Kitty Hawk

Yes! I had forgotten about Flight of the Phoenix, an excellent movie. I remember being put off by the extreme vulgarity of Mozart's language in that movie. That kind of naturalism can spoil a good movie. The comedies I like are the old-fashioned kind--romantic comedies. Movies with Claudette Colbert, Jean Arthur, Irene Dunne, Ginger Rogers, Greta Garbo in Ninotchka, etc.

Would you say voting for Bush is the moral equivalent of helping to impose theocracy on America? If theocracy were the main issue in this election, and Bush was for it, then I would say it was. But theocracy isn't the main issue. It isn't even a side issue. The war is the main issue in this election. Bush is for fighting, Kerry is for appeasement. A vote for Kerry is a vote for appeasement---which helps the enemy. I do not believe, of course, that Objectivists who vote for Kerry intend to encourage appeasement or aid the enemy. But that will be the result, like it or not.

If John Kerry wins, it will be the moral equivalent of another 9/11---but a self-inflicted 9/11. The "Arab Street" will be in full celebratory mood, dancing in the streets, just as they did after the first 9/11. The whole world knows this is an election about one issue: the war. We are about to find out if the American sense of life is still as strong as it was in '72, when America sent McGovern packing with his tail between his legs. John Kerry is the same anti-American, defeatist, blame America kind of candidate as McGovern. I am trembling for America. Stand up and fight!

It's always tough to narrow it down, even to ten. But that never stopped me before. Some of these are more to shine a light on less obvious choices, while others are quite obvious choices: 1. We the Living 2. Casablanca 3. Braveheart 4. Queen Christina 5. It Happened One Night 6. Zulu 7. Whispering Smith 8. Prince of Foxes 9. The Scarlet Pimpernel 10. The Winslow Boy 11. The Great Escape 12. Stealing Heaven 13. Only Angels Have Wings 14. Only the Valiant 15. Hobson's Choice (starring Sharon Gless) . . . Someone mentioned A Bridge Too Far. I loved that movie, but it was really more like a documentary of what actually happened, than a movie.

There is one overriding question at issue in this election: do we want a President who will defend the United States against terrorism, including preemptively, or do we want a notoriously anti-defense, blame America first leftist who will retreat and appease? Will we cave in to Islamist terrorism, as the Spaniards did? Or will we defy them by electing the one candidate willing to fight them? This is not an election about the economy, or about the possibility of theocracy in America. It is about fighting, or surrendering. Bush is the fighter, Kerry is the man who will stop fighting. If Kerry wins, it will not be a sign that Americans are against Bush's religious encroachments in government. It will be a signal to the world, loud and clear: we surrender.

One of Ayn Rand's favorite pieces of "tiddlywink music" was Canadian Capers, a ragtime composition. You can listen to it at Dismuke's website, Music with an Ayn Rand Connection, or you can purchase it on the cd, Keyboard Wizards III: Arden and Ohman. Whenever I have seen Canadian Capers referred to, it is always attributed to "Chandler, White, Cohen." The Arden and Ohman performance, evidently the performance Ayn Rand possessed, is instrumental. But there were song lyrics that went with it as well, and the lyrics were written by Chandler and White. But neither they nor Cohen wrote the music. I discovered the composer in a book called Rags and Ragtime: A Musical History, by David A. Jasen and Trebor Jay Tichenor. The composer was a black ragtime and jazz pianist named Sid Le Protti, referred to as a "legendary Barbary Coast performer and composer." Here is what Jasen and Tichenor wrote about it: I just thought the credit for that wonderful piece of music ought to be directed to the man who actually composed it.

I found this on encyclopedia.com: So pygmies also live in the same part of the world where this 18,000 year old skull was discovered.

What this brings to mind is the Pygmy tribes of Africa. Are they a different branch of homo sapiens than we are? I was just looking around at some sites with information on pygmies. One mentioned they rarely live past 50, although I'm not sure if that is any different from other people who live in such primitive conditions as they do (the rainforests of Central Africa). It also said this: Does anyone know anything about pygmies?

