RussK
-
Posts
458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RussK
-
-
First time I've ever seen a commercial dedicated to hockey equipment. I like the theme though; the ideas involved plus the in your face style.
-
RussK, you propose that private contractors fill voids that the military cannot. If so, why are they still private contractors, if they are engaged in military activity overseas? It's quite fishy to me that they would continue to operate under the employment of a private firm, if all they're doing is providing services that our own military is unable to provide efficiently/properly. What's the practicality of not being an employee of the United States, when engaging in military activity on behalf of the United States? Why not buy the equipment and hire the men themselves?
To me, there must be a reason of practical evasion involved. Is there no benefit - no rule that can be ignored - in being a private contractor versus a member of the armed forces?
Just to share a personal anecdote... a family friend is working with the peace core currently in Afghanistan, and the only pictures I've seen of her have shown multiple heavily-armed private contractors guarding her. She must always be under the protection of these guards if she is to leave her base. She must travel everywhere in a heavily-armored truck, owned and operated by the same private contractors. What would the reasoning be behind this? A marine could just as easily do this job - why not hire these contractors as employees of the military? (I'd ask her myself but it's almost impossible to communicate with her due to her location). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the government had a monopoly on the use of force. Is the hiring of private contractors not a contradiction of that principle?
There is a very practical benefit: much higher salary than military pay, and you're not in the military.
Depending on specialty, one can make 100k+, tax free and not have to worry about most of the military BS. As far as the private contractors guarding Peace Corps elements, that's exactly a perfect role for such an entity; the military shouldn't be worried about guarding these people and are currently concerned with the more important objectives put in front of them. Not only that, general marines or soldiers are not as proficient at guarding convoys and such as the private contractors.
-
Alright, RussK, you have indeed presented an argument and I missed it. I would like to know if, in your estimation, the bulk of the activities these firms perform would be part of a military campaign aimed solely at achieving victory, rather than nation building?
Are they subject to military justice? If not, what does "must" mean, they get fired if they don't, or do crimes they commit have automatic consequences comparable to those soldiers face (consequences within the American justice system, as opposed to some foreign one)?
Yeah, they've been subject to UCMJ since 2007. If war would have been declared in Iraq, they would have been subject to UCMJ from the beginning; that's how employees with CACI and other companies were able to get off the hook for abuses. Furthermore, with the recent SOFA agreement, private contractors are no longer immune to the Iraqi court system. Really though, when I said "must follow rules," I was referring to them being required to get their convoy plans approved and follow the same rules of engagement as coalition forces.
-
I've always been of the opinion that there is no such thing as a non-moral norm. The very concept just doesn't make sense to me: That you should be able to say, rationally, that "You ought to do x, and yet if you do x I cannot morally praise you; and if you don't do x, I cannot morally blame you," seems entirely wrong to me. But most philosophers take it for granted that norms of rationality are non-moral: You ought to do them, but only in the sense that it will make you a better rational agent which is a desirable thing. You cannot be morally blamed for being irrational.
I suspect Objectivists, especially given this example, will side with me that this is just false--and I think this is supported by the details of Objectivist ethics. Rationality is a tool for man's survival and happiness, and so norms of rationality are norms about the only method of achieving happiness, which is a man's ethical end. I can't think of other norms which I would expect the average philosopher to regard as non-moral. Perhaps norms about feeling pleasure, like "You ought to go to the movies if it makes you laugh," or something, since philosophers are probably going to view pleasure as itself non-moral. But every one of them seems to have an essentially ethical character, and this intuition always seems justified by my analysis of ethics.
But rather than proceeding by hearing some example, having an intuition about what is right, and then engaging in analysis, is there a more methodical, principled way of arguing that there are no non-moral norms?
I have a hard time with the way you are using the concept of norm. I've only known it to be a measure of group behavior, etc; therefore, I can't think of it as being anything other than amoral.
