william.scherk

The youngster in the paraphrase from Hanta Yo! would have done better to keep his reasoning quiet, and silently rattle through his heuristic until he arrived at a best guess. That way the crabby elder could have got the answer he was looking for. What is this?

This is very close, but not complete. Thanks for the extended definition, Michael. I question the use of 'hater' as I once questioned your use of 'bonehead' as a useful appellation for James Valliant. One can fairly claim Richard Wiig is a hater of Islam, and link to an OL post in which he explicitly tells us he hates Islam tout court in some places, while in others lets us know the limits of what he hates, as in this excerpt delimiting his view of the 'enemy': I said most of what I had to say about my differences with Richard in this post about the hard work of correct identification and in this post about his incorrigible sloppiness. I excerpt some of Richard's judgements on Islam from the last link (and in which I told Richard he went on my ignore list). This is what he believes to be true:

Yup. Which means when I look at a thread, all posts from you are replaced by "You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Infidel." I can, however, click a link that reads "View it anyway?" Phil is now, apparently, including a post number with his excerpts, which is a nice compromise with those who harry him about using the quote function. Speaking of quotes, you italicized this phrase: (which means the violent Islamist jihad in Spencer-speak) -- but you did not note who said it and where. The phrase does not occur in this thread. Who said it and where, Richard? It is difficult to know if your charge [just shows your ignorance] is accurate when you do not provide context.

I concur. Keep 'em coming, please . . .

Subject: Polite disagreement 1) If I understand your point correctly, you object to MSK's use of 'hater' -- and you wish he would give a distinct example of straightforward 'hate' on the part of Richard Wiig. I agree with you, Phil, insofar as a simple appellation like "hater" is a sweeping general term. And I think it is fair to ask for a reference or quote or link to demonstrate that Richard is indeed a 'hater' in Michael's term (I believe this is Michael's shorthand for folk who are bigoted about Islam [or any other particular body of religious thought or group or nation or assumed collectivity]). Richard has been consistent and relatively straightforward: he 'hates' Islam. He can tell the difference between a Salafi, a Talibani, an Ikhwan, a Shi'a, an Ismaili, an Ahmadiya, an Alawite, A Twelver, an Islamist, an Islamicist, a violent jihadi and a Sufi, and tell the difference between a Bin Laden, a Rashid Ghannouchi, and an Amr Khaled. He knows that there is a difference between Yusef al-Qaradawi and Sohail Raza. He can lay out for us the differences between the various Islamic currents in Tunisia, Egypt, Bosnia, Chechnya, and the various schools of Islamic thought that compete for influence around the world. That is not what is important to Richard, as far as I can tell. He hates Islam, an evul, oppressive religion that threatens the West and freedom. 2) In the politest possible way, Phil, I request that you use a consistent means of adequately quoting/referring to posts & participants in discussion here. Please use both name and post number when you excerpt someone's words. If you will not or cannot do that, I will probably put you under my ignore filter.

The California Court of Appeal decision on his lengthy efforts to reduce child support payments bears out part of the daughter's tale. That said, I think the daughter was scoring a political/personal/emotional point, and some can find the airing of her tale a bit ick depending on their taste for family entrails -- how can Dad respond? The article deepens wounds, extends estrangement, and embarrasses the father. Power to her for getting off her chest and into text a proper Fuck You, Dad, but I understand an aversion to this kind of airing. Carol, read some of the comments on the Salon article; there is nothing like other people's troubles to attract the looky-loos and the pontificators and the couch-experts. The first pages excoriate the dad and Rand/Objectivism. As I said backstagee to Ninth, perhaps Objectivishism was pie-shell to his filling.

Neither. We have the Western Canada Concept Party of BC and a few other provincial blocs who wish to be separate entities of some kind (not attached to the mighty USA). The WCC was serious enough to gain some 0.86% of the vote in a 1983 provincial election, but it has since declined and hasn't run any candidates since 2005. I am sure the WCCBC leader, Doug Christie, didn't find it funny, but the idea is pretty much a non-starter. Currently the favoured route to mergizing with America is via a green card and U-haul. There is of course the sovereigntist Bloc Québécois, who celebrate their eighteenth year in the federal parliament. The best-known and most successful secessionist party is the old Parti Québécois, who might one day get its shit together and win a referendum . . . For funny, you have to read what our current prime minister said when the federal parliament voted on a solemn motion that designated Quebec a nation within Canada back in 2006: "Quebecers have always played a historic role in advancing Canada with solidarity, courage, and vision, and to build a confident Quebec, an independent Quebec that's proud and has solidarity within a strong and united Canada, an independent and free Canada. Do Quebecers form a nation within a united Canada? The answer is yes. Do Quebecers form an independent nation from Canada? The answer is no, and it will always be no." He said with a straight face what had been said by a Quebec humourist: "Quebecers want a free and independent Quebec within a strong and united Canada." I imagine, Peter, you can figure out similar tropes for the US citizens of Puerto Rico!

