RussK

Hafnium Bomb

I don't disagree with you, that the supply of gold in a bank account or bank's vault, would decrease in relation to the amount of negative transactions made by the account owner or holder. I was talking about the supply of gold concerning natural resources and increase of population. My point was that as gold becomes more scarce, the use of notes will allow for transactions even though the note may represent a miniscule amount of gold. To me the author of the thread is implying that everyone will be handling transactions with the physical gold, and over time such handling would be unsustainable, which it would be. I agree.

I think the bg works better too, compared with the first videos, and helps reduce the blurring of their editing; however, you can still see part of the speaker's face/neck disappear during certain body shifting.

Are people really going to be concerned with handling and seeing the physical gold with every transaction? If the a gold standard (or any other metal) became used for determining the value of currency, I wouldn't care to ever actually handle it in my purchases and transactions. If paper notes, backed by gold, were the main means for transactions, why would there be concern for the supply of gold running out? Then there's electric transactions/receipts that could be more important than paper notes in the future.

I was immediately turned off when I viewed the Yaron Brook video on ARI's website. I thought it was a poorly clipped/cropped video of Brook, unnecessarily applied to a bright background so slides could be incorporated. The clipping & cropping to such a background would have been more pleasing and acceptable if the background was more important to, or needed in the video. Unfortunately the background was bland, unappealing, lame, and not needed. As JJJJ stated, it may have turned out better to have filmed and shown Brook sitting/standing in front of a book shelf, maybe even at a desk. I don't think there is much wrong with Brook's speech; I think he's the best live (audience, radio, t.v.) speaker that I've seen from ARI, and I think he will improve with future prepared & produced videos; however, of course, someone with a mid-western accent would be preferable.

I understand the benefits to having or promoting morale, but I don't think it should be treated as an end in itself, as Kendall pointed out. If promoting morale for the POWs is the standard to uphold here, should any POW ever even attempt escape? That's to say that POWs remaining caged is a morale booster for the others still imprisoned. There's no doubt that McCain got special treatment because of who his father was; McCain has acknowledge so in his own words, and maybe that could be construed as a morale wrecker. As for the Code of Conduct, I don't think it has much weight here, and in the realm of oaths, it's about as meaningful as those given to upholding military values. The purpose of it is to help prevent surrender and harm to the U.S. through the providing of information and propaganda. The Code has been violated many times in the past, and I would say that a great deal of those violations were warranted. I've heard of stories authored by military personnel or their supporters, who were brought up on charges for violating the code, people who were presumably broken down terribly by their captors; I think the case could be made that McCain may have broken the Code of Conduct. It's not something to uphold as an absolute because it can be vague, and no one should be suffered to uphold it in certain situations. Chain of command reasons for staying in a POW camp have also been given, and this is also a part of the Code of Conduct. It should be realized that although the U.S. may uphold some sort of civility towards captured uniformed combatants, that civility isn't generally applied by captors of U.S. personnel. There are cases where captured personnel have been punished and prevented from exercising chain-of-command. Lawful orders being given in a prison environment seems like it would be a very problematic concept in a less violent POW camp, where a commander may take commands from his captor and then give orders to his subordinates, let alone in a violent POW camp. I do think there are many reasons why one may want to stay imprisoned in a POW camp, especially in cases like McCain's; there are also many reasons to do anything to regain freedom. However, in regards to Peikoff's statement, I agree with him in his response to the question he was asked. If McCain rejected release because he didn't want to leave anyone behind and didn't want to receive special treatment, then his reasons were altruistic; however, I think there may be more to the story than that presented by the questioner.

That the launch was allowed to go off without any attempts to prevent it, by the U.S. and other western powers, shows the continuing weakness of the U.S. and their willingness to let enemies go to great lengths to threaten interests. This is the third launch of its kind and so far the most successful; the rocket went further than before and showed that they can launch a rocket anytime they want, with any payload, so long as they announce it and claim they're launching a satellite.

Once again, acts by congress to give the President more power, and allowing him to define and set the terms of that power. That's the modus operandi of congress these days, it seems. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the concept of the bill, but I think the definitions and limits should be set by the congress, before it's passed, not to be set by the President whenever he so chooses to do so.

Can't wait to see the definitions in that bill. Is this registration for new guns or all guns? For new guns they already have a system, the NICS, they would just need to change their collection policies. In their restrictions against loaded weapons they will probably include ammunition available within a certain distance of the gun. As far as I'm concerned, once a child reaches a certain age he will have a good chance of getting a hold of a parents gun if he really wants to, unless it's hidden extravagantly or physically barred--locks & safes--from the child.

