william.scherk

I look forward to this, Michael. Is there a source? Doubtful. Don't waste time looking, and don't waste much more time on Dyer. He is only a fraud in the sense of a purveyor of woo and gawd-awful cliches and unsupported religio-mystical claptrap and just-so stories. On second thought, I bet Dyer gives an inaccurate rendering of what actually happened to Shaya and his dad one day in the park. I expect that the real story might pull a few heartstrings, whereas the dolled-up version gives an ick feeling to a few of us here. As Shaya rounded third, the boys from both teams ran behind him screaming, "Shaya, run home." Shaya ran home, stepped on home plate, and all 18 boys lifted him on their shoulders and made him the hero, as he had just hit a 'grand slam' and won the game for his team. All 18 boys lifted him up? The boys from both teams ran behind him screaming? Blech. Me, I only get choked up at tales of great valour and 'otherism' as with the Potomac rescue I noted in the "Altruism" thread of Barbara's. If you have a look at the book of Dyer's in which the Shaya story is published (The Power of Intention), you can see there are zero references for his serotonin claims. So to find out what particular studies he is talking about** you have not a chance of tracking it down, given the emptiness of the claim 'research proves.' I suspect he is making shit up, which is no surprise, given his career track. Bah. ________________________________ **

I have probably expressed myself poorly about what you just called doctrine. Re: doctrine and doctrinal lumping, I meant that it looked like you clumped a couple of the (former) listmembers into the Bad Boys Club. Re: the 'serotonin and kindness' connection, explored in neuroscientific research, it's relatively clear that there isn't such a thing per se.** You are looking for the varied findings from research, you will find that serotonin levels are associated with variations in aggression and comcomitant social effects. Use keywords like 'serotonin aggression' 'serotonin sociality' 'serotonin fairness' 'serotonin depression.' There is a wealth of findings that inform some aspect of social functioning, but Dyer has conflated a lot of findings and mislabeled their collective import. That is why you find the kindness/serotonin connection only on woo sites. The minor error I pointed out was that searching for the study Dyer referenced meant finding the actual operational definition used in the study. I thought it quite likely that 'kindness' was not that term. Firstly, where does the 'some objectivists are snarky' come from? In this thread you introduced this idea: "The feelings this story evokes and the values involved are totally ignored in Objectivism. I see some very nasty people take advantage of the gap to practice cruelty, spit on kindness as a value, and pretend they are being virtuous. They miss the boat and I do not they are being virtuous. I think they are practicing evil by doing that" (emphasis added) It's the perfect invitation to say 'Who are these awful people?' At this point in the argument Laure, George and Newberry had gagged on the tale, and you had written, " So you guys are saying that making an exception in the normal course of things to perform an act of kindness is evil?" Making an analogy with Southern 'honour' is strangely apt, Michael, since your wording allows that those who disagree are dishonourable, especially when their emotional reactions do not conform to your own. There may be an autistic contingent who inhabit Randland (I'm thinking of Luke Setzer and Diana Mertz Hsieh) and a co-existent contingent who curl their lips at 'altruism research,' and there may be an overlapping cohort who are actually small-hearted, unkind and of dreary humanity . . . but in this instance the argument presented has not named them or their arguments or drawn the explicit connection. This allows a very personal interpretation of your remarks, by George, Newberry, and Laure. It's that extra room for misinterpretation that your arguments have allowed, and that you are responsible for. When one grants linguistic charity, when one examines the utterances for their intended meaning, it is likely that the take-home message is: 'You, George, Laure and Michael Newberry are such a cohort.' In your first post, you noted Dyer, a purveyor of woo woo, and purported research asserting "there are studies that prove that the serotonin level in the brain increases when we are kind (giver, receiver and observer) and our immune systems are strengthened." You also noted that the mystical folk are inclined to accept the congenial assertions without taking pains to examine the studies . . . The Shaya tale put my hackles up . . . maybe a some similar incident occured, but we have no input from the players, only the father's telling. We are invited to think that we know what the player's motives were, and to assign them roles in a morality play: gawd made Shaya imperfect; he draws out (moral) perfection in others. I suspect the action and story was engineered by the father to make himself feel better. Engineered to tug the heartstrings and obviate for a moment the distress and hardship that care for a disabled child will engender. That I reject the story and its supposed implications doesn't tell you much about my personality or motives. This doesn't mean that Michael, Laure and George and I are anything but warm, kind, benevolent and generous in our encounters with the world. Such psychological speculation is what gets up peoples' noses, maybe? It is not enough to suspect some unnamed Objectivists of unresolved issues . . . if you leave that gap in the argument, the identities, that lets people paste their own faces to the voodoo doll you have stuck together. I'm looking at this thread and the flow of discussion. I see things like your sharp and unpleasant reaction to George in post 27 (where a misunderstanding is ramified) and your sharp and unpleasant reaction to Greybird in post 36 (where you mention you cringe at his posts, and list his defects in a dismissive tone). It would be a kindness or fairness to yourself if you did not put forth a diffuse argument that brings in 'them' and 'they' and the assorted nasty folk. If you could recognize that you occasionally poison the well, it would be a kindness, and it would let you get to your goals for discussion. Your goal was not to get Laure feeling insulted and belittled. Your goal was not to damn people for being revolted by the Shaya story. Your goal was not to lump those revolted with the hardline discompassionate Objectivists who annoy and appall you. But all things considered, that's the lumping that happened. George asked (in post 40) "Michael why does it seem like half of your comments are against nameless people who aren't participating in this discussion? This throws a bit of a shadow over things." How did you react to this? Well, you dismissed it: "I am not competing against anyone and you are." and "Those 'nameless people' and shadows are in your head, not in my words." Now, how are we to read that? Or this? -- "I am starting to believe that I touch on unresolved conflicts in some people's minds, ones that they prefer not to think about, ones that make them feel ugly to themselves, and this gets them very annoyed." To my eyes, it's plain. You are ruffled and you lash back. You lash back by questioning the "some people's" minds, speculating on an ugliness of soul. Michael, with respect, this is a type of uncharitable mean-spiritedness that irks me. Bear in mind I don't agree with Laure or George that the tale of Shaya implicates 'faking reality,' and by no means do I agree that the players' actions in the tale were evul. ** Here's a note from some somebody that went looking for the purported studies on kindness and serotonin. This person's experience mirrors mine. [link]

