Lemuel

Only if you do not act, and by not acting you are betraying your values. Don't get suckered by the temptation to think "why do anything at all, if others are going to take it away from you?". It's self-defeating, and ultimately your standard of action becomes based on what others' reactions will be, not your own rational this-needs-to-be-done attitude. You won't achieve anything, so you'll have no values to defend, and your motivations will drift into resentment, rather than pride. (You might as well start buying cats ...) Furthermore, you'd only be supporting the existence of these leeches and thieves by acting on their sanction. Act on the sanction of your own mind, and your confidence will scare them off. You will have to defend your values, but you'll be more acutely aware of your true friends and your enemies. But defensiveness - a facade of mild paranoid anxiety - will scare off those who would appreciate your ability, recognize your talent, and acknowledge your pride in your achievements. It is with these people that any rational man or woman ideally wants to trade, value for value. That anxiety could betray a weakness that a clever ne'er-do-well could use against you ... it's just the opening one would need to manipulate you. I'm not saying you ought to be some stoic, unaffected Vulcan. Be like Superman, stand strong and confident, and let slip a wry grin as the bullets bounce off your chest.

If any of you guys need some really good drums, get Propellerhead's Reason. The included drums are pretty good, but the addition of a ReFill - Reason Drum Kits 2.0 (click here for sound examples)- will get you some very powerful, natural-sounding drums. I've been using Reason since it was first released and am awaiting - finally! - for the arrival of my 3.0 upgrade discs from Stockholm. Sequencing the drums is one thing, but I can offer some tips for making them sound more natural. Maybe not enough to fool a real drummer, but enough to sound less sequenced. Oh, yeah ... I listened to the mp3s, $$$. I particularly enjoyed "Success IS Good" and "Sun Sets On False Guilt" ... I'm a sucker for odd-meter prog rock! If I were a singer, drummer, or bass player I'd be glad to work with you. I assume you're a keyboardist, and so am I. You might find some bass & drummer leads, though, at the ProgSounds Forums.

I heard a story on the radio this afternoon about a man named Wilton Dedge, who was falsely imprisoned for the rape of a 17-year-old girl in 1982. Last year, he was released after 22 years' incarceration when DNA evidence exonerated him. This story is several months old, but he's just settled his case against the State of Florida. He'll receive $2 million ($2.9 million less than he was originally seeking) and full tuition to any State university, I suppose so he can make something more of his life than a 'normal' ex-con could. To me, there's nothing scarier a free society than being falsely accused, convicted, and imprisoned. I couldn't imagine going through this without losing my mind, even for one year. But for twenty-two years! The prospect of having to fight the State for compensation makes my head spin. Of course, this is just an emotional response. But when I think about it, there are questions I can't quite answer: What would be the proper basis for compensating innocent victims of State prosecution? Are lost wages, even adjusted for inflation, enough? How would a hypothetical proper government take responsibility for something like this? Or, is this an ancillary issue, the bigger problem being our criminal justice policies and procedures themselves? (I know little about criminal justice, but so much of it, even outside the laws themselves, seems very irrational.)

I haven't laughed this hard in a while, Groovenstein ... well done!

I disagree. I got some pretty positive vibes from their last album, Lateralus. Certainly "Parabol" and "Parabola" have some great lyrics. (I love that part where Maynard screams "Alive, I!", and the band drops that evil groove Jedi-style!) "The Patient" is a good lyrical companion when my work (often necessarily) involves highly time-consuming, yet minimally-yielding, duties. Maynard might have some sarcastic, hidden meaning behind these songs, but I don't see him as a sardonic songwriter; he seems pretty honest about his feelings. Tool's one of my favorites, and I've read quotes from the band that their next album is going to be "heavy". What, the other stuff wasn't?

Here's an interesting link Google returned: Index of Economic Freedom 2005 - United Arab Emirates What caught my eye (just some highlights) ... Yep, they've got a ways to go economically. I also turned up a few articles on social issues, too. It seems the government's not taking human trafficking (forced prostitution, child slavery) too seriously, religious intermarrying is a crime, and women have a poor standing in society. Of course, all I did was a little Google-skimming, so I'm making an assumption here ... but it appears the UAE is a smaller Saudi Arabia. (woohoo! 100!)

