But for the most part, the results of actually putting her "philosophy" into practice has been disaster.

Her ethics, by reversing the meaning of common-sense terms, has been used many times to justify nonpayment of child support and business fraud. Her bold claim, that "altruism is evil" is verbally hedged about with qualifications which can be used after the fact to make "altruism" denote a conveniently defined subset of altruistic acts, those seen, after the fact, to have bad effects, but (as a real American philosopher, Sydney Hook, noted in a review of Notes for the New Intellectual in 1962) this is simply the fallacy of informal logic known as "definition against disproof".

Her ontology allows her adepts to fantasize that abstractions are real because Rand, who had significant cultural aporias, didn't seem to be aware of the meaning of the word "to reify", which is to treat a concept as a thing.

In "Taking a Hard Look at the Greenspan Legacy " (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html?_r=1...), Peter Goodman links Alan Greenspan, as he's been linked before with no disclaimer from this former chairman of the Federal Reserve, to Rand as a follower and adept.

Greenspan recently, as documented by Goodman, has been making rather Kantian-sounded noises about a basic need for honesty and integrity to undergird the "objectivist" ethics, epistemology, and ontology of financial markets, worlds in which shitting on other people is explained with a smirk, knowledge excludes imagination and whistle blowers are fired under the rule that because today, A=A, 'twill be ever thus, and Gradgrinds reify Facts as eternal verities.

Greenspan in other words grasps the other horn of the dilemma so quietly posed by Sydney Hook in 1962. In the fat years, let le bon temps roler, and explain to the defrauded and the terminated-at-will that they need not expect altruism, or even basic decency, doing so with George Bush's smirk in the termination interview.

And when Pharaoh's kine turn lean, talk as if you always meant a strange form of anti-altruism, one that never excluded an integrity, an honesty over and above getting them to sign on the line which is dotted.

Fuck you, Alan Greenspan, and fuck the gibbering ghost of Ayn Rand. Your insane philosophy has destroyed my country.

Sarah Palin isn't revealing anything new about Barack Obama's relationship with former SDS Weatherman Bill Ayers. Instead she does violence to simple logic.

The Obama campaign has already pointed out that IF Ayers supports Obama, this doesn't imply that Obama, way back in 1971 when Obama was a kid, supported Ayers and the Weathermen!

This error is really stupid. The deep reason must be explored.

Many American conservatives and Palinoids are also readers of the psychotic ravings of a Russian emigre philosopher, Ayn Rand, who managed to make philosophical borscht, deep and chunky nonsense, out of Anglo-American concepts because of her immigrant's loyalty to capitalismus. She outdoes Gurdjieff and Ouspensky in her mystical perversity, adding the twist that she raves about being rational (the hobby-horse of the genuinely nutz being that THEY are rational).

Rand's epistemology starts and ends with the stunning announcement that A=A, and she claims, falsely, that everything can be derived from this tautology.

But this is the taproot of Palin's insanity. If we have A=A, we don't need logic, including the pettifogging difference between A->B (A implies B) and B->A!

IF former Weatherman Bill Ayers supports Obama, then in Palinland we must "reason" that Obama supports Ayers and did so during the 1971 SDS weatherman phase! A=A!

Adorno believes "identity thinking" to be the default mode of damaged reason on the part of actual actors in capitalism.

Let's say your daughter loves a man of color. OK, so you are inundated with Willie Horton portrayals of actual, honest to goodness black male irresponsibility. These overwhelm your knowledge that you have acted yourself with irresponsibility and so have your white buddies, because industrial "civilization" teaches us, as a matter of shop-floor discipline, and the housewife's, to discount our own perceptions!

So, the "default" or "passive" racist in a sociological taxonomy that discriminates between him, and the active racist, REVERSES p->q (which here is the existentially qualified "there exists a Willie Horton") to q->p ("all black men are, or might be, irresponsible").

The reversal is shamefaced and in a spirit of "better safe than sorry".

