RussK
-
Posts
458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RussK
-
-
Alas, the teamster union(s) have successfully blocked Mexican trucks from doing just that. Such trucks can only travel within a narrow border zone. If their exports are going elsewhere, like to the other 99% of the continental US, they muct be unloaded at a warehouse and uploaded to a different truck. Bush created an exception through a demonstration program (temporary) for a grand total of 96 Mexican trucks.
Was the Teamsters' blocking of the Mexican trucks allowed by NAFTA or some other policy of the United States, or do the Teamsters do it on their own? *I just had a horrific memory recall of traveling from South Florida to Ohio and back during one of the Teamsters' strikes--it was a very long trip to say the least.
-
Now the supplier base is in line to get $5 billion. Unfortunately, once you head down this bailout road, there is no end in sight.
This is a good way for them to give another influx of bailout funds to the automakers, by allowing them to essentially get $5 billion worth of free auto parts, while the politicians can say that they've helped keep another important industry, albeit a sub-sector, from going bankrupt. Once again, for whatever reason, Ford says it will not participate in this program. I guess auto-parts manufactures, and their employees, that produce for automakers other than GM and Chrysler are not of concern and not worthy of being 'saved'. Given that GM and Chrysler will have the authority to select which auto parts manufacturers get subsidized, there's probably going to be a lot of merging and companies going out of business. I can't wait to wait to see how much GM's baby, bankrupt Delphi gets from this bailout.
-
I watched the show after hearing so much hype about it, and I agree that Stewart was berating the stock market and hinting at the illegitimacy of long term trading. Cramer was definitely holding punches, and even admitted some guilt, or it seemed that way; I think it was probably this guilt that made him look like he was just throwing himself to the wolves to be torn apart. Cramer didn't seem to be going on the show to argue about anything, solely judging by his performance on the show; maybe his whole purpose for going on the show was to throw himself to the wolves, in some sort of attempt at atonement for himself and CNBC, and to drop the issue that Stewart started and which Cramer reacted.
Although, I'm not a market expert by any means, I think Stewart did have a good point in criticizing Cramer, as well as his peers (Financial Broadcast Entertainment) in general, for being focused too much in entertainment instead of giving sound financial advice; not painting the whole picture for their audience, but instead continuing on, giving bullish advice, presumably for entertainment purposes. This entertainment was recently expressed by Cramer and other CNBC analysts, after the Fed's recent actions on 18 Mar 2009: Moments after the Fed's announcement, the stock market went into a buying frenzy, and all of the analysts were insisting that investors better 'get in' before it's too late; on one show occurring during the frenzy, Cramer got animated, stood from his chair, and started calling Bernanke a genius. Of course, as the day went on, the frenzy slowed, and talk became less positive; on the following day, the talk was even less positive. Probably one of the problems Cramer has with defending himself, his show, as well as other shows on CNBC, is that he doesn't want to admit to this entertainment factor because it may cause one to discredit the programming.
-
Can you give some examples of what infuriates you?
I think some have already been given by others on this thread, but I'll give another: Glenn Beck praising AS on his radio and television show, and then indicating that to be an American, and be able to 'take back the country', it's essential to believe in god and his role in your life.
-
Although I'm not a fan of their cars--the same goes for GM and Chrysler--I have to give a little respect to Ford for withdrawing itself from the bailout money, so far. I'm not sure why they did this, maybe they were in better condition than the other two, but they fought for the bailout and then bailed on it, all the while their competition got an unfair advantage with government money.
-
Where can I find statistics related to the number of CRA loans given, esp in relation to 'regular' mortgages, and how many have actually defaulted. Although I cast blame on the CRA, I've been more inclined to the position of SoftwareNerd, in that CRA is one of the least things to blame. FNMA holds, owns or guarantees, about half of the mortgage market, and I don't think there is that much of the market--including the other half not owned by FNMA--wrapped up in CRA loans. If I see the numbers I may change my mind, but until then I will continue to evaluate its influence of the housing market as low. I think FNMA was the main concrete problem because without FNMA, the housing inflation, pre-bust bubble, would have never existed. FNMA is what provided (ensured) the liquidity of the housing market by buying mortgages, allowing banks to move forward and sell more mortgages, all the while the market continued to inflate.
What's the main cause, and is to blame, is the essence of the two particulars of CRA and FNMA: Government intervention in the marketplace for the reason of increasing home-ownership because "it's good"--I think I may scour the internet for quotes by our leaders about the intrinsic value, or American dreaminess, of home owning. This is responsible for the creation CRA, as well as FNMA and the Fed's policies.
