oldsalt

This situation is a good example of the way government incrementally insinuates itself into our lives. Private enterprise comes up with a solution to a certain problem, in this case flu vaccinations. We begin to hear about valid reasons for getting a flu shot: Business won't lose man-hours due to seasonal illness; children require extra protection since they are more suseptable to the dangers of complications from the flu, as do the elderly, those with a history of heart and/or respiratory disease, or certain other chronic illnesses. Because of these facts, the government decides it is necessary to spend vast amounts of tax money, and man hours, "educating" and encouraging people to get a flu shot (in this case, through the CDC). Many do. Businesses begin to provide shots for their employees (and some provide shots for their employees' families). Doctors begin vaccinating the elderly and infants. But this isn't enough. "What about the children!" Wouldn't it be better if children are required to have a shot, just like it is required for them to be vaccinated against the mumps, etc.? After all, we all know how the flu is spread in school, putting vast numbers of our children at risk. And what about poor people who can't afford to pay for a shot?! Is it fair for them to be left out just because they can't afford it?!! Doesn't it endanger everyone else if we leave this vast section of the population unvaccinated?!!! What about social justice?!!!!! It's a crisis! The government must step in. So they go from making a recommendation, to taking small steps to cover those people whom the government deems require a "helping hand," for whatever reason. Being the government, they don't just open clinics to take care of those they decree need extra help (and are probably already on one entitlement list or another), but they institute a "program," with all of its attendant committees, fact-finders and resulting regulations. These regulations require a bureaucracy to guarantee that there will be more problems, which will require further government involvement and, of course, more regulations. And we mustn't overlook the criminalization of those who don't adhere to the regulations. Now we have a made up crisis, for which Bush is getting the blame, and which gives Kerry the opportunity to come up with another "plan," which advocates further abrogation of our rights and responsibilities as individuals and citizens, and further expands government involvement in health care. Phooey! A plague on both their houses! Which would mean a crisis in government. Which will require a vaccination. Which means that... Oh, never mind.

There's an interesting story in Wired News about a biomedical experiment using rat neurons linked together to form a "brain." From the article: Currently the brain has learned enough to be able to control the pitch and roll of the simulated F-22 fighter jet in weather conditions ranging from blue skies to hurrican-force winds. Initially the aircraft drifted, because the brain hadn't figured out how to control its "body," but over time the neurons learned to stabilize the aircraft to a straight, level flight. The experiment is being conducted at the University of Florida. There is further information in an article at their site, entitled: UF Scientist: "Brain" in a Dish Acs as Autopilot, Living Computer. From the article: The "brain" -- a collection of 25,000 living neurons, or nerve cells, taken from a rat's brain and cultured inside a glass dish -- gives scientists a unique real-time window into the brain at the cellular level. By watching the brain cells interact, scientists hope to understand what causes neural disorders such as epilepsy and to determine noninvasive ways to intervene. Both articles are interesting -- at least I found them so.

I don't know of any other forums and WebTV doesn't allow for most chat rooms. I'd like to suggest a blog or three for your list, however. If you really don't want this info. here (since it isn't what you asked for!), I'll take no offense if you delete this post. I see you already have Instapundit and Little Green Footballs listed, both of which I peruse daily. I would suggest you consider adding the Belmont Club, which regularly offers good analyses on the war, as well as other subjects. I also check in at The Command Post for news on the war. It is broken down by areas of interest, providing links for news of Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia, etc. I've found it to be an invaluable source of information. I like to read the Volokh Conspiracy for news concerning the law. It doesn't advocate for objective law, but the site gives you a good idea of the legal issues in the spotlight right now, and how they are being discussed among the pros. For translations of articles available only in Arabic, I use MEMRI. It is invaluable if you want to know what the enemy is saying.