We Canadians could probably do a better job of describing multiculturalism -- especially why public opinion in Canada tends to support official multicultural policy and practice. It must be puzzling to an American on OL that a majority of Canuckistanis are happy with multiculturalism. The first thing Americans might understand to tease this out is Quebec and official language policy, in historical context. Almost as boring as Canadian politics, but I think necessary. Another key to understanding the Canadian experience is sectarian/ethnic conflict and violence. Another angle on understanding is the level of segregation in Canada. Does official and unofficial multiculturalism actually promote civic integration or ethnic isolation? Are there actual ethnic ghettos in Canada -- ghettos that in reality seclude and prevent participation? As Bob Mac (another Canuckistani) pointed out, the British Empire was faced with the challenge of a defeated remnant of the French Empire -- a large number of the 'defeated' folk who had been ruled by the French monarchy became subjects of the British Crown. The 'Canadiens' in Quebec simply could not be forced to become English . . . When Michael asserts that 'multiculturalists' "usually think only in terms of this collective against that collective," he is on the right track. I would suggest he think about how an American polity would have dealt with the situation in Canada post 1763. How would a dominant 'collectivity' deal with the 'other' collectivity if America had contained not only a former New England, but a former New France? Studiodekadent also offers an angle to understanding, when he writes, "different groups will naturally come into conflict with each other; cultures will clash." The result of the violent conflict between France and England was, for better or worse a Canada of English-speakers and French-speakers. If the Americans had at some point overthrown the English Crown in French-speaking Canada . . . what would America have done with Quebec and the French Fact? Peter Taylor writes, humourously of 'the 51st state.' How would have a French-speaking state have been integrated into the United States of America?

Phil, Where did this discussion take place? TIA for providing the link. Here is a direct link to the comment by "Brakeman." "Brakeman" is responding to a comment from "Warren Mells." Phil's brief snippet might leave the impression that "Brakeman" is a Rand-basher. The point Phil seems to be making is that "Brakeman" still falls for the standard criticisms. I don't know if this is true, but the full context supplies some clues . . . Xray -- because of the vagaries of the commenting software (Disqus), it is not always possible to move directly to a comment that appears beyond the first forty on a given thread.

Jack covers a lot of eventualities, doesn't it? It covers the phony ceasefire proclaimed by Libya's Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa. It covers the lack of French bombs dropped at this hour. About skirmishes, I think it might cover little things like mobile rocket launchers being used to punch holes in rebel neighbourhoods, and frantic attempts to resist the assaults. Michael might be entirely right that jack will not happen in Libya. I don't credit a lizard-Obama who pushes the UN to issue wide war powers on the one hand while on the other hand secretly liking and hoping for the success of the lizard-monster in Tripoli -- does Obama have some devious back-pocket strategy to do nothing, and thereby prop up the monster? I doubt it. Seriously, as Steve was angry to see, all weapons of war were issued by the Security Council, whose deployment will be measured and supervised by the US. I think Michael may be correct to look at the left side of the graph, the lower-level actions that we know have already taken place in Libya: rocket, helicopter gunship, fighter jet, surface to surface missile, bomb, artillery, machine gun, automatic rifle. And we can see fresh reports in the news that the Colonel has indiscriminately shelled Misrata this morning with an additional 20-odd civilians dead so far. A little of this and a little of that and a few skirmishy Western bombing runs and all that amounts, as Michael observes, to the left side of the graph, and not to the right side of the graph limned by Steve, wherein blood-stained US boots in the desert portend a lengthy occupation. Somewhere in the middle perhaps?

