust for the persuasion stuff I am talking about. Right. Trust and persuasion stuff is important, but regardless of the truth claims? . I do not find Graham persuasive, and I don't trust the motives of Corsi and ilk. I don't find the 'hoax' bumf persuasive, and I don't trust the anti-Muslim loons who peddle the bumf. I don't find any argument that adequately explains the lack of fit between the facts and the birther fringe -- as here, Michael, I asserted that there is prima facie evidence -- that it is trustworthy, that it is persuasive, and that no credible challenge to that evidence has been adduced. That's the thing. The wave is not going anywhere. And who are these 'some people'? Me? Am I splitting hairs? The hair seems to be split with those who claim a 'certification' is not 'certifiable' and other such similar shavings. I would have to agree. And the manipulation and distortion, to my eyes, comes from the kookiepants folks.

In TNKH (what the heathens call the Old Testament) tribal membership is inherited from the father. In later times the Rabbis decreed that with all the rapine committed against Jewish women the only sure thing that could be determined was who the mother of the child is. This is rabbinic, not biblical. It is a practical measure. Also, it is the mother who brings up a child and shapes the child's religious outlook. So in later times, Jewishness is reckoned to come through the mother, not the father. Right. So . . . the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother, and the seed of Islam is passed through the father, and thus Obama was 'born a Muslim.' 'Would an Objectivist Child be taught that one could be 'born a Muslim'?

No one has yet rebutted the Certification of Live Birth, and its prima facie evidence that your President was born where his folks said he was born, that the state of Hawaii said, yup, he was born where his folks said he was born. After four years the claims of the birthers have proliferated and but gained no more support. Yes, Republicans by a plurality continue to 'have doubts' -- but the numbers haven't budged over last year or the year before. Donald Trump has had no effect on the stated beliefs. No political demand nor demand of law forces Obama to do anything but what he has done, produce certification. In no state or province of our two countries is a person required to do more than your President has done. The facts haven't changed, although the political hoopla ebbs and flows. Where it matters, in terms of votes and support, Obama has a much larger plate of worms to deal with, from recession to debt to war to political calculations. If the birther rhetoric rises -- he chuckles, since he probably believes as do I that no political glory attaches to birther campaigns. A Presidential mien, a chuckle, a renomination, a ballot . . . he knows what is coming his way. How did he get on the ballots for 2008? By battling the first wave of birthers? I tried to imagine what convinced Barack Obama that he was born American. His folks and family stories told gave him his birth details first off, and when it came time for him to get papered up, his American passport, where the US government told him he was born in the USA in 1961. I imagine that convinced Obama, and that he has no interest in seeing the file-copy of his birth, or the associated attestations. He is convinced. I don't imagine that anything crosses his desk that even vaguely troubles his sense of citizenship and responsibility. For me, this issue is a sniff test. I catch a 'truther' cachet, a whiff of kookiepants and crank in Trump and Corsi and their ilk on this issue. As for allusions to trust and persuasion and manipulation, and a beloved Franklin, a rising tide of anger, this is a pot of beans -- Franklin speaks for himself, he is a crank on the subject of Muslimobama already. He did not inherit the slightly queasy respect given to his father. Here's what was on his mind a year ago: "I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name." Ick.

Leonard Peikoff has one Objectivist Child, Kira Peikoff, a woman of uncertain age who is presently shopping her first novel. He has a former wife who I think was probably trained as an Objectivist Wife, Amy Peikoff. He has had at least one other Objectivist Wife. Kira Peikoff blog. Kira Peikoff website. Amy Peikoff blog.

I finished transcribing Peikoff's reply. http://media.blubrry.com/peikoff/www.peikoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2011-02-07.150_A_01.L.mp3

How are you defining your cake rights, Jonathan?

