Lemuel

Bored one night, I went to the theater for this one. When the psychic (pshycho?) medium came on the screen, I walked out of the theater. The ride home was more stimulating. I didn't see how it ended, but I remember hoping the film reel would blink into nonexistence.

What about ... < Rockwell’s and Steven’s > ... instead of < Rockwell's and Steven's > It's a jump-up regarding the browser I use - sometimes Safari, sometimes Firefox, mostly Opera - but the single apostrophe seems to always give me < ’ >. Is there a setting I need to change?

In person, I take a similar tactic as some above. If a conversation warrants my input, I'll give my opinion, which is often quite different than anyone else's. I try to put it in a way that invites developmental questions (those that require more than a yes/no response). If I get the opportunity to elaborate, I stay as succint as I can. I'll usually throw in a little philosophical foundation and O'ist plug: "I disagree with your notion that militant Muslims aren't evil people. The reason you can't figure out what should be done about terrorism is because you think it's not your right to judge people as evil. It is your right, though. As an Objectivist, I believe that a person must always exercise rational judgment according to what he sees right in front of him. Terrorists initiate lethal force against people in an attempt to conquer them. This is evil, and can only be dealt with one way: delivering their violence back to them tenfold." Don't be antagonistic; just explain your position and calmly know that as far as you've figured, you're right. (Just be right!) Eventually, those that care about issues or politics or ideas will come to you and ask, "You've got an interesting take on things. What do you think about ...?" If you engage in a productive conversation - succintly implanting Objectivist ideas efficiently and logically - you'll get their gears moving. If this has happened three or four times, and they haven't tried to scratch your eyeballs out, it's time to pick out an appropriate Rand work and buy it for them.

That was wrong. Just wrong. Context, please. It depends on how they're prepared.

The more I read about this project, the less excited I'm about it. Kelly co-producing? Blech. This makes me fear it will be more "Heinlein Shrugged" than "Atlas Shrugged". The trilogy idea sounds okay, but $40 million sounds a bit skimpy for a three part epic. The noise about Pitt and Jolie also puts me off, too. With all their altruistic behavior regarding the third world and poverty, how could they be interested in participating beyond the acclaim for having starred in an epic film? I can see it now ... "I wanted to do this movie because of its powerful message; we shouldn't rely on government to fix the problems of the world, but instead turn to the example of people like Bill and Melinda Gates." Plus, I just don't want to watch them in key hero roles ... totally wrong, IMHO. I really think the purpose being dramatizing the book is to plant some key ideas in viewers' heads, inspiring them to read (or finish reading) the novel. I know how difficult it is defending Objectivism outside of comfort zones like OO.net - debating with people who never read Rand, or only read about half of AS, is hard enough. Imagine having to add "well, if you'd read the book and not just seen the movie, which gets selected scene wrong" to the discussion ...

It could be part of the cloth that was pulled off for the unveiling.

The Statue of Liberation Through Christ: Source: NY Times "Lady Liberty Trades In Some Trappings" By SHAILA DEWAN Published: July 5, 2006 - - - - I grew up in the neighborhood right behind this monument abomination. The church used to be called Central Church ... we called it the Close Encounters Church because it looked like the mother ship from Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Google Map image; click on hybrid view), especially at night. It was the only place in SE Memphis where you could seat over a thousand people, so that's where my high school graduation ceremony was held. What a shame.

All true, but - and I know there have been several incarnations over his 70-year story - Superman has left Kent behind and become the confident purposeful hero he should be. This is especially true in the JLA story arcs, when the League became full-time defenders of humanity against evil "metahumans". They occasionally slipped into their secret identity lives, but found that they were constantly exposing loved ones to danger, so it was better to be "out of the closet" heros.

