flatlander

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY, you say?

I saw Star Trek last night and thought it was excellent. I am a long time Star Trek fan, in fact Captain Kirk was one of my earliest childhood heroes. It was great to see the essence of Kirk captured by a new actor. Intelligent, heroic and intransigent. The movie has a great sense of life. Seeing the starships being built on the Iowa plain lent an awesome grandeur to the film and to Kirk's character development, the majesty of that scene gives credence to Kirk's decision to straighten out his life and join Starfleet. I also liked Spock's response when he faced the admissions board of the Vulcan Science Academy. They had accepted him "in spite of his disadvantage" of having a human mother. He promptly declined their invitation and walked out, heading off to join Starfleet intead. Bravo! No environmentalism, no politically correct moral relativism.

I saw the notice at the bottom of the main forum page that it was Zip's birthday, and wanted to say cheers! Happy Birthday Martin!

Not to mention the verbal venom that is spewed towards anyone who dares to utter "private" and "health care" in the same sentence. It is extremely telling that no politician dares to touch the issue, that any measure promising to break the government monopoly on heath care is treated as the "third rail" of Canadian politics. The only voice of reason in politics in this country is Paul McKeever.

Our socialized health care system is a bloated monstrosity and a money pit of horrifying proportions. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians don't have a family doctor. Waiting lists for basic procedures are months or even years long. Need a knee replacement? Expect to suffer for ten to eighteen months waiting for it. Cancer treatment? How does a six-month wait sound? Valuable high-tech diagnostics like MRIs have extremely limited access, dramatically extending wait times. Private clinics are stopped from opening by legal and political posturing. In Ontario the provincial government even passed laws banning well-equipped animal hospitals from using their advanced MRIs on humans. So when socialists parrot Michael Moore in pointing to Canada as a paragon of "free" health care, perhaps they should be told how expensive (and shoddy) our "free" health care actually is.

I second Martin's suggestion. It may be the most difficult decision you ever make, but if you want to live your own life and seek your own happiness, leaving behind your parasitic in-laws may be your best course of action. You have described your husband as being rational, have you raised the prospect of moving away with him? Does he understand that it is unbearable for you to be the sacrificial victim to his family and yours? Does he believe it is proper for you to be subordinate to the whims of the clan?

LOL. Disturbing and funny. You may want to lay off the booze right before bed!

Wow, considering the writer of this article once considered himself/herself a "disciple"(conspicuous implication that Objectivism is some sort of religion or cult) of Objectivism, an enormous and obvious straw man has been built here. First, as Zip pointed out, it equates ending the social safety net with murder. What would stop welfare recipients from becoming working, productive members of society when their taxpayer-looted dole is cut off? Nothing but sheer laziness and a continued desire to remain parasites, in defiance of reality. The unproductive would have no choice but to earn a living, they would no longer be able to present their "need" as a claim upon the earnings of productive individuals. Not to mention the massive number of jobs and opportunities that would open up as a result of ending the welfare state and the consequent tax reductions. To refer to this as "tantamount to murder" is moral equivalence of the worst sort. Second, the linking of Objectivism to Social Darwinism: Talk about smearing by association, while hammering on the moral equivalence. Again, the writer is claiming that cutting parasites off of the looted wealth of the productive is the same as murdering them. That's like saying I am directly responsible for starving a potential thief to death by the act of locking my door and making it harder for him to break into my house. The writer seems to think that "the poor" are so doomed to helplessness that, as a massive and homogeneous group, they would not be able to go out and find jobs to support themselves. They would not respond to the basic need to support their lives, they would simply sit there and starve to death. Therefore they must be fed. What a vile view of man this writer displays! Third, the linking of "selfishness" to complete apathy towards others: The writer clearly thinks that acting heroically or responsibly can only arise out of living for the sake of others. Nowhere in Galt's speech does he command: "You must stand idly by while a person is murdered right in front of you." Nor does he command: "You must single-handedly face down an armed assailant and risk your own murder to save the life of your neighbor." The fact that thirty-eight neighbors watched Ms. Genovese's murder and didn't even call the police suggests that they lived in fear for their own safety, or that they bore ill will toward Ms. Genovese for some reason. Their inaction does not suggest that these passive bystanders had any love for their own lives. It suggests that law and order in Queens in the 1960's was thwarted by a code of silence among the people living there. Such a mentality is to Objectivism as sow's ear is to silk purse. A properly selfish individual, that is to say, a rational individual, knows that if crime is not stopped, it will grow. To remain passive in the face of a murder carried out right in front of you would be to give moral sanction to the murderer, and therefore to invite further violations of individual rights. As Mr. Chiill stated in the original post, the result of such sanction of evil can only be wholesale death and destruction.

I turned on all the lights in my house. Turned on my plasma TV. This being Saskatchewan, it is still chilly so I turned up the thermostat for my natural gas furnace to a comfortable 75F. And otherwise continued to live my life as normal.

