Samoht

The Merciless is a new fantasy novel by a long time Objectivist. And yes, that Objectivist is me. If I hadn’t been a member of the site for years I wouldn’t bother you with my little infomercial. Most immediately ignore these kinds of posts so they are usually a waste of time. I still don’t want to take up much space here however I do believe that if you’re a fan of fantasy novels you will enjoy The Merciless. If you take a brief moment to check out my website at www.thomasthorntonjr.com, you can peruse the first chapter and make your own decision. And if money is an issue, think eBooks. They are cheap, can fit on a smart phone, and if you have a computer you can buy a book that’s around $20 in paper for only about $5. Stop by, leave a comment or two, and don’t be afraid to say what you think about the story.

The "American Way" line is being blown out of proportion. The scene has Perry White giving assignments and orders to his reporters. It has the feel of an hour long meeting given in two minutes. He didn't leave it off to make a point but it appeared to be a more comprehensive order to research ALL of Supes's beliefs and attitudes. It fit the moment and the scene. It's a good movie. Very character driven.

Any law, state or federal, that specifies sex, religion, race, and anything else that separates people into arbitrary groups violates the individual rights of others and is unjust oppression that violates the Constitution as I understand it. However, there is a key element of this argument that deserves more serious examination. According to those trying to pass the law, from what I heard today, is that marriage is a historically religious practice between a consenting man and woman (of course this ignores all non-Christian religions that practiced polygamy and certain denominations of Mormons as well as the traditional Christian marriage of thirty-something men marrying twelve-ish girls through financial arrangements) and that all unions outside of God are false marriages, are immoral, and should be illegal. As an atheist, they are talking about me and my wife, the jack-asses. Inspired, I wrote a letter to the local papers (I know, probably a waste of time even if it’s published, but it might plant some seeds). So people won’t just glance over it I tried to make my letter witty. I encourage all of you to do the same, if for no other reason than to let those out there who live by thinking instead of whim-worship lean they are not alone. ---------------------------------------------------------------- If you’re interested I pasted the letter below, but don’t read it if you don’t want to. What religion do I need to stay legally married? It should scare the bee-jeebees out of you that the government is considering who we may enter into a legal contract with based on the religious beliefs of the majority. I’m afraid my marriage, performed by a secular justice of the peace in a non-religious setting, could be null and void. Don’t laugh yet. This is a just fear because the federal proposal to define marriage comes from the belief that marriage is religious in nature. Now this legal contract I entered into with my wife has become a matter of individual rights versus “group rights.” Which religious group and which denomination of that group must I pretend to believe in so I do not lose my insurance? “Group rights” do not exist. Be it gay or Christian's "rights," men or women's "rights." “Group rights” are the rights of one arbitrary assortment of individuals denied to another arbitrary assortment of individuals by those with the guns. When rights do not exist to all then they are just governmental privileges given at whim. This is an affront to the Constitution and too similar to how the tyrants we are at war with rule. You can laugh at my fears now, if you still want to. (edited to take out some accidental emotes)

This isn't limited to Mass. Here in Arkansas the governor decided socialist health care would be a great idea and began legislation to get the ball moving. We are already 49th in everything except taxes, there we are around 11th per capita, thanks in part to this former Babtist preacher's stance that those who have money have a responsibility for paying the ways of those without, no matter why they are without. After all, that is what Jesus would want. He is a Republican, and he is running for president. This is only the begining. Too many parasites in this nation will give their support to those who promise the unearned wealth of others, while those who know it is evil will remain silent out of fear of being called raciest, or cruel, or un-Christian, for polititians not to take advantage.

Excelent point. Why would they video tape the comments and then let her go knowing she would tell the truth? Because they are not trying to influence 'us.' It is to influence the Muslims in the Middle East. After all, how many of the state controlled news agents in the Middle East published Carroll's retraction (which I believe fully) in the same amount they published her gun-forced lies? Then again, how many of ours gave the same amount of time on both? A good rule of thumb with hostages; never believe what they say. Even if they are safe, in their minds they do not realize they are safe, or while we think they are safe they may know from experience that they are still under the point of a gun. Think back to Galt's responce at the end of Atlas when he was the 'guest' of the state. What was his reaction when they said 'say this?' (BTW, I'm not one to usually pull out Rand quotes, but I think this one really accents the point)

I went out and bought the graphic novel this week, but V is one of the books that have been on my "get around to read list" for a few years now. The problem I think Objectivists may have with the movie is the hero's personal philosophy of anarchism. However, the main theme is freedom, specifically for people to live their own lives free of government control. Since I hate spoilers I won't give details, but there is one scene in the book that reminds me greatly of Anthem. I think, if they keep it true to Moore's work, everyone here would like it.

