KacyRay

MSK, That site is reprehensible and I'd recommend her security team take it seriously as well. There is no excuse, no defense, no justification for something like that.

I knew... I knew... I KNEW.... that all I needed to do was step back and keep my mouth shut long enough and the two of them would not be able to hide their true colors for very long. Now, for those of you who remember the original spat earlier this year.... now hopefully you understand why I recoiled in horror when I was being lumped in with them. Hopefully now you understand why I left for a while. Hopefully now it makes sense. As I said way back then - I have no problem being the guy in the room that everyone disagrees with. In fact, that can be a whole lot more rewarding than just being one of the crowd. But I sure don't want to be lumped in with trolls just because I'm their target. I'd rather walk away. (Troll, being defined as "someone whose primary (or only) intent is provocation for the sake of provocation")

Agh... yes, it's a bit hard to swallow that someone of your intellectual caliber would take her seriously. But hey, I can accept it. And, like you, I condemn any and all death threats from deranged lunatics who feel the need to kill those with whom they disagree. I would argue that death threats against Palin and her family require a special sort of derangement, seeing as how she never really had much chance of affecting the political landscape to begin with, and now has none at all. SB - I was going to reply to your comment until I read that last sentence. "However, your reponse seems to betray your feeling threatened by strong opinions." I see that, true to form, you can't complete a thought without the need to inform me about my emotional state. I don't reply to polemic demagoguery. I don't engage people who need to resort to unfalsifiable assertions about how I feel regarding a particular issue. If it entertains you to imagine me sitting behind a computer monitor drooling and shivering in a cold sweat as I read the painful words of truth that serve as a harbinger to the catastrophic collapse of my collectivist, socialist, liberal worldview, knock yourself out. Don't expect me to take you seriously when you do that.

MSK – Appreciate the insightful comment, and you’ve articulated the point I was trying to make much better than I did. A couple comments on some of the other stuff you mentioned: “The fanatical demonization of Sarah Palin by the left. The caricature of her that the left despises and constantly promotes has nothing to do with the reality of her, nor the people who she represents by being the archetype of them.” I view what is going on with Palin much differently than you. I don’t think there are as many folks who hate Palin as you think there are. Naturally there are people with hate in their hearts, and they will find someone to hate, and that says more about them than it does about the target of their hatred. Those people exist on both sides, but I think the amount of hatred being slung at Palin pales in comparison to what Obama is facing. There are prominent bloggers and pundits calling for his assassination. I don’t think Palin faces that sort of hatred. But it isn’t those “haters” that constitute the majority of the anti-Palin faction (speaking of her an archetype as well as a person). I think the majority of the anti-Palin contingent consists of people like me who do not hate her at all, but rather find ourselves astounded that she is even taken seriously as a politician or a pundit. A great example by way of illustration is the case of Tim Tebow. He has become a pariah in the NFL – no team will touch him. No team wants him even warming their bench. He won the Heisman trophy as a college sophomore, and was super-hyped coming into the NFL, and three years later he can’t find a position as a waterboy. He has been mocked and ridiculed mercilessly by all football fans, myself included, and not just for his “Jesus posture” but for his inability to deliver the goods when needed. He simply isn’t NFL caliber and he never was. But I’ll tell you this, he’s probably a better QB than anyone I’ve ever personally met, anyone you’ve personally met, and anyone that the tens of thousands of anti-Tebow folks have ever met. Well, if he’s so good, why do people keep talking about how horrible he is? Do they HATE TEBOW? No, of course not. They just hated that he was playing in a league he had no business playing in, against guys who outclassed him even on their worst day. They hated that such a lousy quarterback was so overhyped. They hated that he played on the same field as genuinely great football players. And they hated how presumptuous he looked, apparently thinking he had god on speed-dial. I think Palin is in a similar position. She’s not a bad lady. In fact, she is exactly normal. She is exactly average. She is exactly as qualified to speak on political issues as the wife of the barber down the street, and almost as knowledgable. I think I would LOVE her if she was running the delicatessen near my house. She and I would get along splendidly. In fact, I am very good friends with many folks who are not only exactly like Palin, but look up to and idolize her. So if that’s the case, what’s my problem with Palin? My problem with her is that she’s being taken seriously by the right-wing politisphere. That’s unacceptable in my mind. And it isn’t because she has original ideas to contribute, it’s because she’s parroting crap she hears in church. She has nothing of value to contribute. No, I don’t hate her. No I do not wish her harm or bear her ill-will. And I suspect that most of the folks to my left feel much the same about her as I do – they do not hate her personally, they hate that she is playing on the same field as others who actually contribute. “I honestly believe the lefties would have burned her to the stake as a witch if they were in power. And then humiliated her grave in some manner. I mean that literally.” Again, look at where the death wishes are coming from. It isn’t from the left. Erik Rush, calling for the violent overthrow of the administration and an armed revolution. .... Calling Obama a dangerous psychopath and saying that he and all those who support him should be imprisoned and found guilty of treason. ... Him and Jim Garrow explicitly calling for Obama's execution. Again, I know there are unhinged lunatics on all sides of the political spectrum, but this is the sort of madness that I see coming mostly from the right. I've not heard a single person, from any political faction, express this sort of derangement regarding Sarah Palin. I honestly believe that most of those who oppose all-things-Palin are people who, like myself, see her as nothing more than a reality show character - a wannabe diva that merits no place in the national conversation.

