Lemuel

Well, I suppose in an ideal world, movies would be made to make a serious point and to "create and influence a better society." Of course, in an ideal world such as that, all the movie-makers would be hero-worshipping Objectivists. But it's not a perfect world, and I'm not so sure I want all movies to inspire a better culture. Sometimes, I just want The Big Lebowski, other times The Ring, and almost always Star Wars. Movies are entertainment, but more importantly, they are a form of art. Movies that exist just to make changes in society are at best called documentaries and at worst, propaganda. What I want out of a movie is the same thing I want out of a good novel: an emotional roller-coaster ride, a hero who overcomes new obstacles in clever and believeable ways, an intelligent and resourceful heroine, and a bad guy who sees the reality of his evil ways just before he's creamed in a spectacular, special-effects-laden explosion. Yes, it's art - and like all art in the modern world - most movies can be safely judged as wasteful filth. Especially those independant films that attempt to "elevate" that art to levels devoid of plot, characterization, moral point of view, or anything resembling meaningful content. If you want to change the world by demonstrating irresponsible environmental pollution, give me a story like A Civil Action that I can follow and evaluate on its merits or shortcomings. Making me watch 2 hours of Koyaanisqatsi isn't going to inspire me to rethink where I dispose of all of my carcinogenic toxic waste; it makes me want to beat my head against a sharp rock to escape the "high-minded, abstract" boredom of nature footage accompanied by the minimalist drone of Philip Glass. Movies should be entertainment and art, and proper art presents a view of life that one can choose to be inspired by or repulsed by. Proper entertainment - movies at least - allows for suspension of disbelief, has a gamut of emotional range, and a coherent point to it ... even if that point is a simple hero's quest to replace a beloved rug ... 'cuz it really tied the room together.

Last week I bought a 2005 Dodge Stratus. The "new car magic" will fade, but every day I drive to work, I celebrate the fact that I have achieved the next rung in my career (thus allowing me to afford a new car!). The car is my way of celbrating that achievement. Pics HERE.

A great chart can be found here which diagrams changes in gov't structure after the formation of the DHS. Interestingly, the Secret Service is now a function of the DHS, not the Treasury Department. It appears the DHS does not encapsulate the FBI and DEA , which are divisions of the Dept. of Justice. Homeland Security is a cabinet level office, answerable directly to the White House. As for objections to its existence, I agree with those who note that another "layer" of government is unnecessary, since there are functions in place under the military, Dept. of Defense, and Dept. of Justice to handle counter-terrorism and domestic intelligence. Furthermore, since the DHS has no executive barrier to the White House, accountability for any impropriety of method is reduced greatly. To challenge the DHS is to challenge the President. Currently, we have a President who simply ignores those challenges, and many feel his responses are blatant lies. Imagine what happens when the next guy comes into power, someone who's ambitious and realizes that every precedent and change made in this government by President Bush's administration can be easily used to destroy even the most basic freedom to broadcast philosophical opposition. Personally speaking, I find the increasing blanket of government secrecy very disturbing. It's not only military and law enforcement assets that are more tightly controlled, but any information that the government can hide under the vague categories of "public safety" and "security". Topographical maps, information on government contracts to private enterprise, portions of Supreme Court decisions (blacked out), funding appropriations, personal data on world leaders (even benign ones), and many other seemingly random types of data are being classified at (according to the Wash. Post) 10 times the rate it was a decade ago ... there was a 200% leap in 2000 alone, and it's risen from there. If our government has the wherewithal to classify any information it does not want to go public, and has the ability (under the Patriot Act) to bypass due process and engage in unwarranted searches and seizures, we have the apparent makings of bold, in-your-face tyranny. While its mandate may be "Homeland Security", the immoral and unconstitutional powers it has make the DHS a potent enemy to freedom in America. Furthermore, if the counter-terrorist purposes of "HomeSec" turn out to be too light a load (or too few actal terrorists are stopped, captured, or convicted), it will surely grow in power, not diminish. Already the Patriot Act has resulted in the arrest and prosecution of dozens of terrorist-unrelated criminals, because now they have powers previously forbidden to the gov't by the US Constitution. Now, I don't easily ride the Slippery Slope into Conspiracy Theory Screwball Town ... but when any action, idea, or statement by our huge government boils down to either: trusting their wisdom (mil. intelligence, political experience, etc.) or suspecting cover-ups and evasions, well bring me my tin foil hat ...