Let's read the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek:

"Today's predominant mode of politics is ***post-political biopolitics*** - an awesome example of theoretical jargon which, however, can be unpacked: 'post-political' is a politics which claims to leave behind thee old ideological struggles and, instead, focus on expert management and administration, while 'bio-politics' designates the regulation of the security and welfare of human lives as its primary goal. It is clear how these two dimensions overlap: once one renounces big ideological causes, what remains is the efficient administration of life ... ***almost*** only that. That is to say, with the depoliticised, socially objective, expert administration and coordination of interests as the zero level of politics, the only way to introduce passion into this field, to actively mobilize people, is through fear, a basic constituent of today's subjectivity."

And how did Sarah Palin start in last week's debate?

“Go to a kids’ soccer game on Saturday and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, ‘How are you feeling about the economy?’ And I’ll betcha you’re going to hear some fear in that parent’s voice, fear regarding the few investments that some of us have in the stock market — did we just take a major hit with those investments?”

FEAR, as Zizek's only active element in an otherwise completely administered world, where the political passions of fifty years ago are non-starters, was where Palin started in the Biden debate: she referred to Moms and Dads who might be fearful because some of them might have investments (despite the fact that most Americans are hard put to top-up their gas tank, as Sen. Biden noted in the same debate, and never see much more than 5K at any one time).

FEAR results in A=A thinking as opposed to "partial ordering" thinking, where the latter is the knowledge that just because p implies q, q does not imply p.

The scientific world view (which as technicians Palin's supporters inherit: they aren't peasants with pitchforks and torches) actually helps people to think in this fucked up way: for if you tell people on the job that they're dumb shits, the logically overstrong leap will actually seem more productive, simpler and safer...in short, somehow more up-to-date, with-it and scientific.

The administered world successfully made left-wing political passion a non-starter in the 1960s: today's soccer Moms in fact unconsciously and consciously inherit the political hopes of that era, such as feminism, in many cases by representing them as fulfilled...despite the fact that the husband's tech employer is gettin' mediaeval on his ass, and forcing him to work 247.

Today, McCain's conservatism has likewise run out of steam. Thus, Palin. Thus, the appeal to fantasy fears when in fact there's a lot of reality fears that we're too scared to face.

Investments, bitch? Those people can no longer fill up their tanks!

A FEMINIZT READING OF SHAKSPER'S KING LEER

I dint have time to read King Leer so I red parta the Spark Notes, doggone it. And I gotta tellya, that guy Leer is an old poop. I'd give that mealy-mouth twerp Kordelia a punch in the snoot, because she don't know when to say stuff that will help her, and unpatriotcly invades her own country!!!

But gosh, I rilly admire Gonril and Regan. They are two smart cookies who know what they want and go out and gettit. I dint have time to finish the Plot section o' Spark Notes but I betcha they tossed Leer and Kordellya into jail for good. They are reel feminist gals if ya ask mee and you said to read da text against the grain, whatever THAT means, "as a woman" which I certainly am in case ya haven't noticed!!!!! See ya!!!!! Yur cute!!!!!!

Edward G. Nilges
Hong Kong

International Herald Tribune

To whom it may concern:

Nicholas Kristof, in “Save the Fat Cats”, mentions the Japanese crash of 1990: but Japan’s so-called “lost decade” of the 1990s didn’t exactly see grass growing in the streets. While Japan’s investors couldn’t get capital for further tomfoolery, its futon makers simply made New Deals with new western companies like Ikea, who provided them with capital. Far more importantly, Japan’s middle and working classes continued to live tranquil lives, with social provisions unseen in America in consequence of Japan’s constitution, and its demilitarized society.

In supporting the bailout, and then salving his conscience with promises of pie in the sky later on in the form of a very, very promissoried New Deal for the ordinary slob, Kristof wants to buy the biggest alcoholic in the room just one more drinkie-winkie.

