Pericles(MBA)

I do think there is a certain lifestyle difference between a sprawled city like LA or Phoenix, and a built-up city like Chicago, San Fran, or New York. A friend of mine whose wife is from New York told me that one big difference is the level of service you can expect in a metropolis-type city. He told a story once about how he and his wife were back visiting NY, and she saw a dress she wanted in a store. She needed to have it adjusted, and asked if she could pick it up later so she could wear it to dinner. The clerk asked them what hotel they were staying at and told them she would have it adjusted and delivered to the hotel room at no charge. They continued their shopping and later when the returned to the hotel the dress was in the room waiting for them. Now in Phoenix that would rarely happen. Phoenix is a do-it-yourself city. Its something I like about Phoenix because it keeps cost of living inexpensive, but it probably would drive a long-term New Yorker crazy. Since I am only a computer support tech, and not a programmer, I need to do a lot of things myself to save money. People here do complex home repairs themselves, know the quickest driving routes, drive trucks and SUV's to carry more stuff, and where you can buy anything you want for any project or need. Although I understand Phoenix now has a good luxury home market, the middle-class seem to be the primary market here. Other than just transportation, there are a whole range of services that are not as built-up as in a metropolis. Interestingly, a lot of the leaders of the 'red-state' mentality in Phoenix are refugees from blue-state places like LA, Chicago, Detroit, etc. They are quite happy that we are not like the places they came from. I personally am happy that much of the developing in Phoenix is freer from government that in many other cities. (We do have quite a bit of culture here though, check out Phoenix Magazine sometime). It is unfortunate that metropolis cities are so dominated by the left, because they do seem to have some qualities that continue to make people want to live there. It seems like a hard thing to kill a metropolis city, not for lack of trying. I wonder sometimes if things don't turn around that more New Yorkers might give up on the governmental mess they have made and migrate to smaller cities.

He did an interview with ARI recently where he gave a date, and it was printed and sent out to donors. I had it here somewhere but can't seem to find it in my organized chaos. I too am looking forward to the new book. If it is anything like his last book then I expect to expand my knowledge of Objectivism greatly.

Its time for some letters to the editor, and letters to politicians, speaking out on the need to expand the War on Terror. Public discussion is becoming bogged down on sillyness like the Intelligence Reform Bill, and rehashing of the arguments over Iraq. Meanwhile events are moving us forward to a very dangerous time for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans have moved us part of the way by re-electing George Bush, they just need to see that this will not be adequate. If we lose too many young Marines and Army in Iraq, and then later lose Iraq to factional splits and the devout Muslims, I am concerned it will make Americans too cynical to consider further involvement in the Middle-East. The danger of a withdrawal and isolationism that we avoided in the Nov election, could eventually befall us anyway. We have the best men in Iraq, and the state-of-the-art military technology, but we also need to back it up with the best in military strategy. I propose that we make some demands now of the neighboring nations regarding their stand on America's interests that will make it easier on our troops this coming January: For starters, lets work to undo some of the anti-American propoganda distributed by the Arab news media. For state controlled media (are any Arab media not state controlled?), let's demand equal time to present our views, or withhold all assistance and diplomatic relations with nations that refuse. Let's also make further demands of borderline nations such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, that they repeal policies that favor the Muslim factions attempting to control their citizens. For example, the early 90's policies that forbade Arab children from attending American schools or learning from American teachers. Parents who want to have their children educated outside the religious schools should not have to fear reprecussions of their choices. We may wish to consider establishing a secular nation apart from current Arab nations where those who wish to distance themselves from the muslims may settle. This may be easier to do than fighting the corruption within Saudi and Turkey. United Arab Emirates may be the ideal nation for this purpose because of our current establishment there. Regardless we should focus more demands on boderline nations. The American public must be further made aware of Iran's role in terror. We should encourage the Bush administration to make public the information they have on anti-American activities by Muslim clerics. Our Army and Marines currently bear the brunt of the cost of the war. The psychological pressure they face is hard to imagine. Those of us who do not think they have a religious 'duty' to die should continue to speak out against policies that will use them as a bulwark without military purpose. Policies such as vagueness over enemy combatants, and unclear resolution to fight, need to end. The plan in Iraq must be to respond to attacks with overwelming force. The simple message that enemies of the US will die, could save many young lives in the coming months. Rather than just sending gifts to the troops abroad lets do something that will give them a real morale boost. Here are some links that may provide additional ideas: What kind of Intelligence Needs Reforming? Marines killing 'Unarmed Men in Cold Blood'? Moral Killing in Fallujah America's Compassion is self-destructive or anything by Yaron Brook.

