Kitty Hawk

Wouldn't it be better to discuss a novel chapter by chapter? It would be easier to dissect a novel in small increments, then have an overall analysis when you finish the novel or play. Anyway, I do have the Spillane book you mentioned already, so that one would be ok with me. Some other suggestions: Barometer Rising, by Hugh MacLennan The Crying Sisters, by Mabel Seeley (I would prefer Seeley's The Whispering Cup, but it's out of print) The Gadfly, by E. L. Voynich Quo Vadis, by H. Sienkiewicz

Here are two other versions, the first by Henderson Daingerfield Norman, the second by Louis Untermeyer: I don't know which is more accurate, but I prefer the first translation.

Here is an early glimpse of the more moderate protestors of the Republican National Convention: Bicycle Protest The real kooks of the left will make MOB look rational.

Just because Israel has survived up to now doesn't mean they will survive beyond tomorrow, let alone next year. Terrorists are using Western technology better than ever before, and inflicting greater destruction than ever before. And they are hell bent to acquire WMD, (with Iran, North Korea, and others more than willing to help them) which changes the equation completely. Do you think we can survive decades of nuclear attacks? President Kerry, the archetype of the anti-military, anti-defense leftist, makes such attacks far more likely than President Bush. Kerry's foreign policy would take self-sacrifice to a suicidal level. Bush will not. I have not seen "Neo-Conservative" associated with the Christian movement before. In fact, most commentators I have read say that Neo-Conservative is a thinly veiled euphemism for Jewish Conservatives. Men like Wolfowitz and Richard Perle---precisely the most rational, hawkish men in the Administration. The more he associates with Neo-Conservatives, the better his foreign policy will be. John Kerry, on the other hand, will be advised by appeasers and compromisers and UN-first types. And John Kerry is different in what respect on this issue?

Did I say I was speaking for Leonard Peikoff? No. "So many" does not even imply a majority.

Did I say your vote should be based on the Yucca stance alone? No.

An excellent illustration of this situation is in the movie (and the book) The Great Escape. Over and over the Allied POW's risked their lives in attempts to escape from Nazi prison camps. A similar illustration is Kira Argounova's attempt to escape the prison of the Soviet Union.

Michael Moore, surely one of the most morally disgusting men on earth, also happens to be a hero of the Democratic Party. Chairman of the Democratic National Committe, Terry McAuliffe, attended a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11 and pronounced it "very powerful," and agreed that the film was "essentially fair and factually based." Democratic Senator Tom Harkin urged all Americans to see the film because "It's important for the American people to understand what has gone on before, what led us to this point, and to see it sort of in this unvarnished presentation by Michael Moore." Other Democrats attending the screening were Tom Daschle, Max Baucus, Barbara Boxer, Bill Nelson, Charles Rangel, Henry Waxman, and Jim McDermott. Link: World War IV, on page 40 of an excellent 48 page essay on the current war---or criminal investigation, depending on your party of choice.

Male. But thanks for translating.

One of the many ways John Kerry can and would endanger the US, and hamstring the economy, if elected President: he has said the disposal of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain will be a "non-starter" on his Presidency. There's an article on this here: Yucca Mountain, and you can read Kerry's own words on it at his campaign website by typing "Yucca" in the search engine there. Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste desposit site has been studied to death, and shown to be as safe as any place on earth. Kerry doesn't think so. Evidently he prefers for the nuclear waste to stay on site at the nuclear power plants scattered across the country, indefinitely, where it is far less safe and more vulnerable. Or perhaps he wants the nuclear energy industry to run out of storage facilities, and thus have to stop producing nuclear energy.

Evidently the British aren't managing very well in Basrah, according to an Iraqi blogger who is appealing for help: Basrah Is in Grave Danger Iran appears to be the main culprit. I think Britain is "fighting" this war much as John Kerry would do---by not fighting at all. They don't want to offend anyone.

Yes? Perhaps you could elaborate?

Ah, capital idea. Bencil, I read the preface to your treatise on education, and looked over the table of contents. It looks very interesting, and I'm sure there are a lot of good ideas in it. But I have a preliminary question. Are you describing a system of public education, or private education? While I would prefer a good system of public education to a poor system of public education, it is nevertheless true than any form of public education is immoral.

That's something I was wondering about. A colonial solution would surely be enormously expensive. So I suppose we would finance it with the Middle East's oil, as a sort of war reparations. The best possible thing that could happen is the overthrow of the Iranian government by the student movement, to be replaced by a Constitutional Republic, which is secular and guarantees individual rights. Whatever we can do to make that event happen, we should be doing now with every resource at our command. It would be a far better model for the Middle East than the vacillating, Islamic government forming under our aegis in Iraq.

Hey, Bencil. Your website is in Turkish (at least I guess that's what it is), and I don't think we have many Turkish speakers here. Have Ayn Rand's works been translated into Turkish?