Regards

Edward G. Nilges

Edward G. Nilges
Lamma Island
Hong Kong

29 Sep 2008

International Herald Tribune

To whom it may concern:

In "Blue-collar legend retiring after 55 years in newspapers" (IHT 29 Sep), your ace cub reporter Tim Arango quotes a grizzled Jimmy Breslin on the even more crusty Steve Dunleavy, who clocks in at a very respectable 34 words in "And he [Dunleavy] wrote simple declarative sentences that people could read, as opposed to 52-word gems that moan 'I went to college! I went to graduate school college! Where do I put the period?'".

That is: where's Breslin's simple declarative sentence? Get me rewrite! Shouldn't it be "Dunleavy wrote simple declarative sentences. People could read them. Dey weren't like dem 52-woid gems. Da gems moaned [insert moan]."?

Let's be serious. If you're working class, you don't get a retirement piece in a prestige rag such as the International Herald Tribune unless you were a henchman.

Working class people with a decent minimum of education, health care and leisure can both write and read simple, compound and complex sentences. Murdoch made his millions by pretending they cannot and should not, and one of the results today is that half the American electorate can't parse the current financial meltdown; to describe complex, nested, recursive financial wheeling and dealing, the description has to be, to quote Einstein, "as simple as possible, but no simpler".

Winston Churchill said that the English sentence is a wonderful thing. It is primarily because it shares with all or most other languages' sentences the ability to create an appropriate level of managed and bounded complexity. The English sentence can be simple where needed as in "I have a dream". But it can also name names and assign responsibility for bad things, and credit for good things, because as working-class writer Delmore Schwartz knew, but henchmen forget, in dreams begin responsibilities.

Regards

Edward G. Nilges

Wake up, dip shit. A recent article on Burma, which you haven't read because you're a filthy and ignorant person, says that the monks of Burma are considering armed rebellion against the Burmese junta. ANY resolution against terrorism would have to be drafted, by people smarter 'n you, to criminalize the actions of the desparate people of Burma.

Wake up, Mr President, you dip shit. The United Nations has always recognized the justice of armed struggle against people who have no recourse, and this includes the majority in Palestine who didn't want a theocracy ruling them in 1948, the monks in Burma, and today, the middle class in your own country, whom your Treasury Secretary is trying to expropriate without the possibility of legal challenge.

- Edsger Dijkstra 1975

"And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner
vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, and cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves,
and souls of men."

- Apocalypse 18:10

Nelson D. Scwhartz, in today's International Herald Tribune (the article doesn't seem to be on the Web yet: it is "Why Wall Street Titans Couldn't Work Magic this Time Around", IHT 20 Sep) writes that J. P. Morgan was able to help stop the Panic of 1908 because he understood the system.

But Schwartz writes:

"Why didn't the magic wrought by J. P. Morgan-the banker, not the bank-work this time around? It may be because unlike 100 years ago, the people in the room did not fully understand what the institutions they run actually owned".

In other words, these "Masters of the Universe", despite their pretense to deep intellect and understanding, and the contempt they so often displayed in countless meetings for "mere technicians" (whether those techies understood finance, or software, or both), a contempt activated by ANY sign of ANY intellect exceeding in ANY way the needs of the quarterly bottom line and their own swinish comfort and pleasure, didn't understand their own companies, not to mention software or history itself.

Capitalism avoids its contradictions by finding new commodities, new nouns, as St John saw, including men's souls.

It's a basic assumption that underlies Say's "markets clear" Law that these commodities can be priced. If a farmer on the island off China where I live brings bananas to market, and insists on selling them, they will fetch a price, if only as animal feed.

[Actually the bananas are superior to Del Monte's factory farm bananas.]

However, there seems to be a sort of Godelian or Turing contradiction here. A complex "derivative" financial instrument is "derivative" because its description must mention other instruments, which mention other instruments, to a great depth in some cases.

