shane

Every politician knows that they are going to have to be moderate on the issues, and they are all out to get votes. That is the name of the game. Whoever ends up being nominated against Hillary will play the same game. I think it will come down to about 20% discretionary votes that won't go Hillary's way because 1. She has a controversial past. Period. When it comes down to protecting the country people want rock solid. 2. She is a flip-flopper. There are only a certain number of times you can "moderate your views in order to capture votes" without losing credibility. Personally, I think she has already lost her credibility. Now it will be up to the Repubs to show the country that fact without looking like mudslingers. This is just assuming that she gets far enough to get nominated. She is getting a lot of attention though, and that will help her get nominated. I can already hear the broadcasters asking "Can she do it?"

Condi as VP....I could see that Mitt does have a good record, although the surplus he created (700 mill or something like that) was a result of a booming economy. He was also asked by his company to come back and save if from ruin. I don't know if we have enough evidence to support he wouldn't raise taxes, but it is unlikely. He was very active in outlawing same sex marriages, which is probably a result of the importance mormons' put on traditional "family" values. On the neutral side, even though he doesn't believe in abortion he also doesn't want to outlaw it. He seems to be a hard one to nail down which could be a major problem, definitely someone to watch. But realistic he may not be. When Orrin Hatch was going to run in 2000, his polling found that 17% of americans would not vote for a mormon under any circumstances. That was 6 years ago though.

Dick is not a leading politician (he is an advisor, check his record), and even though he would be a good choice, he could never win a presidency race because he just doesn't want to be there. And Hillary could never win either. People know in the back of their mind she is just riding Bill's fame and could never stand up to the task of running a country. It is one thing to be a spokesperson for a state that has been bombarded by regulation so long it doesn't know any better or doesn't care. It is another thing to be voted in by the rest of country that does no better or haven't been corrupted by the idea of compromise, with the exception of California. Yes i do think new york and california are states that have been corrupted by compromise and I am speaking about the states as a whole. Please correct me if I am wrong. And when we talk about what we "realisitically" want for president, we are not talking about a compromise vs. objectivity. We are talking about what will happen. It doesn't mean because I vote for Bush I will stop spreading objectivism everywhere I go. I am not going on strike yet. And dead politicians never come back from the grave. Again, correct me if I am wrong.

You can't find those standards on a dems page. He also embraces technology and competitevness. Not saying he's great yet, but it is a good start. He is also a "realistic" candidate, unlike condi.

George Allen in '08 Here are his selling points from his website. * Strengthening and supporting America's national defense and homeland security. * Increasing the competitiveness of Virginia and the U.S. for investment and quality, good-paying jobs. * Advocating and embracing policies to make America a leader in the advancement of technology. * Reducing the tax burden on families and small business owners. He says he " trusts free people and free enterprise" and mentions nothing about his religious views, even though I think he is Presbyterian.

Why?

Why do you think it is difficult to stay committed to one person? The fact that you have to choose makes it matter.

Good news. The abstraction of design principles is a possibility and someone has already attempted to induce these principles from reality. From my limited research there is one woman who devoted her entire life to that particular undertaking. Her name is Rowena Reed Kostellow and her findings were recorded in a book titled Elements of Design: Rowena Reed Kostellow and the Structure of Visual Relationships. Only time will tell if her principles are non-contradictory and essential, but from my quick perusal of this book (which has annoying small print throughout) the outlook is good. She is interested in visual relationships, specifically in 3D designs. Her initial breakdown of 3-d structures into dominant, subdominate, and subordinate elements brings three dimensional figures into a cognitive form through reduction, and then relates those volumes to positive and negative space. Anyone familiar with this or know of any further work in this specific field?

I just watched a very inspiring video on cnn.com that is titled "Back to Business." It is on the front page for now and is only a couple minutes long. This is what happens when people stop crying and start acting.

