Lemuel

An excellent resource for this special knowledge is Robert Zubrin's The Case for Mars. Zubrin is one of the world's leading experts on Mars ... um, the subject of Mars, rather ... and the book is a fascinating read. Even for a non-scientist like myself, I found the content plainly and logically presented, but not dumbed-down or pandering. I only had to skip a few pages of charts, tables, and graphs covered in chemical hieroglyphics. I don't have a copy handy, but a fairly good condensation of the book's subject matter can be found over at Wiki. The most striking thing I can remember from the book is Zubrin's claim that we could terraform Mars into a self-sustaining planet in less than 200 years using existing technology. The engineering is pretty advanced - giant orbital mirrors focus spots of sunlight on the surface, thawing frozen regolith & releasing trapped gases and chemicals - but possible. He even makes a nice economic argument, demonstrating that even though billions would go into the first missions, the financial rewards are numerous. He does suggest a government co-op to spawn development in Mars technology - matching private funds with public grants, etc. - which I'm not in favor of so much. While I understand the sentiment of "if the govt's going to spend the money anyway", I need to add that the government never knows when to get the heck out of the way. Or maybe they do and just don't like giving up power. Either way, public funding is a dangerous gambit if we ever hope to look at Mars - or any other space venture - as a future capitalist frontier.

I enjoy the RSS Feed screensaver on my Mac, which I use for graphics work in between tasks that involve my work-supplied PC, but would like to have more than one feed at a time. I like the fact that OO.net has a feed - I visit and read a lot more often than I would otherwise.

There's a cable access show I catch sometimes where a pair of guys from some atheist club have discussions, and take calls. It's annoying to watch because they don't have a firm philosophical base for their non-belief, so they just use a technique of throwing a caller's rant back at them. Occam's Razor is about as intellectual as they get, and that's just not enough. While they do occasionally deal with church/state separation issues, it's not really a politics show. Most of the time it's just negative ranting followed by rambling Christian callers, then more off-topic discussion. Besides, how do you fill a half hour with just atheism? "Hi. We don't believe in God. It's a bunch of make-believe silliness. ... Okay ... let's take a phone call ..."

The author only understands atheism from the outside in, which causes him to make such statements. If he understood that atheism is not a causal philosophy, but indeed the consequence of recognizing immutable metaphysics, he wouldn't make such statements. It's a little frustrating how non-atheists view those that don't believe.

One could also argue that the Civil War was a victory for capitalism. America could no longer live with the contradiction of recognizing individual rights and practicing slavery. Freedom, the condition that makes capitalism possible, won.

Mr. Donaldson sounds like an excellent negotiator, but I'd be concerned about his leadership. If his last company folded due to his lack of adaptability - in a field that demands it - I'd have to wonder if he's learned how to take risks. Borrowing $2 billion to buy a company and get back in the game would indicate a desire to take risks, but will he be reckless, pouring millions into risky money-losing ventures? How would your position at Smith Corp - a new one for the company - factor into this? Will the weight of the company be on your shoulders? Is Smith Corp taking a risk (not in terms of skill, but in terms of appropriateness) by recruiting you? I'm sure there's more to the story, but based on the story you gave I can understand that taking such a job would be a risk. I suppose the first question I'd ask myself is: will this be a career move that will benefit me even in the worst case scenario - Mr Donaldson's leadership destroys the company?

I doubt Halley's story will be well-covered in the film. Being a musician, I'd love an unedited scene based on the private performance he gave for Dagny, though. There are a few composers that could handle the job of writing Halley's Concerto. John Williams isn't the greatest original composer in the world, but he's an excellent imitator. Given a few pieces to work from, an obvious late-Romantic period influence, and some careful direction, he could do it. Jerry Goldsmith would also be one of my top choices. I'm sure there are also more than a few young, "undiscovered" neo-Romanticists out there as well. Many schools are starting to graduate "film composers" who are trained in styles from every period, not just trained in modern "anti-music". As far as casting the part of Richard Halley, my firm choice would be David Hyde Pierce. He's a great actor, but most importantly his pre-theater training was as a concert pianist. Pierce is an excellent player, and could handle shooting scenes where the playing doesn't have to be faked or hidden (mercifully). Another good pianist is Kelsey Grammar, and - as a cute nod to the professional rivalry between the academic Niles Crane and advice-radio host Frasier - I'd cast him as Mort Liddy.