First of all, Objectivism isn't necessarily bound by such concrete issues politically. It is a comprehensive philosophy in which certain views are reflected in the mainstream. Your studies will illuminate you, but to answer these specific ones ... - Abortion is every woman's right. A fetus is a potential, a part of her body, and it is her values that determine its destiny. - Gay marriage: disregarding the varying views on homosexuality, marriage is an interpersonal contract that should fall under the protection of law, not its mandates and prohibitions. Rights are not given by the state - they are self-evident. The State can - and regularly does - violate individual rights, and an official policy against gay marriage would be an example of aggregious government interference. - School prayer: Objectivists are generally atheist and not fond of State-run education. A private school would have a right to require it, offer time for it, or not acknowledge it during school hours or on school property. It would be up to parents to decide which school they'll send their kids to. Basic capitalism: let the market decide for itself. The bold area is wrong. Objectivists identify liberals properly: paternal government; state-mandated "equality"; centrally-planned, regulated economy. Otherwise, on a surface level, you've got the right impression. Liberals/democrats do have socialistic tendencies, believing the State to be at least a safety net for those they label "unfortunate". Relief (welfare, universal health insurance, MediCare/Cade, Social Security, food stamps) for the "unfortunate" comes at great expense to the wealthiest citizens - society's producers - who must pay the lion's share of the taxes that fund these programs. Objectivists are for separating State and economics. While "liberal" doesn't necessarily mean socialist, or "conservative" theocrat, "Libertarian" doesn't always mean anarchist ... but there are strong tendencies. Essentially, Libertarianism borrows surface-level ideas from Objectivism, but denies Objectivist metaphysics and ethics. Without those, Lib. policy wouldn't have the proper foundation to support itself, and the most likely consequences would create anarchy. An example: both Objectvist and Libertarians would like to do away with income taxes. Many Libs enjoy the fantasy of an Executive Order banishing the IRS forever. People would have more money and the government would be forced to cut spending ... but those that live off entitlements would be left in the cold, starving and homeless. A likely result is a condition that makes income tax more established than it is now. A more rational view (one I've read a few O'ists mention) is, since income tax is part of a large, entangled economic system, the proper course would be to replace income tax gradually over time. Objectivists are individualists, so each person has a standard by which they will cast a vote. Some people vote against a candidate. Others abstain. Some write-in votes, and I'm sure there are a few that trust Libertarians. Some vote for a Rep or Dem based on a likely policy decision that is pertinent to their state or to the country's immediate needs. One guy votes for Kerry to prevent the President from installing Chrisian fundamentalists in positions of power; another guy votes for Bush because his was the lesser-stupid Iraq/Terror policy. Without a real pro-capitalist, pro-individual rights, secular, and philosophically-guided political party out there, it's a personal decision. I think Objectivists do what most people do - vote their conscience. There is no "official Objectivist position" regarding politicians or parties ... only politicians'/parties' policies and the oft-misguided ideas they betray.