Hopefully the graph which "prices" the derivative in question is a tree (a graph without cycles). But there may be a point at which all derivatives join and here, there are cycles of necessity such that no strike price can be found for any given derivative. In practice the market then repeals Say's law and the derivative price becomes "absolute zero"...and the United States government buys it lest you, as a fatcat, be discommoded.

Say's Law, which mathematically means that while at the bottom, commodities and labor approach zero but never are zero, is repealed, and in terms of classical economics, we're not in Kansas anymore.

The acceptance by the US government of these bad debts has started an alarming rumor (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_gilbert&...): that Standard and Poor's, the rating service, may lower the AAA rating of the Federal government. THIS IS JUST A RUMOR. The facts, however, are that Standard and Poor's saw fit at this time to deny them.

To avoid a massive tax increase on a tax base in the US destroyed by unemployment, I see the US government actually hiring thousands of low-paid collection agents, and/or subcontracting hundreds of collection agencies to COLLECT these bad debts. People who, unable to pay mortgages have over 2007 and 2008 mailed their house keys as "jingle mail" to the mortgage holder, expecting that the banks would be too rich and too lazy to collect the balance owed, may be in for a nasty surprise.

They MAY be terrorised by bounty hunters so that the US government's AAA (or AA) rating isn't downgraded.

This could lead to armed conflict in the United States as a Fascist government struggles with its own citizen.

This could indirectly lead to a war with Canada over the Northwest Passage bankrolled by shipping interests.

If the economies of China, India, and the oil producers unlink successfully from that of the West, we could see, in our lifetimes, a reversion to the relationship that obtained in the European middle ages, with miserable Britons living on George Orwell's "herring and potatoes", sending argosies to Asia to buy the essentials of life....such as spices which before refrigeration were essential to preserving meat.

It's not a pretty sight. The Great Depression may not be a benchmark. The United States needs to reindustrialize as a forced march, to return to growing corn for food and animal feed, to start educating its children NOT ONLY in languages, science and math BUT ALSO in Outward Bound-style wilderness survival, and start training and disciplining civilian militias to which right wing head cases NEED NOT apply, and which must be racially integrated, using affirmative action if necessary.

Eric, the problem isn't that your boy is "cocky". The problem is that in a society where the genuinely aggressive and completely unprincipled advance far beyond you or Tyler, his quite natural pride is a problem in your subordinate, subaltern roles, and he will gradually be ground down, as will you, over the years into nothing much.

It is to me bizarre, Eric, that in a society with people like Sarah Palin (and the arrogant female manager who told me in 1979 that all possible compilers had been written), people like Tyler net out as problems. Palin is the genuinely arrogant person.

A decent society would provide Tyler and your team with physical and mental challenges, but corporate life is designed to do precisely the opposite.

His overweening "cockiness" is in fact an artifact of the low-level psychological and physical disorders of the other team members, which in the corporate environment (in my experience since the 1970s) include substance and food abuse and depression. They "resent" him, and he's in effect "slimed" by that resentment: it covers him and becomes his attribute and his problem as defined by you as his manager.

Ever since the 1950s, "cocky" software developers have sought to do what Tyler wants to do. You say Tyler wants to implement manual memory management in C++ and not rely on garbage collection.

This is because, IMO, Tyler feels he knows algorithms in books BETTER than often obfuscated code, and would find the straightforward implementation of the most modern algorithm available far easier, and far more pleasant, than shoe-horning workarounds to the limitations of C# memory management.

I do not know whether Tyler is right. Gerald Weinberg relates the story of the programmer who in the 1950s developed his "own" IOCS and this befouled the system as a whole.

However, the basic contradiction of the corporation as seen in Galbraith and in Drucker isn't a personality attribute or defect of Tyler.

This is that the corporation, while existing in a savage jungle (in which for example the American taxpayer is calmly expected to foot the bill for an AIG bailout when the American taxpayer is being laid off and doesn't have a pot to piss in), its employees are expected to be selfless "team members", like Chinese workers in the Cultural Revolution.