I like Shostakovich as well. The Fifth is great, and I've heard it a great number of times - most conductors just don't get it, though. They plow through the melodic sections way too fast, and the result is that the orchestra sees under-rehearsed. Dimitri's a heavy guy, and it takes a lot to pull of the Fifth. Festive Overture is a wonderful march for concert band and a really fun piece to play and listen to. When I was in college, it was a study piece for conducting class, and it's a blast to conduct as well. The interesting thing about Shostakovich is that, in order for him to exercise his talent and have a real career, he had to declare an allegiance to the Sovet regime. He hated supporting the communists, but was too compelled by his musical talent to stand against the Soviets. It's apparent in his music, too. Probably the best example (that I've heard) is his Symphony No. 7, entitled Leningrad. It was supposed to be a piece commemorating the rise of Leningrad, but when I listen to it, I clearly hear the Fall of St. Petersburg. It's not a triumphant symphony - the end of the 4th movement is nothing less than a shriek of terror. Shostakovich's "official" music all has a similar flavor, but the music he wrote for his son (a fantastic pianist and former conductor of the New Orleans Symphony), and other so-called "minor" works, display a more benevolent sense of life.

Could the same be done for the property under the Federal Reserve? ///they're knocking on my door in 3, 2, 1 ...

I know. I should have worded that differently.

I know that it has been translated into Swedish ... so has Atlas Shruged. I import Swedish-made keyboards into the US and sell them to dealers across the continent. Last August, a representative from the manufacturer visited us, and I discussed economics with him. He related the sad state of affairs in Sweden. Inflation is insanely out of control, sales tax is 25%, plus everything you do requires expensive, yearly-renewed licenses and permits, and the welfare state is so intense that fully half the population lves just as well off the State as the other half that works. He also siad that he had read AS in college and was heavily influenced by Rand and the novel. In the spirit of comraderie, I suggested he move his business to the US, but alas, they all have rooted families, yadda yadda. Anyhoo, both novels are in Swedish, in print, and sold at Swedsh bookstores throughout the country. I imagine they're viewed the same way many Americans view the Communist Manifesto here, as just another philosophy book to be maybe skimmed through lightly enough to form a lumpy opinion. Sad about Sweden, though - what a lovely country.

Dr. SynthLord seconds that diagnosis.

Hooray! A good decision from SCOTUS! Of course, I haven't read the decision yet, so it could be full of faulty logic, even though I dig the outcome.

Don't give moral ammunition to mystics by judging 3 Commandments "fair enough", though. While the prohibitions against murder and theft are justifiable, and to a lesser extent lying, they must be justified by a different moral standard. It is the acceptance of that Christian standard that is offensive, and the Ten Commandments being posted anywhere is simply a sign of accepting that morality, of accepting that arbitrary standard of law. Morality cannot be commanded by one person onto another. Morality is an individual decision and, in an objective reality, contextually and rationally based. The principle of rights - and the consequential defense of private property - are what prohibit and criminalize fraud, murder, and theft, not the whims of ghosts. Lying is only morally punishable by the State when it is manifest as fraud (a method of force) or perjury. Certainly the practical applications of enforcing the other seven Commandments is impossible if people are to be prosecuted for their violations alone. However, insertion of this "moral" code into a judicial system carries many other heavy practical consequences: - Would coveting alone be an acceptable basis for having a retail employee arrested for theft? - Would adultery be an acceptable consideration for a jury's deliberation over the fate of a murder suspect, equal to - or even supplanting - forensic and testimonial evidence? - What of the victims of child abuse - will honor thy mother and father become an effective argument of the defendants? - Would a sentence for, let's say, selling alcohol to a minor be doubled because the act occured on the Sabbath? Will the Courts clear this one up for us ... because at last check some people think the Sabbath is Friday, others Saturday, others Sunday; who decides? - While an under-the-breath curse against god might be protected as "free speech", could that heresy, worsen a charge, or be used against a collar after they've been read their rights? - How would this case be handled: a Catholic is fired from a job because she displays graven images, and they offend her Protestant boss's sensibilities? Who's religious display is protected? - Willl American Muslims, Hindus, and us atheists be awarded fairness, even though we openly profess to hold no/other gods before God? Will devout Cristians get a break? - Will putting the Jesus fish on my car get me a better break in a traffic stop than just that "I donated $40 to the Hwy Patrol" sticker does? Is any of this already happening? There are obviously many other examples, and I know I've gone on enough. The point is that, when America begins to truly and deeply accept the concept of rights, and their basis in reason and morality - not superstition and whim - will these religious monuments come down for good. Until then, the conservative-liberal tug-of-war will continue, and the prevailing arbitrary political climate will determine our treatment by the Law. I don't expect this decision to be anything but amended though, and future Courts allowing more religious displays.