-
Another thing that isn't there, or in this thread for that matter, is a convincing argument as to why a mercenary can do a better job than the military. The only one I can think of is precisely that they aren't governed by laws and engagement rules, and that's an argument for changing the laws and rules that govern the military, not for circumventing them.
I already mentioned one in my previous post: private contractors fill a void for military personnel shortage and/or inexperience. In Iraq the countless number of private contractor firms filled important roles from convoy security, intelligence, investigation, to FOB (base) security. At one point in time, the ranks of interrogators was extremely low, and numerous things had to be changed to fulfill HUMINT requirements, including employing contractors. Furthermore, on FOB's the employment of private contractors helped streamline and expand military operations. Third country nationals comprised the bulk of FOB security: guarding gates, manning towers, patrolling parameter, interior security (guarding buildings), and bomb detection. Soldiers are too busy doing the other things, fulfilling the military's objectives. The only specialty I've never known private contractors to be involved in is the medical field.
Blackwater is just a drop in the bucket, really. The list of organizations is deep and the list of roles they provide is much more than the small list I gave. Additionally, none of them are over there running roughshod, doing whatever they want; they all must follow rules, including rules of engagement.
-
Blackwater is not the only private contracting firm in Iraq; there are multiple who provide services to the military and State Dept. In fact many of these companies provided crucial support during the beginning and later, intense part of the war, fulfilling jobs in specialties where military personnel were lacking. The only problem I have thought about concerning private armies deals with their employment by other governments, especially those who are our enemies.
-
That is actually the video I watched. Though I watched the whole episode of that show, rather than that one clip.
Rand also said that a woman would be unhappy in such a position.
To quote her directly from the video,
@RussK
I think you did understand what I was saying, maybe moreso than me, since Rand didn't make it very explicit in the video. I am curious to read this article you mentioned.
I think that there is a difference between the presidency and business leaders. If you're a business leader, there are always other business leaders out there. But as a president, you pretty much do rule over everyone below you. Sure, there may be some admirable men below you in the hierarchy, but they answer your beck and call as long as you two are on the same hierarchy. Besides, surely a more admirable man would have beaten you to the presidency, wouldn't he? If politics is your business and you're at the top, you must be the best politician in America.
If you're at the top of your business, or even in your industry, there's always other businesses or industries in which you can find admirable people of the opposite gender to admire. But in the presidency, where else can you look? Leaders of other countries?
Sorry, I was away from the computer for a week or so. Have you read the article yet? Rand does differentiate between business and President but as mentioned before there are a parallels between the two. Additionally, what about a woman vice-president or one in a lower executive office position? Do they only have people higher than them to admire? This absurdity could also be applied to a woman on the supreme court.
A woman President who couldn't admire the men that she would come in contact with would probably be a woman incapable of doing so anyway.
-
I've got a lot of respect and enjoy watching the sport. What turned me onto it was a very good Cameroon friend of mine who loved to watch Barcelona, because of Eto'o. I started watching with him, because we would watch the matches on my computer when in Germany--they were not on television. Soon I developed a liking for Chelsea, which remains the team I follow. I'll definitely be watching the Cup, with or without USA success.
-
I thought our water supplies were already under threat of being heavily contaminated by mind-altering, prescription drugs through pollution. Seems like a waste of government money to go ahead with such a plan when they could just wait a few years.
What happens when this lithium interacts with my other crazy meds?
-
Favre is a special case. His numbers and wins aside, he's Iron Man Favre who holds the record for most consecutive starts. He's played with a broken thumb in his throwing hand. He played last year with a shoulder injury. He can't simply be removed from a game, and I don't think he'd quit a game voluntarily unless he's bleeding or crippled.
Yeah, he's obviously a special case; if not, he would have been reprimanded in some way. It probably would be humiliating for Favre to have left the game, but he needs to get it into his head that he's an investment and the QB's behind him have more mobility. I think in hindsight he probably recognizes his error; I hope. The whole debacle just stirred up a bunch of unnecessary things for the team, from the coaches authority to Favre's limiting Adrian Peterson. They are not on the right track for the post season, but maybe they will fix it.