I didn't check my e-mail in time to know that he was going to be on the show today, so I didn't get to see it. What did Brook challenge Beck on? I'm glad to hear he is doing this, because he didn't do it in the previous appearances, probably due to time constraints and wanting to stay on point. That last point has been a problem with Brook appearing in Beck's show. Beck has this willingness to interrupt and add something to a point Brook is trying to make, something Beck maybe thinks Brook agrees with, and then changes topic. Sometimes Beck waits until Brook is finished making a point to add something. I cannot remember the exact wording, but an example was quite apparent in the last show that Brook was a guest on, and it concerned immigration: Beck brought the topic of regulation up for Brook to speak about, after Brook was done speaking Beck added some comment about immigrants taking jobs, and Brook didn't respond or rebuke him.

I was also surprised. Maybe it's because they get a substantial amount of money from the selling of this brass, or maybe they realize that with the way the U.S. Military uses ammunition, it would be better to resell it for 'environmental' reasons. I'm not too worried about the coming weapons restrictions, yet. I think things will just return to Clinton era, cosmetic type, gun regulations. Regulations against Hi-Cap mags and certain ammunition will also probably be re-instated. Who knows though, maybe it will be a real ban against these weapons instead of the emotional placating that probably motivated the previous regulations. It's been a couple of years since I've went to a gun-show, I just may go and get something before regulations force prices up or certain products actually become banned.

I hope you simply misread what I've written, otherwise I could be a very confused rationalist, with a tough problem, and be in need of your help, or maybe you're the one who needs help. Explain to me where this rationalism you're accusing me of has occurred. The only pinpoint claim you seem to make is by quoting my comment that, "It is quite necessary to judge the author of statements, whether it's Rush or not, to help discern its meaning, authenticity, etc..." If you are not doing this when judging the validity or worth of Rush's current statement, then you are the one guilty of rationalism; to make a comment about the value of Rush's statement, in regards to the acceptance or spread of Ayn Rand's ideas, by him, without committing the aforementioned judgment, then you are the one making comments based upon some floating abstraction. All I've done is read Rush's statement (the transcript), put it into the context of statements he has made in the past, and made a few comments about Rush and the value of the statement he made.

The only thing that's going on here is some people are withholding praise for Rush Limbaugh because they've taken a broad range of statements that he's made in the past, put his statements concerning Ayn Rand into context, and came to various negative conclusions about him and his statements. This is part of the careful judgment applied by a rational person to other people and their statements. There is a certain schizophrenia in Rush's world of ideas, it's his pragmatic use of his grab-bag full of ideas he can cherry pick for his own needs and satisfaction, and most of the time to entertain his audience as well. It is quite necessary to judge the author of statements, whether it's Rush or not, to help discern its meaning, authenticity, etc... How can you give trust in the meaning of someones statements when they are advocating "selfishness one moment and self-sacrifice the next"; if the President or any other socialist of the same caliber were to give the same statement as Rush, would your reaction be the same?

That's what came to mind when I read the topic of this thread, and it's always the first thing I think whenever I hear about Rush and his ilk mentioning Ayn Rand lately. Although, I think his statements in this show are a little more intellectual and less particular than those given in previous shows, even those by others, like Glenn Beck's, I don't think Rush fully understands or agrees with Ayn Rand's positions, which he is supposedly using as a base. There's no doubt in my mind that there would be heavy capitulation on Rush's part if one of his viewers were to challenge him. Sometimes I think people are too quick to praise Rush because they apply their contextual knowledge to something that Rush says, and fail to realize that Rush doesn't have, or may not be using ideas in the same context; who knows what exactly Rush thinks about self-interest or individualism, especially if he had to justify it within a presumed, at the least, pragmatic altruism, pseudo-christianity belief set.

I read the whole transcript. Interesting statements coming from Rush, and one of the more agreeable things I've read from him. His statements on individualism ("the smallest minority on Earth") were also appealing. According to his words, he's going to elaborate on the topic; let's see what comes next. [edit] Maybe someone will call him and challenge his views on these ideas. I would be interested in how Rush would respond to altruistic arguments and claims given by peers in his party, or held by his viewers.

You'll have to elaborate on your position that the US military is an altruistic institution. I don't think many here are going to agree with your assessment, and you're going to have to describe what you mean--what makes it an altruistic institution--before anyone gives their opinion. Otherwise no is going to know what you're talking about, as there are many notions out there regarding the military an altruism.