This didn't work in the Cultural Revolution even though millions of Chinese workers thought that by back-stabbing the most productive workers in "struggle sessions" they were working in their long-term self-interest, building the Great Proletarian Society.

How in HELL is it supposed to work in any SUSTAINABLE sense inside corporations run for the benefit of the wealthiest shareholders?

Let Tyler develop his own memory management. The most productive members of a software team have been found to be more productive than the mean by at least one order of magnitude. You need him.

Then, take him and the team on an Outward Bound expedition to have them do physically stressful things so that the team loses its social depression and Tyler learns that there's more than code.

Peter J. Boyer’s article “Party Faithful” (8 September) was to me profoundly disturbing, since it is confused through and through, and its pseudo-sophisticated, insider tone blinds Boyer to massive errors.

Boyer quotes Douglas Kmiec, a Catholic, as saying “religion is necessarily a source of morality”. Boyer doesn’t mention that Catholic doctrine has always maintained that “natural law” can be known and followed outside the Church, and does not depend on faith.

In general, Boyer’s article is exactly the sort of pseudo-strategy that is destroying Obama’s lead as I write. Sure, Karl Rove’s strategy of keeping the base fired up wins elections. But Boyer doesn’t define Obama’s base, because this would force him to recognize that Obama’s base consists not only of religious people but also of the unchurched, many of whom are far more “moral” than many of the saved in fact. And in both sets there are thousands of people who ask what has happened to the separation of church and state.

Trying to steal pieces of a base is not having a base.

Instead, from tank rides to “reporting for duty” to “not my pay grade” it is the strategy of paid buffoons who lose elections for their clients, whom they makeover into buffoons like them, who despite their professorships seem to have skipped Catholic high school. And, the buffoons get paid for this nonsense; nice work if you can get it in this depression.

If “Christianity” wins, then it shall proceed by the logic of events to start a discussion of who is the better Christian, and this will reintroduce the Catholic/Protestant divide into American politics. My ancestors fled Germany to escape its culture wars of a dominant Protestant, Prussian establishment on Bavarian Catholics. Must we suffer it all again?

And how much of this ignorance of the learned must we endure? Erasmus witnessed where it leads when that gentle humanist saw Luther’s protest used by the power-mad to grab power. Kmiec’s belief that “morality can’t exist without religion” is Hobbesianism, a cynical use of religion to grab and hold power. It is not Catholic doctrine. And Obama as I write needs to reconnect with his base pronto.

Suppose a program is trying to value financial instrument A. Its value depends on financial instruments B, C, and D.

Financial instrument D's value depends on that of E, F and A.

The "spin" can appear at any level and will put a "straightforward" costing algorithm into a loop unless anticipated.

In preventing this from occuring in the mathematically parallel problem of finding out what tools are needed to support a software tool you must keep a separate hash table. When you visit a node, you must check to see if it is on this hash table of visited nodes.

Which is precisely the sort of arcane feature software and financial managers don't want you to spend time on.

Usually, this is due to their ignorance and normalized deviance in which it is the height of wisdom to "reason", as did the geniuses of Long Term Capital Management in 1998 when the failure of their genius model caused the East Asian meltdown, that all things will remain equal like they do in business books.

Sometimes however, putting a recursive loop in software is part of an attempt to defraud someone.

I do not know whether this problem is written in those business books written about financial markets. For one thing, the purpose of business books is as far as I can see to normalize deviance; in their own sweet way, they are no different from Communist text-books which would simply not question their system.

For another, as a wildly successful options trader informed me in Princeton, NJ, when on my first day I showed up, in my intellectual's way, with a stack of books on options trading, failures write business books: failures teach business classes. If they could succeed they would have no time to tell the secrets of the money game.

But we do find that many toilers in world financial centers troop on their off hours, not only to the turnverein, not only to the gym, not only to the bar, but also to writer's bun fights because the truth will get out.

