Old Toad

Obama finds [more] room for lobbyists By Kenneth P. Vogel, Mike Allen Full article, with names of exceptions known so far: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090128/pl_politico/18128

By Laurie Goodstein Full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/polit...ith.html?ref=us Even the Democrats do not support separation of church and state, anymore.

I don't think it is limited to that, but rather based on NY State income tax reports, for example: "Wall Street Bonuses Plummeted 44 Percent During 2008" Article of this morning on Bloomberg at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home [Oops. I edited to delete a part I could not substantiate.]

One of many: http://thepage.time.com/obama-remarks-foll...hner-and-biden/

For inspiration: —Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Obama's full remarks today after meeting with new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner are below: Vice-President Joe Biden agreed, and went further. Senator Christopher Dodd, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, told reporters: Here comes more government regulation of businesses and the economy. We all know how fiscally responsible the government is, so this "regulation" is surely going to be a big "help."

Wow. It is beautiful.

Thank you, Diana. Perhaps I took your prior words too literally.

I understand completely. I did not ask you to write up any personal or graphic descriptions, and I am not really interested in reading that, either. On this type of issue, I think studies are better evidence than anecdotal evidence. Randroid's testimony from personal experience prompted me to look for more scientific discussion and evidence. Again, this is not my claim or proof, and I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I wrote that your positive, factual assertion appears to be mistaken, as in not supported by the evidence of studies summarized and cited on one webpage. Further, contrary to your weak effort to discredit it as being just "one person's web site," the web page appears to be a rather credible effort to make an unbiased summary of several studies. It may be that circumcision does have an impact on sexual pleasure, and it would not surprise me if it did. This is not sufficient to make me believe there is one. In your opening post, you wrote: "What say you?" This is what I say. If you think I'm wrong and don't want to discuss further, that's fine.

It is more evidence and of better quality than: Besides, the positive factual assertion was yours. The weight of the evidence of studies summarized on one web page does not support it, even taking into account Randroid's anecdotal testimony and giving fair credit what you have anecdotally heard from more than a few other men. If you have some more evidence to offer, like Maarten, that might help. Respectfully, I think Peikoff's standard was on principle, and it would apply regardless of whether circumcision made sex worse, no different, or even better.

Interesting, Maarten, but I am not convinced that sensitivity to small electric shocks is the same thing as measuring whether or not "it feels different when having sex." The nature and scale of the physical sensations of sex may not be particularly related to the minute sensitivity differences to small electric shocks. At least for me, "sex" is a complex emotional and sensory experience of a special kind, not a set of isolated, small electric shocks applied with metal probes. My science is rusty and I never got much into statistics, but seems to me that asking thousands of people about "it" and getting "it doesn't feel any different" would be a reasonably objective way to determine that "it doesn't feel any different." Maybe a study should be made using a method using some kind of brain response meter? Perhaps that would make be a more direct, objectively measurable determination of any difference?

Taking Randroid’s personal testimony and other published data into account, it appears that this ground is factually mistaken. Also, it does not appear from the cited transcript of Dr. Peikoff’s podcast that he necessarily agrees with this ground for opposing circumcision. His standard is: “the biologically normal.”

Thank you, Randroid, for providing us with your testimony and personal experience. I sincerely appreciate the information. An article on About.com summarizing several studies evidences the same thing: http://sexuality.about.com/od/malesexualhe...ircumcised2.htm

In a written statement, John McCain, R-Ariz., said he was "disappointed" that President Obama has waived his executive order "so soon."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...days-after.html I'm thinking of starting a blog to keep a public watch on this pragmatist.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/a_national_...reconciliation/ I personally reject this calling. I SWEAR BY MY LIFE AND MY LOVE OF IT THAT I WILL NEVER LIVE FOR THE SAKE OF ANOTHER MAN, NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR MINE. -- OT

