caroljane

I can imagine it. It ain't pretty.

David Weigel's review of Atlas ii and interview with John Aglialaro are in the National Post today. He says" the casting change works". And that Aglialoro regrets that Rand used the term "selfishness" and that he if she were on earth today she would probably put it another way. I don't know, I don't think "The Virtue of Rational Self-Interest" has the same ring to it,

,,, or you start a union,

Gee Adam, is this how you are running the Welcome Wagon these days? You didn't even give him his copy of Atlas!

1.Judgment is the British and sometimes the Canadian spelling. Spellcheckers are American spelling. 3. I don't understand this either, and I don't think Ayn Rand did. I don't see music as a re creation of anything, but as pure creation.

In your own self-interest you seem to have adopted Extreem Spelling.

No. We shouldn't. [We should not mention 'sodomy for humiliation' (whatever that is) in the Arab world, unless we have some credible evidence that this is common, true, wide-spread, culturally-bound; nothing in this supposed fact supports the malicious claim that Ambassador Stevens was raped/sodomized for humiliation.] Well, then I should. For sure you should. If you are right then you of course should tell us more about sodomizing for humiliation in the Arab world. That was the challenge, Maestro. If you should (and if you should you must) tell about sodomizing for humiliation in the Arab world, then tell it! We can't do it for you, since you have the knowledge. Whether I am some blue book fiend is besides the point. You have the floor on this point. Putting me into a drawer or narrative category is all well and good and no-doubt worthy (we all need verbal corralling sometime, or at least a fierce sorting of enemy/friend drawers), but it still doesn't let any of us off the hook of reason. Oh and as for the image Carol projects, I think this shot captures it perfectly for me. Carol on her way shopping, in winter gear. Properly anonymous on the cold-eyed streets of Canada's hideous social experiment, Toronto, but with a hint of old country widder lady Ms Whistler glam: You forgot my toque! Like the Sacred Igloo talismans against the evil eye, though.

Do you see all public political discourse simply as competitive propaganda? Is there no room for objective truth at all? Aristotle wept.

Carol, George Lakoff is a linguist who for many years now has been promoting a model of political discourse and how it works. Since his explicit aim is to help Democrats improve their "messaging," he will not be writing a Little Red (State) Book to accompany his Little Blue Book. Robert Campbell By "the original" I meant the Mao one, a joke because here in Canada, the Conservative party is blue and the Liberals are red.

A remark capable of more than one interpretation... I see now that it is, but I swear to Galt I was not opening it to any. She invented the Ben and Mal Senses of Life, as far as I know, and she was the only one who made pronouncements on them in her lifetime. I may seem defensive, but Michael has been psychologising me again and I do not want to be misunderstood.

Michael, with respect and affection, I feel compelled to quote our friend PDS and abandon my customary Respectability. No offence, but I do not give a rat's ass about the image I project.

You know, seriously, although your original title is evocative, maybe it's better to change it Lakin or no Lakin."Rapture and Reflex" or something. And the dog whistle is kind of a meme anyway, and mixing the seductresses with dogs might offend PC types like me, You are of course right that if I were American I would be a Democrat, but so would most Cdns , the rest would be moderate Republicans except for jts and maybe Paul Mawdsley, I don'tknow his politics. Yet we have a very right wing Conservative government which is building new prisons though the crime rate is at an alltime low, because it has "secret information", it is secretive to the point of tyranny about public spending and policies affecting government programs. We are you in the obverse.

I didn't know there was a Little Blue Book! Is there a Little Red State one too... or do you just adapt the original?

We should not have to examine this execrable subject, but since it is here, have our experts on North African culture ever seen "Deliverance?" Human degradation is not especially regional.

wss, I think sometimes Michael is employing the second plural saying "you", meaning "you liberals], without being specially personal., I will plead guilty to the adjectives or lack of them, whatever they signify, as an internet and marketing analyst Michael may discern things from these markers that we are not aware of. I don't feel vituperated, just categorised, and it is everyone's right to categorise others according to their own perceptions.

