william.scherk

Reported where, Adam? Tonight on the John Batchelor Show. [ . . . ] http://johnbatchelorshow.com/ I have not confirmed it yet, but Batchelor's facts have checked out extremely well for the last year. Excellent show. http://planet-iran.com/index.php/news/23291 <<< no clue as to the value of this site Thanks for the link to the story from Planet Iran. The claim will take a bit of time to evaluate. If you or Pippi are interested in some reporting on events leading to ElBaradei's remarks to the crowd in Egypt today, have a glance at the New York Times story here. Not as strong a source as Planet Iran or Batchelor's programme, but hey -- if we seek to poison the well against ElBaradei for Pippi, might as well give her some more fodder for her fears. From Batchelor: "Was told three days back that if Mohamed ElBaradei makes too much noise, he will be discarded. Reuters reports that ElBaradei has joined curfew-breakers in Tahrir Square in Cairo. Am also reminded that the winner of this tussle will not be an English speaker. ElBaradei speaks English. Also, what's wrong with ElBaradei? Aaron Klein, WABC, reminds us that ElBaradei is a stooge of the jihad, a shill for the Ikhwan, and a hired agent for Tehran's mischief." Savory stuff. Klein is apparently the World Net Daily's Jerusalem chief and author of "Manchurian President." So, there you go. Let us and Grant Mufti Wiig know when you 'confirm' Batchelor's retread . . .

Reported where, Adam?

Bob's comments, exerpted below, first appeared in the thread on Chomsky. Yes, this is an important, central question. How do you suggest ordinary folks go about answering it? The 'warming period' you refer to is what is called the Medieval Warming Period. What should we conclude about present warming compared to this time -- I mean, what questions should be asked and answered about the MWP with regard to Greenland, to your mind? It's probably fair to say that 'some parts of Greenland were greener than today during Norse settlement times' -- I haven't seen any suggestions that the entire island was icefree year-round at that time, and I am sure that's not what you meant. It would be useful to dig up some findings that we could both agree are likely to be accurate, in order to contrast then and now, and also to dig up some summary reviews that lay out all the variables that might explain a 'green Greenland' . . . the fun (or dire) thing about climate discussion is realizing that we could probably discuss just this item for a hundred posts or more. As an aside, the history of Norse settlements in Greenland is fascinating in itself. Those guys got around. For those wondering about climate before, during and after these settlements, Wikipedia has a decent synoptic starting point, "The demise of the Greenland Norse settlements."

The Washington Post published a cogent opinion piece by Elliot Abrams, In the streets of Cairo, proof Bush was right. I hope this gets on Obama's desk today.

One of the most important media outlets reporting from Egypt has been restricted by Egyptian authorities. It looks like Mubarak is determined to stay on and repress a little bit more . . . each day brings more death and more chaos and more determination of its people that he give up the throne. For a backgrounder on the extent of Egypt's security state and the sheer weight of its efforts to control all free expression, see this detailed country report from Freedom House, an international watchdog.** Imagine living under that level of control and then imagine how you might act were you an Egyptian these days. _______________ ** Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the world. Freedom House supports democratic change, monitors freedom, and advocates for democracy and human rights. We support nonviolent civic initiatives in societies where freedom is denied or under threat and we stand in opposition to ideas and forces that challenge the right of all people to be free. Freedom House functions as a catalyst for freedom, democracy and the rule of law through its analysis, advocacy and action. From Freedom House's FAQ

