caroljane

Sure, I am willing to believe they are fine folks, real caring human beings, beloved of all who know them. But there comes a point where you are what you do, and what you say. They are careerists and have made their choice.

Carol: Is this your attempt at hyperbole? Or, do you have proof that he manipulates statistics? A... It is on record, abundantly, that his methodology, interpretation and data reporting (ie leaving out of the entire stste of Florida in calculating national probabilities) have been repeatedly challenged by other scholars. Not being a scholar I can only read overviews and draw my own conclusions.

Carol: Is this your attempt at hyperbole? Or, do you have proof that he manipulates statistics? A... Not I but another. We have been through this before.

I am tickled by Pam and Bob's description of themselves as human rights activists, considering their verym, very narrow definition of human, and their even narrower one of rights.

Notice that this is not a newspaper article. It is a press release. Nobody is interested in publishing it as news. I have no doubt their supporters will hold this up as another demonstration of a corrupt left-wing, pro-Islamist press. But I believe this issue goes deeper. It's not a hate-speech thing at the root, either. Here is a defense of them on Front Page Magazine (owned by Spencer's boss, David Horowitz). It follows the hate-speech angle, noting that the real hater is Che Guevara’s daughter. Britain Bans Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer — Welcomes Che Guevara’s Daughter By Humberto Fontova July 1, 2013 Front Page Magazine When you look at the kind of story this is, does it sound like a victimization story? Well that's because it is. "We" are being oppressed while "they" are getting unfair advantages. Oh, the injustice, the injustice of it all! The dilemma I mentioned above is that Geller and Spencer are actually right, but I predict they will keep having this kind of problem. The cause is not the ideology, but the fact that this--victimization--is the best Geller and Spencer have on the story-war level. How is it possible they were banned in Britain yet the daughter of a person who was a bloody dictatorial communist revolutionary is celebrated not only in Britain, but the world over? Is it just a matter of Britain adopting the wrong philosophy or religion? That's a part, but the root of how that happened is the story . You see, Geller and Spencer mostly tell the tale of how bad the enemy is. And they do not balance it with the story of how great the world would be in freedom. Oh, they believe that and say it at times, but they don't tell the story of it. Their dream, the story they constantly tell, is neutralizing the enemy, the brutality of the enemy, the moral wrongness of the enemy, the despicableness of the enemy, and so on. You get the feeling from reading them if this leads to wholesale extermination of the enemy, that would be all right with them. That's a subconscious warning bell for lots and lots of people. But suppose you see the logic in their stories and agree with them. Then what? Here's what kills their message. They turn that storyline over to others to tell and don't even make any effort worth talking about to point out who is telling it. One of the chief persuasion components of any major social storyline is redemption in service to an ideal. How can an enemy become "saved"? Hell, how can a normal person sign up? Is the dream--the ideal--big enough for him to abandon all he has lived up to that moment and go in a new direction? Whether you like it, agree with it, find it boneheaded or evil, the Communist core story of a final utopia where injustice no longer has a place in society and everyone shares everything is a dream properly formatted to the human psyche to be worth fighting for. If that dream were not part of the package, people on a large scale would not buy the rest. This is what makes Che Guevara seem like an idealist, but Geller and Spencer seem like haters. I'm not talking about the merits of their ideas. I'm talking about how they transmit them. Look at Ayn Rand for an example of doing it right. Nobody bashed collectivism and altruism harder than she did. But if that were all she did, she would have been a forgotten footnote to history by now. Instead, her books keep selling in the hundreds of thousands. Why? She told the story of the dream--of a better world and painted what that would be like. She laid out a path for the enemy to redeem himself and, as a result, feel the strong pure emotions of hope and belonging--just adopt reason as your final arbitrator of reality and welcome to the brotherhood. Rand even had an oath for people to swear in Atlas Shrugged to get into Heaven on Earth (Galt's Gulch). I'm speaking in terms of archetypes right now, not anything literal. Rand knew how to tell the story of evil, but she also knew how to tell the story of good. And she made damn sure she did. That's why she's still around despite some of the most unfair vicious attacks and misrepresentations ever perpetrated in the mainstream on any thinker and writer. Where are Geller and Spencer's path to redemption? Where is the glory in changing your life if you are their enemy? Just stop what you are and that's it? How the hell is that ever going to convince anyone except true believer types? Nobody will ever say his way of life is evil if there is no substitute for him to adopt--one in a form he can understand--to make him feel worthy and good. You make him understand--to see it--through story. Che Guevara, like Rand, gives this alternative to people. The admirers of Guevara are misguided, sure, but getting rid of the oppressors to Guevara is only a step toward a greater dream: utopia. Fighting the enemy is not the whole dream. it is not the whole plot of the big story. it is merely one part of the plot--and it's in Act 2 of a 3 act plot to boot. Geller and Spencer don't give this to people. Their plot-line is get rid of the enemy. Bedeh, bedeh, bedeh... That's all folks! I don't have any high expectations for the intellectual capacity of Britain's politicians and civil servants. So I don't expect them to have reasoned the way I just did. But I do believe this was their core motivation. If you're a dreamer who sells the dream--who constantly tells the story of the dream, you can hate and kill up a storm and the whole world will make room for you. Just look at history. If you neglect this and only tell stories of injustice, brutality, evil, you will be defined by your enemy and the world will call you a hater. I do not condone what Britain did. Geller and Spencer have every right to make a peaceful display at a memorial and Britain is embarrassing itself with hypocrisy. But I do understand why Geller and Spencer have this problem It's such an easy one to fix, too. Just expand the repertoire of stories to include the dream. Bloody killers do it with half-assed dreams and get away with it all the time. Individual rights-based freedom is a much better dream--one that is attainable with a proven track record to boot. And it's a foundation for a lot of great stories. Just look at Glenn Beck's trajectory for a good example of how to do it. But, from observing the nature of Geller and Spencer's rhetoric for a few years, I doubt they will ever go down that path. I expect them to continue with their martyr storyline. That's a powerful one, to be sure, but without the dream, the sad truth (I believe) is they will not be remembered as a Joan of Arc or even a Don Quixote. They will become footnotes as propagandists and nothing more. I want to say to them, "Wake up! Sell the dream, too!" Hmmmm... That might make a good story... Michael Your analysis is correct here. As they stand Geller and Spencer are pure propagandists, very skilled ones. Their agenda is to provoke fear, hatred and bigotry. The UK is sensible to ban them they have enough homegrown propagandists and bigots to deal with.