Tony, we are now thirteen. I haven't added anyone who has not explicitly posted his or her location in this thread. <iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&msa=0&msid=212471084139371918966.00049e9f13037e62b036d&ll=44.465151,-86.484375&spn=63.418543,172.792969&output=embed"></iframe><br /><small>View <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&msa=0&msid=212471084139371918966.00049e9f13037e62b036d&ll=44.465151,-86.484375&spn=63.418543,172.792969&source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">OL Members Map</a> in a larger map</small>

There is some starkly opposing opinion in America over US involvement in Libya. Some castigated a dithering President who would let Gaddafi crush his people. Others rejected any use of American force, or strongly cautioned that there is cost involved in a simple 'no fly zone' and that goals of such an action were unlikely to be realized. A lot of folks have weighed in heavily on the entire US/Libya dance. And now France, Britain, the USA and seven other nations of the UN Security Council have authorized not only a no-fly zone, but 'all necessary measures' against Libya -- as Steve's link announces. Joyous Libyan rebels in Benghazi erupted with fireworks and gunfire after the U.N. Security Council voted Thursday evening to impose a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians. The opposition, with devoted but largely untrained and under-equipped units, has suffered military setbacks this week. It has said such international action was necessary for it to have any chance of thwarting Moammar Gadhafi's imminent assault on the rebel stronghold. "We're hoping and praying that the United Nations will come up with a very firm and very fast resolution and they will enforce it immediately," said Ahmed El-Gallal, a senior opposition coordinator, before the vote. That's five weeks to Easter, and five more years of forecasting -- an absolute worst case scenario for American lives and interests. I don't find that particular worst case scenario plausible. I don't find any indication that foreign troops will enter Libya in any numbers, and I think a future Libya free of Gaddafi can build its own nation with its oil revenue. The green light to all necessary measures puts the ball to Gaddafi. He promises, alternately, to assault Benghazi and exterminate its traitor rats, room by room, and also to offer its rats an amnesty. I figure he will pause this morning in Tripoli and wonder just which of his remaining aircraft should be put in the sky today, if any. I figure the French or British will do the air-defenses takeout, supported by European and Arab squadrons. The Ewacs will drone overhead and feed intelligence to rebel commanders, cruise missiles and drones may buzz and drub targets -- but only as called for by Gaddafi's actions. If Gaddafi wants to party, airstrikes will cripple his forces. It could be that your president pushed the UN to issue war powers knowing that allies could handily administer any punishment. There is ample international and Arab support for neutralizing Gaddafi's armed efforts against his people. I hope defections accelerate, a cease-fire takes hold, and that if Gaddafi wishes to escalate conflict he will be be burned by the fire he lights. May he burn, and may the Libyans be shut of him. The US need not fly one sortie itself to knock him onto the pyre.

If you are still in Florida, Phil, there are four theatres listed on the AtlasShrugged site, in Aventura, Hialeah, Miami Lakes and South Miami: Aventura Mall 19501 Biscayne Boulevard, Aventura, FL 33180 Cinemark Paradise 24 15601 Sheridan Street, Davie, FL 33331 Grand 18 17355 NW 59TH Avenue, Miami Lakes, FL 33015 Sunset Place 24 5701 Sunset Dr # 300, South Miami, FL 33143

Regarding this purported low testosterone in Japanese men, measured when, and as compared to whom? Regarding the purported inbreeding (with its implied tendency to genetic defect), measured how and compared to whom? Regardless, if a weak and inbred Japanese stock does not tip the balance against looting behaviour, why raise this quasi-factual inferior physical status for everyone to disregard? Regarding a purported fat and stupid North American, with his bloated and degenerate children and a surfeit of aggressive hormones surging through his flab, why wouldn't the difference between national testosterone levels well explain non-looting, at least to some degree?

There is a 'plug-in' for IP Board license holders, called Member Map. Michael/Kat may not have the inclination or time to install and configure the plug-in. There's always Google, of course. Here we all are, workin' it (click image to view the OL Members Google Map -- I have added all in this thread who cared to be pinned to a location):

The Muslim Dunderhood appears to have chosen the wrong fork in the road, urging a yes vote on the Egyptian constitutional amendments, while everyone and his dog is calling for rejection, with some polls registering a 60% No. Brotherhood denies religious pressure on Constitution vote Political parties call Friday protest against constitution amendments Even the Egyptian Pope says no . . .