(Spoilers below ...) I did enjoy the hint of Ellsworth-Toohey-ness about Luthor, but like everything else in the film it's not exploited to its potential. Lex Luthor is a bad guy, indeed, and needs to be written as a less moustache-twisting villian than he's ever been, but there was a lack of purpose in the character ... like Singer was 5 minutes late to witness Luthor's true evil. It wasn't the Superman film I would have written - were I a screenwriter. Given the plot, my alterations would be: 1. Superman should have returned with more resolve and purpose, rather than trying to slink back into the daily life of Clark Kent. Instead of being a reluctant hero, he'd return as the savior he hears everyone clamoring for. 2. Luthor would have been someone of more public stature, having "redeemed" himself after a prison stint and taken on a humanitarian (with ulterior motives) persona. 3. (Agreement with above ...) Lois's bitter article would have been the title of her hatred & dismissal of Superman, and the subplot of her re-realizing her love for him (and why) would have been more transparent, and less hampered by the drama with her boyfriend. The implication the film presents is that she and Supes can't be together ... a foggy mirror of the Peter Parker/Spiderman conundrum with Mary Jane in the first Spidey flick. And, yeah, she should have been a bit older. 4. Routh would have had the opportunity to develop Superman as his character, rather than trying to just fill in for Reeves. A curteous nod in Reeves' direction would have been a nice touch, but the possibility of this being a new franchise is too important to let the first Superman film since Reeves to be a taped audition for the role. As Hopkins proved in Oliver Stone's Nixon, an actor does not have to look like the character to "be" the character. Besides, I think that the continuity of the films can be considered fairly broken when there's a 20 year gap between them ... a concept certainly Lucas should have considered. But, there were some things I really liked: 1. The flying sequences were done right. I know it's all digital trickery now, but at least they directed it right. When I think of someone as powerful as Superman flying, what Returns did with it is spot-on. 2. The twist on the crystal continent was a nice touch, too. Anticipating the hero's response and minimizing his efficacy is clever, and that spoke to Luthor's intelligence. (After all, he's supposed to be incredibly brilliant, in whatever incarnation ... comic, cartoon, etc.) 3. The surprise. I won't say it for the ones who haven't seen the film, but for those that did, the word "piano" reveals it. I honestly didn't see that coming, and look forward to seeing how it's played out in the future. 4. The details: the role call of cities that reported Superman sightings ... the fall & thud ... the needle. Hearing the ultra-fanboys saying "did you see how that shot was like Superman #123? Cool!" was gratifying. 5. The inclusion of John Williams' themes and melodies in the score. Having purchased the soundtrack, I love the marching, heroic overture and the romantic love theme. Nothing takes this 32-year-old fanboy back to his childhood quicker than hearing the themes from a Superman or Star Wars flick. For better or worse, it makes me glad all those icons from my earliest memories are reseurfacing in popular culture.

I wouldn't go so far as to classify oratory as art qua art, but certainly there is an element of literary creativity to it. It can be quite poetic, as you can read in many of the paragraphs of John Galt's speech. Even the most brilliant mind espousing reason can dull an audience with a monotonous speech. How inspired would you be listening to Ben Stein read the Declaration of Independence (as Ferris Bueller's economics teacher)? I wouldn't say that an audience "must consist of mostly stupid people", either. It's almost as if you're saying that a well-performed speech must be balderdash, since it requires flowery language to woo its audience. Can't salesmanship be salesmanship without one feeling like they're being taken for a ride? Must Objectivism be dry, preachy, and unemotional in order to be trusted? Certainly not, and I'm glad that most of the material I've listened to has not been like that. Speech isn't acting - a great speaker uses acting methods, true - but acting is playing a part. Oratory is not theater, though - it's about delivering an honest, personal message in a passionate manner that inspires listeners to pay closer attention, to learn, and to act on that new knowledge - or at least ask some new questions.