I've had this debate before, with an Anti-Trust lawyer. Using the method you describe, I was able to get my antagonist to concede my point. Just as I was filling up with the satisfaction of my accomplishment, he said, "Yeah, but what about IBM?" People who can't, or won't, grasp what a principle is must wake up in a new "everything's relative" world everyday. I don't understand how they do it!

Tommy, you need to remember that D'Anconia Copper, along with Taggart Transcontinental, Reardon Steel, and all the others, were already being destroyed. All Francisco did was to turn a destruction he could not stop to his own purpose. And doing a superlative job of it, too.

I blame it on Viet Nam. I won't go into what I mean by that, it's too complicated and laced with large swatches of glossy psychologizing. Besides, I blame many things on Viet Nam. Not the war in particular, but the era. Which I blame on the '30's.... All in all, McCain has turned into a pretty sorry sort of politician. Everyone talks about Kerry's opportunism, but McCain is kin. As for Zell Miller, in the main, I consider his sins to be those of youth and place. Besides, I couldn't continue to be upset with the patrician figure who stood straight with righteous indignation in front of the world and told off the Democratic party. That was not opportunism, or politics as usual. That was a man with the courage of his convictions. I might not agree with most of those convictions, but we live at a time when every political speech has the consistency of oatmeal, and he was shooting sparks. I am glad I saw it.

I do not think in terms of regret. I may be disappointed, or disgusted, or sad, or angry, or any combination of the above, by what happens after the election, but I won't regret my decision. I understand that my power to effect what happens by this vote is limited to one in millions. I understand that the decision I've made is based on very few actual facts and a lot of surmises and assumptions, and probably some wishful thinking. There's no way around this. I've done the best I can. I won't regret my choice anymore after the election than I do right now, and right now I regret that I don't have better field of candidates to choose from. This is nothing new; I've been voting since Nixon was first elected and I've never once been able to cast a vote FOR someone. Now, there's lots of things I worry about. I don't worry that Bush will do nothing about Iran, though. There are too many indications that this is not the case. Even if Israel does the deed, it will be because they were tasked the job, and do so with the full support of the administration (at least the part of the administration that isn't PeaceprocessroadmapArafat supporters ).

Tommy: Put yourself into the world of Atlas Shrugged for a moment. You are living in a world made up of "People's States," which exist by feasting like maggots on the dead carcus of American enterprise. You are considering either buying or holding stock in d'Anconia Copper, a company that is owned and operated by one man. By all accounts, that man is a worthless playboy with no redeeming virtue to be seen. The only thing he has going for him is the wealth created by his ancestors, which you see him squandering in wreckless abandon. As a rational man, how would you decide? Wouldn't you expect to lose your money?

