william.scherk

This confuses me even more. So there is a public records vault in Hawaii (I will look it up and see if I can find something like what you mean -- it could possibly be what we in British Columbia call Vital Statistics) run by . . . I guess, the state of Hawaii. But this part -- 'they issued the equivalent of a receipt' -- they meaning The Vault? Is this the thing that Adam said was 'not the certifiable birth certificate' that ND posted (and where did ND post this non-certifiable birth certificate?)? What is wrong with your system that The Vault releases a 'non-certifiable birth certificate' or 'equivalent of a receipt'? The Vault released something, but to whom? Hopelessly confused.

It is the long form birth certificate which is different from the Certificate of Live Birth which is merely "called in by a relative or other individual." [ . . . ] The document that ND posted is the certificate of live birth which is testimonial in nature and is not the certifiable birth certificate This is quite curious, and I am curious. Where did the 'Certificate of Live Birth' come from? why is it not 'certifiable'? Certifiable by whom? -- or rather certifiable in what way? And . . . where did this quote 'called in by a relative or other individual' come from? Correct me if I am wrong, but can I call in somewhere (Hawaii?) and get Obama's 'Certificate of Live Birth'? Is the 'Certificate of Live Birth' useful for anything? -- I ask this because when I first got my passport I had to send in a fresh Birth Certificate. I forget if I had to send in any other certification (i.e., parent's birth certificates). But that birth certificate (the one in my wallet) is card-sized, and has no information about the Doctor, Hospital, etcetera (who would care?). Someone who knows, and who has done the research can perhaps explain this 'long form' and 'non-certified' call-in certificate in clearer detail. Sorry to be so dense -- I haven't paid any attention to this issue before. Will I find out something from Hawaii's equivalent of Vital Statistics? (one other peculiar item I came across in listening to Trump was his suggestion that his investigators might find out Obama was a Muslim by some mysterious means -- meaning born a Muslim. That did not make any sense whatsoever to me. I was apparently christened in an Anglican Church, which presumably would mean someone could call me an Anglican. But nobody asked me my religion at age 6 months. I don't like the idea of being assigned a religion or being 'born' into a religion and considered a baby Anglican before I could speak or walk. That part of Trump's talk didn't make sense, so I supposed neither did the rest of it. But now I am intrigued. Also, I thought 'natural born' is fairly well understood in common-law [as opposed to naturalized/adopted]. Isn't there any jurisprudence in America that has settled this?)

I don't get a vote, and I have no influence whatsoever on anyone else's vote, but . . . "the document." Can anyone who has done his or her research tell us what "the document" is?

Please send me the next substantive post you intend to post to OL, backstage: william.scherk@gmail.com. I think I could analyse/edit your post to show you how I would respond were I in your shoes. Write the post just exactly as you would send it, but don't post it to the list. I will do the same for you, sending you my next substantive post before I post it to the list. You can analyse/edit my post to show me how you would respond were you in my shoes. Trade? ________________ On second thought, nix this.

It actually is the main source of my critique of your posting style, Phil. Seriously. I can agree with given points/stance/analysis, but take issue with your tone and temper at times. Seriously, I have great empathy for your position. It is what I feel whenever I see self-defeating behaviour -- behaviour that stands in the way of someone achieving their goals. My empathy deepens when I observe what seems a bit like compulsive behaviour, when I suspect that the behaviour is not able to be controlled. Not quite. I can admire persistence, zeal, commitment and willingness to take on all comers (not enemies); that doesn't mean that I admire self-defeating aspects of behaviour -- when this behaviour obviates otherwise excellent qualities of argument. Here is what I wrote five years ago on RoR (and SOLO). Do you remember your reaction? - I salute Phil for his patience . . . as a professional educator, it must be hard to deal with dumbass sophomores who think they can beard the bear. I utterly disagree with Trager's misreading of "analysis" as "judgement" and his consequent descent into the swamps of Lower Semantica, but I must be fair: Phil, Galt love you, I admire your stance and your persistence and the essential wisdom of all your posts (which I read carefully), but a prideful lecturing tone gets in the way sometimes, brother. You can be mistaken for a huffy, angry and arrogant teacher with little human touch on some rare occasions. If I was your student, and was treated that way, I would write "Wonderful, wonderful educator, my favourite lecturer. Would attend his seminar even if held in a Bombay meat market's offal depot during communal rioting. Hat too tight. Needs to get laid. More than once."