I'm going to try Psych, which begins on the USA Network soon. The main character isn't really a psychic, he's just got a photographic memory and is highly observant - but he fools the police into thinking he's psychic so he and his buddy can get work. It's a comedy, but I have to wonder if there's any new place for psychic-driven TV dramas to go? USA's got two other shows that deal with it. The Dead Zone is just tired old "something bad is going to happen so the misunderstood psychic stops it" formula. There's a poor attempt to weave the original film's stop-the-politician-from-destroying-the-world plot thread into a kind of X-Files "mytharc". In The 4400, where as many people mysteriously return from being abducted, each with a different "gift", actually plays the psychic motif well. Instead of changing the future, Maya (10-12 years old) is a kind of Cassandra, who sees a future that cannot be changed ... she's really kind of creepy, which I think a true oracle would be. But, I think after Superman Returns I'm spending more time with hard scifi and less with super-power characters/shows. Outside of a few comics that have the freedom to run with interesting concepts, special-ability characters are written very poorly. I love sci-fi, but the constant homage to the supernatural is wearing my patience thin. ... and I have to wait until October for more Galactica ...

I'm a rare bird in that I love a well-crafted speech. While I disagree with every vicious word that comes from a televangelists' mouth, I often watch them, momentarily the captive of a great speaker. In the same way, I'm a fan of The West Wing, because Aaron Sorkin's writing was full of inspiring and powerful language - even though I fervently disagree with his politics. I have enjoyed the few Objectivist speeches that are available for free online. I actually enjoy Mr Peikoff's voice and find his style very palatable. Dr. Brook is also quite good, evoking a sense of confidence and calm strength in the words he chooses. I recently bought and watched Why Conservatives are Anti-Business, and have watched it two or three times already. Even with her really thick Russian accent, I have enjoyed the few audio and video recordings of Miss Rand. I often wonder if the fact that her accent forced people to listen intently worked in her favor; certainly her message made an impact. I know there is a wealth of material available - and I'd have to be a bit wealthier to get it all - but I want more. I don't think there's anything more persuasive than a great speaker, with an agreeable point to make, confidently delivering a speech to a captive audience. I want to hear someone use the same kind of uplifting language that Ayn Rand used when she described her heroes, someone expressing the conviction of Howard Roark's court defense, and who inspires and maintains the rapt attention of a large audience. I long for the day when Objectivists can elevate from giving talks and lectures to presenting great oratory, adding that element of performance to their message, and do so in regular broadcasts. Why should just the witch doctors get the glory? Must we continually suffer political speeches delivered by leaders who are as inept in their message as they are in its delivery? President Bush's condescending tone, improvisational wordsmithy, and simplistic manner make my blood boil as much as his policies, and I'd rather be skinned alive than sit through an hour of CSPAN Senate coverage. I don't have a question or even an issue to bring up; I'm just tossing a ball out wondering if anyone's going to run with it. I just want to ackowledge the few speakers that I have heard discussing Objectivism and say that I enjoy every bit I can get, and will buy more and more every chance I get. Perhaps one day, we can turn on the TV and, instead of Falwell or Graham or this madman, we'll watch an Objectivist deliver a speech to a massive congregation (little 'c'), and in our own way, say "Testify, brother!"