(Sorry if this response seems long-winded ...) "Social standards" is pretty vague, but given the tone an content of the rest of your post, I'm guessing that you don't care for the small talk, social graces, and other surface-level behaviors people display within a social context. If so, that's your choice, but don't complain about its lack of results. Be a "hermit", cut yourself off, and go about your business ... but those "social standards" exist for a reason. Your perceptions about someone new that you see may give you some information about them, but not everything. You have to discover them, just like they have to discover you, and that takes time. We live in a society that is very irrational at times, and people who know their value must remain guarded. To approach an intriguing stranger means testing the waters a bit. Given the context (such as a publc place), this might involve a degree of small talk, etc. If it's a colleague, and the context is more focused than a chance meeting in the dairy department, "breaking the ice" is a lot easier. If you want to get to know people, open up to them, be receptive to them opening up to you, but won't accept those "social standards", then you need to put yourself into more focused social situations. Bars and clubs? No. Your "context" will depend on your interests. (I like classical music, so I attend a lot of college recitals. They're free, usally very good, and before, after, and during intermission there are opportunities to meet people who share my interest.) So, what would you have done had the beautiful woman approached you, and made a comment about the weather, just as a tactic to keep your attention for a minute? Would you have thought how boring, weather happens, big deal, or yes, I saw the news too, lady; what of it? .. or replied yeah, it's nasty ... good thing we're not in Florida! Did you know anyone in New Orleans? Would you have gracefully led her to introduce herself, dropped a few seeds of interest in her ear, then created a context where you could spend time together? Or would you have scared her away with a swashbuckling display of epistomological syllogisms? A romantic relationship is not a means to an end. It is an end in itself. True, the aspect of value-exchange applies, but sex isn't the only value. There's companionship, the ability to soften the sting of disappointments, to sweeten triumphs, and mutually alleviate loneliness. If you don't want those things, and the only value you're seeking from women is sex ... Well, there are women who do that kind of thing, but don't expect an insightful, analytical mind to dazzle you in the afterglow. The other alternative? There are a number of online dating services where you might find someone as socially averse as you present yourself to be. Good luck with that haystack. Reversal of cause and effect. Finding love through sex is about as probable as winning the $350 million powerball with your first lottery ticket. Get to know women, let them get to know you, put yourself in a context where you will meet women of good character. Form a relationship, play its nuances like a symphony, build the tensions, savor their releases, discover her values, show her yours ... do so gradually ... and celebrate your value to each other with sex. This is proper to a rational existence, and is the method to gain that value of real romantic intimacy and companionship ... the shotgun approach isn't effective. Bull. You have to feel at least something to have sex with these women. Forgive me for being a bit crude, but if it's just a chemical drive, there are less involved ways of satisying those desires. Are you such a slave to hormones that you must manifest their express energies before understanding "the situation"? There's "feeling" there ... I'll bet they need futher checking, otherwise you're sleeping with women while being completely numb. I'm not sure what you mean by "efficiency of knowledge", but if you're looking for an intellectual mate, find the intellectual you desire first, then use charm and grace to make her your mate ... and you hers. There are plenty of people out there like that, but they make up the minority. "Undefined"? Move on, let them figure it out (value gained: patience). "Ignorant?" Maybe they've never been shown an alternative to "their" truth ... a little benefit-of-the-doubt and patience will go a long way (value gained: authority). "Maniuplative?" Avoid these people, and your "radar" won't work, leaving you easily manipulated; sharpen your perception of it, and you survive, (value gained: survival). But call a duck a duck: people are sometimes nice to one another because they're nice people; be nice in return (value gained: you're remembered). Only a true paranoid reacts to a cheerful Good morning! with What do you want from me? There's no doubt you're a smart person. But your fundamental choices in this regard are A. bow up, learn the oft-treacherous subtleties of social interaction, and gain the value of having friends, maybe even a lover; or B. cut off from the world, remain aloof and cold, and gain the value of being left alone. Either way is a choice, and whatever your choice, live with it. Objectivists aren't supposed to be Mr. Spock. You can be warm, kind of spirit, generous with yourself, and still be acting objectively, intellectually, and very much in your self-interests. It's not automatic knowledge, though ... it takes hard work and practice.

Every single man should have at least one horribly tacky piece of furniture or decoration ... lime green recliner, mounted animal head, beer mirror, neon beer sign, neon beer mirror, velvet Elvis tapestry, Dogs Playing Poker, giant cable-spool coffee table, cinder-block entertainment center, etc. ... of which a future wife will say, "That's not going in my house! Put it in the garage!" (And yes, for me, it is the Elvis tapestry, thankyavurmuch ...)