But your speculation is spot on, right? Tell us... how is it that you have the inside scoop on the motivation for why rich Obama supporters voted as they did? I mean, you wouldn't just assume a motivation and pass it off as ostensible fact, right? Because that would be presumptive and dishonest, and you would not be presumptive and dishonest, right? Is it possible that rich people voted their conscience just like everyone who went to the polls? Is it possible that, just like everyone else who voted that day, those rich Obama supporters simply voted for the candidate they thought was a better bet than the alternative? I realize that wouldn't play into the narrative you're paining here, but isn't that just a teensy weensy possibility? Arguments that Obama wasn't the best candidate are fine. Arguments that rich Obama supporters got it wrong are fine. But stating that they were voting for reasons other than the reasons anyone else voted as though it were established fact... that betrays your intent to paint an unsupported narrative, which in turn betrays your intent to have a less-than-honest dialogue. I see this so frequently... people assuming the motives of others and then stating it as an article of established fact. I see that a lot 'round these here parts, and I almost never see anyone questioning it.

Space is something. It is physical in nature. If it wasn't there, we could not transit through it. Space itself is an entity, as is the universe. There is no such thing as "nothing". The term is only used in reference to the absence of a specific thing.

Selene - I can dig that. You have your own context therefore your behavior will conform to your values.

