RussK

****spoiler**** The publishing company(?) said that he had only written four and retired; however, when Dagny reaches the Gulch she understands why this is not true. edit: the post is very brief, but I figured I'd add a spoiler tag. Although much of the major items of the book has been given away through the media, with the recent increase in AS popularity, minor, yet meaningful things like this have not.

I've lived on or near lakes quite a few times, and have seen a few wooden boats; I've only ridden on one once. One of the large lakes near where I currently live has a wooden boat club where usually 10 wooden boats are docked. What I haven't seen, at least I can't recall, is a wooden hull resembling the one of your runabout, which looks tiered, instead of smooth. The boat looks great. I always love seeing these boats on the water.

Does this mean they can use Nike's trademark, "Just Do It!"?

My government doesn't want my blood, they think you Europeans have infected me

Paul, I happen to agree with what you wrote, but I don't agree with your conclusion. You're correct in stating that promoting the current system of donation, where sacrifice and need is the argument pushed on and promoted by the public, would be immoral. Most people who are organ donors probably do it for altruistic reasons, probably for some emotionalistic feel good reason, and they are making an immoral decision; however, for someone who disagrees with the current system but has no other choice in determining where their organs go, and circles 'yes' to being an organ donor, their decision is not to promote the current system, and therefore not immoral. With that said, I think that you could make a very good argument to the people of Canada (and United States) by focusing on what you've already identified as immoral: the altruistic reasons behind the current system and the act of donating via the current system if an alternative one (choice in organ management) did exist. If the question was posed to a typical parent, of whether or not it would be immoral to donate their organs under the current system and ideas, rather than give the organ or its proceeds to their children (using a new system), that parent would probably recognize the immorality of the current system and any donation based upon its ideas. Pointing out the benefits of a freer system seems like a good way to challenge the current one.

I'm a huge NCAA football fan, and also a supporter of the BCS (even the first version). The topic of BCS versus playoff system has been going on every year for a few years now, and when politicians started promoting federal government action, many of the college football fans I know, who support a playoff system, started praising those politicians and future government interference. All of these fans were GOP members or registered Republicans, and mostly staunchly anti-Democrat. Since the election of President Obama, who also publicly supported interference by the federal government, many of these fans have toned down their support for the interference. I don't necessarily think Obama's opinions on the subject made much of a difference in toning down these playoff supporters, some reluctantly agreed with Obama at the time. Instead I think all of the recent focus on government spending, waste and proper role has helped change the opinions of those who initially backed the federal interference. Now, whenever I bring up the ridiculousness of federal involvement in the topic, those who used to support the idea reluctantly agree with me. This "the government shouldn't be doing that" thing is becoming so pop culture; then again, so is government spending and intervention . Where congress is going to derive its power from is the money spent on public education, which they will say gives them the justification to make the new regulations and changes; and there's still going to be quite a bit of support not just from playoff supporters in general but probably particularly from fans of small (non-BCS) teams. Of course this is not limited to NCAA football or even sports. As recently as the NCAA basketball, playoff selection, a major sports commentator, upset that not enough "non-BCS" teams were not selected, called for congressional oversight. Whenever someone is upset about something, calling for government involvement is just a knee jerk reaction.

I wouldn't say that organ donation is necessarily immoral, but I think that one could make the case that donating for reasons based upon the way organ donation programs are popularly promoted would be immoral. Most I know just circle a box while ordering their drivers license, never give much thought to it, and that decision sticks with them without any thought until time for renewal. I've had someone tell me that they thought it was the moral decision to be a donor because people are in need of organs, and it would help them; it would be my guess that most people who fall into the category of selecting to be organ donors without giving much thought to it, or donors in general, probably do it for similar altruistic reasons. I recently just ordered a new license because I've moved to a new state, and that should allow me to bring up the conversation fairly easily and learn a few things about why some do or do not donate. Personally, I have an aversion to subscribing to be an organ donor, due to the lack of choice as to where my organs go, and because of a few horror stories that I've heard about and can imagine. I would rather have someone I trust make the decision based upon things that they've learned from health professionals about any future case I may be involved in, and not just have things removed automatically.

Maybe this will give you a flashback: 1976 Swine Flu, Public Service Announcement

Your examples go quite overboard. If someone walked into a bar spraying toxic gas, that would indeed violate rights; however, if someone entered a bar with a 'toxic gas' section, then there wouldn't be any violation. The property owner consented and all parties new about the gas, but that's pretty ridiculous.

