william.scherk

I think you might have something here, Jonathan, especially if you worked this up on a large scale. Here's a painting that David Geffen got off his hands for a mere $140,000,000. What's the price tag on yours? We may need some other rigorous objective criteria besides RandBissell's -- like market pricing -- to ascertain artistic value.

Rachid Ghannouchi, the exiled leader of the banned Islamist movement, has returned to Tunisia.

Hsieh has already given her thumbs down on the movie: "From what I've read, the movie seems to be a low-budget, haphazard rush. That means that it's sure to suck worse than I'd imagined. But perhaps, unlike a Hollywood blockbuster, they'll stick closer to the novel. I'm not hopeful, and I fear the movie could do more harm than good in terms of spreading Ayn Rand's ideas in the culture." Anyway, Carol, Noodlefoodler are much more interested in crucial 'living objectivism' questions, such as the screamingly funny 'morality of bread' question: 'Question 6: From Objectivist Answers: The Morality of Eating Bread: Since eating wheat is purported to be unhealthy due to gluten (and other stuff), is it immoral to eat bread? (Analogous to smoking being purportedly bad for you.) Since one has to eat something, it might be better to ask, “Is eating bread immoral when other food sources are available?”' I do expect that Diana will answer this question with a 'no, it's not immoral to eat bread,' even though she is currently the ObjectiPaleo high priestess. I had thought the OO.net folks were the most interested in wee, vexing questions, but it appears the Nooodlefood claque, or a portion of them, have adopted the Paleo diet as an article of faith, and thus need help in navigating its strictures.

Fun global rankings of a selected set of Objectivish websites. Although the Compete.com rankings do not quite compare, they show that of the Three Sisters**, only OL has increased its readership in the past year; RoR has lost 34.84%, SOLO has lost 41.86%. OL has gained 56.83%. Well done, Michael & Kat!

Did you read enough of the linked story to get the details of the treason? From the Telegraph story:

I myself have a pretty cynical watching brief on the issue of the future in Tunisia/Egypt. It isn't too hard to get up to speed on the daily slurry of events, but it is much more difficult to get at the elements that will make a difference. So, though I reject the histrionics of Wiig or McWilliam, their underlying fears or trepidations are ones that need examining. Even though I suspect they are mired in a bog of their own making, I hope that they might follow some of the more recent links and extend their factual grasp. As you suggest, it is hard to analyze events if one is hobbled by a tight frame and scant knowledge, or otherwise stuck in a bog. I have been keeping track of the various Olists for a while. I read at the top five -- OL, Solopassion, OO.net, and at Noodlefood. Solopassion is utter Wiig'sville in re the Middle East and has been for a long time. There is no discussion of these recent events. Anyone who dares suggest that the future may not be Islamic Doom is derided, so no discussion has got traction. SOLO harbours the ugliest kind of O-inflected xenophobia and irrationalism at the best of times, and is haunt to some genuinely raisin-hearted cranks along with the ban-happy Perigo. Rebirth Of Reason has at present one brief thread that takes DOOM as given. The line is that Islamofascism will win both Tunisia and Egypt and that is that and anyone who doubts it is a marxist/creep/non-objectivist moron. That place is staggering from decreptitude into the autopsy suite, however, so it's not too surprising that the wheezy old backslappers rule. The banhammer has cleared away all that pesky dissent. OO.net has nothing, nothing at last glance a couple of days ago. Not a single post on Egypt or Tunisia. Just the usual grim conformism and touchy moderation and feverish ignorance and clannishness. Similarly, Diana Hsieh's site has zero references to events in North Africa last I looked. Nothing whatsoever that isn't ARI-approved. The banhammer that Hsief wields means that no voices of dissent are heard, let alone tolerated. Because she bans all dissent, she is losing her audience. Her numbers have plunged over the last couple of years. OL is, for better or worse, the only online Objectivish forum where current issues get thrashed at length. That is why I struggle to dig up and post information here, and not at the other shitholes. Dissent is tolerated here. No banhammer is ever raised. Folks like me, if not liked, if not of the elect, are at least seen as a part of the community here, not as aliens to be extirpated, shamed, banned and sent packing. As I say, the last year has seen this website move ahead of all the other sites in the rankings. That is quite an achievement since the split in 2005. It now crushes the old gang in openness, readership, scope, depth, and passion -- and has the best archives of them all. I would say that OL is the number one online place to have an encounter with an Objectivish conversation. I think Michael and his lovely Kat should be proud of that achievement. Even though I am anything but an Objectivist, I do very much like reason, conceptual thinking, integration of difficult material, rigorous critical analysis and so on. These are what I consider to be the meat and potatoes of Objectivist approaches to reality and I take them seriously. I do my best to not be a guerilla nay-sayer, and I am sure I fail at that, but I try to be a strong adherent and practitioner of the things I do respect in the Objectivist project. Reason is so often our only tool for flourishing, our only tool against demagogues and manipulators of opinion, against bullshit and hate and lazy-minded preachers and bullies. So often we fail to live up to the harsh dictates of Reason, and use cheap knock-offs instead, knock-offs that are easier on our prejudices and settled opinions. Vile sexist maunderings! I like your light-heartedness, and you seem to share a certain empathy for folks here that I also feel. You don't write off individuals as crazed Randrobots (which is better than me), and you give a good shake back when shaken -- you give folks the benefit of the doubt, and a hearing, and you seem to employ Reason as best guide. Thanks for your comments. Relevant background and specifics are valuable to me, and to you, and to most folks here, whether they post or not. There are now 2,567 Views of this thread, versus fuck all at the other places.