Of course this is a heaven-sent opportunity for Lott. I am sure that the killing of Trayvon has reduced the burglary rate in Sanford drastically.

Maybe they'll consider the evidence. --Brant Of course they will. But they will consider it from the perspectives of the individuals they are. just as we all are doing.

.side note, my Massachusetts ancestor died before the Revolution, and he died wealthy which is why we have records of him. His sons all appear to have been on the British side.

Baal, very probably it could. It was an active, intellectual, wealthy minority which engineered the Revolution. Most of the population was neutral or Loyalist. If the revolution had failed there would now be a united British North America --with Quebec much as it is now.

The all-woman jury is an interesting factor. Zimmerman is appealing, with his sad eyes and his chipmunk cheeks and his devotion to law and order. Will the jurors identify with him as their protector or son or brother, or with Martin, or Martin's mother?

About us being a happy people I think you are right. I have not looked it up but whenever they do one of those contentment-with-your-country surveys we usually come out near the top. Talking with people on Canada Day recently, it struck me again how lucky we feel, how grateful.. the pride is not about how glorious is our history but more about how we live together, day by day. The pride of the ordinary, I guess.

Amen. And Michael can I ask a favour? Could you pull out my Thank You America post above and repost it as a standalone New Topic? That way more browsing Americans might be thanked year-round. If it is not too hubristic to request.

I find it interesting that Martin, although no Eagle Scout, at age 17 had never been charged with any crimes. This is pretty good going for an American male, since an astounding percentage of them will be convicted of something and slung in the slammer at some point in their lives. Zimmerman by contrast has been charged with "resisting an officer with violence" and "battery on a police officer." Also accused of domestic violence by an ex.

What was the point of bringing it up, then? If he didn't seem threatening, you obviously chose the example because the guy was black. I thought you said you agree that this isn't about race? You have never feared anyone in Toronto? You know violent crimes are committed in Toronto, whether or not your personal experience supports that. I brought it up, I guess, just to show that urban life everywhere is not the tense no-mans-land so often evoked by reports of crimes like this. Of course I know of the violence and gang activity that occurs here. And when I have been in the areas where it occurs most I have felt uneasy and wary. But I have never felt frightened that I, personally, would be a target of it .

PS Eakins' mentor and inspiration was Roger Neilson, a hockey Pericles who endured Sophoclean vicissitudes. Or maybe I mean Euripidean. Whatever. Only one whorehouse per 100,000 residents are permitted. --Brant how many does he have? Well let's see, at a rate of four Americans to every one Canadian and your special fourth of July discount - maybe enough.

PS Eakins' mentor and inspiration was Roger Neilson, a hockey Pericles who endured Sophoclean vicissitudes. Or maybe I mean Euripidean. Whatever.

My son possessed marijuana and had it in his system at age 17, and likely still does (I don't ask).He has also had jewelry on his person and although not suspended from school, sure deserved to be, for breaking the windows of said school. Are these indications of hopeless criminality?

