oldsalt

I like the Columbo series as well. I like Falk's portrayal. He comes across as honest, smart, understanding of human psychology, etc. I always enjoy that moment when the villian realizes that he has underestimated his nemesis and is in danger. The majority of the villians commit their murders because they are supremely confident that they are smarter than anyone else. They are sure they will get away with it because they are certain that they are smarter than that annoying little man in the rumpled coat. Columbo's seemingly slow wittedness, his incessent "innocent" questioning, his penchant for showing up at the most inopportune moments, all work insidiously to break down the villian's confidence and bring on a slow panic. I like, too, that the villians are alike only in the act of murder. Each one's evil is different in degree and motivation. Not all of them do murder to cover up something, or because of greed. There are those who murder to keep something they love, which a person of lesser character is trying to destroy, for instance. There are a couple of episodes where I find myself completely in sympathy with the murderer -- and so does Columbo. In these episodes, he shows respect where it is due, while completing his job He may not justify what has been done, but he understands it. I appreciate that.

One must remember the context within which the ancients were making their arguments. For instance, they never differentiated between "the sciences" and philosophy. All such knowledge fell under philosophy. They were at the beginning of knowledge and had not accumulated enough knowledge to distinquish one field from another. They understood that math was math, but math was considered a part of philosophy. Many metaphysical questions that they dealt with would be a subject for physics today. Aristotle began the study of what we would call natural science today, i.e., biology, botany, etc. My point is that one must not attempt to categorize certain ideas under modern rubrics. We have specialized knowledge today only because the ancients laid the groundwork for us, most especially Aristotle. Would you please site specific passages from both Aristotle and Miss Rand (or Dr. Peikoff, if necessary) to give us an idea of the comparisons you are making?

Thank you for sharing. I love it when we get people on the forum form countries other than the US. It is interesting that we get so few from Europe (or should I say "Old Europe?"). People who have experienced true oppression first hand know how to appreciate Miss Rand. I wonder what it is about India that makes Miss Rand such a favorite there. I'll be very curious to see how she does in Japan. The Japanese can be exceptionally rational in their thinking, as evidenced by their technical, engineering, and scientific advances. But they also have a compartmentalized way of thinking that is difficult for a westerner to grasp. It is very much a part of their language; thus, it is built into their conceptualization of reality.

Well done, AisA. Re: Kerry and Iran and Nukes Edwards first floated a trial balloon at a press conference about giving Iran fisionable material, etc, a couple of weeks ago. Within three days, Iran said, "Hogwash" (or something to that effect). This didn't stop Kerry from forwarding this "plan" again during the debates. I infer that he thinks he can talk them into it, using his Magic Wand of Diplomacy, I suppose. Of course, getting them to accept his "plan" would prove more disasterous than not (see North Korea, a place where he thinks he will succeed where Clinton (and Carter) failed.

I learned a long time ago never to allow personalities to define anything for me. The world is full of people who think that a smart mouth equates with intelligence. Welcome to the forum, deedlebee! You said that you are going to school in Texas. Are you from Texas? I was born there, but raised in Japan (and throughout Asia), and later in Oklahoma. Talk about culture clash!

Burt Rutan gave Leonard David, of Space.com, a good interview the day after winning the X-Prize. You can find it here: http://www.space.com/news/rutan_interview_041014.html I love this man's passion for what he does.

Kerry backed away from speaking in a church because one church where he spoke has already had their IRS status challenged. He's already spoken in many black churches, shoring up his own religious base. Jackson and Sharpton: two men who never met a camera they wouldn't break their necks to get in front of. (Please excuse the strained construction ) It wasn't just that Sharpton was allowed on the same stage as the legitimate candidates, thereby conferring a legitimacy for Sharpton he's never earned, that galled me. It was the blatant kissing up the other candidates did. They fell all over themselves to show respect to a man who has fomented riots and caused a murder, among his other vicious acts. Despicable behavior all around. As I said elsewhere, it's a sad state of affairs when we find ourselves having to even discuss such people, much less having to choose from among the entire depraved field of candidates, be they dems or reps. I resent having to defend anything Bush has done (beginning every sentence with "at least he's"). I'm not sure I'll ever wash the taste from my mouth. If it weren't for the war, and the forces doing the fighting, I'd abstain.