Sounds interesting. On a humorous aside, given the amount of time it took me to download the animations on the parent company website, I don't think I'll be playing streaming video games for quite some time. EDIT: About the name of the parent company, I did find this interview. And supposedly Rearden was first founded as Rearden Steel.

I agree. If it would have been as easy as going to the polling station, I would have voted for Obama. The GOP needed to pay a price and needed a change forced on them, that's the only Change I knew Obama would be good for.

heh. I immediately knew where that was going.

I agree with his ranking of his advice on future Afghanistan policy, and agree that we should become better allies with India--something that should have happened a long time ago, well before and during the 1998-99 conflict. My reasons for agreeing are: 1) I think nation building should only be attempted under certain circumstances. Not only that, I'm currently afraid of the course that this country is going; therefore, the funny audacity in US nation building, when people have lost the essence and direction of their own nation. Given this, I agree that: Of course, this also applies to Iraq, which I think from his article, Peters may disagree. 2) The 'Surge' in Afghanistan would be for a different purpose and probably differ in style than that of Iraq; therefore, the effects wouldn't necessarily be similar. 3) Strengthening troop levels in Afghanistan may help the overall mission some what, but I don't think it will make substantial improvements. I personally don't give much credit to the last buildup of troops in Iraq, The Surge, for quelling violence there.

Anyone who watched parts of Liddy's testimony new that he was only getting a salary of $1.00; Liddy and many of the congressmen made it a point to mention the salary whenever possible. What I didn't know until reading the letter was that others in AIG were working for the same salary, not just Liddy.

I don't know which is more ridiculous: that performance which seemed, in its conclusion, to be about NCAA football and a playoff system, or the state of culture and government that feels the need for government to get involved in such topics. This is just another example of our collectivist, group fighting, special interest mode of government; and it shows exactly how stupid it can get. On the subject of UF as a educational institution, I know a few people who have gone there, and they didn't have any problems with it. One of the few complaints I've heard concerned the size of the student body, which I guess is, or used to be extremely large.

I don't see anything spectacular or worth applauding about this letter. Yes, he's obviously taking a shot at Liddy and AIG concerning the witch hunt over the bonuses, but there is just too much capitulation in the letter to make it worthy of praise. One of the first examples, occurring in the beginning of the letter, is when DeSantis lifts the actions taken by himself and Liddy, working for a salary of $1, out of duty and obligation to the government, to be the moral ideal of the letter. That pretty much takes the sting out of anything else he has to say concerning the bonus. Just curious, but how did NYT get this letter; did DeSantis or Liddy send it, or was it leaked?

I think they've reduced the price, and are about to implement a new pricing structure where tracks can be purchased for $0.69 to $1.29. iTunes is my means of d/l music, but I haven't been on it in a while to check for these updates.

I'm a layman when it comes to the markets, but the only problem I have with mark-to-market is the way it's enforced. I'm sure everyone was all too eager to play the game when the housing market was getting inflated, and they started raking it in; but now they want to change the rules. Although these entities can't get much for their troubled assets, that doesn't mean that there is no market for them; it may mean that the market isn't performing to their desires, and they can't get a good price to sell their assets, which also makes similar holdings look like garbage, but why wouldn't/shouldn't they look like garbage? Also, what would be the point of setting the value of these particular assets higher than what their value is in the current market; wouldn't deviating from the current values no longer render the asset toxic, and if it doesn't, why? The only reasons I can see are nefarious, from cooking the books to the little spoken about bailout plans by these asset holders and the government--as if the government hasn't already sexed up some of these entities enough by claiming them too big to fail, and granting them the full backing of the government. Besides the ability to make the balance sheets of these asset holders look more presentable, getting rid of mark-to-market may allow for further, even more unwarranted spending by the government in future bailouts. This is important given the recent plans of the Federal Treasury, to create and use their 'Public Investment Corporation' to buy these assets. Getting rid of mark-to-market would be a way for these asset holders to sell their assets at higher prices, more than they are worth, pre-bubble, etc..., to the government. If such a thing is engaged in, the cost of the plan by the Treasury is going to exceed well over $1 trillion dollars. Although, we all know the plan is going to exceed $1 trillion anyway, there's no need to exacerbate the spending. Just imagine the heroics of Geithner and the Obama administration, presented to the American people, after resend mark-to-market: asked by the asset holders to pay approximately pre-bubble prices for toxic assets, they negotiate the evil asset holders down to a lower, although most likely still inflated price, thereby bailing out but sticking it to the evil capitalists, all the while spending too much for the assets--this example was put forth on a website of which I cannot remember the URL.