It was all I could do to keep from laughing out loud when I read this (I would have but I'm in a library during finals.) Not because the topic is funny, but I find irony hilarious. "BERLIN — European Union leaders will address the Iranian president's denial of the Holocaust as a "myth," Germany's foreign minister said Thursday, warning that patience is running out with Tehran. The German government has condemned the remarks by Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and called on the United Nations as well as the European Union to follow suit." And if anyone should know, it's the Germans. Here's the rest of the story. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178787,00.html

BurgessLau, I agree and disagree at the same time. Intelligence is the ability to make connections, and "stupidity" is acting in an unintelligent manner, however I do not understand how a person who supports a medical system (or any system) that is incapable of functioning, to the point where people needlessly die, while they fight a system (private health care) which is works can be described as anything other than unintelligent. Those who are making decisions on faulty information or lack the cognitive ability to understand are not at fault, but those in the article who understand that they are fighting to ensure Canadian deaths and evade the rational (using life as the basis) choice to scrap the system are unintellegent, i.e. stupid. I didn't mean that Canadians are stupid per se. Only those Canadians in the article who support socialized health care are. I only mentioned Canadians because the article is about Canada. True they are consistent and it is a rational outcome, but that does not make their decision of guiding philosophy non-stupid. Accepting the self destructive concept of altruism results in wide spread death, as seen with socialized health care, and is stupid by nature. This is the cause of our disagreement. The corrupt philosophy, in my view, is stupid and has lead to very stupid decisions. You are absolutely right about the views of Pragmatics, but I believe that it is a stupid choice because of the obvious wide spread destruction it causes to everyone, including the Pragmatics. You cared enough to check my profile . Seriously, I have never devoted so much thought to the word and concept of "stupid" before. Thank you.

I get asked this all the time because of the "Who is John Galt?" bumper sticker (probably the only one in Arkansas) on my car. I should have been more specific. From what I got out of the article many influential Canadians (politically and economically) believe in and fight for a state monopoly on medicine. The Canadian SC ruled that it is a violation of the constitution for the state to monopolize medicine (yea for them) but many Canadians are against the concept of for-profit medicine. This may not be true but that is not how the article presented it. Stupid: (one definition according to Webster and the one I meant) acting in an unintelligent or careless manner. The word in bold print is mine not theirs, but it was implied. People who believe access to good private health care is a violation of rights while forcing them to die while waiting for state sponsored health care are stupid. Or to make it more complicated this is what I am hearing them say: It is a violation of rights to give a person the right to choose medical care, but depriving people the right to choose a private doctor is a democratic exercise in human rights. Stupid=Those Who Accept Contradictions Our private system does work for the most part. Those without health insurance are still treated even if they can not pay. Case in point my mother who had two heart attacks without insurance. She received life saving care both time despite the fact she never paid a dime. Instead she filed bankruptcy. Today my five year old niece was admitted to a hospital for uncontrolled diabetes. The hospitals will never, and know they will never, see a dime for this care. Now this is where the system begins to break down. Instead of my sister or her ex-husband (both high school dropouts who have histories of drug use) paying for their kid's treatment the hospital will increase charges on those of us who do have insurance (which increases premiums) or assets to pay for their care. For instance when my father-in-law had his pace maker put in about a year ago his ICU bill was ten thousand dollars a day. This did not just pay for his doctors, nurses, medicine and other cares but also for the meth addict in the next ICU room that could never, and will never, pay. If he doesn’t pay they collection agencies will come after him, when the meth addict doesn’t pay they don’t even bother to file charges. Side note: my mother, niece, and father-in-law were seen and treated immediately. From the critiques I have read about the Canadian (as well as British and French) waiting lists on things like seeing endocrinologists and cardiac specialists all three would have died before receiving treatment.