One of the most important thing Objectivism teaches is the crucial importance of maintaining context when looking at the facts. When I read something like this, this is what I consider: What is Bush's context and what does he gain by making such a statement? 1. Just because we've given the Iraqis sovereignty doesn't mean that we've given up all leverage or power over events (or do you think that Pakistan is an "ally" because George is such a charming fellow?). You don't put a baby out in traffic just because he's learned to toddle along. By giving them sovereinty, he's given them a stake in their country's future. Allawi is a shrewd politician and a courageous man. He knows his people. Pay attention to what is happening over there (and I mean do more than read or watch the mainstream media, which is virtually worthless as a source of information on the war). Go beyond the range-of-the-moment happenings and today's casualty figures. 2. The interim government that the Bush administration set up is essentially secular. They are working hard to be inclusive because that is the only way to unite the patchwork of tribes, sects, and leftovers from Saddam's reign. For example, they held out the olive branch to al Sadr, not because they look forward to his sage political input, but because of the impression it would make on Sadr's followers. They knew that Sadr would not comply because they knew that he was making a power grab. It has worked, by the way. All that are left are the remnents. Most of Sadr's followers, (the people, not the malitia) became disenchanted when they became "collateral damage," to say nothing of the little trials he held, with the accompanying torture and slaughter. (As an aside: did you know that Sadr's minions were having to dope themselves up before going out to face the combined Iraqi/American forces? Brave little believers.) 3. He understands that no one can wipe out Islam in the Middle East (or elsewhere) so he doesn't make further enemies by trying to do so, and he gives those who are waiting wearily something positive to consider. 4. There is no distinction in Islam between Mosque and state; they were made one and the same at the beginning. He knows that there aren't even words in Arabic to denote concepts regarding freedom, individualism, etc. The change must necessarily be incremental. Christianity didn't break the bonds of the Catholic Church for over a thousand years. Then the Protestants took over where the Catholics lost power. It wasn't until the USofA was born, and then only because of Thomas Jefferson, that even the concept of a separation was instituted anywhere at anytime. Thus, experience tells us that we cannot expect Islam to change overnight. It goes against all of human history, and human nature. 5. Most importantly, Bush knows that Iraq will not become an Iran-like Islamic Republic for the simple reason that Iraq has two very divergent Islamic sects, neither of which would cede power one over the other. So, I conclude that Bush is not speaking to us when he says he'd accept an Islamic Republic. He is speaking to the people in the region, who are very weary of American power -- as they ought to be. Past experience has taught them not to trust us. What is happening in this country tells them that they should not trust us even now. Bush is telling them that they have the power to institute their own government. That is what democracy is and that is what he is offering. Will it work? I don't know. But, I do know that man has reason and will use it given half a chance. What makes anyone think that everyone over there is panting for the likes of Iran? Read the Iraqi blogs and you will see very diverse opinions given, everything from very pro-American to rabidly anti-American sentiments (you know, kind of like here). The Iraqis also know very well just what such a "republic" looks like. They've fought Iran more than once. They know that they would be exchanging one suffocating tyrany for another. So, I think that Bush is gaming the politics of the situation, just like he ought to do in this situation, and I don't get exercised about such statements. I understand that I can only make assumptions about what is really going on behind the scenes and I wait and see how things actually play out. Everyone did a great deal of hand-wringing over Afghanistan, and things are going better than expected -- against all odds, and to the chagrin of of the world's press and the liberals. Don't mistake the political game for policy. Bush is pushing democracy in the area. How is he to square that with those who might be listening if he says that he will not accept their vote? None of the above means that I agree with the way the administration has handled everything. They were caught short when the military handed them a victory so rapid it amazed even the generals who planned the whole enterprise. They've made some serious mistakes, but such is war. I don't like it and it isn't what I would have hoped for, but I hope it works. I sure as hell won't behave in a way that undermines the monumental effort being made by our people and gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

Sir, I think I love you! Your post gave me the best belly-laugh I've had in a week. Thanks. Now, do you clean up after yourself? -- 'cause my screen is a mess.

Then there's this from a Victor Davis Hanson's National Review Online article (Sept. 2, 2004): Brace Yourself, The months ahead will be momentous (sorry, no link. You can find the article in the archives at his site, www.victor-hanson.com) The 2002 winner of the National Book Circle Award, Nicholson Baker, is due out with Checkpoint -- an extended dialogue on killing (in a variety of strange ways) George Bush. Last year, comedian Rick Hall played to full houses in the U.K., performing his newest composition, "Let's Get Together and Kill George Bush." A so-called pacifist group announced its sponsorship of a rather violent-sounding off-Broadway "guerilla comedy" entitled, I'm Gonna Kill the President. <snip> Alfred A. Knopf . . . is promoting Baker's book as a cri du coeur -- "in response to the powerless seething fury many Americans felt when President Bush decided to take the nation to war." Enough of this kind of thing and some moron will get it into his tiny little pinhead that the world will thank him if he assasinates the president. I'm surprised it hasn't already happened. I expect someone to attempt it if Bush wins a second term. It makes it difficult for me to simply laugh off this vicious Guardian article (though it's not hard at all to laugh at the author).