It takes time, too, especially if your previous epistomology was contrary to Objectivism. I grew up a Christian, had my doubts in my teens, read Rand in college, and declared myself an Objectivist when I was 22. Only after several years did Rand's moral principles really sink in. For example, I learned Galt's creed the hard way. I found a woman I shared an important value with, then irrationally made her the center of my life. Hoping that one value we shared would trump the rest, I made every decision about her. Eventually, the other values I ignored - mine and hers - came into conflict, and it resulted in ... well, shame on my part. An unrequited love may not be the makings of a great romantic novel, but it was enough to witness an important moral principle manifest itself. Galt's words couldn't have been clearer to me. I "grokked" what Rand was saying about living for others (and asking them to live for me), and began to actively implement other ideas, not just agree with them intellectually. Being an Objectivist requires active thought, patience, practice, and some guts to either stand by your moral convictions - or change them if incorrect - when faced with a challenge.

Excellent idea, Rex! They could even bring back the same marketing tactics that they used for the book's original release ...

I may be incorrect, but it doesn't sound lik Dr. Brooke meant a specific attack on ARI, like it was a strategic target or something. But even if it was, he would be correct. If Mexico is defending its sovereignty against an aggressive US invasion, they have the right to use whatever force is necessary. Attacking civilians is a means to turn the enemy's tactic from offensive to defensive, a position that provides more potential for your victory. Brooke's comments in "Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defense are relevant:

Scary indeed. Having spent my youth in and around the church, I've witnessed many of the techniques these camps use to indoctrinate children. I went to a several of these (gee thanks, Mom & Dad ...). Even then, before I rejected it all and became an Objectivist, it scared the daylights out of me. There's so much pressure to conform. If you're on the outside even a little, the leaders of these events single you out and humiliate you in front of your peers. Some of the events are small, but many are enormous with thousands of attendees. I wanted nothing more than for it all to be over each time, and resented not being left alone when I didn't want to participate in their embarrassing activities. It's just sick what these camps do.

And if logic and reason don't serve you all that well, I recommend an interesting article from Time Magazine entitled Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away: From page 2 of the article ... (Emphasis mine) These guys became convinced of their own b.s. (or smoked way too much pot) and made a film without double-checking their research or putting particular facts into context. It is a hoax, clean and simple.

Has anyone been keeping up with Prison Break? I stumbled into a marathon of the first half of season one several months ago, and I'm hooked. It reminds me of what Ayn Rand said about hero-motivated plots being esthetically preferable (to her) to villain-motivated ones. The fact that the series's protagonist is a brilliant structural engineer makes it even that much more enjoyable, even though they tried to play his genius once as some kind of mental anomaly (they haven't brought it up since, so I'll pretend that scene was written as a filler sequence ).

Talk about consistency: even in death he was teaching people about animals. All day Sunday the news networks were doing 3 minutes on Steve, and 5 more on stingrays. I learned more about stingrays this weekend than I ever had before! How sad, though. I'll really miss that mad bloke. Mercifully, his family is set for life. While I know it doesn't do much to soothe the pain of losing a husband/father, it's good to know that the financial burdens that come with the death of a family provider won't be felt along with the grief.

I know, I know ... I was just being snarky, but perhaps I was being unnecessarily ruthless. It's just, when I read "we are the producers" my mind went back to Atlas, and I saw the heros standing tall against a swarm of looters and moochers. Then I read "Splashin' Safari" and had to giggle a bit. There's nothing wrong with a theme park, and actually I have to admire them a bit. They give their patrons a momentary thrill, but it's all completely safe. Just imagine Rand's heros at a theme park - they'd have flung their hands in the air with wild abandon on the roller coasters. And, of course, they'd be made of Readen metal, powered on Galt motors, designed on Roark architecture, and engineered by Taggart technicians. The lesser mortals would get a blood pressure spike just looking at the rides ...

I would have liked to have seen references to the Ayn Rand Institute rather than the Atlas Society, but at least it's positive press for Atlas Shrugged. This section, though, is a little wonky: God help us all if the Splashin' Safari shuts its doors! That'll be a Planet of the Apes Heston moment, for sure ...

"Welcome to Secure Lock's 24 hour service line. For English, press star, 1." [*1] "For Spanish, press star, 2." ... [*1] ...? "For Swahili, press star, 3." [*1]! "You entered: English. If that is correct, say 'yes'." "Yes." "That was an invalid entry. To speak to a customer service rep, say 'help'." ... "Help!" "Para la prensa número dos del español." [*1]![*1]![*1]! "That was an invalid entry ..." ... half an hour, and three-quarters of the cell phone battery drained ... "To reset your password, press star, 8." [*8] "To return to the previous menu, press 0." [*8]![*8]![*8]! "That was an invalid entry. Thank you for calling. Goodbye!" No thanks. I'd sooner throw a rock through a window.