Old topic I'm sure, but this is a new article and court ruling. http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/ocanadarx;_ylt...HBhBHNlYwM5NjQ- A few quotes My synopses of the article: People who would have lived are going to die because socialist health care does not work as well as for-profit systems, but private medical care is a violation of rights because if everyone does not get the same care everyone should suffer and die equally to make it democratic. My question to you is: How can people be this stupid?

Harry wasn't killed so he wouldnt be an inferi. Inferi are just animated dead people without minds (see Night of the Living Dead). Also, it does not have to inanimate. Rowling left this open when Dumbeldore said he thought Voldermort's snake was an horcrux.

I don't think Snape switched back to Voldermort's side, but I would prefer if it turned out he had. It would show the dangers of trusting people who had not really earned that trust. Also I dont think Dumbledor begged for his life. He was begging for Snape to kill him in order to fully gain the trust of the Death Eaters and possibly motivate Harry a little more against the death eaters (ala Obi Wan in episode IV). The one thing I am suprisd no one mentioned so far is the most rational way Dumbledor could return in the last book. I'll give you a clue: What did Harry and Nearly Headless Nick talk about at the end of HP and the Order of the Phoenix? Harry is a horcrux, although by accident (IMHO). The way horcrux are made is by fracturing a soul through murder and then bonding it to something else. If Voldermort was prepared to make one at the moment of Harry's murder it is rational (as rational as magic can be) to belive the spell backfired. However I do not believe Harry would willingly die for the "greater good" (sure, to imediately save his friends lives like in Chamber of Secrets, but not for people like those in the Ministry). Instead he would find a way to remove the soul from himself or imprison the rest of Voldermort in some way. Well, Hermony will while Harry watches. One last thing, Ron and Hermony will be major players in the next one, and maybe a few more from their class like Nevil and Luna, (probably Doby and an army of bumbling but powerful house elves) but not Ginny. She will only be sixteen while they, and Harry, will be adults (in the magical world), able to legaly use magic outside of school at seventeen.

O'Connor I have just recently begun to read disents and rulings by SCOTUS. Before I focused more on local and state politics. Since she is now retiring (I am one of those who believe the recent rewriting of the constitution by the SC is the reason) I thought it would be appropriate to mention some of her rulings. Several of you have mentioned court cases, but what was her reason behind her decesions and what were the cases about.

I was shocked, SHOCKED, to hear this today. Shocked that the court even bothered to review the case since them made a very similar conclusion back in 1981. Go here and you can read the case details, http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm, but to make a long story short two women called the police while a third roomate was being raped in the same apartment. The police didnt go to the women's home and eventually the rapists found the other two women, and tortured all three for over fourteen hours. The Supreme Court decided that police are under no constituonal law to protect any specific person from anything (despite the fact that protection from violence is the ONLY proper role of government). Side note, the victims also did not have the constituonal right to defend themselves with firearms. I believe this was about the time D.C. became the murder capital of the nation. In short, we are on are own when it comes to defence of life, and we have been for some time now.

Moose, think of it this way: You all know who wrote this. I hope this works and may the "fair market value" of the home of a tyrant be one dollar.

Me, from a few posts ago: I spent much of the night drafting a letter and looking up addresses. Some of you may come up with different rational means to attack this travesty, but follow through with what you know is right! If you do nothing else copy and paste the following letter I have sent to each of my elected representatives and email it with your name and address to your elected representatives, if you agree with my goal. If you disagree then pick and choose the parts you do like and draft your own letter around them. Or come up with something new and let us know what it is. Just don’t lie down and take this without a fight when you know it is evil. (Edited to add Quote Tags)

Groovenstein, I went through the same emotions. The “why” is painfully simple. Because they lack the ability to earn what we have so they resort to taking our property by force. For clarification I suggest you go here, http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23...4pdf/04-108.pdf, and read the explanations and dissents from the justices. Here’s a sample. (All bold print is my own emphasis) And this one The dissents helped me regain some composure. All is not lost, at least not yet.