Maybe I'm just being naive, but I'm not the least concerned about this Flu. D'kain, how many people in Mexico die annually from 'human flu'? One of the reasons for my lack of concern is the CDC's data, which they released a couple of days ago, showing that some 36,000 died last year in the U.S. from the flu; however, there have been very few infections (100?) and no deaths yet from swine flu.

Another reason why letters of marque wouldn't be worthwhile is due to what's already been talked about frequently here: the UN laws banning firearms on vessels, the law currently placing the merchants in danger. None of the private fighters would be able to carry weapons on board, and wouldn't be very effective. If you get rid of those laws, merchants would be able to protect themselves, rendering privateers almost worthless. Then again, that's not likely going to happen due to the pragmatism and political correctness that Thomas has highlighted. Unrelated to piracy, I did see a case where private fighters were contracted by a government and successfully brought in a ship to port. It was on a show, I think on the History channel, where the Liberian government hired a private company, composed of British and American personnel, to patrol Liberian waters for illegal fishing activity. The Privateers' job is to bring vessels, engaging in illegal fishing, into port where the Liberian government can dispense their form of justice to the occupants. In the show the privateers were actually able to board a ship and intimidate the Captain to go to port, but they were quite concerned about not having weapons to defend themselves in the attempt.

I've lived in the south for most of my life so I never really heard about unions except for national news pieces, and in my previous occupation I didn't have to worry about them. I first heard about a real concrete and terrible example of unions while visiting family near Chicago. While there, a family friend was talking about trying to get employment on construction projects but was unable to because he was not a member of a union. The individual then went on to tell me that there are different 'levels' in unions, and the higher level you achieve, the more, maybe better jobs become available to you. What's ironic is that after he complained about his union situation, I began saying how bad unions are, using various arguments, and then I told him that I didn't think there was a union in place anyone near where I lived; he then began justifying the existence of unions, and one of the reasons he used was immigration.

Wow. That seems like an excellent idea. One of these ships could lure in a group of pirates, destroy the attackers, and the navy could collect information by monitoring those that flee from the surprise. You'd get a bunch of dead pirates, and send a message to future attackers.

I apologize for the late reply. I must say that I could have sympathy for someone who has been detained and interrogated for an extended period of time and done nothing wrong, but in these circumstances I don't have much sympathy because I recognize that these people were captured in a war zone. Just like so many, if not most locals killed in Iraq, may not have been fighting against U.S. military when they were killed, many, if not most detainees are going to be captured while not actively doing anything during capture. If people don't want to deal with these types of situations, don't have a war. Even though I don't think these people have the right to due process, I must agree with you in the sense that a policy dealing with holding and eventual trials (i've got no problem with the military tribunals originally planned) should have been developed in more detail and been more transparent. The administration definitely had a flippant attitude toward the situation and seemed to act very slowly.

With so much money being spent on maintaining and growing a standing military, Navy for this case in particular, I see no reason for this. I think that if the government is going to grant authority to private entities to target and destroy pirate capabilities, the Navy should be using their assets to patrol and destroy the pirate elements to the utmost capability; and if the Navy were to do that, private or militia type of involvement would probably be a so small as to not even be noticeable. Not to mention, if such an authority were to be given to a private entity it would be construed as an act of war anyway. Then again, maybe it could help, as private entities currently help the military in Iraq and Afghanistan fulfill their jobs where military personnel of particular specialties were or are, low in numbers.

Central planning had quite a lot of influence in guiding space technology to where it is now. It's true that in order to finance their activities the government must expropriate the wealth of its citizens, or print money for that purpose. So although the private sector had the ability to fund all of the functions of NASA, it took the creation of NASA with its central planning to propel the space industry and technology to where it's at now. Obviously, the expropriation of production, and the central planning for non-military purposes is wrong; however, there's no doubt in my mind that without NASA, manned space travel would be primitive to non-existent. Personally, I could care less about manned space travel as something that should be strived for and funded so fervently in our day and age, but in the future it may be more practical; and if the free market is the standard to be used, that practicality would be the determining factor for the growth and improvement of new technology. In that light, it's my opinion that NASA has harmed the development of the space industry and technology by promoting and funding manned space travel, instead of scrapping it and putting full focus on non-manned, satellite launch and repair technology--which is what the private sector would almost certainly be exclusively focused on and concerned with--for government and military satellites. Doing that would bolster the already existing private contractors who develop such things for NASA, and if NASA's role was removed from non-government purposes, it would create new leaders in, and somewhat change the industry, if not create a real industry.

I don't think there's anything wrong with advocacy on post office property. When I was a goof and involved with the LP, we used to organize on tax day and hand out pamphlets and fliers at the post office. I can't remember exact conversations but legality was talked about, and we never had any problems. However, we used the parking lot, and didn't communicate with anyone entering the post office, past the parking lot.