Thanks for doing a little bit of keybard poking on the pair kindness and serotonin. I don't think 'kindness' is the operational term in use in previous studies I have come across. Do you think kindness is a good cognate for fairness? I would guess the spiritual mavens like Dyer and the 'religious' people are folding into their own matrix of belief whatever scientific bits they find congenial. The research you cited below does not carry a label of altruism, nor make any statements that seem violently at odds with Objectivist conventions . . . It may be a mistake to mix up research into altruism (generally in primates, not only humans) with research into 'kindness' -- I don't believe the studies you have noted (as with the UW-Madison research) are on quite the same ground as with research into altruism . . . For me, a Deepak Chopra recommendation is the kiss of death. Michael, there are interesting threads here in themselves, a thread on research (if good research it is) into 'kindness,' another thread on altruism research and its associated strands of studies in empathy, fairness, etc. I too think you were far too ready to lump comment on the Shaya story into a doctrinal pile. I think the research should be approached with fairly light philosophical baggage. It is too bad that Laure feels insulted and lumped -- your kindness, generosity, sense of fairness, as well as other evil vestiges of altruism might help you put yourself in her shoes, and try to mirror in your own mind the emotions she might feel. If you want to have a lively and open forum, you should be careful not to clip the toenails of your erstwhile allies as well as the demon objectivists.

Forgive my dereliction. It is difficult enough to add the essential links to Valliant's often ill-referenced fulminations. It bears in mind that James and Lindsay hold that SOLO is the last chance for the Brandens and their supporters to honestly weigh in with honourable critiques of PARC. At the same time, Lindsay has OL read by his boorish sidekick Moonberry, and James hunts through the thickets, cherry basket in hand. In any case, I think Diana had it wrong back in her TOC-acolyte days and I think she has it wrong in her ARI-acolyte days. Because the quartet got no counsel from outside themselves, none of them heard anyone saying, "Are you people crazy? Do not have an affair. Do not sanction an affair. That way lies heartbreak and disaster."

I added to the, um, contextual depth of the thread in a note called They paved paradise and put up a PARCing lot. I noted a couple of answers to Valliant's queries. Oddly enough, they were in the same cherry orchard, sometimes on the same tree from which he took his trimmings. It is encouraging as ever to have some biplay between the sister-lists. If only Seddon and Sciabarra can be forked up as exemplars of honourable critics, Valliant may feel obliged to navigate the depths of what Lindsay refers to as the sewers here at OL.