In House of Cards, Hong Kong writer Peter Gregoire describes a recursive loop built into reinsurance contracts. This story is published in "Sweat and the City" (2006, Hong Kong Writer's Circle).

What is sustainable about an economy in which to make money you have to so depart from the Buddhist way of right livelihood?

The only people who play this game successfully are mutants, like the glamorous female manager at a Chicago consulting firm who loftily informed me, in 1979, that all possible compilers had been written, and who left a trail of broken careers behind her.

Sarah Palin is their gal.

Screw 'em. I'll teach English in a war zone before I again agree to meet a deadline in ways that destroy companies, and the public interest.

Scott Joplin, Panic on Wall Street Rag-time: programme notes

The upside is that this mess has pushed Republican lies off page one.

Lehmann Brothers is going bankrupt because financial instruments over the past thirty years have become woven together by computer software. In the old days, the human mind, trust, and pencils and paper bounded complexity. Today, a dizzying variety of financial instruments and their interlinks is created by software, and software programmers, especially Wall Street whores, never really either understood nor cared about software reliability. Instead, I saw people, esp. women, lose jobs for insisting on reliability, and I saw the Swiss computer scientist Niklaus Wirth, one of the few computer scientists to give a shit about reliability, ostracised at conferences.

In fact, some of the complexity of the world financial system, which has introduced uncertainty and consequently panic, is mathematically ineradicable. If part of a financial instrument's contract mentions another contract at n steps, those two instruments will continue to to spin in financial cyberspace forever, a sort of financial plutonium. Their uncertainty is inherited by any container, whether that is another financial instrument or a bank that owns the strange spin.

But what would "objectivity" look like? You're being objective about Hitler when you say he killed six million Jews.

All TRUE statements are OBJECTIVE by definition. However, they also have to be documented and backed-up. If you're true by accident like the monkey at the typewriter, your statement is objective but in the only applicable sense, you didn't write it, you typed it.

The most partisan person, the person who stays informed and takes sides, happens to be what a citizen needs to be in a democratic society. He or she also happens to often make a good reporter.

He or she learns canons of good reporting including objective WRITING. But he doesn’t become a brainless moron knowing nothing except the latest feed from the leadership…unless he’s a reporter for the Rangoon Daily Mutt.

Even mixed fact and opinion can be “objective” because an intelligent reader knows at which words, which characters, the fact ends, the opinion starts, and the facts come back, and so on.

In fact, opinions organize writing. All writing will framework its subject matter. The corporate, America First philosophy will not focus on Palin's lack of ability because the corporate philosophy seeks to run America from the boardroom. It used Cheney's Heart of Darkness Vice Presidentship to gain its ends. It will use a woman who's shown her willingness to sacrifice her son's life and that of his mates in Iraq (by way of publicising his service) as a useful gofer.

Whereas someone interested in what the rest of the country needs will foreground the way in which Palin only tactically disassociated herself from the fatcats, essentially to increase her sales price when in fact she became the ho-bag for Alaska's vested interests.

The objective truth of Palin is that she’s a buffoon, but that’s an “opinion” because “buffoon” is so loaded. But she’s still a buffoon, based on the facts, starting with her record.

"For having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written, 'Mystery.'"

Excuse me, pard, but who is not a partisan? Sarah Palin was selected, irresponsibly IMO, precisely because the Rovian strategy to which John McCain subscribed to ten days ago is to run a polarizing figure such that members of the electorate neatly partition themselves into people that love the polarizer and people who hate her.

This makes the job of a political-consultant-ho bag like Rove easier even in the mathematical sense! Political consultants need political intelligence inversely to the way in which they destroy, like coal companies destroying mountains, voter intelligence, and the response to the polarizing figure contains less "dark matter" in the form of the undecided voters produced by the more nuanced politician.

Predictability, control, and stage management are what the political hos want.