Betsy and Zeus: Sorry. Seriously, I promise not to talk out loud like that again. And thanks.

Here, here! And a big "well done."

Thank you kids! It does this oldster's heart good just to hear you talk. Stephen: You had fingers and toes? Wow, were you a lucky kid!

That's one hell of a package deal you've constructed. I'm a cripple. I'm not able to produce my own living. I do not, however, accept any government subsidy of any kind. I live by the good graces of a husband who loves me enough that he chose to support me. I do everything that I can to support myself within this relationship. How does this make me a cannibal? A communist chooses his path; I have no such luxury. Am I condemned as a moral outcast because of something I did not choose?

Boy, I am tired! Please forgive the gross mistakes in grammar and spelling in my last two posts.

I am not against the use of nuclear weapons. Such weapons are not the panacea, however, that you seem to think they are. There are pluses and minuses to the use of any weapon. When contemplating the use of any weapon during war, one must give thought to the entire context governing the decision to use one weapon over another, including the consequences. These consequences involve more than the lives of our military personnel, and military planners must look at all of them. I had "second thoughts" about turning the Middle East into one huge piece of glass because I got over my emotional response and began to think critically about what would happen if we did so. The economic ramifications for the country extend beyond the lack of energy for business and personal use, and all that means. The consequences for the military of wiping out the production of oil in the Middle East includes endangering our ability to conduct the war. The military runs on oil. In order to keep fighting, a huge part of the oil reserves of this country, with whatever we would be able to buy in the markets that are left, would have to go to the military in order for it to remain viable. (This is why there was rationing during WWII.) This is a vital logistical concern -- you can't run a military, much less a war, without enormous logistical support, which depends (and includes) on fuel. (Most members of the military don't even carry a gun, they support those few who do.) Would the citizenry back up the use of nuclear weapons? If they won't, it would mean more than just political suicide for the president who authorized their use; it would mean suicide for the country because such use would split the country violently, and could end any support for fighting the enemy. We are already dangerously split. As long as the country is in the grip of its unreasoning fear of anything nuclear, the use of these weapons will be confined to deterence. That doesn't mean that I think it will necessarily remain like this. If we were nuked ourselves, god forbid, I think the gloves would be off. Right now, however, I don't think it is a politically viable option. We are fighting over 50 years of anti-nuclear propaganda and you won't overcome that overnight. "Collateral" damage: I want to put my concerns for the slaughter of innocents into perspective. When I speak of concern for "those who have to clean up the mess," I speak with some authority. My family was among the first military families allowed to live in Japan after the war. My mother was a nurse and worked with the American medical team that dealt with the survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. She never disputed the need to use those bombs -- she recognized that their use saved thousands of American lives (and even saved Japanese lives). She still had nightmares for the rest of her life. I don't take the consequences to our own people lightly, whether they are suffered by our forces or those civilians who work with our forces. Dealing with the aftermath of a mass slaughter isn't inconsequential to those who do it; it makes them a part of the "collateral" damage. If you are genuinly concerned about these people, you must take this fact into consideration. It isn't to be taken lightly. When I say that those who refuse to fight any other way but the nuclear way are living in a fantasy world, I mean that they are not making sober judgments based on ALL the facts that need to be considered. The actual effect of not fighting unless it is a nuclear fight is no different than John Kerry saying he won't fight unless the war is sanctioned by the UN -- there is no engagment with the enemy either way and they win by default. As for the "slaughter" of American forces: there has been no slaughter. Death on the battlefield is to be expected. The men and women who make up our forces understand this. Military planners calculate losses before every battle. Our country has invested more to protect its forces than any other country in the history of the world. It shows in the training, the equipment, and the tactics used. We've done an unprecedented job and it has resulted in amazingly few casualties in two theaters of the war. We've had fewer casualities in three years of war than we suffered in almost any single major battle fought in the Pacific in WWII. It will take a much greater danger to our military than the one they face right now to push us to accept the consequences of going nuclear in a big way. Lebanon, Somalia, the Khobar Towers and the USS Cole were worse than a slaughter. They represent lives thrown away because they were allowed to die without answer, and to no purpose. For a soldier, sailor, or Marine, this is senseless slaughter, not dying on the battlefield to secure (and avenge!) your country.