My all-time faves: 1. Frank Herbert - mostly for the Dune Chronicles, but I love his other novels, too 2. Stephen Baxter - good, hard sci-fi that is dramatic, has very heroic characters, and is steeped in real science 3. Dan Simmons - The Hyperion Cantos tops the list, but his horror is good, and so are practically all his other books. A very lyrical visionary that writes truly beautiful stories with vivid characters .... really creative. 4. Arthur C Clarke - timeless science fiction (okay, maybe 2001 is a bit dated ... ) 5. Isaac Asimov - Robots! 6. Dan McDevitt - not a Grand Master, but some good stories 7. Robert Heinlein - good at presenting political and philosophical ideas in a very blunt manner 8. Ben Bova - lighter reading, but very intelligent 9. Philip K Dick - yep, he was one paranoid guy, but talk about big ideas ... he certainly had a few whoppers 10. Michael Chrichton - well, when he uses sentences and not formulas

I think I agree, Cpt. Nate. While it's not always a given that there will be hostile foreigners, it's a possibility that is too important for a proper government to ignore. After all, national defense begins at the borders. We're way past the time when nations would politely declare war on one another, and the rules of war were followed by honorable gentlemen. In an age of suicide-bombers, it is clear that savagery still exists in the world, and a proper government should defend the nation's citizens against its enemies. Certainly America is past "give us your tired, your poor". Some traditions need to go away, but for those who truly crave freedom and have the initiative to handle it responsibly, our borders should be opened. Many immigrants to the United States come here because of a job opening. They work for an American company that recruited them out of a foreign university, and while they work on a temporary Visa, they become "integrated" into America culture. When they desire citizenship, they are tested, they're background is checked, and eventually they become citizens, fully protected by our laws. Political refugees are a bit different. I could see some sort of halfway-house program where refugees would stay for a while, look for work, and possibly find some naturalized "sponsor" for a temporary Visa. (Who pays for them? I'd say employers of low-wage-workers, since we're talking about a hypothetical "pure" Capitalist government.) Those that don't find work, can't support themselves, or have any sponsors on the inside are turned away. "Don't have to go home, but you can't mooch here." Willy-nilly border-crossers? I'm in favor of a strong border patrol pushing these guys back over, but maybe a few of those halfway-houses could be just on this side of the line for them. If they're not ready to move here and get busy, obey the law, and keep out of trouble ... well, we'll have to toss those pesky Canadians right back over. But legal citizens bringing in mail-order brides? Foreign-exchange students arrying for citizenship convenience? Naturalized immigrants sponsoring relatives? I don't know ... are these enough of a problem for the Feds to get involved? I mean, anyone can be a spy or terrorist ... Cool! I hope a trasncript is published ... I'd really like to hear that lecture.

Not to go off topic, but bear in mind that the recording portion is only a part of what makes a full album. The songs could have been written without the influence of marijuana, or maybe they were. The producer and engineers have a lot to do with how an album sounds, too. Sometimes parts are completely replaced after the sessions end (even without the performers knowing it). It depends on whether or not what you're appreciating is the product of those drugs. Being a musician, and having used marijuana in the past, my experience tells me that her music may be intended for "greater appreciation" while high. Pot loosens inhibitions, and can be a (very) temporary substitute for focus, but it doesn't have the same properties as drugs which produce hallucinations. As a player, the muscle-relaxing, euphoric properties can loosen you up and make you think you're playing better. And maybe you are, but nothing a refreshing power nap and a long, hot hand-washing can't achieve. Thing is, when pot wears off, so does that artificial focus, and sleepiness sets in. Using more doesn't really help, so perpetual grogginess is the default "mood", and being "creative" is less desirable than junk food or stupid TV. (Hence, my drug of choice now is psychotic quantities of coffee.) But, I'm only speaking of my experiences with music and weed, and it's all pretty moot. What I'd ask is: - Could Kate Bush's, or anyone's, music be better if they weren't in a "purplish haze of hashish"? - Would the material - the lyrics, melodic structures, harmonic complexity - be of a nature more suitable to a person of reason if they were sober? (I know it's only rock'n'roll, but that doesn't mean it should be devoid of some intelligence and sophistication.) - Since all art is a "selective recreation of reality based on an artist's value-judgements", how would you describe Kate Bush's sense of life? Is she sad, content, exultant, poignent, depressed, existential? What relationship could that have to such vehement use of marijuana? I won't say that you're promoting/condoning drug use by enjoying music made by potheads, but I will say that there's probably something even more beautiful out there more worthy of your enjoyment.