December 2008 2008 "STATE OF NTOS" REPORT As the Organizer for our North Texas Objectivist Society, I am pleased to give our annual "State of NTOS" report to our membership. In considering the State of NTOS, remember that we have only been active since February 2005, which is less than four years. Membership Right now, NTOS has 240 members. This is the net result of 457 people having signed up to express interest in NTOS, of which 207 have left of their own accord for various reasons (many because their e-mail address goes bad). Although it has sometimes been stressful to manage, in my judgment under our bylaws I have removed only 10 people for not respecting our membership terms (only one in 2008). On average, nearly 10 people sign up to express interest in NTOS each month. Many of our members (including past members) have brought spouses, some have brought children, and some have brought friends to visit with us. Social Events In 2008, we organized 37 events, including hosting two Objectivist speakers. Altogether, in less than four years we have organized 120 events, including social gatherings, cultural events, and five Objectivist speaker events with extended social receptions for the speakers. My wife and I hosted our first "event" at "the Ranch" (our home) in February 2005 with 11 people -- including my family of five. With that start, we have already hosted 71 social events in our home, counting regular events plus special holiday events and speaker receptions. Our social events at "the Ranch" typically attract 25 - 35 people. Our largest social events so far have been our Thanksgiving potlucks, which attract 40-50 people, including families with children. We truly appreciate all the wonderful food our members have contributed to these special celebration events. Counting the estimated attendance to our events, we have already hosted about 1,750 person visits to our home, including children. In addition, taking into account that each social event at the Ranch has been at least 8 hours long, and many of them have lasted until the wee hours of the next morning, I estimate that we have had gatherings in our home totaling about 600 hours! In addition, we have organized about 50 other special interest events, including Objectivist speakers, going to the movies, restaurants, theatrical shows, and fun outings to places like Scarborough Faire. Objectivist Speaker Events We have started to host guest speakers. Our first five Objectivist speakers were: Craig Biddle on November 4, 2006; Andrew Bernstein on March 24, 2007; John Ridpath on October 13, 2007; Andrew Bernstein on May 16, 2008; and An Objectivist art historian on August 8, 2008. So far, we have 30-40 people attend our speaker events. We are planning to host at least one Objectivist scholar to speak to NTOS in 2009! Engagement Announcement! In case you missed it, I am honored to include in this report the engagement of our own Santiago and Kelly, who met through NTOS! Santiago and Kelly met in person at an NTOS event about one year ago. Kelly was visiting Texas from Colorado and had decided to join us for last year's Winter Solstice Party. Santiago was there and it was love at ... well, I do not know that part. Santiago moved to Colorado last summer to be with Kelly, and he proposed just a couple of days ago. We will ask Santiago and Kelly more about it when we see them! My wife and I are pleased and honored to host an engagement party for Santiago and Kelly on Saturday, January 17, 2009. Please join us to celebrate their happy engagement. As they live in Colorado, we can only hope to see Santiago and Kelly about once a year. If you are new to NTOS, please feel most welcome to join us! We always look forward to meeting more people interested in Ayn Rand's works and Objectivism. Engagement Party for Santiago & Kelly @ the Ranch! Sat, Jan 17, 2009 @ 6:30 pm Please RSVP at http://www.meetup.com/Objectivist-Society/.../thread/5983849 Message-Board Forum I also just counted the posts on our NTOS message board: Discussion Threads: 800+ Replies on Discussion Threads: 4,200+ Total Posts: about 5,000 Please visit our active NTOS Message-Board forum, including the "Table of Contents" (which I need to update again) at: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/boards/ Newsletter Project For 2009, we are planning to start an e-mail newsletter for NTOS, including with news and information about our members, if they would like to share it with our community. Billboard Advertising! This is “last year’s news,” but I still find it exciting. In 2007, we raised more than $2,000 to take out billboards-by-the-day, which were published in September of that year! These billboards simply said: "Who is John Galt?" "Objectivist Society . Com" A picture of one of the billboards is here: http://files.meetup.com/14542/Billboard%209-19-07.jpg Each of these three billboards was up for 2 or 3 days and could be seen by about 200,000+ vehicles per day, and I estimate nearly 3/4 of a million people had the opportunity to see the billboards. Although we had hoped for more response, we found about 10 new NTOS members and participants through these billboards. Each person who joins and participates is like a seed for further growth. For 2009, we need to continue to make efforts to promote interest in Objectivism and our local Objectivist society. Objectivism Reading & Discussion Group In addition, in 2006-07 we had a lively "OPAR" discussion group with about 6-10 people who attended each time. We are looking to start it up again this spring. Another project I am working on is continuing and building upon an e-mail discussion of Objectivism, which I started in the fall of 2008. Our "About" Page I think most importantly, although it may not seem like it to most of us, we have been continuing to learn how to manage an Objectivist social group, and most of our management principles have been committed to writing on our "About" page at: http://AynRand.Meetup.Com/71/About/ This year I have added a section to our "About" page for our Constitution, including regarding the Organizers and our Organizing Principles. This is a commitment regarding what the NTOS Organizers will do – and, just as importantly, what we will not do – in the name of the North Texas Objectivist Society and its membership. I attribute some of our success in building NTOS to the explicit statement of its organizing principles and bylaws. The "About" page provides a great deal of information about NTOS, including what we are offering, why, who we welcome, and how we manage NTOS. One of the best ways one can decide whether to support and participate NTOS is to review our "About" page, especially its Constitution and Bylaws. I sincerely welcome questions and constructive criticisms regarding our "About" page, as I am constantly working to improve NTOS. Management E-Mails In looking at our e-mails relating to NTOS, I have sent or received upwards of 15,000 over the past four years! This is a lot to keep up with! (This includes e-mails I receive regarding matters that may be of interest to the membership of NTOS.) I should mention that I do not see the e-mails between our members, of course, so I am sure we have more e-mail traffic among us than even I see. I estimate that any particular member is only seeing about 2% of our e-mail traffic. Thanking the Assistant Organizers and Members of NTOS It is important for us to recognize the Assistant Organizers and members of NTOS, without whose time, financial support, and participation NTOS would be impossible. First, I must honor and thank my wife, Julia. She inspired me to build NTOS for our family. She has been extraordinarily supportive in hosting our events in our home. How she has graciously hosted 71 major social events for 25-50 people at a time in less than four years while running our Montessori school with over 100 children, raising our own three children, and keeping me in line, too, I do not know. She has been a constant friend, reference, and balance for me in managing NTOS and in my life. I also thank my parents, Franco & JulieAnne, who introduced me to Ayn Rand and Objectivism at a very young age. They have also been extremely helpful in hosting our events and they have made substantial financial contributions to NTOS, especially for helping us host each of our Objectivist speaker events. Several other members have made substantial financial donations, which help us with the costs for NTOS. I regret that I have not kept good records in this regard, so I cannot give everyone who has given additional financial support to us the full public credit that is due. I will try to do better with this in the future. Please Visit Us! To those who are regularly participating in our social events, you make this possible for all of us to enjoy, Thank you! If you have not visited us, we hope you will soon join us for one of our events and visit us when you can. If you have any questions about NTOS, please feel free to contact me via Meetup's e-mail system. -- "Old Toad" Organizer North Texas Objectivist Society