Also, I do not hold that there are exceptions to the rights to freedom of speech, and I have never said so once much less constantly. There must be an absolute right to freedom of speech, because suppression of that freedom is worse than allowing it,

Wow, Michael. I guess I better take this a little bit at a time. "People like the filmmaker:" I don;t know many of , but as far as I know I can stand them. This filmmaker from what I know is a tradition-bound emigrant who prospered early in the US, got caught in the recession, turned to crime to feed his family, and got in deeper, and is now as I said days ago, hung out to dry by his bosses.I don't really know what he is like, but I can certainly stand him and I do not wish harm to come to him. If you want adjectives, he is a hapless schlub.

Carol, The McCain rumor was one of a myriad of possible examples. For a few of the many many others: during this election season, the Washington Post's political "fact checker" may be be spotted awarding Pinocchios (on a scale of 1 to 4) to politicians who have made statements that are completely and obviously true. No bonus points for guessing the party affiliation of the politicians so treated. But, OK, let's go further into the McCain rumor. As I understand it, the story was so thin that the New York Times was walking a fine line between reporting a rumor that originated with someone else—and originating the rumor itself. And this is the same New York Times that had been in no hurry to say one word about John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, with the consequence that the Gray Lady (and her competitors) got scooped by the National Enquirer. The best and fairest journalists in the world will sometimes fail to distinguish a real story from a rumor. That's life. What I'm worried about is what happens when journalists develop the habit of filtering story from rumor on the basis of what they want to believe—or on the basis of what they believe will enhance their guy's political prospects and hurt the other guy's. I doubt that most mass media outlets in the United States used what facts they had to go on, and which sources they most trusted, to decide whether to say anything about Ambassador Stevens being raped. They decided not to say anything about it because, if true, it would make their guy, Barack Obama, look bad. They hoped it wasn't true, and in this case they were right. I doubt that Front Page Mag (David Horowitz's operation) based its decision primarily on facts and sources either. They wanted to run something that would make the other guy, Barack Obama, look bad. They hoped it was true, and they were wrong. I don't believe that the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair constituted grounds for impeachment, even though Bill had lied under oath, he was being questioned under the provisions of a sexual harassment law that he had lent his political support to, and he ended up being disbarred for lying under oath. Besides, if Ken Starr hadn't been put on the case, I would never have learned about Bill's hitherto unsuspected resemblance to General Jack D. Ripper. And that's a genuine instance of Too Much Information. Robert Campbell I agree with everything you say here. Except, I looked at Horowitz's Front Page site, and however biased the MSM is, to eqauate him as a "journalist" in any way with the majority of reporters and editors who work for the major papers and networks, is really unfair to them. PS - I also noticed that Horowitz quoted Raymond Ibrahim as a source for the sodomy story. Ibrahim was also a "source" for the crucifixion hoax.

You would look up what Ayn Rand said about it of course, She is the world authority on Malevolent Sense of Life.

Carol, The McCain rumor was one of a myriad of possible examples. For a few of the many many others: during this election season, the Washington Post's political "fact checker" may be be spotted awarding Pinocchios (on a scale of 1 to 4) to politicians who have made statements that are completely and obviously true. No bonus points for guessing the party affiliation of the politicians so treated. But, OK, let's go further into the McCain rumor. As I understand it, the story was so thin that the New York Times was walking a fine line between reporting a rumor that originated with someone else—and originating the rumor itself. And this is the same New York Times that had been in no hurry to say one word about John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, with the consequence that the Gray Lady (and her competitors) got scooped by the National Enquirer. The best and fairest journalists in the world will sometimes fail to distinguish a real story from a rumor. That's life. What I'm worried about is what happens when journalists develop the habit of filtering story from rumor on the basis of what they want to believe—or on the basis of what they believe will enhance their guy's political prospects and hurt the other guy's. I doubt that most mass media outlets in the United States used what facts they had to go on, and which sources they most trusted, to decide whether to say anything about Ambassador Stevens being raped. They decided not to say anything about it because, if true, it would make their guy, Barack Obama, look bad. They hoped it wasn't true, and in this case they were right. I doubt that Front Page Mag (David Horowitz's operation) based its decision primarily on facts and sources either. They wanted to run something that would make the other guy, Barack Obama, look bad. They hoped it was true, and they were wrong. I don't believe that the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair constituted grounds for impeachment, even though Bill had lied under oath, he was being questioned under the provisions of a sexual harassment law that he had lent his political support to, and he ended up being disbarred for lying under oath. Besides, if Ken Starr hadn't been put on the case, I would never have learned about Bill's hitherto unsuspected resemblance to General Jack D. Ripper. And that's a genuine instance of Too Much Information. Robert Campbell I agree with everything you say here. Except, I looked at Horowitz's Front Page site, and however biased the MSM is, to eqauate him as a "journalist" in any way with the majority of reporters and editors who work for the major papers and networks, is really unfair to them.