Pit bulls, to be specific. The province of Ontario is banning the buying or raising of pit bulls. People who own them already may keep them, but must have them spayed or neutered, and they must be muzzled. Here's a link to the story: Pit Bull Ban I realize pit bulls are a breed that are often in the news for attacking people and causing harm. But are they really so ferocious they have to be banned, like Bengal Tigers? Are Bengal Tigers even banned? Isn't it more a matter of how the dog is raised?

Also, I'm not sure what you think the British were moved north for. It wasn't because they are "better" at peacekeeping. It is to take the place of American troops who will soon be fighting in Fallujah. Nor should the US take any money out of any nuclear programs. To the contrary, we should invest more in them.

The success and lack of casualties of the British in the South has more to do with the location of the Sunni triangle, in the North, than with the peacekeeping skill of the British troops. Also, the terrorist groups obviously harbor a greater desire to kill Americans, than any other nationals. Your denigration of our soldiers and their professionalism is highly distasteful, to say the least.

And that's where you are wrong. He had all kinds of choices. He could have threatened to pursue the matter through the court system exclusively. He could have lobbed a couple of cruise missiles at them. He could have apologized for our being an evil Satan in the world, and admitted that the attack was entirely our fault. He could have asked France what to do. What choice would John Kerry have made? I think he would have gone the criminal prosecution rout, while begging for the advice of France, and simultaneously apologizing for our evil existence--- and he would not have gone to war with anyone. And those are some of the many reasons he won't be getting my vote.

There's not a lot the Religious Right, or anyone else, can do about John Kerry if he wants to retreat from the war, or not go to war. Congress doesn't decide when or where to send our military---the President does. With respect to Kerry, that means not sending it anywhere. Congress contols the purse strings, but that has no effect on not going to war. Here's a new thing to consider. Bill Clinton, it is being reported (on the Drudge website), wants to be the Secretary General of the United Nations. To secure that position, he needs the backing of the US Government. He will not get that backing from Bush---but he almost certainly would get it from Kerry. Do you want Bill Clinton in charge of the United Nations?

In addition to wanting to unilaterally disarm our bunker busting bomb program (pro-Kerryites have been strangely silent on this), so as not to offend the Iranians or North Koreans, here is a partial list of other weapons systems that Kerry has wanted to kill in the past (as documented here): MX ICBM B-1 Bomber Strategic Defense Initiative AH-64 Apache Helicopters Patriot Air Defense Missiles Aegis Air Defense Cruiser AV-8B Harrier VTOL F-15 F-14A/D What would our military look like now if Kerry had been in charge? However, I have no doubt that Kerry would be willing to use our military forces---if he could find a Rwanda like situation where it would be of zero strategic value to the US.

And what would Kerry say in his place? Something along these lines: "I have great confidence in the ability of craven appeasement and unilateral disarmament to transform societies, to convert a hostile world to a peaceful world."

Are the Democrats rolling over? Are all Republicans religious nuts? Is the American populace going to let Bush get away with it? I'm not. I'll support him when he prosecutes the war, and oppose him when he does anything stupid--which is the best you can do, when there aren't any Objectivists in the Oval Office.

This argument is used over and over again by Kerry supporters. The Congress won't let him get away with not fighting the enemy. The American people won't let him get away with it. But on the flip side of the coin, they say that if Bush is elected, theocracy is imminent. Congress, and the American people, will roll over and play dead while this fantasy scenario is taking place. It's a lot more likely they'll roll over and play dead when Kerry turns us into a Euro-wimp nation---because that's what his half of the populace wants, in the first place. Elect Kerry if you want the US to be France.

Would you prefer a badly fought war that overthrows the Iranian theocracy, or no war at all, which allows the Iranian theocracy to acquire nuclear weapons, and use them on the United States, either directly or through terrorist proxies? I'll take the badly fought war that overthrows the fountainhead of terrorism in Iran. If it were up to John Kerry, given his voting record, the United States wouldn't even have a military capable of fighting a war. The limit of Kerry's "toughness" is imposing sanctions. I'm sure the mullahs are shaking in their boots over that threat.

