Nicky

Chink is an ethnic slur. When the guy used "chink in the armor" in a headline about Lin, it was an (obviously intentional) double entendre, with the ethnic slur meaning of "chink" as the pun. Don't get me wrong, I'm not cheering for the guy's firing, it's clearly a PC police over-reaction. But it was a mistake to go for that in a ESPN headline (it would've been OK if he was in a comedy club). An internal memo telling everyone to cut it out would've sufficed, but the headline was indeed out of line. The clever workaround doesn't change that.

What do you think the word "important" means, if it's not a description of the level of concern something ought to be afforded? Btw., are there any mods here who's goto argument isn't that "you can't read well enough"? No one cares about either Obama's or Ron Paul's after the fact moral condemnation. Besides, that's obviously not "actively preventing" anything. As for the other thing, I guess Obama could walk up to Bibi Netanyahu and stab him, too. But that's just as obviously out of the realm of possibility as him committing treason to Iran. The fact is that Obama is discouraging Israel from attacking Iran by threatening to withhold some of the US military aid and strategic support, and by refusing to use superior US capabilities to facilitate the attack. Which is of course pretty bad, but even if he kept all his threats, Israel would still receive more US support than Ron Paul is setting out to provide them with.

Why are you singling out corporations? Corporations aren't the only legal persons who aren't individual human beings, but rather an organization of individuals. There are also cooperatives, associations, trusts, unions, charities, sovereign states, municipalities, religious organizations, sects, international organizations, temples etc. Oh, and the answer to why all these legal persons have legal rights is on the wikipedia page of the concept legal persons. First, internationally: Second, in the invariably superior legal system of the United States: You're wrong. First, financially: shareholders are putting up and risking their own money. No one else's. What's it to you whether the risk is great or small. And what does "otherwise" mean? If the government made it impossible for me to hand my money over to some hotshot corporate executive for safekeeping, I would be more responsible with it? How do you know? Maybe my next best option would be Vegas. Second, from a criminal law perspective: As explained in the wikipedia article, the legal personality does not protect individual participants from criminal prosecution. Corporate executives and shareholders are held to the same standard of criminal responsibility as everyone else. There is nothing in corporate law stating otherwise.

You wrote: "The difference is that Paul's option doesn't result in thousands of US deaths". Neither. The US President doesn't have the power to do that. How specifically do you think Obama could stop an Israeli attack on Iran?

Would you? When? Right now, you're not arguing, you're just stating. Libertarians often use "thou shalt not use force" as a commandment. That's not a rational argument. Force is perfectly justified in defense of individual rights. Force is the only means by which one can defend individual rights. Rand said "The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others." Very different from what you are saying.

For one, those countries don't have the same ideology the US has. Not in practice (unlike the US, they have done very little to defend freedom in the past 50 years), and not even in theory (their laws are nothing like the constitution built on the principle of individual rights the US has). Second, the US, as an economic superpower, comes into contact with Iran more often than smaller western countries. But when a smaller country that is willing to defend its citizens' freedom does get involved with Iran, or other Islamists, there is usually conflict. Denmark and the UK had their embassies attacked just recently, all over the Muslim world, including in Iran.

It's a simple, but very general question. The simple answer to your simple question is that it depends on the context it takes place in. The proper principles to apply to these contexts should be that of property rights, not environmentalist ideology. Now, if you care to be more specific about the context, we'll be happy to answer or direct you to a different thread (I at least will do it with a link, not by just telling you about the search function. I never understood why people feel the need to tell someone there's a search function on a forum. There always is, and everyone already knows it).

I meant that they are being assholes. They could still be nice to their friends and children, but in that situation they're assholes.

Spending time thinking never does. It will definitely help. That much I know for a fact. I'm also pretty sure, however, that you won't be able to get rid of your anger quickly. I don't understand exactly what it is that you're feeling, but whatever it is, it's not just going to go away because you began to deal with it. However, the fact that you are dealing with it should give you hope that it will eventually go away. So, in that sense, you might feel better about it, and cut yourself some slack about it, right away.