Yes: You have made several assumptions about me which flatly wrong. I am not a religious conservative; I am long time Objectivist philosophically, and politically, I am a Captialist. I am not anti-abortion, and I made no statement that would make anyone think that I am. Just because I have advocated voting for Bush -- on the single issue of the war -- that doesn't make me a conservative or a member of the religious right. As for Cheney: I don't like the man for reasons that have little to do with philosophy or this election. I don't like him because he was a large part, along with Kerry and the DoD, of a government cover-up of the POW/MIA situation with Viet Nam. The government has worked for normalization with that country and doesn't want folks like me (my husband's body was never recovered, the government just one day decided that he was KIA) who continue to demand answers to questions they don't want to even acknowledge. Kerry's committee was nothing more than a dog and pony show, ostensively performed for the benefit of several thousands of American citizens who are still making waves over the lack of any action on the government's part to make Viet Nam stick to their promises. Everyone wants these questions to just go away -- which they will eventually, just like such questions did over the Korean war. My characterizations were mere sketches of the qualifications of each candidate. Nothing more, nothing less. Please notice that I didn't say that that they were philisophical qualifications for the job. Since not a single candidate running anywhere for any office is philosophically qualified -- a fact obvious to any Objectivist -- I find no purpose in bringing it up. There's been ample discussion of the political philosophies governing the candidates elsewhere on this forum.

I might give a thought to the animal "rights" people if they gave a single nano-second of thought to human beings with the same verve they give to animals. Think for a moment what it would mean if every human being on the earth was a vegetarian. What, pray tell, would happen to the soil if we depended solely on plant material to feed us? Every spare acre not holding a man standing would have to be cultivated to feed the billions now living. We couldn't afford to allow a single animal to live. We couldn't handle the competition and we couldn't spare the space. How long would we survive? (And how long would Thoyd remain gainfully employed ) PETA's goal obviously isn't life, human or otherwise.

When asked, "How did this happen?" the only answer I heard was something about contaminated product. So I looked further. Here is what I found: The CDC caused this shortage. They finagled a low-cost bulk buy backed by the government gun. Because of this, very few companies are producing the vaccine anymore because the government's price barely covers the costs. The vaccine differs every year. It isn't as though they are producing the same product over and over, but must invest extra man-hours and costly lab work investigating which strain of the flu to culture vaccine for on a yearly basis. Since many fewer companies are producing the vaccine, when there is a problem with one company's product, there's no one left to take up the slack. Now that the government has entered the market in a big way through the medicare prescription program, we'll see more of this in all areas of pharmaceuticals. This is just a small taste of things to come. Scary, huh!

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I occasionally visit Dean's World, but this interview was before my discovery of blogs. Cox & Forkum are my favorite political cartoonists. I'm happy to see their work spread. It's a good interview. I would, however, like to know why I haven't been issued my hat!

A West: Thanks for the links. None of the figures tell the whole story, of course. They don't tell us of the impending change in demographics from the low birth rate of Europeans and the increased immigration of Muslims into all of Europe. The majority of the immigrants live on welfare. When their economies implode from the increased pressure of the costs of all their social programs, it will be devastating. The eminent Middle Eastern and Islamic scholar, Dr. Bernard Lewis, wrote that Europe would be Muslim by the end of the century, at the latest. This is nothing new, but Europe seems afraid to do much about it -- with cause, I might add. They have much to fear from a financially dependent, but culturally unassimalated population.

Congratulations Betsy! I always look forward to your posts, as well as Stephen's. You've both done so much to further my understanding. For this I offer my deepest appreciation. Perhaps I ought to break up my long-winded posts to catch up.