You are so sloppy in your thinking, Ayatollah. Here's what I wrote about you and your reliance on third hand and biased sources: -- Richard's reliance on Pamela "Obama is a Muslim" Geller is thrilling. -- In the story she rants about a 'jihadi revolution taking place in Tunisia,' and excerpts another paranoid retread from the folks at Jihad Watch -- Rely on the loon Geller, offer no links, declare "I didn't check its validity" and "I don't know a hell of a lot about Tunisia." You are a shoddy reporter, a retailer of third-hand conspiracy-mongering. You also are lazy, lazy beyond belief, never ever give a link to a story you cite -- even when prodded -- and most always get the underlying story wrong in the all-important details. Now, let's check your brief report for its accuracy, shall we? Well, no link, no dates, no names, no nothing. Standard Wiigish MO. Yes, Mufti Siddiquei has left Auckland, after a raucous meeting of his congregation, having lost the confidence of his congregation and having had his immigration sponsorship revoked by his congregation. A story that is interesting and concerning and worthy of study and followup, but not the story you told. You appear to accept only the most lurid allegations, strip away all context or anything that adds contrast to your hysteria, hide the origins of the originating story and then make shit up (as with your 32% canard). Thanks for turning what could have been an good discussion (the dangers of hardcore Islamism in the context of Arab democratic uprisings) into an stark illustration of your own religious mania. You had a chance to be reasonable . . . to be an honest and forthright reporter, to counter the impression you were a strictly one-issue crackpot on outreach from SOLO, to add value to discussion. And you blew it. Objectivists respect reason over hysteria, thoughtful analysis over hatemongering, and sustained argument over sloppy regurgitations of religious dicta. Your mania may play well in the demented confines of SOLO, but you will get a bollocking for your bullshit here. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Some here, like me, will have noted that Richard acts out exactly the same lines as those he opposes. He is a perfect mirror image of that which he claims he fears and detests. He has become his own enemy, a little Ayatollah, a fretful and deranged advocate of religious intolerance. Here, for example, are a few of his public pronouncements on another forum. Read them and weep for his loss of reason, for his poor shuttered mind, for his enclosure within delusion. Islam is a culture of death with world subjugation on its mind. The Jihadists with their bombs are visible for what they are, but the ongoing encroachment of Islam through peaceful means is not. The majority of muslims in the west might be peaceful (for now - if you ignore the rioting . . .), but they are working towards exactly the same ends that the violent Jihadists are working towards only by different means. Islam is contained in the Koran, Hadiths and Sunna, and that has NO commitment to individual rights. They are immutable for all time. Any individual Palestinians, or Syrians, or Iraqi's, or anyotheree's who are pushing for individual rights, are NOT part of Islam. They are apostates for which their punishment is death. Osama Bin Laden, et al, are not separate from Islam. They are practicing Islam as Islam has always been practiced, and is meant to be practiced. Do you know that there is no separation between politics and religion in Islam? Islam is all encompassing upon every aspect of life. The fact that some muslims don’t follow their teaching to the zenith, either because they don’t understand it, or because they are too lazy, or because they want to pretend that’s not really what Islam means, doesn’t alter the menace of what Islam is. Do you know that it is a central obligation upon each and every muslim to spread Islam until religion is all for Allah? Do you know that? Simply because many muslims do not strap bombs to their waists and blow themselves up, means little. If you look at Islam – the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira – you will see that it is their duty to subjugate you, the infidel, under Islam. That is a simple undeniable fact. It is all there for you to look at and discover in the Islamic texts. Islam cannot be reformed, because the Qur’an is the “perfect word of God”. Any tinkering with the perfect word of God is to make it imperfect. ++++++++++++++++++ Anyhow, Ayatollah, carry on. I can't read your bullshit any more. You go on ignore with the other cranks of OL.

I am going to bail on this thread. For me, it's not about Chomsky, not about Gore, not about snootiness and monkeys and screaming and environazis and liars and dirty scheming money-grubbers and British accents and bozos and racists and wolves and crap. I will take Ba'al's last comment and reply on the 'Scientific Fraud becoming endemic?' thread, and I will try to ignore future commentary that uses emotionally-laden epithets and jibes . . .

