RussK
-
Posts
458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RussK
-
-
By Elan Journo from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog
“After eight years of U.S. military intervention, the fighters of the Islamist movement are not only unbowed, but on the march,” writes Journo. “The Islamists (often misidentified by one of their favored tactics: terrorism) seek to impose the totalitarian rule of Allah’s law worldwide--an ideal that entails smiting down infidels and subjugating others under sharia. And they’re making headway.”
Another correct assessment by Elan Journo. I can't wait to read the book, and from what I've read in the Objective Standard, it's going to be well worth the purchase.* What I would like to point out from this particular press release though, is something that hasn't been written about yet on this thread: the necessity of properly identifying our enemy. From near day one of Bush's failed war on terror, this essential action has been identified as part of the solution to our problems for the war. Yet, still to this day, maybe even more so now than before, our leaders fail to identify the enemy. Just recently this failure has led some to question whether or not the Taliban is the enemy, and if only Al-Qaeda is our only objective. With policy such as that getting critical attention, it's not hard to see why our actions have been doomed from the beginning, and why they will continue to be.
*I really hope that this book has a dust jacket. Viable Values by Tara Smith, which was published by the same company, didn't have a dust jacket.
-
He is being investigated if I recall correctly. I think it was a mental breakdown. It didn't even look like he attempted to get away with it. This was right after he went public on refusal to take federal bailout style funds. He pretty much got politely informed that the governor doesn't count for jack shit anymore and he needed to shut up and color. He's been acting like a Hunter S. Thompson character since then.
It's surprising then that he's no longer considering a bid for the Presidency.
-
When does this guy have time to write articles? Last time I heard that name, wasn't the FBI looking for him? Or am I confusing him with someone else?
I don't know if the FBI was looking for him, or were they when he was missing? I think I was vacationing when that circus happened so I just know vague details. However, you're are thinking of the right guy. It's the South Carolina governor who had the affair with the Argentinian woman.
-
I think the risk of getting 2009 H1N1 this year is low, but unless it just dies and and goes away I think just about everyone will get it eventually. With that said, I don't plan on getting the vaccine. One reason is that flu's have rarely made me very sick, and the other is that I hate nasal vaccines.
-
We interrupt the current flame war to report what is actually going on in the league...
I'll post more later, but, wow, the Saints may overcome the reverse-curse of their name. They didn't just beat the Giants, they flattened them.
Meanwhile the Vikings tried very hard to hand the game over to the Ravens, but the Ravens refused to cooperate.
More later.
Yeah, they were definitely on point. Drew Brees has really made his mark this year. And yes, it's a big, embarrassing loss for the Giants, but I'm not worried about them losing their division
-
I bought the book mainly for its potential reference material. I probably won't even get around to reading it for a few months. There's another book coming out soon called "Ayn Rand and the World She Made," which seems similar, but I don't have plans on buying it. I think both books will be similar in their content of meaningful substance, and Oxford University Press trumps Nan A. Talese/Doublday.
-btw, I purchased the book on Amazon.com. They're having some great deals on prices and shipping right now.
-
Here is an article about a LA Justice of the Peace who refused to grant a marriage license to a couple because of what an interracial marriage might do to any children they might have.
Now, if he were a private entity exercising his right not to associate with something he did not like, it wouldn't be so much of a problem. However, the state of LA requires a marriage license (like all states I assume) and this is a government employee. It will be interesting to see how well he stands by his convictions as public scrutiny, probably the Justice Department and a few other entities come to bear weight on his decision.
Edit: A classic quote from the article;
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way,"
I'm certain the Louisiana judiciary committee, which the article says the ACLU has sent a letter to, will force this guy out of his position. At the end of the article, he's quoted as serving for 34 years in that position. It's surprising that nothing like this has come up in his tenure, but maybe with the publicity and coming investigation, more allegations of abuses will be brought out.
-
I think my favourite part was when he described his lack of racism by saying he's had black people in his home and they even used his bathroom.