Tom, you can tell your father that he was right: the war in Iraq happened because of oil. It just wasn't the our oil interests; it was France's, and the Russia's interest in oil that caused the war. Now that the story of the utter corruption of the international community is ever so slowly making its way into the publics awareness, by way of the UN Oil-for-Food scandal, we are learning that France and Russia (to name only the biggest players) told Saddam not to worry about the storm gathering on his doorstep because they wouldn't let the US go to war against him. Saddam couldn't let the status of his WMD be known because of the damage to his prestige. It was their oil deals that allowed Saddam to keep them in line, not ours. (For anyone interested in the UNScam story, check out the Wall Street Journal archives. Their journalist is the only one who has been on this story, to the shame of the rest of the media.) So, your father is correct, in a way, just not the way he thinks. I know our guys are getting tired; they have every right to be. Nothing wears you out like living in an atmosphere of fear, and there's no greater atmosphere of fear than a war. When I was in Viet Nam, I always felt it worse while in relative safety at a base hospital than I did at a forward aid station. The occasional missle, or hand granade, or sniper, is harder to live with than the constant. In my experience with soldiers in the field, this isn't something that they talk about very much, or even recognize for themselves. It is a part of the job, so once accepted, most are loathe to bring it up. It plays on the mind like chinese water-torture, though, and is very wearing. The reason for the loss of morale is (generally speaking) two-fold. 1. Among the reservists and Guardsmen, it is because they have been deployed repeatedly since Bosnia. These are people who have said that they will leave their jobs and their families to serve in an emergency. This differs from our regular forces, who have already made the decision to be separated from their families on a regular basis. Though a business is supposed to hold a member's job, the reality is that a member suffers loss of pay and loss of promotion. The "emergency" in Bosnia, and like adventures, isn't quite what they had in mind. The second, and ultimately more important, reason for any general loss of morale is due to what is happening here at home. Aside from what they hear from family and friends, the "news" they get consists of the distorted reports, and down-right lies, of the media. The people who are there know that we aren't getting the truth, bad or good. The media (and the Dems) have pounded at the idea that we have no business in Iraq and are losing. Many loudly vocal citizens agree. How long would you be keen to keep at it when you know that, not only do you not have support at home, but that your fellow soldiers, Marines and sailors are being abused? Why would you want to continue to fight for your country when your country rejects your efforts? Shades of Viet Nam; I can't tell you how much it disgusts me. Part of the blame for this lies with the Bush administration for an almost total lack of propaganda backing the war and the actual thinking behind it. What they do tell us is inarticulate drivel. We are "nation building," not because we are so wonderfully altruistic, but because we are seeking to neutralize the enemy and all that backs him. It is the long-term goal to secure the US. If you read the history of the Middle East, it is easy to see how they came to this solution. (Plus, of course, they have the example of post WWII to inspire them.) For those who worry about Iran: Do you honestly think that the military that has planned, fought and won two spectacular battles has no plans drawn up for that country? And Syria? Just because Bush plays the political game doesn't mean that we won't take care of Iran. Only an irresponsible government announces its plans for war for the world to see. The clues are there to see, however, if you pay attention. Most of this war is being fought behind the scenes, as Bush told us would happen. Just because we don't hear about certain things doesn't mean nothing is happening. Remember that our resources in men and material are not unlimited. Wars are fought and won based on logistics as much as force. Even the US is not able to be everywhere at once. I reiterate that what happens on the home front, the support given the troops especially, is as important in the conduct of the war as any other variable. It doesn't mean that we sit back and swallow our opinions, but it does mean that we must trust the professionals to a certain extent. We are ignorant of too much information to opine with certainty. Remember, knowing the philosophy of science won't make you a rocket scientist, anymore than knowing Objectivist philosophy will make you an expert in warfare or geopolitics. As an aside: The Deifer (sp?) Report is some 1000 pages long. The media took a paragraph from the first few pages and have turned it into an election talking point. They chose what they did because it seems, taken completely out of context, to justify the stance taken by so many reporters. If you slog your way through that report, however, you will get a much different picture of the danger Iraq posed than the one the Dems and the MSM is painting. You will also have a good understanding of the role our "allies" in Europe, the UN, certain media people, and various politicians in several countries played in making war with Saddam inevitable. It also gives an (inadvertant) insight as to why the media has treated everything associated with Iraq the way they have. It is an important report, and I highly recommend it. I'm sorry for all the long posts. I don't know if the subject doesn't lend itself to brevity, or I'm too inept to express myself succinctly.