MisterSwig: First a caveat: I really didn't expect to have any further discussions on the election. I'm exhausted from doing so much writing; this is obvious from my last few posts, which are rambling. This is due to the nature of my illness, so I ask your indulgence. If you can't grant it, there's no need to read further. That said . . . . MisterSwig, you're assumptions about our military are contradictory: 1. You say that service members won't forsake their buddies or the security of this country just because Kerry is elected president. 2. You say that if they do, it will be because of the self-sacrificial war policies of both parties. You are partly right to think that the professional forces will not leave their buddies or the security of the country. No one I know in the military would do such a thing lightly (such as Kerry did in Viet Nam). These are people who have dedicated their lives to this country and the people they serve with. I will tell you, too, that during a war, loyalty to their compatriots is the greatest priority. This is called unit cohesion. It is drilled into them. But it is more than that. During a war, there is an intimacy that happens only to those who exist in the reality of battle. One's world becomes constricted to the moment, because there is nothing more "right now" than someone trying to kill you. This mind-set exists even when you are not immediately engaged in battle, because you must maintain a constant high state of alertness, even when the bullets aren't flying at that split second. The individual isn't alone in this, everyone in the unit is in the same boat. It is imperative that the unit acts as just that -- a single unit, because each one depends on all the others to do their job if anyone is to survive. Our culture, and so, our military, couches this fact in altruistic language. They always have. They don't have the philosophy to understand that one doesn't require an ideology of self-sacrifice to attain unit cohesion, or as a motivation to fight. A rational assessment of the situation would tell you that it is necessarially "all for one and one for all" if you are to survive. I don't expect people who have never considered such a concept to adopt this reasoning. I expect them to use the best method they have to evaluate, and express, what is required to achieve the mission and survive. Even so, the military doesn't promote self-sacrifice as the actual operating principle. General Patton said it best: (paraphrasing) The military doesn't expect you to die for your country; they expect you to make some other poor bastard die for his country. Everything in the training and equipment is geared to protect the life of the fighter. In almost every instance of heroism I know, the hero didn't act self-sacrificially -- he was doing his job. That so many heroes (mostly unsung) do their job in a spectaculor fashion speaks to the character and integrity of the hero, not to some sick need to sacrifice himself. That is precisely the method and motivation of our current enemies, not our own people. The military doesn't act without a purpose. They do what they do to complete their mission. If you understand this, you will see the contradiction I spoke of. Why should they continue their (life-threatening) work when their mission has been repudiated by the very people they are working for? THIS is when they would be acting self-sacrificially. Do not make the mistake of projecting your philosophy or motivations onto those who do not share them. The vast majority of our forces in Iraq do not see what they are doing as "dying for the Iraqis." This is your assessment, not theirs. They are there doing their job, running a mission that they believe in. They are the ones on the ground. They are the ones who know what is actually going on. We do not. They know who is trying to kill them and why. That is the reality they live with daily. This is why we must trust their assessment. When we try to replace their knowledge of the facts with our ignorance, we insult them. In effect, we are saying to them that they are good enough to go out and die for what we believe to be the facts, but not for what they know, and worse, that we are willing for them to die for our belief, but not for theirs. MisterSwig, I know that you are sincere when you worry about what you consider to be the unnecessary deaths in this war. I understand and appreciate your passion. I am passionate about this, too. Very. I don't think that you mean to insult the men and women who put themselves in the line of fire for the security of our country, but this is what you do. If the country does the same by electing the likes of Kerry, why would anyone choose to remain in danger? Or is this what you are counting on? On the Chris Matthews show, Kerry said that casualties were justified when legitimated by fighting under the auspices of the UN, but not when we are fighting for ourselves. Are you counting on our forces to sacrifice themselves for this?