The American government should defend its' citizens' interests, and the welfare of the nation as a whole. That's not synonymous with only caring about American lives. The world is interconnected, and the lives and safety of foreigners living in Europe, the Middle East, etc., not to mention the natural resources in that region, are just as important to the future of the US as the lives of Americans. So I strongly disagree with your arbitrary distinction on who's lives should and who's shouldn't be considered, in this Paul vs. Bush/Obama arithmetic. You make that sound like it's a bad thing, by leaving out the part where we support Al Saud and other monarchies (including Jordan, the UAE, Dubai, Bahrain, etc. which are quite civilized) in the face of worse alternatives, not against freedom minded individualists. If you consider that part, then that support becomes a net positive. They might not be fully rational, but Gingrich and John Bolton would do a good job leading American foreign policy. Too bad Gingrich is unelectable. Ron Paul, on the other hand, would be much worse than Obama. He would abandon the Middle East, and hope that the enemy taking it over wouldn't affect us. But it would, to an extent that would make the cost of our poorly fought wars seem like nothing in comparison. Well, one of them is over. And Iraq has a better government than it had before. That's positive change. What's hopeless about it? I'm not. I like some of ARI's ideas on foreign policy, but I think their criticism of US foreign policy is much too harsh. A lot of the purported altruistic motives given for wars, for instance, are just for show. Behind the scenes the US has a more self interested, principled and long term foreign policy than the people at ARI give it credit.

I don't get angry or care either. But I do have an opinion about it. I tend to have an opinion about pretty much everything. Why is that ridiculous?

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.

Just to make sure I'm clear, I'm not advocating "meditation" to help keep in control. In fact I'm with aequalsa on that, do martial arts to learn to control your anger. I'm merely suggesting spending time "rising above" the cloud of emotions and the immediacy of everyday life, from time to time, as a means to better focus on being objective about applying the philosophy you learned, to your everyday life. Some people call that meditation, but people who don't call it meditation do it too. Probably better, given the religious overtones of the word meditation. The point is, I don't think you need to "learn how to do this", from people who "meditate". The essence of it is the thinking and being objective part, not the form. Continue studying how to be logical and objective, from outside sources, and then just take the time and do the thinking part on your own. I would hate for you to think that I suggested you should embrace any religious or pseudo-religious practice, by asking such practitioners about meditation. I'm not suggesting that. There are two parts to being an Objectivist (or ascribing to any rational system of ideas). Understanding the ideas, and figuring out how to apply them to your own life without the bias of emotions or false premises. The latter is something pretty much everyone who becomes rational in some or all aspects of their lives after running into trouble, rather than grows up pretty much rational, struggles with. You need to focus on the disparity between your philosophical beliefs (which you embraced after a process of rational analysis), and your everyday life (which is still driven by premises that aren't fully rational). The way to do that is to do lots and lots of thinking, about how to properly apply the ideas you adopted, to your life. The best time to do that thinking is when you can deliberately remove yourself from as much of the interference as possible, because that's when it's less likely that your judgement is affected.

There were a couple more caveats in there. I disagree that your statement accurately characterizes the situation. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other parts of the Middle East are not a total failure. More than that, the failures don't define the situation. We aren't winning, but we are certainly holding the line. Sometimes we're doing more than just holding the line, actually. The enemy is doing worse than we are, let's just put it that way. Is that due to our superior firepower? Someone in the other Ron Paul thread already answered that: our superior firepower is due to our moral superiority. We are not all that great, and we are not winning decisively, but we are doing better because we are morally superior to the enemy. Until I hear Ron Paul say that, I will continue considering him a relativist, and in general a rambling idiot when it comes to international affairs.

To be ready for war. Possibly deter it.

I read it. I didn't respond to that part, because I agree with it. I responded to the part I disagree with. First off, a cart boy can't tell which customer is busy and which isn't. So the store is left with only two options, as their official policy: 1. follow everyone to their cars, and take their carts when they're done. 2. encourage busy customers to leave their carts next to their parking space and drive away, because a cart boy will find it and pick it up. The first is impractical, the second is a lawsuit waiting to happen. That's why no store would ever adopt a policy that encourages busy customers to just leave their carts in an area not marked for that purpose. If you leave your cart in an area that isn't clearly designated to hold carts, then you are an asshole.

Forced on them by whom? I think you're misusing your meme there, fella.

There are three separate items in your post: 1. America's poor choice of goals (civilizing Afghanistan, rather than defeating the Taliban and eradicating Al-Qaeda). 2. Its inability to achieve its goals. 3. Its lack of will to use its capabilities to achieve its goals. I'd say we have two goals: defeat the enemy and civilize it. And the only way to achieve the latter is to first achieve the former. We do have the capability to achieve both, if we were to attempt them in the correct order. What we lack is the will. Or more specifically, the intellectual and moral clarity to fully understand what should be done. As for what emboldens Iran, it's none of those things. They have even less of a concept of right goals, moral clarity, etc. than our leaders. Besides, that government doesn't strike me as something being lead by a strong thinker, good or evil. It's a pack of savages, reacting to basic stimuli, trying to outbid each other in fanaticism and hatred of the West (and of voices of reason within Iran). They're emboldened by general weakness, however it manifests itself: it's everything from our unwillingness to do what's necessary, to our willingness to waste resources where it isn't necessary. However, we are still willing to act sometimes, and keep some of our resources available to do so. And that might even be enough, to deal with Iran. It is certainly better than what Ron Paul is proposing.

