william.scherk

Fo rgive my pose of literalism. I was hoping ML LM would come out of his fear of being a faction of one. It is distressing to see him try vainly to make sense of currents in Islamic thought that he does not support, since he labours under the revert delusion that Islam Is One. Oddly, a mirror delusion to that which burdens Emir Wiig. Unlike Wiig, however, ML LM still seeks to make sense of the sprawl of mutually-contradictory murk in historic Islamic Jurisprudence. Wiig has read the four-page tract Evul Islam In Black and White, and so can pretend to know things. I hope ML LM finds his little niche or current or school. I cannot imagine what it is like to be an evangelist for a libertarian Islam that is also One. My head would explode.

Great line -- The Westboro Baptist Church of Objectivism! I used to think that Objectivist schisms were much like (Canadian) Marxist schisms. At one time, pre-1990, there were six or seven groups who hated each other more than they hated the rest of us. Now I think the schisms are no more and no less than any other interdenominational wrangles that emerge like mutants in all religions. Given enough time, Objectivish folk could have a thousand warring factions and a hundred ecumenical councils. Odd, but not that odd. Until a right-thinking vanguard actually gets mitts on power, the purges and exterminations are all performed bloodlessly. Another apparently more perplexing oddity is that this Reggie, More Pontifical Than A Pope, does not call himself an Objectivist. This turns out to be a rather unclever dodge, however, because although he claims not to be an Objectivist, this is because he thinks the only true Objectivist is Ayn Rand, and he is defending her against the Perversions of Scripture. Truly a loss for the Church, that Reggie did not take Holy Orders.

From a story in the Economist: Modern Muslims seeking a fatwa on a practical matter need no longer go to a local mosque, or to the state-salaried officials, or muftis, used by many Sunni Muslim countries as arbiters. (Malaysia has 14 muftis; one for each state.) They can call in to a radio or television show featuring a popular preacher, or use the dial-a-fatwa phone service that one Egyptian firm offers. Half a dozen websites in English alone (like efatwa.com, muftisays.com and askimam.com) offer online advice about everything from ablution to Zionism. A downloadable service, “FatwaBase”, can be used on handheld computers. I also discovered an odd figure from the Egyptian Daily News -- the official body overseen by the Grand Mufti, the Dar Al-Ifta, "has issued 465,000 fatwas — or religious edicts — either verbally or written, via telephone or email" in 2010. This number is backed up in a brilliant story from The New Yorker, which said Dar Al-Ifta issued "five thousand fatwas a week." This doesn't, of course, take away the force of the edict contained in LM's report, just puts it in perspective.

I can't follow Cathcart when he skips his meds and turns into the Linda Blair of SOLO. I do know that the non-Objectivist Libertarian Goode does swallow the Singularity whoopup, but he doesn't pretend to be other than an individual loon, not a stand-in for One True Truthy Cathcartian Truthburger.

Not just the "skeptics," but skeptics too, and not just lately. Even sceptics loathe the HP. MSK, you will get a kick and a thrill out of the Slate article on Huffington and her SEO whoring . . .

I hate HP -- such a mushy melange of gossip, pseudoscience, touchy moderation, anti-vax nonsense, sloppy reporting and all-round slop. If you want straightforward leftism, there are a number of better, more focussed sites to fret over, starting with Media Matters. That said, Fluffington currently draws over 25 million viewers a month, and ranks 31 in US traffic. Can it 'save' AOL? Who knows? Ariana is smart enough to pocket 300 million smackers. That will buy her one Pollock and half a Bacon.

Reggie still maintains his moribund website, dead links and all, at The Autonomist. He has a newerish website, which appears to be the poor mans's WND, called the Independent Individualist, on the same server, with such lovely articles as "Islamic Maggots" and "Islamic Maggots II." I tested his online empire in my Alexa rankings of Objectivish forums, and came up with a ranking somewhere around five million. One of his favourite targets are the mean old Objectivists (in name only) who don't accept Christianity. He has also 'corrected' David Harriman in an Ultimate Crank crank-on-crank opus whose stupidity burns to the bone. Monart Pon was a nice, if ranting, Rand follower at the old SOLO. He segued from being a fairly standard autistic teenager evangelist objectivish bore into an adherent of the wackaloon Objectivish Star People cult, an offshoot of the already loony Singularity nuts, who believe in a mush of Star Trek, Rand, AI and We Can Be Immortal. Reggie must have heard it was Crank Month at OL.