Really? He sure started with a steaming pile. Did you watch the video beyond the first thirteen seconds, Michael? If so, you missed a reasonable, balanced report (for the most part) that identifies the basics of the work that led to both global warming 'proponents' and 'skeptics.' The video is by a journalist named Peter Hadfield. He wrote for some years for Private Eye and Punch, and was a correspondent for New Scientist for almost two decades. You might have been put off by the tone when he told the viewer he would not be featuring Al Gore or environmentalists. The first words of the episode were, "No, I'm not going to give you the latest pronouncements from Al Gore [pictured] on the subject of climate change. Al's not a scientist, let alone a geologist or a climatologist, and neither are these guys [picture of environmental campaigners dressed up in polar bear suits]. However well-meaning they may be, most environmentalists don't know a schist from shinola." Then he mentioned two other folks whose opinions he wouldn't be relying upon in the video: Rush Limbaugh or Paul Harvey. He stated "This video is about science, and the debate between climate scientists." I am guessing that this is the point at which you got back to your other duties . . . The video Bob linked to is the first of series of 12, and steers well clear of propaganda and shilling for the most part. He is neither the kind of scientist whom you deplore (in search of money, racked by greed and marxism, biased to the point of dementia, beats children, acts like a monkey, screams, avoids common sense, is fundamentally dirty) nor the kind of scientist you admire and accept (which type does not exist, apparently). So, it is unsettling to see you put these indignant, mocking posts up, posts in which you dismiss all science. You don't even seem to have the means of giving an informed appraisal of the material you were pointed to. In other subjects (notably Islam/hatred) you caution against emotionalism and bigotry and seeing-what-only-confirms-fears, and urge careful, rational thought, inquiry, thoughtfulness, a watching brief. Are you an anti-science bigot? Are you more comprehensive in your knowledge than anyone else interested in AGW issues? Have you decided that there is nothing and no one and not one iota of information that we need glance at before coming to conclusions? I hope not. But what are we to think of your conclusions? It appears you hold that 'the science' is shit, all of it, yet you caution against this very kind of thinking (all Islam is shit) in other venues. Why the apparent inconsistency? It seems you didn't like Hadfield's tone in the first seconds of one episode of a long analysis, thus it's all BS, no value, not worth your time, a steaming pile. And you seem to want to browbeat Bob until he admits that you are right . . . Bob is on the same 'side' of the issue as you are. It's no wonder you can't see the possibility of rational discussion on anthropogenic global warming on OL. It really looks like you intend to poison the well going in . . . and that your chosen tactic is to caricature and denigrate those whose arguments you reject unseen. Not your best work, Michael. You do that which you decry in other contexts. Maybe you could stop scolding all the dirty scientists and have a gander at Hadfield's analysis.

Fair enough. What I wonder is what a US President and administration should do and say to put your favoured policies in practice.

Jeff Walker wrote such a fantasy as you wonder about, and it appears in Chapter 12 of The Ayn Rand Cult -- in the reference holdings at TPL.

I'm glad you took the time to read through the reports after being prodded. I understand you regard Obama as a marxist monster, and that in itself does not trouble me unduly. Sometimes I am puzzled by hasty comments such as "O'bama has basically blown all credibility with the remaining "moderate" Middle Eastern dictators for good." I don't see how you can rationally blame one man for the actions and policies of several administrations going back to 1952. It's not like Obama has done anything different in the Middle East. No US President has copped to propping up authoritarian regimes. I expect all US presidents to carry out a policy both aboveground and below that enhances American power and influence, by diplomacy, public pressure, cash, kisses, whatever. I also expect every US administration to use every means of gathering intelligence and putting teeth into its public statements about 'free expression, free press, freedom of conscience' and so on. I would be appalled as an American if I learned that it was all just lip service . . . In other words, I am heartened by the US engagement with democratic forces, and reassured that the US helps out legitimate dissenters find support in your country. American ideals of political freedom are powerful, universal, and the great struggle of America in the past century has been to put meat on those fine bones. America is impressive in its ideals of freedom, and it is most impressive when it puts its money where its mouth is. Like I asked, "Do you want the US to support democratic dissent in these unnamed countries, or what?" I am interested in your response and how it fits into your preferred course for your country as it deals with the unprecedented uprisings . . . I will challenge you (or anyone) when I see something sloppy, biased or misinformed. It's not personal, brother. If you might do a bit more homework before you dash off a post, you would get fewer challenges. We are on the same side when it comes to freedom and reason. Turkey is a NATO ally of your country and mine. Their bitch is with Israel . . .

What would any American leader have to say to Mubarak, Michael? What has he said to Mubarak and on the subject of Egypt's crisis that you wouldn't say, if you were the leader? What direction would you give to the State Department? What difference do you see between the Bush administration and the Obama administration on this brief? It would be good to hear what your prescriptions would be for your country's policy on Egypt . . . Can you please fetch up a link or two to let us follow these other reports you cite concerning 'meddling' by the US?

Michael, I am at a disadvantage here. I am not a fan of Chomsky and I am not a fan of Limbaugh. Moreover, the influence of either of these people on my opinions on anthropogenic global warming is zero. I am interested in discussion/debate on AGW. I don't know if you are or not.

I am not sure I understand your points, Adam. From the first of your links: "On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011." From the second link: "xxxxxxxxxxxx described his Washington appointments as positive, saying that on the Hill he met with xxxxxxxxxxxx, a variety of House staff members, including from the offices of xxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxx), and with two Senate staffers. xxxxxxxxxxxx also noted that he met with several think tank members. xxxxxxxxxxxx said that xxxxxxxxxxxx's office invited him to speak at a late January Congressional hearing on House Resolution 1303 regarding religious and political freedom in Egypt. So, who was President in December of 2008, again? Which party sponsored HR 1303? Do you actually think about the stuff you post? Do you want the US to support democratic dissent in these unnamed countries, or what?