It would be very funny if it weren't so very wrong.
heh. You caught that too, I was going to make the same comment.
-
As for playoff births, there was only one such event, sort of: The Tmmacualte Reception. All the rest are berths
heh
Possibly. The Saints won't win a Conference championship, much less a Superbowl, until they change their name to something else. I mean, what kind of name is "Saints" for a football team? Maybe if they were owned by Ned Flanders, and even then he'd admit to being corny. The problem is what to call them. The New Orleans Jazz is ridiculous, though it fits, and little else from the region befits a football team. Maybe the New Orleans Gators.I actually like their chances right now, but a lot can happen between now and the end of the season. It wouldn't be the first time they disappointed
. Really though, when was the last time that they had a good quarterback?I don't really have a problem with their name, and can't imagine them as anything else. The Catholics have a long history there, so I think it's kind of fitting from that perspective. I've never really thought about the name being weak or anything until you brought it up. Now I'll think about it whenever I hear them mentioned.
-
It's in the afternoon now, but I'd like to wish everyone a good Columbus day. There's no doubt that the memory of Christopher Columbus is increasingly not being celebrated or is being replaced by multiculturalist ideas. Just as one example among many, a small college campus close to me will be closed for a day this week, but it won't be today because, I can only imagine, today is Columbus Day.
-
So, do you think Wave will gain the popularity needed to make it a truly effective communication tool? If so, Wave is obviously in it's infancy, so what do you see it evolving into?
I read an article about it last week some time, and I've forgotten a lot of the features that its supposed to offer. I myself didn't care much about it, probably because I'm not the biggest fan of all things web 2.0. However, one of the things that stuck out to me was making e-mail more interactive between users. That would definitely be a good app for certain business and college uses, etc...
-
The Broncos proved they're a better team than anyone gave them credit for. The pundits will still wander about it, but they have to recognize they beat New England (the die-hard pundits will say the Pats are in decline; they may actually be, you kind of notice when Brady hits a receiver on the shin). I think the team in the low-lying city (merely a mile above sea level) has a fair chance to reach the AFC Championship.
Next week the Saints meet the Giants. I expect the New Orleans team will lose in memomarble fashion. The Steelers go against Cleveland, I expect a massacre.
I agree with the die-hard pundits: New England is in decline. However, it did excite me to see Denver's coach get so excited after his win. Either way, it's getting closer and closer for the undefeated teams to start solidifying their positions for playoff births, and Denver is right on track. It seems like this season is going by at a quick pace.
I can't wait for the Giant's/Saint's game. I think it will be the first test for both teams. However, I'm certain the Big Blue Wrecking Crew will be victorious. I'm starting to warm up to the idea of giving Payton that raise.
-
Homosexuality isn't the problem, homophobia is. Blackmail and all those other oh so McCarthy fears are only possible threats when a person is forced to hide his sexuality.
The Canadian Forces has permitted Homosexuals to serve since like the early 80's? To my knowledge there has never been a security breach because of a person being a homosexual. Indeed, it is much more likely for a man to be blackmailed about an illicit hetro affair than a homo one.
I agree with your assessment here, in the context of some sort of CI matter, but I don't think it applies to the reason why "don't ask, don't tell" is a policy. The policy demands people keep their sexuality secret or they could be discharged, etc... If the driving factor here were CI risk indicators, they would reverse the policy, making the release information regarding one's sexuality less embarrassing or threatening.
-
It's only a matter of time before this embarrassing policy is let go. Will that stop hazing? No, I don't think so, but at least it will give a better atmosphere for homosexuals, over time. I actually think cases like the one presented in the article are the rare cases now, and homosexuals are allowed to be 'open' in public with increasing frequency. If it's used as a policy, it's probably used as a tack on charge, when more serious charges/problems already exist.
-
Let me give an example question: If I go on national television with a Libertarian and agree with most of their political views, would you view that as appeasement or not?