I think westerners in general have a great deal of missing information here. Here's a book that might be useful reading for all sides in this discussion, Scott Atran's "Talking to the Enemy: Faith, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists." Amazon has that 'look inside' feature that lets you check out contents before buying. Here's some of the editorial reviews, so that prospective readers can get a handle on the book. Reader reviews here.

For your new thread, Adam, you may want to use actual the CATO study itself, entitled "Vallejo Con Dios: Why Public Sector Unionism Is a Bad Deal for Taxpayers and Representative Government." There is another CATO study that would likely support some of your argument, "Public Sector Unions and the Rising Costs of Employee Compensation." I have no particular issue with your opinions here -- outside of your habit of sticking marxist on anything that moves past you on the left -- but with your occasional truculence. Sometimes it looks like you know fuck all about a subject that you confidently post on. As with Vallejo/Bell. You mixed them up, and I found it funny -- 'the arrests' were in Bell, not Vallejo; in the fucked-by-council-mafia city, not the fucked-by-marxist-monster-unions city. Not a big deal, I marked your error in attribution so you could correct yourself. Were you ever a member of a public service union yourself?

A view from a Jew, and a Democrat to boot. Marc Ambinder was a Clinton-era ambassador to Morocco, the first Jew to be ambassador to a Muslim country. He is fluent in Hebrew, English, Arabic, and French. He originally published this column in the Huffington Post, one of my least favourite websites. It gives a liberal, Jewish perspective on some of the thorny questions about the Muslim Brotherhood and its chances of establishing an Islamic dictatorship in Egypt -- and it lays out the same facts as given above by several contributors this thread. What we can conclude from the facts is uncertain. I give here only excerpts from the whole article. I recommend another article, Egypt's Bumbling Brotherhood, for another liberal examination of the issues.

Neither city fits the bill, Adam. They are each shitty examples of your thesis. One is a mafia city, the other a broke, fucked up administration that went bankrupt. As for you using 'marxist' as an all-purpose label that implies anything to the left of Washington, use it as you will, willy-nilly, wildly, at length and at the drop of a hat. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, that's all.

Make sure you don't mix up 'marxist' with 'Marxist,' Carol. I used Adam's criteria -- by which he judges "O'biwan" as a marxist -- to point out the inevitable corollary for Canada: By Adam's standards, all Canadians labour under a Trotskyite regime, and inhabit an alien horror world far beyond Obamadracula's communist fantasies. I mean, using Adam's criteria, every single modern Canucki PM has also been to the left of Obamadracula, including our current PM. He wrote in response that he didn't have that opinion of Canada . . . and presumably did not see the sense of my remarks. Like I said, Stephen Harper fits the bill of this description of a 'marxist.' But Stephen Harper calls himself a Conservative, and runs the government of Canada. If we think of Harper as a marxist, how shall we think of those folks a bit further to the left of him, like Ignatieff, or those even further to the left, like Layton? How about those folks even further to the left, in the varied Quebec factions, or even farther -- of the feeble and demented rump Communists/Marxist-Leninists in Canada?

What are you talking about? Are you mixing up Bell and Vallejo? If so, they are about 1200 road miles apart. In the one, the city declared bankruptcy and the bankruptcy judge tore up all union contracts with the city. In the other, a city council mafia lined its pockets with millions in taxpayer money. Neither city has any conceivable utility as examples or illustrations of evul morksist younyuns threatening American municipal/state/county solvency -- especially if you can't tell the difference or are uninformed about the details of each situation. Why do you use illustrations that bear no relation to your claims, Adam?

