Superman123

You could purchase him the Atlas Shrugged movies that have just recently been released, indeed a good place to begin for someone who does not read. I also think that the documentaries *‘Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged’* and also ‘Ayn Rand - A Sense of Life’ could also be interesting. Further I could also suggest some non objectivist documentaries ‘Religulous’ and ‘Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life’. Although these films are not Objectivist (e.g. ‘Religulous’ promotes the idea of doubt/agnosticism) I think it is important to get exposed to various ideas like these to learn to think for yourself. Are you sure you want to expose him to these ideas?

Ignorance is bliss? This is one of three objections mention in Peikoff's "UO" lectures  (now a book). I don't think there's a healthy way to wipe out what you "know".  
The question is: why would ignorance really be bliss? One possible response goes along these lines: "That ignorant guy does not know that an asteroid is going to wipe out all life on Earth 10 years from now; but, I do." But, this may not be how you would answer it. So, for you personally, why would ignorance be bliss?

I can't say that I feel the same way. If hadn't thought about all the things I have thought about I would be miserable. There is so much stupid stuff I just ignore now because I know better now. Please don't discount the value of your knowledge. If you were just one of the ignorant masses, I imagine you ability to find a good husband and pursue a career would be hampered in a major way. You have dodged a lot of bullets just by eleminating the absurdities. What about your thoughts are making you miserable?

You could purchase him the Atlas Shrugged movies that have just recently been released, indeed a good place to begin for someone who does not read. I also think that the documentaries *‘Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged’* and also ‘Ayn Rand - A Sense of Life’ could also be interesting. Further I could also suggest some non objectivist documentaries ‘Religulous’ and ‘Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life’. Although these films are not Objectivist (e.g. ‘Religulous’ promotes the idea of doubt/agnosticism) I think it is important to get exposed to various ideas like these to learn to think for yourself. Are you sure you want to expose him to these ideas?

Entrepreneur Dan Pallotta, drawing on his day-to-day experience as an out-of-the-closet homosexual, writes an inspiring and thought-provoking piece about always insisting on the truth. If you think my use of the term "out-of-the-closet" sounds dated, I suspect he would beg to differ:


People have the misconception that a gay person comes out once. It's not true. If you're gay and you're authentic, you're coming out constantly. You're on a business trip, for example. A cab driver asks if you have kids, and you say that you do. Then he asks about your wife. Even though you may be exhausted, you find yourself summoning the energy to have a transformative conversation with a total stranger on whom you are depending to get to the airport and whose reaction you have no way of predicting. It takes a few tablespoons of courage. Every time. But you do it. Because it's who you are, and you've learned long ago not to deny who you are or who your partner is. Because to deny who you are is a betrayal of yourself and the man you love and the children you have together. So you never, ever skirt the issue, no matter how tired or busy you are. You become a Jedi with your truth. Not just the truth, but your truth. While Pallotta's unusual circumstance has made him keenly aware of the need to insist on the truth, he correctly argues that his tireless mission should not be an unusual personal quality:


Each of us lives with the reality of products and services that come from companies whose leaders have surrendered their truth about quality and excellence. My parents just bought a flat screen TV from a major manufacturer. The speakers are in the back, pointing away from the viewer, and they can't hear the damned thing. Why is a product like that allowed out the door? Because of a thousand people at a dozen levels remaining silent. ... The new Microsoft Surface tablet reportedly rips at the seam where keyboard cover meets tablet. Was it tested for durability? If not, why not? If it was, why was it allowed to go to market with such a defect? Probably because of the same kind of self-talk that goes on in a gay man's head before he's ready to come out: "Why make a big deal of it? It doesn't really matter." But when he finally comes out, he realizes it was the only thing that mattered, and that coming out transformed his life. Speaking the truth can do the same thing for businesses. This sounds like the very question I raisednot so long ago. Whether the failure on the part of any one individual in such scenarios to raise questions was due to a desire not to rock the boat or, as a commenter to that post put it, to "laziness, apathy, or stupidity", it is disturbing that a lack of insistence on the truth is common enough that there are examples aplenty of such jaw-dropping incompetence.

-- CAV

Link to Original

Perfection under Objectivist ethics is just a matter of leading a virtuous life, not a life without any mistakes. Admitting mistakes would still qualify as virtue, but those mistakes don't necessarily have to be admitted to unconcerned parties. I don't care much about the whole Rand/Branden thing beyond some biographical interest.