I'm not sure what you mean by this ... coul you clarify that statement a little?

Artistically, Solaris was a great film ... I agree with Ariana here. I actually enjoy putting the DVD in and letting the menu screen (exterior shots of the station & Solaris) silently run for hours on end like some kind of screen saver. The message I took from Solaris is more exposed in the book than in the film. It seemed to me that Stanislaw Lem's theme was something like: not only do we not know everthing in the universe, but perhaps there are things we can't know ... perhaps love is one of them. The planet or star, or whatever Solaris was, was an allegory for Kelvin's (Clooney) relationship with the mysterious and unreadable Rhea (McElhone). As far as specific Objectivist-oriented themes, I find few. There's the mystic love-at-first-sight scenario. Rhea admitted she wasn't exactly the picture of mental health ... why was Kelvin continually attracted to her, then? When Rhea began withdrawing from Kelvin, he did try to reach her, but as a psychiatrist he should have known a way to help her (or get a colleague involved). He's a man who took on a charity, rather than fall in love with a heroine, which (given that he was a psychiatrist) lead me to question his mental health. (Would you have enjoyed an indication in The Fountainhead that Roark was unskilled? Like, he didn't bomb Cordlandt, but his resort slid into the valley?) So, at Solaris, an entity from which one's fears and strongest emotions are manifest in physical form (an acceptable literary/allegorical idiom), Kelvin - knowing Rhea is dead, consciously aware that this construct is not "real" - falls in love with her again! Again he walks headlong into the phychosis of his marriage, and is unable to save his own life when Solaris' expansion threatens the station. If there's a hero in the film, it's Gordon (Viola Davis). She realizes Solaris can be a threat, needs to be looked at by someone else, that the avatars are as intense as their principles, and that Kelvin (and Gibaran before him) were out of touch with reality, incapable of acting on what they knew was real. (I can't recall at the moment if Lem's [male] Gordon left the station in the novel, or stayed cooped up in his quarters.) Good written prose, great film, absolutely beautiful, well-acted, and Natasha McElhone is about the sexiest thing since Cleopatra. I just wish Kelvin had been a hero rather than a victim, or that the story was about Gordon's triumph over abusive illusions. That we're left, in the end, with ghosts and barely answerable questions about Solaris says a lot.

Pride naturally flows from loving yourself. It's a consequence of loving yourself, and a vital part of self-esteem. You should always feel pride in your accomplishments and that you can succeed when presented with challenges. Despite the sometimes overbearing messages to the contrary from the media, the characteristic of pride in achievement is admirable inthe world. What employer wants to hire someone uncertain of his abilities, or too modest about them? "Boasting" is a relative term. You should never run around showing off just to impress others or display superiority. This is the action of one whose self-worth is based on the reactions and opinions of others. Real self-worth comes from knowing that you're good at something, doing it well, and being confident when asked ... "Yeah, I'm very good at this!" Stay aware, though ... there's always room for improvement. "Handsome"? Cool, but as many other posts will show you, physical beauty is but one component of attraction. I'm sure you've met many beautiful women who turned out to be horrible people. (I sure have ...) Your confidence will display itself in your posture, your body language, and in your approach to every situation. The right women will pick up on this - even subconsciously - and that's what will make you attractive more so than dashing good looks. They help, but it's not everything. Actually, you've alerady answered this for yourself. Put these ideas into practice, always keep your premises in check, and the results will speak for themselves. Keep doing this and success will follow. Committing Rand's words & Objectivist ideas to memory helps, but making them mantras won't change your behavior. Part of Objectivist thought is that reality and ideas are directly related, and that the correct ideas will guide you to success. You'd have to speak to a psychologist about "modifying your subconscious"; I'm not sure what that means. What I can say is that my own experiences have shown that changing the ideas, putting them into practise, and observing the results is the best way to go. I was raised as a Christian, so many of Rand's writings came as a shock to my conscience. However, I could sense she was right, and when I started acting on her ideas, I found many things happened - old habits died, unearned guilt eroded, pride was "tangible", and happiness seemed possible. Sure, there are a few instances where the "old operating system" wants tio kick in, but my attention to it is far more honed, and I can identify it and make the mental correction swiftly. Yes, or an echo of altruism. However, Objectivism teaches that we always get something from our efforts, good or bad. Find out what it is these relationships are bringing you, figure out if it's worth what you're going through, and if the clash with your changing values, take the appropriate action. If you're attempting to turn your outgoing "love" into something reciprocal, you'll be wasting your energies. Look into what Rand said about what love really is, then spend some time thinking about those feelings. Objectivism "harsh"? No more than reality is. Objectivism is only harsh on those who refuse to accept reality. If you're committed to changing your philosophy to reason, you'll find that reality is quite benevolent. After all, you're accomplished and proud, right? What others thought was difficult you found simple. You've already mastered reality in some way ... keep going, and don't stop! It only gets better!