What I found the most troubling was that Rand's comment on "kneeling buses" implies that she was including the physically handicapped among those she believed presented too much of a tragic spectacle for children to deal with. She seemed to be saying that even a child with a brilliant mind should "not be allowed to come near children" if physically disabled enough to require special transportation assistance. I don't think it's unreasonable for Rand, or anyone else, to question and weigh the benefits and hazards of mainstreaming the severely mentally handicapped, but her comment about kneeling buses comes across as placing her aesthetic concerns above the intellectual development of those who happened to have been born with problems that have nothing to do with their ability to be learn. It sounds as if she was saying that children who are confined to wheelchairs, or are otherwise physically disabled, are monsters who interfere with her ideal concept of "man," and whose presence could be so psychologically disturbing as to cause severe mental and emotional damage in children who are not physically disabled (they "cannot deal" with it) Up until the last sentence, there is nothing in your comments to warrant moderation, to my mind. Dan Edge has looked deeply into your soul, however, and I think the moderators at OO also have second sight. So your complaints about being banned are just the anguish of a Rand-diminisher who has been uncloaked! Seriously, OO has a fairly tight set of rules, including "This forum will not tolerate rude or insulting comments about Ayn Rand, her philosophy of Objectivism, the Ayn Rand Institute, the representatives and supporters of the Institute, or the adherents of the philosophy." Over at SOLO, in the interminable thread on PARC, chapter 4, discussion has lurched into the presumed openness there, with a side track into varied personages who have departed for one reason or another. I am being gnashed at for bringing up the SOLO party line as laid down by the Emperor. It's funny to compare the varied lists for their in/out group fastidiousness, and for the tone and range of discussion. I find OO posters perhaps unconsciously reproduce a waspish tone. The Rand and the Handicapped thread is patrolled, as all threads there are patrolled, by an assiduous attention to the mythos of Rand.

I did here.

KASS ostensibly refers to Kick Ass. Kick Ass means essentially nothing beyond taking the boots to someone. Kicking someone's ass seems a dullard's way of winning a point, not a vaunted quality of argument. It is ugly, aggressive and belligerent. One odd note over on the sister list, not on topic here: future historians are set to pore over James Valliant's threads, according to Perigo . . . I'm sure [ . . . ] James knows he's writing for history. These exchanges will be among the material picked over by Rand scholars till kingdom come. I think not. If it were partly true, which particular exchanges rise above the background thrum? Consider that Valliant has been beating the drum for years now, and there is a morass of threads from the old SOLO, from this place and elsewhere. Thousands of postings. What makes the current two threads so intriguing?

I am jumping in here late, Michael, not understanding what point or question you are making, or what statement you are questioning. You are 'having trouble thinking from bottom-up priniciples only,' when thinking about evolution . . . what 'bottom up principles' are you thinking of? 'What makes a process decide to stop?' -- Can you give an example of a process that decides to stop? 'When is an entity an entity and not just a state of becoming [an entity]?' -- can you give an example an entity you have in mind?

Phil's notes on folks who take interest in Mr Valliant's endless crusade to demonize the Brandens are interesting, but not as interesting as Valliant's endless crusade itself, at least to this reader. Since Phil hasn't read either the biography, the memoir, or Protocols of the Elders of Brandenia . . . I don't know why he would be so sniffy about the interest taken in countering the endless crusade. Not that the endless crusade will ever regain Jerusalem from the hordes. Valliant and his toadies and sycophants have zero chance of seriously damaging the historical import of the Branden books. Who will ultimately care what he said about two books whose authors knew her very well? In fifty years, when Valliant will likely be in the grave along with every last person from the Collective era . . . who then will bother to hunt down one of the copies? Ultimately, the Barbara Branden biography will trump Valliant's screed, for several reasons: it is comprehensible, being a biography; it is free-standing, and can appeal to anyone interested in Ayn Rand the person -- whereas readership for PARC is restricted; Branden is a good writer, whereas Valliant is an awful writer.

I am a bit of an also ran, only buying PARC this year, and not having yet read either MYWAR nor PAR (both zooming to me now via Amazon). Robert and Neil are far beyond me in scope and knowledge. This most recent exchange with Valliant was most instructive. He struggles to remain upright at all costs. With the discussion of the Smith's departure, we end up with a statement that can only be checked by reference to Sciabarra. Valiant claims that Sciabarra insisted to him that any changes to the production of the play were made and reversed prior to the opening. First he said that it was in online discussion that that insistence was made; then he said it was in private email correspondence. This stilled my part in that thread for the moment: I would like to know if that part of the story is true. Strangely, this is the kind of incident that forms one of the grains of Valliant's argument. Any tale told by the Brandens is doubtful, unless and until it can be corroborated. Why should I believe the very late gloss Valliant applies to his own tale? I don't believe it. If he wants to prove the bit about Sciabarra, he can do it. In the end, I got no satisfactory answer to how a line change became a 'systematic betrayal.' Valliant's argument remains the same: Barbara Branden 'suppressed' vital evidence about the Smith break, evidence that would show Rand to have been entirely justified in excommunicating her friend. I think Rand flipped out in this instance. That Valliant added this detail to Branden's telling speaks to his honesty and his judgement. He realy can't see the problem in using 'systematic betrayal' to serve as a headline to his misreading of Walker's book. He is stuck there. If he said systematic betrayal, systematic betrayal it is. No matter that any such system of betrayal needs more than one instance. No matter. The substance of the book is made up of such editorializing. My biggest main beef with PARC is that kind of inflated language. I find the book almost hysterical, and cultish. Hysterical in its tone, and cultish in its political function. Its function is to defend the Founder against all attack. Since a cult mindset imposes a view of the Founder's divinity, any darker aspects of the Founder's personality or actions, if exposed, are exposed only as part of an effort to destroy or denigrate the Founder and her pure sect. Any criticism is thus impure, evil, wrong, immoral, tainted by self-interest. Any tales that darken the persona of the Founder must be lies. Every last portent and implication takes on the taint of the malicious scribes. It is this demonological high drama that takes my breath away. Where else but in Objectivism can be found this fraught struggle against realistic depictions of the Founder? Where else is a biography anathema?

