Dan9999999

I was thinking about this recently, I have always, as long as I can remember, fallen asleep by essentally daydreaming. I make up some story in my head about really anything. From me playing centerfield for the yankees, to some imaginary character fighting crime, or something even more ramdom. It recently occured to me that not eveyone else does this. So what do you do to fall asleep?

I'm a Yankees fan and as much as I would really like to see a Johson Shilling game in the post season, I would really like to see the Sox pick up some one also so the games could be better, dosn't really matter the Yanks win in the end. What ever happened to the trade talks for Rocket, I'd like to see him go back to Boston.

I was just thinking about the possibility of Randy Johnson going to New York and I started wondering how many other baseball fans there were on this board?

There is no real threat of a draft, besides how wildly unpopular it would be, and the parallels that would immediately be drawn with Vietnam, the many pentagon officials believe that the draft was never a particularly good idea, as it got them a lot of people who didn’t want to be in the military.

Nice use of sic Betsy :-)

First on the subject of the Golden One. While at least with the main character we see a gradual process that leads him to assert his individuality, though 50 pages is hardly gradual. With the Golden One she with very limited contact with the hero decides to run off and join him. Considering the extent to which Rand pushes the point about social conditioning in the book this seems very unlikely. During the book we get some limited insight into what the protagonist is thinking to help explain his transition, but without any real insight into the Golden One she comes across as very flat. Flat because the only sense of her in the book is that of the main character’s desire for her. It is hard to get a sense of the Golden One as a real person and not just of an image in the protagonists head. My point that Rand’s works are much better philosophically the literarily, is a more complex one best made on a book by book basis. So to limit the scope I’ll only deal with Anthem and won’t draw any lager conclusions. My single biggest problem with Anthem is the incredibly obvious way the plot unfolds. Almost as soon as the book begins it’s fairly obvious that the protagonist is going to eventually rebel against and leave the society. Furthermore the book is far to obvious in its criticism of the society. While Atlas Shrugged slowly draws out how some ideals lead to the ruination of society Anthem tries to work backwards, to much less effect. It is harder to see that this would happen when you start with a world already in shambles.

Don't quite your day job.

It is surprising to see such a strong negative opinion of a character played out in a spark note, but Anthem is a fairly mediocre literary work. All of Rand’s works are much better in terms of philosophy them in terms of literary quality. A more apt idea of The Golden One would probably have been to call her a poorly developed character, who we seem to have no real sense of throughout the book, and who acts in a fairly inexplicable way.

I’m not sure you're right about Socrates' views on civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a process to bring about a democratic change in laws. Socrates being a citizen of Athens certainly supported the democratic process as a way to change laws. While civil disobedience usually involves a violation of a law it's not intended to bring about a defacto destruction of the law, it's just a way to show your lack of support. P.S. "Does civil disobedience somehow fit within this framework? To find out, we must first define civil disobedience. My trusty desktop dictionary lacks an entry, so I will resort to making my own." --Ouch

Bush is much more religious then his father ever was. PBS ran a great documentary on how during Bush I's term in the White House his son actually pressed him more toward religion. To see evidence of his religious nature one needs to look no further the his snap answer to the question of favorite philosopher during the republican primary 4 years ago, when he answered Jesus.

There is one factual mistake in this thread, the idea that jury nullification is illegal. Juror’s cannot be charged with contempt with court for nullification, and cannot discuss what was said so as to incriminate anyone even if it were against the law. One of the odd contradictions of the American legal system is even though jury nullification is legal, it is not always legal for the lawyer to tell the jury they have such an option.

The second article said that some one had lodged a complaint, I just think it would be funny if it had be Castro complaining.

Now if the basis of objective law is to only harm those who have done harm, then should things like perjury and impeding a police investigation be crimes as no direct harm is done?

My difficulty comes in considering the fact that I think the crime she was charged with, impeding a police investigation etc, should be crimes but what she was charged with covering up shouldn't be. I believe I would find her not guilty because while I would usually find someone guilty if they committed a crime to cover up what shouldn't be a crime, ex: committing perjury to cover up an affair. She was only scared into committing this crime by unjust government regulation.

My question is more along the lines of If they could prove her guilty of lying would you convict her?