oldsalt

Well, first I posted on the wrong thread, and now I realize that I made a factual mistake in that post. I said that Kerry went to Paris on his honeymoon in 1973. The correct date is 1970. Sorry for all the flubs. I promise to use the bandwidth more efficiently in the future.

Oh geez, I just realized that I wrote that last post here instead of the "Peikoff for Kerry" thread. Sorry to plop it down in the middle of this particular discussion. It doesn't exactly address Bush's campaign strategy, now does it? I need a nap.

Welcome! I felt the same way when I discovered Miss Rand's novels and philosophy. Isn't it a wonderful feeling! As for wishing you had found her earlier, well. . .better late than never. I look forward to reading your contributions to the discussions.

Welcome to the forum! I look forward to your posts. I like the name.

Welcome to the forum! For someone who is brand new, your language skills are remarkable.

Andreas: Welcome to the forum! Don't be shy about joining in or asking questions. It gladdens my heart to meet Objectivists or students of Objectivism from other countries. (I admit to feeling a little thrill of jealousy, however. I do well to speak proper English, much less write it. I envy those who speak more than one language.)

Oop! I accidentally double posted. Sorry about that.

Welcome to the forum! You'll find lots of spirited debate here. I, too, am a Texan and I moved to California 18 years ago. It was my experience then that one did not have to go through North Carolina to get to California. There are more direct routes. (No one ever gets my humor around here, so I'll tell you right now that the above is a joke. 'Kay?)

Stephen and CapitalismForever: Thanks guys!

I would add another outrage to Kerry's resumé, one that people seem to glide over (when they speak of it at all). In 1973, while on his honeymoon in Paris, Mr. Kerry used his father's diplomatic connections to meet with the representatives of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong at the peace talks. Upon his return to the states, he explicitly endorsed their "peace" proposals. John Kerry enlisted in the U.S. Navy and served on active duty in Viet Nam from November 1968-March 1969. From 1970-1978, Kerry served in the U.S. Navy Reserves (inactive). So in 1973, Mr. Kerry was still on the Navy rolls as a Lt. From the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) Article 104: Aiding the enemy: Text: "Any person who (1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money or other things, or (2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or hold any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct." Under the explanation: "Nature of the offense: (6) Communicating with the enemy (a) Nature of the offense. No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly." It speaks volumes about the turmoil this country was experiencing that John Kerry was not tried for treason. By his own words, he is guilty. This is in addition to the war crimes he claimed to have committed. I submit that this man hasn't got the right to hold the office of dog catcher, much less the highest office in the land. Regardless of your views on the Viet Nam war, or on the Christian/Marxist debate, no one with this man's history ought to be president of this country. To vote for him is to spit in the face of every honest man and woman who ever fought for our freedom, beginning with the revolution. Burgess: That there are atrocities committed during war is nothing new. To claim, as Kerry did while under oath, that My Lai was an everyday occurrance and Lt. Calley was merely the representative of our forces in Viet Nam, was to tar every single sailor, soldier, and Marine who fought in that war with the same criminal brush. To say that this was condoned, and indeed ordered by the entire chain of command, is to undermine the very defense of this country -- which was exactly the consequence of his actions, a consequence which is still playing out today.

Only someone who has never sought athletic expertise would say that it is mainly a physical activity. If everyone is capable of being the inventor and businessman Edison was, the world would be full of Edisons. There is no more egalitarianism in intellectual pursuits than there is in athletic pursuits. Both require a devotion to focus, self-discipline, the acquisition of knowledge, hard work, the ambition to seek to be the best, and the love of life required to sustain all of the above. Tell Lance Armstrong that all he's needed is to be "genetically" strong physically, and that his mind plays only a small part in his success. Beware of overgeneralizing. Like everything else in life, some sports require more intellectual input than others. I've found many of the individual performances at the Olympics to be very inspiring. I admire those who demonstrate the self-discipline involved in years of mental focus and hard physical work, especially those who have done so from an early age.

It will be interesting to see how far the protestors go. If they aren't careful, they will bring out the Republican vote in a way the RNC could never accomplish. (This actually happened in the '68 election when then country resoundingly rejected McGovern, whose adherents turned Chicago into an armed camp.) These people are so vicious that no one with half a mind would side with them. While there are those boomers who are nostalgic for the good ol' days of the 60's and 70's, there are many more of us who never participated, and who actually remember that this kind of thing lead to near anarchy, with its attendent death and destruction. We are already under threat of burning cities from the Islamists. One would hope that no one wants to see it coming from our own citizens once again. I sometimes wonder just what these same people will do if they lose. They are already setting things up, with their "monitors" and their lawyers, to dispute the election. The graceless Gore set a lousy precedent.