Another small sign of the times. Egypt dissolves hated state security agency

Let's see . . . Amr Khaled, the most popular Islamic preacher in Egypt, makes a special trip to Soul. There to preach reconciliation, to rally Muslims and Copts together. He asks for a show of hands from the congregation -- who would vow no to sedition and differences? What did they do, the crowd inside and outside the mosque? What did they vow? Outside, he says, 'We stand here, Muslims, Copts, Army, Police and people' . . . and the crowd raises its hands against sectarianism, pledging peace. Moreover, as an anti-Jihaditarian, Richard is no doubt at least partially aware of the collusion between the Mubarak regime and the Salafists -- no doubt partially aware of the Salafi influence over anti-Copt forces. So, what is encouraging about Salafis denouncing sectarian attacks and putting forward an eight-point declaration aimed at defusing tensions and reducing discrimination against Copts? That video is supposed to be somehow encouraging? Yeah. "All the things that William lists," what are they, actually? I invite Richard to go over the two previous round-ups of news I posted, giving it his full attention, that then come back and give us what he promises but does not deliver -- an explanation in just a few words. I can't tell who "they" are. Are they the folks quoted, reported on in the twenty-odd media reports I cited? I would like to see what Richard thinks about the race between ElBaradei and Moussa, what he thinks about a possible rejection of the constitutional amendments. Just a few words for the prosecutions, the front pages of Egyptian dailies, the warp and weft of events a-tumble. I get the feeling that these few words will turn out to be Portents of Doom. This is sloganeering, not discussion. Go get informed, Richard, come back, and then rant at length, in detail. Please put up a full telling of your Egypt Is Doomed story, at your leisure.

Are you never going to recognise the difference between Muslims, and Muslim Fascists? Richard is partially-right, regarding the Coptic/Muslim/state terror equation. I think it is incorrect to think that the Army rebuilding the torched church is not a substantial development. The story in itself is remarkable -- Richard may know the details of this particular brief, and he may not. When has the Army ever taken the responsibility and expense to repair a church? What does the action suggest about state policy towards Coptic demands? What will the action augur in the short and medium turn, given the other movements and actions on the sectarian front? Should we not become familiar with the details before brushing the rebuilding aside? A few things to consider: until this action, the rules governing church reconstruction and building/repair have been mired in procedural murk and opposition coming from the ruling NDP. In addition, the NDP is now seen itself as an encourager -- if not planner -- of sectarian attacks, as with the Alexandria church bombing. Beyond that, there are a number of agents from civil society, religious bodies, state organs and so on that have reacted to the most recent strife in ways that are distinct from the past -- starting with the sit-in at state TV, the words of Qaradawi, the Mufti, the Botherhood, the PM (who met with protesting Copts and pledged a number of actions). Is it an intriguing development, for example, that the Botherhood has donated a whack of money for the reconstruction? Is that unsubstantial? Is it worth remarking that Muslims in the village had already pledged to rebuild? How significant is the news that the Salafist mucky-mucks have spoken out against attacks (the Salafists are hardcore Islamic-purists who generally disdain the Copts and their struggles) -- urging justice for Copts and reading out an eight point 'reconciliation statement'? Is it noteworthy that Amr Khaled led prayers at the village mosque? Each of these developments are front-page news in Egyptian media, though the details remain generally unremarked in the West. Where Richard is right is that problems remain. I would suggest that he and we keep up on the changes in Egypt, that we may better understand when something is unsubstantial, revelatory, encouraging, or direly predictive of doom. I hope I am wrong, but I think only doom-laden news twangs the heartstrings of the IslamoFreakout contingent. How many Freakout Folk bother to watch Khaled and his effect on the folks of Soul and beyond? <object id="flashvideo" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="480" height="360" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab"> <param name="movie" value="http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/Player51.swf" /> <param name="FlashVars" value="plugins=http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/jw_plugins/hd-1.swf,http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/jw_plugins/captions-1.swf&hd.file=http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/video/2011/03/12/16/atfih_84573_47369446.flv&hd.state=false&file=http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/video/2011/03/12/16/atfih_84573_719480124.mp4&image=http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/video/2011/03/12/16/atfih_84573_588274774.jpg&captions.file=http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/video/2011/03/13/837/atfih_against_sedition.srt&autostart=false&provider=http&bufferlength=5" /> <param name="quality" value="high" /> <param name="wmode" value="window" /> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <embed name="flashvideo" allowScriptAccess="always" src="http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/Player51.swf" width="480" height="360" border="0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" wmode="window" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" flashvars="plugins=http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/jw_plugins/hd-1.swf,http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/jw_plugins/captions-1.swf&hd.file=http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/video/2011/03/12/16/atfih_84573_47369446.flv&hd.state=false&file=http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/video/2011/03/12/16/atfih_84573_719480124.mp4&image=http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/video/2011/03/12/16/atfih_84573_588274774.jpg&captions.file=http://media.almasryalyoum.me/sites/default/files/video/2011/03/13/837/atfih_against_sedition.srt&autostart=false&provider=http&bufferlength=5" /> </embed> </object>

