Styles2112

There is no emotional need only rational observation and evaluation. No need to get insulting. What "harm" would come to humans, may I ask?

What you are talking about here is colonialism. Basically, you just said,"We should have forced them to be exactly like us." While maybe a nice thought (and it is), it's not PRACTICAL. Not to mention the fact they would not accept this and we'd probably be in a WORSE situation than we are as we probably would've invoked the anger (moreso) of the rest of the Arab world. Again, we're barely handling Iraq, what makes you think we can handle the rest of the Middle East without European help? (Which, again, reverts back to that consent issue.) Not to mention that such a move would, possibly, have angered European countries and made them even more anti-American. We are in the unfortunate position of seeing what's right, but having to walk a delicate line to prove it, and prove it we must.

We have proof that Dogs, AND most other animals dream. Isn't that PROOF in itself of conceptual activity? Also, what about animals rescuing humans in tragedies? (especially ones not implicitly taught to do so?) Since animals have no "Volition" therefor no actual values assigned, ALL animals would do nothing more than run away based on their assigned instincts. But, in the cases where dogs jump into rivers to rescue people or the dog comes and jumps on the bed and barks to wake his owners, he/she shows value interest in those humans, THUS showing not only volition but value systems OUTSIDE of self-preservation. Doesn't learning, in ITSELF, present volition? The idea to choose what to, and what not to learn? How could birds learn to count without being able to conceptualize? How can ALL animals learn HUMAN words and understand their meaning without being able to conceptualize?

Why should I trust you? What knowledge or experience do you have? Have we showed them "the stick" in Iraq? Are they supporting us now? I haven't seen it. What conclusions have brought you to this?

Egypt has also allowed us use of there land (pre-war/conflict) for military exercises (My father having participated in one of them). I would consider Egypt a decent ally.

I need to go back and listen to the "New World Symphony" It's been a long while since I've heard it, and I don't even remember if I liked it.

I think you would need more than your own speculation on a larger example here. You are, unfortunately, dealing with an ideology here, not a political mindset. The Middle East (Muslims) are a proud bunch and will not take an invasion lightly. Europe has already hinted at its displeasure at us taking on multiple Middle Easter Countries. How many countries can we PRACTICALLY take on at once? Unfortunately, there is just not enough justification for EVEN a larger scale conflict that we're talking about. You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that it was all worth it. There, however does have to be consequences for those actions. Just saying,"whoops, we were wrong" doesn't bring back the dead, nor help a politically failing government. I agree, we make decisions based on the information we have. To be honest, I think Iraq warranted invasion. My argument here, is not just the invasion itself, but how it was done, how it was presented, and now what it's consequences will bring. So far, the consequences have not been with in our "National Self-Interest." Okay, you're right. But, it will hold up assuming there are multiple businesses. There are certain things that business do not do to each other. Take Atlas Shrugged for instance and how the businesses interacted in that. No one respected the companies that FORCED the takeovers. I liken that to American just invading whom they feel like based on an unjustified "National Self-Interest." Afghanistan was one thing, the invasion of Iraq is a whole other. But, then like I said, there's a bit too much conflicting info out there to TRULY see what the goals and intentions were. So we're forced to speculate based on media knowledge and political presentation. What I suggested earlier. Granted much of this is based on personal bias, but, I suggest we remove troops from most other countries (unless they're paying us, and paying us GOOD to be there), and we invest in a MUCH better Homeland Defense (The stories I've heard about things getting through airline security and other things...it's atrocious), and a better anti-terrorist force. Germany and Italy have some of the best anti/counter terrorism forces in the WORLD and it would not be a horrible idea to emulate those forces (coupled by a MUCH higher funded Intelligence force, which is KEY here.)

Sure, if you just want to bomb the hell out of everyone. But, then you run a VERY high risk of angering much more powerful European countries who are ALREADY feeling the colonialism of the new American Foreign Policy. Personnel-wise, the military is just stretched too thin (between Iraq/Afghanistan/Korea), which is also why we're currently struggling in Iraq. I'm, also, pretty sure the American public has no interest in reinstating the draft for America to just go out and conquer whomever they feel like just for "National Self-Interest."

It's not so much about permission as it is about support and money. We do not have the money to successfully invade the middle East, thus it would require support from other nations. Had Europe fully backed us on this, you can bet this would have been over already. I, as in me, don't think we need to ask anyone for support in defending ourselves, but I think it would be marginal, at best, to say that invading Iraq had ANYTHING to do with defending ourselves (That's what Afghanistan was for). I think (to answer your questions) the opinions of other countries are relevant because we, the United States, cannot take on the whole world. We are just not that powerful. Not militarily, and not (anymore) finicially. Just like you can't do certain things at work without your co-worker's consent or Boss's consent, it is generally frowned upon to invade other countries without ABSOLUTE proof that they were a danger. And I'm pretty sure that other countries will not suffice with the,"We're a free country, which gives us the right to invade other countries to make them free."