It tells me I'm a Roark. Thanks, Internet!

I second the motion.

It's not explicitly anti-capitalist, but the section on the history of the Federal Reserve was a bit irresponsible. He talks about how Rockefeller, Morgan, and other magnates "bribed" Congress into passing the Federal Reserve Act, then pushed the 16th Amendment through. He then goes on to define fascism as corporate control of government, according to Moussolini's identification of it as 'corporatism'. Not a single time do the words capitalism or free market enter the discussions, though.

What kind of TV shows do you like? "Best movies ever made" is a really broad category. There are a lot of ways to evaluate them - story/screenplay, acting, directing, etc. - in every genre. But, there are several lists that always get published with "best movies ever made" in mind, and usually the top ten include some classics. Even though it's a big site, I love the Internet Movie Database, the most comprehensive collection of films and actors - all cross-referenced - online. Maybe start with searching an actor you like, and seeing what else they've done. Or put in a movie you enjoyed to see a short list of related movies. They're not always on the spot, but a little linking around will provide you with some insight.

There's nothing wrong with them, it's just a bonus when the hero's goals are the plot motivation. In villain-motivated plots, one simply assumes the hero to be virtuous, but we don't get to see that until the bad guy starts causing trouble, which is usually about 5 minutes into the film. I recently saw the latest Harrison Ford movie Firewall. The most succinct way to describe the plot is: Jack Stanfield is a computer network security specialist for a bank. A thief kidnaps his family and forces Stanfield to hack his own computer system to steal a bunch of money. Okay, but what kind of guy is Stanfield? All we get is he's good at what he does and he loves his family, but outside of a heroic effort to rescue them, we don't really know his story. The hero is only two-dimensional; of course he'd want to save his family! Constrast that with a movie like Rob Roy. The plot: Robert Roy McGreggor is a Scottish Highlander, a leader of his clan, and a man with a great sense of honor. McGregor encourages a British noble to invest in his land, promising a great return. When the noble's henchman secretly steals the money, McGregor is forced to defend his honor against the noble. We get a sense of who McGregor is before the conflict occurs. Then one obstacle after another is thrown in front of him, until he finally confronts his accuser and the henchman that stole the money. Stories of this nature are, in my view, a lot better. Instead of being thrust into the action immediately, you get a real plot, and a character that can inspire you on some level, other than just righting a wrong - the hero has a goal and conquers ever-increasing challenges until he succeeds. With villain-motivated plots (especially in TV serials like Law and Order), the best you get is the reset: after all is said and done, everything's just back to normal. But, like I said, it's just a bonus. Few films encourage real heroism anymore; it's either self-defense or revenge (the story of antiheros).

Since very few films have a clear message - and the ones that do pander to leftist Hollywood politics - I go for other reasons. If it's entertaining, holds together without any huge plot holes, and is generally well done I'll like it. If a movie ends up having a hero-motivated plot (rather than villain-motivated, like detective stories) and displays a benevolent universe premise, I find it to be a pleasing bonus.

Being a hard sci-fi geek, there are several I'd love to see dramatized: Dan Simmons' Hyperion Cantos There are four books in the series, a perfect candidate for a Lord of the Rings treatment. While not especially Objectivist in nature, it's highly imaginative, epic in scope, and Simmons' style would demand a very capable director and talented actors. Stephen Baxter's Manifold Trilogy Each story is different, alternate-universe versions of the story of Reid Malenfant, probably the closest Galt-like character I've found outside Rand. Malenfant is an industrialist and former astronaut who was washed out of NASA, but spends his fortunes pulling off a historically significant private space venture. In one of the books, the military descends on his space port as he's launching on his maiden voyage - it includes a particularly awesome scene where the lead engineer on the project is screaming in victory as the roar of the lauch envelopes the control tower. Arthur C Clarke's The Songs of Distant Earth Man took to the stars in a rush after learning the sun's days were fewer than previously thought. The last seedship from Earth stops at one of the settled worlds for resources to keep going. They trade the settlers the last treasure rescued from Earth before it melted in the nova: all of history's art, music, and literature. Stephen Baxter's Exultant It's the story set in the distant future, when man has been fighting an enemy for 10,000 years and making little headway. They've beaten the enemy to the center of the galaxy, but haven't found the way to win the war. A scholar from Earth recruits a pilot to help him come up with the method to finally defeat their enemy. Pretty-much space opera stuff, but it's refreshingly concise in motivation: those are the bad guys, we must kill them before they kill us. Dan Simmons' Ilium and Olympos Futuristic retelling of the Trojan War, where the gods use cleverly disguised technology to interact with the Greek and Trojan armies. They've resurrected a 20th Century scholic to observe the events of the war to ensure consistency with Homer. When the scholic is discovered by Helen of Troy, Homer's story diverges, and the Greeks and Trojans band together to wage war on the gods that have manipulated them.