Take a gander at that Constitution. Sounds like someone's been reading too much Heinlein. Do you think they eat anti-aging medications illegally imported from Mexico, thinking they're the Howard Families. I think Ayn Rand's name needs to be trademarked, just to keep pieces of work like these from sullying her name (to the uninitiated, of course) without paying dearly for it. Just my opinion ... no more nutty than anything written on their site. Wackjobs. On second thought, I totally support them. Let them get out of the way and go live on a little hurricane target in the Caribbean.

(No response to the direction of the thread...) I'm reminded of the scene in Atlas Shrugged where the feds broke into Galt's lab and it all crumbled to dust. I'm not particularly surprised by the S.C. decision; I am, however, very disappointed. The corruption of freedom in this nation is amazing; far more amazing is how few the outraged voices seem to be.

It's telling that most of the posts so far have started with "I just came from seeing Batman ..." Well, so did I, and I've got to say it was a very well-done superhero film. It was well-written, flawlessly directed, wonderfully acted, and refreshingly philosophical. Bruce Wayne comes away from the League of Shadows understanding justice can be served wthout vengeance, that the eye-for-an-eye approach brings you to the level of evildoers. This reinforces Wayne's friend Rachel's admonition before he vanishes into the criminal underworld. Wayne even manages a little Francisco d'Anconia facade - to protect his identity as a hero, he plays the rich, spoiled playboy-who-can-have-everything quite well. Unlike d"Anconia - who destroyed his fortunes to keep them out of the hands of looters - Wayne cleverly regains control of his inherited billions from Wayne Enterprises' caretakers. Aesthetically, I thoroughly enjoyed how Gotham was presented in Wayne's youth. The skyscrapers were tall and proud, glinting in the sunlight. His father - a proud capitalist - used his fortunes to construct an elevated train throughout the city (somewhat reminiscent of Roark building a housing project in Fountainhead). Railway cars sped along thin steel girders with the grace of a figure skater. Even in the "present" depiction of Gotham, the city's corruption was manifest as garbage and run-down buildings, rather than the confusing retro-Soviet sculptures and designs that dominated Joel Schumacher's travesties. It presented Gotham as corrupt and dirty, but a few street sweepers, window washers, and caped crusaders could resore Gotham's once-proud glory again. Batman Begins is also good use of romantic realism in film. Superhero films tend to go too far with the digital effects, and suddenly a character becomes little more than a Hollywood centerpiece for fancy graphics. Too soon, the special effects upstage actors who have won ultiple Academy awards ... Nothing appeared sound-staged, fake, or unbelievable in Batman Begins. Suspension of disbelief is easy to attain in Act 1, and by the time Act 2 hits, the viewer is treated to credible (but still amazing) action. While the stunts, chase scenes, and other collateral damage that comes with superheros was quite spectacular, it was plausible. One scene has the batmobile (more of a tank than a car) is racing along rooftops, ripping the roofing material away, as if this three-ton Humvee-on-PCP held its tread barely by grace of its speed. (For Marvel comics readers, not a single No-Prize can be awarded to this film. Everything had a reason, and at no moment did I think, "wait a minute ...") The film was clever, witty, exciting, paced, and manages to bring the best aspects of Bruce Wayne / Batman into focus. Oh, and none of the standard superhero pap about "sacrificing one's wants and desires to serve the greater good." Wayne is the picture of pride in this film, never apologizing, and pursuing his values like no one ever has before. Way to go, Chris Nolan and company - you done good! This Objectivist - and rabid Batman fan for a long time - gives it $$$$$.