But that's supposing she did something particularly wrong in the first place. From what I've read, Branden was generally dishonest about his emotions towards Rand, but I don't know the extent in which he lied. There isn't anything wrong with romantic relationships with multiple people; at the time, she clearly thought they were okay as long as all the parties in question consent and are honest. So, I don't like characterizing the relationship as a "consensual affair" because that comes with a negative undertone. It was just a relationship gone bad, although I don't know of any particular reason to judge Rand as acting immorally in the first place. If there is a reason for negative judgment, it shouldn't have anything to do with Rand merely engaging in a relationship with Branden and her husband at the same time (the same goes for Branden).

Well, the basic problem I ignored above is that the village idiots add more than a few percentage points to the GOP vote.
The GOP has done a deal with the village idiots and needs their votes to win. Divorce them and they may stay home. That means the GOP gets a few percentage points of votes while losing more than a few percentage from the religious right. If the religious right does not vote for the GOP, they will lose even worse than today.

Actually, today it is becoming inaccurate to even say that the GOP has "done a deal" with the religious right. Rather, the religious right are an important segment of the party.

A related point: many of the religious right folks see themselves as "tea-partiers". One often sees Democrats conveniently use "tea-party" to mean that village-idiot segment. People who are in the GOP and are fiscally conservative but socially liberal must come up with a new brand-name... something that makes their fiscal/economic focus clearer. of course it would be better still if they simply defined themselves by a focus on individual rights -- both economic and social -- but that is too much to hope for.

Miscellaneous thoughts:
Tonight has made Nate Silver's reputation for life.
As long as the GOP remains anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and anti-gay, they lose a small percentage of votes from people who are middle-of-the-parties on economics
If nut-jobs like Trump did not throw around birther conspiracy theories, there might be a better chance a few independents would think the GOP is not so kooky
The GOP will not chuck out the anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-gay folk. Instead, the message they will take is not to go wishy-washy, but to nominate someone like Newt
Perhaps 2014 will see Bloomberg become Democrat and prepare for 2016
There's a pretty good chance that the U.S. enters a second (formally-defined) recession sometime in the next 4 years
Perhaps 2016 will be "businessman Bloomberg" vs. "ideologue Newt", with the GOP being thrashed and finally realizing the religious nut-jobs should be kept in the back rooms like other embarrassments

Only want to share an important thing. I used Propecia for years but the best results only came in the last few 2 - 3 months when I included the Nizoral shampoo. I also wash my hair now with a gentle shampoo every day. I have been waiting for Propecia to reduce my sex drive but I am very much disappointed.

However, those who treat sexual preference as a moral issue should be opposed, and homophobic is often an apt description of such people. To treat morally neutral characteristics like gender preferences as immoral distorts morality and incorrectly impugnes the moral character of groups of people.

What Ayn Rand said, and Objectivism, are not interchangeable. Just because Ayn Rand liked cats, doesn't mean Objectivists have to like cats. Just because Ayn Rand didn't think gays were psychologically healthy, doesn't mean Objectivists hate gays, or can't be gay.

Why? Because Objectivism is not about cats, or psychology. It's about philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics). There is one area of Objectivism that concerns homosexuality: politics. In her Politics, Ayn Rand said that being gay is your right, and as such it should be protected and never interfered with, by the government. That is the definitive, and only Objectivist position on the subject.

Oh, and ignore Erik Christensen. He has an agenda other than honest conversation about Objectivism. It's hard to tell what it is though, he's not coherent enough for that.

My first lover and I were together for 22 years, to his death 22 years ago today. This then is a remembrance I would like to share today. It is my eulogy for Jerry at the memorial service for him in Chicago three weeks after his death, all those summers ago. The ceremony consisted of alternations of speaking and music, and the music that followed my speaking was the Rachmoninoff Prelude Op. 23, No. 2 in B flat.

Jerry D. Crawford (11 October 1948 – 17 June 1990)

Hi. You're obviously not a beginner at critical thought. Identifying the need for critical thought takes a lot of it.