The conversation is wandering off topic. The current argument should, perhaps, be moved to a new post leaving this thread for the S.C.'s current actions. Now, to add to the current topic: Look at American history, from the Whiskey Rebellion to the slaughter of women and children on legally defined reservations during the Indian wars to the Bonus Army march on Washington DC to the National Guard opening fire on in Oklahoma during the Vietnam war to the armed taking of Elian Gonzales (all of which involved armed action from the government against unarmed law abiding citizens in violation of the constitution), soldiers followed orders. If next week millions of Americans marched on Washington to demand the right to property (which we no longer have) and a general gave an order to use lethal force to stop them the military would. Why you may ask? Because in the military to hesitate is death and the only way an army can run effectively is through trust of the ones in power.

Here in Arkansas a local radio host (libertarian) focused on this today, and will again tomorrow. The majority of the callers held the same view: The USA as explained in the constitution is dead, and several called for an armed uprising. Seriously folks, an armed march on Washington DC. One of the examples of local abuse mentioned around here included Clinton's library and local mall. Both were built on land taken by force from local business and homeowners who were paid "market value." The people who took the land were also the ones who decided what the market value of their home was so, surprise surprise, their property was appraised immediately before the imminent domain theft and valued at a much lower percentage than previous years. One mechanic was paid less for his commercial property than he paid in property tax the year before. Then there are those who have their homes taken from them at around one half of what they paid for it, leaving them homeless with a mortgage. People nation wide are terrified, angry, upset, and are taking notice of what is going on around them for the first time in a long time because of the Supreme Courts edict that our property (not just land according to the ruling, but all property) is ours only so long as the local mayor, governor, or other local or federal political leader allows us to keep it. I implore all of you who read this to email your local, state, and federal leaders now and demand a state and federal constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to own and retain their own property. (This link will give you the names and contact info, but there may be easier sights to use http://www.statelocalgov.net/index.cfm) However, I am having trouble wording this appropriately myself and hope that some of you may have advice on the most effective and rational arguments that can be used.

Unless there was no other choice (i.e. I end up with my wife and pets on the street starving) I would not choose to work anywhere that takes so much as a penny of the product of my mind from my check against my will . Fortunately Arkansas, where I live, is a "right to work" state. This means unions can form but cannot demand employers not hire non union workers (unless a certain ex-president illegaly orders the firing of non union construction workers to hire union workers off my tax dollars to build a presidential library that looks like a two story, tripple wide trailer). As a future teacher I would not choose to join a teaching union, such as the NEA, because of their politics and thugish tactics. If any of my hard earned money went to a cause I knew to be evil I would find another job. Or two jobs. Now to your problem. Studentofobjectivism, since the morality of a forced membership is more or less answered (there is no choice and no moral guilt when their is no choice in the matter) the question you could ask yourself is what do you value more. The money you make now with a percentage taken to support people you dissagree with, or possibly making less money at a new place that does not? If it helps, ask what you will have to do without if you make less money, and what such a change in your current working enviornemt would do to your life in total.

What do you mean, "like a Christian." One mistake in your post, Peter did not kill the killer. The idiot fell out a window by accident. If you liked the first you'll like the second. Go. Rent it. Times wasting!

***SPOILERS (of course so are most of the other posts)*** Bruce did not separated from Ras Al Goul (some of you have misspelled the name, and comic trivia note, it means "The Demon's Head") until he was ordered to execute a killer. He did not refuse to do so out of compassion or understanding of the criminal, or because he thought the killer had a right to live. He did so because he knew that no single man or group of men had the right to make an arbitrary decision on who lived and who died. That is what court's are for, as Bruce kind of explained in the scene. As for Ras’s views on “societies understanding of criminals,” and Thomas Wayne’s role in his and his wife’s death, Bruce agreed when he did not argue the point. At the end when he learns Ras’s is planning on eliminating Gotham he doesn’t say, but “They all deserve to live,” he says something like, “Give me more time to eliminate the criminals my way because the innocent deserve to live.” As far as the police chase goes, the police knew they were chasing Batman for taking down Gotham’s most powerful mob boss. No sympathy from me. One of the arguments bouncing around is the "philosophy of emergencies" essay. The catch is, Gotham is in a perpetual state of emergency during the movie because of corruption all the way up the ladder. If, once the government returned to honoring the constitution and rule of law over the thugs of the city and Bruce continued to dress as a bat when regular police could do the same job just as well (or better) then it would not be a rational act of justice. However, so long as he is working to rescue people from the sinking ship, or works to patch the ship if it can be saved, then he is working within the confines of the emergency situation. As was briefly hit on in the movie, Gotham was not always as it now is (in the movie). Once it was a prosperous and safe city. The current violence was not a normal part of its existence.

