Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Lemuel

Regulars
  • Posts

    327
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Lemuel

  1. I imagine these wouldn't be highly competitive manufacturing jobs, too. Highway repair, trash collection, municipal property maintanence, digging ditches for sewer lines in new development areas, etc.
  2. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart did a segment on them a few months ago. I think (at the time of the report's taping) they managed to get only 2 people to move, one of whom was moving there anyway for a job opportunity. It's a Christian version of the Libertarian Free State Project, which doesn't seem to be getting any traction, either (perhaps because they picked cold-ass New Hampshire!). So if the loonies get to carve American states into crazy ideological colonies, where are Objectivists going to go? I say we take Hawaii. Or Mars.
  3. The point he's making is that President Bush must decide between "Western liberal democracy" and Christian beliefs. Ahmadinejad correctly points out a disparity exists between those two doctrines and calls the President to task on it. I think it's highly reflective of the ideological conflict we've known all along - that between secular rights and religious control. Ahmadinejad is clearly on the side of religious control, and is holding President Bush accountable for not doing the same (at least in terms of Middle East foreign policy). Is it just me, though, or does the whole thing read like a rant from the political far left?
  4. Here is the "unofficial" translation in downloadable PDF format: http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives...dinejad0509.pdf (783 kb, 18 pages)
  5. Alfa, I also work in sales (outside sales, music instrument distribution), and what you have to keep in mind is cause and effect. Some months, my low motivation level affects sales negatively. I think "no one's buying today, what's the point?", then rationalize it so I won't feel guilty for not having tried. Given that I deal with a degree of depression, it's easy to slip into this evasive state. What "cures" that for me are business-motivational materials, such as the writings of Zig Ziglar. I keep photos of Bill Gates and Richard Branson in my cublicle (much to the sneering delight of coworkers), and that helps sometimes. I also think of Rand characters, like Howard Roark or Henry Rearden, who worked themselves into exhaustion every day. [i'll also sometimes take a cigarette break (I know, I know) out back where my boss parks his Ferrari ... I've no need for a Ferrari, but it's a physical reminder of the work it takes to succeed; and a beautiful one, too.] Other months, low sales affect motivation. A string of "no, I've got all I need" responses can wear me down. I've spent hours cheerfully and excitedly talking up my product and trying to close deals, but nobody's buying. At the end of the day, drained with nothing to show for it, I feel that urge to sink into "who cares" land. A few days of that, and I'm ready to find a new job. But, I use some of the self-motivation techniques above, and I pull out of it before it manifests itself in my sales. The initial mistake is making success a factor in motivation - and that reverses cause and effect. Not to sound all Disney, but think of those motivational failure stats - Babe Ruth's strike-outs vs. home runs, or President Abraham Lincoln's career - and realize it was determination, not results, that kept them going. It may seem like a chicken/egg scenario, but it's not. Motivation comes first, and it has to come from setting and pursuing goals (both short and long term), being productive, making a difference, enjoying the work itself, and evaluating your process once the results are in. Be willing to change if you're wrong, and the results will speak for all the work you've done. Selling is hard. As Rand said, what businessmen do is the embodiment of all her philosophy - capitalism, egoism, reason, reality. The weight of it can't be on you mind when doing a follow-up call, but if those foundations aren't there, you can easily resort to a number of evasions to justify failure: my boss is too demanding, no one understands what I'm doing, I'm not cut out for this, whay can't these idiot customers wisen up ... One other thing I can point out: you're never going to be a great seller if you don't believe in your product or can't get excited about it. I'm a keyboard player and have always loved music technology; now I'm the only outside sales rep for one of the most respected brands in my industry. The fact that I'm in my element and would buy and perform on "my" products over everyone else's makes up for a lot of issues that could otherwise de-motivate me. (Conversely, I don't know anything about cars - oil, gas, and physics make it go. Might as well be magic for all I care. So if I were selling automobile parts, I'd be so mind-numbingly bored that I'd develop a psychotic dissociative disorder within 3 days.) Get excited about your product, and not only will it motivate you to sell it, but that excitement will positively affect the client's buying decision. Instead of a being a guy out for their money, you're really happy to get them into whatever sprockets or widgets you're selling. If you're not excited about it, find something else to sell. Perhaps I'll head over to the AR Bookstore and see what they've got on business ... I don't know if there's a sales-specific Objectivist text available, but I'd sure like to read one!