A round-up of Egyptian news. Constitution not a done deal -- almost six in ten oppose; Muslim Dunderhoods urge acceptance. Arab League head Amr Moussa leads the Egyptian Presidential pack alongside ElBaradei, rejects constitutional amendments, meets Libyan rebel reps, announces Arab League vote for no-fly zone. Egypt and Tunisia market 'revolution' tourism. Egyptian moviemakers plunge into post-revolution productions (file under cultural renaissance and the return of Cairo media power). And the army starts to rebuild the torched church, easing sectarian tensions seen as orchestrated by state security and Mubarak remnants in the 'counter-revolution.' With the Arab League call that the Security Council sanction a no-fly zone, looks like the ponderous machinery of just war clanks on towards Gaddafi's doom. Russia, China, Turkey, Germany the last hold-outs on international action. Will NATO airpower wait for a UN nod? Daily Star (Beirut): The right intervention mix for Libya Al-Ahram (Cairo): Muslim Brotherhood supports Egypt constitutional amendments Al-Masry Al-Youm (Cairo): Majority of Egyptians against constitutional amendments, says poll [iDSC Poll (The Egyptian Cabinet's Information and Decision Support Center): Would you agree to the suggested modifications of the Egyptian constitution?] American Thinker: There Is No Democracy Movement In Egypt BBC: Arab League 'backs Libya no-fly zone Other headlines from Al-Masry Al-Youm: Moussa meets Libyan revolutionaries Former state security chief admits ordering destruction of documents Egypt's Tantawi expresses hopes of ending Syrian-Egyptian estrangement Thursday’s papers: Sectarian strife and a blacklist of corrupt officials Egypt's uprising inspires and liberates local filmmakers Egypt, Tunisia tout revolutions as tourism draw -- via Google Translate, a brief report that the Egyptian Army sets to rebuild the burned church in in the village of Sole, starting tomorrow. I note that the Islamofreakout sites fail to report continuing developments, stopping at the church-burning and the deaths in October 6th city. And finally a sign that the Egyptian judicial machine still grinds, with much press and TV reporting of the arrest, investigation and prosecution of the those behind the 'camel attack' on Feb 2.

Morocco may turn out to be an anomaly among the Magreb states facing demands for democratic reforms. The King of Morocco has put forth a plan destined to end with a constitutional referendum. It will be interesting to watch the big oil monarchy of Saudi Arabia grapple with the same underlying current of change. Christian Science Monitor: Can Morocco's King Mohammed VI outpace Morocco's 'winds of change'? In a rare speech, King Mohammed VI outlined reforms that include a more independent judiciary, a move to direct local elections, and greater human rights. Reuters Africa: Morocco king announces constitutional reform plan Morocco's King Mohamed announced a planned constitutional reform on Wednesday and appointed a committee to work with political parties, trade unions and civil society groups to draw up proposals by June. The king, speaking in a televised address, said the reform would include plans for an independent judiciary, a stronger role for parliament and political parties and a regionalisation programme to devolve more powers to local officials. Bloomberg: Morocco King Pledges to Alter Constitution, Respond to Calls for Democracy Morocco’s King Mohammed VI, responding to calls for more democracy, pledged to create a committee to review the North African nation’s constitution by June and hold a referendum on the changes shortly after. Speaking on television, King Mohammed promised to allow religious freedom and more transparent justice and said the prime minister would come from an elected party. The changes in Morocco come “in view of its progress in democracy,” he said. Al-Jazeera: Moroccan monarch pledges reform "We have decided to undertake a comprehensive constitutional reform," King Mohammed said in a televised address on Wednesday, underlining his "firm commitment to giving a strong impetus to the dynamic and deep reforms... taking place". The live broadcast was the first time the king has delivered an address to the nation since thousands of people demonstrated in several cities on February 20 demanding political reform and limits on his powers. Six people were killed in unrest that erupted after the demonstrations, including five found burned to death in a bank set ablaze by people whom officials labelled vandals. Another 128, including 115 members of the security forces, were wounded in the violence and 120 people were arrested, the interior ministry said. Asharq Alawsat: Morocco king vows sweeping reforms Opposition Islamist Justice and Development Party (PJD) leader Abdelilah Benkirane welcomed the speech saying that Mohammed had "reacted positively to the demands made by the parties and young people". "We are almost surprised," he said in a first reaction, welcoming the monarch's "powerful" response. "The PJD is satisfied. This development looks more like a revolution and the concerned parties are asked to work seriously to make the contents of the speech become reality." "This is a break with a discredited past," said political scientist Mohamed Darif. "He has met the demands of many Moroccans who never stopped to ask for institutional and political reforms." "This speech breaks with the monarchy as an executive power. It does not create a parliamentary monarchy but provides for a balanced monarchy where power is divided between the king and a government based on parliament."

