oldsalt

I am always fascinated by those who claim that the universe could not have always existed, but that some undefined divinity is eternal. In what way does this satisfy their need to understand existence? If the universe HAD to have been created, then why isn't the same said of God? Where did he come from? Was he created? If so, then who created God? And so on and so on and so on, in infinite regression. You see, ChildofGod, this is why Objectivism begins with what we know, Existence Exists, not the illogical infinite regression of creation.

Yeah, and I didn't even have to go into the ginned-up raisins for rheumatism she advised for some poor citizen. I didn't even know she was a doctor, did you?

There are three Dutch blogs that I've been reading to see just what is happening in the Netherlands right now. Peaktalk at http://www.peaktalk.com/ Zachi Ei at http://www.zachtei.nt/ and Bjorn Staerk at http://blog.bearstrong.net/001493.html As I pointed out in a thread on this forum ("I'm am sickened"), the fundamental problem is with the instituted, politically correct multiculturalism. As a commenter on one of the blogs pointed out, the government is no longer responsive to the needs and wishes of the people and so they are taking the law into their own hands. The elites have disarmed the government, just as they have here. The murderer of van Gogh, after shooting him, nearly severing his head, stabbing him several times, left a five page letter on his chest warning the rest of the Netherlands that his death was just the first. Since the Islamists don't seem to be able to launch a 9-11 there, they are taking it to the individual citizen. One should also note that one of the main "teaching" facilities indoctrinating jihadists is in the Netherlands. Most of the 9-11 murderers attended this school. While the intelligence entity there knew all about this place, and the people who frequent it, they've left themselves no way to legally do anything about it. We've done much the same thing here. Just this week, the courts have tied the hands of the government in dealing with non-combatants, telling the military that they must treat all prisoners as combatants under the Geneva Convention. The enemy has been studying us for a long time; many of them have gone to school here. They know the weaknesses in our system and they know how to game the liberal left, which tolerates anything but intolerance for the enemy. Our own multiculturalism, and all it implies, is a danger to the security of the country. The Netherlands answer so far to the protest against van Gogh's murder has been to censor the protestors. Since they cannot speak out, they've turned to violence. The violence is escalating, with tit for tat bombings and arson; a church one day, another mosque or Muslim school the next. We've just seen the government censor political speech in the form of the McCain-Fiengold campaign finance "reform". That bill passed with nary a substantial squawk from any of the three branches of government or the media. Although the legislature is in the process of repealing that law, the precedent has been set. I think we need to keep an eye on this situation, for it may portend the future here in the US.

Since we've all been through such a rough time lately, what with Objectivists disagreeing and all, I thought I'd lighten things up a bit. Monty Python would have an easier time of choosing the Upper Class Twit of the Year; Brittain actually has an Upper Class to choose from. America has its upper class, in small initials, but without the titles. Most upper class Americans are fairly quiet about their status outside of charity events, and don't parade their twittiness (<cough>) before the great unwashed. When the Dems chose John Kerry as their presidential candidate, however, the twits opened their mouths and exposed themselves. I have offered three names in my contest -- the three most obvious candidates. Feel free to add to the list, but you must give the reasons behind your nomination. My personal vote goes to that would-be crazy ol' First Lady in the attic, Terresa Heinz. That's pronounced Terrrrrraaaaaaza, for you peasants out there. You'll note that I didn't say Terresa Heinz KERRY. That's because Ms. Heinz's legal name isn't Kerry. As she informed a young reporter (not the one she told to "shove it"), she was only using "Kerry" for political reasons. There are many well known examples highlighting Ms. Heinz's twittiness, usually involving calling the peasants "idiot" and "scumbag" for the sin of not agreeing with her husband. My favorite anecdote, however, comes from a campaign appearance before a group of pig farmers in Iowa. While Kerry was speaking, Ms. Heinz kept pestering him to let her talk until an obviously embarrassed Kerry stepped aside and let her address the crowd. She then began to explain to these businessmen that they were raising their hogs all wrong. They ought to be raising their hogs...wait for it...ORGANICALLY! It was a real Ma Chalmers moment.