Excellent post. Even as a very long time comic reader, mainly a Marvel fan, (a small Captain America statue is resting on my computer monitor as I type ) I never saw Hulk in these terms before. I have examined characters like Spiderman (just added a post on a thread about the movie), Fantastic Four and X-Men Vs. The Brotherhood, but Hulk always seemed too simple to me. In my defense the grey intelligent hulk occurred during one of my non-comic periods. Not me (I mean I do not disregard them). I think Rand would describe modern comics as "Romanticism with an apology" as she did other fantasy stories, but any story based on morals is a good story. I would like to see your take on The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen also if you have read them. If you haven’t you should. I think you would like both.

Another comic geek speaking up. The theme of Peter giving up being Spiderman because he thought his heroics had destroyed his chance at a happy, regular life (college, girl friend, time with his always dying aunt) came from a very old Stan Lee story (Amazing Spiderman 50). The image of Peter walking away from his costume in the garbage can in a dark rainy alley in the movie was a direct copy from a page in the comic book right down to the fire escape. The last straw after a series of bad experiences that led to the “Spiderman No More” scene was when his boss at the newspaper used a TV show to berate him as an “…Egomaniac…flaunting his power before the ordinary citizens…” Peter decided his career as Spiderman was an adolescent indiscretion and that to be an adult meant leaving childish behavior (i.e. doing what he knew to be right when many others told him it was wrong) behind. There is another story where his hatred of being Spiderman conflicted with his feelings of responsibility that resulted in his mind turning off his powers that was interwoven into the movie, but I don’t remember which comic that came from. In the movie he had a personal stake in his return to Spiderman, but in the original story Peter went back to crime fighting after stumbling across a couple of robbers (working for the Kingpin, see Daredevil movie) who were about to kill a security guard. Without his costume he scales a building and knocks the thugs out instead of allowing the guard to be killed. After the guard is safe Peter realized he didn’t think about saving the man before hand, he just automatically acted because he knew it was the right thing to do. After reevaluating his retirement Peter decided to return to his blue and red jump suit with the words, “No matter how unbearable the burden may be…no matter how great my personal sacrifice…I can never permit one innocent being to come to harm…because Spiderman failed to act…” (the … was part of the original dialog, nothing was removed). While the “unbearable burden,” and “personal sacrifice” lines reek of altruistic insanity, his main driving motivation was that he was not willing to stand by and watch innocent, virtuous, people suffer from the depravity of others when he could save them with little or no real risk to himself. He saw his actions as sacrificial and psychotic because that was what the twisted philosophy of the world told him it was (similar to Hank Reardon’s view of sex after he and Dagny began their affair). Peter was not risking his life for the lives of others, but for the moral idea that no one has the right to take away another’s right to life and/or property. Think, super powered Ragnar Danneskjold. Also, in the comic Stan Lee made it a point to show that after Peter gave up being Spiderman his personal life didn’t improve as he thought it would. His relationships with everyone he cared about stayed the same if he was swinging around on webs at night or not which negated his declaration of “personal sacrifice.” The things he wanted better did not improve from his retirement. However, what did change was in how Peter became happy, but only so long as he walked around in a state of purposeful ignorance ignoring all news reports of a crime wave caused from his refusal to act (this part was also in the movie). His happiness was the numbed, guilt ridden false bliss of those who choose to do what is easy opposed to what is right, in essence rewarding evil and punishing the good by sanctioning their actions through non-action. “Yes, I see you mugging that man and can stop you with no physical or emotional risk to myself, but I leave virtue for others.” Also, as demonstrated in comics and in the first movie, Peter loves the power and freedom that comes with his abilities, both physical and intellectual.

After reading about the French and Dutch rejection of the EU Constitution I wanted to read the document in order to see for myself what they are trying to do. After a couple of searches I could not find the actual Constitution in English, only articles about the constitutional vote. Do any of you know where I can locate it, a link would be great, and what are your thoughts on the document and its rejection?