To question the agenda and cultural impact of broadcast television, movies, comic books, and popular literature. Oh, baloney. To question the agenda and cultural impact of The Jews, rather. Which goes to the point -- we can closely question Israel, US Neo-cons, American policy, particulars of history, without edging into kook territory. Without the nasty line you put up here. I am asking you to disavow the obvious implication -- that all the negative cultural impact, and the noxious agenda of those medias 'controlled' by The Jews is due to the Jew. You must be joking. You smear yourself when you call for a Day without the Jews. That is plain ugly and uncalled for. It reveals to me someone who doesn't give a shit about what he sounds like. Your cite was meaningless in context. What you were invited to illustrate was your contention that The Jews control everything, as if one Jewish line was promulgated across the varied media, insidiously, inexorably, and that the only time we might wake up from this nightmare is if we turned the lights out on The Jews for a day . . . . . . do you have no idea how offensive this is, and in how many ways it is offensive? Lights out on the Jews for a day, and then we will wake up to the ugliness they have imposed upon us. Handsome is as handsome does, my man.

Wolf, you are in favour of a Jewish National Holiday, a day without Zionist propaganda, on which day people would wake up. In a world as complicated as this one, your comments are at best simpleminded. A malevolent entity controls the organs of society! A sordid conspiracy runs the banking system to the detriment of freedom. Music that would enlighten and uplift the world is held back by a cartel of monstrous propagandists. The ugliness and horror of Jewish-controlled music sweeps the world -- just look at the insidious trajectory of rap music, and the Jewish country music, and the Jewish opera, chamber music and so on. A book cannot be published that does not reflect the values of the Jews. Newspapers, magazines, journals, cable networks, internet sites (such as the Jew-controlled Google), all put forth the Jew perspective and the Jew perspective alone. Jews on Wall Street say where the money should go, and ensure that all transactions benefit the Jew. Politics? Controlled by the Jews, of course. The electoral system, designed and overseen by Jews. The Electoral College, Jewish. Congress, Jewish. All state legislatures and other state bodies, in the hands of Jews. Movies that do not celebrate and uphold Jewish values . . . unmade, unseen, untouchable. Television? Well, from the early morning children's shows to the late-night absercizer ads, written, produced, vetted and controlled by Jews. It is a horror, Wolf, a world dominated by Jews wherever one looks. No doubt the Jews (and their lackeys, the homosexuals) have even more evil in store for us innocent non-Jews, we who have had our birthright stolen, and our freedoms curtailed. Of course you want us to wake up, Wolf. If we don't, it can only get worse. Jews might get control of sports, and the weather. For you, the only option is to shine the light of truth, I think. Since the Jews and homosexuals have worked against you and your ambitions your entire life, blighting your publishing career, watching you with their all-seeing eyes, curbing your forays into other fields, clipping your wings, taping your mouth, censoring your words . . . your very survival as a freeman depends on your efforts to resist the hegemony. Notice, now, that the Jews have quietly sent one of their own to work against you here at OL. Yes, Barbara Branden, one of them. She has called for your light to be subject to the rheostat of Jewish thought control. The end is nigh, Wolf!

One of the passages in Trust God, Not Man made an impression, the passage about 'the secularists.' There seems to be general agreement here that there are few obvious outrages in the US on the issue of 'secularists' doing horrible bad things with law to crush the suffering creationists. But check out the (slightly modified) text below, and then follow the story to the Turkish creationist author heading for the hoosegow. See Turkish Islamic author given 3-year jail sentence Oktar, born in 1956, is the driving force behind a richly funded movement based in Turkey that champions creationism, the belief that God literally created the world in six days as told in the Bible and the Koran. Istanbul-based Oktar, who writes under the pen name Harun Yahya, has created waves in the past few years by sending out thousands of unsolicited texts advocating Islamic creationism to schools in several European countries. . . . The court decision comes at a time when political tensions in officially secular but predominantly Muslim Turkey are high as the ruling AK Party faces a court case that seeks its closure for alleged Islamist activities, a claim the party denies. Oktar's teachings echo those of Christian fundamentalists in the United States. He has publicly denounced Darwinism and Freemasonry in high-profile attacks.