Mwahaha, I just read that one of my hockey heroes, Dallas Eakins (mediocre player, peerless character) rents out properties, in guess where, ||||Arizona! We're everywhere and there is no escape. Brace yourself for the Edmonton invasion, o ye son of the Golden West.

Carol, Dayaamm! I used to have an edge... Gettin' dull and can't cut worth jack anymore.. Michael lol Just cut your water with mustard and you will be OK

Watch it Michael, that is twice! Soon you will be agreeing with everyone on your forum and going on dangerous water fasts!

This is just the tip of the ice berg... http://www.infowars.com/ex-chicago-cop-zimmerman-acquittal-to-cause-race-riots/ I can't get the link to the Aesops Retreat forum to work. The web's being sluggish, probably 4th of July overload. Ellen . Ellen, I got the site. The first thing I clicked on was a glenn beck quote, which turned my stomach. They also trust WND as a credible news source.

"prominent voices...some are worried..it is possible..." yeah, thanks Alex for the perennial race-war crap from the usual "prominent voices", yourself and Lew Rockwell. You have not yet provided me with one MSM salivating riot-feeding example.

This is an opinion, a qualitative evaluation, presented as a fact. Why should anyone believer this? Blank-out. I call it arguing by decree. Rand actually does this at times, but with a difference. When Rand uses this declarative decree form of rhetoric at the beginning, she generally keeps to statements of her own observations, although she does not call them that. She certainly does not present floating evaluations. For example, here is the first statement of the first chapter of ITOE: "Consciousness, as a state of awareness, is not a passive state, but an active process that consists of two essentials: differentiation and integration." Note that she did not start with something like, "Consciousness is the best state of awareness." Is curi a dude or a dudette? Not that it matters. She identified at that moment. She did not judge. The judgments came later. This is the correct form, too. Cognitive before normative. You have to correctly identify what you are talking about before you can correctly evaluate it. Over the years, I have seen a tendency in young Objectivists to ape Rand in the decree declarations at the beginning, but inject their evaluations and pass them off as fact. They use the normative before the cognitive method. They evaluate first, then try to fit the facts to their evaluation. That actually will work some of the time, but as a form of argument, it's best suited to propaganda and covert manipulation than to a discussion of ideas. (Not that the imitators of Rand practice propaganda--they are simply not good at that stuff at all.) Qua discussion of ideas, this is a religious urge. Imagine a preacher starting with, "God is great. God loves you more than you will ever know." Then moving on to the sermon. It's the same kind of thing. Rand, to my knowledge, did not do that. But her apers do. This is the same as the beginning. Why should anyone accept this at face value? In my opinion, they shouldn't. Why use this dude's mind when the reader has one of his own? Preachers don't like it when I pull the covers off their BS like this, but I am a proponent of independent thinking, not arguing by preaching and intimidation. I'm being a little harsh on this Curi dude right now, but I believe he has a good mind. He just buries it under bullshit. All this aping of Rand's attitudes will keep him away from interacting with intelligent independent minds. If he is going to transit on the outside of the cult-divide, he is going to have to get used to people disagreeing with him--intelligent people disagreeing with him. That means he doesn't get to call them stupid or poor quality and issue commands right out of the gate. Nor does he get to pass off his opinions as fact without challenge. If that's what he seeks, there are places on the Internet that would welcome his opening decrees--that is, until another guru wannabe clashes with him. We've seen plenty of that here in O-Land. The hardest thing for people like this to learn to ask is, "What do you mean?" In other words, they need to learn how to think in the correct order, correctly identify first, then judge. Not judge what they don't know according to an inner storyline and image they got from reading some Rand and then run around trying to back it up with facts they--only at that point--start seeking. More bullshit. This dude hasn't been around long enough to know what most Objectivists think. Right here on this very forum, I've argued Popper and Rand are compatible in certain respects, and I have not been the only one. But this dude won't even try to look. It's so much easier to mouth off about "most Objectivists." Checking facts is a good thing. I call this bluster of condemning "most Objectivists" mental laziness, but it's actually a form of getting an emotional high. You feel good when you play master of the universe and condemn what you have never seen. It's a rush. Checking facts is boring. Even more bullshit. This imaginary "they" is nothing more than a floating abstraction dreamed up in the mind of Curi. It takes some effort to mention who and provide quotes. But not if you are lazy and need your emotional fix to feed your vanity and it's killing you not to get it. A dude like this might think I am being offensive as hell, but he needs to look at how he approached people he doesn't know. A good principle to follow is if you want respect, you give it. It's a trade, not a duty to be imposed on others. (Notice I'm not giving it right now... I'm smelling a preacher seeking a flock, and, man, I sure don't like preachers seeking flocks...) Michael Is curi "Elliott Temple" a dude or a dudette? Not that it matters, just Curi-ous.

Thanks! I had not heard of them. I thought the lines sounded Leonard Cohenesque actually.