intellectualammo

The latter question is loaded, and the first one should not have really been asked then.

Let us remember who it was that did not cover his own ass properly. His contract was not legal and fraudulent, and could not seek restitution, and knew that was probably the case when drawing it up (he drew it up so he could hold it over Peters head publically should he not come through on his end)(he also knows he could not sue him), but whatever breach on Peters end of their "contract", he should have taken as a man, not become a dynamiter. What he did was completely unwarranted. I find what he said about it most compelling.

My head is still above that water.

Well, if you must add the priest, consider adding another Rand character that didn't make a book, how about adding in Danny Renahan...

Father Amadeus was his name. I think it was James Taggart' s priest, if I'm not mistaken. He was: Peikoff: "Father Amadeus was Taggart's priest, to whom he confessed his sins. The priest was supposed to be a positive character honestly devoted to the good but practicing consistently the morality of mercy. Miss Rand dropped him, she told me, when she found that it was impossible to make such a character convincing." From the Forbes article: I don't think this is a good idea. At all. Why doesn't she say something to him immediately for him referring to her as, "my child"? Like: "I'm not your child, get away from me creep!" If the producer is in fact just saying this scene as a trial balloon, let's make fucking sure we pop it! TAKE HIM OUT! DON'T PUT HIM BACK! No room for charity crap! Read or listen to Tara Smith about charity, generosity, etc. Don't make room for it in this movie! https://estore.aynrand.org/p/180/virtues-or-vices-kindness-generosity-charity-mp3-download Chapter 10 in her excellent book Ayn Rands Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist

I would argue that he was not to be portrayed or thought of as a loose cannon, but that perhaps his actions and behavior was a result of the society/humanity in which he was subjected to. She wrote about Hickman in that way, let me find the quote, but Hickman was not crazy. She writes that society transformed Hickman into a monster basically:

Here is a trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YUpqvW-EHI And an interview with Virginia Welch who played Casey: Seems like she didn't play it for any real reason that had anything to do with Casey or her trial, only spoke of the opportunity to work with Rob Lowe, et al., etc. That's disappointing. But, whatever, she does look like her in certain ways.

Part 2 This passage about what they did inside the jail, which may have just been done only in order to videotape Casey’s reaction to the information that they knew was being released that they think her daughters remains had been found, is worth quoting here: There was many things Baez observes and comment on in regards to things being done for the sake of as he refers to it as, “The Casey Anthony Reality Show“, things cops and media were doing. Also I want to mention that Casey gave permission to him for things in this book, so you can hear her through him in here, which I definitely don’t in the other book. It just adds more in why the defense took up the position that they did. Remember he has a job to do and he is working for her, so he works with what he’s allowed to do by her as well and what she tells him and works by what they call good faith. That all said, I think he does a great job with all that. I was able to understand more about the sexual abuse allegations and so forth, why they were included, and so forth. Again, the burden all lies with the prosecution. The defenses attack begins: Who, when, where, how, why - You kinda need to know those things. Remember it’s a capital case - she lives or dies upon your verdict. Later after much much detail of the case, we get to the trial itself. Baez does a fantastic job in his closing especially which I want to focus the rest of the review on, but his opening certainly is remarkable as well: Here is his comment on the prosecutions opening: And he did. In his closing: Her behavior, her independence, etc. was being used in various ways in trying to appeal to their emotions to win, etc: He goes on to give more of the inside story here, like what happened after the verdict, how and where they had taken Casey to, etc. which is something I didn’t know anything about before. To me, this is a great book in the defense of the defense, through and through.

Presumed Guilty: Casey Anthony The Inside Story by Jose Baez and Peter Golenbock Let me preface this by mentioning that though the trial is over and a Not Guilty verdict rendered, it can still be tried in the courtroom of peoples minds where they weigh the case, pronounce their own judgments, comments, thoughts, and feeling on it. It’s such a fascinating case to me in a number of ways. I feel so compelled to read and watch whatever I can right now on it. It’s so engaging to me. Deemed the trial of the century, and the accused dubbed the most hated woman in America. I now will review this book, as I did the prosecutors book before, Jeff Ashton’s Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony In the dedication, I came upon this: After reading the prosecutors book, this dedication becomes that much more meaningful. I’m glad he’s givin’ a shout out to the jury, showing them the kind of respect they deserve. Now let me start things going here… This really read like an Inside Story. You really get an inside, firsthand account of the defense, so much I didn’t know about, mainly why the defense defended her in the ways that they did. Well, this book helped me to understand as it explained it well. I do not think that they threw everything and the kitchen sink at the case just to see if anything would stick, they had reasons for including what they did. This books details that, he’s open, explicit, seemingly candid about things in the book. He goes on to speak and comment on the cops, media, protestors, and occasionally made several digs about each, which I thought were completely warranted. There is a really good description I must share in regards to the law school he had went to: But in this high-profile case, he was up against much more than just that… Speaking of, protestors were an example. This comment of his is perfect, straight to the issue, in regards to them: Seemed like the trial by media, many millions thought she did it and she should die, before due process. I find interesting enough to note about his evaluations of Casey’s intelligence and how you hear in the media about her wanting to go into law, paralegal, etc. and get a big chuckle out of that one:

From the first edition WTL: Andre: Kira: Kira: If ourkind can rise to power in the US, we could really start liberating ourkind from theirkind not only America, but even the rest the world, as we would have the military might, the legislative power, will, enough resources and financial backing, and of course having the moral right to do so… But, the masses, the zombie culture, all the Little Street’ers out there, are in the way because there are just so fucking many of them, so many numbers, and the democratic process largely has to do with numbers (and how to get those numbers) which right now really stops us from rising to power in that manner. We have very little power in that respect, unless we have the numbers and reps of our kind to get into power. How can we get the numbers we need, among all the zombies, vampires, sheeple, lemmings, parasites, Little Street’ers? By flattering them by appealing to their ‘minds’? How can the individual, the smallest minority, become the majority, in such a culture? We need cultural change, moral revolution, but we’re in a zombie culture. We feel their existence unpleasantly, they make their existence felt, how do we make ours, to them? Try to reason with them until we are blue or red in the face?

At age 23, this is Rand’s first attempt at in English to plan a novel: David Harriamn describes it in The Journals of Ayn Rand as: She writes: Danny Renahan is a character in this story, who is, in part, modeled after William Hickman. She describes Danny in her notes. Some of the description: The setting, the context Little Street’s world in which Danny was in, Rand wrote in her journals about: “The world as it is.” “life at present” “Show them the real, one and only horror - the horror of mediocrity” “Show that the world is nothing but a little street. That this little street is its king and master, its essence and spirit. Show the little street and how it works.” Harriman wrote in regards to these notes of Rand’s “it seems likely that they were made over a short period when she was feeling particularly bitter towards the world”. One of several characters also in it, is a pastor: Rand writes that subconsciously he has: In the story, Danny: I haven’t seen an actual topic about The Little Street, most had to do with who she had modeled Danny in part after, William Hickman. I like studying Rand’s transition in her writing, from Danny, to first edition We The Living Kira, all the way up to Galt himself in Atlas Shrugged, the methods, actions, the setting/context in which the characters are all in. So, this thread is open discussion on anything and everything that has to do with her notes on The Little Street. In her notes about who Danny was, in part, modeled after, Hickman:

The following is a remarkable passage I was just reading in Rands journals. I think this fits perfectly somewhere between going from Kira to Galt: She wrote that in her notes on TF. I will address two more edited quotes of Kiras from the first edition WTL soon.

Whynot wrote: We've moved from literalism, through rationalization, into complete evasion. That is not my progression at all. Nor the end result.

I am beginning to see that, what you just said I find compelling. Thank you for contributing to this thread discussion here.

He initiated force and the manner in which he did was both unlawful and would be immoral according to Objectivist morality, I think. A breach of contract if it is even a legal contract, does not warrant the actions he took. You head to the courtroom. And if its not legally binding, which would be NO surprise him if it wasn't, then the moral action to take would to acknowledge his own mistake in entering into such a "contract" in the first place. If he could enter a real one, and still did it, and Keating did not come through on his end, then that's that. You don't go dynamiting it. But yet he does. He failed to cover his own ass from getting fucked, so he should have just taken it like a man then.

No, he failed to, I think. If it even can be considered a legal contract. But regardless of its legality, what Roark did was immoral and unlawful and unwarranted.

No, not creative about forcing, but in figuring out a method.

Has that not already been addressed in this thread?

In his defense speech: "They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift." They, in fact, did not make him contribute it as a gift. He is the one that set the terms. They, in fact, did not make him do anything. For someone that cares that much about his work, don't design/erect it unless you have legally binding contracts. It was his own mistake/risk he took and made others pay for it by dynamiting it. He should have at least gotten 10yrs sentencing. I bet Toohey would have enjoyed being a prison guard, he'd really of gotten his rocks off, not in Roarks mouth or ass, but by making him take his orders: move when he is told to, etc and if he doesn't, beat him with a rubber hose. (P.663)

I am?

This is a very interesting, thought provoking quote said by Kira before it was edited: "If one believes one's right, one shouldn't wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them. Except that I don't know, however, whether I'd include blood in my methods." Galt found a creative method. It's all about method in the context you are living in. Ours is a zombie culture: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24577&hl

Every word Rand wrote in her notes about To Lorne Deiterling is included in the journals.

Galt would not make fun of you like that because of his self-esteem. This hypothetical is complete nonsense.

No, not his. This guy also was named Eric Starnes, he did it because of unrequited love.

Well, look at the other suicides in AS. There was the one where the guy slit his wrists and bled out allover a newlywed couples bed out of malice. Making a show of his suicide. According to the novel one should spit on the memory of that guy, not feel sorry for him. Cheryll' s suicide wasn't out of malice. Reread that passage, it says something about how can one pass judgment on another's suffering or on the limit of that which one can bear, etc. It's on p.321centennial edition. Cheryll' s suicide should not be morally condemned I think. Though I'd of liked to of seen her run to Dagny' s place, where she may have helped, been able to get the help from a mental health pro, and also consulted a lawyer in regards to her marriage, etc. Then have her get with Eddie Willers. Suicides can be morally justified. www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3xYN59vclo