I disagree with you, arete1952. Both jazz and classical theory can be taught together; a good curriculum will do so and be heirarchical in nature: 1. Common practice theory, voice leading - knowing the "formula" provides the right foundation, and (contrary to mystical musicians' creeds) does not hamper your creativity; it can be tedious, but it's worth it to be gain the ability to play a song from memory after one listen-through ... all because you understood how the melody worked, and memorized the chord changes beneath it (changes that recur with staggering regularity in pop and jazz music) 2. Form & analysis - know the difference between a sonata allegro form and a rondo; know how to describe music in large chunks, how differentsections modulate to one another, etc. 3. Music history - it helps to understand how music developed over time, and in what ways Romantic music differs from Baroque, harmonically and stylistically 4. 20th Century harmony - there are a lot of snobs that dismiss anything 20th century as "noise" but having an understanding of now non-linear forms can work will assist you in your jazz studies. Jazz utilizes all five major harmonic lagnuages: diatonic tertian, hyperchromatic quartal, polychordal, non-linear hyperchromatic tertian, and even dodecaphonic (also known as 12-tone, or serialism) 5. Instrumentation - knowing how some instruments complement each other, which instruments have certain tonal weaknesses and pitch tendencies, etc. helps in learning the mindset of blending and fronting in an ensemble, whether it's an orchestra or a big band 6. Jazz theory, form, and instrumentation - know the different eras, styles, innovators, and how they did things In making or playing any so-called "abstract" music, one should have a firm grounding in formal theory and history. As "out there" as many modern composers were, the best could write beautifully in Baroque, Classical-period, and neo-Romantic styles - they just chose to work in (for better or worse) new territory. Without that formal training, you're only going to be capable of two things - making random noise, and copying others' chops. If you plan to make music a career, anyone who might hire you for a gig will be able to sniff that out quickly. Regarding performance, you should find a balance between studying formal (classical) guitar, and participating in jazz combos or lessons which encourage structured and guided improvisation. Pedagogy - the discipline of understanding how your bod y relates to the instrument you play - is essential, and will help you develop the most efficient way for you to play it. The primary benefits to studying classical along with jazz are stamina, and reducing wrong notes markedly. Something else I suggest (at least I wish I had done it this way): take as many of your non-music classes (core curriculum) first, then focus on the music next. I hate that state schools mandate these core classes to obtain a degree because it can create scheduling nightmares. If you absolutely have to mix the two, attempt to insert a free period before any music class so that you have time to warm up and review the material. Since music will be your major, you should do everything possible to maximize what you get out your performance classes and lessons. (Of course, to perform or be any kind of pro musician, it's training and talent that determine your employability far more than an actual degree. Unless you're going to Berklee, Eastman, Curtis, or the like, and you have a choice, saturate yourself with music classes and don't bother with those BS 8am health and fitness classes ... Take the music classes and get out there and start working. But it's your degree: make your own choice.) One last piece of advice. Of all the skills you will learn as a musician, probably the most important is sight-reading. Understand different methods of writing chord symbols, and spend lots of time reading new charts and developing that quick-reflex playing. I've seen guys who were monster shredders with great ears get shown the door in 5 minutes because they had to ask if the circle with a slash through it meant a diminished or half-dimisnished chord ... Read some materials on what it was like to try out for FrankZappa's band. That's the level of discipline and talent you should be prepared to take to every gig or audition.

At understanding the full weight of the abstract concepts? Probably not. But in terms of a common sense approach? I think so. Those of us that study Objectivism tend to remain "academic" in our discussions with one another. It's the best way to be honest about how we think, and also remain willing to be corrected if we're not considering a pertinent fact or concept. In my conversations with non-Objectivists, my approach is simpler. To the uninitiated, Objectivism (or any philosophy, really) takes some time to digest. But it also takes personal effort on their part. The goal in discussing ideas with non-Objectivists should not be to "convert" them, but to put phrases into their heads that they'll remember. Call it "planting seeds." Do that enough, and the right people will come around wanting to know more. You'll know whent he time is right to say "here's Virtue of Selfishness (or whichever text is most appropriate given the spark of their interest); read it, take your time and really think about it, and if you have any questions give me a call."

Awesome! I love the music: improvisational and "human" is the best way to do hip-hop IMO. I also like the vocals (nice vocoder work!) and lyrics, and think there's nothing wrong with rap (done right, of course) as a way of getting rational, pro-reason ideas to a larger audience than the oft-academic tone of Objectivist activists. (ADD moment: should we do like Stephen Colbert and create a new word - 'Objectactivists'?) Anyway, it may not be everyone's cup of joe, exaltron, but I dig what I hear on your MySpace page. You just sold a CD, sir! Best wishes!

I recently purhased an "Enjoy Capitalism" t-shirt from Felix's JohnGaltGifts.com, which I've worn a few times already. Our office dress is very casual, and several people noted that they liked it a lot. A colleague - who is a Mormon Republican - asked me where I got it; I told him I'd let him know if he disavowed his allegiance to the Republican Party. He looked at me quite confused, but didn't pursue it further; I suspect he'll ask one of these days when I wear it again. In the meantime, I enjoy using the ball-point pens with the same "Enjoy Capitalism" logo. Thanks, Felix!