And the way to get better at it is to practice. All the time, about everything you come across. Always try to figure out the cause of things, how they work, find the most elegant solution to every problem, etc. I suspect you are already doing this. Most people who find Ayn Rand and like her do.

Hmm, I don't know if this will make any substantial difference or not here, but it's worth a shot.

Hello, Superman. I've read all of this thread. At the top of this page you have said that you think if Objectivists knew you that you think they would consider you second handed for something to do with your sexuality I presume, though it isn't stated directly so. I'm not heterosexual and this has been no secret and yet in the two or more years I've been regularly participating here I have never had anyone accuse me of being second handed or any other negative thing for not being heterosexual. I've never had any supporter of Objectivism I've spoken to anywhere evaluate me badly in any way for me sexuality. By far and large, I've had a very warm and welcoming reception. Heck, for a while early in my time here the chat room had just about more non-heterosexual regular participators than heterosexual ones. Fun times. Sans a few minor pests like one could find anywhere else, there is no threat of being subjected to harassment for non-heterosexual people from Objectivists.

As for the pests, for the most part they haven't been responded to all that harshly recently due to a couple things. One is trolls being a lot like pigeons - pesky, nasty, unwelcome and only further encouraged to stick around and bring friends if you feed them. (Which by the way, I don't think you are a troll though your recent posts are kind of baffling.) Another is that we're pretty tired of a lot of the same old same old from certain people and groups so after a while they cease to as effectively make your blood boil and we just don't feel like going through the same old stuff with these people over and over. One guy in this thread has been around for ages just barely skirting the rules of the forum to avoid getting kicked out and all he ever seems to post on is homosexuality and abortion. On homosexuality, he insists on blindly adhering to anything to ever come out of Rand's mouth or pen without question or says one is immoral and not an Objectivist (not true) and offers no other attempt to support his position. On abortion though, he rejects Rand's position (which she wrote much more on and provided her reasoning for) and yet acts like this in no way subjects him to being immoral or not an Objectivist like he says in homosexuality threads of any disagreement with Rand on basically anything at all ever no matter what. This person's credibility is zilch, just ignore them like most of us do by now. Maybe some time soon they'll just finally get ejected from this place. As for the Christians who were floating around for a little while, I don't think I saw any of them in here and even if they were in here saying bad stuff, clearly they don't speak for Oism. We do welcome inquiry from non-Objectivists about Objectivism, so unless they start making a nuisance of themselves, they're welcome to be here. That's why we don't just kick people out right away or harass them when they say they're Christians. I think a bunch of them left or were kicked out though finally for spamming up all over so much Christiany stuff that it just kept taking over and diverting one thread after another.

As for quotes from others, Branden is no longer an Objectivist, whatever he says after his break with Rand is irrelevant to Oism. I know Peikoff is fine with homosexuality by now at least(I'm pretty sure somewhere I saw from a recent convention on Objectivism a quote of a homosexual man in the audience asking him about how it actually seems like there is a higher rate of non-heterosexuality among supporters of Objectivism than in the general population and Peikoff's response was something like, "Is there a problem here?" to which everybody just chuckled.) As for what Rand herself said while she was alive, there's an important thing here that most of us are familiar with that people new to this may not know. There's an important distinction made between things which are part of Objectivism proper and anything else, even if it was said/written by Rand herself. Some things are obvious, like color preference not being a part of Objectivism. That's not a philosophic issue. There's also that some things may be a philosophic issue, but still are not part of Objectivism because they were not by Rand or approved by her for inclusion as part of her philosophy of Objectivism (maybe because she thought it was wrong, maybe she didn't hear about it to judge it, maybe it was written after she died.) Some things may be issues which there can be right and wrong answers on, unlike what the best color is, but they are issues of specialized science. Psychological subjects and questions of nutrition and such are not part of philosophy. All the philosophy of Objectivism has to say on those things is basically, "try to pay attention, look at the conclusions of well done research and take care of yourself as best as you can on the basis of such." This and the fact that we are not omniscient means that the best choice to make in regard to these things may change as information is updated. (For example, this is why Rand quit smoking after a while when the research started showing significant health risks in connection with it. Before this evidence was provided, she had no reason to evaluate smoking as bad for her life.) There are also significant distinctions between the *principles* of the philosophy and particular applications of them. Principles may be properly or improperly applied, but some issues are a lot less simple and obvious about what principles apply how to what particular case and so it isn't blatant that, "Objectivism says X about the proper response to situation Y." So, issues like sexuality and gender have the problem that not only did Rand not show the full reasoning behind her conclusions, how they connected and lined up with Objectivism (thus meaning nobody else has any reason to believe her even if they believe she is right on things in Objectivism and for all we know they may have been based on outdated info or heck, no info, though that would be unusual for her), there's also the fact that the workings of these things are much better categorized as matters for psychology than philosophy.

