Samoht

The Merciless is a new fantasy novel by a long time Objectivist. And yes, that Objectivist is me. If I hadn’t been a member of the site for years I wouldn’t bother you with my little infomercial. Most immediately ignore these kinds of posts so they are usually a waste of time. I still don’t want to take up much space here however I do believe that if you’re a fan of fantasy novels you will enjoy The Merciless. If you take a brief moment to check out my website at www.thomasthorntonjr.com, you can peruse the first chapter and make your own decision. And if money is an issue, think eBooks. They are cheap, can fit on a smart phone, and if you have a computer you can buy a book that’s around $20 in paper for only about $5. Stop by, leave a comment or two, and don’t be afraid to say what you think about the story.

The "American Way" line is being blown out of proportion. The scene has Perry White giving assignments and orders to his reporters. It has the feel of an hour long meeting given in two minutes. He didn't leave it off to make a point but it appeared to be a more comprehensive order to research ALL of Supes's beliefs and attitudes. It fit the moment and the scene. It's a good movie. Very character driven.

Any law, state or federal, that specifies sex, religion, race, and anything else that separates people into arbitrary groups violates the individual rights of others and is unjust oppression that violates the Constitution as I understand it. However, there is a key element of this argument that deserves more serious examination. According to those trying to pass the law, from what I heard today, is that marriage is a historically religious practice between a consenting man and woman (of course this ignores all non-Christian religions that practiced polygamy and certain denominations of Mormons as well as the traditional Christian marriage of thirty-something men marrying twelve-ish girls through financial arrangements) and that all unions outside of God are false marriages, are immoral, and should be illegal. As an atheist, they are talking about me and my wife, the jack-asses. Inspired, I wrote a letter to the local papers (I know, probably a waste of time even if it’s published, but it might plant some seeds). So people won’t just glance over it I tried to make my letter witty. I encourage all of you to do the same, if for no other reason than to let those out there who live by thinking instead of whim-worship lean they are not alone. ---------------------------------------------------------------- If you’re interested I pasted the letter below, but don’t read it if you don’t want to. What religion do I need to stay legally married? It should scare the bee-jeebees out of you that the government is considering who we may enter into a legal contract with based on the religious beliefs of the majority. I’m afraid my marriage, performed by a secular justice of the peace in a non-religious setting, could be null and void. Don’t laugh yet. This is a just fear because the federal proposal to define marriage comes from the belief that marriage is religious in nature. Now this legal contract I entered into with my wife has become a matter of individual rights versus “group rights.” Which religious group and which denomination of that group must I pretend to believe in so I do not lose my insurance? “Group rights” do not exist. Be it gay or Christian's "rights," men or women's "rights." “Group rights” are the rights of one arbitrary assortment of individuals denied to another arbitrary assortment of individuals by those with the guns. When rights do not exist to all then they are just governmental privileges given at whim. This is an affront to the Constitution and too similar to how the tyrants we are at war with rule. You can laugh at my fears now, if you still want to. (edited to take out some accidental emotes)

This isn't limited to Mass. Here in Arkansas the governor decided socialist health care would be a great idea and began legislation to get the ball moving. We are already 49th in everything except taxes, there we are around 11th per capita, thanks in part to this former Babtist preacher's stance that those who have money have a responsibility for paying the ways of those without, no matter why they are without. After all, that is what Jesus would want. He is a Republican, and he is running for president. This is only the begining. Too many parasites in this nation will give their support to those who promise the unearned wealth of others, while those who know it is evil will remain silent out of fear of being called raciest, or cruel, or un-Christian, for polititians not to take advantage.

Excelent point. Why would they video tape the comments and then let her go knowing she would tell the truth? Because they are not trying to influence 'us.' It is to influence the Muslims in the Middle East. After all, how many of the state controlled news agents in the Middle East published Carroll's retraction (which I believe fully) in the same amount they published her gun-forced lies? Then again, how many of ours gave the same amount of time on both? A good rule of thumb with hostages; never believe what they say. Even if they are safe, in their minds they do not realize they are safe, or while we think they are safe they may know from experience that they are still under the point of a gun. Think back to Galt's responce at the end of Atlas when he was the 'guest' of the state. What was his reaction when they said 'say this?' (BTW, I'm not one to usually pull out Rand quotes, but I think this one really accents the point)

I went out and bought the graphic novel this week, but V is one of the books that have been on my "get around to read list" for a few years now. The problem I think Objectivists may have with the movie is the hero's personal philosophy of anarchism. However, the main theme is freedom, specifically for people to live their own lives free of government control. Since I hate spoilers I won't give details, but there is one scene in the book that reminds me greatly of Anthem. I think, if they keep it true to Moore's work, everyone here would like it.

It was all I could do to keep from laughing out loud when I read this (I would have but I'm in a library during finals.) Not because the topic is funny, but I find irony hilarious. "BERLIN — European Union leaders will address the Iranian president's denial of the Holocaust as a "myth," Germany's foreign minister said Thursday, warning that patience is running out with Tehran. The German government has condemned the remarks by Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and called on the United Nations as well as the European Union to follow suit." And if anyone should know, it's the Germans. Here's the rest of the story. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178787,00.html

BurgessLau, I agree and disagree at the same time. Intelligence is the ability to make connections, and "stupidity" is acting in an unintelligent manner, however I do not understand how a person who supports a medical system (or any system) that is incapable of functioning, to the point where people needlessly die, while they fight a system (private health care) which is works can be described as anything other than unintelligent. Those who are making decisions on faulty information or lack the cognitive ability to understand are not at fault, but those in the article who understand that they are fighting to ensure Canadian deaths and evade the rational (using life as the basis) choice to scrap the system are unintellegent, i.e. stupid. I didn't mean that Canadians are stupid per se. Only those Canadians in the article who support socialized health care are. I only mentioned Canadians because the article is about Canada. True they are consistent and it is a rational outcome, but that does not make their decision of guiding philosophy non-stupid. Accepting the self destructive concept of altruism results in wide spread death, as seen with socialized health care, and is stupid by nature. This is the cause of our disagreement. The corrupt philosophy, in my view, is stupid and has lead to very stupid decisions. You are absolutely right about the views of Pragmatics, but I believe that it is a stupid choice because of the obvious wide spread destruction it causes to everyone, including the Pragmatics. You cared enough to check my profile . Seriously, I have never devoted so much thought to the word and concept of "stupid" before. Thank you.