  6. I'll let another address the oil question. Not all Objectivists vote Republican. Some do for economic reasons, fearing a Democrat might raise taxes. Others vote Democrat for civil liberty reasons. Some vote Libertarian because they think it's important to at least get those surface-level issues out there. "Objectivism" does not endorse a political party, or at least any that are around now. Within the sphere of Objectivists, opinions vary on what one should consider when voting. For example, Leonard Piekoff urged people to vote for John Kerry to prevent Bush from installing more religious Republicans in appointed positions. I read several Objecctivist blogs that supported maintaining Bush in office while the war was on. Some Objectivists just don't vote, seeing as there are rarely any candidates worth the time. Why put a ton of time and energy into a catch-22? As for an "Objectivist Party", this has been discussed a lot in this forum. The most consistent answer is that the ideas Objectivism describes aren't "engrained in the public consciousness" enough for here to be a "Capitalist Party" yet. Getting Rand's books into the hands of high school and college students is much more important right now; in the meantime, vote your conscience.
  7. I enjoyed Aeon Flux, but it was candy. Little to no nutritional value. Cool sci-fi gadgets, pretty colors & sets, and interesting architectural design always pique my interest ... and I've got a special fondness for movies about hot chicks kicking ass in tight clothes (Resident Evil, Underworld, et al). Objectivist-related? Nah; anything of substance was a bromide at best. But it's a fun ride, and if you're not in the mood to wrap your brain around anything deep, it's an alright flick.
  8. Shouldn't a contextual distinction be made first? 1. Sex (biology) = procreation involving two genders (sex meaning gender is a wee bit misleading, but an appropriate susbstitute etymologically) 2. Sex (ethics) = a mutually physical act of affection between people, usually involving (but not limited to) intercourse, based on mutual values (even if it's just a one-night stand) 3. Sex (legal) = consult a legal dictionary, I dunno, but I'm sure the legal definition(s) omit a lot of what can be ethically defined as "sex" In my assessment, I exclude forms of abuse, rape, and bestiality; those are acts of coercion that are sexual in nature. I'm sure my definitions above could use lots of tweaking, but there are clearly a few ways to look at sex, all objectively, all within different contexts. So, answering the President Clinton question - "is it sex?" - no on two counts and yes on one. (It's no surprise that the Republican's witch-hunt ignored the legal and ethical disctinction, and the President exploited it in his defense.) Fatdogs12's chat discussion was probably more focused on the ethical definition, not the biological one. The field is wide open for what constitutes a sexual act, as each person has their own lines to draw. How one decides to express that capacity - be it for a different partner each night, or a committed monogamous relationship, or anywhere in between - is another issue entirely, involving a specific kind of morality, be it an alley cat's, a monk's, or Dagny Taggart's.
  9. To an extent I agree, but there needs to be at least a few names if it's going to attract a wide audience. Rearden and Dagny dominate the plot, so they would have to be the biggest names. So would d'Anconia. I think Galt should be the sleeper star, but no one as recognizable as Pitt. Although, it's not necessarily a bad thing if Galt is a big star but doesn't have a speaking line until later in the film. There are lots of instances where the big name that draws in the crowds doesn't show up until later in the movie, or even dies half way through. Casting is important, but the director is going to tell this story, and the producers are going to want to make sure their investment is going to pay off. That's where I have my biggest concerns; it's better to not do it at all than do it horribly wrong.
  10. This was a very well-made movie. United 93 makes you a fly on the wall: inside the plane, and inside the various control centers that were sharing information and responding to the attacks. It's definitely a naturalistic film, not a "Hollywood" movie. No clever dialog, no manipulative music, no dramatic exterior shots, no forshadowing or other literary device. Literary devices were inappropriate for this film. It is, in my opinion, what the movie needs to be. Given the fact that one can only piece the moment-by-moment events together from the available evidence, this movie reveals a commitment to objectivity. The only intentional drama happens in the opening few minutes, which depict the hijackers praying to Allah in their hotel room. The prayer continues as a voice-over while the view changes to sunrise in New York and pans over the skyline. Powerful. The lack of noticable actors would have illicited an artificial sense of empathy from the viewer. An interesting note is that many of the technicians inside the control centers were played by the actual people who were there on 9/11. It didn't take me back to that day (emotionally), but it was hard to watch at times, and know that it will be on my mind for a long time. The decisive action on the part of the passengers is very inspiring. When they learned of the other planes that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it wasn't long before they made up their minds. Get weapons, take back the plane. In my opinion, this movie should have been made, it's not too soon, and it needs to be seen.
