Strangelove

I need to disagree with that far reaching transhistorical argument because of the fact that the WHO did a great deal in ending the spread of smallpox. I am not advocating a statist solution to the problem, but to contend that diseases can only be elliminated by capitalism, as if it were a law of physics, is just not in line with reality.

The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 was quite a terrible event. Beginning a whole chain of events that would have been better not to have happened. They intentionally overthrew the provisional government of Kerensky (The Czar had abdicated by now) to intentionally put a worse system of government in place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordham_Spire Admitedly its not Burj-Al Dubai, but this one still looks very promising none the less. I like the corkscew look, very organic.

I would note that the screen where they censored out Mohammad at the end of the episode was done quite differently from the way he had been censored out at earlier parts in the two parter, suggesting that the writers wanted to draw a bit more attention to that scene then expected. While I don't deny that it works very effectively as a tool of ironic humor to build up to showing Mohammed, only to have Comedy Central censor him, it would be a shame if that had to be done because the network would not allow it, rather then letting it be entirely a choice on the writers part.

Some one on youtube.com has made their own version of a title sequence for a "new" Fountainhead movie. http://youtube.com/watch?v=3yYbedXfbeQ&sea...%20Fountainhead Would be great if it was true.

This is a particularly good analysis of Chicago by The Economist, made even better by its uplifting disucssion of how the business community has been a positive leadersip component of the city, including how they take it upon themselves to take on public works projects (Like Millenium Park) without the need for the Government to force it down their throats. http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayst...tory_id=5601463

"Cult" was bad word choice by me. (Definition from my computer dictionary being: "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object : the cult of St. Olaf.") When compared to Scientology for example, it becomes very clear that Objectivism is not a cult, it is a philosophical system which places an exceptionally high amount of stock in what Ayn Rand had and might have said, but it would not argue that Ayn Rand herself is the essential component when compared to the Objectivist system. (Though she is understandably a point of great interest.) I did however, feel that Mr. Provenzo was (and yes I have read his FAQ) speaking on behalf of Objectivism, and that if you did not come out the review as you should have, feeling "empty", that you are a human being who has a fundamental problem that is enough to group in same set as the "Orgasmic Libertarians" Aside from the fact that there are a number of Objectivists who probably disagree with being put in the same category as "Orgasmic Libertarians" http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=3259 (And for the record, I do not call myself an Objectivist since I am aware that that is a very precise definition) I find the test of whether or not you come out of that movie feeling empty or not a poor indicator of how "incorrect" you are. A number of people have already commented on the context of the film to discuss reasons for that in more detail. With regards to his recent blog post where he clarifies that he has a very specific audience in mind for his movie reviews, I can understand what he means, and I will admit that I originally read his review with the thought that he felt that the other aspects of a movie should not be included because they are unimportant. Now I understand that he simply feels that his blog is not the appropriate medium to discuss issues other then the ethics of the film. Of course, there have been many disagreements with his discussion of the ethics of the film, as well as disagreements with how those ethics actually affect the ability to come out the film with a Pro-Objectivist view and enjoy the movie (and I am beginning to become convinced that that is more strongly dependent on personal taste and less on Objectivism itself), but I wont hold it against him that it is his only focus in the blog since he clearly is capably of appreciating other aspects.

No, this is not about Mr. Provenzo specefically being "cultish". Its about similarily worded comments from other Objectivists which don't make sense to me (despite the overwhelming logic of everything else) and hold me back really being able to support Objectivism. That is very strongly implied in what you have said and what the article said. If Mr. Provenzo and you are both convinced that his interpretation of reality is correct, then what he says must be true. And you both use of Objectivism to interpret reality, then your use of Objectivism must be flawless. So when reading the article, the implicit assumption is that Mr. Provenzo has made perfect use of Objectivism to reach his conlusions and that if no one else did, they are clearly flawed. I personally dont mind if there are people who dont like the movie, but I prefer better reasons then the ones he described, especially if he wants to argue that the movie as a whole is not worth watching.

Yes. Deadalus strikes me as the kind of person who would avoid paying taxes if he could get away with it despite it being illegal to do so.

I appreciate the distinction made, but once again, the problem then becomes that the description of V as a true anarchist whom the audience should not reasonably like makes no sense from what was shown in the movie. I suppose all he needed to say was "And by the way, I think that in the future, we should have lazie faire society with little government intervention" and then all of a sudden, the movie is not as flawed as it would have been before. But no, the lack of that line, means that the movie is terrible and not worth watching. If I was asked if the movie is not 100% in line with Objectivitst ethics, I would say that yes, that is true. Partly because the source material was even further away from Objectivist ethics. I hardly see how a movie being only 93% in line with Objectivists ethics makes it not worth watching at all though. Daedalus, if you are so insistent on not paying for the movie, I assume you could illegally download it.

"we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us." "But I don't think of you."