'Ayn' is also a Hebrew word ... Source: http://www.read-the-bible.org/Beginning.html (Yea: be not alarmed - it was a Google search ... ) I'd like to know if anyone with some Hebrew skills can verify this ... I read (somewhere ...) that was the reason for her choice of 'Ayn'. I don't know where the 'Rand' comes from, though ...

I agree, tnunamak. I thought it was a very hasty end to what started out as a great trilogy. But a trilogy wasn't what was really planned for, so thematically all three suffered. It would have been great had the humans-vs-mutants motif been explored a bit further, as a primary theme throughout all 3 films. Heros should drive the plot, and the major conflict could have been the mutants seeking acceptance in a world of humans frightened of them. Of course, the Brotherhood would provide the obstacles that motivate the heros to victory ... All of that was in there, but the viewer has to tie it together on his own. That kind of conceptual continuity was not imminently present in the first 2 films, and the hasty attempt to bring it all together in a climactic third film was clumsy at best. It would have been better if the producers had planned better from the beginning, weaving all 3 stories together as chapters of a larger story ... like Lord of the Rings or either Star Wars trilogy (especially Eps IV-VI). X3 earns a C- in my gradebook. Not horrible, but worth renting on a rainy night when it comes to DVD. I can only hope that there are enough deleted scenes to save the film, and since it was under 2 hours in length, I suspect there will be plenty of them. ... But there's hope yet - Superman Returns looks like it's going to be frikkin' unbelievably good. Brian Singer did so well with the first 2 X-Men movies that I can forgive his absence from X3 so he could direct it. Oh, how we need Superman ... if you haven't watched the trailer it's here. If you don't get goosebumps, there's something wrong with you ...

I am finally going to get into studying all of philosophy, not just Objectivism, and I've been searching for an introductory text for a while. Right now, I'm just browsing the selections at the local Borders and Barnes & Noble, and when I come across an introduction book, I usually check the index for a reference to Objectivism or Ayn Rand. Not surprisingly, such references are rare. However, the word 'objectivism' appears sometimes, and it usually is presented as a slight hiccup in one of the book's chapters. The definitions are limited to a short sentence, such as "obectivism is the belief in an objective reality." (Wow! I like that idea? Where do I get more? The book never provides a guide ...) So, for those that have studied other pilosophers, tell me - did Ayn Rand coin the term 'objectivism'? Was it around before her philosophy, even if it was just a simple description as above? Or was hers the first use of the term? I'm not talking about 'objectivism' vs 'Objectivism', just its etymology.

But it's closer to ballet than opera ... that's all I meant. It's a close approximation, and not at all pretentious - music for its own sake should be considered "art music," as opposed to "dance music" or a jingle. Music exists in many artistic forms. Just like the visual arts can be paintings, portraits, commercial imagery, and many other forms (including animation), music serves different purposes. I use the term "art" like I'd use it describing visual arts - there's a general use and an academic use. All of it is creative, but little of it is "art music." What we're dealing with here is part of the lack of a conceptual vocabulary of music Ayn Rand mentioned in "Art and Cognition." There are some who believe that "it's not music unless it fits these strict criteria", and there are those (like me) that use a very liberal definition of music, "sound organized in time", then make specific assessments regarding different types of music. Given that I use the term "music" loosely, it's necessary to classify types of it, but correctly. It's why I oppose the liberal use of "classical music" - it's misleading and incorrect. Mostly because they remind a person of the movie. Since music inspires emotions, and that music is tied to a film, listening to the music puts a person into a similar emotional state as when they saw the film. Like I said, the more talented composers will write complete pieces then arange them for the film; these are the soundtracks that stand alone, because the recordings are those of the original pieces. Sure, a person never exposed to Star Wars might just hear a neo-swing jazz tune when the Cantina band song is played; everyone else is immediately transported into a seedy bar full of aliens and robots. (Wait ... no robots. They don't serve "their kind.") Again, one word meaning two things. I identify a difference between a "soundtrack" and a "musical." True, a musical has a soundtrack, but "Musical soundtrack" is redundant. There's a difference between Chicago and Backdraft, or The Sound of Music and Solaris. So when I say a soundtrack (musical score of a dramatic film) is in its proper place is subservient to a film, I acknowledge that the purpose of the music serves as a means to an end, not an end in itself, such as in a musical. To illustrate this, imagine if Lucas had hired Williams to compose Star Wars before writing the film. It would have been a jumbled mess, a "ballet of images" meant to highlight the music. Dialogue would give way to melody, stunts would be choreographed to musical runs, etc. - totally backwards. We wouldn't care about the heroic journey of Luke Skywalker as much as we'd be forced to care about a pretty minor-key melody.