  11. I don't know if Galt is supposed to be the most beautiful man alive ... handsome, yes, and certinly not a beast. Which creates an interesting question - since men are more visually stimulated than women, what do men think is handsome? Based on looks alone - not acting ability or any other factor - who would, in your estimation, be a beautiful enough man to play John Galt?
  12. From what I remember about the 1976 Copyright Act and subsequent amendments, you are able to copy the music to another medium for personal use. It was one thing when the media were LPs and cassettes. Digital music complicates things a bit, since unlimited copies can be made without wear.But, I think the same applies if you buy a CD, copy it into iTunes, then to your iPod, and back it up on another hard drive. Buying music from MSN Media or iTunes is different because there are built-in safeguards for how many machines you can copy the music to via digital trasfer. There are workarounds, and I operate on the personal use principle. With all the confusing legislation out there, it's hard for even lawyers to know what the law really is. Changing the content is another matter. First of all you can't change the content without copying it first, or destroying the medium. If you do copy it and alter it in whole or in part for your own use, then there's nothing really wrong with that. I could sample Beastie Boys beats, loop them, and create new music with them for personal amusement; if I copyright that music, duplicate and distribute it, I'm liable because I've used their content without permission. The same would apply for a person who creates a parody of the Brokeback Mountain trailer for a spoof, such as the fairly cute Brokeback to the Future, and publishes it online. Unless you first obtain permissoin from the copyright owner, you can't distribute their material in whole of in part ... Lucasfilm sued Dr. Dre, who used the THX sound check music ("Deep Note") on his 2001 album without persmission. A copyright has no value other than as a legal protection, like a patent. It's a legal statement of ownership. When you buy a CD or DVD, the medium is yours, but you're accepting the terms of use as stated on the CD package when you buy it. If you disagree with the terms, don't buy the CD. Edit: To you and me, the copyright has little value. To the owners it has immense value because it protects them from guys like me sampling and reselling the music. Copying it doesn't decrease the value unless you violate the license and distribute copies to other people. If you and I trade CDs, we're fine. If we've made digital copies, then we should give up those copies, but there's no practical means of enforcing that or even making it a law. The law can only be concerned with mass duplication and distribution. You'd have to ask a lawyer ... I don't know. Generally the original content is owned by the record label, and they're the ones granting the licenses. Groovenstein might know more ...
  13. Easy there, fella ... I wasn't trying to aggravate you; if my language was inapproriate, I'll endeavor to take more care in the future. As inspired by AmbivalentEye's post, my assertion is that there may be a semantic difference between "humility" and "showing respect", along the same lines as the difference between altruism and kindness. I think that, given the nature of the dictionary definition of humility, one can gleen an altruistic philosophical meaning of the word. Consequently, it would be proper to investigate a selfish motivation for humility, which should begin (I think) with making such a distinction. If we define the terms, we can identify the concepts. Perhaps there's not a specific word for the distinction I'm asserting. Perhaps I'm incorrect in thinking that humility is a consequence of altruism, and such a word is unnecessary.
  14. Concerns: Jolie as Kay Ludlow, maybe. Within literary archetypes, she's a great seductress (Aphrodite), possibly too much so to pull off a heroine (Artemis), though. Maybe she can do it, but I have doubts. Pitt? I'm a bit torn here. On one hand such star power will likely bring large audiences; on the other hand, is he too big a star? Will I see Galt or Pitt on the screen? Besides, wouldn't Hank Rearden get more screen-time? Galt's not that present in most of the book, so why cast a superstar in the role? Cast Pitt as Rearden; get someone else for Galt. "The violent, apocalyptic ending?" Okay, there's the bomb and the torture scene, which stand out as the greatest scenes of violence, but given movies like Saw and (insert end-of-the-world-disaster-flick of your choice), how problematic is this? "Apocalyptic?" That's up to the director and production team. If it's set up well, and contrasted properly with he Valley, the bleakness can make a strong point without being schmaltzy and ... well, Hollywood. Redford would've made a wonderful Galt. Too bad he's 200 years old. Wouldn't Piekoff have inhereted that right as "intellectual heir"? If they're getting Pitt and Jolie for the film, we they have any money left to make the movie!? I call that dodging a bullet.