-
Dr. Brook thinks we are entering phase 2 now with Objectivism. So we're going to hear all kinds of people say they love Objectivism--people like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin, and sometimes even people like Hillary Clinton and Angelina Jolie. There's more and more of it in store as Objectivism continues to gain popularity--so y'all better get used to it.
I don't think anyone doubts that Ayn Rand is going to be mentioned with greater frequency, by people who don't hold principles compatible with Ayn Rand, as her popularity or exposure increases; I think everyone is 'used to' that, as well as expects it. However, this doesn't mean that one should 'get used to' the cherry picking and the hijacking of Ayn Rand's ideas, which is the problem at hand, and to do so would be nihilistic as Mammon pointed out. One shouldn't get used to--essentially to dismiss judgment or action--the promulgation of ideas that one thinks harmful; one should definitely not get used to ideas that confound and contradict the ideas that one thinks true and advocates. What is being targeted is not popularity itself but the confusion, misrepresentation, and contradiction; and I agree with Mammon that many cases with Rand's New Congregation are infuriating. What should be done, is not stop the spread of Ayn Rand's ideas, not that anyone has argued for that, but to advocate Objectivism: attacking those ideas that are contrary to it, which also means taking those to task who are misrepresenting and dropping the context of Rand's ideas.
Also, I think there is a difference between the popularity of Rand and the popularity of Objectivism, which is why mostly refer to "Ayn Rand's popularity".
-
I question the idea that these people actually agree with us. Mentioning Ayn Rand or her works doesn't mean that one is in agreement with Objectivism, but only that one may agree with a particular idea or theme found within her works; however, I think this case is actually rare, that's why I use 'may agree'. In the past, Ayn Rand's name has been used, in praise, by some in both the left and right (ex: Reagan & Clinton), but most of these people proved that they were not in agreement by their actions which were contrary to the principles of Objectivism. I don't know why these people used Ayn Rand's name, I think that they had a positive emotional reaction to some idea or theme that Ayn Rand espoused, and thought themselves in agreement. Although Ayn Rand's name is being thrown around a whole lot more, since the beginning of the recession, I think the same cherry picking of ideas is going on now, as was before. Just because Clinton thought he agreed with the individualism of Howard Roark doesn't mean he actually understood, or didn't drop most of the context around the individualism of Roark, presented in TF; Glenn Beck may think he agrees with Rand concerning government and capitalism, but I doubt he understands Rand's position or agrees with it in full context. If one doesn't understand, or drops the context surrounding a particular idea put forward by Rand, they are not in agreement with Rand, but instead in agreement with their own creation. I don't profess to know why Clinton or Beck would mention or quote Rand, I just used them as examples; but I do think that the current popularity with Rand by conservatives, as well as most participants in events like the tea-parties, is simply a knee-jerk reaction and typical politics following the election of Obama.
What must be done in this environment, with what seems like daily advocacy of Rand's ideas by conservatives, is to ensure that they understand what they're advocating or professing to agree with. I'm not saying that anyone advocating Rand should be challenged whenever they mention her, but instead routine Objectivist advocacy should be used: ideas should be brought to their logical conclusion, and whenever someone promotes something contrary to the principles of Rand, the principles which they have supposedly been advocating, they should be asked how the idea corresponds or is in harmony with those presented by Rand. For example, if one happens attend a conservative rally, and someone with a 'Going Galt' lapel pin (if they don't exist, I'm sure they will soon enough) is observed speaking about the qualities of Proposition Eight, for example, they should be taken to task and asked how they justify both positions; dichotomies to be taken to task occur daily on the media of Rand's new 'promoters'. Sure, some people will be turned off and will reject the ideas of Rand if they come to understand them, but if people continue to hold up and promote a Rand banner, without understanding or knowing the implications of the ideas, you're talking about a false movement with hijacked ideas.
-
With the Ron Paul blimp, plastered on it the question 'Who is Ron Paul?', flying up and down the east coast until either its funding dries up or Ron Paul drops out, I wonder how many times Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged will be mentioned in relation to Ron Paul and his campaign. Already I've seen quite a few editorials, though none mainstream, equating his positions to those of Ayn Rand's, and most of them of course are negative towards both Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, because those that will go out and purchase AS due to this campaign will probably be interested in smaller government or a change in the status quo, and will be given some intellectual ammunition to support their interests. However, it's almost as problematic as most those who are introduced to Ayn Rand though the LP or libertarianism in general. They tend to harbor incorrect ideas pertaining to the level of compatibility and support between what Ayn Rand espouses and that of their candidate, party, or political philosophy. Of course, it is on them to take their interests further and investigate their positions properly.