By the time I was in my mid-20's I had begun to hold most of my political opinions, especially regarding the threat of government power. I have noticed that most people, with morals, begin to have similar concerns about the same time, regardless of the influence of Objectivism in their lives. The non-Objectivists become conservatives, Republicans, or libertarians. Given that the threats to freedom are great, and there is widespread information and daily real-life examples that show this, what age should someone begin to have an understanding of the problem? I ask because I have noticed that in cases where someone does not notice this by their late 20's it usually is due to a moral failure. I am making it my personal policy to use caution when dealing with such people. Not that I ask people their political opinions when I meet them, but if they speak on the subject I do pay attention. Thoughts?

It does pain me to think of someone capable of understanding Objectivism risking their life in this way. The goal is to increase the number of living Objectivists, right? I hope anyone that joins the military does go in with their eyes fully open. Also consider your options in the private sector first. Only join the military if the personal experience and opportunities cannot be replicated otherwise. You would be surprised that they often can. I have know Objectivists who traveled extensively in student programs, and as English tutors abroad. They never had to join the military but were able to get the benefits of travel and education by becoming smart consumers. At one time I considered the military, and almost joined the Army as a linguist. Knowing what I have learned since, I probably would recommend going into the Air Force or Navy instead, because of the better payscales and job opportunities there. Get a good score on the ASVAB and you can have the better recruiters beating down your door. When you sign, make them give you all the bonuses and get your job description, payscale, and duration of obligation, in writing. Honestly I would rather die in a terrorist attack than know that a young Objectivist died keeping me safe. Its not that I believe risking your life in the military is altruistic, just that I think some young people may be undervaluing their lives or be downplaying the real dangers involved. If you are young, intelligent, and in good health you have an incredible value in yourself. Keep that in mind.

Has anybody here known someone who left the US because of frustration with a particular govt policy or institution? How satisfied were they with their choice? Just curious.

Does anybody know what the status of this campaign is? Are they close to raising their needed figure? Since I started donating again I guess I will have to check Impact.

The only two organizations that I have donated money to support on the list are ARI and AFCM (Americans for Free Choice in Medicine). Donating to ARI is a no-brainer for anybody that wants to see Objectivism succeed. I have some specific arguments for why Objectivists should also support AFCM that I am going to present in another post coming soon....

I see now that it was in error to recommend a specific person, as it would be difficult to accomplish with our small numbers. I have to admit I got caught up in the celebratory attitude of the post-election. With the nomination of Condaleeza Rice to succeed Powell I am satisfied that Bush is putting men similar to Rep Cox in the positions they deserve.

Move to Arizona. It was 72 degrees here today. We have more sunny days than Florida.

I remember when I first started posting to Usenet years ago I used my own name, and got some pretty harsh feedback in my personal email once. I was a little paranoid back then about the same sort of backlash. Just feel safe in the knowledge that the world of critiquing fascist politicians is big enough that nobody is going to come after you for a comment. To my knowledge even Leonard Peikoff has only had one incident, but not relating to a criticism of a government official. (His property {part of an Ayn Rand document} was taken by the Library of Congress because he joked about it being stolen from an archive). Compared to the volumes of work Dr. Peikoff has produced I think your one comment is pretty safe.

I'm trying to figure out if there is anything to this. I have been thinking about the speech President Bush did on his 2nd term platform. His goals: tax cuts, continued Iraq occupation, and malpractice reform, seemed very modest for a man who had won "a mandate". I was thinking a better speech would have been to talk about increasing the war on terror, cutting business regulation, and reforming Medicare (ie, shrinking Medicare). He doesn't have to run for office again, so what does he have to lose? Then I got to thinking that his speech sounded like what I had been hearing from conservatives for years. The old chain about how any reforms must be very small, or they will not be accepted, and how some things cannot be reformed at all. I once knew an otherwise smart, Rand-knowlegeable conservative who was convinced a person was crazy if he mentioned abolishing the IRS. In his mindset there were certain features of the political world that were here to stay, and must be accepted as if they were forces of nature. I believe there may be a philosophic term for such people. Perhaps it is just a symptom of their abdication of ideas in favor of pragmatism. From my participation in discussions with conservatives over the years, I believe that mindset dominates the conservative political view. It is almost as if the Bush team is arbitrarily moving toward freedom, without a greater plan. Many in his movement, not wanting to talk about the principles, because they are too cynical to believe it possible, others because they do not believe in principles. I don't see how that sort of strategy can have much success. First of all, he is aiming too low. He will have to bargain down when dealing with Congress and public sentiment, so why not start with a high goal? Secondly, I am fully expecting the most lame and populist arguments to appear when he argues for tax cuts and malpractice reform. The battle in Congress will be very loud and long. If they pass genuine malpractice reform I will eat my hat. And when it comes to the war on terror, it will take a century to finish it unless his approach changes. I am already expecting that the entire 4 years of his term will be spent on Iraq. The withdrawal of our troops starting next year will probably take at least 2 years to accomplish. Then there will be additional financial aid, etc. Maybe Bush is hoping his in-laws or children can inherit the presidency in another 8 years and pick up where he left off, like the succession of the pharoahs of Egypt. But for those of us who are ambitious for real movement toward capitalism and freedom, this kind of situation is frustrating to watch. I'm feeling extremely greatful for Objectivists right now. Glad to have this forum to vent.