\Robert Campbell "Let us suppose that we know by some means"....!!! Let's not.

OK Robert, my diametricism was way off. As was yours back on the net rumour/real news discussion. Remember? The MSM did not report the unsubstantiated report that Stevens was raped. They did report the unsubstantiated rumour that mcCain cheated on his second wife. Let me count the ways. Stevens really was murdered, McCain really did run for President. What happened to Stevens right before, or after his death, could conceivably be news in a sad sick way. What was rumoured about McCain actually was news, because the marital fidelity of politicians is (inexplicably to my mind) an important character indicator. It was important enough to nearly get Clinton impeached; to make all candidates parade their spouses for testimonials. McCain had admitted to cheating on his first wife. North Africans (though not the ones who killed Stevens as far as we out can know) have been known to sodomize their murder victims, So as to possible credibility, we are even so far. So the choice of the news media to report the rumours will come down to the numbers. What will interest our viewers/readers more?A rumour about a presidential candidate or a rumour about a murdered ambassador? Lacking verification the media went with the numbers and left the rumours about Stevens to the internet until they could be verified, when they would become actual news, which few would be pleased to hear.

Terry Jones has been invited to come here to screen the epic, but we don't know if they will let him in, like Germany and Britain. He will probably cancel anyway, when he learns he will have to bring his own protestors.

Wullie, Not backing down this time. I saw that news and felt such painful hope, as I did when I saw the sign, "We're sorry, Chris" and the quote, "He's alive, God is great!" In other sprigs of spring from Hogtown, the counter protest at the US embassy by Banerjee and his merry band of bigots was cancelled at the last minute due to lack of participants. (apparently his impressively named group has about 12 members). On the downside Rob Ford made it home safely back from Chicago. Life, eh? Stan Rogers died on the runway there, but Ford will adorn Canada forever.

Michael. You get that impression because you can fit my statements into the Progressive Narrative, and when you can't, you say I "back off". Fair enough; I am progressive I guess, although I'm not technically sure how evil on your scale. I am used to being attributed attitudes or motives I don't have-- sometimes I do have them, after all. I knew what to expect when I joined here, and the gain is worth the pain, at least so far. But I don't acquiesce in in being assumed to be the Archetypal Liberal on all points. Maybe this is a good time to address Robert's question about the Big Picture. I don't think my vision is wide enough to see one. I only see clearly into the middle distance, where individuals and groups with complex motives take actions, and they have consequences . Which engender more motives and more consequences, and so on. This is history, which I know fairly well. Politics and law lag behind history always; politicians cannot "lead"; they can only destroy, maintain, or build. But I don't see powerful ideological string-pullers orchestrating this mosaic effectively. At the very summit, those with the most power and the most money, even the most ideology, still must operate as individuals, with individual complex motives and varying powers of judgment, I suppose I see the Big Picture as Goldman saw Hollywood; in the middle distance, everybody knows a lot, but at the summit of the Big Picture, "nobody knows anything". And in the middle where I live, I cannot see the world as divided into two groups, those who love liberty and those who only want power to crush the liberty of the other group and steal their stuff. And if anyone insists on assigning me my place in the second group, I will complain about it.