Kinda makes you wish there were an everlasting hell for bastards like him. I just wish Bush would hold back on restarting the "peace process." I don't want him clamping down on the Israelis. A huge power-vacuum just opened up and people need to stand back and allow the power-lusters to kill each other off. Then, maybe, those who are left might be willing to settle down and live.

The Wahhabis are out of Saudi Arabia and are an extreme fundamentalist sect. They gained power by blackmailing the Sauds, who paid with money and a share in power in order to consolidate their hold on the country. They've had a tiger by the tail ever since. Now, of course, half of the ruling family actually believe that drivel and has backed the Wahhabis all over the world. They are not a part of the original split in Islam, i.e., the Sunni and the Shi'ite sects. Whoever is in Iraq from that sect is there as a martyr. This doesn't mean that there may not be trouble from them in the future. For instance, the Wahhabis flooded the former Yugoslavia when we stopped the war there, offering money to rebuild mosques and schools -- provided they were in charge. Many communities kicked them out. Some did not. They also rushed into the troubles in Chechnya, and we've see the results there. Chechnya had a legitimate claim for independence from Russia, but they forfeited it when then allowed terrorists to take over (by killing the legal Chechan leaders, by the way). Now they are just one more terror state that must be dealt with -- by the newest incarnation of the terror state of Russia. What a world. The two major sects promoting terrorism are the Shi'ite in Iran and the Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia. For now, it appears that most of the Shi'a in Iraq don't want to have anything to do with those from Iran. They've been victimized by Iran and most aren't eager to trade the tyranny of Saddam for the tyranny of the Ayatollas. As for Iraq being secular before, that certainly helps. I agree that we ought to have taken a firmer hand in the constitution of the new government, along the lines of what we did in Japan. MacArthur isn't running things there, however. I'm not happy with the way we've gone about things. I understand the overall strategy; we've turned things over to them so that they will have a stake in their future. I read the Iraqi blogs and I see a future there. There are some who are eager to take up the political fight. There are also communists, fundamentalists, and all the other -ists. I don't know what will happen. I do know that Iraq won't be in any position to hand out WMD's to terrorists, or even the dollars they skimmed from the corrupt international community. That much is a plus. The policy of the Bush administration is a huge gamble, however, and our people are paying the ante in treasure and lives. The bottom line is that there's nothing I can do except keep writing letters to the president and my various representatives. I'm sure that they always sit down and give my wisdom due consideration. There is nothing I've said that hasn't been said better, and with more authority, by others. No matter how unhappy I am with the way the politics play out, I will never stop backing the mission. To do so is to turn the efforts of our military into genuine sacrifices on the altar of my philsophy. Once a country commits its military, I think we are obligated to see it through. To do otherwise is to perpetrate another Viet Nam, where however immoral it was for us to go there in the first place, once we were there we ought never to have come away in defeat. For me, it is a greater immorality to turn the deaths of 52,000 of our citizens into worthless chits, paid out and receiving less than nothing in return. It also makes us responsible for the subsequent chaos, and the enslavement and death of those we pledged to help. The greatest consequence of surrendering was the country's loss of confidence and pride in itself, and we are paying for that now. I often wonder if we would find ourselves in the war we're in if we hadn't shown the world that we could be defeated. The methods used against us now, especially the manipulation of the news, all stem from that war. The left has a lot to answer for! From the feminists who apologize for mutilation and murder, to the Kerryites who stripped our military of the support of its fellow citizens, to the media who refuse to report objectively, to the university professors who gave them all legitimacy and intellectually disarmed the country -- all have a hand in giving the Islamists reason to think they could get away with attacking us. As a result, the country is in a fight for its life, Western Civilization is in danger of seceding to rank atavism, and we Objectivists are in an historic battle for the mind of man. The moral mandate given to Bush is a mandate to reclaim the character of America by continuing the war. There are those who want to claim a victory for religious values, but the facts don't back that view. For all of the mistakes that have been made, people want us to win. The ignorant, knuckle-dragging, "unteachable" red-necks of fly-over country know that walking away, no matter how tricked out in diplomatic apologetics the surrender would be, it would mean the death of us as a country and as a civilization. God Bless America! We haven't lost our soul after all.