Another potential positive of this 'Blimp Campaign' is the method in which they're financing it. They have essentially accomplished a way to skirt the restrictive campaign finance laws and fund their candidates campaign with unrestricted donations from individual supporters. The manner of financing will probably be challenged in court, but I think they have a good argument.
-
Did Dr. Peikoff's analysis consider the influence of the environmentalist movement on the Democrat Party at all? I think if there ever was an "M2," enviromentalists are it.
Why would an environmentalist be considered M2?
-
No, it is very much the conscious choices you make. Cheating on someone is first about conscious choice long before it is about physical action. A man who falls in love with another woman is cheating on his wife, even if he never touches her.
Perhaps what is confusing you is the distinction between subconscious reactions and conscious choices. Only the latter can be considered cheating.
You'd be surprised how different the subconscious reactions of a happily married man are to a single fellow (I assume you are the latter). Yes, a happily married man is not blind and he sees the same woman, with the same beauty... but it just isn't reacted to in the same way. He just isn't interested, as such.
I don't think anyone has brought up the subject of love yet; it's not what I was talking about. Usually when I look at a woman I am very conscious about my thoughts, and their direction.
-
Lets not forget that that Ayn Rand conducted an interview with the pornographic magazine, Playboy. I doubt she thought that it was evil for men in a relationship to 'oogle' or have 'lustful' thoughts towards the women in the magazine.
-
That's a blatant straw man. Nowhere did anyone here say that bodies are sinful or filthy (although strippers likely aren't the height of clenliness...). It has been said that showing a prurient sexual interest in women other than one's wife/girlfriend is cheating on her. This is common sense.
But that's just it: all parties are NOT willing; the man's wife/girlfriend in most certainly not willing!
There is no straw man here. According to the new testament, having a lustful thought for another woman is the act of commiting adultery. I see no difference between this and your statement. It is not the thought that constitutes 'cheating', but the physical action, and I have to look at your statements with skepticism if you believe that having a sexual thought about another is cheating or wrong; or that you do not do it--to see a beautiful woman on the street, and not think 'sexual' seems quite prudish to me. It doesn't matter if one is in a relationship or not.
-
The idea that it is a 'sin' to look at another woman and think a sexual thought comes streight from the christian, new testament bible. For those that say looking at a naked woman is 'cheating' I would like you to provide your reasons. It would seem by this logic that simply 'looking' at another female that was sexually attractive would be 'cheating', and that is ridiculous no matter if it is a strip club or not.
-
Legalized Dueling?? I used to be quite active in my local LP (when I was an idiot), but I've never heard anyone talk about dueling. That has got to be one of the most irrational ideas i've heard come from libertarians.
As for any type of meaningful change (large scale) this type of activity will fail--for the reasons mentioned. However, I can see a bunch of people coming together to form a community that could be better than where they're at now, but I wouldn't feel safe in this 'Libertarian' town that's for sure.
-
One doesn't have to be 'anti-free ownership' to be against this port takover. Don't forget that this is not just a company from UAE, it is a company owned by UAE government--and I don't recognize State owned companies whether it concerns ports or not. The fact that it is a state owned company is reason enough to block the deal; that it is a country with connections to Islamic theocratic terrorism is just more of a reason.
-
The only thing it has to do with it is that the entire ethics assumes one has already made this choice; if someone were to choose the other way, and never come into focus, never take any volitional action, then the entire field of morality would be irrelevant to him.
So, the entire Objectivist ethics assumes that one has already made the choice for life? If that is correct, then there is no need for Objectivist ethics in the first place. Which is obviously not the case.
The only thing Objectivist ethics assumes, in this context, is that one is living. It does not assume that one has chosen life, which can only be done on a rational level; and it must be done because at this point, man relies on his rational faculty for survival.
-
This initial choice that is being spoken of is not a moral choice, and I can't see why it has anything to do with Objectivist ethics. While different from the cognition of lower animals, this 'first choice' (the first decision to focus) is probably an automatic action, and animalist in that sense. Once one posesses a developed rational faculty, only then can one actually 'choose life'. Once they have reached this stage, their life and its quality depend on the extent in which they choose life.
Why a child chooses life (automatically) is has no weight.
Why a rational person chooses life is a matter for them to decided, and they cannot escape it.
Neither of these choices affect Objectivist ethics.