Right. He is not a dictator. Just a guy who does not suffer political opposition gladly. A very stupid thing to say on Biden's part. It certainly will be hard for the US to navigate between "Treasured Ally" and "Our new Friend/Old Friend/New Regime/Old Regime with Facelift, given the longstanding relationship between the US and the Egyptian leadership. Clinton at least is a diplomat, and must use diplomatic language as the administration tries to figure out what to say as the crisis unfolds. Biden could have been kept in the box reserved for Dan Quayle. Distinctly unhelpful and stupid . . . On balance I liked Bush better with regard to Egypt -- in the sense of being mealy-mouthed. The Egyptians cooled their relationship with the US because of Bush's outspoken, universal demands for human rights during his tenure. But the bind US foreign policy faces is pretty stark.

Let the Supreme Mufti's forces vanquish the evil now washing over Egypt. The Islamists must be stopped! Wiig and his One True Islam brigade, fueled by righteousness and Truth, demand we get behind Mubarak and put down the terrorists . . . Look at these Islamists calling for the subjugation of the West; resist the call to destroy our only hope, Mubarak!!

For those who are monitoring the convulsions racking Egypt, currently under an unprecedented internet blackout, here's a report on Mubarak's televised address to the nation. His statements resemble the 'too late, too little' tactics that doomed Ben Ali. I expect Grand Ayatollah Wiig and Supreme Mufti MacWilliams will spout their usual green-eyed Taliban mutterings about disloyalty and the need for harsh measures to contain the Islamist menace . . . Mubarak addresses nation, calls on government to resign but vows to remain in power himself By late night on Friday, police had largely abandoned the streets of the capital to the remaining bands of protesters. By blaming the cabinet under Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif for the turmoil, Mubarak, 82, hoped to sidestep demands for his resignation after three decades of autocratic rule. He said he had asked the government to give the demonstrators the "space" they needed to voice their grievances and was "so sorry" to see protesters and police injured in clashes. "There is a very thin line between freedom and chaos," he declared. "I am absolutely o the side of freedom for each citizen, and at the same time I am on the side of the security of Egypt. And I would not let anything dangerous happen that would threaten peace . . . and the future of the country." Mubarak said he would not allow looting and arson, but he suggested that he would work toward "new steps for more democracy," more job opportunities and aid to the poor. "We need to build on what we already have and to make a new future," he said. "What happened in the last few days puts fear in everybody's heart." He vowed to honor his "oath to protect Egypt."

If I have this right, one can disentangle Muslim and Islam on one hand, and then entangle the two with the other hand. So, the Aga Khan is not a good person. Zarqa Nawaz is not a good person. Tarek Fatah is not a good person. One can't be a devout muslim and be a good person. One simply can't. That's so easy! Thanks to my fellow Canuckistani for giving me such a foolproof tool. Fatah = devout muslim? Now that's funny!! If you think Fatah is a devout muslim then you equate "one who ignores Islamic scripture" = devout muslim Sorry, different definitions here. Right. As Grand Taliban Mufti of all Islam, you decide who is and who is not a devout Muslim. Handy for buttressing your hateful prejudices, and allying yourself with the most extreme Wahhabist nutcases in the world. Setting aside your fatwa on Fatah, let us hear your diktat about the two other folks I mentioned, shall we?

You don't need to get anything right about Tunisia, Richard. You don't need to give a damn about truth or accuracy. You don't need to change a thing. If you prefer to think that a 'global jihad' best explains events in Tunisia, and if you prefer to accept cooked-up numbers and shoddy analyses of the situation there, that's your choice. If you want to be taken seriously, you can sharpen your game. If you don't really give a damn, carry on.

Golly. Reagan's gaffe enhanced his image. 'My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.' It was a deliberate joke made before a broadcast of his weekly radio address as President, meant to crack up the technicians, later leaked. Palin's remarks were also deliberate, but not a joke and meant to be a thoughtful reaction to SOTU. Reagan was a great political actor, with both a self-deprecating sense of humour and a biting rhetorical style. He could 'play' the Presidential role really well, and he knew it, and he used it. Palin, not so much. If you figure her Fox blurb worked quite well, maybe you need to cut back on the hooch, you communist.