Yes. My sister occasionally watches Oprah. She said that a prominent feminist on one show made excuses for these practices. Even Oprah had the decency to demure. Ask youself when you last heard a peep out of that bunch. These people have never had a problem voicing their displeasure over anything from equal pay to the number of stalls in women's restrooms at sports arenas. Why on earth would they be so conspicuously silent over these horrors (at least, those who haven't become apologists for Islamic culture)?

When Hitchen's is good, he's very, very good. That was a brilliant article. I don't worry about Iraq becoming a theocratic state ala Iran. There are too many factions in Iraq for them to decide which side of the theocracy to accept. The Sunni and Sha'i sects of Islalm represent the most basic division in Islam, a division that occurred in the power struggle for the religion when Mohammad died. To have a theocracy, they would have to say that one or the other is the correct interpretation and the other side wouldn't sit still for it. Iraq has been secular before and I suspect they will be mostly secular again, just so that everyone can live together. As disappointing and frustrating as it is, I don't see how we could insist that they forego any and all religion in their government. The separation of church and state is a wholely new concept for them. If we are still arguing the matter in the US, when our constitution explicitly forbids it, how do you imagine that we can force it upon a people who not only doesn't have a tradition or constitution of it, but whose beliefs and culture expressly forbids it. This is a transitional phase in the reformation of Islam itself, comparable to the Protestant Reformation. Hitchen's is right to call what is happening within Islam a civil war. In fact, I'll add one more bit of praise for President Bush to Hitchen's: Bush has done more for women's rights in the world than all the humorless, braless sob-sisters on the left could ever hope to have achieved. The silence from the feminists, even the promotion of the idea that genital mutilation and "honor" murders are just cultural practices to be tolerated is a condemnation of the entire movement and shows these people for the hypocrites and charlatons that they are.

Welcome to the forum Megan. You sound very ambitious -- which is a good thing. You'll need all your ambition to get through the course of study you've set for yourself. It gives me a lot of satisfaction and happiness to see so many young people on this forum. We are living in a time of tremendous transformation in this country -- indeed, the world. All of you are possessed of the most important transforming ideas since the renaissance, and before then, the era of Classical Greece. All the rest of history, while interesting for many reasons, were the products of these two eras. Now there is the era of Ayn Rand and Objectivism -- and you are the among the first to live by her ideas. When you start to feel frustrated, remember that fact.

I'm sure that article was written to be detrimental. Note the little blurb at the end. I'm so sick of those people who undermine the effort there while there are people in harm's way at the behest of their countries. They just can't let it go or face the fact that we've already engaged and all this chit-chat about "international law" is irrelevant. The author does give an exciting picture of the fight, however inadvertant or ill-motivated it is.

I saw this yesterday. It made me think of the fight between Arafat's "bride" (as I heard her described by one news anchor) and the "leadership" of the Palestinians who are wondering what to do next. I guess his death means that they won't be able to "bury him alive", which is what Mrs. Arafat said they were trying to do. I was pulling for the Palestinians who wanted to bury him alive.

Good luck, Eran. We need all the good people we can get. I hope you are connecting with the good people there in NYC. There's a vigorous group of Objectivists there. I'm sure you've already gotten the word, but if you haven't, email Betsy. She knows where all the minds are. Again, welcome! I'm on the left coast, or I'd invite you around for wine, a sail, and a long gab-fest.