Not being a guy -- and the stooges are definitely a guy thing -- I have no opinion. But, my husband said the same thing when I asked him. No hesitation.

It really is a sad state of affairs when Objectivists find themselves arguing over two such perfect mediocraties. I'll be so glad when this is over!

Thank you for excepting my apology, MisterSwig. I'm happy to start over. From an article by Ross MacKenzie on Oct. 14, 2004: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/rossmac...m20041014.shtml Oct. 11 editions of Military Times publications (Navy Times, Army Times, Marine Corps Times, Air Force Times) carried an astounding story not likely to get much coverge in the establishment press. [Which it hasn't. JB] Staff writer Gordon Trowbride wrote as follows: Bush leads Democratic Sen John Kerry 73 percent to 18 percent in a voluntary survey of 4,165 active duty, National Guard, and reserve subscribers. <snip> Officers and enlisted troops, active-duty members and reservists, those who have served in combat zones and those who haven't, all supported Bush by large margins. And the survey hints that Kerry's emphasis of his decorated service in Vietnam may have done more harm than good with those in uniform. The article also sites Kerry's failure to sign Pentagon Form 180 authorizing the release of all his military records and the failure to authorize the republication of his "peacenik book," The New Soldier, that first appeared in the early 1970's (the book can now be found on the net). The attempt by CBS to smear President Bush's military record using fabricated documents didn't help Kerry with the military either. Their experience with journalists lumps the Dems and the MSM together. To continue: Finally, the Military Times survey may be telling Kerry and the Democates that a hefty military majority sees through the careful veneer of moderation to the deeply ingrained leftism that drives him. Kerry has been hostile to the military;. . . [he] led peacenik demonstrations, decried the American military as reeking with war criminals. . . . His 20-year Senate record . . . is one of uninterrupted hostility to almost every military weapons system and almost every military enterprise proposed during that time. When assessing whether the "enterprises" ought to have been voted against or not, do not substitute your premises for Kerry's. While Objectivists may also have been against certain actions for reasons specific to the situation, Sen. Kerry has been against the projection of American force on principle. The money quote: Those in the military resent the prospect of risking their lives ith him as their commander in chief in a war he terms "wrong" and "a grand diversion" -- with allies he terms "coerced and bribed." This jibes with everything I've heard from the Marine and Naval personnel I've personally spoken with. There are always breakdowns within a military command, such as is discribed in the CapMag article. I would also cite what happened at Abu Graib (I know that's not spelled right ) prison. It happens when you have a weak leader. I don't discount the uncertainty engendered by what is happening at home, either, and what it does to morale. I would advise people, however, to be careful about assigning or projecting your thinking onto those in the military. If you've never served, it is impossible for you to understand the culture. Even those who serve short tours do not understand, or fit into, the culture. There is a certain "military bearing" that is required for a professional serviceman or woman. A good example of the way most military people think, especially those serving "in country," is given in a comment to a VodkaPundit post dated Oct. 14: (The link I had doesn't seem to be working. ) "I'm an Army battalion commander currently serving in the heart of Baghdad. It's difficult for me to express how important this election is to those of us currently in harm's way. First let me say that my brigade combat team has been here 6 months. In this time, we have lost over 25 soldiers and had 300 seriously wounded. Yet, in my battalion alone I have reenlisted over 100 soldiers. I have less than 20 soldiers a day go on sick call out of 600. Amazing when you consider the oppressive heat during the summer. I tell you this because our soldiers know they are making a difference, and absolutely believe in this mission. We don't give a rat's ass about WMDs and know we are not fighting for oil. Truly, first and foremost we believe that we are defending America by attacking the enemy on his turf. [Emphasis mine.] For God's sake, what do people think the likes of Zarqawi/OBL would be doing if they were not on the run trying to prevent us from establishing modern states in the Islamist world? There is no safe haven! This is only true because the US Army and Marine Corps is in his back yard. . . . What an insult to tell those of us who know, and are doing the fighting and dying, that this is the "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place." Imagine the effect on our military if we have a commander in chief who believes our brothers and sisters have died in vain. . . ." Of course, one can never know who writes in the comments section of a blog, but this is exactly the kind of thing I hear all the time from people in the service -- especially the officers, so I'll trust it. You can find the same kind of thing in almost any milblog. We may disagree that the Iraqi theater of war is a valid part of the WOT. If, however, you are expecting this country to maintain its superb fighting forces after electing Kerry -- forces required to fight the war you would support -- I suggest that these are facts that ought to be taken into consideration. What options would be left to us but a draft, and a greatly degraded military force as a consequence, if the professionals leave in droves. I wouldn't count on them "just taking it" as MisterSwig suggests. You've no idea how many career officers and non-coms left the service after Viet Nam. It took decades to recover and we don't have decades. The military doesn't want a draft. (nor is it even legal at this point, a fact Kerry knows well, but ignores in order to scare young people). Today's forces take years to become the highly trained people they are. No one goes into the field anymore after a few weeks in boot camp. A draft army cannot fight the way we fight now; instead of a technically sophisticated, precision war, we'd have large numbers of bodies thrown at the enemy. Please don't counter with the fact of our nuclear weapons. As I've said before, the culture is no where near the point where it would allow wide-spread use of nuclear weapons. To continue to use this as a point of debate, at this time, is to engage in constructing fantasy scenarios while America struggles for its continued existence. To close, I want to address the idea that our forces don't like "dying for the Iraqis." Firstly, they don't see it that way, as the letter above indicates. Secondly, our forces are not killing robots. They actually like to do positive things that offset the killing they must do. They see the value of lifting the oppression from Iraqis', and they know that most Irais, while they don't like being occupied, know that the alternative is much worse. The majority of Iraqis -- contrary to what you'll hear from the MSM -- are afraid the Americans will leave too soon. You don't understand the effect of witnessing the opening of a mass grave, or seeing the torture chambers, etc., has on Americans. They see justice in what they are doing, because they see the injustice that has gone before. It is a very American reaction, born of the best of the American sense of life.