I think it should be remembered that Miss Rand said this before McGovern appeared on the scene, i.e., before the liberals sank into complete hatred for America. She voted against McGovern, the liberal, and advised everyone else to do so, as well. It is my understanding that John Kerry worked for the McGovern campaign (correct me if I'm wrong). Miss Rand voted for Nixon, even though he had already imposed wage and price controls on the entire economy, and committed foreign policy blunders as well (with regard to China and Taiwan).

The candidacy of John Kerry is why so many Objectivists are suddenly Bush supporters.

Do you know the answer to that question? None of us know all the evidence that was available to him. We do know that Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds. So he had them without question at one time. That is material evidence. Is it unreasonable to assume he still had them later on? I don't think so. If I'm not mistaken, all Western intelligence agencies, not just the US, thought Hussein still had WMD. Nor is proved even now that he did not---he could very well have shipped them to Syria. Finally, WMD were not the only reason Bush decided to invade Iraq. It was also a source of support for terrorists, with potential to support them more in the future. I was clearly referring to having the best available information on whether there were WMD in Iraq---not on whether Iran should be attacked, as your link indicates. Does the ARI or Leonard Peikoff have the best available information on whether there were WMD in Iraq? If you are simply referring to the overall war strategy, it is true Bush didn't consult with ARI or LP. Neither did any other politician in America. So why single out Bush for failing to do so?

You are completely misusing the word "faith" here. Bush is not throwing reason out the window in trusting American intellegence services on the existence of WMD in Iraq. He is using the best available information. Or were you expecting him to travel to Iraq personally while Saddam was dictator and look around for WMD? And the same goes for his advisors: they are there to give him advice. Should he fire them all and do everything himself?

So, in other words, you cannot prove your assertion that there will be a theocracy under Bush. Kerry will swear to defend the Constitution and America. Wonderful. Bush would have to swear the same thing. And if Michael Moore were elected, he would have to swear the same thing. Would you take his word for it? Evidently you would.

So a theocracy "came to fruition" in America when Reagan said "freedom of religion, not from religion"? I must have missed that theocracy, even though I lived through it, according to you. Kerry is a threat to American lives, and an equal threat to American liberties. Perhaps you can prove your assertion that there will be a theocracy under Bush? Something a little more convincing than your proof there was a theocracy under Reagan.

The Soviet Union was worth writing home about? Do you have any idea how many people were murdered, starved to death, or imprisoned and worked to death in that "polity worth writing home about"? There have never been states as evil as the Soviet Union and its progeny in North Korea and elsewhere. Your being sanguine about such a possibility is hard to fathom. Secular statism destroys countries as surely as any theocracy ever could. This is leaving aside the idea that a theocracy is even remotely possible here. Russia is still a shambles, North Korea is a basket case, as is Cuba. Sakharov is not what pulled the Soviet Union out of its nightmare. The existence of the United States, and its strength, are what rescued it from that nightmare. Who will rescue us, the last bastion of freedom on earth?

Stem cell research isn't illegal. There is a ban on federal funding. As a capitalist, I also am an opponent of religious conservatism. And also an opponent of leftist irrationalism. At the moment, leftist irrationalism is the greater danger, by far.

I don't think that lecture excerpt even approached proving that Bush for four more years makes a theocracy imminent. So there are freaks who sing to God. There are also freaks, on the left, who commune with trees. And the enviros have been a lot more effective at getting their views inflicted on America then religious nuts. Nor do I agree that Bush is incapable of attacking a religious government, such as Iran. If he merely wanted a non-religious government to attack, why not atheist North Korea? Iraq was an easier sell than Iran, and a legitimate target, because of their history of using chemical gas against the Kurds, and continuing efforts to gain more WMD. Neither do I agree that Kerry/Gore would have attacked Afghanistan after 9/11. I think neither would have gone to war at all, but would have done what many liberals were calling for at the time, try to bring the precise criminals to America to be tried in a court of law---even though most of the precise criminals were already dead. They wanted to treat 9/11 as a crime, and not as an act of war. I do not believe Kerry would attack any country, except in a case like the disintegration of Yugoslavia, where it would be for someone else's benefit, not ours. Just like Clinton. Another point worth stressing is that an Administration consists of more than the President himself. Bush has surrounded himself with a few very good men, such as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney, and a few bad apples, such as Powell. What would a Democratic Administration consist of? A rogues gallery of Janet Reno types. The liberals abhor Rumsfeld, so what kind of person do you think they would install in his place???? Nor was there any mention, in the lecture excerpt, of tremendously important issues such as the Kyoto Protocol, which Kerry and the liberals would like to inflict on the US. Is that of no significance? That's just a side issue, which might annihilate our economy single handed? Like everyone else here, it is bitterly disappointing to me to have to choose between two clear evils. I abhor Bush's religiousness. But when I weigh all the issues, my vote remains with Bush.

To back up that statement, here's an excerpt from an LA Times article (linked in TIA Daily today):