I am hoping to bring forward a discussion of religion on the Reagan board, in order that people there may see the distinction between men like Rumsfeld/Cheney, and men like Buchanan and Dole. Unless the Republicans overcome their failure of religion then the Elmer Gantry's will take over. Hopefully their moderator is fair person.

I thought board posts might be interested in a discussion on the RonaldReagan.com boards that I was involved in. I did a post questioning whether religion had won the election. After some heated debate, the board moderator suggested I might be a troll (even though I have been a participating member of that forum since last July). Go to www.Ronaldreagan.com then click on Bullet Boards. Under Reagan Freedom Forum The discussion is titled "Relgion is not a substitute for thinking"

btw, thought you would find this discussion of interest: http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/ultimatebb...1/t/000092.html

Rep Cox has shown incredible forsight and leadership strength. He was, and continues to be, the sole public figure warning the US against the motives of Mainland China. As the number of American apologists for China increase, Rep Cox's voice becomes even more essential. That alone should qualify him for a position on the cabinet. But Rep Cox also has been a tireless supporter of military strength even years before 9/11. Read his bio here: Biography. Cox in Defense of Military Recruitment I am pushing for Objectivists and Republicans to contact the White House and request the Rep Cox be part of the new administration. It would be heartening to have an Objectivist sympathizer in such a high profile position. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1272848/posts?page=1 http://www.ronaldreagan.com/cgi-bin/ultima...8/t/001816.html? ------------------------------ Here is the contacts I would suggest you contact: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] [email protected] Don't underestimate how much impact your voice can have. Even if Bush does not choose Cox, it puts his name forward as someone that concerned Republicans support. Bush may need this push in deciding who to listen to among Congressional leaders.

Who would you recommend for presidential cabinet positions? I've heard quite a bit of talk about Rudy Guliani, but I actually would recommend a less high profile person. I am thinking about Rep Christopher Cox of California. Rep Cox has shown incredible forsight and leadership strength. He was, and continues to be, the sole public figure warning the US against the motives of Communist China. As the number of apologists for China increase, Rep Cox's voice becomes even more essential. That alone should qualify him for a position on the cabinet. But Rep Cox also has been a tireless supporter of military strength even years before 9/11. Read his bio here: http://cox.house.gov/html/bio.cfm. Of course, the other reason we would want someone like Christopher Cox to have a higher profile position is that now is a good time to start thinking about the 2008 Presidential election. I would say that a Guiliani-Cox ticket would be something worth getting excited about. It would certainly be a lot better than a McCain ticket. How much longer before Bush chooses his new cabinet? Are any Objectivists interested in starting up a pro-Cox email campaign to the White House? Do you think we might have any impact? This is clearly a time critical thing.

First of all I question how much this is a mandate. http://www.drhurd.com/news_1073.html The media is reeling, not able to understand why their superior candidate lost to Bush. They are looking to latch onto any idea, and perhaps some even think the religion spin may dilute Bush's resolve to pursue the War on Terror. However we cannot let people ignore that the central issue of the election was the WOT. Secondly, I think it is also important to not downplay the impact of rational people on the past election. The principle of "Spoils of War" that allow a candidate to reward his biggest contributors once in office certainly apply here. We likely will see Zell Miller and Rudy Giuliani join the presidents cabinet. I think that Dr Hurd makes an excellent point in the limitations of religion as leadership. Objectivists should expound on that idea, and not let religion take the credit for rational values.

Unless the United States moves forward quickly on the WOT, the current economic upturn we are experiencing will fade away. I hope the Vice-Presidents comments carry some weight.

I hate to toot my own horn, (or beat a dead horse), but I keep finding fodder for this argument. This front-page story was published in Arizona's major newspaper last weekend: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/n...n-future29.html You would think John McCain would know better than to do an interview about himself, so close to the election. Its almost like he is trying to upstage Bush...