I've always found a lady with an English accent to be very sexy. Disturbing thought, especially breaking down the numbers that way. Perhaps it is time for all rational Brits to head to Canada and the US.... He's got company.

You wouldn't have been alone in that. The Baltar and Six "Angels" talking about morality was pretty rich considering the moral equivalence and out and out nihilism they whispered into the ears of the living Baltar and Six over the course of the series. Obviously the "morality" to which they refer is the willingness to blame technology for all their problems and embrace environmentalism. I agree with you on this. Except that I was entertained for most of the series, but sickened and repelled by the last 40 minutes of it. It was like 40 minutes of swimming in a sewer.

I had entertained the theory that Cara Thrace herself was Daniel. That when Cavil altered Daniel's genetic makeup to destroy the model, he ended up making Daniel into Cara. She was artistic (those drawings and paintings of the supernova at Cobol) and sensitive (so sensitive she tried to suppress it with drinking, gambling, recreational sex and risky Viper-flying).

My bad about the spoiler tags, I was simply being cautious about throwing spoilers out into the forum. Starbuck's vanishing was truly weak, but very much in keeping with this abysmal series finale.

With regards to prophecy, Richard also comes to understand later on that free will is the counter to prophecy.

I did find Cavil's (sp?) suicide to rationally follow from his character development. It was certainly logical that he would kill himself when he realized he would not receive the resurrection technology as the Final Five had promised. Also good, it was great to see Galen further re-establish his individualism and act out of a sense of justice. It was like he finally reconciled his nature as a Cylon with his rational mind and his volition. Galen's character arc in the final several episodes made him one of the best characters in the series, IMO. I liked that he was willing to think outside the box and use Cylon tech to attempt to shore up Galactica's structural integrity. I particularly liked the combat scenes where the rebel Centurions fought the old Mark I Centurions. The few positive elements could not save this mystical and altruistic monstrosity. Looking back at Baltar's character earlier in the series, it becomes evident that he is held up as an example of "selfishness." He was narcissistic, petty, devious, elitist, womanizing. He had betrayed the Colonies by allowing Caprica Six access to the defense grid. He's part Nietschean "superman", part lone wolf, part whim-worshiping hedonist and 100% second-hander. The first season was filled with his attempts to cover up his crimes while blanking out what he had done because of his obsession with Caprica Six. Fast forward to the fourth season, and he's a cult leader living in Galactica's lower decks with a harem of female followers who cater to his every whim. He mouths religious platitudes but treats everything and everyone with cynicism. Then, after the mutiny, he "discovers" altruism, giving away his group's stash of food to the needy civilians that also live in Galactica's lower decks. He gets onto a kick of "doing for others." When his altruistic attempts to feed the hungry are met with the depradations of a violent lower-decks gang of thugs, he successfully convinces Adama (who had successfully recaptured his ship and put down Gaida's mutiny) to give his cult a substantial arsenal of weapons. What the hell was Adama thinking, arming Baltar's cult???? How vile.

So who here watched it? Despite the show's tragically mixed premises, I must admit I did not expect it to plunge headlong into irrationalism quite the way it did in the finale. It was a disgusting spectacle. Mysticism, collectivism, moral relativism, nihilism, determinism, environmentalism, it's all there. And all within less than two hours! It begins with Adama taking Galactica, crewed with volunteers, on a final and likely suicidal mission I'll post more later, I am too exhausted to remain coherent describing a show that angered me greatly.

My response to collectivists depends on whether I am faced with a collectivist who is fully versed in all of the ideology at an intellectual level (the Tooheys and Floyd Ferrises of the world) and pursues the collectivist agenda purposefully; or someone who simply absorbed collectivism by default (a typical product of public schools and leftist media) and simply runs with the herd. My response to the former: complete revulsion and seething anger. This type of collectivist is the personification of evil, and is not to be dealt with on any level except as a sworn enemy. Is the willful promotion of evil tantamount to the initiation of force against all free individuals? My response to the latter: aghast disappointment mixed with sadness and maybe even resignation. How can this person not see the evil that the collectivists are feeding them? It is very rare that I encounter the first type, most collectivists I meet are of the second type. I can deal with them, even be friendly (but guarded) towards them, depending on how mixed their premises are.

My wife and I gave a Kiva loan to a lady in Kenya who owned a tiny general store and needed some credit to expand her inventory. We made the loan in July and it's about a third of the way paid off. The loan term is eighteen months. The beauty of this is that our money is not ending up in the pocket of a third world thug. I caught a part of an episode of Numbers where the main character, the mathematician, illustrated how micro-credit loans build individual wealth in poor countries. He finished with a great line: "It amazes me when capitalists are surprised that capitalism actually works!"

Greetings Nicholas and welcome to OOnet! I'm curious, how did you hear of Atlas Shrugged? Were you familiar with Ayn Rand before you read it?