-
-
Did you purposefully or accidentally leave out the points she made as to why she would not want a woman President? I watched that clip the other day, just type in Ayn Rand on feminism on youtube. It's because she does not want a woman in charge of war, and although she didn't mention this, many countries do not respect women in such high leadership positions, which could cause some foreign policy issues. She said she had no other problem with them having leadership positions in any other part of society, including as senators and so forth and that she promotes it even.
I don't know if I've watched that clip or not, probably at some time but that's besides the point. What do you think about Rand's position, if she said it, that a woman shouldn't be in charge of war. You didn't give an opinion, but it seems like you don't have a problem with her opinion.
-
I recently heard a quote from Ayn Rand, I forget the name of the show it was on. It was an old episode of an old show (I think) broken up into like, 5 parts, on youtube.
Anyway, Rand was answering a question as to what she'd think about a woman president.
She said something to the effect of "I wouldn't vote for her." Rand said that women have a lot to gain from the leadership of men, and that she could never trust a woman who wanted to rule over all men.
I'm curious about how she came to that conclusion. Perhaps, while she believes in the same rights for everyone, and that everyone is capable of anything they desire, she does acknowledge some difference between men and women. It would be the reality-oriented thing to do.
You can read Rand's defense of her statement to the McCall interview in The Voice of Reason--I'm not sure how much was edited because I don't have copies of The Objectivist. She gave this defense in response to the multitude of questions she got from Objectivist students from campus clubs and such throughout the country. I'm glad that the essay is still published, as it brings up interesting questions about philosophy applied to psychology, which was real popular--and sometimes destructive--during the days of Nathanial Branden; however, I disagree with Rand's final opinion on the matter.
Rand based her argument on the application of her ideas concerning hero worship and sex. To her it would be impossible for a woman president to express her femininity if she were president, because she would be unable to look up to another man, specifically his masculinity. This, she proposed, was because the woman President would be the highest authority in the land, and "within the entire sphere of his [her] work." No one would be her equal or better. She then applies her argument the "reigning queen of an absolute monarch"--which is actually a more fitting example. Additionally, she says that her position only applies to a woman President (or monarch) and not to business leaders.
The first problem I have with Rand's argument is that I don't agree with her proposition that career achievement over men--all the way to the Presidency--make it impossible for a woman to respect or admire another man who is below that hierarchy. To me, she also gives too much respect and power to the institution of the Presidency of the United States. A woman, especially an American President, who would be consumed with the idea of superiority or even authority would not be fit to serve as president--the same for a president of the opposite sex. She should be able to see the masculinity of other men around her, and she would even have exposure to the most successful men in the country.
Furthermore, Rand says that it may be necessary, in the future, for a woman to step up and claim the presidency, if no men are in position to do it themselves--I take this as meaning situations regarding the death of a president. Well, if the woman is vice-president, does that leave her only able to admire the President; what about lower offices in the executive office; what is the 'hierarchical' equivalent, out side of public office, to these executive office positions?
Additionally, although Rand says that business leadership positions do not apply, I think they do to a lesser degree. Her opinion can be applied to women and their relation to all of the men in their companies, and the men who own, operate, or are a part of lesser businesses. What if Bill Gates were a woman? She would be lacking in femininity and partners to admire?
Rand begins her essay by urging readers to study the heroines of her novels, specifically Dagny Taggat. I happen to agree with this suggestion. What is Roark to Dominique, specifically when they first meet; Does Galt have authority or power over Dagny?
-
That's one of the beauties (from the perspective of a statist) of the VAT. It gets collected along the production process, so it's more than just a national sales tax. It will be very hard to avoid. Many of the European countries have VATs, so I can hear the arguments already: "The US is the only developed country without a VAT...."