-
Why do I want to live now? After I have already made the arbitrary, fundamental choice, adopted life as my standard of value, and reason as my means of making decisions? There are tons of rational reasons in that context. But that's different from making an initial choice, prior to any standard of value whatsoever.
The alternatives of life and death just provide the basis for a moral system, and why it is needed (because of volition). Either something supports life or it doesn't, and that distinction is never arbitrary. Since morality only applies to the volitional and the rational (ability), the arbitrary 'choice' to survive in the animalistic sense has nothing to do with morality. Choosing life in a the context of morality can only come at the rational level; therefore, choosing life does not have to be, and should not be arbitrary.
-
It's not an absurd question at all. In fact, philosophically, it's a very important question to answer--especially if one is trying to validate the Objectivist ethics.
Really? Why do you want to live? This has nothing to do with validating Objectivist ethics. This is a personal question, which will determine if one will continue to live by Objectivist ethics or need it.
-
I'm not sure that you understand. Objectivist morality is for "life on earth," as life and death are the two fundamental choices for living organisms. Objectivist morality is also also based on reason and rationality; therefore, it applies to only those that are capable of making rational decisions. A child doesn't choose life in a moral sense, but once that individual grows older and the rational faculty develops, that individual's life depends on the choices he makes. The basis for Objectivist ethics rests on the foundation of choosing life, not why one makes that choice. In other words, Objectivist ethics follows from choosing to live.
Life or death is the fundamental choice for all living organisms. The reason that Objectivist ethics is based upon this is due to the nature of human beings, and the nature of morality. Human beings cannot live by default, like other living organisms, because they possess volition. Because human beings possess volition, each choice is either 'good or bad'. This is the essence for a code of morality, to determining what is good or bad; and morality only applies to the realm of volition. Life requires a code of values to live by, death does not; existence requires self-sustaining action which requires a code of right and wrong, non-existence does not.
Why live in the first place? An absurd question for a forum, just ask yourself.
-
The great thing about this election is that it shows the real intention, mentality, and goals of the majority of the so called Palestinians. Over the past couple of years, representatives of the PLO and other sympathizers have been spreading propaganda that, "the majority of the 'Palestinian people' want peace and are non-violent, and terrorism and its support represents only a small faction of the population". This election has shown the world what probably many of us here have known: that the majority of Palestinians do not want peace, and support the actions of terrorist organizations. However, will this mean anything? After all, sympathy for the Palestinians only came via terrorist acts; everything that they've accomplised has been due to terrorism.
-
First of all, the bible, in its whole form (old and new testament) is completely contradictory. One has to remember that with the coming of jesus christ, all of the 'old laws' (old testament) were re-interpreted by jesus. From what I have read, the overall theme of the new testament is completely different from that of the old testament. Probably none of the stories that are told in the old testament could be written in the new testament. Although there is no passage to directly quote from concerning this (besides jesus rattling off the sermon on the mount), I think the whole idea of 're-interpretation' of God's Law is one of the most damning contradictions of the christian bible.
While not contradictions contained in the bible, contradictory beliefs that contemporary christians hold run rampant. I've discussed the use of force many times with christians and asked them to try and resolve the problem of pacifism contained throughout the bible. Since many of these people are patriotic (emotionally based), the idea that going to war as being evil, really rubs them wrong; therefore, I get mountains of justifications for the use of force based upon old testament writings. I don't know if these christians know that the christian bible has a totally changed set of 'law' or not, but personally I think the contemporary American christian uses the old and new testaments interchangeably because they don't know any better.
Here are some striking passages that I've collected throughout my reading of the bible. I think all of them would be totally contradictory to the thoughts and principles of most contemporary christians--at least I hope so.
Romans 13:1-7, Submission to Authorities: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...r=13&version=31 --The Taliban was sanctioned by god.
1 Peter 2:13-15 Submission to Rulers and Masters: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...er=2&version=31 --13-17 Submit to your dictator; 18-21 Slaves, submit and respect your owners, most of all if he is harsh.
Titus 2:9-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...er=2&version=31 --Slaves, obey your masters so the word of "God Our Savior" looks "attractive"
1 Timothy 6:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...er=6&version=31 --Obey your masters, especially if they are a believer, your just helping the cause.
Matthew 5:38-42 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...er=5&version=31 --"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Matthew 5:42-48 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...er=5&version=31 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Is it immoral to work for one of the "evil" banks? (They own
in Ethics
Posted
How do the banks own the Fed? I'm just curious as to what you meant by this, maybe I can learn something about the control of the Fed by the banks that I don't know.