Nov 2 (Election Day) newswire- As reported on CBS news, CNN, and elsewhere, the Republicans are indeed using their powers to try to intimidate minority voters from going to the polls. Several reports by Democratic lawyers allege that Republicans are using weather machines to cause rainshowers in Democratic strongholds. Dark clouds were seen over Harlem, and also areas of Detroit. Al Gore reported storms over his home in Tennessee, and Michael Moore was nearly struck by lightning. Storms near the Mexican national border running south of California, Texas, and Arizona may be intended to prevent non-native Americans from crossing the border to cast their ballots. Wind also reportedly blew over a ballot box containing Spanish language ballots in Chicago. The ballots were retrieved without incident. Some residents near swing states report inclimate weather as they attempted to drive to the next state to cast their second ballot. Martha Stewart may have built one of the weather machines from her prison kitchen. It remains to be seen if Haliburton supplied parts for the machines. For more information on this story see: http://www.buttafly.com/bush/index.php

I agree, he is a master manipulator. One thing little known about McCain, he got his start in Congress by betraying Barry Goldwater. Goldwater felt guilty that he didn't run a better campaign for the presidency in 1964, and Vietnam became such a big mess under his opponent. He felt guilty that McCain was one of those in POW camp. So he wholeheartedly endoresed McCain for Congress, and even did campaign appearances for him. Then when he saw how John McCain turned into the opposite of his values, yet still presented himself as a "rugged individualist", he thought twice about ever attaching his name to a Republican candidate again. I had the honor of speaking to Barry Goldwater in person once, and I asked him why he didn't do more to assist young Republicans in their efforts. I particularly asked if he would consider having a Journal with his name on it for young scholars. He told me that he did not want the Goldwater name attached to anything beyond his control. I believe it was his experience with McCain that is to blame for that. I have no doubt that today McCain is manipulating things to his advantage, so that he can be the Republican candidate in 2008. I predict that if Bush loses the election then McCain vs. Kerry in 2008 would likely lead to a McCain presidency.

The Dysbiosys of Medical Information Many people do not realize that much of the misinformation that dominates the medical field is government created. By artificially inserting itself into the medical field, and then setting itself up as an arbritrar of public health via the FDA, the government has worked against people making rational healthcare choices. A normal diagram of the Patient-Doctor relationship: Patient-> Medical Information/Research -> Doctor A parasitical dysbiosis: Patient - > Government Entity -> Doctor How strange that people who are so concerned about foreign substances in their food and water would allow such a foreign entity into their relationship with their doctor. Crohn's Disease and Govt intereference The misinformation about Crohn’s disease treatment is a good study of this point. The FDA has approved Remicade to treat intestinal swelling in Crohns patients, among other drugs. But patients know that Remicade only treats a symptom, not the causal problem, so they go in search of alternative medicine therapies. Alternative products do not sell themselves as medicines, for risk of coming under the FDA, and misinformation about their virtues is common. I was only able to find one group of people in the United States looking into mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, as the causal factor in Crohns. Unfortunately because they do not have the partnership of the FDA their ability to continue their research and spread information is limited. see Dr Shafran M.A.P. Research Spreading information about medical advancement is also risky. Anyone making medical claims is subject to new federal trade commission(FTC) scrutiny. Notice the disclaimers about medical advice that have quickly popped up on even some personal web-pages. See FTC Crackdown Furthermore because the FDA/FTC/and Dept Health and Human Services are viewed as authorities on medical information, it is difficult for private distribution of information to succeed. If you don't accept the governmental authorities then you hide in the 'Alternative Medicine' umbrella. As a result we have a flurry of spurious products like 'Coral Calcium' making outrageous claims. Of course this provides more fodder for the FDA to crack down on. It becomes a viscious cycle, with geniune medical innovations as the losers. Government funded research is highly politicized. It is well documented that noisy demands for particular areas of research (usually along established lines) dominates the money that the government dispenses. see Pharmacracy Medicine and Politics in America By Thomas Szasz (published by Greenwood Publishing, 2001) Employer subsidized health plans are also slow to take on new therapies. They only pay for tried-and-true treatments, meaning that cutting edge research will have to be financed by someone else. All the more reason why the medical field needs a free market to allow the better doctors and therapies to spread. In a completely free market information about the best therapies would spread and people would be able to spend their money on the best doctors, increasing business demand for the better products. The cure for the medical field dysbiosys is freedom from government interference.

Actually there is already a thread on that bastion of reason (hpo) talking about how the leadership of ARI is in disarray, and about to collapse into chaos because they cannot agree . With some people you can just never win. But do those people really matter anyway? BTW, since Dr Binswanger made the case better than I could have, I will retire from making 'vote for Bush' arguments in this forum. I still expect to see Objectivists make some demands of the President once he wins re-election and will probably be back to follow those threads.

I assume Hurd must be following the election more closely, and that Kerry said something to that effect. I did find this from the Kerry website: "KERRY HAS A PLAN TO PREVENT A FLU VACCINE SHORTAGE The Kerry plan will assure: the government will guarantee purchases of unused vaccines at the end of the flu season to help prepare for the possibility of sudden shortages; strengthen no-fault Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; establish an Office of Public Health Preparedness within FDA that will have the authority to contract with manufacturers, accelerate approval for vaccines and other drugs, and waive requirements without compromising safety and efficacy in the event of a public health crisis...." http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/release...2004_1019g.html