Gents, Was perusing the thread where moralist cited an Onion article without an up-front attribution, and the dialogue reminded me a little tiny of a change in heart I had a while back. Wonder what your thoughts are. (I'll mention up front that I am aware of the plagiarism issues that took place here and I recognize the gravity of that sort of thing, so no need to dwell on that.) Some years back when I was more obsessive about how to approach living honestly, my policy was simple - never say anything that isn't true. And if I said something in jest, it was followed immediately by a disclaimer. It was simple. It was clear. It put my mind at ease. Over time I made a few observations which compelled me to change that policy a bit. 1) Sometimes when people ask a question (how is the dinner I cooked you, do you like this song, isn't my brother doing a good job) people are not actually requesting the information ostensibly being asked for. Rather, they are seeking affirmation - and not even affirmation regarding the topic of the question, but rather an affirmation of solidarity. In other words, a question such as "Do you like the poem I wrote?" might be translated by an emotionally intelligent person as "Do you like me?" Thus I learned that the right answer to such a question is "yes", no matter what I think of the poem (assuming I like the person asking the question). [if this sounds odd to you, then you are in good company. Emotional intelligence is not natural to everyone and noticeably absent among intellectuals. However if what I just said sounds obvious to you, then you have a natural insight that, for me, was hard-earned and has taken me years to understand.] 2) Not everyone expects or even wants to hear the truth in every single context. A good example of this is during male-female social exchanges . I learned this from a buddy of mine in Hawaii a few years back. I noticed that he would embellish the stories he told, and as much as it ground against the grain of every principle I hold, I noticed that the details he would embellish were rather deliberately chosen for the purpose of *making the story more interesting to the listener* rather than *making the story an ego-boost for the teller*. In other words, he was doing it for their sake. The embellishments were never ones that would aggrandize himself (I caught a fish THIS BIG!!!) but rather they would aggrandize the story (Everyone in the Command Operations Center was doing the wave!), and people loved it. Of course, I didn't know he was doing this until after I had know him for long enough that I actually became part of those stories, and once, when I had a sidebar conversation about it with him, during which I expressed "concerns" about how accurate his story-telling was, he articulated his reason simply: Everyone loves a good story. I thought about that for a while. Everyone loves a good story. Is it really that terrible a thing to embellish a story if doing so makes it infinitely more entertaining for the audience, especially when the audience is infinitely more interested in hearing good story than they are in hearing an accurate one? In some cases, stories aren't being told in order to pass information, but rather to entertain. And they aren't being listened to for the sake of gaining accurate information, but rather to enjoy the process of the story being told. Doesn't it makes sense, therefore, to give priority to the story's entertainment value rather than its accuracy? I mean honestly, what is there to be gained by sticking doggedly to some principle of accurate representation of facts when that's not what the listener is seeking at that moment in time? Here I would point out two things: A. I still don't embellish stories. I guess old habits die hard. But I don't condemn anyone who does. B. If, after hearing an "embellishment" of a story, if the subject were to come up later and someone were to ask about a particular detail and inquire as to how accurate it was, I'd say that the right thing to do would be to fess up and say "Well, maybe it wasn't *quite* like that, but it sure seemed that way!" or some such clarification. In other words, at the point in which facts are being requested, facts should be provided. 3) Sometimes a joke is funnier if you let it cook for a while. The other day I went bowling with my wife. While she was at the snack bar I bowled her game and mine (didn't feel like waiting!). The scores for the game under my name was 137. The score for the game under her name was 233. I took a picture and posted it to FB with the caption "She's kicking my ass!". Of course, it wasn't really her. It was me. But I thought it would be funny to let folks dog me out over it for a while, which they did. She asked me if I was going to spill the beans on what actually happened. I told her I kinda felt like I had to, but only after a while. What I wound up doing is, after we bowled another few games under our own names, I took another picture of the score and posted it (this particular game I scored 215 to her 60) and posted it under the caption "Turning things around!". In my mind, that picture should be enough to tell people that she didn't bowl that first game (no one scores 233 and then rolls a 60). And if anyone asks, I'll tell them the truth explicitly. But in order for the joke to have any value at all, I needed to "let it cook". In other words, I needed people to believe the lead in for a while before dropping the punch line. And to me, that's the difference between a joke and a lie - a joke has a punch line. And sometimes the punch line must wait for the joke to cook. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regarding the attribution issue: I don't think anyone gave moralist any time to let the lead-in cook before giving him a chance to drop the punch line. I think he probably would've, after not too long, let people know it was a satire (assuming we were all too dim to see it for ourselves) and I am sure he would have attributed it. It seems a bit harsh to demand that someone attribute a joke right away. How is it supposed to be funny??? I read the article and figured out about halfway through that it was from The Onion. If he had attributed it, I'd have know before I read a single word, and I would have enjoyed it a lot less. The principle of honesty is intended to serve us, not the other way around. When it fails to do so, such as when it compels us to immediately squash any and all lead-ins that are "simmering" prior to the punch line, then the principle has become the master and we the servants. I would say that a joke is an honest thing. It's honestly a joke. So long as it's identified and there's no deception, then let it ride. There's no harm in giving someone the latitude to have some fun and to make the rest of us smile in the process.

MSK - Obama's political death has been declared over and over for a long time now. I remember thread on OL, for example, on Benghazi, where Dennis May was gleefully tracking the trickling of information coming from Glenn Beck which was supposed to spell certain doom for Obama's presidency. Many yawns later, I wonder how this is different? Yeah, he got caught finding out that his plan didn't match his promise. But is this one of those times where someone just makes an undefined declaration "Obama's going down!" without any criteria of falsification or validation, or is this something you are actually willing to admit you're wrong about when it doesn't actually happen? I am pretty confident that the mid-term elections will see the tea party pushed out of the GOP, and the dems pick up some seats in the house (maybe not the senate).

I'm interested to see if Anand will offer an early draw this morning, effectively "resigning" the tournament. If he does, that will speak volumes about Carlsen's domination. It will show that Carlsen didn't just beat Anand, but that Anand wasn't every really in the running. Personally, I doesn't think result surprised anyone. The only surprise is that Carlsen wasn't there sooner.

Will do!

MSK - I will read your references before commenting on the substantive issues you mentioned... but I assure you that any "sneering, scorn and sarcasm" on my part is said in a spirit of good fun, not in malice. The only one I take issue with here personally is RB, and that's because of a long history. I know - no one here is interested in any of that. Selene - I don't claim to be an Objectivist. I am informed by Rand's teachings, and as I've done with all teachers, I've run her teachings through the filter of my critical mind. I've dispensed with some teachings, I've embraced others, and I don't consider that process complete, ever. But I don't consider any one persons teachings or ideas to be the end-all be-all of human knowledge. Still, it is a bit presumptuous of you to assume what my motives for not voting are. I would just remind you that I have no duty or obligation to do so, neither do I have a duty or obligation to justify my decisions. You can be suspicious all you want, but I am pretty confident that your suspicion is more of a product of the fact that you and I disagree on many issues than it is my abstinence from voting. I suspect you would find me suspicious whether I voted or not. "Since I have always been a political being, animal [leave that one open for your cutting wit] and citizen, the idea of not voting is dissonant to my mind. I have written in Atlas characters, particularly in judicial races, where a slate of judicial candidates appears on all the ballot lines." I understand. And I appreciate that you recognize that the dissonance you feel is in your mind. Did you ever see the South Park episode where there was an election, and the only two candidates were a douchbag and a shit sandwich? One of the kids decided not to vote and was derided for it by everyone until he finally relented... then when he did vote, everyone derided him for voting for the wrong candidate. It was pretty funny... but that's about how I feel when it comes to elections these days. Unlike the South Park character, I won't be brow-beaten into voting for someone I don't support. And writing in fictional characters seems pretty silly to me. I could be spending that time doing something more productive like... just about anything.