What Stephen said.

Mr. Wakeland is perfectly able to answer the questions posed, but I would like to point out a couple of things: 1. Whether or not we ought to have been in Viet Nam is irrelevant to the facts of Mr. Kerry's record, both during his active duty, and during his activities after he came home. That record demonstrates his character and beliefs. (Even a cursory look at his record will inform you that he has no character and is a thorough-going anti-militarist, anti-American Marxist.) 2. The "Kerry's v. Bush's" military service aspect of the debate is one started by Michael Moore, who first accused President Bush of being a deserter, and DNC national chairman Terry McAuliff, who accused Bush of being AWOL. The mainstream media jumped on this bandwagon and demanded that President Bush release all of his military records, which he promptly did. Where is the mainstream media on Kerry's story? If you want to write to the Bush Campaign, my suggestion is that you direct your comments to the blatant attempt at an end-run around the first amendment. Insist that he abide by his oath to uphold and protect the constitution by protecting our most cherished right of free political speech. As for Kerry, write to his campaign and insist that he sign form 180 and release his full military records, as the president did.

I'm sorry my arguments in that last post are so scattershot. It's late and I'm very tired. I hope you guys can make sense of it.

I see a great deal of rationalization going on in this discussion. It is a mistake to argue any pure philosophy without a full acknowledgement of how people actually believe and act on those ideas. To say that we don't have to worry about the Islamists because Israel has been fighting them for a long time and survived is to ignore the fact that Israel has not done so on its own. Without the economic power of the U.S., Israel would not still be holding on. One must also acknowledge the fact that Israel has an internal problem with both religion and socialism which is much worse than ours. They are holding their own because of us (even though our support has always been uneven). It is also important to remember that, in reality, when we do battle with socialist ethics we are doing battle against religious ethics. We are not arguing primarily against who ought to be the beneficiary of the ethics of self-sacrifice, but the ethics of self-sacrifice itself. MisterSwig makes his argument from a rather malevolent point of view that ignores the full context. As a consequence, he treats all religious Americans as though they were one vast Jim Jones collective, with no regard for the fact the widely diverse interpretations of religion in this country which precludes the kind of collective action he fears. MisterSwig also seems to have succumbed to rather hysterical political arguments concerning the economy -- without any understanding of economic theory, history, or economic reality. If one wants to contemplate a true economic disaster, consider what just one or two attacks from the Islamists, using even the most primative versions of WMD, would accomplish in short order. Just because the Left is in its death throes doesn't mean that the danger is past. They're brain-dead, but the body still breathes. Marxism is transitioning once again and its latest mutation is Transnational Progressivism -- i.e., the socialism of the EU. (There is an excellent abstract outlining the theory and methods of TP written by John Fonte, entitled "The Ideological War Within the West." I'm having trouble with the link, so you'll have to google it.) The goal is still Marx's historically inevitable "one world", but the methods of reaching that vast collective have changed. Like the Christians before them, today's Marxists have decided that it wasn't the philosophy that caused all the death and destruction, it was the people who were corrupt. The methods of TP are multiculturalism (racism), environmentalism (anti-progress), diversity (collectivism), political correctness (thought control), Post-modern humanism (altruism), and a virulent pacificism (self-hatred). (Fonte's abstract is much more inclusive. Check it out.) John Kerry is Peter Keating of the new American TP elites. There is not a single premise of the EU elites that he does not agree with. His flip-flops are seeming only; he has been consistent in his hatred for Americanism and has taken every opportunity, both during that war and in his subsequent Senate career, to undermine every fundamental American value. This is why his record in Viet Nam is important; his record shows his character in all its Keatingesque degeneracy. When I rehearsed that local news story about the woman who used the trunk of her car as a baby-sitter, it was to underline the pervasiveness of the insidious and depraved materialist philosophy behind the actual reporting of that incident. By-the-bye, MisterSwig, we are not losing the war. You sound just like the Leftist hand-wringers. The only words you haven't yet used are "quagmire" and "exit strategy". You could profit from a study of the history of warfare and of the politics of war.