I get asked this all the time because of the "Who is John Galt?" bumper sticker (probably the only one in Arkansas) on my car. I should have been more specific. From what I got out of the article many influential Canadians (politically and economically) believe in and fight for a state monopoly on medicine. The Canadian SC ruled that it is a violation of the constitution for the state to monopolize medicine (yea for them) but many Canadians are against the concept of for-profit medicine. This may not be true but that is not how the article presented it. Stupid: (one definition according to Webster and the one I meant) acting in an unintelligent or careless manner. The word in bold print is mine not theirs, but it was implied. People who believe access to good private health care is a violation of rights while forcing them to die while waiting for state sponsored health care are stupid. Or to make it more complicated this is what I am hearing them say: It is a violation of rights to give a person the right to choose medical care, but depriving people the right to choose a private doctor is a democratic exercise in human rights. Stupid=Those Who Accept Contradictions Our private system does work for the most part. Those without health insurance are still treated even if they can not pay. Case in point my mother who had two heart attacks without insurance. She received life saving care both time despite the fact she never paid a dime. Instead she filed bankruptcy. Today my five year old niece was admitted to a hospital for uncontrolled diabetes. The hospitals will never, and know they will never, see a dime for this care. Now this is where the system begins to break down. Instead of my sister or her ex-husband (both high school dropouts who have histories of drug use) paying for their kid's treatment the hospital will increase charges on those of us who do have insurance (which increases premiums) or assets to pay for their care. For instance when my father-in-law had his pace maker put in about a year ago his ICU bill was ten thousand dollars a day. This did not just pay for his doctors, nurses, medicine and other cares but also for the meth addict in the next ICU room that could never, and will never, pay. If he doesn’t pay they collection agencies will come after him, when the meth addict doesn’t pay they don’t even bother to file charges. Side note: my mother, niece, and father-in-law were seen and treated immediately. From the critiques I have read about the Canadian (as well as British and French) waiting lists on things like seeing endocrinologists and cardiac specialists all three would have died before receiving treatment.

Old topic I'm sure, but this is a new article and court ruling. http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/ocanadarx;_ylt...HBhBHNlYwM5NjQ- A few quotes My synopses of the article: People who would have lived are going to die because socialist health care does not work as well as for-profit systems, but private medical care is a violation of rights because if everyone does not get the same care everyone should suffer and die equally to make it democratic. My question to you is: How can people be this stupid?

Harry wasn't killed so he wouldnt be an inferi. Inferi are just animated dead people without minds (see Night of the Living Dead). Also, it does not have to inanimate. Rowling left this open when Dumbeldore said he thought Voldermort's snake was an horcrux.

I don't think Snape switched back to Voldermort's side, but I would prefer if it turned out he had. It would show the dangers of trusting people who had not really earned that trust. Also I dont think Dumbledor begged for his life. He was begging for Snape to kill him in order to fully gain the trust of the Death Eaters and possibly motivate Harry a little more against the death eaters (ala Obi Wan in episode IV). The one thing I am suprisd no one mentioned so far is the most rational way Dumbledor could return in the last book. I'll give you a clue: What did Harry and Nearly Headless Nick talk about at the end of HP and the Order of the Phoenix? Harry is a horcrux, although by accident (IMHO). The way horcrux are made is by fracturing a soul through murder and then bonding it to something else. If Voldermort was prepared to make one at the moment of Harry's murder it is rational (as rational as magic can be) to belive the spell backfired. However I do not believe Harry would willingly die for the "greater good" (sure, to imediately save his friends lives like in Chamber of Secrets, but not for people like those in the Ministry). Instead he would find a way to remove the soul from himself or imprison the rest of Voldermort in some way. Well, Hermony will while Harry watches. One last thing, Ron and Hermony will be major players in the next one, and maybe a few more from their class like Nevil and Luna, (probably Doby and an army of bumbling but powerful house elves) but not Ginny. She will only be sixteen while they, and Harry, will be adults (in the magical world), able to legaly use magic outside of school at seventeen.

O'Connor I have just recently begun to read disents and rulings by SCOTUS. Before I focused more on local and state politics. Since she is now retiring (I am one of those who believe the recent rewriting of the constitution by the SC is the reason) I thought it would be appropriate to mention some of her rulings. Several of you have mentioned court cases, but what was her reason behind her decesions and what were the cases about.

I was shocked, SHOCKED, to hear this today. Shocked that the court even bothered to review the case since them made a very similar conclusion back in 1981. Go here and you can read the case details, http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm, but to make a long story short two women called the police while a third roomate was being raped in the same apartment. The police didnt go to the women's home and eventually the rapists found the other two women, and tortured all three for over fourteen hours. The Supreme Court decided that police are under no constituonal law to protect any specific person from anything (despite the fact that protection from violence is the ONLY proper role of government). Side note, the victims also did not have the constituonal right to defend themselves with firearms. I believe this was about the time D.C. became the murder capital of the nation. In short, we are on are own when it comes to defence of life, and we have been for some time now.

Moose, think of it this way: You all know who wrote this. I hope this works and may the "fair market value" of the home of a tyrant be one dollar.