Prae displays troll-like behavior and, as such, I'm surprised s/he hasn't already been banned. I will no longer engage this person in any discussion. That said, Prae did actually hit the nail on the head by inadvertently naming the cause of Theo Van Gogh's murder when she called me a racist. The cause isn't racism, of course, but that which made Prae call me a racist. This is an important topic and ought to be further discussed among the serious people on the forum. This murder is a concrete example of what happens when people embrace the wrong philosophy. The problem lies with the philosophy of multiculturalism and political correctness -- at least, the philosophy which underlies these views. This isn't just a problem in Europe. It is a problem here in the US. It has caused us to block policies which are needed if we are to keep the country secure. For example, we are not allowed to profile people boarding airplanes, thereby wasting time and money while they profile little old ladies while young men of Middle Eastern decent stroll onto our planes. Immigration is not allowed to do their job because of politically correct regulations imposed from above. We do this because people like Prae scream "racism". Of course, such people will be the first to scream that the government failed to protect us the next time we are hit by terrorists. If you haven't done so, please check out the link I provided in my post to erik. Read what is happening in the Netherlands as a consequence of this murder. Since the Dutch government has tied its own hands, they are now powerless to handle their unintegrated Muslim population. Instead, they are clamping down on the freedom of speech of citizens who protest against what is happening to their country. Can it happen here? You bet. And we need to think about these things and know what arguments we need to make to work against it.

erik: I agree with your assessment of the argument with Prae. However... You say back to the topic. I think that multiculturalism has everything to do with Van Gogh's murder and it isn't out of place in this thread. Read this round-up of some of the European papers and of what is happening in the Netherlands as a result of the murder: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/11/st...dutch-blog.html The politically correct policies of Dutch multiculturalism has disarmed the government and is keeping them from dealing with the increasing problems they are facing from their Muslim population.

Good lord! I'll take that as a compliment and thank you, but I wouldn't wish that job on my worst enemy.

Prae: You have not answered a single point of my arguments. Did you even read what I wrote? You continue to assert your position without argument or reason to back it up. The mere assertion of something is not an argument. How do you define racism? What is the difference between what an individual thinks and what race he is? What is a "right" and what constitutes a valid right? On what premise do you assert that any form of government is valid if most of the people want it? (This is John Kerry's argument, by the way, for the enslavement of Viet Nam.) What is the definion of a lie? What is the difference between a lie and an error?

(I don't know how to break up a quote, so I've had to put my comments within the body of the quote. If you missed them, they occur right after the <snip>. Sorry about that.) The confusion over Iraq is the fault of the Bush administration. It is a mistake to think that Saddam would not have engaged Al Qaida just because of their differece. The Dalfer (I know that's not spelled right!) Report made it clear that the two had many contacts and Saddam protected various members of Al Qaida, and even provided certain kinds of training. Even if Saddam hadn't backed Al Qaida specifically, he certainly was a state sponsor of terrorism. He made no bones about his payments to Hamas and Hezbollah, and he did provide training for those groups in a facility right outside of Baghdad. We need to remember that Hezbollah is a group that repeatedly kidnapped and murdered Americans during the 80's and 90's. Thus, Iraq is as important a theater in this war as Afghanistan. Indeed, Iraq was in more of a position to threaten us with WMD than Afghanistan, which had nothing and resorted to our own airplanes. We have found evidence of WMD in Iraq (which the MSM has assiduously left out of its reporting because we didn't find the expected stockpiles), and there is evidence that most of the actual weapons and material were removed to Syria while we were dithering around with the UN. Even Blix could not account for the material that we knew Saddam had.