I don't think 'Someone' is going to reveal his plans for viewing the movie. Why not? I suspect it is because he is, like Brant, caring for an aged parent, and may feel it necessary to be on hand, and so cannot simply circle a date on the calendar for a trip into Tampa. I imagine there are difficulties in arranging care for Someone's mother on short notice. And of course Someone may feel absolutely no need to discuss his plans when snarky little bitches question him. "Putting Someone's money where Someone's mouth is" does not necessarily imply Someone is a hypocrite. Certainly Someone's mouth has been active, with several suggestions for how opening weekend attendance and first week attendance may be VERY IMPORTANT for the success of the movie. As Someone noted in two separate posts): > Opening week is the decisive one - it's when chains traditionally decide if they want to "bid" or negotiate for a small studio, independent, limited release film. [PC #11] >If there is second week dropoff, the movie will be pulled because the first weekend's numbers only place it number 14 in movie box offic[e]. [PC #5] From these two excerpts, it seems likely that Someone is actually planning to carefully calibrate Someone's attendance in Tampa, in order to maximize the effect of Someone's ticket . . . but a certain Someone may not share his plans because Someone has been viciously attacked, denigrated, robbed of due respect, harried, hounded, unacknowledged for polite and respectful disagreement on intellectual matters, denied recognition for important points made, insulted, demeaned, snarked at, belittled, and so on. As for the snarky little bitch -- Someone's comment can be taken back and/or regretted. Perhaps a polite question can be asked, something like: 'If Someone was planning to attend one of the screenings of Atlas Shrugged Pt1 in the area of Tampa/Lakeland/St Petersburg during its first very important week, can you please recommend which theatre would be a good choice and why? And, if you would be so kind and thoughtful, is there any other information about the film that would help me choose? Thank you very much!" Now, I tend to think that everything has been spoiled by certain unnamed people who psychologize and are generally nasty and should never expect any polite answers since they have attacked and insulted and stalked and been generally awful and mean and stupid . . . and so the certain unnamed people should politely step back and let benevolent people ask the questions but since it is all spoiled for everyone that probably won't happen anyway, ever, because as Someone has noted somewhere this is what you get when you aren't polite. Anyhow, for those unnamed and invisible polite, civil folk, Someone has already politely given notice of what Someone is politely going to do about attending the film. He is going to have a sign and a cheerful welcoming expression and expand his social network by building a community of interest (No one knows how much work Someone has already done to ensure the success of the film in Tampa Bay): >I plan to go with a large placard about the “Tampa Bay Ayn Rand Club” and not only hand out flyers, but ask interested people if they want to join me in passing more of them out at the local movie theaters. [someone, somewhere] >I did something I suggested toward the end of my article -- I went to a local Tea Party "tax day" rally yesterday (April 15) with a huge placard about joining the local Ayn Rand Club I was starting. I had a sign-up sheet to collect emails. Out of just a bit over 300 people there, 27 were interested Rand fans. Very happy to meet me! That's almost ten percent and, since people were scattered around in lawn chairs, I don't think everyone saw my placard. I was there for two hours out of the four hours the event was scheduled for: Very successful investment of time. [someone, Tampa]