Zepho, I'm interested in what you said, and I see the Republican machine attempting to gain more voters by creating the perception they're sensitive to "liberal" issues. President Bush campaigned on this platform in 2000, citing "compassionate conservatism" as a means to soften the public perception of conservatives as greed-mongers. Whatever quantitative affect it had was enough. I don't think Western civilization is "going down the tubes" - not in the way the Roman or British Empires did. I look at the current conservative political landscape and remember Frank Herbert: "Every revolution carries with it the seeds of its own destruction." A pessimistic remark, for sure, but it reminds me that any revolution - from a cultural trend to overthrowing a government - not firmly rooted in reality will eventually collapse. The conservative backlash of the past few years is being exposed ever more each day - from the cherry-picked intelligence that spawned Iraqi "Freedom", to the all-too-cozy relationship of Vice President Cheney to American contractors in Iraq, to Representative Delay's ethics violations, and so on. People aren't as blind or stupid as they're credited for being, and I fully anticipate the political spectrum will swing in the liberal direction in the coming years. Of course, the Democrats are going to have to get their act together to do this, and maybe Howard Dean as DNC Chairman can pull it off (although he's fumbling a lot lately, too). What concerns me is that, with every new political generation come more laws and controls meant to create exceptions or seal loopholes in legislation from the former generation. Will a Democratic Administration and Congress repeal the Patriot Act? I doubt it ... most likely certain provisions will be adopted by other Acts, laws, policies, and Executive Orders before the Patriot Act is casually swept under the rug. It concerns me that America is drifting aimlessly, but in the direction of a Statist regime, and few really see the long-term consequences. The only thing it will take, though, to begin THE END will be the further authoritarian growth of the government and corruption of political and economic leaders, coupled with another 9/11-like event. By then, it will be too late. If I'm still around and that happens, I hope I'm on Mars at the time.

The part that drove me bonkers was the rationale behind Wickard. He was told only to grow so much wheat for sale. He grew more, but the excess was for personal consumption. The government came in anyway, saying that growing wheat for himself would affect commerce anyway and he still broke the law. They used the rationale that a specific activity can be illegal because it falls into a general category of illegal activities within which another specific action has been deemed illegal. A specific instance where the law can be wrong (SHOCK!) is no excuse for breaking it. Does this mean I'll get thrown in jail for driving myself to the hospital on a suspended driver's license? According to that idea, yep. The logic ... excuse me, the lack of logic here is astounding. I don't know what to do but encourage everyone to look up their state's rules on jury nullification. That's where the roll-back is going to begin: some jury is going to watch as the State tries to ruin the life of someone who's done no harm to anyone else, and they're going to say "enough of this" ...

"Greedy's Gulch" ... I like that. State motto: "MINE!"

B first hires an attorney, having been told that the ruination of his life has been at the hands of A. B's attorney hires a private detective to verify B's claims. This can be done from profits generated by B's A: Debunked book. If the book didn't produce that much revenue, an attorney can be found - discretely - to investigate the claim to the point of accepting the case on a pro bono basis. Even though A forced B's former employers to sign non-disclosure agreements, the fact that A not just had a hand in B's serial dismissals, but indeed made it a personal goal, can be discovered covertly, but not illegally. A reasonable case can be then made against A for defamation (or some related charge of slander, libel, etc.). B's attorney files a civil suit against A. Once this is done, B's attorney contacts Oprah Winfrey, John Stossel, Dr Phil McGraw, and any other media personality with the audience and interest to run the story. B now has media coverage due to the fact that his family was dissolved by A's evil deeds, aided by the fact that family tragedies play well in TV ratings. While people are interested in the family story, a number of people interested in the intellectual argument in A: Debunked seek the book and purchase it. Regardless of the issue covered in the text, profits are generated for B. A will attempt to use B's unfortunate situation as an argument that B simply seeks publicity. After all, A claims, B's book was a failure, and this failure led to his difficulties in maintaining employment, his poverty, estrangement from his children, and his divorce. Now, assuming that B's book was right (as corroborated by expert plaintiff witnesses), and that B's attorney has conviction and talent, A's evil will be exposed, and a financial sum awarded. B - despite his torn-apart family and poor employment track record - is vindicated. From there, B can exploit the attention gained by the media, as well as by his intellectual peers, to get his life back together. A, having paid the award to B, is barred - by court order - from having any further contact with B, his family, or to have any financial ties to B. Anything A does from this point is a direct violation of court order, and subsequently he becomes a criminal, having violated a legal court judgement. - - - - - It's just one possible scenario, but it shows how B - even though he was the victim of totally legal actions by A - can fight back. The hard part comes next, as sympathetic legislators may attempt to exploit the situation by passing laws that restrict corporate ownership, investment, or provisions of those contracts (such as interference with employment policies). This is how bureaucracies are made. [it sounds like either a good Lex Luthor yarn or a bad The Practice episode, though ...]