That's not to say Objectivism has nothing to say about the topic, just that it is broad and heavily dependent on what psychology turns up. For one thing though importantly, sexuality is a matter of what one feels. Feelings are not subject to ethical evaluation because they are not a matter we can control directly like what we say or if we attack somebody or not. Feelings are not right or wrong, good or bad, they just are. They are the product of other things which give rise to them and it is those things we may evaluate, not the feeling itself. The question then, which is up to psychology and other specialized sciences, is what is that underlying stuff and what are its consequences? Whatever the nature of the cause(s) though, even if it were to be due to some kind of error of any type or other kind of unfortunate incident (not to suggest that is generally the case), that doesn't mean the feeling or the person would be evil or should deny it. Nobody suggests somebody with arachnophobia pretend it isn't so or that they are bad because of this. Causes are still a bit inconclusive generally of sexualities, but consequences are a much clearer issue.

Potential negatives to one's life in association with non-heterosexuality that are known are being subject to harassment and opposition by people that don't like you, but if that was any kind of real reason to make something bad for your life, Objectivism as a whole would be screwed as it is full of unpopular stuff. You may have greater difficulty finding suitable partners if you are homosexual due to it being much less common than heterosexuality, but everybody has things they require in partners that will shrink the pool a lot and make it take time and effort to find somebody suitable. Babies? Not everybody wants them, they can be adopted, there's surrogacy and sperm donors, and for lesbians (though expensive) science has now made it possible for them to make a baby with two female parents, though for homosexual men this is not yet possible, yet. Clearly Rand didn't have a need to breed anywhere in Objectivism anyway. As for sexual activities, so penis-in-vagina is off the table, oh well. There's been thousands of years to get inventive and I've never heard of anybody saying a male and female shouldn't be together because some kind of disability may prevent intercourse.

As for the issue of the law of identity, one is to recognize and not evade the facts/nature of themselves. Just because something is typical of most humans doesn't necessarily mean it must be so of all of them. Many traits may be typical of humans but a variance from them may exist without disqualifying one from humanity or damaging them. A typical example I bring up is what hand(s) somebody writes with. Most are right handed. Lefties used to get smacked for using their left hand and I've heard some religious people thought using the left hand was some kind of evil thing. More things are commonly designed for right handed people due to the statistics still, but there is obviously no flouting the nature of oneself as a human being in using one's left hand for writing and other tasks. If nobody can come up with any potential objection to sex with one's own gender within the framework of Objectivism but the issue of the law of identity, then they have nothing to object to but doing so if one is heterosexual, otherwise it is just an exercise in *accordance* with one's unique, individual identity.

I'd be interested... somewhat... to know how recent Branden's comments are, and whether he'd still stand by them if they are old ones. Of course he's not really an Objectivist any more so depending on the timing, the answer might not be germane.

Also, just because Leonard Peikoff says something, that doesn't make it Objectivism.

The only person whose pronouncements can plausibly be taken as authoritative would be Ayn Rand, and even there, there is a Garbage In, Garbage Out effect at work.

Objectivism is among many other things a method to be applied in order to answer specific questions, but you have to have proper inputs (knowledge) to base your conclusions on. Back in AR's day homosexuality was considered, by the "experts" to be a mental illness and no doubt she was taking that erroneous information into account when she spoke.

It is not a principle of Objectivism that homosexuality is immoral even if some Objectivists might conclude as much (and never mind the occasional individual who calls himself an Objectivist and rationalizes in a way to confirm his prejudices).

You seem to be bending over backwards to conclude Objectivists don't want you around; that's why some people have asked if you are trolling.

I think he's trying to emphasis or underscore the "Don't tell me anything is impossible; tell me you can't do it. Tell me it's never been done." (Just don't tell me it is impossible.)
Newton, and the periodic table are a couple of feats of doing in history that many may have thought were impossible. The refutation is Newton's laws and the periodic table.