I agree -- and good point, Phil. Besides its national holdings in markets large and small in the newspaper business, as I noted briefly above, Quebecor also owns companies involved in telecommunications, cablevision, internet services, etcetera. It surprised me to find out that Quebecor is the largest commercial printer in the world, and a major player in the magazine industry. It also owns television production and distribution facilities, including the most popular French channels, and has an integrated internet presence for all its national news holdings via canoe.ca -- as well as a large Blockbuster-like chain of video/DVD stores. Recently it has poured money into the area they call 'interactive television,' operating services that merge its video-on-demand services with its other media and communications holdings. As for its papers in Timmins and other smaller markets that you noted, I am reminded of something you wrote on one of the Atlas Shrugged threads here, wherein you pointed out the need for movie distributors to pay attention to smaller markets. I thought that was quite perceptive of you -- you noted in that post the notion of 'cultural blockade,' and mentioned the value of 'little papers . . . in secondary cities.' As Carol's note of the new national (English) 24 hours news channel mentioned, Sunmedia TV has garnered a few personalities who represent a more 'right-wing,' free-market, minarchist angle than other news outlets, such as Ezra Levant (whom you may not be familiar with). Carol, it could be that Phil is not 'scoffing,' but being a bit puckish. As his notes on movie distribution revealed, he knows his media, and understands the value of small markets in growing Objectivish communities of thought. You may already be reading Quebecor publications! It is a major player in the Florida printing world and has at least 6 small town papers on its roster, while being one of the largest printers of 'shopper news' and assorted newpaper advertizing inserts -- with a huge production facility in Lakeland, not too far down the road from you . . . Although they are very close-lipped on their acquisitions strategies, I have little doubt that Sun Media would like to own Florida's leading French newspaper Le Soleil de la Floride. Imagine three million Florida resident francophones reading Phil Coates in translation!

Carol, Jeff -- please forgive me for adding some dreary background material: Sun Media is the largest media corporation in Canada. It is a fully-owned subsidiary of Quebecor, and so controls several regional and national phone, cable & internet services, other communications entities, along with tabloid newspapers (in French and in English --see the list of outlets below). The new cable channel may be the jewel in the crown of holdings by the man at the head of this concern, Pierre Karl Peladeau. I am sure this kind of conglomerate has a US counterpart, but I am not really familiar with the American scene. Calgary Sun Edmonton Sun Ottawa Sun Toronto Sun Winnipeg Sun Le Journal de Montréal Le Journal de Québec Le Journal de Sherbrooke 24 Hours / 24 Heures Barrie Examiner Brockville Recorder and Times Crowsnest Pass Promoter (Crowsnest Pass, Alberta) Fort McMurray Today The Daily Herald Tribune (Grande Prairie, Alberta) Daily Miner and News (Kenora, Ontario) London Free Press Ontario Farmer The Daily Graphic (Portage La Prairie, Manitoba) The Delhi News-Record Shoreline Beacon (Saugeen Shores, Ontario) Simcoe Reformer (Norfolk County, Ontario) The Beacon Herald St. Thomas Times-Journal Woodstock Sentinel-Review Sherwood Park • Strathcona County News The Peterborough Examiner Sault Star (Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario) Sudbury Star (Sudbury, Ontario) The Stonewall Argus & Teulon Times Timmins Daily Press Timmins Times Cornwall Standard Freeholder Dunnville Chronicle