[Dawkins video lecture on Religiously-identified children] Thanks for the apropos video -- Dawkins insight was on my mind as I questioned the notion of an Objectivist Child. These two images show the illicit assumptions smuggled into Peikoff's answer. <img src="http://i.imm.io/5bfR.jpeg" width="300px"> <img src="http://i.imm.io/5bg6.jpeg" width="300px"> As for your questions about hand-me-downs, any parent would explain the Reality first to their kids: When your sibling outgrows these new outfits, we will be passing them on to you. We will also try to buy you fresh things for yourself. We are limited in our resources, honey, so we are trying to do our best -- we care for your well-being and won't disregard your feelings -- we know you might feel like you get the second-hand, but you are not second hand in our hearts. We love you both. It is sobering to realize that Peikoff has no idea what is at the heart of the question: How do we make moral lessons of the sharing of shareable things like cake? It is not an ownership question: it is a fair division question. Nobody brings home a cake other that to be shared out, for crying out loud. Nobody brings home a cake that is not designed to be shared, unless they live alone or are food hoarders. Cake is a festivity, soaked in the brandy of fellowship. How can Peikoff be so off-base in grasping the emotional fundamentals? If some child feels disfavoured, feels an unfair portion of 'just desserts,' what job does the parent have to do? It gives me a bit more insight into Alyssa Bereznak' whining about her dad: Our objectivist education, however, was not confined to lectures and books. One time, at dinner, I complained that my brother was hogging all the food. "He's being selfish!" I whined to my father. "Being selfish is a good thing," he said. "To be selfless is to deny one's self. To be selfish is to embrace the self, and accept your wants and needs." It was my dad's classic response -- a grandiose philosophical answer to a simple real-world problem. But who cared about logic? All I wanted was another serving of mashed potatoes. I mean, the freaking question is about sharing cake, sharing, principles of sharing, and the Peikoff answer flubs his response. How does 'last piece of cake' turn into 'sharing as such is not a . . . value' and 'sharing is [not] a value, a virtue, a proper way of behaviour?'

http://media.blubrry.com/peikoff/www.peikoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2011-02-07.150_A_01.L.mp3 -- now that I have typed out the first half, I will sharpen my butcher tools and put on the apron and see if I can do better than Uncle Kookypants. First off, what's with the unexamined premise of the question: what the heck is an Objectivist Child? Then -- how did the parents, who presumably have brought home a cake and supervised its sectioning by house rules, how did the parents not plan ahead for this eventuality? And what are the particular parameters of this generic dessert scene (perhaps it is 'reward time' for the kids, or a family fest, or a what the heck, let's bring a cake home honey and surprise the boys occasion, or a cake from Aunt Irma, or whatever)? More importantly, look at Uncle's proviso: I mean, assuming it's not his brother's piece. Why should we assume that, for gawd sake? -- if the cake had already been sectioned, and it had been established that this final piece belonged to one brother over the other, there is no lesson to be taught about sharing . . . the deal has been sealed. I think the questioner wanted a more challenging question answered -- I would disregard the proviso, and accept an implication of "all things being equal, what principles are at play over 'the last piece of cake'?" It's an 'uncertain ownership' question, it's a 'fair share' question, it's an arbitration question, to my mind. . . . Two Objectivist Children, raised in an Objectivist Household, would very well know what their parents mean by rational self-interest, and the rocky shoals of emotionalism, of the subtle difference between rational self-interest and selfishness pur laine. These two serious-minded, reasoning and free young Objectivist creatures, would presumably have carefully calculated the value matrix surrounding the cake, and realize they were being handed an opportunity to show off their understanding of the principles involved in this situation. Of course, two Objectivist Children, brothers, would know very well that the parents had stumbled -- having somehow cut the cake so that the two fellows face a stark moral choice over the last remaining slice. Why did they cut it into an odd number? Were they four at the table? Was Auntie Irma still in vicinity? Had there been seven at table and each had had a slice? Whatever the situation, the two boys, eyes bright with rationality, regard the glistening treat under the moral search-beams wired into them by family custom and Objectivist education, while parental eyes regard them quietly, as the central questions draw near. Reality Self-interest Reason Capitalism Reality Self-interest Reason Capitalism Reality Self-interest Reason Capitalism Cake!

Dallmayr is THE Munich delicatessen store! This picture of Dallmayr's is called Miles Of Truffles. This fest is shaping up. I would love to meet both Sarah and Jeff. But, I would probably spend my time yapping with fellow socialists/mixed premises yahoos on the back porch. Seriously, what fun it would be if somehow we could rig some video and have one of those Blogging Heads live exchanges. Diana Hsieh does a one-sided version of this every week, with dire results. I am sure OL-fest worthies can do a better job with at least a few webcams. I hereby undertake to equip at least one fellow Canuckistani with a webcam, and commit to technical assistance.

I think I should properly transcribe this podcast question and answer, but in the meantime, the skinny on kids, sharing, and that last piece of cake: http://media.blubrry.com/peikoff/www.peikoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2011-02-07.150_A_01.L.mp3