Filmmaker and former Libertarian Presidential candidate Aaron Russo's documentary America: Freedom to Fascism has opened in limited release, and I've just returned from seeing it. Briefly, the film's theme explores the legality of income tax, and the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve Act and the Constitution's Sixteenth Amendment, giving Congress the authority to collect income taxes. Objectivists are familiar with these themes, so there are no real spoilers here. The first part of the film wades in the shallow end of the issue of taxation. Focusing just on the income tax, Russo interviews people who all claim that there's actually no law that states Americans have to pay income taxes. These include a juror who acquitted a man on trial for tax evasion, two former IRS investigators who left the organization, and a family who was deprived of everything they owned in an IRS raid based solely on the accusation of tax evasion. Russo's somewhat responsible here, going to Washington to solicit interviews from the Internal Revenue Service for some clarity on the issue. Surprise, surprise: he's refused an interview with the IRS, and when he sets up a camera outside their building to maybe catch an employee heading out for some lunch, Homeland Security shows up. But the IRS gave him a break, and referred him to a former IRS Commissioner, the very Commissioner that wrote the current tax code. Russo innocently asks all the right questions, and when he catches the former Commissioner in a couple of glaring contradictions, he's told the interview is over. Of course, the man can't actually point to the law ... Here's where the film takes a sharp turn from making what could be a cogent argument into the paranoid. He shows that companies have created tiny microchips transmitters, points out the looming implentation of the Real ID Act (HR 418), and concludes that we'll all be implanted with tracking devices by the government. He shows testimony from a computer programmer that states that electronic voting machines can be rigged, points to evidence of foul play in the 2004 Presidential Election, and concludes that no matter who you vote for, we're all losers. War is expensive, banks have all the money, so the Iraq war is really all about the US and UK central banks controlling Middle East oil. Russo's whole premise rests on the definition of fascism as "corporatism", or the control of the government by private interests, namely the Federal Reserve. In the end, Russo calls for civil disobedience: don't vote for a candidate that won't promise to bring down the Fed, don't get the Real ID, etc. Suspiciously absent was a call to not file income taxes; sure, it's probably better that he didn't, but if we're in such deep trouble shouldn't we be doing more than refusing to pay attention to our government. My evaluation of AFTF is that - outside of the convincing nature of not finding the actual income tax law - the film is sloppy and irresponsible, and like much Libertarian fare, way off the mark. The production value is horrible; granted, Russo funded the film himself, but one could get a better digital camera and a copy of Final Cut Pro for under $5,000. There's far too much reading involved as well. Quotes are splashed on the screen constantly, many of them indirect, uncited, and provided with no context other than what he gives them. A couple of his interviewees - author G Edward Griffin, author Michael Ruppert, and scholar Edwin Vieira - come off as experts, but ... well, tighten your tin foil hat and click the links. Two things are glaringly absent in the film: 1. The blame for everything behind the Fed was put on wealthy capitalists of the early 1900s, but no attempt is made to define capitalism or even differentiate it from "corporatism". 2. While the legality of taxation is successfully challenged, the morality of it is not even discussed. The two big errors in the film that are fresh in my mind are: 1. Claiming that President Bush has created laws that allow him to activate a totalitarian police state overnight, then rolling out a list of Executive Orders as proof. Except all the Executive Orders cited were enacted by President Kennedy. 2. When calling for civil disobedience, he flashes images of Ghandi, then Martin Luther King ... then George Washington? Washington is an example of civil disobedience? In the spirit of Screw Loose Change, it would be nice to see a good point-by-point Objective analysis of AFTF, but I imagine that a couple of hours scouring the Oo.net forums would give one enough ammunition to see the film for what it is: the same old tired Libertarian agenda. SynthLord gives America: Freedom to Fascism ... $$-1/2 of 5