Her derangedness, that is, her obvious belief in imaginary beings and her references to satanism, isn't what's most important. I hear what you are saying, Richard, but bear in mind that I put the necessary qualifier on all statements like this: -- "Her derangedness [ . . . ] isn't what's most important [to me/in my opinion]" -- "In the context, [ her derangedness is ] actually what's least important [to me/in my opinion]" What I don't hear from you, Richard, is any reaction to her interpretation of and commentary on the verse I noted above. All I can do, given the context, is think that you either agree with her, or consider her interpretations of the Koran verse least important. You also seem to believe that this courageous-yet-deranged woman has made some kind of blow against Senator Graham that outweighs what any Objectivish person has done. Let's unpack your opinion. 1) not really important: wacko beliefs (including wacko interpretations noted by MSK and me) 2) quite important; she courageously 'stood up' to Lindsey Graham's comments 3) she 'stood up' far more than any Objectivist (that you have seen) Now, I agree she stood up; I disagree that she did so far more than any Objectivist. Did you read Ed Cline's 'Ashes for Allah'? at the Rule Of Reason? In my opinion his is a far better 'standing up.' In any case, Graham's musings (further musings here) have been condemned across the board, from within his own party, on the left, in libertarian circles, and so on. I think I understand that you believe Barnhardt's interpretations and commentary (the pedophile Muslims/buggery/fellatio) are not as important as her reaction to Graham. But I believe her interpretations and commentary are also important, and I would like to hear what you have to say on that count. One other thing: I would like to 'reset' my relations with you on this list. I want you out of moderation. I want you to contributed to reasoned and in-depth discussion of issues that are important to you. With that in mind, I unreservedly apologize for and would like to retract each and every ad hominem remark I have published on this site about you. I am sorry -- those remarks did not advance argument. I ask for nothing in return, no quid pro quo, but I do propose that you and I have a discussion or debate. Moreover, I would like to have a discussion that is more like a conversation -- in realtime. I will set up a clean chat interface for this purpose, and agree to any conditions or quidelines you propose. You can set the topic if you like, and any parameters of discussion that seem reasonable to you. As another sign of good faith, I will first answer each of the questions you put to me in this earlier post.

I have read enough of the Koran to find it repulsive, frankly. And she is well within her rights to burn whatever personal property she wants. And she is within her rights to rant on Youtube and march and whatever else she cares to do with herself. That is not an issue for me and never was. What disturbed me was her interpretation and her generalizations. I give but one example -- she read the Sura verse 52:24 (here is a side-by-side transliteration; the entire chapter on that page). The chapter concerns heaven and hell, and reads rather like the King James version in its sketch -- you burn in hell for your sins and you meet the glorious faithful in heaven and blah blah blah glory to gawd yadda yadda (as in the christian bible, this is not the only discursion on hellfire and glorious heaven, of course). The yadda yadda she quoted concerns the boys who will serve you meats and drinks. That was it. One line. What does she do with it? Well, she lets the viewer know that this means Islam is about pedophiles, buggery, fellatio -- that muslim boys cannot get to adulthood without penises being jammed into them. Yeah. -- by the way, Michael, I probably should have inserted a smiley face in my previous post commenting on the joy of examining Richard's post(s) in the moderation queue. I was being puckish, which poor old Brant missed. I thought it was obvious that only the censorious here would sign up for that job -- and that only the worst of the censorious would pay money to do the job. The OL blogs already give the blog-starter the means to moderate or block or edit or expunge commentary.

Yikes. It might be time to sell opportunities to moderate. Ugh. Sounds like a way to get rid of the likes like me. I don't think you have ever been put on moderation, so Michael won't have the 'joy' of going through your held-back posts to see if they sail under the guidelines or not. But, yeah, bombing Canada would solve a few problems, that's for sure.

Bad form, Peter. Please edit out those remarks and the preceding remarks about jackboots and (Nuremberg) stadium.

Yikes. It might be time to sell opportunities to moderate. I know several folks here who would pay for the opportunity to pre-clear or harry those under moderation . . . the guidelines are pretty straightforward, and if the moderators were reasonably sane and fair, you could eventually retire the Garbage pile.

I wonder if Richard will attempt to post here again. He has just posted a couple of videos from another Koran-burner at his usual lair. I put the second one here -- it is instructive: Apparently all Muslim boys don't escape childhood without being buggered, and most Muslim men are homosexuals and/or pedophiles. I despair at this kind of crazed commentary on the Koran. I guess that Richard doesn't quite go so far as this nutcase, but we shall see if his compadres raise an eyebrow at her stupidity and his stupidly passing her along for delectation. She begins to get seriously deranged in her commentaries at 9 minutes in -- a tour-de-force. Blech.