And, as a side-note ... You mentioned perfection. It's probably just a personal thing that needs to be worked out, but I've never liked that word when describing Rand's heros. When I hear perfection, I'm tempted to think of a very narrow, tightly defined, and perhaps even concrete-bound vision of what a person can be. Perhaps its just my Christian childhood, but that was the word ascribed to Jesus, an unattainable moral standard. I prefer using the term ideal, as Rand often did. I think it more aptly describes that these were individuals, each very different in a number of ways, but that they chose and lived their ideals. For me, that word makes the heros' experiences more ... tangible, and far more inspiring than some impossible, confusing, and ultimately life-denying idea of "perfection."

I think the first step in understandng these characters is that they were characters, not reflections of people in Rand's life, or even historical figures. (There were some influences, though .. Frank Lloyd Wright for Rark, her husband for John Galt ... but only to a limited degree. The characters were still her creations.) They were embodiments of ideas, and their purposes were to show - through action - what ideas they represented. These titans, as you call them, weren't supermen or abstract constructs of desirable personality characteristics. They were humans, like you and I, who realized their full potential, thought as clearly as a human should, and recognized their value in the world. Why did Rand focus on some material rather than others? It's not interesting or helpful to the character of Roark for us to know if he had an affectionate mother, or if he got bullied in school, or what kind of music he liked. What we need to know about Roark is that he is an uncompromising creator, intensely passionate about his art and craft, and didn't accept anyone's authority over his will. What we need to know about Wynand is how he was a person who admired greatness, and pursued it regardless of the sometimes immoral acts he committed to achieve his success. The revelation of his immorality, mirrored by Roark's treatment of him, was so shocking to him that his only moral choice was suicide. Why wasn't Keating turned around? Maybe he was. Maybe he chose a course that allowed him to feel some honest pride, even though he never became great like Roark. All you need to know about Keating's end was expressed when he showed Roark his paintings. When Roark said, "It's too late, Peter," they both know what he meant: that Keating was finished. The point I'm tediously arriving at is that these titans were exmaples of what people can accomplish with intelligence, creativity, pride, reason, passion, intent, and the self-esteem to know that theirs is the ultimate authority in their lives. Not that they can't learn or get better, or that they'll never be lonely or frustrated or misunderstood - these are just consequences of choosing these titans' moralities. Rand expressed her vision of Man, a proper, romantic ... and truly realistic view of Man through her fiction. Rather than simply say "Choose reason, and it will all work out fine," she showed you how that is applied by staging a sequence of events, placing her characters, her ideas, in them and showing us what we call "can and should be."

(Source: Federation of American Scientists newsletter 11-14-05; Italics mine.) It's nice to know that - with all the chaos in our Intelligence community, the constant exposing of corruption in the Executive Branch, and the abundant failure of the Federal government to provide the same kind of attention for American victims of national disaster as they do for leeching foreign countries - someone's taking some time do do something right and noble. There can be no greater threat to the survival of the United States, nay the world and it's children, should we forget the great and legendary Tupac ... Not to completely rip off the bit, but to quote Jon Stewart: "... yep, 95% incumbency ..." Meandering thought: There ought to be a segment on every local news station every night ... "Here's what your local Congressmen did in Washington today ..." I wonder how many of these people would get re-elected if people could see these daily time-and-money-wasters.