As I sat before my television on the morning of September 11, 2001 and watched the horror unfold, two thoughts occured to me: The first was that we were at war. The second came in the form of an alarm bell ringing in my head; "Now we'll see," I thought. Like most alarm bells, I didn't yet know consciously what I meant by that statement. It took me a while to fill in the blanks. So much is wrapped up in what happened to this country during the Viet Nam war. It wasn't just the war; though that was a big part of it, losing the war was an effect caused by the deeper problems that came about when the New Left, led by the old progressive intelligensia in education, took over the universities (which promptly capituated) and the Civil Rights movement. After we surrendered in Viet Nam, the country was exhausted from a decade of war, riots, burning cities, and Watergate, and would not ask the crucial questions about how we had come to near anarchy. Everything was swept under the rug, while the New Left graduated from college and entered into their preferred occupations: Education, politics, psychology, sociology and ecology. The issues which confronted the country were allowed to be defined by these people, who were proud and confident after such stunning successes as ending the war and bringing down Nixon. The Right was left utterly demoralized. So, here we are, fighting another war while scratching at the walls of the politically correct, environmentally friendly, multi-cultural abyss, populated by every kind of newly minted victim of the New Left (which, in its latest incarnation, is defined by Transnational Progressivism -- see Europe). Much of the country has been disarmed by government education and years of unquestioned acquiescence to the piece-meal degradation of the best of Americanism. Those on the Right are turning to that old time religion in search of values, and are threatening to throw out the secular baby with the bath water. The New Left has lost the intellectual war and is once again turning to overt violence -- true to its birth. Objectivists are a small minority, too small yet to be politically effectual. Though this is changing, I am concerned that our voice will be drowned out in the din of the War of Altruistic Power between the mystics of muscle and the mystics of the mind. And then, of course, there's that third bunch of mystics trying to kill us all, regardless of of party affiliation. That we are having so much trouble even defining the war is a consequence of the failures of the Viet Nam era. The little piece of flotsam quoted in that article above represents one more piece of the puzzle defining what the alarm I heard in my head on 9-11 signified.