China would destroy itself if it attempted to hurt the United States. China has become increasingly capitalistic over the past few decades, especially with the emergence of official government doctrine of "get rich first." The actually limitations on businesses are less in China because they want to develop the mainland. Political freedom is another story, there really is none. I am optimistic that once they see the benefits of freeing their citizens in a business manner will give way to freedom in China. Probably will not happen anytime soon.

I was using atom as an example of a more complex entity, as opposed to table or chair. After what you said I consider it to be a mental entity, but an entity nonetheless. JMeganSnow states that concepts are entities, but you (Hal) don't consider them to be. Entities are what exist as a whole, outside of our conciousness. But once we grasp them, then are they a concept? What differentiates them or doesn't? Ok, so instead of "becoming" concepts, a concept is something that we use for cognition and an entity is something that exists outside of our concious, but are the same thing. That makes sense. I was trying to say that an entity requires percieving a large pile of sand, minerals, and rocks welded together as a mountain. It requires making it a whole. But seeing it out of context would be just seeing a pile.....It is bad wording. It is a integrated view as opposed to an non-integrated view. By the way, I appreciate all the info and I am going to have to think about the issue of parts and wholes tonight.

Not to say there aren't a few who responded very well, I do remember the episode with Joss Stone and I was very impressed. Although I don't know if I would watch some random kid. The question is, who would you rather watch? The Joss Stones or the Kirsten Dunsts? I am not sure how I would answer that question. I remember being pleasanlty surprised by Joss, but I also enjoy watching the others. I can't remember seeing an episode where a prankee took it badly.

I brought in atom in that case exactly for the reason that it is percievable with the use of tools, so that I know it exists as an entity, and a "mental integration." I can see now that my error is that you can percieve existents out out of context, but you cannot perceive an entity out of context. That which makes it an entity is its existents and their unique relationship to each other. I am really glad you brought in ITOE, because I immediately remembered reading about this. on pg 264 AR says "What is an entity? It is a sum of characteristics." At first glance it almost seems as if entities are concepts, but they are not. Do you think the only difference is that an entity becomes a concept when it has been mentally integrated according to our context of knowledge?

It is classic comedy. Put a star in a ridiculous situation, make it completely irrational and watch the star's intelligence shine.

Are you referring to the Jadakiss episode? I was on the floor rolling during that one.

I am trying to figure out how to categorize entity. Entity would be an object that is an existent and that we percieve directly. i.e. man, chair, ball, atom, etc. But Existent also includes qualities, quantities, etc and therefore would be a broader term (broader than entity). I am thinking that existent is simply something that exists, and that an entity is something that we percieve directly? A red ball would be an entity and an existent, but the concept red would not be an entity but an existent. Where am I going wrong or right here?

As far as an objectivist approach to reading, this entry is the most helpful. I think a definition of reading is important here. Reading is percieving visual-auditory symbols and linking them to concepts for our conciousness to mull over. It seems, then, that a persons ability to read (and the speed at which they do it) is going to be determined by how well those concepts and definitions are understood and organized in their subconcious. A well organized subconcious would facilitate their ability to read at the concious level. So when you are completely focused, and I am not saying that this could even be possible given distractions and everything else that gets in the way of reading, your reading speed would be determined by the effectiveness of you concious and subconcious interacting together (psycho-epistemology). Physically, the amount of data the eye can take in at a glance is definitely helpful but it would be meaningless if the concious and subconcious cannot connect the data to the concept. Limiting eye movements by whatever method is only a data intake issue, but the speed at which you transfer that data into knowledge is an epistemological issue. My theory of speed reading, and that which has helped me, is to prepare yourself by bringing into focus and peripheral focus those concepts and ideas that you will be applying to the material (by putting the material into context) and then make sure that you have all your words, and therefore concepts, easily retrieved from the subconcious. If I am correct, then Piekoff, whom Dr. Binswanger thinks has the most efficient psycho-epistemology, would have a much faster reading speed with a much higher level of comprehension than I would. In addition, a mature knowledge of grammar and an automatized understanding of commonly used words would be extremely helpful. Grammar organizes the material in a manner which makes cognition effecient and quick.