P.S. Change the way you view the world (and this is by no means easy, it takes a huge intellectual effort, and it needs to be made precisely when thinking about people and situations that piss you off or scare you), and your emotions will follow. "meditation" serves precisely to make this process of intellectual reflection easier, by creating moments in your day away (emotionally removed, not physically away) from the stress of a job or relationship, and the cloud of emotions that come with that stress. I doubt it's necessary or useful to actually engage in any kind of a ritual while "meditating", but identifying the act of clearing your mind (finding a period of peace by rising above the stress of life) with a word is certainly helpful. But whatever you call it, "meditation" is not meant to stop you from becoming angry or from acting violently, right there in the moment. It's not "stop and count to ten, and hopefully your next decision will be better than it otherwise would've been". That's idiocy. It is supposed to help you be objective about your life by putting some distance, emotionally, between your thoughts and the immediacy and personal emotional implications of their content, which then, after a long while (years even), will begin to have a positive effect on your view of life, values and ultimately emotions.

Emotions are the products of your own mind. They are sub-conscious reaction, sure, but they are a reflection of your most fundamental premises and inner most values, premises and values which you, at some point during your life (possibly in your childhood), one way or another (fully aware or just by copying others), chose to accept. While aequalsa's advice is sound, and you should take it as an intermediary solution (besides, there are other benefits to learning MMA or Krav Maga, not just anger control), the more fundamental answer lies in identifying the false premises which lead you to get angry and violent. Under what circumstances do you consider violence to be acceptable? (the right answer isn't "Never", but it is "Almost never.", and in the context of a civilized society "never outside direct self defense, in an emergency situation".) When do you feel wronged by another person, and to what degree? Do you differentiate between being treated unfairly, having your rights violated to some degree, and being seriously harmed, for instance? Also, when you are treated unfairly (as we all are, pretty much every day of our lives - because not many people have perfect or even good judgment), what do you think the cause is? Do you blame a malevolent system, a malevolent person, an error in the system, an error in judgement a person made? What standard of evidence should one require, before allowing themselves to assume malevolence rather than error, and even then what is the appropriate response: fight or flight (confrontation or avoidance, conflict or passive refusal to engage)?

By that logic, we should also keep their cleaning crew busy, by just dumping stuff on the floor instead of a trash can. The cart boy isn't employed to help out people who can't be bothered to return the carts. He's employed to fix the mess their douchebag anti-social behavior causes, before it affects the civilized customers.

I know.

That's a solid argument to not make someone else the beneficiary of your actions. Doing so will in fact destroy you in the long run. That is an argument Ayn Rand made against altruism. But It's not an argument for anything. It's not an argument for being selfish. You should also use these terms, by the way: beneficiary of your actions, selfishness, altruism, etc. The notion of "beneficiary of your morality" is very confusing, it would be much clearer to say "to choose selfishness as your morality".

It's not. In fact to me, the most important beneficiary of your (alleged) morality is myself.

It's the only reason you gave. It has nothing to do with understanding. Everyone understands what you are saying. You aren't saying anything complicated, and we (or the people running for President) aren't retarded. We get it. You think the Iranian army and leadership's support for anti-American and anti-Israeli terror is caused by our backing of the shah. We understand. We just don't agree. It's a simplistic, concrete bound view of international affairs and human nature. The Iranian leadership is a group of antisemitic, religious fundamentalist, militant Muslims who hate western values, especially liberty. All their actions, starting with their brutal oppression of their own people, to their support of Hezbollah, to their attempts to silence dissent all the way to London (does the name Salman Rushdie mean anything to you?) and Copenhagen, prove that. Their ideology is fundamentally antithetical to ours. That is what is causing the conflict. Your simplistic concept of "blowback" doesn't explain why the Iranian regime behaves the way they are: it isn't causing them to murder thousands of their own population, to beat women on the street with sticks, to whip rape victims in public, to sponsor terror attacks against Jewish tourists or schoolchildren, or to bi-weekly declare the destruction of Israel as God's will.