pvtmorriscsa

You are right it would not work on a desert island, but that mentality just might thrive in a welfare state.

Damn! You beat me too it! It is all about trading value for value.

dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-) n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t) A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln). Why should I not be dogmatic? Ayn Rand has written doctrines relating to morality, faith, and authoritative principles or statements of ideas that my reason says are accurate. So why should I not be dogmatic?

Howdy All, America can be pretty screwed up. As an American I will own up to that. Having said it, I must also add that America is the MOST free country around. If there was a country that understood the concept of the inalienable rights of man, (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.), and who's government respected those rights, I would have already moved. As much as I love my country, I love my freedom first.

I am not sure if I would be catagorized as an optimist, or a pessimest. My overall all view of the universe and it's effects upon my life are pretty basic. It can be summed up this way: Sh*t happens. Learn from it and drive on.

What an absolutely accurate tribute from one great man to another. Then again it makes me look at the current world leadership; shake my head, and harken back to the good old days of the "cold" war.

I just finished reading the book, "Gates of Fire", by Steven Pressfield. It is a novel about the battle at Thermopolyae. I think Leonidas the Spartan King at the battle would be an excellent example of an Ancient hero. His response to the emmisary of the Persian king's request that they Greeks surrender and lay down their weapons, is particullary heroic. His response was "Come and Get Them". It's right up there with McAuliffe's response to the german generals request for the allies to surrender at Bastogne. By the way here is a review of the book. http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Heroes/Arm...ingLeonidas.asp

Careful with these, I started reading the first one after I saw the movie. I couldn't finish until I got through all 20 novels. Great Reading.

To paraphrase George Carlin, "If a dog weighed 600lbs he would still be man's best friend. If a cat weighed 600lbs you would be dinner"

I must say that is a pretty interesting link you got there. I would suggest people read it. Thanks for the heads up. Furthermore with your attitude you are exactly the kind of immigrant that is needed by America.

Howdy All, Last week, I finished up a book called "Tides of War", by Steven Pressfield. It is a work of fiction about the life and Alchibiedes and the Peloponnisian War. Seeing as the book is a work of fiction, I wanted to do some fact checking. I have been doing a good bit of reading on the net, but I was wondering if anyone might suggest any good books on the subject. Further my online research spurred me to start a general overview of ancient greek history, and culture. So any book suggestions in that line would also be appreciated. My major area of interest and study is the "War Between the States", as some might already have guessed by my username. Sadly though I have discovered I know very little of the history of Greece. I've read about the Romans, The Egyptians, the Macedonians, and the Persians. It dawned on me that aside from having read Homer, I had done almost no reading specifically on Greece. I have a pretty good understanding of the Greek contribution to western civilazation as a whole but not the specifics. I am on a course to rectify that. So any suggested reading would be much valued.

To begin with, I for one was not overtly shocked by the September 11th attacks. I was appalled and overwhelmed by the scale to be sure, but not shocked. However many people, (and realize I am not suggesting any members of this forum, but damn look around), are indeed surprised by every act of terrorism. Now as for Paul Johnson, he was a fool. He of all people knew the risks he was taking by being there having lived in Saudi Arabia for 20? years. Than again if he had properly judged the risk he would have left before he was snatched off the street. That or hire a bunch of non-muslim bodyguards. I have noticed in your previous post that you blame militant islam, and consider them a threat. I think you perhaps think that my lack of outrage stems from an inability to think of militant islam as a threat. I don’t blame militant islam, instead I blame all islam. Islam I think is the biggest threat to Western Civilization, let alone the advancement of humanity. If islam wins, and the West is overcome, it will plunge the world in to a dark age of which we can only with horror imagine. The attacks on 9/11 spurred me to conduct an in depth study of islam. The sum of which was a complete reversal on my stance. I used to believe that it was the “Bad” muslims misinterpreting the koran that we had to be wary of, and that there were “Good” muslims who were essentially harmless. Many people have said that any religion can be perverted by radicals to evil. Of course as an objectivist I think all religions are crap, but I thought those that held this belief were right. The belief being that the koran, just as the torah or the bible, could be and indeed had been used as a justification for evil deeds. To those people I say read the koran. study islamic history both politically and culturally. Hell look at the name Islam itself. It means SUBMISSION to the will of allah. When I read the koran, admittedly in an English Translation, I began to feel some unease regarding my idea of the “good” muslim. While the torah was written over hundreds of years of persecution, conquest, re-conquest, subjugation, and diaspora, the new testament sprang out of the idea of the divine martyr, the koran springs from war. Don’t take this as a defense of any of these texts. They all seem to me to be primarily death cults. As in the idea that if you live a “good” life you will be rewarded when you die. The veneration of death permeates all three religions, but not so much as it does in islam. Then I read, “A Crisis in Islam”, by Bernard Lewis if memory serves. He spurred me to delve in the history of islam. Notice I did not say the history of Saudi Arabia, or any other specific muslim country? That is because muslims think of all countries that have been converted by jihad, or voluntarily, as part of islam. For example to islam, Spain is an “occupied” territory. I was not surprised when Madrid was attacked. In the eyes of islam it is an important target. This lead me to the question of why islam must attack the west. At first I thought it was because of the Crusades. When in fact it turns out the Crusades were more or less a response from christian Europe to the muslim incursions into Europe. After all the muslims invaded the west first when they invaded Spain, three hundred years earlier. The attempt to strike back was half hearted and doomed to failure. The Crusades after all were led by mystics and looters. This does not explain why they attacked though. The reason islam attacked the West in the past, continues to attack the west in the present and will continue fighting Western civilization in the future is the religion itself. The koran calls for all muslims to further the cause of allah, as defined in the koran and compel others to submit to the will of allah. For any Star Trek fans out there, picture the Borg. You will be assimilated. Well in the eyes of islam you WILL submit to the will of allah. So believe me I understand the dangers. I understand full well why I as an individual am a target. I also understand full well that muslim crazies are much more dangerous in a country like Saudi Arabia, where the majority population is likely to either turn a blind eye to their actions or even outright support them. In America on the other hand this is not the case. I understand the dangers, believe me. However, the danger I face is no where near the danger that is faced by any westerner that ventures into the middle east. I am not a fool because I live in a country that has involuntarily been put into a condition of danger by irrational, mystic, wackos, but I would be a fool if I ventured without proper security into an area that was controlled by irrational, mystic, wackos. I will grant that all in the west are in danger. Paul Johnson, however voluntarily put himself into even greater danger, which in my opinion is extremely foolish. As I said before, I stand by my original posting.

It would seem you are trading value for value with the animal. Admitedly the animal is not rational, and cannot make a decision. This however I think does not preclude the previous statement. You are trading your time, attention, money, affection for the animals food, shelter, and healthcare. In return for your time, attention, money, you are recieving a simple pleasure. I myself own ferret. His name is John S. Mosby. At one time I owned three, I gave one away because I could not pay enough attention to it, and one I had to put to sleep. Let me say I am not a pet person. The only reason I even bought ferrets was because of a woman I lived with. This was during a part of my life that I like to think of as BIRAR. Or Before I Read Ayn Rand. We broke up, and I took the weasels because I was afraid she would not give them the attention that they required. Owning pets can be a pain in the a** frankly. Vet visits, cleaning up sh*t, and the like. Although I have learned some valuable life lessons from them. For example when my one ferret was dying, his name was Joshua L. Chamberlain, he developed problems walking about his cage. Next he got to the point where he could not make it to the litter box. In fact he could not even walk to the water bottle or the food dish. I took him to the vet, and was advised that I must hand feed him until the medicine began to work. This lasted for a week and a half. He did not get better. So I took him back to the vet, they advised me that they would have to do a $1000 exploratory sugery that "might" determine what was wrong with him, or it might kill him. I took him home without the surgery, and continued to hand feed him every day for another week. The whole time the poor weasel got weaker and weaker. I finally decided to euthanize him when I came home and found him lying in smeared in his own sh*t. I asked myself would I want to live in this state? The answer of course was no. I learned a lesson the day I had my ferret put to sleep. I learned that simply being alive is not enough. One must have quality of life as well. I would do it for my ferret, I only hope that when the time comes someone has the same sympathy for me. As an aside the one thing I can thank Bush for in my personal life is that two day sbefore I took Chamberlain to the vet I got my tax refund check. If it had not been for that rebate check the vet bills would have wrecked my personal finances. I am not sure I will buy another pet when my last weasel dies. If I do I will buy a dog. A big dog at that, so my determination as to whether I will buy a pet will depend on wether I own enough land to own a big dog. I am thinking at least ten acres of land for a good sized dog to call it's own would be sufficient. If I have that I will buy a dog, if not maybe I will get a cat. With a last name like Morris the latter seems the most likely.

It would seem to me that it is all a matter of trading value for value. When a person agrees to work for a wage, that person is agreeing to trade a value, (time), for the employer's value, (money). If a person thinks that the trade is not equal they are free to renegoiate the terms, or to find an employer with whom they can make a better deal.

In fact yes. I am always happy with myself, and my ability to survive. The issue is not my happiness however.The issue is not even that Paul Johnson put himself in a place where he might get killed. His living and working in Saudi Arabia was risky behaviour. I am sure he was aware of the risks when he first started living over there. He accepted the risk, and he got killed. The issue it seems to me is that we are surprised by it, when we should not be. It is not as if he was a private contractor in Europe. He was in the middle east, an area of the world that is overwhelmingly ruled by mystics, attillas, and looters. Being surprised by the actions of muslim wackos, especially when they are only doing what they have always done, is just silly. To go there as a westerner, and more importantly an American is foolish. I stand by my original statement.

Howdy all, To be honest I had no idea what Gmail was until I read this thread. I was inspired to look it up. Pretty neat concept. I just did a lot of reading on it. The pro's seem to outweigh the cons. There seems to be a lot of paranoia out there regarding this application. To be honest at first my reaction was to reject the idea of it. But as all that I read digested in my brain, I realized that monitoring email is just as easy a feat as monitoring phone calls, both cellular and land line. Sadly I only have 37 posts. Guess I better get cracking if I want one.

Personally, I have a hard time feeling sorry for this guy. He had three things against him. 1. He was an American 2. He was an "infidel" 3. He was in a country that hates Americans, and hates "infidels" That fact that he was killed is not surprising to me. What is suprising is that people are amazed he was killed. I harken back to Daniel Pearl, a jewish american reporter. Investigating terrorists in a country that hates Jews, Americans and Reporters. Any civilian that does not have a swat team as a bodyguards and goes into any muslim country should be nominated for the Darwin Award.

One of the most important rights that a man has is, if not the most important right is his right to life. While one does not have the right to initiate the use of force on another, one does have the right to defend ones life. For me I think of gun control as making sure all of the bullets go into the target.

How abouting reading, "The Voice of Reason", by Ayn Rand. The first essay in the book is called "Introducing Objectivism"

How can choosing evil be the best alternative available? If I am given two glasses of water, both of which contain poison, should I choose the one that looks like it has the lesser amount of poison? Or should I instead choose to not drink either? Choosing evil is choosing evil. Even if it is the "lesser" evil. I will not choose evil.

Why shouldn’t we go on strike? If we don’t withdrawal our sanction from our looter overrun world, are we not de facto giving it our sanction? I suppose you could be right, and the idea of a strike is plot device but if we give our sanction are we not in fact sanctioning evil? If we sanction evil are we not accepting evil? If we accept evil are we not evil ourselves? I do not feel guilty or bad because I happen to live in this system. Why should I? It was wrecked long before I was born. Rand revealed to me in Atlas Shrugged, that I had a choice. I could either be a slave to the looters or I could be free from them. Up until then I did not realize that it was a choice I could make. I followed the old lesser of two evils approach to social change. My reading showed me that choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. How can I call myself moral, and yet choose evil? I know Rand is on the record saying we should work from within the system. However she died 22 years ago and things have changed since then. She might have a different opinion on the issue were she here right now. As for me, I am on strike.

I can't resist. This one brings to mind another lightbulb joke, I heard many years ago. Q: How many running dog lackeys of the bourgeois does it take to change a light bulb? A: Two. One to exploit the proliteriate, and one to control the means of production. That one always makes me snicker.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. To vote for a member of any government funded political party is to give your moral sanction to a system that is fundamentally corrupt. When it comes to voting, and yes I do vote in every election, I only vote for issues. In fact the last time I went to vote was during the primaries. It was easy since I only had one issue to vote on, the rest having to do with candidates for one postion or another. The one issue was for a new civic center in the suburb I live in. I voted no of course, as I always do on tax increases. Thankfully it did not pass. The system is rotten to it's very core, and it will only get better when the lights finally go out.

Is there any big business in America that has not sold it's soul to the looters? Seems to me that most business in America today are very similar to the ones described in Atlas Shrugged. Since we are in a mixed and therefore immoral economy can any large business exist and be moral? I exempted small business but in reality they suffer just as much goverment regulation as big business. So I guess the real question is: Are there any truly moral companies out there?

Howdy, That would first suppose that we have rational, intelligent, serious candidates to vote for. In my part of the world, we have two major parties that control the political process. Sadly both parties are made up of looters, and second handers, and despite their trappings they are essentially destroyers. One party would take away my freedom in the name of the common good and the nanny state. The other would take away my freedoms in the name of common good and national security. In fact if I didn't know better I would think there was some back room, good ole boy deal to share power. It seems no matter which group is in power I loose some of my freedoms. These two parties have such a control over the political process that they in fact control the rules and laws for elections themselves. The current round of campaign laws pretty much makes it impossible for any third party to be viable in any case. No matter how much I wish it. In the upcoming presidential election for example I will be abstaining. I cannot vote for an irrational candidate. I will not choose the lesser of two evils. Who is going to tell everyone of the emperor's nakedness? In a free state that would be the job of a truly free press. In a country that does not have a free economy, and some would argue a free press this is difficult. All too often the people that point out the transgressions of the government, and the special interest groups are labeled as hate mongers or wackos by the larger portion of our media. As an example look at the UN oil for food scandal. There is very little being said of it in the American press, and what is being said is treated as something minor. Personally I have been aware of it for a while now. At least six months before it hit FOX. Of course with few exceptions the "alternative" news sources are just Toohey's for one side or the other, and cannot be trusted to present a rational view of events.