Richard's reliance on Pamela "Obama is a Muslim" Geller is thrilling. The piece he refers to was titled "FALL OF SECULAR REGIME IN TUNISIA PAVES WAY FOR ISLAMIC REVOLUTION." In the story she rants about a 'jihadi revolution taking place in Tunisia,' and excerpts another paranoid retread from the folks at Jihad Watch, which itself cribbed from a Reuters story: Now, this is all fine, except the Reuters staff muffed the story. Renaissance was banned going in to the election, not after; all supposedly Islamist candidates ran as independents, supported by Renaissance on the ground. Seven parties ran, the governing party won all seats; the largest vote totals for the independent list was in several urban ridings, where they hit 30% in a handful. Their national totals were 17%. The year? 1989. I just love the way Richard Wiig approaches gathering information on Jihadi menace. The Islamist party, when it was given some liberty a few years back, received 32% of the vote, so Ben Ali banned it. If a large 'could be' figure appears, go with it, assign certainty to it, misquote it, make up your own number, ignoring the cited lower figure, and do no further research whatsoever. Rely on the loon Geller, offer no links, declare "I didn't check its validity" and "I don't know a hell of a lot about Tunisia." Good show, dude. Good luck in finding the exit from your intellectual cul de sac.

For those who are wondering what might happen in Egypt tomorrow, a brief report from the Associated Press.

Yeah. Much food for thought. The idea that there are robust correlations between ideology and personality can bear some useful fruit, as long as we don't overinterpret the findings as presented by Haidt et al. A lot of people seem to dismiss the very idea that adopting Objectivism or Libertarianism or Liberalism or Conservatism can have any relation to personality. I think this is because Objectivism is held by some to be the only proper result of reason, the only proper philosophy for man. In a perfect world, then, those who reject Objectivism reject reason itself, or have a kind of mental defect that prevents them from adopting the true philosophy. It sort of fits Rand's notions of a subhuman remnant who have not evolved a proper brain . . . even though this is a very pessimistic reading of her other notion, the human mind as tabula rasa. On the one hand, Haidt's findings support the subhuman, missing link notion. The mental defects of Liberals and Conservatives can be picked out of the findings and made to fit. On the other hand, Liberals can find different mental defects to explain that which they do not like in the stances of their political foes. The danger in overinterpretation is that the other becomes The Other, and studies like this a mere means of sorting into Good and Bad piles. Morksists and Right Thinkers. Rightists and The Elect. Dumbfucks and The Wise. Such crudities are par for the course in a game of 'Jane, you ignorant slut.' In addition, a lot of folks here seem intellectually lazy to the Nth. They don't read things from 'the opposition,' save to fork up confirming instances of perfidy or morksism or evul or whatever makes us feel smart and wise and above it all. Peikoff has that kind of attitude down to an art. Physics is fucked, science is fucked, transsexuals are fucked, liberals are fucked, Muslims are fucked, Warmistas are fucked, everything and everyone but me and my borg is fucked and USA is going down the drain to Fuckistan . . . you know that kind of attitude. We see the same kind of we are all fucked because of the other fucked fuckers stance in hardcore rants of all kinds, where it is hard to see the difference between Naomi Klein and Hardial Bains and the Canadian Free Press nutjob in terms of Everyone Who Doesn't Think Like Me Is Fucked In The Head. Beyond that, I don't see Haidt's researches to be of any but passing interest to Objectivish folk for the most part. The very idea of personality partially determining one's own political ideology is pretty much a non-starter. It undercuts the whole notion of individuality. Beyond that, reading this paper might underline a sense of being a permanent minority for Libertarians. Better to have hope that with enough argument and reasoning, the defective leftists and lunatic rightists can see the light, rather than despair that there will always be a psychological impediment for some folks to adopt the libertarian way . . .

Thanks for all the birthday wishes. I feel more able to stagger through the remaining days of late middle age, before I plunge into the pre-elderly years, senescence and death.

If I have this right, one can disentangle Muslim and Islam on one hand, and then entangle the two with the other hand. So, the Aga Khan is not a good person. Zarqa Nawaz is not a good person. Tarek Fatah is not a good person. One can't be a devout muslim and be a good person. One simply can't. That's so easy! Thanks to my fellow Canuckistani for giving me such a foolproof tool.