My own personal opinion and I find that more often then not, its a conflict over aesthetics. No matter how much people insist and persist that Objectivism is not a cult because its a philosophy of individuality, reading articles like that review which is written with the understanding that "And if you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did." is not comforting. While I would certainly expect Objectivists to have similar tastes (I don't expect there are many people here who are particularly interested in say, Crash). I find that there seems to be an unwritten cannon of things (TV shows, movies, etc.) which all "truly rational" Objectivists should look at and reach concensus on. Never mind the fact that the individual is perfectly capable of living a rational, self interested, capitalism promoting life, the fact that he has "questionable" taste, means that there are serious flaws that must be fixed for him to be able to live by Objectivism as Ayn Rand would have wanted him/her to. Example, here are a few things I like which I can guess could be a "surprise" to most Objectivists: Wicked (The Musical) What I Like: -Great music and characters. A very strong musical that even makes effective use of literary technique to make the story more engaging and interesting. What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like: -What? A subtle hint of moral relativism? Thats a Liberal Idea! Don't Buy the CD or see the show! Battlestar Galactica (new one) What I Like: -Where should I begin! This show has some of the most well told stories and engaging characters on television. It also is incredibly appropriate to modern times with a very good political stance. A very recent episode is very interesting to watch in the context of the Palestinian elections and while it is not meant to make direct reference to that event, it is still very meaningful to watch. What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like: -Why are we watching characters bleed on screen! Why are they not winning every day of the week! Why are people dying! This can not be allowed to happen, this is naturalism at its worst! Lost (TV Show) Why I like it: -Every character has a story and I want to know what is going on on that island! What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like: -Unexplained events? Things beyond human understanding? This is a condemnation of the rational mind! Foundation (Issac Asimov series of books) Why I like it: -Its interesting to see the development of the Galactic Society and the history that drives it, especially since I am personally very interested in history. What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like: -Predicting history? What about the individual's ability to change it! Why is the only character who goes against the "plan" a villain (the mule). Paradise Lost Why I like it: -Satan is awesome and the whole story is riveting the whole way through. What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like: Its inherently irrational, based on religion, and incapable of getting out of that problem. Dr. Strangelove Why I like it: -Its funny: "You cant fight in here, this is the war room!" "It was going to be announced Tuesday, you know how our Chairman loves surprises." "Flouridation" "We can not allow, a Mine Shaft Gap!" What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like: -It shows the American military in a bad light, this is indicitive of an illusion from reality. No good! Hear of Darkness Why I like it: -There are so many emotions that get evoked from this text, its exciting and chilling and impressive all at the same time. There is something to be said for the novel helping stir the colonialist inside of me. What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like: -Ambiguity!!! Catch-22 Why I like it: -A very well written work, great characters and hillarious situations. What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like: -Its not even chronological! And so on. And its not as if I put down some truly awful things either.

If there was ever an example where the movie is better then the book because it, "fixes" elements of the original story, V for Vendetta is a good one.

The poster's are a parody of the silly motivational posters one sees offered in magazines like skymall. I personally don't feel that I need a poster to tell me I am doing a good job. Some of my personal favorites from Despaire.com: http://www.despair.com/compromise.html http://www.despair.com/discovery.html http://www.despair.com/dysfunction.html http://www.despair.com/effort.html - This is a particularly fanastic one. http://www.despair.com/idiocy.html http://www.despair.com/med24x30prin.html http://www.despair.com/pretension.html - I have this one.

Is the forum set so that it is not possible to edit a post once someone has replied to it? It seems to be...

The other Objectivists, Students of Objectivism, and similarily like minded people who don't need to base a review on a movie as to whether or not Ayn Rand herself would have written it. Its been a while since I read it, but I feel that the movie does a good job of fixing the flaws in Alan Moore's original telling of the story.