You're overstating things. The two have disagreed openly on the show; I recommend the clip linked to toward the end of page one of this thread. I've got my own misgivings about Yaron Brook going on the show, but it's not due to the idea of him appeasing Glenn Beck. I just have misgivings about ARI being associated with a show so emotional and unprofessional, and one which deals with news in the typical fire sale, crisis, infotainment manner. Of course, generally, every media outlet does this, but Beck takes it to a whole new level.
-
Einstein's theory on the photoelectric effect and the idea of the photon can be considered the start of quantum physics. If that isn't revolutionary, I don't know what is.
In addition, the photoelectric effect greatly influenced the discoveries and technologies of the recent Novel Prize winners that you continue on to mention. I didn't realize this until after watching The News Hour on PBS, in which they dedicated about a 10 minutes spot to discussing the prize.
-
Their standards are slipping, though.
Arafat had to murder thousands of people before he got the Prize.
Al Gore had to make a movie.
What did 0 have to do? Read a couple of words from the teleprompter?
He hasn't been in power that long yet. Maybe they thought the prize would be moral motivation to kick start his peace propositions and plans.
-
Rebuff me if I'm wrong, because this is just an analysis and opinion, but isn't the reason that so many of these cases are settled out of court due to the heavy possibilities of the practitioner losing in court? Coincidentally, a few days ago, I was at the salon getting my hair cut and picked up an edition of Times, and I happened to turn to an article about medical malpractice laws, which reminded me of this thread. It had some good statistical information (pie charts, etc...) about the lawsuits. I could be wrong, this is just from vague memory, but I think it said something like 90% of all cases are settled out of court. That's a very wide margin, and to me it hints that the practitioners and insurance companies don't want to press the issue because they don't like their chances.
I've got an educated guess about why they wouldn't like their chances, but I'm not going to elaborate on that right now. However, the important thing, as it concerns this thread, is, how much would requiring the loser to pay for all court expenses improve the odds of practitioners/insurers continuing on with the court process? I'm still trying to mull over the possibilities, but I don't think it would increase those odds significantly.
-
I think it was RussK who seemed to be the only one who felt I should have accepted my brother's judgement without justification. He also seems to be the only one think menn and women cannot, "in some cases", be just friends.
I didn't say that at all, except for the last sentence, but that quote is not my words. If anything should be taken away from my posts on this thread, it would be that I would have given your brother more benefit of the doubt. I also said that I lack much of the context of this whole situation. That point was added to inform you that all of my conclusions were made using very little information relevant to this case, and much of it being simple advice for you to take away, if you chose, because you had more of a complete context; and I also warned that your brother will have stronger knowledge about his girlfriend.
It boggles my mind to think that an Objectivist would, in ANY context, put forth such statements.Yes, it would be mind boggling; however, you've misunderstood and read too much into my statements.
This is not an attack on YOU, Russ!! As a matter of fact, I would very much like to hear more on this from you. I can't seem to grasp my brother's stance on this, and you are the only one to even come close to backing it, so....If anything, I'm sympathetic toward your brothers position, but that's a very big if. Like I already said, I've got little idea what's going on here except for the information you've provided. The advice I gave came from personal experience, and what my own expectations would be in this situation. I would also like to point out something that was made very early on in this thread: much of the things discussed have little to do with Objectivism. Of course, accepting your brother's judgment without justification deals much with principles like independence, etc... However, that's one of the few topics I notice related to Objectivism, and much everything else isn't very related without trying to reach for connections.
-
He tells me I condoned manipulation because after I became aware there was manipulation involved, I did not choose to write her off. I think she acted badly in the heat of an argument/situation, but I don't believe that makes her worthless. I am not the most forgiving person in the world when it comes to a breach of morality, believe me, but I think we all make mistakes and do things we regret. Especially in the heat of "battle" with our significant others.
You would probably have to write off a lot of people in your life if you chose to do that in every case of such manipulation. It's such a common thing. Of course, this would not be good to just rid yourself of everyone. However, you could have pointed this out to the girlfriend and told her your disappointments, etc...