In post #48, which I addressed specifically to MisterSwig, I ostensively asked him to please answer the question I posed at the beginning of this thread. I couched that post in language that I now regret and I apologize to MisterSwig for the tone of the post. That I was feeling frustrated with the fact that the discussion had turned to the same talking points being discussed on other threads is no excuse. I don't like that tone in others, but I especially don't like that tone coming from me. It does nothing to advance my own arguments in particular, or the discussion in general. So, I apologize to MisterSwig for my gratuitous swipe at him, and I apologize to those who have participated in the thread.

I thought of Atlas as well. I thought of all the people lined up to watch and it made me think of the running of the first train on the John Galt Line, and how the people turned out to see a superlative accomplishment. I envy you that day in the desert. And, I'm thrilled for Mr. Rutan and his team. It is a wonderful success story about some very bold and brave people.

MisterSwig: I've read your valid arguments, what I consider to be your invalid arguments, your cynical diatribes, and your sneering comebacks. We both know that we don't agree and that neither is going to convince the other of each particular position. What I haven't read are any answers to the question I posed and the topic of this thread: What do you think will be Kerry's response to the WOT and what do you think his relationship will be with the troops? Everytime I bring up the military, you give me some form of "not in my name." Fine. I've had many discussions about this with members of the military and I can tell you that our forces are well aware of this particular group of Americans and are happy to ignore them while they fight for their families and their country. Believe me when I tell you that they are not fighting or dying in your name. Since you are for Kerry, I would appreciate knowing what you think the the consequences of a Kerry presidency will be for the military? Since most people in the military have little respect for Kerry, what do you see as their reaction to his election? Please try to answer this seriously. I know you are able to make a reasoned argument without the acid dripping from your tongue, the cynicism and the disrespect because I've read posts where you've done so to good effect. I appeal to your mind in this matter, not your emotions. I genuinely want to know what you think about this specific question.

Post deleted. Wrong tread. My apologies.

Of course, even conservatives are privy to the truth. I don't listen to Rush, nor do I read Coulter, and I can't stand Hannity. I managed to see what I see all by myself. I thank you for putting me on your ignore list, though. That was very thoughtful of you.

I read the article as well. Kerry actually let it be known how he will "fight" the war -- excuse me, the police problem, without all the "I will kill the terrorists" rhetoric that his handlers insist on. He thereby exposes the fact that he exists, not in reality as we know it, but in a Potemkin village. He yearns to "get back to where we were," when terrorism is just a nuisance, like prostitution and illegal gambling. As a former law enforcment official, a prosecutor, he knows that we will never rid ourselves of the criminal. We must treat it the way we treat the mafia -- make sure it isn't on the rise. (And they call Bush a pragmatist!) "This isn't the Sands of Iwo Jima," he avers, from which I infer that he's had enough of all this John Wayne-rah-rah American-playing at war BS. Kerry views the entire war as illegitimate. He means it when he talks about diplomacy being the answer to the problem. His fantasy coalition consists of the various Arab countries and old Europe. His thinking is that we must find out what the Arabs want and compromise (cough "appease"). He thinks that we must once again sit down with the Dear Leader for bilateral talks. The countries which will be affected first, Japan, South Korea, and China, don't need to be involved. They aren't involved because they have nothing to bribe the Dear Leader with (China is nominally on North Korea's side. That Bush got them to pressure the Dear Leader in the first place was a diplomatic coup.) The fact that this policy is what put us in peril in the first place seems not to play a part in his fairy tale world of diplomacy. He thinks that we ought to talk the Iranians into buying nuclear material from us so that we can monitor its use. He has even offered to give it to them if they will acceed to this stipulation. This is obviously based on the idea that Iran is merely seeking nuclear material for the peaceful use of nuclear power and not its stated intentin to have a "Muslim bomb." So far the Iranians have laughed at this proposal. If they persist, Mr. Kerry has stated that he will go to the UN and ask for sanctions. The Iranians are biting their nails as we speak. In both these cases, Kerry advocates this course of action based on the premise that America has no legitimate right to ask any other country -- regardless of that country's stated intent, or whether it is even sane -- to give up their right to have the same weapons we do. Every country is equal in the eyes of Kerry. If we don't have these weapons, it will no longer be legitamate for these countries to have them either. Since we all know that legitimacy is the paramount value sought by every country, they will no longer have any need to seek a nuclear capability. It's all so clear! Kerry will withdraw (surrender) from Iraq as quickly as possible. It will not matter to him what happens to the country after we're gone. It does not matter that we will be handing the enemy a victory he could not hope to attain otherwise. For an example of this particular "plan," you need look no further than Viet Nam. There is a difference this time, however. The Vietnamese had no ambition to conquer this country, the Islamist does. Do not kid yourself on this point: Islam preaches patience of a sort that is generational. What is one lifetime when the goal is the spread of The Religion of Peace. It is Allah's world and it is their duty to die getting it for him. I won't go into the horrors of Kyoto or socialized medicine. It was hard enough reading this inbred, nuanced clap-trap the first time. Elizabeth: Trying to understand Islam is like attempting to understand the history of Christianity in one lesson. Islam, like every mystical belief system, has a myriad of sects, most of which hate each other. The history and the pathology are complex, as is the savage atavism of its consequent societies. One thing is certain: You will learn virtually nothing from the American mainstream media. Try some of the better blogs: Little Green Footballs regularly prints articles from Arab newpapers. Read some of the Iraqi blogs. MEMRI translates articles from Arab sources. There are English edition Arab newpapers and magazines. Also check out the Asian newspapers. Yahoo has links to several good English edition media from Asia. Read carefully though. I've learned to glean as much from what isn't said, or how something is said, as from anything I accept as true. That ought to be enough to get you started.

