Mark

Can Dennis May's opponents be as stupid as they appear? Given an allegation of a murder they needn't bother considering its merits, they just counter with a random list of deaths, any old deaths will do. Vince Foster murdered? Hey, my cousin twice removed killed himself last week, don't talk to me of murder.

Dennis May is right to be suspicious. One advantage extra-judicial government corruption has over your garden-variety murder is that it is a Big Truth, so big it's literally unbelievable unless you spend considerable time researching it - more time than most people want to spend. The jeering tactics of Daunce Lynam and friends are about their own laziness, not what thugs are or are not doing in the real world. Plenty of articles about gangsterism in government can be found at: Past and On-going Government Corruption In particular I draw your attention to a research tool I created: The Willcutts Report: the Navy's investigation into James Forrestal's death

From "Birds of a Feather" on ARI Watch: Yaron Brook was happy to be photographed with Pamela Geller and Caroline Glick at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend 2008: Original at: http//:www.atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/14/brook_geller_glick.jpg

You might find some of Jack Finney's short stories interesting, as he frequently dealt with the subject of honesty. (There are two Jack Finneys. I refer to the author of I love Galesburg in the Springtime not The Circus of Dr. Lao. The later was a creep, if a good writer.)

Here's the AP story: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/court-obama-appointments-are-unconstitutional Politically LaRouche is best characterized as an FDR-type populist. The feds went after him for exposing government corruption. You can read about it in Defrauding America by Rodney Stich. It was a case of "political crime" not real crime. In an unfree society some of the best people end up as convicted felons. Robert Kolker aka Ba'al is a trash-minded ignoramus, if you didn't know that already.

It’s easy to make fun of out of context hyperbole, but fact is ... Consider "non-acquaintance" violent crime, that is, violent crime where previously the perpetrator and victim had not met. Then very probably - as in about 90% - the perpetrator was non-white. The violent crimes include criminal rape, and most of the victims (even percentage-wise) are white. Ha, ha, ha. Makes your sides split.

Biology doesn't alwys present us with "if A then always B." If there’s an implication sometimes it’s "If A then B is more probable." The point is not that if a person is given Haldol or whatever they will become violent. If most of the bizarre killings that make the national news were perpetrated by people on so-called antidepressants, this would be consistent with the fact that most people given so-called antidepressants do not become violent. (It would however make one suspicious that so called antidepressants aren’t doing them any good. And in fact they aren’t, see the work of Dr. Breggin, for example Toxic Psychiatry.) The story belonged in the collection. Indeed, "all that matters" is that the killer was on so-called antidepressants. Given enough such stories, as a percentage of all killing stories, does lead to the conclusion that so-called anti-depressants increase the likelihood of violence. The only distortion is that the SSRI website doesn’t present its data in percentage terms, that is, it doesn’t address the total number of killing stories (SSRI related or not). Talk about buried, why aren’t we being told what drugs Lanza was on, or that he wasn't on any?

The mainstream press is negligent in not ferreting out what "medication" Lanza was taking. It's likely he was on SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) drugs. Did Binswanger mention that? SSRI Stories - The link between SSRI drugs and rampages

Jerry, About the exchange between James Valient and Michael Hardesty, I think Valient was correct about Ayn Rand and determinism (either that or the two men differed in what they meant by the word). But Valient was completely wrong about Ayn Rand and World War II, not to mention WWI, Korea, Vietnam. Either he's stupid or he lied when he said he'd read ARI Watch about this. (Also he’s wrong when he says ARI faithfully carries on AR’s ideas.) In the determinism debate Valient said that multiple copies of one of Rand’s books constituted multiple statements of what's in it as if the more copies the more emphatic the statement, which is silly. Hardesty may not come out looking like the most sober individual but the foolishness is not all in his corner. I do, though, have a big problem with Hardesty (and Marcy Fleming): they maintain that Marilyn Monroe was a communist -- hardcore communist -- based on her marrying Arthur Miller, an anonymous phone call to the FBI about Miller, and a communist’s self-serving autobiography. Hardesty and Fleming denounced Monroe in the strongest terms in a news article’s comments, mercifully deleted by the webmaster. Hardesty and Fleming have been promoting ARI Watch. The business about Monroe makes me hope they’ll stop. Here’s my part of a private exchange with Hardesty & Fleming regarding Monroe, somewhat reorganized:

Haven't followed this thread, but glancing at a few pages just now the following caught my eye: Sounds like the Bourbaki / Dieudonné craze of yesteryear: "Euclid must go!" Anyone have a reference?