Anybody who pretends to be "objective" about Palin (which is NOT the same thing as writing NPOV) has crawled out from a trailer or from under a rock, works in a convenience store, handles snakes on Sunday, and is aliterate and dyslexic. Of course, many wikipedia editors fit this description to a "T". But, as soon as they bone up on that mad bitch, they will like her because she represents the large and growing ignorant dirtbag element in American culture and life, an element that has long since taken wikipedia over.

You can be, and the wikipedia guidelines on NPOV affirm, partisan in your political views and still WRITE npov. NPOV is (or was) NOT a pretense to a pseudo-scientific ignorance which is by definition impossible if you're an editor reading a text with editorial attentiveness, or a writer writing with his brain turned on, it is a ''writing style'' which gives due weight to fact, and opinions (considered as the fact that they are held by certain people) and especially lies when in fact they are lies.

A "fan" of Palin ''can'' be "a good responder" in your clumsy phrasing. See the NPOV guidelines. Your "reasoning" has destroyed good journalism because while pretending to be used against the right-wing "fan", its substance is the attempt to disempower progressive politics on the left on behalf of wealthy private media owners.

"Liberal" reporters on balance and even in America probably produce far more good and NPOV copy for respected organs all the time. Hell, there's even some conservatives can do that, and who don't have to wangle a promotion to the op-ed page. Whether or not the "responder", your correspondent, the contributor (god your scrap of writing makes me ill) is or is not a "fan" or enemy of Palin ''is not material, does not apply, and is fucking moot''.

Your foolish statement is precisely wrong, and precisely the sort of personalization/daemonization that is driving real contributors out, but not before ruining reputations in meatspace. It's an invitation to a witch-hunt in which a cybernetic mob hunts out people with "bias" as opposed to the very different, and to the ignorant just boring, issue of a ''text''.

And the fact is that in dirtbag online culture, consisting as it does of academic failures and out and out criminals because of anonymity, simple tests indicate "bias" in a person.

Any gentleness or solidarity is "bias" of the left-wing sort. The ability to write a complex thought is "bias". These people are then hounded and harassed as having "agendas" by people whose ''only'' claim to freedom from an agenda is their ignorance, an ignorance that having been "soured by true miseries and maddened by false promises" in C. S. Lewis' phrasing, a ''brutalized'' ignorance, comprises the shock troops of Fascism, and biases this and many other articles to the bonehead boneyard right wing.

It's much, much harder to demonstrate right-wing bias. Your prose in fact has to drag its knuckles on the floor.

You can take the Dosteoevsky quote as read, pard. Wikipedia is a latter-day tower of Babel, and today resembles the concentration camp barracks being built in Schindler's list, right down to the engineer who's shot for criticising the foundations, whose suggestions are then adopted. Wikipedia was started as a form of legal fraud to steal content, and is now crawling with aliterate "editors" bearing stupid barnstars whose purpose is to privatise the content and make Jimmy Wales rich by driving out genuine contributors on flimsy and ridiculous charges.

The Sarah Palin page went right to a lock because trailer trash, including today's wikipedia editors, are trying to use their witless reading of NPOV to make this similar in REAL objectivity to the article about Joe Stalin in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

Edward G. "spinoza1111" Nilges

p.s.: you're an editor, and you can't even form a plural from a two-syllable verb? Hater apostrophe s?

pp.s.: People who pretend to be above politics are usually people who are completely uninformed.

"For having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written, 'Mystery.'"

Excuse me, pard, but who is not a partisan? Sarah Palin was selected, irresponsibly IMO, precisely because the Rovian strategy to which John McCain subscribed to ten days ago is to run a polarizing figure such that members of the electorate neatly partition themselves into people that love the polarizer and people who hate her.

This makes the job of a political-consultant-ho bag like Rove easier even in the mathematical sense! Political consultants need political intelligence inversely to the way in which they destroy, like coal companies destroying mountains, voter intelligence, and the response to the polarizing figure contains less "dark matter" in the form of the undecided voters produced by the more nuanced politician.