Thank you Betsy. It is precisely the context of the war that I think has been given short-shrift in this argument. Nothing about the military has been given any consideration, other than statements about the casualty rate. About that, I would defy anyone to name any war in history where a regime has been overthrown at such a price in men. Our military has and is performing magnificiently -- a fact overshadowed by the fervent wish to be living in some ahistorical world where things are done without loss to our side, and with the indiscriminate mass slaughter of anyone in our way to the enemy. I assume that all of those who advocate this slaughter will be joining up and volunteering to be the ones to go in and clean up the mess -- and live the rest of their lives with the memories and the nightmares, right? Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Everytime John Kerry lets it be known that he thinks Iraq is the wrong war and the wrong time in the wrong place, Americans die in theater. The rise in terrorist attacks in Iraq are meant to intimidate, to effect the elections here and in Iraq. Kerry's words tell our enemies that victory is just an election away. After all, they threw the mighty Soviet army out of Afganistan, and they can now taste the victory of American retreat from Iraq. This war is the fundamental context of my vote. The other issues are internal issues to be fought intellectually, and not in a way that endangers this country's safety from fascists who would cut your head off without regard to your philosophy. If you are unhappy with the way the war is being fought, start a movement for a more aggresive war and let your voice be heard. Start a blog. Write letters to editors and politicians. Get experts on your side -- military experts, not philosophy professors. Dr. Lewis and Dr. Peikoff are correct that we must battle philosophically, and ARI is doing that job. But where are the foot soldiers in the movement? Where are the ad hoc activists to convince those who aren't going to sit for philosophical debates about which is worse: Marxist/nihilism or Christian Platonic Pragmatism. Argue the issue. There are plenty of people out there who are aggitating for a more aggressive war. (The same ought to be done about 1st Amendment issues.) You aren't helpless in these battles, and you don't have to wait until the country is Objectivist -- you should live so long. It is dangerous -- historically dangerous -- to say that we won't do anything about this war unless and until we do it perfectly according to Objectivist precepts. We won't have a country left if we underestimate the enemy, and the enemy will not sit on their thumbs until we've resolved the question. The point may be rendered moot anyway. Mr. Kerry and his 10,000 lawyers, his international election monitors, the voter fraud that is already evident, the mass voter registrations meant to overtax the system so that claims of disenfranchisment can be made -- all will cause a civil explosion in this country come election day. I doubt the philosophical points of Objectivism, or any other philosophy, will be heard in the screaching of the protestors. The only things that will be heard in such a racket are the explosions of terrorist bombs. If this happens, we'll be wishing there was a God to save us from ourselves. I'm sorry. I've been feeling very pessimistic lately. Betsy, you once wrote that Objectivists were human just like everybody else, only more so. You were right.