I lived in Germany, a country that uses the VAT, for a short time, and I always thought the VAT was just similar to sales tax. Now I know the difference; I didn't know that what sets it apart was its collection through the production process, down to the consumer. I think I've read that some countries who use VAT refund it to companies who export, giving them an advantage over companies in the United States. If that's the case, I wouldn't be surprised if business owners, in the export business, do get behind this idea.
-
I think everyone is hitting on all the major points here, but we've missed a small but important factor in rising health care costs: insurance premiums paid by hospitals and doctors. Many service providers pay exorbitant rates for insurance, depending on location, which all comes out of the consumers pocket--if the provider can even stay in business. This topic was brought up a few months ago under the title 'Malpractice Reform'.
-
As far as congressional elections, I'm running in Svalbard & Jan Mayen--our motherland
. There's one active party member still there and only one dead account. -
Here's part of a correspondence I had in the beginning of the month with a hospital builder in the USA:
RussK,.
Re: "According to the wiki, the quality of a hospital increases according the the amount of wood. Is this correct? If so, what role does the quality of the wood play, if any?"
~ Weird. That is totally incorrect. The only factor deciding the quality of the hospital, is the quality of the hospital company.
~ The wood functions like every other raw material. The quality of the raw material is equal to the number of raw material units (RMU) added to the company stock; Q1 wood adds 1 RMU, Q2 adds 2 RMU, etc.
.
Re: "Additionally, is it possible for your company to offer a hospital in another country, like Norway (where I reside)?"
~ Yes. A company must purchase an export license, which costs 20 gold, and may then export to any nation which does not have a trade embargo or war.
.
Re: "Lastly, given your prices for a hospital in America, are you a government sponsored entity?"
~ No. I pay for all costs 100%, and donate the hospitals to the eUSA.
~ I was unhappy with the status quo, and decided to take independent action.
~ All of my workers are volunteers work for low wages.
~ I also have an agreement with the eUSA military to use their high-skill workers; giving them hiring priority and firing as needed for deployments.
~ I often talk with the executive and military leaders in my country to discuss where/when they want to place the infrastructure. I also sell discount hospitals to allied nations at their request.
.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
.
V/r,
Max
Of course, this goes to show that these types of programs do work, contrary to the negativity espoused by eNorway leadership in weeks past.
-
RussK, you suggested the idea of a contribution fund for a hospital; I think it's a good idea, but it's something we should do something about. Do you feel like writing an editorial for Mainstream Capitalistic? I think we need to be writing more editorials.
There seems to be no public decision about which region will get the hospital, if/when they finish it. I would not expect that they would put it in Nord Norge, but strategically that is the most important region for a hospital (and a defensive system), in order to increase the population and the cost of attack (NN being the region that can be attacked by Russia).
What do you think is better. One org for general hospital fund or a hospital fund for each region without a hospital. Your idea about one fund seems like the best for getting one hospital the in the quickest manner, for the security of the country. The multiple funding orgs would be good in that citizens from each of the lacking regions are more responsible for the constructions and each would be able to see exactly how much gold has been donated to their particular fund. Of course, with each plan, a lot of donations would have to come outside of the low populated regions anyway.
I'll speak with some of the country's leadership about where they got the current hospitals for the populated areas and try to bring a few in. No matter what solution we pick, trusted spokesmen for each party is going to have to participate for oversight.
-
Oh, such a plethora of headlines for the week!
I was going to go with "Romo Wins in Effing DECEMBER!!" But that's not really ground-shaking.
Next it would be "With a Little Help From The Saints!" But, while the pundits will analyze how NO lost the entire week, it wasn't that important given the next headline:
"Minnesota Meltdown!" Nice alliteration. But, again, not good enough. Last year Favre faltered near the end of the season, too; he was overdue.
So I'm going with: "The Freaking CARDINALS Win Division For the Second Time in a ROW!
Yup. That's it. That's completely unprecedented, unexpected, unbelievable!
Oh, the Steelers won. Big whoop.
Supposedly coach Childress cannot control Bret Favre. Who could have thought?