Strange. That's what they said about Vietnam. While I can see both sides of the issue, I was against us invading Iraq mainly because of the lack of support from other nations to do so. (And frankly, Kuwait doesn't count). I think that from a Purely PRACTICAL side, sacrificing our soldiers as simply a distraction was not worth the effort of fighting terrorism. I think new/harsher foreign trade policy and an ACTUAL Homeland defense system (that which ours does not qualify) would be a much better anti-terrorism war. Though, as stated earlier, there's FAR too many little variables and opinions to get a REAL measure of worth for this conflict. If you ask the soldiers, we're liberating the Iraqis, if you ask the Shiites, we're liberating Iraq. If you ask the Sunnis, we're American oppressors. If you ask the dirty hippies at college, we're there for the oil. If you ask democrats, we're there because "Bush" wanted to finish the job that his father didn't. I don't think there's a real cut and dried answer for this one. On the other hand, I fully believe that Iraq had (and may still have) WMD. I don't, however, think they had the balls to use them outside of their country.

Beethoven's Fifth (Cliche, but it just IS that good) Stravinsky, "Rite of Spring" (Particularly the second movement) Vivaldi, "The 4 Seasons" (Winter still gives me chills < no pun intended) Holst, "The Planets" (I always liked the motion of Mars) Grieg, "In the Hall of the Mountain King" (It's funny that just a simple repeated line could be so INTERESTING) There's more, but I struggle to think of them.

So what, exactly, is it when my dog "chooses" one toy over another when playing by himself? What is it, exactly, when he "chooses" to curl up on the couch with my wife and I, or "choose" to lay on the floor? When the cat "decides" to play, or "chooses" which toy to play with? I'm sorry, but I disagree, while even limited in scope, animals have MANY volitional choices. And in your first paragraph, man cannot choose not to think, just as an animal cannot choose not to think. Choosing not to make a choice IS making a choice.

Who determined that animals don't have volition? What sources did they use? Who's research to back it up? This is the one area of Objectivism that I vehemently disagree on. Every animal I've ever known has used volition, and since that is a defining character of the rights idea, I believe animals have rights. I will agree that plants do not have volition, and therefor have no rights.

I've really gotten into them in the past six months. I usually listen to "In Keeping Secrets with Silent Earth 3" about twice a month (in fact I think it's getting close to that time again). They're just really catchy, and still musically talented. I wouldn't mind hearing a bit more from the drums, but that's just personal bias on my part. I didn't know that about the comic book thing that. That puts things into a new perspective.

I can agree with your assessment of Pikmin, but that might be out of context a bit, too. I think the game is brilliant at teaching kids (and ADULTS) about how to allocate resources, get the most out of your resources with time constraints and large obstacles to overcome. While it may fail morality tests of society, it is great business training.

Indeed. I thought it was brilliantly done. I've pre-ordered the next legend of Zelda, which is supposed to be closer to the Ocarina of Time style. It looks a bit darker, but with better gameplay. It looks quite amazing. It's going to be hard to have to wait for it to come out. But, I did love the music of Windwaker. That's always been one of the most complete games ever made (graphics/gameplay/music).

"Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once and a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game, and that's first place. I have finished second twice in my time at Green Bay, and I don't ever want to finish second again. There is a second place bowl game, but it is a game for losers played by losers. It is and always has been an American zeal to be the first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win. Every time a football player goes to ply his trade he's got to play from the ground up - from the soles of his feet right up to his head. Every inch of him has to play. Some guys play with their heads. That's O.K. You've got to be smart to be number one in any business. But, more importantly, you've got to play with your heart, with every fiber of your body. If you're lucky enough to find a guy with a lot of head and a lot of heart, he's never going to come off the field second. Running a football team is no different than running any other kind of organization - an army, a political party or a business. The principles are the same. The object is to win - to beat the other guy. Maybe that sounds harsh or cruel. I don't think it is. It is a reality of life that men are competitive and the most competitive games draw the most competitive men. That's why they are there - to compete. To know the rules and objectives when they get in the game. The object is to win fairly, squarely, by the rules - but to win. And in truth, I've never known a man worth his salt who in the long run, deep down in his heart, didn't appreciate the grind, the discipline. There is something really good in men that really yearns for discipline and the harsh reality of head to head combat. I don't say these things because I believe in the 'brute' nature of man or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But, I firmly believe that any man's finest hour - his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear - is that moment when he has to work his heart out in a good cause and he's exhausted on the field of battle - victorious." -Vince Lombardi Outside of the "God" part, tell me that's not objectivist. I'm a die hard Green Bay fan.