Reggie Firehammer's creepy obsession with Homosexuals and their Disgusting Ways has been a fixture of the outer Objectivish fringes for almost seven years, and he has been tireless in promoting his obsession in any venue that will have him. His ugly attacks on endless harrying of Chris Sciabarra pretty much left him with a constituency comprised of his mother, his creepy boyfriend, and his former wife -- who is a notable Objectivish crank in her own right. I am always impressed by a person who can express his ignorance in such confident terms: I have no idea what Edwin Locke thinks, "sexual orientation," means Yes, we know, Reggie! As a scholar, you make a nice fry cook. As an Objectivish thinker, you rank just just slightly above Monart Pon. If you had a heart, I figure it would be about the size and empathetic potential of a raisin. Why don't you flip over to your other obsession, I Am An Expert On Science And My Endless Snarky Tirades Prove It? Let us know if you even manage to get published outside of the Objectivish equivalent of Jack Chick Presents. [i misremembered Firehammer's engagement with Sciabarra. Rather than an ugly attack, it was simply endless and obtuse. He actually bid Sciabarra goodbye with a pleasant adieu]

No need to be such a communist about it, Joel. You just have to ask. She comes across as extremely well-informed, thoughtful, intellectually incisive, and the all-important 'Presidential.'** I don't think it is fair for you to implicitly demean the Christian Broadcasting Network as a credible media source. CBN has many programmes of interest to the OL community. So she is not going for the headlines, or appearing on the communist 'lamestream' media, or fielding interviews from networks and newspapers that would harass her with gotcha questions. So what? Is there some unwritten rule that you have to submit to critical scrutiny just because you aspire to high office? That is kind of like asking Mubarak to give an interview to CNN, or a President taking questions on FoxNews. Politics should be fought on Facebook, Twitter and in carefully vetted friendly venues. <embed src="http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnPlayer.swf?aid=20936" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="348"> <embed src="http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnPlayer.swf?aid=20937" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="348"> <embed src="http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnPlayer.swf?aid=20938" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="348"> ______________ ** if you just use the proper metrics to measure these things.

It's true about UCLA etal of course, and of the highly-educated young Americans who enter them from excellent private or public schools. But I thought we were talking about the public education system, Grades 1-12. Oh, you are probably right. It is kind of odd for a Canuckistani to be defending the USA against an American denigrating his own country. The kind of rhetoric Phil uses just sets me off on my own rant, I guess. [Added: here is a link to stat graphs that support Phil's take on 1-12, California v NW] I will apologize for my nasty comeback tirade once Phil returns. In the meantime, another hasty rant written earlier: This really surprised me. Why? Canuckistan is First World and determined to remain so. With our mix of collectivism and communism and socialism and marxism and good-old fashioned leftism, with slight garnishes of freedom to spice up the grey gloom, we are almost identical to the rest of the Europeanized socialist hellholes in the top ranks of the OECD. And we are so damned different from the US in every way that any American can list all nine hundred essential differences off the top of his head. By the way, did you catch Sarah Palin on CBN today? I wonder how she did in her K-12.

Half a century of Objectivist thought has reviled American education as a foul Pragmatist horror (see 'The Comprachicos') or otherwise slack and awful; by your estimation, the rest of the world has caught up with this revulsion. The thing is, Phil, your estimation of the world's admiration or lack thereof is not true -- at least in regards to worldwide estimation of post-secondary education. I won't bother to do your homework by citing the stats I dug up yesterday, but if one looks at global rankings of Universities, American is Mecca for serious students. The greatest universities of the world are in America. Of course, from an Objectivish standpoint, the US universities are also dire anti-reason shitholes, so I guess that you, Phil, can square the circle. It would help the persuasive power of your rant if you based your conclusions on some reasoned and accessible references. Otherwise, you just come across as another smug "America is doomed" fuckhead. Oh, please. Cite something, anything in support of your claims. Why don't you assemble a rational, objective argument instead of these tiresome rants? You can do better.

Like Boydston, I like to view and ponder the works, primarily -- though of course I am also curious enough to read and ponder critical evaluations of particular works (an early immersion in ArtCritSpeak gave me an appreciation for lunatic prose that I still hold). The Bacon canvas is in the collection of the Des Moines Art Center. If they ever need a new roof, they can sell it off. One of the last Bacon's on auction went for over 85 million smackers. I would love to see other folk's faves. Here's a video a friend did of a few of my drawings dating from the 1980s, which I think I have posted before at OL.

An interesting pictorial of world rankings on Math, Science and Reading, from OECD countries, featured in the Guardian.

Carole, you may be an 'art idiot,' though I doubt it, but if you don't know anything about this study, you expressed a wonderful reaction from non-knowledge. I cannot actually put in words why I appreciate the study, but the study moves me very much -- your quote carries the savour of my reaction (and not coincidentally does duty as valediction on Pharoah Mubarak). Another artist on OL has published quite a lengthy Objectivish-infused set of criteria for evaluating values in art; I quote this criteria below (italics mine). I wonder if anyone dares use the criteria to deconstruct the study I posted -- for example, I would love to see Roger or Jonathan do so.