RB - what color is the sky on your planet, man?

MSK - thanks brother. Ba'al - Yeah, what a trip. It has really changed my perspective on life. And I'm not even talking about the military aspect of it, I'm talking about the experience of being inside a confined area for roughly 8 months with the same people, eating the same food, living in a small room with limited access to internet and television, and dealing with occasional loss of basic amenities such as air conditioning and potable water. I was very fortunate to have some advantages that not everyone had. I was one of the senior shore patrol officers, so I got to stay at a hotel during every port visit. That was particularly advantageous in Dubai, where the temperature in the ship was so out-of-control hot that people were sleeping on the flight deck at night, and there was no cold water to take a shower with. (I know, I'd never heard of such a thing either). But I did have to sleep through some nights that were so hot that I would look forward to the point when my sheets were so sweat-drenched that it would at least cool me off a little. Now each day I am appreciative of things you wouldn't even think of, such as quality toilet paper, the ability to go to the bathroom without walking a long way, the ability to do laundry whenever I want, the ability to cut my hair whenever I like, access to all of my things, video chat, cell phone service, the ability to pet my dogs, etc. I hope this feeling remains, but I know that it's human to being taking these things for granted again. But I will try to remember what it's like not to have those things and how good it feels to live the way we live here. It's odd... intellectually I know that right now I'm living the exact same life I was living before we deployed, but emotionally it feels like I'm living a dream right now in some luxurious vacation home.

Welcome back. Hear, hear! Thanks Stephen!

RB: A MEU ARG is a crisis response force, trained to respond to a variety of specific contingencies. To assume that there was no return on that investment because there were not enough crises that needed responding to is like saying you wasted money on your insurance policy because you didn't crash your car frequently enough. But I knew you were going to insinuate that the lack of actionable crises we faced out there somehow lessens the legitimacy of what the MEU ARG does in general, and what I do in particular. That's the motive I knew was behind the question. Not that I need to convince you of the value of having a MEU ARG our there, but you'd be surprised at the influence on world politics that our very presence has. People tend to behave differently when the cops are on the sidewalk in front of heir house.

Thanks brother.

Cathy, you are a jewel. And I assure you it has nothing to do with your status as "Frank's niece". You're just a great lady.

zero. And your motive for asking that question is noted.

I been on a little cruise.

You have no idea how nice the world we live in is, until you have to go away from it for awhile. Man, it's good to be back. I'll be talking to you guys again soon.

This is one of those times where it is important to try to understand what the speaker is trying to communicate rather than focus on what he or she literally said.

I'll be back on in about a week. Trying to converse here has been an exercise in futility and frustration, due to my lack of bandwidth. The pages load halfway, and I never get to the bottom, particularly on the pages with more than 2-3 comments. The only reason I can even post this is because it's 5 in the morning and most of the ship is asleep. But like I say... in a week or so, I'll be back in high-speed-lan-land. Talk to you guys then.

RB: Yep, you nailed it. We live in a country of parasites. You might as well move to Canada. "Do you ever feel like a fraud always finding yourself wandering into the politically "hip" party uninvited half past midnight? When Ron Paul was hip, you were all hot and heavy for Ron Paul. Now he's tired news, so for some convoluted reason, you're publicly declaring that you won't support him anymore." I'm going to respond to this not for your sake, but on the off chance that there are still some people who might net yet understand why I do not have any desire to discuss anything with you at all. In the fake-fainting thread, I was asked why I don't support Ron Paul any more. I articulated a clear reason - that being that once he hired unapologetic theocrat Gary North to be his director of Curriculum for "Ron Paul Curriculum", he showed his true colors and I can no longer support him. Now you come along and propose, as an established point of fact, that I ditched him because he is no longer fashionable. You are either dim or dishonest, and I don't think you're dim. Either way, you're not anyone I'm interested in engaging in discourse with.

There was more than one alternative. There was not more than one viable alternative. I put that qualifier in ALL CAPS.