Unpack the first sentence and read: Jews control Wall Street. Jews control television. Jews control movies. Jews control music. Jews control book publishing. Jews control politics. I'm interested in the details of the Jewish control of television and music. Could you add some flesh to the bones of this contention? It sounds really awful.

This might rankle some people and collide with their serenity or beliefs, but I think it is eloquently stated. I could not have said it better myself. Here's some windows on Charley Reese's thinking: I personally don't read news stories about health or science. [link] Much of science, however, is based on speculation also not subject to proof by inductive reasoning. Evolution and the big bang are theories, not facts. To suppose that the millions of different and complex life forms came from a single cell in a primordial soup requires a great deal more blind faith than the belief in intelligent design. [link] As has often been noted, modern science, for all its inflated sense of self-importance, cannot even find a cure for the common cold. In fact, it hasn't been able to find a cure for anything except mild bacterial infections, and that was a happy accident. [link] I believe we are seeing that today with the evolutionists, who react with rage to the idea of intelligent design, despite the obvious flaws in the evolutionary theory. Rather than examining the idea of intelligent design with an open mind, they attack it. [link] In a crazy way, humans will always be under a god – if not the God of the universe, then the state will become God. Personally, I prefer the one in the sky to the one in the uniform. I really believe the future of America depends on whether we experience a revival of the spirit. If we don't, if the secular trend continues, then politics won't save us. In fact, politics devoid of God will doom us. [link] Religion is the only force that can teach virtue to masses of people. Therefore, anyone who is an enemy of religion is an enemy of a free republic. [link] If indeed there is no God, then human life is just an accidental phenomenon and no more valuable than that of a mosquito. [link] I am a great believer in conforming to natural law, and there is a reason God made man without gills or webbed feet and hands. We are land animals. [link]

This is encouraging. The first bit of real evidence that he lacks familiarity with science is that he misuses the word theory (both Barbara and I have underlined this point). If he can't get that right, what does that show you? Um, yeah. He sees no value in it. You do. I do. He sees no value in evolution being taught as part of biology. You do. I do. You do see a value for the theory of evolution, and you think it should be taught as part of biology. I don't like his attitude towards the unnamed 'evolutionists.' They who, Michael? Here is what you said: "op-ed kind of writing at its best," and and an "outstanding article," and several listmembers said, "Whoa, now." Of course, Reese equivocates on theory and condemns evolutionists. Contrary to your observations: "There are no [ . . . ] demonized targets on one side or the other, examples that try to prove that one side is good and the other evil, etc., not even any sarcasm or mocking." Michael, the demons were evolutionists. The evolutionists want to destroy religion. The evolutionists want to make laws. The evolutionists shut down discussion. The evolutionists crush dissent. The evolutionists use the power of the state. The evolutionists, the evolutionists, the evolutionists . . . Look at the article, realizing that for all his professed agnosticism, Reese has a mighty beef with the demon evolutionists, the scientific priesthood, the dogmatists ruthlessly crushing dissent and wielding state power and so on . . . Have we now? I have, and have followed debates online. I regularly keep up with the intelligent design debates, as I thought I indicated with my references to Pharyngula and other sites. No. This is a mistake. It equivocates on 'highly qualified people' and it again equates two 'sides' with two 'speculations.' We can't ignore the actual context of the discussion -- the struggle I noted in my earlier post. America has had a long history of religious polities imposing on education law by way of creationism and intelligent design -- that's why I gave pointers to recent big legal challenges and clashes. There are many more, you know. I invite you to visit the NSCE site and check out the continuing efforts to attack evolution. Most recently, in Florida and Louisiana, the struggle has been with anti-evolution laws. Michael, Reese is taking aim at the side of the fence you stand on. I ask for references, that we can both examine the evidence you have adduced. I can't imagine why you give vague allusions to 'heated debates.' If you have read all of this stuff, I can imagine you can point to an example of dreadful evolutionists doing bad things in the debates. If your point is that both sides are quilty of some awful behaviour, then I want to know what exactly you are talking about. Hmmm. Pointed questions as intimidation? Here's the interchange: Like where? Like in the struggle in the courts (by parents, in the Dover case) to keep the religious crap out of science? Like somewhere else? If we take you at your word, Michael -- "I take him [Reese] to be criticizing those intellectuals who clamor to make laws." Which intellectuals, for heaven sake? Vague waving at "the news" and "public forums" doesn't illustrate your point. Kenyon didn't illustrate your point. Unless of course you submit that Kenyon, as a force behind the early efforts to get creationism into science class, is an example of an intellectual clamouring to make laws (viz., his participation in challenges to the creationist law I cited earlier). In which case, Kenyon is on the other side of the fence from you. I won't ask you any more intimidating questions like "who" and "wherefore," then, Michael. But I will ask if there are any quotes from Reese's article that you still stand by as heartily as you did in your first post.