Well, I don't know. Here's some more road anarchy, however: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn775Sl-iRg

I give you a four-way non-stop:

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff. Sounds pretty mindless to me, Phil. <div><img src="http://wss.site50.net/images/peikoffseye.png" style="float:left;padding-right:11px">A little bit of editing (select&delete) can clean it up. But old habits die hard. Did you figure out how to use the multiquote, Adam? Oh, and Phil, if you are reading this, what do you think of Peikoff's answer? http://media.blubrry.com/peikoff/www.peikoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2011-02-07.150_A_01.L.mp3 </div>

Phil, thanks for noting my diligence. It wasn't duty, of course, but interest that led me to try to answer your earlier question. Is guessing allowed in Canada? Yes. Is there a punishment for guessing? No. Well, one can choose to see safety regulations as paternalistic, and mandated by an intrusive state, but I would say that passenger safety should be a primary consideration. Safety should, I think, override convenience. As I noted, Phil, passing between cars in New York City is illegal. Here's the thing. All Toronto subway cars are long at 75 feet, and must execute a tight turning radius in several places. In such cases, passing between cars is fraught with danger -- one could easily fall. Helmets are not required on the Toronto subway. No. I suspect that you are joking here. There is, I think we would agree, a very low probability that a jet of any kind would crash into a subway. What an imaginative use of the slippery-slope fallacy, though! Very funny! Very humourous! Phil, a question -- did you like the design of the newest Toronto subway trains? They will replace all the other cars within three or four years, I believe. An additional query, if you have the time or inclination. All joking aside, and given that the difference between NYC and TO subway safety rules are negligible, can you give a couple or three examples of odd Canadian rules or conventions that disturbed you or that you wondered about? Still on the safety subject, here is a quick video of a parkour enthusiast performing at Skytrain stations in Vancouver (Skytrain is our automated rapid transit system). One of the best places to observe parkour is at the downtown station -- I last watched Vancouver city police watching bemused as around 60 folks did some decidedly dangerous things . . .

I'm sorry, Angela -- I should have made an effort to differentiate the excerpt of Unitarian Universalist principles from the link to the Spiritual Humanist website. They are not connected. One is a religion with a long history, and the other is a mail-order business offering clergy cards. I may change my choice of 'born into' religion. If some brand of Judaism can accommodates atheists and not yap at us about gawd and needs no prayers or rituals . . . For the purpose of Joel's thought experiment, and considering the comments above, I should probably choose to be born into the Church Of Science, but on reflection, choosing religion by spite seems fraught. I had better show solidarity with my fellow Canuckistani and be a godless Anglican. I can sit through a lot of shit if I know at least one of my co-congregants secretly harbours disbelief. Would you please consider joining us there in the next life? I am sure we could have a lot of fun.

I would choose Unitarian Universalism, because one does not have to go to services, believe in any god, or do much more than choose to follow some or all of the suggestions contained in its Principles: We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote The inherent worth and dignity of every person; Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; A free and responsible search for truth and meaning; The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large; The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all; Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part I can't stand much/any organized worship, and every single religious/spiritual event I have attended made me grit my teeth and curse inwardly at some point, and the UU folks that I know in real life are only marginally less 'spiritual' than my other gawd-bothered pals and acquaintances, but any fellowship that does not have any belief or attendance requirement is my choice if I had to be born into it. I have never been able to fake my way through any 'pagan' whoopup, and I cannot stand the pretensions of the pagan nutcases I know, so I don't really know what the attraction is, nudge nudge, wink wink. If you are talking about getting laid, jumping jehosaphat, you do not need to fake your way into bed . . . (I am an ordained clergy member, by the way)