I also agree with Donald Trump, and with the statements in your 'blog. It would be far better to rebuild the Towers in the image of their predecessors than to allow that monstrous Freedom Tower to be erected. I'm a fan of modern architecture, but rationally aesthetic modern architecture. This Freedom Tower looks like something melted. I don't know anything about "sending a message to the terrorists". It seems like an empty statement to me, as if the terrorists have some sort of organized aesthetic opinions. I'm wary every time the term "terrorist" is used, mainly because it sounds like "communist" probably did 50 years ago, or "witch" 300 years ago. If Trump gets to rebuild the Twin Towers, according to the design he released, it will be a far greater memorial to 9/11 victims - and to the determination and strength of American ideals (the real ideals: reason, pride, liberty, and capitalism) - than the Freedom Tower. To me, rebuilding them would be a greater statement of "we never forget" than building something else. Would we want a different design if Lady Liberty had been destroyed? I suspect, though, that whatever design does become reality, the new World Trade Center will be like Foutainhead's Cordlant. It will be infused with all sorts of committee recommendactions, public opinions, bureaucratic qualifications, "security" concerns, and anything else that can done in the attempt to satisfy everybody. I hope not - I want to see the Freedom Tower design get Trumped. Maybe Trump should rebuild the Twin Towers anyway - somewhere else in Manhatten. That'll show 'em.

[if this has been brought up befre, Mod, please do as you must ...] Donald Trump wants to rebuild the World Trade Center. Check out the designs and some of his criticisms of the contest-winning design HERE. Any thoughts?

I too have looked at the Free State Project, and I think with the right people it could work. Unfortunately, it's a Libertarian project, not an Objectivist one. The model I think would be the most successful has been practised already - by Christian conservatives. In large numbers spread out across the land, they inserted themselves in seats of local government, school boards, and state legislatures. The foundation was created at the local level. Of course, it didn't hurt that the ideology of these elected officials was tied to one of the two major political parties in what has ostensibly become two-party system. Once their local base was entrenched, all it took was the election of a right-wing administration to go from the top down. President Bush's agenda is largely supported throughout the nation, and by securing neo-conservatives in Federal administrative positions, the Republicans have both local and national presence. This is the model I see happening with Objectivists. It has to start with conscientious Objectivists willing to insert themselves into politics at the local level, establishing local small-town Objectivist cultures, moving on to State legislatures, and so on. I can't imagine that career would be terribly enjoyable for an Objectivist - constantly voting down local referendums every time someone shouts "there ought to be a law!" - but that's just my blythe opinion on local governments. Another method is in practise by more fundamentalist conservatives. There are many communities being built around churches, and they operate as self-contained small towns. These Christian communities exist in Texas and other western states, and their entire towns are based around church life and teachings. Everyone works, goes to church together, and the local council makes sure that unwanted elements (gambling, pornography, dancing, science text books, etc.) stay out. Don't get me wrong - I'd sooner debase myself for Mark Burnett Productions than live in one of these microtheocracies - but the model is familiar. Instead of trying to get freedom lovers to move into the bitter north, how about building little towns all over the country? Why not take a hint from Atlas Shrugged and start little Galt's Gulches everywhere? It would take massive resouces and initiative, but if the TBN crowd can do it, surely we can ... ... now will someone loan me about $25 million to get one started in central Florida? ... after I spend a few years studying rural land development?

I couldn't agree more. As a friend of mine once said many, many times: "We've got to get off this rock ..." And of course, see my sig.