Childress wanted to take Favre out of the game in the third quarter, but Favre refused to leave the game. Not only was Childress probably worried about Favre taking a continued pounding from Julius Peppers, but he also probably wanted to get a quarterback in there who would try and move around or out of the pocket. Favre was definitely wrong in his decision not to obey the authority of his head coach. Moreover, Minnesota has to be questioning Childress's contract extension with this apparent lack of control. -
They wanted to abridge the courtroom speech, Rand convinced them not to do so.
They did take out a phrase of Roark's that Rand wanted in there, and she was mad about that. However, I've never heard that she actually hated the movie. Unfortunately I can't remember what the phrase was; maybe it will come to me later.
-
Wow, this video more than implies the denouncing of capitalism and actually states
that you should spend less time engaging in spending and celebrating prosperity
and more time worshiping! This promo vid even shows the unholy marriage of
environmentalism tangled with religion.
Viewer discretion is advised: http://www.adventconspiracy.org/
Well, I don't think that the group--from viewing the video--is supporting capitalism, but I don't think that it is denouncing it either. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised, if I looked into it more, that they do denounce capitalism. What I like about their ideas is the denunciation of consumerism, which I also abhor; and it's important not to confuse consumerism with capitalism.
During the holidays it seems that peoples consumerism goes into overdrive compared to the rest of the year. At this time of the year people know their debt situation, yet choose to spend the money they don't have at higher rates because of some perceived necessity. As the Advent Conspiracy commercial points out, this behavior probably leads to stress and unhappiness.
The problems I have with the commercial are its solutions to the problem: God worship and altruism. Ever since Christmas became a secular holiday there were Christians trying to redefine it back to the Christian theme, and this Advent group is no different. As a recent Times article suggests, most behind such movements simply want their religion's banner held high during this spending spree:
"Often, however, it seems that being able to score a half-price Nintendo DSi and a "Merry Christmas" from the checkout clerk is the real prize. The Religious Right has spent decades casting secular culture as the enemy. And yet instead of critiquing the values of the consumer marketplace, many conservative Christians have embraced it as the battleground they seek to reclaim."Returning Christ to Christmas, in such a superficial way, which is what most Christians are concerned about, will not change the way people go about the holiday. Consumerism will not be attacked, but as long as people are forced to acknowledge Sweet Baby Jesus everything is fine.
Additionally, altruism is not going to assist people with their seasonal stress and unhappiness--nor their debt, a main cause of the problems, for that matter. The Advent commercial even acknowledges, if I remember correctly, that people feel guilted into their overzealous gift giving. Replacing this guilt with another, like providing water to the world's population or environmental concerns, will not solve holiday stress or debt; in fact, if the scope of the guilt grows larger than the family, then the problems seems as if they would get worse.
It's also important to point out the similarities between the more philosophical christianity of the Advent groups and socialism, which, of course, is not a new or profound discovery. Socialists have for long been advocating altruism for all holidays, even thanksgiving; the only difference between the Advent position is their insistence on bringing a higher authority into the discussion.
-
As we all know, the only thing stopping huge inflation from hitting is the fact that the money poofed into existence by the Fed is sitting idly on balance sheets. If that money begins to be lent out, inflation is almost definite to occur. Now Obama is calling on top banks to start widespread lending as another means of stimulating the economy. Is major inflation just around the corner? Or is this just another case of the government giving the appearance of doing one thing while actually doing another - e.g. his recent claim to foreigners that he was encouraging savings, which is obviously bogus.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...h1Un8QD9CJBKOO0
I'm glad you pointed this out; it slipped my mind when thinking about future inflation. What I also find disturbing is the attack of the credit industry and consumerism, while at the same time these attackers advocate (or outright demand) that average Americans get back on the bandwagon of indebtedness, just when many are starting to straighten their situations out.
-
The Mayhew review is essentially correct but I think spotty. The Oscar Wilde quote about vulgarizing heroes leads his review and is the essence of his point, and is correctly applied. The determinism is there and in a modern historian is unsurprising. Burns is also definitely non-philosophical in understanding politics. His criticism of Burns selectivity is wrong, the point of the book was to trace relationships and the communication of ideas. NBI made startling progress in spreading Objectivism and its dissolution was important, and it is precisely the kind of event this book is a history of. Its cause needed to be covered.