Phil Coates asks if 'Canuckleheadlectivism' is a word. Yes, it is a word, as coined by Phil. It appears to be a contraction of Canuck, knuckle, head, and collectivism. Since we do not yet have a definition from the coiner, I will have to guess the intended meaning from contracted terms and the context. Canuck is easy. It's just an informal way of saying Canadian. Knuckle and head together mean (in the usual definition) 'an idiot; a stupid or inept person.' Collectivism's meaning is a bit more diffuse, because although a strict connotation can mean this -- 'an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned and controlled by the people collectively' -- sometimes in Randian purlieus the meaning can stretch out far and wide. I am guessing here, but I think Phil means collectivism to stand in for all things opposite to 'individualism' tout court. In other words, simplified, individualism is the best economic system/politico-philosophical stance/ethical position . . . and collectivism is not. So, gathered together, canuckleheadlectivism is a short way of saying 'the complex of stupid behaviours and ethics that our communist northern neighbours are prone to.' Or even simpler, 'stupid Canadian collectivism.' Now, the context is difficult to read; we can either examine only this thread, or we can examine the entire context of Phil's statements about Canada, collectivism and stupidity. For the purposes of this analysis, I will choose the context of this thread, four way stops. Since Carol provided a (perhaps ironic) vignette of Canucki behaviour at four-way stops -- the only Canuckistani reference -- I suspect that Phil is trying to be at least as tongue-in-cheek as Carol may be. In that spirit of fun, then, I will suggest another word that may take the place of Phil's neologism. Multiculturalism. He asks if there is a "French Canadian" cognate. I would have to say, yes, but, and get a bit persnickety. A better way of putting "French Canadian" is "Canadian French" -- while keeping open the possibility that Phil means 'French Quebec' or 'Quebec French.' The most common translation into French (Canadian) is 'multiculturalisme.' However, officially and by law, 'multiculturalism' in Quebec is a federal policy. Several provincial governments in Quebec have rejected the word 'multiculturalisme' to describe their own efforts to integrate newcomers. You will not find 'multiculturalisme' policy described as such in Quebec policies. The word and policy in Quebec is 'interculturalisme.' I might as well answer Phil's query about Toronto 'trolleys.' -- firstly, Toronto doesn't have 'trolleys'; it has GoTrains, subway cars, automated light rapid transit cars, streetcars, buses and 'wheel-trans.' -- Phil wondered why Toronto trolleys subway cars have end-doors that are locked or impassible or verboten between cars. I don't know -- I expect it is simply for safety reasons -- as there is a real possibility that you can fall between the train cars while it is underway.** However, the next generation subway cars now being introduced have no interior/between-car doors. They are designed so that folks can walk from one end of the train to the other without opening doors at all. Here are some pictures. The first is of the new subway train interior, the second is of the end car, with its emergency exit. Third picture is of the newest Toronto streetcar design. The fourth picture shows the three-axle, two-compartment streetcar. The first compartment is for English Canadians and the second is for all others. There is a passage between them, but because we have multiculturalism, no one uses it. The final picture is of the special streetcars available for hire. This one has been hired by one of Canada's foreign banks as part of its 'Celebrate Profit' multicultural festival. It runs all night with a wetbar, henna-painting booth, spa, and investment counsellors. _____________ ** Phil may or may not know this, but you are liable to a fine if you cross between cars on the NYC subway. See here for the ins and outs.

<div><img src="http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/teek/img/eu_sm.jpg" style="float:left;padding-right:12px">Final hints: not an Ewok . . . 'A scruffy, mischievous creature that stands under a meter tall, the being known as XXXX has a close-set eyes, buck-teeth, and often speaks with a giggle. His enormously fast metabolism grants him lightning-quick speed, and he is able to run and do other tasks in a blur. XXXX is actually a representative of a rare and semi-intelligent species native to Endor, also called XXXXs. These creatures scavenge and steal things from animal nests and Ewok dwellings. Most Ewoks don't like XXXXs, finding them to be pests.'</div> I don't include a link for the redacted excerpt above. I want Phil Coates to have a chance to win this guess game fair and square. PS -- I cheated and used TinEye reverse image lookup.

I think this has been posted before on OL, but what the heck. These niqabitches are now subject to fines . . .

I hope to track down the book and read the tale. I had not heard of the book before. The book sounds interesting in itself -- if I understand it correctly, this was Hill's 800 page recreation/retelling/dramatizing of three generations of Lakota culture up until 1835. ND -- that was a lovely, moving video.