You are dropping the entire context of this argument, which is the fact that war was declared and has been waged against us for over 20 years. As I said, I don't give a damn what people think, until they come after me and mine -- which is exactly what they have done, beginning with the taking of hostages in 1979. Since that time they have kidnapped and murdered Americans with great regularity. Because of the nature of the enemy, we ignored what they were doing to our citizens. Even when we knew for sure that certain states were backing the kidnapping and the murdering of Americans, we never did more than toss a little metal their way. We emboldened them by allowing this to go on with no cost to the people who backed them, be it a state or individuals. Just since 1991, we allowed Saddam to get away with a war without toppling him from power and then allowed him to continually break the cease-fire he signed as he fired on the air forces flying in the no-fly zone; we allowed ourselves to be run out of Somalia after the deaths of our servicemen (bin Laden); we allowed a US ship of war to be attacked, again with the death of our Sailors (bin Laden); we allowed the death of more military personnel at their barracks in the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (Iran); we allowed the destruction and death of US diplomatic and military personnel in two US diplomatic missions in Africa -- we allowed the death of all of these official members of our government without cost to those who did the killing. The people who have plotted against us have done so in over 60 countries all over the world, including Iraq. Just how long are we to stand back and allow this to go on? When they danced in the streets at the sight of the towers collapsing, they let us know that we were doing battle with more than just a handful of somewhat dangerous malcontents. Where have you seen anything like the actions you describe, except by the enemy? It was not Americans who shot school children in the back as they ran for their lives. It was not Americans who made munition dumps out of schools and Mosques. It was not Americans who targeted civilians. It was not Americans who paraded hostages before the cameras as we hacked off their heads. We have stayed our hand in every action we have taken, to our own detriment. You put the words "western civilization" into quotes, as though this isn't a legitimate concept. I am sick to death of people who only manage to sneer at their own culture, but have all the tolerance in the world for those who spit at us. This is the very attitude that has convinced our enemies that they can take us over. And why not? You, and others like you, see only fault in your own culture, ignoring the very fact that being able to criticize that civilization is a luxury not available to most of the people of the world. Because it isn't, they criticize us. I'll say one more thing that you don't want to hear: The militants who are open about it, standing there with guns in their hands are not the most dangerous foes we face. The most dangerous enemy is the one living among us who would disarm this country and keep it from fighting for its civilization. It is the person who mouths the bromides and platitudes of a "tolerance" that tolerates every idea and culture but Americanism. It is a tolerance that allows for Saddam's rape rooms, prisons for children, and mass graves, but finds the disgrace of Abu Gra'ab an intolerable scandle. It is a tolerance that allows the women of Afghanistan, and other Muslim countries, to be slaves beaten, mutilated, and murdered, but finds the unavoidable deaths of some of these innocents to be an intolerable evil when done by American forces liberating them. It is a tolerance that keeps you blind, deaf, and dumb in the face of the abject poverty and enslavement of millions by the atavists ruling them in the name of Islam. It is an attitude that is causing the deaths of your own military forces, who put their own lives on the line and whose only mission is to protect you and try to change the systems that put you in danger in the first place. Everytime someone mouths the platitudes you have used here, it emboldens the enemy. It makes them believe that we are weak in our resolve and they have a chance to win. It gives them further reason to strap on one more explosive belt, plant one more bomb on the roadside, blow up one more car, kidnap and behead one more hostage -- each time killing innocents and your own people. Prae, I sincerely hope you will get beyond your concrete-bound view of the world and invest in a few books by Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, and others like them. I hope that you will actually learn something about the nature of Islam and what about it makes people willing to commit suicide if they can take out an infidel or two. I hope you do this because the enemy is more than the Islamist with a gun. The danger is inherent in the philosophy, and that philosophy is being taught right here in this country. Islam is very patient. It tells its adherents to sit quietly and not protest until they are strong enough to overpower the civilization they are living in. If they do not sit quietly, Islam provides for their punishment. Islam doesn't care if it takes over in this century or the next, because Allah has all the time in eternity to wait for Islam to conquer. Understand this fact, and you will understand why you have seen no mass demonstrations by American Muslims against the mass murder of their fellow citizens. Understand this and you will grasp how dangerous your "tolerance" is. Do I think that all Muslims, or even all Arabs, want to see us destroyed? Of course not. Every individual possesses the reason to see and understand reality. My fight is for those who do so. But I don't give a fig for those who want to see me chained to Islams' philosophy and my country destroyed under sharia law, nor do I give any consideration to those who would sit by and let it happen.