Predictability, control, and stage management are what the political hos want.

Anybody who pretends to be "objective" about Palin (which is NOT the same thing as writing NPOV) has crawled out from a trailer or from under a rock, works in a convenience store, handles snakes on Sunday, and is aliterate and dyslexic. Of course, many wikipedia editors fit this description to a "T". But, as soon as they bone up on that mad bitch, they will like her because she represents the large and growing ignorant dirtbag element in American culture and life, an element that has long since taken wikipedia over.

You can be, and the wikipedia guidelines on NPOV affirm, partisan in your political views and still WRITE npov. NPOV is (or was) NOT a pretense to a pseudo-scientific ignorance which is by definition impossible if you're an editor reading a text with editorial attentiveness, or a writer writing with his brain turned on, it is a ''writing style'' which gives due weight to fact, and opinions (considered as the fact that they are held by certain people) and especially lies when in fact they are lies.

A "fan" of Palin ''can'' be "a good responder" in your clumsy phrasing. See the NPOV guidelines. Your "reasoning" has destroyed good journalism because while pretending to be used against the right-wing "fan", its substance is the attempt to disempower progressive politics on the left on behalf of wealthy private media owners.

"Liberal" reporters on balance and even in America probably produce far more good and NPOV copy for respected organs all the time. Hell, there's even some conservatives can do that, and who don't have to wangle a promotion to the op-ed page. Whether or not the "responder", your correspondent, the contributor (god your scrap of writing makes me ill) is or is not a "fan" or enemy of Palin ''is not material, does not apply, and is fucking moot''.

Your foolish statement is precisely wrong, and precisely the sort of personalization/daemonization that is driving real contributors out, but not before ruining reputations in meatspace. It's an invitation to a witch-hunt in which a cybernetic mob hunts out people with "bias" as opposed to the very different, and to the ignorant just boring, issue of a ''text''.

And the fact is that in dirtbag online culture, consisting as it does of academic failures and out and out criminals because of anonymity, simple tests indicate "bias" in a person.

Any gentleness or solidarity is "bias" of the left-wing sort. The ability to write a complex thought is "bias". These people are then hounded and harassed as having "agendas" by people whose ''only'' claim to freedom from an agenda is their ignorance, an ignorance that having been "soured by true miseries and maddened by false promises" in C. S. Lewis' phrasing, a ''brutalized'' ignorance, comprises the shock troops of Fascism, and biases this and many other articles to the bonehead boneyard right wing.

It's much, much harder to demonstrate right-wing bias. Your prose in fact has to drag its knuckles on the floor.

You can take the Dosteoevsky quote as read, pard. Wikipedia is a latter-day tower of Babel, and today resembles the concentration camp barracks being built in Schindler's list, right down to the engineer who's shot for criticising the foundations, whose suggestions are then adopted. Wikipedia was started as a form of legal fraud to steal content, and is now crawling with aliterate "editors" bearing stupid barnstars whose purpose is to privatise the content and make Jimmy Wales rich by driving out genuine contributors on flimsy and ridiculous charges.

The Sarah Palin page went right to a lock because trailer trash, including today's wikipedia editors, are trying to use their witless reading of NPOV to make this similar in REAL objectivity to the article about Joe Stalin in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

Edward G. "spinoza1111" Nilges

p.s.: you're an editor, and you can't even form a plural from a two-syllable verb? Hater apostrophe s?

pp.s.: People who pretend to be above politics are usually people who are completely uninformed.

It's a Punch and Judy show
It's Cain and Abel time. There's blood in the water.
Step right up folks and see
He bites the head right off the chicken.
And straight from Alaska, land of the midnight sun
Where they know howta have fun, where moose ain't no dessert
And sure by gum you don't put it in your hair
Down there
We give you now the belle of the ball
The mother of us all, the next president of vice
Ain't she nice give it up for the lady
Or we'll take you out back
Jack.