I particularly liked If cars were like computers. As a user of both Windows and Mac platforms, I can appreciate ...

The primary reason I don't have Service Pack 2. I did have it, but my computer went schizophrenic, disabled a bunch of stuff (like the integrated sound card!), hid my partitioned D drive, and generally drove me batty. I'm a decent computer user - responsible and somewhat knowledgable - but I shouldn't have to know a dozen backdoors into OS settings just to get my CDRW drive to open. I'm waiting on Vista for a long while. Our IT guy at work is a friend, and he knows WinXP, networking, and all that jazz really well. Whe he trusts Vista to run a massive database of images, invoices, and high-end inventory control software I'll upgrade.

This was taken at this past winter NAMM Convention in Anaheim, CA, where I ran an exhibitor booth. That's me on the right. Crystal Method on the left. Our booth-on-a-loading-dock in the background. (Ah, yes. NAMM = National Association of Music Merchants)

I live in Tampa, so Rita's no more than wet streets to me. However, the season's not over yet; anything more than a Category 2 heads for the bay area, I'm splitting the asphault out of here. There will be a slowly dissolving Jason-shaped cloud where I was just standing.

If a legal standard - at a Constitutional level - states that all citizens are protected equally under the law, why would special provisions need to be made for minorities, women, etc.? Even a mention sort of implies a meaning of "all people are protected, even those people", as if it's a common assumption that a lesbian of Eskimo descent would otherwise be excluded from the protections a hetero white male would enjoy. A is A; "all citizens" means "all citizens". Furthermore, I'd change that "created equal" part to simply "are equal". All you have to do is define what legally constitutes a citizen, and lock down equal protection. You can't outlaw religion in politics, but, assuming a proper Constitution would have a clearly defined amendment or clause abolishing official church law from becoming (or being used as the basis for) state law, I'd hate to leave an opening like using created or creator - especially Creator. Although I'd welcome the coming of a Second Constitutional Congress before the mess really hits the fan, I fear that there may not be enough men of the mind - or even men of the Enlightenment - to truly and finally secure the sovereignty individual rights. Many things would have to happen first, and it would take many decades to reverse the damage done, especially by some of the breaches written into the original, unamended Constitution.

As a fellow atheist who "doesn't flaunt it", I'd wait until the issue comes up with your father. Don't force it, but even if it does come up in conversation, I think you're in a decent position. Your father, once an Objectivist, understands your position (even if he's fallen from the path). Describe yourself as an Objectivist, and if he tries to debate you, politely decline. Ultimately, you can preserve your relationship with him by taking an "if I'm wrong, I'll figure it out on my own" stance. You're not really compromising your values, and the appeal to individualism is a safe way of "agreeing to disagree". Perhaps, in time, he'll discover the "key log" that's keeping him from returning to Objectivist thought, and you'll be there to help.

Bah! Not just the toys! LOL! I don't really have many other examples than from sci-fi books & movies, but the kinds of things I see happening (or at least possible) in the next few decades are: - the spiders from Minority Report (great for use in collapsed buildings looking for trapped surviors, etc.) - the maintenence droids from Star Wars (things that roll around, delivering packages in skyscrapers, performing little mundane tasks) - the computer from Star Trek: TNG (voice-responsive, speech emulation, rapid access to information within a massive database) What about robots that can travel underground sewer & water lines looking for and repairing leeks? The military has been using remote control robotic helicopters in the field (I read a story about one being used to shoot up a limo full of al-Qaeda operatives!). How long before they're semi-autonomous? Stephen Baxter wrote about "Smart Drive", where cars drove themselves safely while on the highway. This kind of stuff. I'm just looking forward to a day when robots are whirring and buzzing all around.