Phil's first post to OL here. I too have wondered to myself if he is on the Spectrum -- but the question should be properly addressed, respectfully, to Phil himself (which I will do, seeing as he is still reading this forum diligently). However, he said . . . As I may have noted along the way, one of my major interests in the online Objectivish subculture is psychological. Although 'mind-reading' or (unfair, uninformed, malicious) psychologizing is a fraught topic, accurately assessing other folks' personalities and intentions is crucial to human flourishing. Ellen hit upon this recently, succinctly and perceptively. I think this is part of our toolkit. In Phil's short series of somewhat confessional, open-hearted posts on his early immersion in Objectivism, I found several moving passages in which he reported his struggles to understand other people. Does anyone recall his puzzlement over why his first girlfriend wanted to 'sleep with' him? I disagree. If Phil were actually on the Spectrum, his would be social deficits, in particular a deficit in 'reading' others compared to what Aspies call 'neurotypicals' (Ba'al has several times detailed his own deficits). Does Aspergers explain double-standards or dropping context? I am not convinced it does. Does it explain thin skin? I figure no, not really. Perhaps the most that could be plausibly explained by Aspergers is repetition, in my view. In any case, Phil supplied several self-descriptions in his series, and the telling was quite moving to me. I suggest those who are interested in reading Phil's mind (like me) take the insight that Phil himself provided. Here are a few of the self-descriptions he provided (I note that the series of posts resulted in plaudits from Phil's sometime adversaries): With an enormously high IQ, and great academic and theoretic and logic-chopping abilities, the highest SAT scores in years? decades? at my small public high school, I could grasp a blackboard full of equations in an instant. Unfortunately, again, I was dumb as a mudflap when it came to people. brilliance in academic issues, but extremely almost retarded in understanding what a glance meant I often couldn’t have told if a woman was interested or what a remark meant unless I sat down and reflected on it laboriously for hours. Or if someone was hostile or wanted to be my friend. An idiot savant, the most obvious common sense things would totally escape me. I don’t normally feel much guilt, but in the area of getting in touch with my own psychology, that’s the area where I feel I should have done more than I’ve done. Another example of my emotionally – socially – psychologically retarded state. I didn’t have my first serious girl friend till I moved to New York. I’d spent my time running track or with my head buried in math books even through college although I’d started to be interested in philosophy and bull sessions about it after reading Rand during that period: “After we’d had sex, instead of my walking home to my apartment, she wanted me to –sleep- with her.” “Hadn’t you just done that.” “No, sleep. As in spend the night lying next to each other. In the same bed. I told her it seemed odd and I wanted to go home.” (quoted from Phil's post "The Objectivist Psychologists and Me") What was sad about the thread Phil started with the post above is his reaction to Jonathan's and Ellen's comments and queries. He read their responses as 'attack posts,' full of venom and seething with hostility -- and he disregarded Barbara Branden's thoughtful and empathetic cautions and advice. -- for what it is worth, I notice a tendency in Phil's writings to subtly shift focus from a 'they' to a 'you' when he might better have considered 'I.' I have wondered just who he is signifying when he does this -- how he shifts subject and emphasis, as in this passage from the same thread (he has just rejected everything said by Ellen and Jonathan): Does indeed remind me a lot of Perigo and Cathcart, especially the 'schoolmarm' taunt and the 'people don't like you' group metaphysics which is a non- objective slur for someone who criticizes you. And for not admitting that you are unwilling to accept criticism and that it raises enormous resentment in you. Who is you?

You completely missed my point. Empathy as I understand it is with the victims of crimes, not with the perpetrators. That's what I meant by "not all-inclusive". For it is the perpetrator who goes against the empathy principle. I don't think you need to bother with Peter Taylor -- he has shown only a thug's understanding of reason. His grasp of 'empathy' (or his awe-inspiring misreading in this case) suggests that he prefers bigoted hyperbole over any other form of communication.

Wicked, wicked good stuff. In my top thirty-five. I was looking at the world's top best-selling books list at Wikipedia today, and was sobered to realize that Eco hit 50 million with Il Nome della Rosa and Rand did not rank at all.

Slinkronicity. Me too. I wish I was in Surrey North, where I would have a extremely multicultural ballot, from Sandhu to Purewal. As it is my riding offers only fluffy wonder bread. All I can think is 'Please, gawd, no majority. Please.' -- the funnest (translated to Yankeespeak: boringest) notion is of a government of the three non-Tory parties in non-coalition. Yes, Monsieur Doucette, you could celebrate the nineteenth year of your separatist party in Parliament with a non-cabinet position as arbiter of federalism . . . I would love to have a Riggenbach explain the 'they are all the same' in the context of say, Westmount-Ville-Marie or Bourassa. Voting is fun (boring) in Canuckistan!

Follow the link to the Snopes article. I didn't post it, I linked to it. Hmmmm. The page says "Claim: A Certification of Live Birth document provided by the Obama campaign is a forgery." So . . . the Obama campaign provided a Certification of Live Birth in 2008. And some folks say it was a forgery? Yikes. Adams says this Certification of Live Birth is a 'non certifiable birth certificate' and Michael says this is 'the equivalent of a receipt.' Ah, I see we have a copy of this non-certifiable certification. Hmmm. It has a state seal (certification?) and it lists more information than is on my frigging birth certificate and it says at the bottom: 'this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceedings.' That is good enough for me. This is a certificate of (live) birth from the state of Hawaii that can serve as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth.