Tom K.

Physically, I totally have to agree with you here. I LOVE to watch Kate Beckinsale. As for anything deeper than that, I obviously can't know more since I've never met her. Damn it!

What many people fail to understand is that skill only appears to be talent because the viewer doesn't see the effort taken to reach that point. They don't see the early sketches of the artist that were truly terrible. They don't hear the early compositions of the musician that are awful. They only see the "finished" product and argue it is because of talent. I love to use the example of Michael Jordan, who many feel is one of the greatest basketball players ever. He was cut from his high school basketball team as a freshman. He failed in a way many of us have. However, he worked his butt off and became one of the all-time greats in the game. Greatness doesn't just "happen".

I know this is a couple of days old, but I've been away from the forum. First, no one dismissed the graph out of hand. Instead, they showed why is was flawed in many ways, not the least of which is that there's no citation of where this information comes from originally. According to the graph, the Great Depression lasted less than two years at most (as the scale is given in months for duration), despite the fact that it continued on for closer to ten years. This alone indicates that the information is wrong and therefore insufficient for proving your point. Also, the "unheard of success" had more to do with the large quantity of savings people had as a result of rationing during World War II which enabled them to purchase "big ticket" items than any of FDR's socialist policies. There has been ample arguments made elsewhere that FDR's policies actually prolonged the Depression. Of course it's not a coincidence. The Democrats scream about how it's someone else's fault and how they're going to save them by taxing the rich. People love the idea of problems being someone else's fault and that they're going to get part of the rich's money. Tell people what they want to hear, and you just about can't lose an election. That doesn't mean that people are right. Once upon a time, the majority supported slavery and thought the Earth was flat...so clearly the majority isn't always correct.

I don't think it's possible to say, with any accuracy, that new = bad or new = good. The age of something is irrelevant. However, "good" is a subjective term that is difficult to accurately define. So far, there have been arguments about the complexity of music, but complexity isn't necessarily a sign of quality. A simple, but pleasant melody is far better in my mind than a complex but horrible sounding noise that can't be properly called "music". So, it's impossible in my opinion to answer a question of why smart people listen to "bad" music, since it's so difficult to define "good" and "bad" music. To those smart people, they'll probably tell you that they don't listen to bad music, just different music. Therein lies the problem.

What is an objective standard for "good" music versus "bad" music? It would seem to me that these are relatively subjective standards anyways, so why is one person's subjective idea of "good" music more correct than others? How does complexity in a musical work somehow make it better than a more simplistic piece just because it's more complex?

I noticed a while back that they did the same thing to films they re-edit for television. Damn is OK, but not when preceded by God. I mean goddamn! What the goddamn hell do these goddamn jerks want anyways? Complete and utter elimination of goddamn from the goddamn collective memories of every goddamn person who ever heard goddamn?

You're not the only one

Yes, that was a primary motivation, but since the Founding Fathers also had issues with a standing army, they intended for citizen soldiers to fight hostile foreign invaders as well. Even with a standing army, they couldn't fathom the American people sitting at home and not defending their nation. I'm well aware of who owned what, hence why I mention their intent. I only say probably simply because I wasn't there However, simply defending one's right to have arms against a potentially tyrannical US government is short sighted. There are plenty who would argue that the US government won't become tyrannical. Sure, they're deluded, but they also outnumber us. Laying out other situations, which I'm sure the Founding Fathers envisioned as well, is simply a tool I use when discussing matters like this.

Thanks for clarifying the tax system in NZ. I have to admit being pretty ignorant of the laws over there. I see your point about eliminating the GST, and I'd have to agree with you. Not only would it simplify the tax code, but also increase individual buy power with strengthens the overall economy to some degree.

I'm not expert, but it would seem to me that if the tax is paid by the businesses themselves on behalf of the customer, the business is responsible for calculating that percentage and forwarding it to the government. Right now, based on what has be written, it's a flat percentage on all goods. With this new system, while the it sounds like it will drive down prices on food, I'm not so sure. For instance, by complicating the tax system, even if they make it a blanket "all food is exempt", they're creating more overhead for the businesses to deal with. Overhead costs are always passed on to the customer. So, while the tax is no longer present, increased overhead charges will be there. Not only will the increased overhead drive up prices on food, but also on everything else in the store. The only variable I see is the amounts. If the overhead cost increase is equal or greater to the tax percentage, then there will be zero savings for the consumer. It's just that simple. As for more specifics, I couldn't tell you. This is just what ran through my mind as I read your post. I use absolutes like "will" and "always", but I'm not an expert so I could be way off on all of this.

I was diagnosed at a young age with ADHD, so I have a pretty good grasp on what the condition is. The problem I have with the term "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" is that it paints an inaccurate picture of the condition. At it's root, it's more of an impulse control issue, versus a lack of attention. Most ADHD people have interests which they hyperfocus on. They can spend hours upon hours oblivious to all other stimuli with their hyperfocus, but with anything else they have a difficult time paying attention to it, due to the impulses distracting them. For example, a student in class with ADD/ADHD has the impulse to get up and look at something across the room. He does it, while another student without ADD/ADHD has the impulse doesn't do so. It's not necessarily bad parenting, because the parent can discipline the child every time he does such a thing but it doesn't do any good. Now, I will say that I suspect it has been grossly overdiagnosed in this day and age. When I was diagnosed, it was still pretty uncommon to hear about, but today every class has a few students who have it...or so it seems. Many teachers use it as a crutch, and many parents use it as an excuse for not disciplining their child (oh...he can't help it). However, it really hurts the students who really DO have such a condition, because there is doubt as to whether it exists since it IS treated as such. As for diagnostic criteria, here's the DSM-IV criteria (via Wikipedia...I don't have a copy of the DSM-IV myself) While many of these are subjective, it's not that different than any other psychological disorder where symptoms are subjective. Also, I'd like to point out that I don't think medications should be mandated (as I've heard they have been for some students in different school districts), nor should they be the primary treatment method. Instead, they should be a last resort. Therapy teaching an ADD/ADHD child should be attempted to instruct the patient on coping skills, rather than a reliance on chemical treatments. However, I'm also not a professional in this field. I'm just a guy who has lived with this for his 34 years of life, for whatever that is worth.

Rule 7. I have a bad habit I'm trying to break of living in the glory days of the past, rather than focusing on the glory days ahead.

I forgot about that. Also the television, the radio, and anything else I can turn on.

I applaud your decision . Personally, I'd burn extra lights. I'd turn the oven on, take long hot showers, everything they're asking people not do. I see no reason to do without just so others can have instead.

I've always preferred Batman to Superman. Mostly because there is very little that separates myself from Bruce Wayne, except things like money and dedication to his goal. His intelligence is high, but not super genius level. He's extremely athletic, but no super humanly so. In short, he's worked to make himself more than the average man. Not only that, but he's vastly more interesting. Superman is boring IMHO. He's practically invulnerable to anything except kryptonite (apparently the most abundant material in the universe sometimes, because all his enemies get their hands on it at some point). Batman is vulnerable to the same things you and I are, and he continues on. Better still is his motivation for fighting crime. He does it for himself, not some altruistic idea that the world should be made to be a better place. He wants criminals to pay, so he makes them pay. No bullshit about how it's noble to serve your fellow man. He does it because he wants to and, I think, because he likes it. Works for me

You're correct on both of your points here. I was definitely less than clear here. As for a group having property rights, what I meant was individuals within the group, versus the whole group necessarily (joint property withstanding). I see your point here. Of course, if you were part of that culture, it would be doubtful that you would understand the idea of property either, but in the hypothetical situation, let's say you originate the idea of property within the culture. Recognition of a right is not a requirement for the right to exist. The right would have to be denied to you by force, just as if it were any other right being denied to you. Point taken. My point exactly with regards to limited property rights. Many people understand the concept of ownership over items, but not land. As for non-universal use rights, that seems like territorial rights where it is understood that this is for Tribe A's use only, rather than anyone can use. In both instances, should a new tribe encroach, this is usually grounds warfare, correct? I'm just trying to make sure I have a grasp on what you're talking about here.

Going back to an earlier question (at the risk of sticking my head into the lion's mouth here) about what it takes for a group to have property rights, I'd suspect it boils down to two things: Do they understand the concept of property? If so, what form does that understanding take? For example, we're primarily discussing land ownership. If the culture doesn't understand the concept of property, then they do not actually own anything. It is simply an object they use, and is possibly used others as well. However, if they do understand property, it's possible that they see their tent as property. They may see their spear as property. They may not necessarily see the land beneath them as property, even if they live in established towns in permenant structures. For them to have property rights in relation to the land, they would have to understand that the land can be owned by people. This is a concept that some primitive groups don't always understand, and would have bearing on whether or not they have property rights. At least, that's my take on it.

Welcome from a fellow newbie

I was wondering myself, but I was going to let you slide on that one Cool. IS always sounded interesting, but I figured my mind made the job much cooler than it actually was.