I agree. What I like about Baltar is that he's not really written as a villain, or at least he's not played like one. When an actor intentionally plays a villain, he ends up coming off like the cliched, moustache-twisting scoundrel that ties debutantes to train tracks. Villains aren't always so cut-and-dry, even in Rand's fiction - the villains always start out successful, wealthy, highly respected, and oozing altruist rhetoric like some slimy politician. John Colicos' Baltar in the original series was a cheezy bad guy - he seemed like more of a dirty, perverted child molester that smelled of Vienna Sausages rather than humanity's greatest traitor. This Baltar is indeed acting in his self-interest - but second-handedly and at the expense of others. His agenda is not really his own, so he practices deceipt and manipulation to achieve his/Six's ends, and through the inevitability of those actions, will betray humanity on larger levels. The fact that he's a "wolf in sheep's clothing" is a great dramatic idiom, allowing the writers to further Baltar's actions without Adama et al discovering him until something monumentally disastrous has occured. The series' writing is tremendous, overall. While I find many characters who don't represent good Objectivist ethics, and the story may reveal traditional altruistic hero/villain roles, everything about the show is excellent. The attention to detail is well appreciated, and as a science fiction fanatic, it's a relief to see deeper characters and emotional drama within the sci-fi genre. I'm glad the show does so well in the ratings, too - that means more expensive advertising, and more episodes. WOOHOO!!

I could not agree with you more! A very well done series, and actually there are some interesting Objectivist principles that can be found, even if they're not put there intentionally (and filtered through my oh-I-hope-o-meter). A few that come to mind: 1. The relationship between Baltar and Number 6 is a great metaphor or the effects of the mind/body dichotomy. Six seduces him when he's pleased her (materialism), but puts the fear of God into him when he attempts independence (mysticism). He doesn't quite know which way to go, and the dichotomy has destroyed his rational self, victimizing him to her authority over his mind. 2. BSG Sharon - Boomer - undergoes a crisis of confidence when she doubts herself, believing something evil is lurking inside her. Her guilt erodes her ego, and (if you've been watching the show) the result is clear in the end. (Of course, the guilt is somewhat justified ... she is a Cylon). 3. Alternately, the Sharon on Caprica begins a difficult journey towards independence, betraying her Cylon masters and choosing her own values. She risks herself, the man she loves, and others, to establish her individuality and break free from the collective. I see it as a good demonstration of willpower over "conditioning". It will be interesting to see if she's truly independent, or succumbing to another kind of control, though (emotionalism). 4. The Kobolic (?) religion that most accept is a weakness. When they think they've found Kobol - the home of their gods - a Cylon trap awaits them. President Roslin, under the influence of cancer medication that causes hallucinations, gives in to these religious teachings, and her faith leads her to betray the safety of the fleet. 5. Adama is brilliantly played by Olmos, and isn't completely rational (paying lip service to religious legends while personally disavowing them - sanction), one of the most rational characters on the show. He desires retribution against a trusted subordinate, but recognizes her value to him as more important than his rage. He keeps a cautious, skeptical distance from Baltar rather than placing complete faith in his genius. He can alternately treat Apollo as a military subordinate and as a son, without contradiction. He keeps the reactionary cynic of Col. Tigh at bay, but can weed out a rational argument if one is presented. Maybe too much of a stoic for my taste, but a somewhat virtuous character at least. 6. More virtuous, though, is his son Apollo, who can see the reality of a situation despite the agendas between his superiors. Lee's allegiance is to the truth, and remains practical and realistic, yet courageously defies expectations and bravely risks his life, his career, and his relationships to do the right thing. Not a Rand hero - it's too early to tell - but virtuous, indeed. Heck his call-sign's Apollo for frak's sake ... (So far, the only thing that could ruin Apollo for me is to make him an altruist.) 7. Faith is denounced in the form of man's enemy. The evil Cylons are motivated blindly by an inarticulate faith that drives them to commit atrocities against mankind in God's name. While the show isn't as cut and dry as this, and future story-arcs will determine whether the above-mentioned opinions are baseless or justified, it's still a very well made show ... in my opinion it's way better than the original (but that's a battle waged elsewhere). I can't wait for season 2 in July!

I heard some comments of hers from a couple of speeches on the radio Wednesday ... read by Rush Limbaugh of all people. I have to say that eveything I heard was consistent with Objectivist principles. I'm going to do some research on her ...

I hope this is just a wry, sarcastic comment ...