Mr. Wakeland: Twice now you have stated explicitly the reasons behind my conclusions. Thank you. Would that I owned that kind of competence. I can give an example of how all-pervasive materialism is in our society, drawn from last night's local news: This stupid woman wanted to go to a bar for a birthday party, but she didn't have a baby-sitter for her son. Her solution was to take her son with her and use the trunk of her car as a baby-sitter. (Apparently she has made a habit of doing this.) After giving us these brief facts, the news anchor cut to an interview with a family psychiatrist, to help us "understand", I guess. He informed us that while this kind of thing appeared to be on the rise, he felt that it has always been a problem and was only now being widely reported. (Heard that one before?) The conclusion reached by all, after the usual chit-chat among the anchors, was that we'd probably never know if the poor woman had suffered similar abuse as a child. (The child, by the way, was only mentioned in the first (factual) part of the story. He was never mentioned again.) Ask yourself what is missing from this news analysis. Then ask yourself how our culture got to the point where the focus of this story is the "poor" woman. After that, ask yourself if you are safe in a culture that thinks like this. There is no difference between the thrust of this little story and Chomsky, Sontag, and Moore (and their protesting puppets) lecturing us that we brought 9-11 on ourselves.

Thanks for the heads-up, Don. I'm glad to see someone take those people to task. Way too much time is spent having to deal with their foolishness. Branden gets worse all the time (if that's possible). This is long overdue. Nate: You are right to think that this is too silly to even think about, but these people have managed to gather way too many malcontents under their anti-Objectivist wing. They are all about personalities, slandering Ms. Rand and Objectivism while claiming to be proponents. The subject won't die and it needs to be addressed, even thought it doesn't deserve such attention.

I don't know that I would say that everyone who uses a pawn shop is "too lazy to sustain their existence." There are times in life when someone finds themselves in dire straits financially despite their hard work. I think Argive99's explanation hits closer to the symbolic mark of the quote.

Keyes reminds me of the way Bush, Sr. was able to breach his integrity for a chance to run as Reagan's VP. Bush pulled the same switch on the abortion issue. It's too bad. Keyes held several key positions which would have made me vote for him, but he seems to have no problem changing his tune. I sometimes wonder if a fundamental inability to maintain any consistency is at the top of the list for political office. I am a huge fan of Rumsfeld. His leadership at Defense is the main reason I will stick with Bush. Who in the world would Kerry put in his place? I shutter to think! Nor do I care to contemplate what it would do to our military. It is easy to imagine a mass exodus of military personnel under Kerry. Things were bad enough with Clinton. Unfortunately, Sec. Rumsfeld is already in his 70's. I can't imagine him remaining in gov. service after Bush (especially if he serves 4 more years). He's a very robust man, but the stresses involved right now with his job are tremendous. Of course, the political climate makes his job all the more difficult. I do wonder what Rice will do, though. She certainly would make a superior candidate to Hillary. It would be interesting to watch the two vie for the presidency.

Zeus: HA! See what I mean about trying to talk to some people about abstract philosophical ideas? The author of this critique doesn't have a clue. She had no idea what she was reading. I suspect that the innocent honesty of her youth dissipated in the acid of religion a long time ago. Note the difference between what she remembers from reading The Fountainhead when young, and her experience (as an obviously die-hard Christian) when reading Atlas as an adult.

AshRyan: I don't think you understand the context within which I am advocating the line of argument I laid out. Perhaps I wasn't concise, so I'll try to be more specific. I am talking about discussions one might have with individuals who are not especially open to philosophical discussions -- and this encompasses a very large section of the population. It is the individual who would vote for or against any level or version of theocracy, or any policy that would further lead us towards a theocracy. When I said "let's forget the squawkers" I meant that none of us is debating a Robertson or Buchanan (both of whom made very poor showings in the polls when they ran for president, by the way). When most of us are in a discussion of this kind, we are speaking to individual Christians who may, or may not be listening to these people, or others like them. Such people can be made to think about what they are actually hearing. I certainly do not advocate forgetting our ultimate goal, God forbid . What I am trying to define for myself is a method of buying us the time we need to reach that goal. We don't have the time to convince our fellow citizens of the virtues of what amounts to a completely alien philosophy. What we require is the time for Objectivist ideas to reach the children and grandchildren of this generation. You won't get far if you demand all or nothing of people because they will take the nothing from Objectivism and stick with what they know. Remember that Objectivism demands that one always begin with reality. The reality here is that you will never have any kind of instantaneous convertion of the people of this country, right or left, to Objectivism. We cannot allow things to simply drift along as is because we will find ourselves outlawed by whoever wins. I reiterate that the immediate goal is to buy time. The question then becomes which side will best serve this purpose. We have a small wedge issue with which to make an kind of ad hoc common cause with the Right against the fetid Left. It doesn't mean that we are sanctioning anything in Christianity, but rather that we are advocating a return to basic American ideals via a return to our constitution. I am advocating being FOR something, as opposed to the againsters who populate the Left. Think in terms of individuals, not collectives of people. Don't lump every individual Christian into some amorphous collective. That is the method and thinking of the Left. By-the-bye, the Left is also worried about a theocracy. There are two books out right now which argue this issue, one by a philosopher who specifies Bush as the danger (sorry, I don't have the name of the author and title at hand, but I will look it up and post it later if you wish). I've heard this guy speak. I guarantee that if this is the level of argument, we are in deep trouble. The left's arguments will get first hearing and we will be standing on the sidelines saying, "Yeah, but..." to minds already closed.