  15. I disagree, Illuminaughty. There is a difference between showing someone the respect they properly deserve and humility. Just look at the language used to describe this word: If you are a professional, and I am an intern training to work with you, I will show you proper respect, as I would any boss. This would entail a certain set of manners, unless you waived them. I am not inferior in any way but as your employed subordinate, which carries with it a rational context. Within that context it's not humble for me to be quiet and listen when you're speaking to a colleague, call you "sir", or do what you tell me to do. For me to do these things is a selfish act, since I stand to gain from your experience and guidance; by interrupting you, irritating you by treating you like a college pal, of giving lip when asked to do something, I alienate you and limit what I can learn. Someone who's humble would be an intern with the following behaviors: total deference to his trainer, silence born of the fear of saying the wrong thing or looking foolish, never meeting the eyes of his trainer, scurrying off to complete any assigned task as if it's a gift, inability to respond (or being afraid) of good-natured ribbing from office veterans (a light, innocent for of hazing, of course - not harrassment), etc. The person exhibiting humility is doing so altruistically, completly convinced of their inferiority and lower station in life. It's no wonder these people don't get promotions. As far as bowing is concerned, it depends on the context. Certainly the courtship example mentioned above is valid, although I can't imagine that kind of thing happens outside formal balls. With the Japanese, though, there are certain levels and contexts and types of bows. According to http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2000.html: The head nod, the slight bow - I could see this as a contextually rational gesture, a way of appreciating hospitality, for instance. Since social status in Japan is now much like it is here - ie, wealth as a consequence of success, not birthright - it's reasonable (I think) to show such a sign of respect. Under no circumstance, though, will I do the 90-degree tilt, or get on my knees. If a situation called for that kind of thing, I'd pull a Gomer and feign ignorance. But, I prefer a good handshake. Eye to eye. Firm grip. A nod of agreement. It is a proud mutual gesture of partners and traders. (You can get a lot of information about a person just from their handshake; probably a strong reason why it's done so much in America.)
  16. At least Exxon's fighting back: Put a Tiger in Your Think Tank Regarding the source: I haven't gone through the links they provide, but am very interested in the "skepticism" Exxon's benefactors "preach". In my discussions in non-O'ist political forums, it's fascinating how people demand acceptance of global warming based on faith. I mean, if Moby says so, it has to be true!
  17. Two new movies are going to be hitting real soon, both of which seem to be riding the coattails of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. (Links go to pages with trailers.) An Inconvenient Truth is a film about former Vice President Al Gore, which allegedly presents "just the facts" about global warming. Caroline Libresco provides the Sundance Film Festival website synopsis: Libertarian activist and former Presidential candidate Aaron Russo self-produced America: From Freedom to Fascism, a documentary covering the validity of Federal Income Tax and the nature of the Federal Reserve. From the movie's website review page: I have seen neither of these films, but will be seeing them both. While I have neither the scientific or legal training to fully verify or refute any of the information presented in these films, I don't think I'll need it. It will be interesting to see how long I can go without giving into my "BULL----!" reflex, too often triggered while watching the news. An Inconvenient Truth is set to open in limited run in May, and is scheduled for a screening at the Cannes Film Festival, where it is sure to illicit a strong response from the viewers. Russo's America: From Freedom to Fascism is in final editing, however major studios have refused to distribute the film; Russo is currently drumming up donations so he can at least get the film screened in theaters across the nation. While I've disavowed my former libertarian leanings, and am certainly no fan of Al Gore, I'm fascinated in both these films. I believe there will be a hail of praise and publicity surrounding Truth, and a deafening silence for Freedom.
  18. I thought the stampede that followed d'Anconia's tip-off about the demolished copper mine was made quite humorous with his comment to Rearden: "Watch this."
  19. Great article - as an importer/distributor of Swedish products I deal with quite a bit of that tax burden. High manufacturing and labor costs, as well as high taxation, lead to products that are highly expensive. Luckily the nature of the product is such that there is not much direct competition (making their unique nature a positive selling point), but high costs lead to slim profit margins & high prices, which equals (at best) lukewarm retail representation & market response. Is there any sign of a more laissez-faire political element in Sweden? I know there are several political parties - are there none powerful enough to oppose the social democrats?
  20. Lemuel

    Disney

    To an extent, but it needs to be updated. So does the Magic Kingdom's "TomorrowLand". I was there a few years ago, and the Carousel of Progress was nothing less than hilarious. It's like some world-of-tomorrow film reel from the 60s. I know it's mostly there for the kids, but I'm sure even modern 10 year olds would get a good giggle out of it.