In the military, there is an expression that is apt regarding the half-war, no-war argument: Overcome by events. This is something that Kerry doesn't seem to understand. He is arguing about something that has already occurred -- the Iraq war. There is nothing more to talk about except perhaps a post-action debriefing. The focus is on pacifying the country now, not winning the war. Now we can only throw our victory away. It isn't even surrender; I'm not sure what I would call it. Vietnamization? Bush says what he says about an Islamic Fundamentalist political structure because he knows that it won't happen. There is no way to wipe out Islam completely in the politics of the Middle East. The best that we can hope for is to plant the seeds of reform. If you do not understand this, I suggest that you study the history and nature of Islam (and, perhaps, human psychology). While the Iraqis are religious, they have a history of secularism that precedes the Baathists. They are better educated, on the whole, than almost any other Islamic country. It simply is not realistic to demand that we impliment a form of government that we do not own ourselves. We have the history, and part of the philosophy, to be a capitalist republic, yet we are heavily mixed politically, shading further and further towards socialism. I'll be happy if we can just neutralize Iraq as a source of danger. It isn't the best solution. I fear it isn't a permanant solution. History offers us few examples of "permanant" solutions, which is why the history of nations is a history of warfare. I'm thankful Dr. Binswanger wrote this editorial. I wish I could have been a part of the discussion on his list. <sigh> And the originator os this thread was right: if this doesn't prove that the accusations of dogmatism are wrong, I don't know what will. Perhaps "they" expect Dr. Binswanger to be "excommunicated."

Thank you, Betsy. What an extraordinary woman!

I see the post I wrote didn't make it to the thread. In that post, I said much the same thing -- without Seneca's elegance. Simply pointing the way to Objectivist materials is not always helpful, (unless, of course, that is what someone has asked for). There are those who, like me, aren't able to avail themselves of some of the more expensive materials for one reason or another. There are times when I wish that commenters would give their understanding of the point instead of simply saying one ought to read such and such. I give a brief demure to OPAR, AS and TF, because these works are so basic to understanding the overall philosophy. The later works of application are what I'm specifically talking about. I do have some questions on topic, but they'll have to wait for now.

In his lecture, "Kantianism vs Objectivism in The Fountainhead," Andrew Berstein states that Any Rand chose Kantianism as the foil for her heroes over other philosophies, including religion, because it was (and is) the most dangerous. He states explicitly that, while religion may surge, Kant's ideas are so deeply ingrained in the culture that they had to be her focus.

Perhaps this is because any interest has been beaten out of them by the time they finish their "education." Why would anyone waste their time studying philosophy when the teacher begins by telling the class that there is no such thing as philosophy?

Thanks for telling us about India. I think the important thing is simply exposure. It the ideas are out there, there will be people who will respond. This speaks to the fact that, regardless of race or culture, reason is reason, and a reasonable person will respond.

I took my niece to the Dallas Museum of Art soon after it opened. She was five. She was fascinated as we moved from room to room. Her face lit up, however, as we entered the vast gallery containing the smears and bloches of modern art. She clasped her hands together in glee as she exclaimed, "Oh! The children's room!" I've never heard a better, or more succinct, critique. There is a Doctor of Neurology teaching here in San Diego (SDSU) who claims to have found why people respond to Picasso (and by extension, to other primative [my term, not his] art-forms as well, such as multi-limbed goddesses from the Hindus). He says that the mind is possessed of certain patterns, especially face recognition patterns, which is what the viewer of Picasso responds to emotionally; specifically with the innocent emotions of a small child. I take it to mean, primative art elicits primative emotions in the viewer. To do this, the "art" must be non-conceptual. How any of this explains the anti-conceptual "art" of today, I don't know.