I loved The Mote in God's Eye. Niven and Pournelle's other great collaboration, Lucifer's Hammer, about a comet strike on earth, is also outstanding.

You're right, the DVD mentions somewhere that the play itself had many more characters in it, and that each of the actors played several different roles. It was cut down to its essence, and it couldn't have been done any better.

I received my copy of the DVD yesterday, and I watched Ideal today. Wow. It's extraordinary. Not being accustomed to watching plays or theater, the background silence was a shock---I'm used to the extreme loudness of movies. The film is black and white, and made to look old with some graininess and other techniques. The soundtrack has the feel of a cathedral in it, in the best sense. The acting was very good, it lived up to the material, especially the acting of the woman who played Kay Gonda. I thought the man who played Johnny Dawes was the least convincing. But the play, the direction, the sense that this is the way plays and movies are supposed to be written and filmed, this is what films are supposed to be about---was simply magnificent. Highly, highly recommended.

The way to convince the masses is to spread the philosophy of Objectivism. For political philosophy, I recommend Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness, particularly the two essays, Man's Rights, and The Nature of Government. More fundamentally, you should read Leonard Peikoff's comprehensive book on Objectivism, called Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

That is exactly the wrong way to decide. A government should not do whatever the majority wants, it should do what is right----regardless of what the majority wants. In a capitalist society, that means one thing: defending individual rights.

I don't think I'b be comfortable as the discussion leader. I enjoy reading and discussing Romantic novels, but I'm no Shoshana Milgram, so to speak. For my two votes, I'll go with Spillane's One Lonely Night, and MacLennan's Barometer Rising.

Well, I'd just like to say thank you. I have your Mysterious Valley translation and I love it. I completely agree that Hooker's translation is outstanding, the best of any I've seen---as far as a person with no French, such as myself, can say. I have the Heritage Press edition of Cyrano, translated by Louis Untermeyer, and it came with an insert flyer containing a comparison of seven different translations of the passage you quoted. Here are the first four lines of each (they actually give 28 lines of each): (The first version in England, by Gladys Thomas and Mary Guillemard: London 1898) I gaily doff my beaver low, And, freeing hand and heel, My heavy mantle off I throw, And I draw my polished steel; (The first version in America, by Howard Thayer Kingsbury, 1898) My hat I toss lightly away; From my shoulders I slowly let fall The cloak which conceals my array, And my sword from my scabbard I call, (Third was the Hooker translation, 1923.) Lightly I toss my hat away, Languidly over my arm let fall The cloak that covers my bright array— Then out swords, and to work withal! (Fourth, a translation by Humbert Wolfe, 1935) I doff my beaver with an air, and then unfasten at my ease the military cloak I wear! Then out, you best of snickersnees! (Fifth, a translation by Jacques LeClercq, 1939) With nonchalance, I doff my hat; Gravely, I lay my mantle by; Dame Sword whirrs out from her habitat, I salute . . . I go into guard . . . I vie (Sixth, a translation by Clifford Bissell and William Van Wyck, 1947) With grace I cast my felt aside, And cloak that steals both air and sun, A thing that I cannot abide! I draw my sword, a worthy one. (Seventh, the Louis Untermeyer translation, 1953) My hat is flung swiftly away; My cloak is thrown off, if you please; And my sword, always eager to play, Flies out of the scabbard I seize. (And here is an eighth, the Henderson Daingerfield Norman, 1921) My plumed hat aside I throw; Swiftly my mantle is undone; Lightly I cast it from me, so; And I unsheath my espadon. No wonder! I have the Norman two volume translation of Rostand's plays, and I also have the Parker adaptation of L'Aiglon. The only reason I bought the Parker version was that this particular copy was originally from the estate of Ginger Rogers, which gave it special value. But that's the version of L'Aiglon I tried to read, and it was so uninspiring I couldn't get through it. I'll have to try the Norman translation. But you don't think Chantecler was as good as L'Aiglon? According to the flyer from my Heritage Press edition of Cyrano, the Wolfe translation was intended for a movie version starring Charles Laughton---which was never made.