Congratulations! The North Texas Objectivist Society is pleased to host an engagement party for Santiago & Kelly! (They will be traveling down to Texas!) If you are in the area at the time, please join us to celebrate their happy engagement. Engagement Party for Santiago & Kelly @ "the Ranch" (Dallas area, Texas), Sat, Jan 17, 2008 @ 6:30 pm! http://www.meetup.com/Objectivist-Society/calendar/9381528/

Yes, “anti-discrimination laws” do violate the right of association, more particularly, the corollary right of an individual to not associate with others for any reason (good or bad). Recognizing gay as legally equal to heterosexual marriage would presumably implicate welfare rights, too, resulting in higher taxes, etc. Government welfare should not exist, of course, because it violates property rights of others, of course. The situation of defining gay marriage as legally equal to heterosexual marriage in all situations (including under various anti-discrimination laws, employment laws, etc.) also forces others to recognize the relationship and treat it the same against their right to not associate. RB, I apologize for not making the relevance of my prior response clear. I was attempting to respond to this: I think a court (or legislature) deciding that two people can engage in “certain types” of contracts under a certain definition ("marriage”) will have certain types of consequences to other people in our mixed economy. This topic includes not only the undisputed right of gays to associate in life partnerships (at least I do not dispute it), but includes the consequences of defining that type of relationship as "marriage," which implicates many other laws. More generally – apart from the gay marriage issue in particular -- what I am challenging is your idea that the government has no role at all in defining “marriage” (or other partnerships, etc.). Disputes arise between couples (of any sex) regarding whether or not they had entered even into a “marriage.” Similar issues arise in business partnerships, including whether or not the parties had even entered into a business partnership. One party may claim there is a “marriage” or other type of partnership and the other denies it existed at all. Many important consequences flow from whether or not there was such a relationship and the default terms of such a relationship. The government does have a role in defining what is sufficient indicia of a “marriage” or any other type of partnership and what is not – so that in cases where the parties have not expressly agreed on the nature of the relationship, it can apply the default terms. These relationships also affect others in relationship with them, including expectations regarding joint liability (or lack of it), etc. DavidOdden, Thanks for the clarification regarding your current questions on whether justice is a right. I would be glad to discuss these issues with you in more detail – though I don’t necessarily know all the answers, either. I am running out of time this morning, however, so I cannot write more now.

I agree that the individual right at stake is the freedom of association. But the corollary of the freedom of association is the freedom to not associate. The issue of recognizing and formalizing gay relationships as "marriage" or "civil union" necessarily implicates the corollary under many current laws that abrogate the freedom of association. For example, if there are laws regarding employment that require no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and then it is added that everyone must "recognize" and deal with an employee in a gay "marriage" or "civil union," this forces an employer to not only hire a gay person against his bigoted judgment, but also to recognize and extend benefits against his judgment. This adds insult and injury to the employer's freedom of association. The issue of recognizing gay marriage is not solely as between the gay partners. In our mixed law and economy context, the government recognition of gay "marriage" or "civil union" -- even if only court recognition -- implicates the corollary freedom of others not to associate.