-
I don't support tort reform that caps lawsuit payouts. Yet, I understand that many of these lawsuits are harming the medical field. I've thought about various solutions, and some listed here so far are interesting, but many times I just think that the system currently in place is close to as good as it can get.
-
Reason is not an end-in-itself. Your lost already.
I've heard at least one prominent O'ist recomend writing college papers drunk, as this mental state most closely approximates the state needed to succeed in one of todays philosophy classes.
Given that you are trying to write a paper with reason cut off from values, i.e., cut off from human beings, sounds like this is your best bet.
Good luck trying to argue "for better" or "for worse" without values.
Intro. philosophy courses are definitely a mixed bag of concepts, usually not integrated, but I don't have too much a problem with this. This method can provide a good environment to learn about general philosophical ideas.
Who said to write college papers drunk? Not that I doubt the authenticity of this, but I would love to hear it in its original context, just for entertainment purposes.
-
No true Objectivist would ever suggest that you should "just take their word for it".
Do you agree with this, Russ??
No, I don't agree with that. However, at the same time, I wouldn't go explaining why I broke up with someone to my friends. Additionally, they wouldn't demand explanations, nor would I of them. Of course, in this particular case, things would become increasingly contingent on how much the girlfriend befriended the friends. Realize that this is actually a common problem with typical relationships and friends, when people 'break-up' or divorce.
-
First of all, his behavior made me question his judgement. I believed her to be of decent character. Therefore I was unable to give him the benefit of the doubt. No one makes any judgements for me. I make my own judgements with whatever facts I have at the time; period. Also, he had not "cut her loose" yet, and she was a friend.
In what way did I choose her OVER my brother? This makes no sense to me and I am trying very hard to understand his point of view.
I did not question motives at the time. This was a big point of my brothers. I trusted her. He suggests that I am just naive, not having had much experience with women, which I have not. Nevertheless, if he believes I was just naive and mistaken, why end our friendship over that?
While my brother verbally says he believes I would never have done anything inappropriate, he also maintains that men and women cannot be "just friends". So I question his reasons for being so emotional about this...
The way I read it, I thought he had cut her off. I especially thought this when your brother suggested that she was trying to manipulate you. I've already said that I don't know the whole case, or even most of it; and I still stand by my claim that your brother probably does have more knowledge about her than you do. It also wouldn't be surprising if she were trying to manipulate you. This happens all the time. Irrational women--reciprocally men as well--tend to do that in relationships, and this includes using family members.
I also agree with your brother in that "one should avoid ANY semblance of impropriety." Situations one puts oneself in with the spouses or girlfriends of others should be thought about beforehand. It helps prevent unnecessary doubt, confusion, and false 'lead-ons' to say the least; it's just a smart thing to do. Note, this does not mean I totally disagree with Grames' assessment of this concept; he is definitely correct in identifying "entertaining the truth without evidence" as non-objective. However, this "semblance of impropriety" doesn't always have to be un-objective or without evidence.
Many times our thoughts and decisions are based on incomplete information (evidence). Of course, this is simply unavoidable because of our nature. This is why it's a good idea to think about the position one puts themselves in with others, especially with spouses and girlfriends. Why go about confusing people, especially those one is close to? It's also worth pointing out that this type of behavior is not just important or common for dealing with romantic relationships. It's used in numerous other ways, for example, first impressions, etc...
I said that you chose--I should have said supported, to be consistent with what your brother said--her over your brother because that's what I understand you've done from reading your post. Whether or not this was the proper thing to do, I don't know, that's up for you to decide, you've got more evidence. However, the fact is, your brother asked you not to be involved with her anymore, and you decided to go against your brother.
As for your last point, you're going to have to elaborate more on it because I don't understand the question or statement. I will say though, that I agree with your brother, that in many contexts men and women cannot be "just friends."
Does psychological coercion exist?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
I think you make a crucial identification. That's how I've always thought about the issue, and I think it fits in well with how it is defined legally in most uses of psychological manipulation.