Apparently this guy never produced anything in his life. Deal making per se is harmless enough but he uses his money to promote neoconservative causes and he associates with Daniel Pipes and other neocons. He wants to embroil the U.S. in the Middle East. The following are excerpts from his entry on RightWeb:

... However: During the few weeks between the Anschluss and the plebiscite, authorities rounded up Social Democrats, Communists and other potential political dissenters, as well as Jews, and imprisoned them or sent them to concentration camps. Within only a few days of 12 March, 70,000 people had been arrested. The plebiscite was subject to large-scale propaganda and to the abrogation of the voting rights of around 400,000 people (nearly 10% of the eligible voting population), mainly former members of left-wing parties and Jews. While historians concur that the result was not manipulated, the voting process was neither free nor secret. Officials were present directly beside the voting booths and received the voting ballot by hand (in contrast to a secret vote where the voting ballot is inserted into a closed box). In some remote areas of Austria, people voted to preserve the independence of Austria on 13 March (in Schuschnigg's planned but officially cancelled plebiscite) despite the Wehrmacht's presence. For instance, in the village of Innervillgraten, a majority of 95% voted for Austria's independence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnschlussOne of the scholarship lapses in Leonard Peikoff's Ominous Parallels: He neglects "semi-free" in the first statement, and obscures it in the second while neglecting to explain what he means. By 1932 the Nazis had a private army of Brown Shirts (Sturmabteilung or SA) that were in force at major polls on election day, intimidating voters. 37% and 44% of the total voters may have voted Nazi, but Peikoff doesn't say what percent that was of the number of eligible voters, or address the subject of election fraud. A minority can take over a country. In the U.S. today 20% or less support the burgeoning police state apparatus that the "powers that be" are setting up, yet its growth continues unabated. (That even 20% support it is very depressing.) Time to reread They Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer. The Ayn Rand Institute promotes the same breathless fear, all the while spouting platitudes about Americanism and freedom, as in It Can't Happen Here.

Though Alex Jones' voice and manner might appall a more refined intellect, many of his ideas are sound. He supported Ron Paul for example. I rather like Jesse Ventura though at times he's a showman. I only know "Moon of Alabama" through the blog, which occasionally publishes some good articles. I don't know the other people you mentioned. The only RT shows I watch are Breaking the Set with Abby Martin and Capital Account with Lauren Lyster They're almost always worth the time. As far as viewership goes RT is not in the same league as Fox News. RT -- Russia Today -- is not a "front" for Russia, it's "up front" about being a Russian outlet. I can't follow the wholesale trashing of everything that comes out of RT. Like all news outlets it must be used critically and you do need to keep the Russian aspect in mind. Though Russia is no longer the Soviet Union, most of the county’s leadership are former Soviet party members, and in business the country has a culture of corruption. American mainstream media is so incredibly bad, especially as it parrots U.S. propaganda, so much so that RT's problematic origin is a minor worry in comparison. It’s grist for the mill, and so far I like the above two shows.

Reidy, Front? Do you know what RT stands for? Cato people have appeared on RT, Gerald Celente, etc.

Brant, RT cannot rightly be described as "big media," it’s not in the same league as what you see on cable. I hope Abby Martin does well at RT or wherever she goes, she deserves to do well. I'd bet that Ron Paul having been pickled in the corridors of power is the reason for his arrogance and viciousness, not his having worked as a physician.

If he was in a hurry he might have wanted to avoid anwering in a sound-bight what he thought required a lot of time. What's disgusting -- and shows that the above was not what was on his mind -- is his trying to destroy Abby Martin's career for no good reason. Destroy is not too strong a word. This is one more black mark against Rand Paul to add to a growing list: 1. Pretending Feinstein's bill regarding the NDAA did anything to amend it. 2. Pretending his TSA bills did anything to end the TSA. 3. Endorsing Romney for President. 4. [added] Voting for sanctions against Iran. 5. Trying to destroy a young and talented (not to mention cute) reporter merely for asking a question he didn't want to answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osg0RYAP2cs Abby Martin hosts RT's Breaking the Set .