See, now that's why you're just a knuckle-dragging, unteachable, ignoramus. Isn't she a lovely person? I don't understand why you aren't listening to the voices of reason on the left. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

I have had a good laugh watching the liberals attempt to define what "moral values" are. They are absolutely clueless and utterly at a loss. The only thing they can come up with are moral values defined by religion, and so are in the process of concluding that they must go to church to see what all the whoopla is about. They don't see how much it exposes their own lack of morality, religious or otherwise. Slate Magazine (an e-zine) is publishing a series of articles about this subject. They've titled the series: "Why Americans Hate Democrats: A Dialogue" Notice the wording of that title. My favorite article in the series is written by the novelist Jane Smiley. I've never read any of her books, and after reading her article, I won't do so now. Go read "The unteachable ignorance of the red states", by Jane Smiley. Her analysis does indeed apply to some religious people, of course. But, like all good little collectivists, she lumps everyone who lives in the red hinderlands under the same rubric (though she specifically exempts the members of her own family ).

I won't argue with Prae. I'll enter into a discussion with ignorance, but not petulance. I cannot, however, pass up the opportunity of pointing out the glaring contradiction of the multi-culturalist definition of racism and its consequences. Prae called me a racist because I spoke of the philosophy of Islam, the culture to which it has led, and the way that it is being used by power-lusters to seek world domination. To this mind-set, if I speak of the philosophy governing a peoples' action, I am automatically a racist because most of the people who believe and practice this philosophy are Arabs. (Of course, not all Muslims are Arabs, but this seems to be unimportant to Prae.) Frankly, I don't give a damn what other people think -- as long as it doesn't interfer with my freedom. But this isn't what Islam preaches. You are born a Muslim, or you convert, and you are a Muslim for life. The penalty for a Muslim who denounces or goes against the religion is death. DEATH. This is why Salman Rushdie was condemned, even though he no longer lived within the Middle East. This is why all infidels are condemned. (There are provisions which allow infidels to live as slaves if they won't convert, but only so long as they keep their mouth shut and do as they are told. It's called dhimmitude) The people who act on this premise must make elaborate plans in order to kill me because I live in a free country which is far away from their sharia courts. But what of those individuals who live within the Muslim ummah (the term used to define all of the people who belong to Islam)? Prae would have us believe that it is racist to condemn a philosophy that enslaves and murders the individual human-being who doesn't agree with it. We are to lump this individual in with all the other Muslims and only deal with the whole, not the parts, i.e., the collective, not the individual. Because I am concerned about individual human beings, not groups or collectives, I am in favor of overturning the present system of government dictated by Islam, which does not distinguish between religion and the state; all is one and all belong to Allah -- as interpreted by individual human beings who use Islamic law, as laid down in the Koran, to enslave everyone within their purview. Islam does not recognize man qua man as an individual, but as merely one more cell in the body of the ummah. It is specifically America's individualism and consequent love of life that they find so dangerous and evil that they would obliterate it, and are willing to die to do so. This is what the Koran commands them to do. This is why they brag that they will win because we love life and they love death. I do not think that Islam is outside discussion, nor do I think it is racist to point to the fact that it is a philosophy that has murdered thousands upon thousands of individual human beings, beginning with its inception 1500 years ago when it was spread with the sword, and continuting to this day, when it is spread with the envied technology produced by its enemies. Anyone who can ignore the mountain of corpses produced by such a philosophy in the name of supposed racial equality is engaging in deadly relativist ethics. According to this view, if enough people believe something, regardless of the consequences to individual lives, it is valid. It is the subjective belief, not the objective facts of reality which govern this mind-set. I end by asking: Which way of thinking leads to racism -- the philosophy which recognizes the individual human being, or the one that lumps all people of a race or belief system together into one undifferentiated collective?