Really? Is that what it looks like from on high -- up there in the majestic heights where the air is objective and the vision is 20/400? I respectfully suggest you grant a little linguistic charity to those who reject Reese's stance. It could be that they have some rational, clearly-stated objections to several lines of argument that he raised -- that they are not some addled bunch who can't read properly. You know, look at Reese's own words some more -- " My main conflict with the evolutionists is that they wish to assert their theory as fact and to employ government power to ban discussion of creationism and intelligent design on the grounds that they are unscientific or, worse from their point of view, religious." Reese's conflict is with the evolutionists (like who, particularly, we don't know). His beef is with some murky group of bad people who want to do bad things to religion, like, um, keep it out of science classes. Take him at his word -- "I see no reason to include any discussion of evolution or creationism in secondary schools." This is stupid. As several here have pointed out, evolution is part of biology. If there is a biology class in high school, there will be evolution in the class. The entire struggle with creation science/intelligent design has been to keep religion out of that class. The evolutionist's struggle is to keep religious anachronisms out of science class. If Reese is not talking about the legal struggles to keep this crap out of science classes, what the hell is he referring to? Like where? Like in the struggle in the courts (by parents, in the Dover case) to keep the religious crap out of science? Like somewhere else? If we take you at your word, Michael -- "I take him [Reese] to be criticizing those intellectuals who clamor to make laws." Which intellectuals, for heaven sake? Michael are you not understanding the objections of Laure, Robert, Barbara, Bob and myself? We take the plain import of Reese's article and talk about the actual real-world drama that surrounds evolution, creationism, intelligent design. You talk about indoctrinating children, and power struggles . . . as if there were a pointless and ugly dispute happening, with two nasty sides doing unspecified nasty things. I ask you -- what power struggles are you referring to? In your earlier posts you referred to "the behavior of people who bash each other" and "crusaders on both sides of the ID debate try to use the issue to bash the other." Who, Michael? Who are you talking about? You further write that you have seen this unseemly spectacle happening with "strong passion and name-calling on both sides." Where, Michael? What is it that you are referring to in the struggle to keep religious cant out of science classrooms? Are power struggles unseemly or inelegant or somehow intrinsicly icky and to be avoided? If there has been misidentification, is it not Reese who misidentifies 'science' and 'evolutionists' by equivocation, or by the religionauts who misidentify ID as science? If educating children is 'indoctrination' across the board, there is nothing particularly insidious about standard biology. In another situation, what if there was a power struggle, and bias and other icky things between say, Deborah Lipstadt and, oh, David Irving. And it ended up in court, as with ID in Dover. Should we then perhaps in a history class, lay out the 'other side' of the Holocaust theory? You know, 'cause Lipstadt was bickering and all, and called names and all . . . so . . . it's icky and they both should be ashamed. Bosh. With respect, Michael, Reese wasn't talking about any other issue but the struggle to keep religious crap out of science classes. That's what he has a problem with. He has a problem with the NCSE and Dawkins and Hitchens and Dennett and the parents in Dover and the science side. He takes the side of the religionists with a weak and ill-referenced op-ed (as he has taken the side of religionists in other articles in his archive). Those who oppose his kind of murky, ignorant, fallacious argument don't deserve the snideness of your remarks about 'most people' here having a hard time reading. Foul ball, your Majesty.

The innocence of the freshly waxed human. Neutral view or sense of life: if you disarrange your hair just so, a bird will light upon you. Children are a difficult responsibility. Malevolent view of life: this is what my husband was like on the Saturdays when I had to work at the mall Flowers carry a hint of evil. Malevolent view of life, with exceptions: a human built this bouquet, a socialist human, for the May Day celebrations Even stumpheaded, one-legged boaters have rights. Malevolent view of life: faceless eurocrats sell our marine shipping industry down the river Ladies are the true Atlases. Malevolent view of life: it takes four bare-breasted females (one of them Asian) to hold up the globe. Divorce is an option. Malevolent sense of life: Although rich and resplendent, the menfolk are sometimes served teeny portions when mom is in a snit Life is cruel. Malevolent sense of life: If you drop your last sandwich in the river, you are doomed. Life is short and cruel. Malevolent sense of life: I could have finished this bust, but I realized the chin axis didn't match the forehead