I didn't post the picture of the pricey Pollock to twit you, but to contrast Objectivish prescriptions for evaluating art to the real world of trade in art. That illustration was implicit, and I should have been straightforward. When I see and read discussions of art, I want specifics, I want illustrations, I want examples. That is why I liked the side-by-side comparisons you gave earlier. I read the Kamhi/Torres book and I felt really really sad for the authors. The world of art criticism, promotion, advertising, scholarly whoopups and so on is lavishly funded. The art world is awash in billions of dollars and thousands of salaried academics, and even more thousands who make their livings ancilliary to it. The K/T book competes with thousands of other books, some of which are colour-plated from beginning to end. The world of Objectivish Art Talk is so irrelevant to that world it staggers me. It staggers me, moreover, that we can yawp on OL about art without posting illustrative examples. To put my massively-irrelevant money where my even more massively-irrelevant mouth is, I post an image of one of my top fifty paintings of all time. I suspect that a strictly Objectivish reaction would be revulsion and dismissal: the painting would have zero objective value.

Thanks for your rejoinder. I had thought that Romney's biggest problem vis a vis Mormonism was with the evangelical or social-conservative element in the Republican Party. I would say, on balance, all media had waaaaaaay too much to say about the issue. Even Fox. Can you imagine an Objectivist candidate who said, "I don't believe in gods. Next question, please." Apparently, America would elect a Satanist before an atheist. I am old enough to recall John Anderson and Ross Perot. Why does the US so rarely come up with a candidate that independents can get enthused about, do you think? Mo Mo Mo Mormon . . .

Another Atran article you might be interested in, Michael. Pumping Up the Muslim Brotherhood, Part 2

Yes. Events are running very fast. Here's a quick round-up of some of the stories that I pondered today. Special link at the bottom for Emir Wiig and the Doom Brigade . . . Fox News: Egypt tells Iran: mind your own business Ha'aretz: Egyptians, like Israelis are desperately searching for peace Al Jazeera: Egypt remains at an impasse Ha'aretz: Rise of Islamist movements is a price Egypt will have to pay Daily Mail: Egyptian police use Facebook and Twitter to track down protesters' names before 'rounding them up' Christian Science Monitor: How the Egyptian revolt will recast the Middle East Jerusalem Post: Dangerously underestimating the Muslim Brotherhood New York Times: Egypt Stability Hinges on a Divided Military For those who want to monitor Al Jazeera coverage, as Adam does, two ways to do that on the web -- a live stream on their own page, and a live stream via Youtube. I also highly recommend both Reuters and the Guardian for their live feeds. For the Implacable Doomsters only, all they need to know . . . and of course, the centre of The Paranoid Brotherhood itself.

The cartoon is great, and it speaks for itself, really. I look forward to your next post here, as long as you don't post drunk.

The Telegraph is the only entity putting forward the charge, and no quotes from or reference to any cable were given. Using the phrase from the report below, however (since the Telegraph story did not quote anything), the source may be the cable 10GENEVA135. That is in the Telegraph trove, but not found by searching the text . . . argh. In any case, the meme has gone wild. In the meantime, both the US and UK governments have denied any factual basis to the Telegraph story. From ABC's Jake Tapper: Another enterprising person dug for the same material. Rather that rant on about crappy journalism, I will just give a link to his findings, here.

No. Exactly. I geeve you big heent, Pheeel. I geeeve you leeeenk. Check out Alexa.com, and you can teeeech yourself.

That is the problem. The Telegraph and the Daily Mail both frontlined this story, and stressed that their report was based on diplomatic cables. The Mail, of course, just rewrites Telegraph stories for the largely-illiterate, but the Telegraph has a massive and well-indexed catalogue of the leaked cables. When sourcing other stories derived from leaked cables, the Telegraph supplies links to its hoard. In this case, there is no reference to any particular cable or cables -- a search of their database using any one of or combination of the words 'trident start missiles serial numbers treaty nuclear russia russian' doesn't turn up a cable or cables that support or mention the details of the charges the Telegraph has made. Neither do any of the other, independent hoards show anything (e.g., http://cablesearch.org/ -- see also this handy primer on searching the cable leaks). The most common meme circulating on the internet today repeats the notion that Telegraph 'cited' wikileaks, but this isn't true. I will keep looking for the proverbial smoking gun, but I can't figure out why the Telegraph didn't simply point to the cable or cables that support their claim.

He was interviewed in London by the Financial Times before his return. The interview is an eye-opener and should deeply distress Emir McWillam and the Grand Mufti Wiig. Excerpt:

When I read Atran's column, I was impressed that he had been 'on the ground' as an anthropologist, and that he speaks enough Arabic to understand his informants. There is research to sifted through in his book that may not come across in his speechifying. He has interviewed the boogeyman we all tend to fear. Here's some of his views on the Egyptian Brotherhood and its chances of power there (I already posted a link to the column in the Signs Of The Times thread). His opinions are not the end of discussion, but useful data points for those who want to be as informed as possible about the likelihood of a Coming Insurrection.

I don't get this. Obama's 'liberation theology' minister and his influence on the candidate were page one news in the mainstream media. How is that 'ignoring'? As for Romney, is the story that Romney's Mormonism was only raised by the media, independent of the no-holds-barred internal Republican campaign? How about Huckabee's sleazy attack?