Hello David, I do not think there is objective justice in arguing for the “rights” of a particular class of persons while being silent on the issue of individual rights. If one does so, he should recognize that what he is fighting for is not individual rights, but class privileges. I am not sure I understand your point regarding “justice” and inheritance, but I think the question is justice to whom? There is no “individual right” to an inheritance of another person’s property. The issue is the right is of the person who owns the property to dispose of it as he wishes, including upon his death. The person should write a will to express his intentions. In the absence of a will, the law of inheritance can only be an approximation of how a typical person would be expected to want to dispose of his property under various circumstances. It is not proper for a court to determine this from the biased testimony of his relatives and friends competing for a share of his property after his death. It is the role of the legislature to determine objective standards for these situations, trying to get the law to reflect some norm of the optional values of the individuals it represents. The approximations are often very "wrong" in a particular case, i.e., different than the particular person would actually have wished, but it is only a default and the result is not unjust to the person who failed to express his different wishes. If a person fails to provide differently in a will, he has failed to act on his values, to which his relatives and friends would have no “right” except based on his rights and wishes. A person can lobby or advocate changes in the default inheritance provisions provided by the legislature, if he wishes. But it is not a matter of the individual rights of relatives or friends of a deceased person. It is the rights of the deceased person that matter in disposing of his property. This is to whom the justice is owed.

How is recognizing gay relationships as "marriage" or "civil union" necessary to resolve any of these issues (which are indeed matters of individual rights)?

An individual right to immigrate is not recognized by the U.S. There are many and varied classes of people denied immigration. It appears the argument for “gay rights” of immigration is not being made based on individual rights at all, but on seeking recognition of a privilege for a specific class. Fair enough in context, but call a spade a spade. How is “not automatically inheriting” property a violation of an individual right? If I want to bequeath a gift to a friend in Canada upon my death but I have to write a will to do it, how is that a violation of anyone’s individual rights? How is having to “to go through all sorts of legal hoops” a violation of an individual right? Yes, the issues mentioned on this thread are “a big deal,” but “a bid deal” does not an individual right make. Please identify the individual right you are fighting for and fight for it -- or concede that you are fighting for government recognition of gay relationships and leave “rights” out of it. If we want to preserve and advocate true individual rights, we should not confuse the concept of “rights.” Thank you. I agree with the first part, but I respectfully disagree with the last sentence. It is a proper function of the government to establish standards and norms for various types of relationship structures, including “marriage” or “corporation.” One reason is to formalize the “standard” nature of the relationship between the parties in the relationship structure and provide objective standards for the courts to use in resolving disputes in the innumerable cases where the parties themselves have not expressly established all the terms of their relationship or not anticipated all the issues that might arise. Further, the government can properly establish “traffic rules of the civil road” (my term) by recognizing (or not recognizing) the formalized structure of various types of relationships. This provides for the general nature of the relationship of the formalized structure (the “entity”) with persons who are not parties to that entity, i.e., who are "outside" the entity but have contact it. For example, if I have a car accident with one of the marital partners of a "marriage," the law can establish rules regarding under what circumstances both partners may be financially responsible, even if I have never met the marital partners in advance and we have not specifically agreed in advance regarding liability in case of such an accident. The law can establish that the marital relationship alone may be a sufficient basis for both being financially responsible for the accident of either or that that more is required, such as the partners having bought the car together or with partnership monies. There may be many options in this regard, but specifying one of them is hugely advantageous, like specifying which side of the road to drive on in traffic laws. A similar advantage of formalizing relationships is present in case one has an accident with the delivery truck of a local corporate business. If the corporation complies with the minimum government formalities (including assets or liability insurance), the government recognizes a corporate entity and one cannot sue the individual stockholders of the corporation regarding the accident. But if the government decides not to recognize a corporate structure, no individual rights are violated. In cases of the government formalizing and recognizing such entities, the parties (inside the entity or those dealing with it) are generally free to agree to different terms, if they wish and take the trouble to do so.

I think that arguing for a right on the wrong principle – including by using a name that could be easily confused with some form of “collective rights” – can severely undermine the argument and the chances for success, and even risk the proper principle itself. Broader terms such as “individual rights,” “civil rights,” “political freedoms,” and “political rights” do not have this risk. Would you please identify the specific individual right that is being eliminated? Also, this argument would apply equally to polygamy. Does it violate a polygamist’s individual rights that polygamy is not included and sanctioned as “marriage” under the law? What about the myriad issues for polygamists regarding employment benefits for spouses, immigration, children, mortgages, taxes, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.? Regarding “marriage” in particular and government recognition of such a relationship, Ayn Rand wrote: —Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 4. Concepts of Consciousness, pp. 36-37. —Ayn Rand, The Letters of Ayn Rand, The Later Years (1960-1981), p. 580 (original emphasis)