"Rand Paul 2016" by the illimitable Julie Borowski, a.k.a TokenLibertarianGirl. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIjRdxK2mE4 This little girl -- this young lady I meant to say -- could charm a hungry dog off a meat wagon. She does make one mistake, when she says Ron Paul wants to end the TSA. Maybe he does, but so far you'd never know it. He's been less than honest about his TSA bills. The problem is not that they fail to abolish the TSA -- perhaps we can't expect, given realpolitik, the TSA to be abolished overnight -- the problem is his pretending that his bills abolish the TSA when they merely make a cosmetic change. Julie / TLG has had more experience with the TSA than she would have liked:

My post #102 is mistaken in that Rand Paul voted against the NDAA.

Re posts #6 and #8, I made a mistake regarding Randolph's position on the NDAA. In fact he voted against that bill.

As explained in "Yaron Brook vs. Ron Paul" (3rd paragraph & 2nd footnote) the abortion issue as it relates to Ron Paul is a non-issue. The NDAA for which Randolph voted is infinitely worse than state-by-state abortion choice. Gulch8 asks rhetorically: "Why not cozy up to the establishment by sharing advocacy for such nightmares as the NDAA?" then speaks of Randolph alienating the GOP versus ingratiating himself to it. Yet why care about GOP-machine hacks when what matters are the grassroot voters? They flocked to Ron Paul precisely because he was genuine, open, direct, honest. And he didn’t have to “ingratiate” himself, he simply was himself. Besides, do you really think a GOP hack is going to be fooled by a man just acting like he's one of them? How many people must a would-be Mafioso murder to prove himself worthy of “being made”? At some point an act becomes so good it might as well be the real thing. At times lying can be the right action but in this situation perforce Randolph would lie to both the public and the politicians at the same time. His lies will alienate the better public and won't convince the GOP machine until he becomes a GOP hack in truth. He's already a long way there.

Gulch8, the end of your last post was relevant to mine. To comment on that part: I tried to show that, unlike his father, Randolph is not much a man of principle. Sure, more than your typical politico, but that's a very low standard. Can you imagine Ron Paul voting for the NDAA? Can you imagine Ron Paul confusing “DHS contracting out TSA” with free enterprise? About the second question, Randolph is smart enough to know the difference, so he’s a liar and he thinks we’re too stupid to notice.

After Randolph's vain expediency in endorsing Romney, and his helping pass the National Defense Authorization Act -- just who is he trying to please? -- I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. Given my present muscular development that's not very far! Play this game: suppose he weren't Ron Paul's son. Would you think him a fine statesman? Consider his two TSA bills. The first would turn TSA screening over to private screeners, or rather private screeners explicitly approved by the Department of Homeland Security. Talk about crony capitalism. Instead of being X-rayed and groped by federal employees you’ll be X-rayed and groped by Haliburton (or whatever) employees. His second bill would permit travelers who set off the screener alarm to opt out of a pat-down and be re-screened. What next? It would allow them to phone a lawyer when detained, and it would allow them to object to mistreatment. Gee, thanks a lot Randolph. And he calls these bills “End the TSA” legislation. He talks the talk, but “privatize” is a dirty word when used in the sense he uses it. Privatizing airport security ought to mean leaving it up to the airports and airlines, period. No TSA, no DHS. Randolph muddies our language – just like a typical politico. Randolph is no one to get enthusiastic about. He gets consideration because we are desperate to find someone, anyone, in political life who looks like they might champion our cause. I predict we'll be disappointed again and again with Randolph. He's not a true fighter.

Transcript here. And this is the man the so-called Ayn Rand Institute trashed in favor of Romney, then complains that the American public has "lost its sense of life" when so many Americans refused to vote for him.

Why Obama Beat Romney by Token.Libertarian.Girl, a.k.a. Julie Borowski