Yes, screw the desktop wallpaper, I'm going to print one and frame it behind my desk.

I've got my own thoughts on Guantanamo, but this video doesn't affect those opinions at all. The video spurted out facts that I guess I'm supposed to take on face value; it misrepresented circumstances of capture and detention with exuberant, out of context story telling; and was emotionally over the top. It's one thing to be passionate about something, but quite another to use or accept that passion as argument--I personally think his passion was misplaced, but I don't know anything about this guy other than the video I just watched. I watched the whole video, which was probably being too nice to the author, but I was bored and curious. In a way, I'm glad I watched it until the end because his last 'example' was completely over the top and ridiculous. The child which he talked about, which could be legally--and I would say morally--detained and interrogated, could be detained for any number of reasons, including a cordon and knock situation (which the author of the video disparagingly describes as random). The child's sad state of development, and potential view that soldiers and marines are 'space aliens,' has no baring on whether he should be detained or not; or if he should be transferred to Guantanamo Bay, for that matter. The author misrepresents the detention situation in Afghanistan and Guantanamo. What I gathered from the video is that detainees taken in Afghanistan are arriving in bulk to Guantanamo, and they are selected to be detained there at random. An argument may be made that that facility never received the bulk of detainees taken in Afghanistan, and after the war progressed there, Guantanamo surely did not receive or process the bulk of Afghan detainees. If this video was actually released on 09 Apr 2009, this guy definitely needs to get a grip. Although I don't know exact numbers, there have been what, less than 800 detainees at Guantanamo; meanwhile, months after the start of the war in Afghanistan, there were over 3,000 detainees held in multiple places in that country--some of those came to make up the initial population of Guantanamo. Given that over time U.S. and NATO troop strength has increased, I'm going to say that the numbers of Afghans detained and processed, in and out of detention facilities in Afghanistan has increased as well.

There is a huge difference between the actual and potential interference of the federal government in public education. Although actual interference may not be too controlling of local education departments, federal laws have created precedent for the potentiality of future interference and power. A few of these actualities can be found here; one particular example of the ESEA/NCLB that applies to the subject of literacy. Any state that's going to want to continue getting money is going to try their hardest to make sure they don't deviate from the 'scientifically proven' methods that the Department of Education can assist them with; if a school is 'measured' to be failing, their definitely going to be at a disadvantage to act without the department. States have to give 'success' plans to the department of education, to be judged and approved, in order to stay on the dole.

With the heavy involvement of the FBI, I think we already have an answer. I don't necessarily disagree with them being prosecuted in a U.S. court of law, but I don't think it's a right that these unlawful combatants have; however, I do think it is more practical, due to issues of imprisonment or less political fallout, than setting up a tribunal for the one in custody. Now, if there is a big push by the DoD to tackle this piracy problem, which will result in many captures and detentions of these pirates, then I think a policy of tribunals would become more practical. Either way, I hope that the detainee is able to be interrogated properly by DoD personnel, i.e., not rushed into justice system custody for its own sake.

The story is still coming out on how the escape/rescue occurred. I've heard at least two different stories since the news broke. If the problem wouldn't be completely solved, an increased presence would presumably reduce the occurrence of such events. I'm curious as to what the Navy's policy is for this area, which has been in the news so often, and how many patrols they do in the area. Given that it's in the area near Somalia, there should already be Navy presence, with or without the piracy, I wonder how much presence there actually is.

There's also the work of AS, which is full of such examples, but then again, I only got a B- in the class.

While I agree that the states do have more power, I also think that the federal government plays a large role in public education problems. Although the Dept. Of Education's spending, $60+ billion, a total that doesn't include ARRA earmarks (FLDOE puts that figure at $90 billion), is dwarfed in total by the amount spent by all the states combined, such funding does give the federal government quite a bit of power to meddle in the affairs of the states.

Actually, I bring it up quite a lot in discussion with Non-Objectivists, usually conservatives. Usually what's being discussed at the time is why a great percentage of the population believes a certain mode of action, usually government action, is correct. For example, in previous discussion about the recession with these people, they would ask why so many people believe that spending money and increasing the government is the way to prevent a depression, and get us out of the recession. I tell them that such a course of action has been taught in public schools for decades; my parents were taught the same thing I was; my sister was taught to regard FDR and his new deal as heroic and correct. Of course, I give non-concrete reasons for the causes of the former topics of conversations, as well. It's not to say that the indoctrination is a conspiracy, per se, it's just the application of the wrong ideas, which are generally held to some degree by the public, to particular subjects, which are taught in the public school system.