Without getting into the realm of spoilers, Richard undergoes a process of integration over the course of the novels. In Blood of the Fold, his war wizard powers are new to him and because his gift is largely driven by anger and need, he tends to view his gift in terms of an emotion/thought dichotomy. He gives up eating meat in Stone of Tears (and Blood of the Fold) because he proceeds under the assumption that this provides balance to his gift. As Richard's story progresses over the course of the novels, he gradually checks these premises. He discovers that emotions are not separate from or antagonistic to rational thought. He begins to understand that emotions are a response to values. But this integration does not happen all at once for him.

Good plan...know of any experienced soldiers who could train our military? A couple of Aegis cruisers and a squadron or ten of F-22s would be a good start to keeping Galt's Archipelago safe....

There are some Catholic prayer affectations you may want to include. "Charismatic" Catholics will stand with their arms raised and outstretched, hands at face level with palms turned upward and fingers slightly spread while reciting the Lord's Prayer. Traditional Catholics will always kneel before a crucifix, head bowed and hands pressed together in the familiar prayer way. During Holy Week Mass services, there are parts where the priest will prostrate (not prostate, lol) himself, basically kneeling with head deeply bowed or even laying face down before the altar and chanting traditional prayers. The so-called Blessed Sacrament (the unleavened bread representing the Body of Christ, generally in some type of ornate gold, silver or brass pedestal vessel) is usually out on display on the altar at the foot of the cross for this type of ceremony. Incense is often burned in a metal lantern-like vessel on the end of a chain, the priest will swing the vessel back and forth in the air above and to either side of blessed objects, dispersing the incense smoke in the area. Also, there are anointing ceremonies where the priest will fill a vessel (that looks rather like a large pepper grinder) with holy water. Using a sort of a whip-cracking movement, he uses this vessel to fling drops of holy water upon the congregation, who then make the sign of the cross as the drops of water touch them.

You would be surprised how many fall into that category. Most of my family does. Check the premises of a lot of social conservatives and you will find that they agree with Christian Leftists on a disturbing number of issues. The biggest difference is that Christian Leftists tend towards pacifism and anti-Americanism.

I was raised in a devout Catholic household, my parents were staunch pacifists of the "Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek" mentality. My parents were "right" leaning on social issues, ie, they were vehemently anti-abortion, against premarital sex and birth control. I lived a very sheltered life in a little town with a large Catholic population, so topics like so-called "gay rights" weren't really on our radar. When they did talk about homosexuality my parents described it as a sinful perversion, but that homosexuals themselves weren't irredeemably evil. Economically my parents didn't really seem to have a position on the role of government in the economy. They thought socialized heathcare was what made us Better Than Those Americans (ugh!!). I remember them voting for either Liberal or Progressive Conservative (now there's a name for a political party with neurotically mixed premises. Oh, Canada!!! ) candidates, depending on who claimed they were "pro-life." They were essentially one-issue voters. As a child I followed along with my parents views, as many kids do. As my teenage years progressed, I gradually reflected upon, and rejected, every one of my parents premises. Without telling my parents, of course. I attended Catholic youth-movement events when I was in high school mainly to get away from my home town and meet girls. I sat through all the indoctrination and basically ignored it. In my university years I was largely apathetic to politics, seeing them as irrelevant. Over time I began to agree with the economic positions of the right. I also agreed with the right on crime and punishment and being in favor of a strong military. This was an especially important position in Canada, for our military had been stripped down to tragically low levels of capability under the UN peacekeeping model and the resulting Liberal funding cuts. I diverged widely from the right on social matters. I knew socialized health care was not all it was cracked up to be, but was unsure how (or why) it was bad. It bothered me that the right had conceded to the left that the discussion on health care was over. I was pro-abortion in that I recognized that it was a question of a woman's sovereignty over her own body, but I was against taxpayer funding of abortion. "Gay rights" didn't matter much to me. I thought that whatever two consenting adults did with each other was none of the government's business. I didn't think it was a big deal if gays wanted legal recognition of their relationships, so I was in favor of legalized civil unions. I didn't think it should be called marriage. But my biggest opposition to the right was their rejection of Darwin's theory of evolution. As I have a background in biology, I thought it was ludicrously irrational that anyone would consider Creationism or "Intelligent Design" as scientifically valid. So the right bothered me for their anti-intellectual attitudes towards science. As far as religion goes, I became agnostic in my early twenties and an undeclared atheist shortly thereafter. So, I held a series of general principles that were in favor of man's right to his own life, in favor of limited government, and in favor of capitalism. In short: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As I began to frequent political discussion boards in my mid-thirties, I saw myself as a fiscal conservative, then as a right-libertarian. It was in discussion with other such individuals that I first learned of Ayn Rand and became a student of Objectivism. And my only regret is that I had never heard of Ayn Rand when I was in high school.

Bookmarked here too.