  21. Well done, Styles! Congratulations! (Don't tell my mother, but I look forward to having one of those myself one day ... )
  22. I sell Euro-built synthesizers for a living, and a similar point was made by a customer of mine today. To paraphrase him: "The engineers that build products and are so satisfied with the technical aspects of their creations, that it's all about the status of the engineering, and not the user-friendliness of the actual product. There's nothing wrong with engineers, but because they have little business or marketing sense, their products end up being over-priced and confusing to potential buyers." And he was right. Although the brand I represent isn't difficult to use (in fact th UIs are quite transparent), the "craftsmanship" - as well as the development time and costs - render these products 50% more expensive than Japanese-built counterparts. Interestingly enough, after 20+ years of mass-manufactured digital synthesizers, the Japanese are finally starting to learn that features don't mean anything if the benefits can't be realized, and they're redesigning their UIs accordingly. I mean, c'mon: an entire recording studio in one box, and I have just four knobs!?
  23. The music should be technically challenging, but not for its own sake. Melodies and countermelodies should exhibit ascension, and harmonies must provide foundation, but movement. The pop idiom is wrong, too. Rock, folk, country, or another ephemeral form would aesthetically downplay the theme of the creator as a prime mover. The music must be European-orchestral in nature, without any "ethnic" instruments (bagpipes, eastern flutes, etc.). However some alternate methods of making sound could be used: a Violin melody could be enhanced with a bowed Vibraphone, and muted Trumpets could provide an upper harmony to a Horn melody, etc. The harmonic language should be neo-Romantic, but some elements of 20th century hyperchromatic tertian harmony could be used, especially for tension-building (think Shostakovich, Stravinsky). However, heroic themes would borrow harmonically from American composers like Copland or Dello Joio. And, if I had anything to do with a Fountainhead movie, the scene with the young composer meeting Roark at the Monadnack site would be set with the most beautiful melody in the entire film - simple, pastoral but not humble, triumphant, but in a benevolent (non-combative way) - and that would be the only time such a melody would happen in the film. (Think of the coffee shop scene from Heat, or the mood set by Cristof when Truman is reunited with his father.)
  24. ... or to have Richard Halley say something about being taught all the wrong things in school, but upon breifly meeting a red-haired achitect, he discovered the strength to pursue his craft.
  25. I will reply as if I were the person in the "hot seat". 1. Do I reveal that my employer is taking credit for another's fashion design? No. My employer and the real designer have a contract, and for me to reveal the truth would be a breech of that contract. It would expose my employer to liability and get me fired from a job I like. The context of the situation is not - according to my values - important enough to expose that level of dishonesty. If I were upset by the knowledge, my course of action would be to quietly resign and find a new job. If it were within the context of a serious situation - life or death - I would reveal the truth. A pair of jeans isn't worth all the ballyhoo. 2. Do I forgive a cop's abuse because it's been "cancelled out" by a good deed? No. I've been assaulted by a police officer who saves my life a few days later. My opinion of the cop is formed by the assault: he is corrupt and has violated his mandate as a protector. I would have filed charges immediately. If he was still free and capable of rescuing me, I would appreciate his sudden attention to duty, but would not back off from the abuse complaint. 3. So I feel remorse for someone dying as a result of someone else's wrongdoing? No. If I were a doctor, I would not strike unless it were an absolute last resort. Without the context of the strike, it's difficult to understand whether I would be right or wrong. However, if such a remotely extreme situation caused doctors to refuse to provide emergency medical service, those who are responsible for creating the conditions of the strike are morally responsible for the deaths of patients. It makes no difference if those patients are strangers or friends, although a valued friend would be a greater loss to me (personally). 4. Do I ditch a plane to save myself if others are in danger? No. If I'm serving in the military, I'm serving the people and protecting them from harm, so the moral course of action would be to die in a controlled crash rather than ditch the plane and put people in danger. If I'm a private pilot, I would probably do the same, although if there were no way to avert crashing a plane into a populated area, I would try to evacuate the doomed craft. 5. Do I, a gawky teenage chemical bomb, turn in my classmates for bad behavior? Sadly, No. I'm in a position of authority in a classroom, and placed between getting my classmates in trouble or losing my position by protecting them. If I'm 13, I'm not thinking rationally - only expediently - so I'd turn down the position in order to keep from being beaten or alienated by my classmates. But, I'm not a 13-year-old concerned with peer approval; I'm a rational adult, my values are stronger, and my thinking is longer-term. Translate that scenario into "rat out the company thief or lose your job", and I'll be pointing fingers. You wouldn't even have to come find me. If I knew someone was stealing, I'd confront him directly, and warn him once that the next time he gets caught, he gets reported.
×
×
  • Create New...