I get the idea that some of you think that there is no value in arguing with an altruist unless you first educate them to the proper metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. If you will note what I said when I talked about my Christian Right cousin, I never mentioned any of that stuff. It wasn't necessary. Within Christianity, there are certain ideas which may be used to justify the separation of church and state without going into an indepth philosophical discussion which does nothing but attack them further. Christians believe the altruist based "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." Implicit in that statement is that it is okay to love yourself. Jesus said to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's." (It was the only overt political statement he made. Of course he never got into politics because "the kingdom of God is at hand" so there was no reason to be concerned about politics.) Most Christians are taught to care for and value their life, because their life is a gift from God. Beliefs such as these are important when discussing the separation of church and state. It isn't necessary to bring scary philosophical ideas into the conversation. I am not concerned with converting the Christian Right. The number of people we might convince in the next 10 to 20 critical years will never be enough to stave off a theocracy. I know from my own upbringing and what I was taught about this matter that it isn't necessary. The arguments against such an event are already within the Christian community itself. It is important to remember the history of Western Civilization. All of the history. Never forget that it includes the work of St. Thomas, without whom we would never have seen the Enlightment. Granted, the ideas are Aristotle's, but it was a Catholic theologian who reintroduced them to the West. I think that the growth of the Christian Right, at the level of the majority of individual Christians is, as I said before, a direct result of the Left's frontal assault on their right to believe what they will without harrassment, ridicule, and without their rights being usurped by a secularism so hostile and all pervading that they find themselves fighting for the lives of their children. The ideology of the Left is such that it puts someone who is a Christian in an almost unbearable situation. We will never be able to protect our own rights by attacking individual Christians and calling them evil. Most of them hold vastly contradictory ideas, but they do not see them as such. The best we can do is try to reach those who believe in the constitution and work to roll back all the shite that has been laid on. They believe that the country, and the constitution, was built on Judeo-Christian ideas. Okay, stick to those ideas. Use what they know to stave off any idea of theocracy. We are never going to see Galt's Gulch. This doesn't mean that I don't think that the eventual survival of human kind depends on the proper philosophy and that it is important to work for that. It just means that I understand that my own life depends on my being able to persuade people to live and let live. Most Americans believed in that virtue at one time in this country. Until the Great Depression and FDR, the idea that the world owed you a damn thing was foreign to Americans. Even though many people were going hungary, most people went looking for a job, not a handout. There is no dishonesty, in my opinion, in recalling our own history to people who fundamentally believe in that history. Give those who are looking for an alternative to the Left an alternative they can live with. It isn't necessary to demand that everyone give up altruism or their belief in God for this country to survive. We need to help them remove the evil which is causing this gross reaction, an evil that we agree IS evil, before we'll ever be able to talk about the same evil lurking in their own beliefs.

ManOMan! And I thought English teachers were lazy! Now the edgycationists have taken over Math as well. The disease spreads.

I would not vote for a Libertarian precisely because they are supposedly capitalists. I say "supposedly" because they have no valid philosophical premise to back up their advocacy. They have a mish-mash of ideas, many of which are inimical to an actual capitalist political system being actualized. We have enough trouble with people who mistakenly claim to be capitalists without adding the wingnut variety. I don't care to have to add their bad philosophy to the ones I'm already arguing against. Libertarians give capitalism a bad name. At least with the major parties, one has an historical context within which to argue.