Thank you!! I kept forgetting to send them over email, so I'm glad that you got to hear them. I appreciate the replies. Yes, I'm working on completely re-writing the first piece and it seems to be doing well. I haven't had much time lately to work on it. (Another new piece has taken up my time as my ideas for that have been flowing). And yes, usually when I do a drum solo, I make a theme and center the solo around that theme. Thanks for the ear and hopefully I'll have some new stuff up soon. I'm hoping my band will do some recording soon and I'll be able to put one or two of our pieces up.

Wow...you're right...maybe that's why I hated all the books I read in school. I knew there was a reason and you just pointed it out. Thanks! We should get more Heroic books in there.

Also, both the british and American versions of "Who's line is it anyways?" were/are pretty funny. I've always enjoyed that show.

Another one I'd like to add (as a Nintendo fan) is Pokemon (yeah, yeah, I know). But it actually does uphold many (not all ) objectivist ideals. It promotes being the best at battling and collecting Pokemon. It uses a CORPORATION as your friend (Devon Corp) the president of whom gives you good items when you help him. It promotes the idea of exploring, growing, technology and becoming better. I really don't know what's better than that. Plus it's just addicting to battle. My Tae Kwon Do instructor and I both play and we'll battle after class and what not. It's a lot of fun. I'd also like to add that I think it'll be a while before Nintendo is brought down in the handheld market. The PSP may be better graphically, but from what I've been told by gamers. It's quite fragile. I've been told by parents whose kids have GBA's that the games have been run the the wash (on accident) and played fine afterwards. That's durability. Besides the Nintendo DS is just as nice, and the games for Nintendo are just better (outside of driving games anyways. Which I never play).

And FINALLY!!! http://www.myspace.com/shnstlns it's not much, so please be kind. The first piece is something that I wrote for my percussion ensemble a few years back now. I really like the movements, so I'm taking it and re-writing it to a more rock/classical style. It will soon be MUCH longer and for a rock instrumentation. I have a couple new sections that I'm adding to it. When it's finished. It'll probably be my masterpiece. The second piece is something I wrote up on Finale that I ended up using for my computer music piece (in the computer music version, which I no longer have, it has all sorts of effects on it). I like it's texture, but it doesn't go anywhere interesting. Although, I like the "solo" section. It's still all the same notes in the same order, just written to sound like a solo. The third, and final, piece is just a drum solo I put together when I had my full drumset out. I lose time a couple times, because I was trying to do a bit much. Themes don't always come easy to me, but I do try to make the drumset a musical instrument, rather than giving the impression of a guy "beating the skins." While I'm not terribly melodic, I don't think I do that bad of a job. Anyways, as I get more written (especially on the first piece) I'd be interested in your views/critizism Thanks, hope you enjoy.

And I really hate those people too. Speaking as a U.S. soldier and a person studying objectivism, I joined the military of purely selfish reasons. I wanted money for college, another job skill, and the pride of protecting our nation's freedom. Now, like Hal said, I don't get a choice in which wars to fight. I signed my name on the dotted line saying I would obey all lawful orders, and that's what I intend to do. I haven't been sent anywhere yet (at least anywhere I don't want to be), which is nice for my wife and I, but at the same time I would welcome a chance to prove myself to myself. Nothing about that (to my knowledge) goes against any of Rand's principles.

That was the same for me, about Anthem. It was short, sweet, creative, and thus POWERFUL. That was a life changing book for me. Atlas Shrugged was good, and it made me think...but it didn't have the same power as Anthem. At some point I'll get to The Fountainhead.

Well, that's the same with any music/genre/culture. And I agree about the differences. I'm just quick to defend drums as a MUSICAL instrument. I know people have made references to John Cage on here, and I will say, while I've never liked his "music" I can respect, in some ways, what he did. I mean, the whole point was that EVERYTHING has a tonal property. Now that doesn't make everything good music, but if hitting trash can lids in piece where they would be perfect makes music....it's still music to use them. There's more to music than just tonal qualities...there's timbre and texture (Which is my HUGE focus) I'm not huge on minimalism, except for some Steve Reich pieces which have AMAZING texture. I just wish they would GO somewhere. My goal in my writing is to get the rhythmic texture of Steve Reich with the movement of Beethoven or Bach. I hope that's obtainable.