Thanks

If there were civilian ownership of operational tanks, and a risk that such tanks be used in crime (which unfortunately there would be), then sure. Unfortunately, the law requires more than the verbal component of the threat for use of lethal force in most instances. However, many states are pretty open to what form that must take. The pistol being visible and pointed at someone, in most cases is a credible threat by law. Just saying they're going to shoot you crosses the line for many jurisdictions. Of course, I live in a Castle Doctrine state, and I can use force to stop any "forcible felony". Now, from a purely philosophical point of view, I agree with you completely. The problem is how can you be sure of how credible someone simply saying "I'm going to shoot you" really is? Of course, if he says it, then reaches for something suddenly, all bets are off. The thing is, we don't live in a dictatorship now. What's to say that we won't end up that way in another 20 years? The laws of today have a direct impact on the future of this nation. Poor understanding of the ramifications of those plans could be disastrous should laws be enacted that disarm the population to a point where a popular uprising can't overthrow a military force and then a dictator come to power. Now the civilian population is without means to resist. As for the Lunatic Militias, it's also important to note how small these groups really are. Anything short of nuclear weapons in their possession, most of these people are out gunned (as in more guns possessed by) by a well equipped Boy Scout camp While I agree with you in principle, like I said, we can't know what the future will hold. If we disarm the populace now, there will be no means to acquire arms when/if a dictator were to ascend to power. Besides which, many believe that an armed populace actually deters a potential dictator from trying to assert himself in that role, as well as foreign invaders. I remember reading that the Japanese in World War II thought it to costly to invade the mainland US, believing that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Granted, I don't have a source for that, so I don't know how true it is...but I don't mind that rumor being spread around the world. Might make it less likely my descendants will ever need to use one in that manner. I like things that go bang and boom, but even I have to draw the line somewhere

Hence my suggestion about containment systems. Another reasonable restriction would be X acreage required for storage, hence eliminating the potential of accidental release of something as nasty as Sarin or VX. This is where I got into trouble. Your example of a guy waving a gun in my direction is what I refer to as a "direct threat". In other words, the threat is implied through direct actions, rather than a verbal threat directed at me. The same would be true of owning a functioning tank. So long as it's operation is not directed at any individual in a threatening manner, I see no problem here. How would one operate it without the potential for threat? Well, the X acreage requirement would probably be sufficient. Leaving that area, without special permission (like using the tank in a Veteran's Day or July 4th parade for example) OK, very valid point. Security of something like a nuclear weapon would be an extremely important issue that would have to be sufficiently addressed, if for no other reason that security. In truth, I have no use for weapons of this type and even if legal I wouldn't seek ownership over anything of the type. However, I understand that the founding fathers didn't want the civilian populace (the militia in the Second Amendment) to be out gunned by the government. Hence the problem for me True, passing a law doesn't necessarily solve anything, but enforcement is more problematic than many seem to understand. For example, the owner of a hydrogen bomb isn't likely to carry it around in the back of a pick-up truck. He will, of course, be sneaky about it making it more difficult to capture him. Not only that, but if he's a jihadist, he's just as likely to detonate it than to be arrested. However, I do see your point. Laws do make it more difficult for the criminal nature (such as terrorists) to get their hands on such weapons. It doesn't, however, make it impossible. It simply means that civilians can't legally match up with the terrorist on this one. Of course, I can't think of any way me owning a nuclear weapon would enable me to defeat a terrorist with one...or really anyone since I wouldn't have any intent to actually use the damn thing

Gimme a week or two

But their mere existence isn't necessarily a threat. It's the use of them (either through use or through direct threat) that is the wrong, not necessarily the possession of them. Now, if it's difficult to contain, then I see no issue with requiring expensive storage systems to prevent accidental release of a WMD. And that cost would go a long way toward cutting down on people having something like that just for fun. The fact is, criminals and those who are criminally minded will still get their hands on stuff like this. Laws and regulation only regulate the law abiding, who are the people you have to worry about least.

In 1999, I was working in a large local book store as a department head. I would spend most of my time in the back, but would often have to work on the floor to cover people for lunch breaks. Atlas Shrugged always stood out to me for some reason, partly because I didn't get what the title meant. I was curious, but never bothered to actually pick it up. I left that job because I was being hamstrung in the performance of MY duties by having to do the duties of others, and went through a series of other jobs. I hit some hard times where I considered throwing in the towel and asking for help from the government. Something deep within me wouldn't let me. I was capable of work, so I needed to just get off my butt and find a job. I did. Then, my son was born, and I understood that, while my wife could be capable of supporting herself, my son wasn't. I had responsibilities to live up to and haven't been without work more than a week or two since. I used to be someone who thought the rich should take care of the poor, that society demanded it. I finished Atlas Shrugged just a couple of days ago. I can never go back to that way of thinking. The book intrigued me in a way no other work ever has. The idea of showing capitalism in such an unashamed manner was new to me, and frankly it got me thinking. I now have a good job with benefits. It took hard work, but it was far from impossible to replicate. Atlas got me to think about why the wealthy should support the poor when many of the poor are that way by choice. I became more understading of Laissez-Faire capitalism and how it's better for overall economic growth. While reading AS, I looked up information on Ayn Rand and became intrigued about Objectivism. I'm still far from truly comprehending it all, but I do want to learn more about it and try to impliment it into my life. I can't look at the world the same. I don't want to look at it the same. Yes, it feels like Atlas Shrugged has changed my life. I hope to never slide back into that looter/moocher world.