As to not be certain of anything in scientific thinking, Both Newton's laws and the periodic table provide testimony to the contrary.

I see one's sexuality as a choice, actually. Not to suggest that you wake up one day and decide your sexuality, I only mean that it is a sum of many choices over a very long period of time. A good comparison is sense of life. Your sense of life is a choice over a very long period of time. It can be altered in some sense and is affected by unique psychological aspects of yourself which you can't change any more than you can change your blood type. Any sense of life is fine, but not necessarily so. If a sense of life is built upon irrational premises and evasion, you can say the resulting sense of life is immoral, but only because the conclusion was reached by a sum of very irrational premises. I don't have a particular reason to say sexuality is a whole lot different, except that it strictly involves ways to have sex.

I know of *zero* ways homosexuality could be immoral, unless somehow you got to a sexuality by some irrational premise like "all men are evil, therefore women are the only people I'll have a sexual relationship with." Besides that, all that I've ever seen said is that it is some form of violating the law of identity if all people are naturally heterosexual, in the same way some people say transgender is a violation of the law of identity. You could also say a violation of nature. That's just a naturalistic fallacy of the sort where any change to how you naturally develop is immoral. In order to get to the idea that deviating from the norm is immoral, there has to be some kind of proof of objective harm to the individual, which there simply is not for a person who is homosexual. There isn't any kind of real world evidence that homosexuality itself may be harmful. I actually would even suggest that if were possible, it's better for a person to not have an attraction based on another person's sex. Of course, I don't know much about if that really is possible, but it seems like an awfully nice thing.

Sexuality can't really even be boiled down to just liking the same or the opposite sex. That's the simplest way to look at things, sure, but there are plenty of other aspects to consider. People could have a non-sexual emotional attraction in a different way than sexuality would indicate in addition to a sexual attraction. There are probably many ways to think of others in terms of your relationship with them where a single sense of sexuality is insufficient and friendship doesn't quite apply. Some asexual people don't have any sexual attraction, yet some do have a non-sexual type of attraction, as an example (prefix+romantic, like biromantic). Ultimately, what I'm getting at here is that discussion at regarding sexuality, is so much more involved than just which sex you like. Where does choice end and an unchosen sexuality begin? I'm not sure it makes sense to use the word "sexuality" in any sense other than a preference, which would make sexuality a fluid thing.

Is this 'presentism'? Judging past mores, standards by their modern equivalents and knowledge?
Seems likely.
it seemed self-evident to me at 19 when I arrived in a very conservative society in one of the most conservative
cities in South Africa, in the late 60's early 70's - that, homosexuals were born, not made.
In those days, the locals wouldn't talk to you if you didn't speak their language, and I found the only crowd I was accepted in and could hang out with were other 'rebels': the sons and daughters of farmers who'd come to the big city to study, away from their deeply religious, traditional families in tiny towns.
Arty, talented, articulate and fun - many were gay, and they always hated it. The repression and guilt they lived with daily - in fear of others, and especially of what their fathers would do if they found out, caused so much grief, that it wasn't that unusual to hear
of attempts at suicide.
Can anyone understand the deep self-loathing and alienation that happens here? I can only fully realise it now, looking back.
The 'received wisdom' of that time in the West and everywhere, with variations, I gather, was that homosexuality was "a lifestyle choice" - though I think the phrase only came later. Until neuroscience began catching up (when 80's, 90's?) this was how millions lived - feeling outcast by society, feeling 'wrong', and not understanding why.
Neuroscience provided the answer - as it did for the millions who had lived with ADHD, also not understanding their own tendencies, which I personally relate to. This had to be a life- changing revelation; the social problems remained, but the self-knowledge now gave the individual a chance to recover self-esteem.

So, maybe you 'had to be there', to know what gays know - that it's what they ARE.

What could Ayn Rand have known? Possibly her entire knowledge of homosexuality was based on the ancient Greeks, and maybe media reports of the American hippies. I don't know of course, just guessing. One thing, I do sometimes feel that in contrast to her incredible insight and understanding, she could be naive and credulous, at times. Another, that volitional consciousness is the pillar of her philosophy - not that neuroscience discovering some deterministic factors conflicts with this - and she umcompromisingly denied determinism.
Mainly, that she did not have the advantage I had, of really knowing gays. All she could go by, was that it was a 'lifestyle choice'.