If anything, film scores are closer to ballet than opera. The key component of opera is a libretto, songs sung by people playing characters who tell the story. In an opera, the libretto comes first, and the music complements the words and story. Ballet music is more independent than film scores, but the two can be closer in function. If a film score is good enough, it can stand on its own as art music - but this is rare. In a ballet, the music and choreography complement each other, but the music can stand alone, especially given that a composer of a ballet knows that many choreographers will design different dances. The music never changes, though - The Nutcracker Suite will always sound the same (relatively), but will always look different. Ballet music must always sound "finished", while a lot of film scoring is simply textural in nature - no melodies or themes, just "color". The thing to remember about film scores is that, while they are legitimate musical compositions, they don't necessarily qualify as "art music". (I use art music to describe what most people call "classical" - but being a purist, Classical music was only one period in music history. Besides, it sounds funny to say "modern classical music.") Art music is an end in itself, while film music is a means to an end. Film scores (properly) are submissive to the action of film, setting the mood in ways that dialog or visual effects cannot. The more talented film composers will write complete pieces for characters or events, then later arrange them for the film (John Williams' success is attributable to this technique). Some - especailly those on a budget - will just write for the film, but on their own, the scores are boring, just a series of moods and soundscapes, totally submissive to the movie. (A lot of Hans Zimmer's work is like this.) [bear in mind a lot of the above results from a more personal definition of "music" than has been explored in these Forums.]

Being a musician I listen to every genre for inspiration and for different melodic and harmonic ideas, even 20th century music that'sa bit "off the rails". Lately I'm into ... Dmitri Shostakovich - Symphony No. 7 "Leningrad" - Festive Overture - Piano Concerto No. 1 Percy Grainger - Lincolshire Posy Sergei Rachmaninov - Vespers Gustav Holst - The Planets Suite Alberto Ginastera - Suite of Creole Dances - Piano Sonata No. 1

It's more of a habit than anything. I don't mind spoilers in movie reviews, but some people don't like them at all, thus the warning. Of course, we all know how United 93 ends, but the major reason for the spoiler warning is that I figured fellow Objectivists maybe would not want their perception of the film colored by another's opinion. (I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to pay a bit more attention to people here at OO.net than I do other online forums - there are a lot of smart, well-versed people here!) (Besides, spoilers aren't always about the end of a film. This weekend's X-Men movie has some pretty heavy stuff that happens towards the beginning, for example ...)

.... ouch.

Family can be exasperating. My sister and I get into it constantly because she's a serious Republican and it drives her nuts when I say "I'm a Capitalist, not a Conservative." She wants to convince me they're one-in-the-same, but I'm like a soccer goalie deflecting all her arguments. She's bright, though, and doesn't easily lapse into appeals to emotion or ad hominems - she approaches debates intellectually, and she asks hard questions. Eventually she'll exhaust herself and pick up that copy of Atlas Shrugged I gave her. She's a great gal, and worthy of the head-butting (she'll drive any future husband of hers nuts, that's for sure!). If I "convert" her - or at least get her focused on Objectivism - I'll consider it a serious intellectual achievement. Other family members I don't speak to. My sister is adopted (born in Korea), and an extended relative doesn't quite understand why I won't talk to him because he used the word nigger in front of me.