The Machinery has moved to remove the video. How sad. Now I must escalate.

Where did you see this? What kind of 'dole'? I would like to know more about this story.

My blog retirement is going badly. I feel like a Snowbird in Sun City, except that I am the only camper there. No knocks on the door. No fun outings. Trapped. I have taken to having imaginary conversations with folks I hope might drop in. Like Diana Hsieh. I have been having a conversation with her on the subject of ethics. Or rather, she rants at me from her podcasts and I imagine what kind of conversational neck-lock I could apply. Since she has banned me at Noodlefood comments (unless I choose a sockpuppet, which I find unethical), I no longer have any opportunity for her to read or consider my writing. Thus the neck-lock I imagine. Her ranting at me from a stand-up studio in her compound near Sedalia, me ranting at her from a patio in leafy White Rock. A conversation. A chat. A full and frank exchange. Sadly, the only conversations happen in the dire OO.net chatbox, and in face-to-face confabs at objectivish meetups large and small. There is a real non-communication policy between the various factions, so nobody talks face to face with anybody whom they believe is opposed to them, or Objectivism, or morality or whatever. I listen to Diana Hsieh giving practical ethical tips and fatwas, talking to her dreary pogue co-host, reading the live chatclaque lines off her monitor, and I think how isolated from discourse, challenge and heated exchanges is she. So, what do I think about the smear of issues under the rubric civility? It depends. A writer can be civil, measured, careful -- even kind and empathetic in his stance. A writer can use a variety of voices, from bland to caustic, from screaming to whispers, can be scolding, coaxing, sweet. The voice, the stance and the register are tools. A writer can write towering jeremiads, relentless satires and critiques, vast summary judgements, intricate inquisitions. Tart, pointed insults. Mockery. Invective. Whatever the fuck he wants. He can insult happily and without apology or explanation. He uses whatever tools, whatever potion he has mixed up for his purpose. Insulting language is a sometimes useful, shocking ingredient -- especially when infused with ridicule -- itself a most powerful tool of the rhetorical kit. At its best, insult is unforgiving, unforgivable, and unforgettably true. When I mock the Mad Princess of Objectivism, when I pillory The Vicar of Diddly, when I excoriate flab and laze and whinge, do I give a shit for civility and all the tut-tuts and frets and simpers and sniffs? Anyhow, back to the Mad Princess. Like all the dogmatistas, she refuses to converse. She refuses communication. She has instructed her moral enemies to never approach her or speak to her at conferences. She is mad with the same infection that has blistered and sickened Objectivism for forty years. Exclusion. Shunning. Cultish self-isolation. This is perhaps the most monstrous incivility of all. So generally, I view squabbles about manners and comportment quite as I do chickens pecking aimlessly in their pen. Seriously, it is okay to be uncivil. It is sometimes more than necessary. It stirs up the dank ponds full of bleary-eyed Objectivish toads and flusters the dimwitted clucks. Phil, please use incivility to advance your interests, use it wisely, use it with purpose. As for Princess, I am going to do another nasty edit of a podcast, dolled up with scathing visuals and portentous music. At my OL wind-blasted holiday blogtrailer "Frenzenfoes," where I am semi-retired. Where we can have a conversation about Hsieh, Civility & Humour. Here again is my musical comedy version of Diana Does TheBrandens, which is now number five on the Google results for "Diana Hsieh." And then follows an excerpt from my fiesta of incivilitas, "Universe of Evil" (which Hsieh characterized as raving screed), from March 26 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AQxfyhUwZE