Let's cut her some slack.

Enter homophobe number 1

Give 'em a chance, Steve. Could be they've shifted their views since all the arguments
they have heard! It would be a pleasant surprise, anyhow...

Queer Capitalist, I always thought Rand's notions on homosexuality, you must have read by now, were strange.
I long put it down to lack of knowledge at that time, her personal taste, and so on.
It's one of few areas - like gender identity - where I don't agree with her, but it definitely is not
central to her philosophy. Ultimately, superfluous.
I'm not gay, but it interests me that many gays seem to be coming in to Objectivism.
To a friend who asked, I said that it might be because O'ism is not faith-and tradition-based judgmentalist, as are conservatives - nor is it "hey, man, it's all cool" hypocrisy, as with prog-liberals relativism.
Objectivism rejects both, at all levels. It's a radical philosophy, which offers the independence
I believe a lot of gays seek.
( A large generalization on my part here, with these political stereotypes, but I think there's some truth to it.)

Briefly: the ethics of rational egoism, together with individual rights, cover everything you ask, and more.
All (!) that remains is your choice, and your consent.

My bold. "Implies" is not the same as "should". If there was no ought implied in this case, it would mean that people are individuals who are not slave to particular roles determined by their sex organs.

An honest question, but seriously, how could it be measured? In a poll?
My default position is, rather be unhappy and be intimate with reality, than be happy and be disconnected.
At the next level, of course, it doesn't work this way; with on-going evasion of reality, one's anxiety and guilt grow
stronger. It is the indisputable nature of the "rational animal". (Spiritual suicide, AR called it.)
So don't be fooled by the stereotypical 'joyful Christian'. He has an addiction as powerful as any drug. It needs increasing doses, and it gives the same 'downers'.

I don't think happiness is any single given moment of our lives.
This is rather, joy, or, exultation - which we can all experience (and should) at our peaks.
Happiness is more an averaged-out state over a long period. It contains the normal 'lows' that are reminders
of reality - but, critically, these are the anomalies by which a rational person doesn't define himself.

Life is long, and as Aristotle put it : "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act but a habit."

No point in discussing any supposed contradiction unless you can provide robust and complete definitions of your terms. Then, you must prove completely your application of those terms, or concede that your knowledge is not complete. Then, you can say whether that application lines up with Rand's philosophic principles.
So, for example, what is masculine and feminine? Is it a sliding scale or something definite you can point to and measure? How does a homosexual's (mis?)incarnation of masc/fem (metaphysically given? Chosen? Something else?) characteristics "contradict" metaphysical reality? What specifically is contradicted? What is the moral judgement of that (non?)contradiction, either way?

So much for not getting pulled into this again, eh EC?

Even if homosexuality is a choice, and I believe it is, and I'm also homosexual, you have not proven your reasoning behind the idea that this choice should be judged as morally wrong.

Further, this thread has gone entirely off topic from its origin, as these threads normally do. To the OP, I would like to say welcome to OO.net. Objectivism and homosexuality are mutually compatible, there are many gay Objectivists. If you have any questions about the philosophy as you continue to learn please don't hesitate to ask, I'm sure someone will answer.

I would like to point out, Superman123, it would probably behoove you to approach learning Objectivism from the perspective of learning the principles and reasoning of the philosophy. I noticed that your post and your original opinion seemed to focus on what "Objectivists" think about homosexuality, christianity, capitalism, etc. What Objectivists think should be totally irrelevant to your study of Objectivism, which is a philosophy, not a religion. It is much better to learn what you can about the actual philosophy and then judge for yourself whether the Objectivists you come across are applying it appropriately.

Regards,
Tom

Why would you want to undertake such a task?
That obligatory part said; I'd recommend actually evaluating whether you gain any value by trying to turn "socialists" into "capitalists" as if it were an evangelical mission. If you do try and distill whether that value comes from practicing your oratory or arguments, or like to litigate, or just enjoy getting together.

For tools you could play them the Stossel Show on repeat; he's mastered the art of non being confrontational with confrontational ideas. genius really. Our very own Glenn B'ck