Also in the Virtue of Selfishness: But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire or fear to obstruct his mind's judgment of the facts of reality—so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind, where the responsibility is more awesome than in a public tribunal, because, he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached. There is a certain pitiless grandeur to these pronouncements -- and to the pronouncements on moral rectitude, which grandeur makes them attractive: we can be perfect judges, we can be gods! But Barbara has pointed out the pitfalls. Moreover, Rand's later life shows where constant moral inventories may lead, whether in love or in friendships and alliances. *** Michael's notes on "most people" reminded me of something Rand said in her interview with Mike Wallace: AR: Every business has to have its own terms, its own kind of currency, and in love, the currency is virtue . . . you love them for their values, their virtues, which they have achieved in their own characters. You love them only if they deserve it. MW: If a man is weak, or a woman is weak, then he is beyond, she is beyond love? AR: He certainly doesn't deserve it. He certainly is beyond. If a man wants love he should correct his weaknesses or his flaws, and he may deserve it. But he cannot expect the unearned, neither in love nor in money. MW: There are few of us in the world, by your standards, who are worthy of love? AR: Unfortunately, yes, very few. But it is open to everybody to make themselves worthy of it, and that is all my morality offers them -- a way to make themselves worthy of love, though that is not the primary objective. The first time I heard this, I thought: yeah, but just about everyone gets love anyway. Whether they deserve it or not. What she seemed to be getting at was that "most people" certainly did not deserve her love -- and that she had a rather limited supply on hand in any case.

Rural electrification? That leapt to mind for some reason. Didn't most communities basically build their own electrical systems, and run them as a >gasp< municipal service? And the >gasp< state extended the lines? Or am I being all Canadian? The Golden Gate Bridge? The Manhattan Project?

The report was not anonymous, John. It may have been a hoax, with the caller pretending to be an inmate at the ranch, but the caller definitely identified herself and her situation. See the documents that let to the initial warrant to enter, and the to the subsequent warrants, at the Go San Angelo site (also listed below). Bear in mind also that the Schleicher County Sheriff had an informant in the sect, according to this report. And bear in mind that no charges have been filed against anyone at the ranch. A complaint should be checked out indeed. Thanks for answering my question, John. I'm wondering if you support an investigation into claimed underage marriages at the ranch. Bosh. I don't know what kind of relationship you have with so-called mainstream media, but you'll have to do better than an anonymous charge of 'lynch mob' in referring to your OL listmates. If you think polygamy means pedophilia, think again. ____________________ Court Documents Affidavit in Support of Original Petition for Protection of a Child Affidavit for Search and Arrest Warrant Order for Investigation of Child Abuse Order Authorizing Appointment of a Court Appointed Special Advocate State's Motion to Transfer Seized Property (1) State's Motion to Transfer Seized Property (2) Court Order Removing Cell Phones Order for DNA Parentage Testing Order on Placement of Children Petition for Protection of Children in an Emergency Bishop's Record listing families of the YFZ Ranch Order Appointing Special Prosecutor

William, I do apologize, but I cannot resist. Is this person the kind of scientist you are talking about? Dean H. Kenyon Um, no. You gave an A and B, a forced choice, a false analogy to the actual issues at head: evolution, creationism/intelligent design in science/biology curriculum. There are actually two sides, but you apply Kenyon to the wrong side of the equation, thus equivocating on the word scientist. Clearly in the context of creationism/intelligent design, Kenyon is a partisan. He rejects evolution. Right. Reese says evolution should not be taught in high school biology. Really? Then you come down on the side of teaching evolution, against Reese and the creationists, and I can get back to gamboling in the meadow.

Ah . . . the old who do you want to make laws gambit . . . or the old who shall be the lawmakers ploy. A or B answer demanded, I would choose A over B -- given the sad fact that most of us dwell in a thicket of laws with more laws a-coming. Considering that most scientists describe laws of nature, rather than invent and impose them ("I oppose scientists' attempts to write the law of gravity and impose it upon me"), reality is the final arbiter. I consider a real place like, oh, Vancouver, and a place like, oh, Qom. One with shariah, a theocracy, where I hang for homosexual behaviour. One without, where the law says I may marry. If forced to choose the lawmakers from column A or B, you can see my bias. Fair enough (though this reminds me of a tasteless Joan Crawford/Bette Davis exchange)† . You don't want anyone to make laws, period. That's a lovely, principled position, albeit one that posits an ideal world without zoning or traffic citations or sales tax. A lovely sun-kissed meadow where all is harmonious and compulsion is absent. As I say, a lovely stance, but one that is mostly irrelevant to the concerns you already stated, concerns with scientists imposing on the rest of us innocent meadow-creatures. Given reality, let's examine lawmaking with respect to evolution, creationism and intelligent design -- this is your issue. Let's find an instance of some lawmaking that conforms to the plaint of Reese -- something that impacts education for example. As you put it, Michael, "If a scientist wishes to become a politician and make laws, let him run for office like everyone does and become a politician. I think if a scientist wishes to impose his particular brand of science on others by law, but from the wings, I also say, "who do these scientists think they are?" As Reese put it, "Theory becomes dogma. Dissenters are persecuted. The high priests of science want the government not only to fund them, but to enforce their dogmas with the power of the law." How about the struggle over law in Dover Pennsylvania School District? Where the lawmakers (school board) made some educational policy: Students will be made aware of the gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life is not taught. The policy required that all science teachers be compelled to read the following paragraphs to their secondary biology students: The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments. So, you know what ultimately happened there in Dover, Michael, in the real world. I am curious as to how your standard applies to this situation. Maybe there shouldn't be state schools, maybe there shouldn't be academic standards, maybe there shouldn't be compulsion or laws or any of the excreta of civilization . . . but in the end, does your standard tell you that the content of the science class be dictated by religious people or by scientists? In the very instance alluded to by Reese, where do you come down? Or is this not a good example of your awful scientist, who "wishes to impose his particular brand of science on others by law"? What I particularly dislike about Reese's op-ed is that it is has no explicit references to reality, no illustrations, no concretes at all. This makes it easy to agree with a tenet or two ('No state education! No compulsion! No dang scientists imposing their dang speculations in law!") -- without examining pesky real-world examples that illustrate the tenets in action. Consider again what Reese is talking about, Michael, and your statements in support of him: "My main conflict with the evolutionists is that they wish to assert their theory as fact and to employ government power to ban discussion of creationism and intelligent design on the grounds that they are unscientific or, worse from their point of view, religious." Reese's article implicitly comments on the clash in Dover, and similar clashes that reached higher courts.** It is obvious to me that you side with the evolutionists in Dover, and equally obvious that Reese is against. Thus I don't understand at all how you give him plaudits for expressing a view contrary to your own. In any case, the matter of law was not decided by majority vote, but by a jurist. And it was those danged founding fathers who imposed that danged original compulsion -- the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States -- that has repeatedly hammered the creationist attempts to encroach. _________________________ † Jane Hudson (Davis) has just served her sister Blanche a rat for dinner. Blanche cries, "You wouldn't treat me this way if I wasn't in a wheelchair!" Jane replies, with unerring logic and malevolence: "But you are in a wheelchair, Blanche, but you are." ** Epperson v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard

Um, okay. I have no idea what this means, but okay. Me, I am for A, not B, if A means scientific understanding of the development of life on earth, and if B means Intelligent Design. If A means scientists defending the margins of scientific teaching and discourse from religious infiltration, I am for A. If B means attempting to insert religious concepts into science education, I am against it. If A means Pharyngula and B means Uncommon Descent, then I am for A. If A is Eugenie Scott and the NCSE and B is the Discovery Institute, then I am for A. Looking closely at Reese's piece, we find "I see no reason to include any discussion of evolution or creationism in secondary schools. There is a large volume of facts biology students need to learn without wasting their time on theories that have no practical value." Huh? Biology students need to learn facts, but no theories? Stupid, wrong, ignorant. First, Reese equivocates on the word "theory." In the context of biology, a theory is not a hunch, guess or speculation. It is not a hyppothesis. It is a comprehensive and integrated explanation that ties together observation and allows experiment. Other examples of theories in biology are the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, and so on. Theories are frameworks which undergird the actual work and fruit of biological studies. Without the theory of evolution, for example (and its extensions in DNA theory and population genetics, epidemiological theories, etc), where would be our abilities to immunize against influenza? Evolutionary theory undergirds the life sciences, Michael. Reese wants to excise it from science education. Secondly, ID is not a scientific theory. It does not explain, make predictions, knit together sciences in a coherent framework. Read the Dover decision again if in doubt. Thirdly, the practical problems of excising the theory of evolution from science education are profound. Think of a question from a student in Reese's biology class: "Ma'am, what is the significance of the fossil Tiktaalik?" My apologies, but I still have not a clue what you are talking about with regard to Reese's op-ed. Passions and name-calling on both sides of what? A and B? In which case what does it matter what names are called and what passions are aroused? You come down on the side of coherent science education and Reese does not. I don't understand what you mean when you say "Doing this takes courage." Not-A and Not-B methodology? Waffling and equivocating? Take a look at Reese's archives of op-eds for a taste of the rest of his work if you are wondering if he is indeed, as Robert, Laura and I urge you to see, on the subject of science v religion, poor in wisdom. For example, his article "Religion Essential" contains a signal remark: I would rather live in a neighborhood of Islamic fundamentalists than in a neighborhood of atheists and agnostics. That's true. You can count on the morality that Islam teaches; there is no morality for atheists and agnostics, except what they arbitrarily choose. Glory be, Michael. Ba'ab the mighty avenger's recommendation of The Ancestor's Tale is a good one. Once you finish that book you will understand why Laure, Robert and I consider Reese to be an ignoramus on matters of evolution and the clash between A and B. No offence, Michael, but I will have to replay your comment to Laure back to you: I certainly do not think of you as a dishonest or stupid person. On the contrary, I have the highest respect for you and I value you greatly. You think with your own mind. But in the present case, I cannot relate to your thinking. And I am fully aware that you are expressing what is in your heart and mind and not trying to fool anybody or put on airs. Where are you coming from? What is it I am not seeing?"