That is exactly where I am going. I am in 100% agreement with you. I don't find 'discrediting Beck' worth the time. Moreover, 'bickering' about whether or not he 'sucks' or not is not in anyone's interest. I think we are in broad agreement. Thanks for the clear general guideline. I agree and understand. I won't post in this thread again, and I promise to avoid using Glenn Beck in any of my future discussions of Tunisia or Egypt -- lest I be seen as bickering.

First question: are the police and firefighter's unions in Vallejo an example of 'marxist unions'? Second question: are you familiar with the outcome of the Vallejo financial crisis as it pertains to the unions you mention?

A couple of quick question, Michael -- have you seen or heard or read criticism of Beck's Caliphate program that you judge to be fair or reasonable or justified? Do you think Matthews (whom I don't watch) has any legitimate criticisms of this Beck series, or should we dismiss Matthews entirely as a Beck critic? I ask this because Matthews does not form any part of my views on Beck's Caliphate program. I just don't know if there are any specific criticisms of Beck's theory of the Caliphate that you accept. I have attempted to draw out some specific criticisms of the Beck program you put up here. Should I consider that there are no specific criticisms of that program you would deem worthy of consideration? I have several posts backed up the queue; I hesitate posting them because I would rather see credible Beck critiques from someone other than me, from another OL member. Since you appear to have taken up the cause of Beck (as the most credible US analyst) in relation to understanding events in Egypt and Tunisia, I want to wait for a critique of Beck from you, or another Objectivist/Objectivish person.

Dragonfly is not 'Peter Johnson' . . . the one time I used his real name on OL, he contacted me backstage to urge me to remove it, explaining that he had been subject to harassment in the past. Please don't, in any attempt to correct the 'Peter Johnson' mistake, publish Dragonfly's real identity.

Wikipedia gives a brief explanation of how Sharia, established by the Constitution, works to guide Egyptian law at the present time. There has been speculation about Caliphate/Sharia on this thread and on the Glenn Beck thread. These links to and excerpts from the Egyptian constitution are designed to inform the actual present-day legal frameworks. A case can be made for desire for a reborn Caliphate in Egypt or Tunisia. A case can be made that Sharia is already dominant in the Egyptian constitution, along with socialism. Another item for consideration in considering Tunisia's future is the Code of Personal Status -- and the actual state of Islamist opposition to the Code. I think it is important for Islamicist watchers to keep their eye on this ball over the coming months, as the new regime takes hold in Tunisia. I have previously cited the Code in the Revolution in Tunisia thread. I suggest there is tension in both Tunisia and Egypt between Islamicists and secularists, but that reducing that tension to an all-or-nothing contest between implacable authoritarian proponents on each side is unhelpful. Understanding and preparing for changes in both countries is not easy. Integrating information and correctly identifying concepts is not easy. I assume, going in, that OLers are on the whole reasonable and intelligent, and do not readily allow emotion to overrule their reason. Moreover, I have confidence that reasonable, Objectivish folk here are mostly silent in the "Revolution" threads because they do not wish to be drawn into emotionalist arguments -- not because they are uninterested. I thank those who have contacted me backstage. I wish you could post your questions and conclusions, but I understand why you want to make up your own minds and stay out of dogfights to the death. I hope this post and succeeding posts in this thread are useful for the kind of Objectivish folk I have in mind.

All forty-one minutes of the show is available in the post above. The transcript is available via Foxnews.

The Constitution of Egypt, the first articles, from Chapter one: The State.

What did you find unconvincing in this video, if anything?

From CNN. Meddlers.

So, what to do? What do we say about this, from the Guardian?

More signs of the times in the treatment meted out to journalists in Egypt. The Committee to Protect Journalists website has collected reports that have appeared elsewhere, and characterized the treatment as officially directed: The Guardian: New York Times:

It is a very hard slog (though a short slog at a hundred and some pages, written in French. English translation here). For those who are unfamiliar with this tract, its on Beck's must-skim list. The New York Times gives a report, from which I excerpt some intriguing details. Beck's treatment below. If this book is a dot, and the Egyptian revolution is a dot, why not draw a firm confident line between the two?

Sure, and I will do that right here. Beck's general point in the following passage agrees with my general take on the lack of fit between US ideals -- which I consider wonderful -- and the concrete policies and procedures of US foreign policy (roughly, crudely, 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend'). I need not repeat the names of many dictatorial regimes already listed. Could you point to or quote another actual passage in the first episode where you yourself take issue with or disagree with Beck? I have been transcribing from the first episode; I will send you that transcription when I finish, so you won't have to type up anything if you found a passage where your observations/opinions/conclusions are in disagreement.