He accepted the credit because Wayne's character insisted on it. In the beginning he thought he had done the deed. I admired Stewart's character because he had the courage to stand there, shaking in his boots, and face certain death. No one would face up to the bully Valance, not even Wayne's character, though he was the only one who could have done so. Instead, Wayne's character stood in the shadows and shot Valance while Stewart faced him. He did it to save Stewart's life, but that doesn't mean that he faced Valance down, or even bested him in a fair fight. It was Stewart's character who stood for and fought to bring law and order to the area. It was Stewart who had the courage of his convictions, even if he lacked the skill to handle a gun. That is why, regardless of whose bullet killed Valance, Stewart was the man to win the Congressional seat he held.

Racist? Bush is a liar? A mistake to look to history for context? You are a perfect product of a concrete bound, range-of-the-moment modern "education". Prae, if this were any other forum, I wouldn't bother to notice such ignorance. But this is an Objectivist forum, so I'll simply say this: Your education has left you bereft of the critical skills and knowledge required to address the questions you are discussing. Objectivism is the beginning of the cure for this ignorance. I'm not saying this to be mean or to demean you in any way. There is no shame in ignorance, unless it is maintained through sheer laziness. Since you are here, I'll grant the possibility that this does not describe you. Perhaps you are unaware of the extent to which you have absorbed the multi-culturalist, politically correct "axioms" which underly your statements. If so, you need to become aware of how much they are coloring your thinking and root them out. Check your premises.

I concur about "Young Frankenstein", i.e., best Mel Brooks film. (Though I loved "Blazing Saddles" as well.) I can barely watch anything about Viet Nam. Not only is my husband's name on the Wall, but I nursed many others as well. Thankfully, most of those I nursed made it! My tastes run more towards the old movies, especially many of the screwball comedies and the Fred and Ginger movies. For drama, give me movies such as "The African Queen", "Notorious", etc. I'll also add my name to the fan list for "Flight of the Phoenix." One of the best. Westerns: "The Big Country" is one I never miss. Marvelous camera work, and a great story. I also like "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" for Stewart's character. For the oater as comedy, I like "Cat Ballou." I can't stand Fonda, but it is worth watching just to see Lee Marvin do his schtick. Marvelous! I'm not too crazy about most modern movies. They are too loud and, while I enjoy special effects, I don't like movies that are nothing but. I liked "The Piano" for reasons I've yet to articulate. I loved the film about the Irish boy who fought to dance ballet -- sorry I can't remember the name off the top of my head. Billy something? I like "Chocholat." Comedy: As I said, I like many of the old screwball comedies, such as, "My Favorite Wife," "The Awful Truth," "My Man Godfrey," etc. I liked Python's "Holy Grail" a lot, but I think I liked "The Life of Brian" even better. Every time I hear the talking heads rattle off the different Palestinian terror groups, I think of the scene in the collisium. I also enjoyed the "What have the Roman's ever done for us?" scene. This is already too long, but before I go, I want to recommend "Bad Day at Black Rock." I know the title sounds like like a B western, but it isn't. It is set somewhere in the post WWII American dessert. Spencer Tracy plays a man who lost the use of one arm after being injured at Anzio. He has come to Black Rock, one of those tiny dessert towns stuck in the middle of nowhere. The tension is palpable the minute he steps off the train as he is met by the station manager who immediately starts questioning him. Tracy's character has given up on life and is there to perform his "final duty", giving the medal a Japanese-American boy earned saving his life to the boy's father. The father has disappeared, however. Tracy finds himself again as he works out what the dirty little secret poisoning the people at Black Rock. Good story and good performances all around.

First a belated WELCOME TO AMERICA! Last I read here, you were just visiting. Are you here to stay? I know that, sadly, Israel has more than Arafat to worry about. The world is full of his spawn and a large number of them sit on Israel's doorstep. I can't imagine that the Israeli government hasn't thought about the situation, though. The future without Arafat is just the latest stage of a very long war. Still and all, he's one more evil bastard down and out, and that's worth a moment's celebration. If we waited until it were finished once and for all, we'd live a somber, joyless existence. So, giving a salute to life!, I'll enjoy my moment's satisfaction in this one's demise, and state that I wish that Israel had the luxuary to do so as well. As for the Nobel stuff: Phooey!