The review by Rule of Reason seems so typical of the supposedly "hard line" Objectivists. If he was reviewing the Graphic Novel by itself, then he would be a bit more correct. The novel talks about V's desire to bring about "The Land of Do As You Please" and the intention bring up "ambiguity" as to whether V is a Villian or a Hero is made much stronger. I also cant stand a reviewer whose basis for disliking the movie is "And it was not as good as Atlas Shrugged." That is, for lack of a better word, a ridiculous mindset. Both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are amazing novels, but are they supposed to be "The Objective Standard" that we hold every work of art made since 1943 and 1957 up against? Shouldnt the value of the piece of art be evident in the artwork itself without having to compare it to what Ayn Rand wrote? There seem to be common Objectivists critiques of the film: 1. The movie takes cheap shots at our necessary war on terrorism, it validates Muslims, and gives too much leeway to Left-Wing ideas. While I would say that that is probably was the W brothers had in mind, I dont feel that this is so detrimental a point that it brings the whole movie down. The depiction of Muslims, is interesting, because while modern day Islamofacism is a real problem, there is also the problem of modern day English people protesting when Indians, or Pakistanis come to the UK not to spread hate, but to get a job. That sort of nativism was targeted in the graphic novel, and since this is a post 9/11 movie, people take the movie's Islamophobia within the (relatively newer) Islamofacism context. I don't think anyone can argue that it we would want to make it a crime to own a copy of the Koran. We should arrest radical clerics, we should pre-empitvely do so, but to say that no one, not even TV Show hosts can have access to it? Who could honestly say that such a move is rational? Ahh, but because this is a product of the left wing drivel of Hollywood you say, no one will look at it like that, they will see it and come out with a mind set for appeasing Muslims! I did not, and I expect a similar response from other well informed people. 2. V has no ideas! He is an Anarchist, or worse, a Libertarian! I suppose that people would be more happy if he gave a John Galt speech about what he wanted to replace the old Government with. True it would make a two hour movie three hours long, but then again Objectivists have never been deterred by long pieces of work. V, recognised that he was not the symbol of what was to come after the old order was gone, maybe he knew he would not be able to fit in, maybe he knew that he has a general propensity to protest authority. Being the victim of a government plan to infect people with a virus and being present at a rather grand explosion, does do strange things to the way to work, you tend to think differently, as wall as gain "Karate-Skills." What he knew was that he did not metaphorically represent what people should look to when the old order is gone. V knew that the government was wrong. He even stood for the moral absolutism of it in his speech to the people, he says "Truth is a perspective" and that "If you truth as I do", making clear that his view of the situation is objective and unclouded. The movie is about V removing the government. I suppose that a well done discussion of what should come next would have made the film "more perfect", but I can't see how it would fit in to be honest. To read the reviews protesting the lack of something seems to be a good way for ignoring what is there. 3. V tortured Evey! That was not rational. V could have taken Evey back to the shadow lair and just let her sit around till Nov 5, I dont know what good it would have done for her. Perhaps a rational discussion over a cup of tea, but I suspect that Evey would not have liked being preached to or having V be pygmalian about it. In such a case, the Objectivist would say, V should just get rid of her and not get hung up. He did get hung up and gave an impressive torture sequence, he gave her hope in the form of the Valerie letters, made sure she was fed (I assumed it was high nution gruel) did not physically abuse her, and later, she was grateful. V was not perfect, but he was hardly 100% wrong. It seems that the people who dislike this aspect dislike that it was not the 100% most efficient way to do it, and that if I were to say "It was a good scene, artistically done, and romantic in some ways", that they will scream "Sanction of imperfect ideas!". Meh, good for you. I had a great time watching the film. [Mod note: This post led to further discussion about the focus of movie reviews. See split thread.]

USSR was still around when the story was written, in it there is a nuclear exchange which leaves the UK as one of the remaining powers. (Though one that obviously has fallen on hard times.)

In a way, V in the movie seemed better then the V from the graphic novels. Graphic Novel V is a annarchist through and through, Movie V knew that their had to be society and that he was simply not the best one to help lead and found it. The movie was also surprisingly funny, the mock comedy sketch in the early half (before Evey is captured) was sheer brilliance.

In the greater context of things, I find being an atheist, selfish, Jew, is an easy thing to do. It should still be possible for you to keep your Jewish "identity" while not having to deal with any attributes of the faith that you dont like. I feel that Jeudaism has enough positive merits (praise or learning and scholarship, an intense respect for the law, etc) that being supportive of Jewish identity is not a major problem. With regards to your present community, you will probably not be able to change the values of the community. So either you leave or stay. If you leave, well, thats that. If you stay, if may be possible to only accept "service" which either you personally enjoy or want to do instead of being compelled to do what you dont want to do. For myself, I know I would not mind with tutoring or helping out with teaching, but that is a personal preference for me.

Some Devils advocacy here, but isnt this a law designed to punish those who take a stance which directly puts you against the continuation of democratic/representivie government? If you say you are a Nazi, you are saying "I am a threat to your Democratic Institution" and does that not legitimately allow for the institution to defend itself?

In a perfect world, I don't think people would care. Some people seem to want to choose to be with guilds that are openly friendly to their own sexual orientation. As I understand it, the TOS was worded with the intent to prevent harrasment by use of homophobic language. So by advertising a "Gay Guild", the use of the word "Gay" was taken to mean, in a literal reading of the TOS, as the use of homophobic language. This pushed Blizzard to censure the recuitor who was advertising the "Gay Guild". With this in mind, you could argue that they were trying to keep the homo-friendly guilds down by reducing their ability to recuit at the same levels as the other guilds.

Ok, I think I understand what the essay meant now.

Star Wars Episode I deserved a Best Picture nod because it was popular? Thats silly, Episode I was not a good movie plain and simple.

Great Dane, economic situation aside, did you actually enjoy living in Denmark? I have a Danish friend who holds very similar economic views to you, yet he still likes Denmark the country for all its other features.