It is a weakness of the book that it is not so much an intellectual history but a history of the social lives of some intellectuals. Burns therefore ducks grappling with ideas, possibly she thinks historians don't do that sort of thing (philosophize) i.e. this is an example of academic compartmentalization.
There's no mistaking that those sociological ideas of Marx that Mayhew identifies are present in Burns's presentation; and Burns definitely subordinates philosophy to social action. I think you're spot on about what you said about academic compartmentalization, and I had a similar thought--that she may not have thought it her role, or just wanted to focus on the social aspects from the start of the project--when I was reading the Mayhew review. However, even with this compartmentalization, I think that detailing the progression of Rand's ideas and some of the influences behind them is great.
I admire Rand and her works, which have influenced my life a great deal, and while Burns's book probably won't add much to my philosophical understanding, it will add to my knowledge of her history. Unfortunately, the readers who don't understand the nature behind philosophy and politics, or ideas and social action, the compartmentalization will not help them understand the history of her philosophy in a meaningful manner; and it may help continue or strengthen in them that divorce between ideas and politics, etc...
-
Robert Mayhew does a review of this book in The Objective Standard here:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...nifer-burns.asp
I haven't read the review, nor this thread, nor the book, but thought I'd mention it.
Although I've had the book for some time now, I've only just begun reading it. Today, in my email, I got notice from the Objective Standard that the Mayhew review was accessible on their website. After reading the first few paragraphs, I stopped; I have not read past p. 119 yet and don't want to know about what's next.
I agree with much of what Mayhew says about Burns's determinist ideas, but I think he goes to far. As examples to illustrate Burns's determinist view towards the formulation of Rand's ideas, Mayhew uses a few quotations from the book: "Consistency was the principle that grabbed her attention, not surprising given her unpredictable and frightening life,” "At Petrograd State University Alisa was immune to the passions of revolutionary politics, inured against any radicalism by the travails her family was enduring," and "The noninitiation principle, sometimes called the nonaggression principle, can be traced to thinkers as varied as Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, and Herbert Spencer. Placing it at the center of her natural rights theory, Rand breathed new life into an old idea." Not one of these statements strikes me as being deterministic or false; however, they are all opinions as Mayhew points out. For example, consistency was important to Rand, and I would be surprised if her "unpredictable and frightening life" had no effect. Additionally, regarding the nonaggression principle, while Mayhew is correct in saying that Burns provides no discussion for the basis of the idea from any of the philosophers she mentions, her statement still has merit: it can be traced back and Rand did "breathe new life into an old idea"--which I consider a positive statement.
It's important to remember that ideas are not generated in a vacuum, so neither was Rand's philosophy. She developed her ideas based upon observing reality, which included various social experiences. When Burns discusses these social experiences that influenced Rand, from the Willkie campaign and groups to her correspondence with Isabel Paterson, what I come away with is not that Rand simply cherry-picked ideas but instead that she was influenced by these various ideas. There's a difference between saying that Rand was influenced by people and that her ideas came from those people. The fact that Rand was influenced by various ideas--including Nietzsche, later Aristotle, as well as social interactions--does not change the fact that she integrated those ideas herself while changing the "old ideas" into things unique to Rand.
I'll continue reading the book, and I think it's been worth the purchase. After I complete the book, I'll finish Mayhew's review; and maybe my opinion of the book will change once I've finished it.
Stossel's Atlas Shrugged 8pm Thursday Fox Business Channel
in Domestic United States Politics
Posted · Edited by RussK
Agreed. I tuned in to the first show and was greatly disappointed. Everything seemed way too deliberate and hokey. The green telephone was just stupid and further brought down the serious factor. In fact, the first show affected me so much that I didn't even care to watch the AS episode.