Elle

Yes Argive I agree with you, which is why I said in my previous post that those beliefs (that Greenspan may "pull a Francisco") hold a kind of blind optimism.

I reccomend The Man Behind the Money (and I apologize, for I do not have the author's name, or the book with me). It doesn't explicitly answer your questions but may shed some light and has an ample chapter discussing Greenspan's relationship with Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I think it is an atrocity that his position must exist. Some will argue that his is "pulling a Francisco" and will use his position to destroy economic controls, others that he will return us to the Gold Standard. However, this is a very blind kind of optimism and I see no evidence to support it.

To throw in my $0.02 I am in Boston right now for a visit unrelated to the DNC. Everyone should come to Boston! The roads are clear, there are extra buses and trains and since everyone from the over 50 liberal colleges in the region have dissapeared to camp out of the convention grounds, I have been able to shop in Harvard Square and jay-walk without dying. The only setback was when Bill Clinton decided to shop in the store I was leaving, I don't know why people get so worked up. Anyways, have you guys heard about the "Free Speach Area" at the DNC which is basically a cage for the protesters?

On the contrary, a rational woman will only have an interest in a man who has the gumption and ability to pursue her.

This may be incorrect, but ARI is 501 non-profit organization and I'm pretty sure that one of the rules pertaining to that particular status is that they aren't allowed to hold (not officially, anyways) a position on matters that are to be discussed in an impending election (based on a certain numbers of days or months before the election - I'm not sure). Anyone who heard Yaron Brook speak at OCON on the Morality of War will remember his explanation, when asked how an Objectivist should vote, that he could not speak for ARI. So that's my $0.02, applicable or otherwise.

Xanadu, you will learn someday that taking the time to explain something to someone requires the returned benefit of either enjoying the response or expecting an outcome in line with one's goals. When neither is present conversation ceases, as is the case here.

I live in Kitsap County, WA (not oregon) which is adjacent to King County. I wish I lived in King County though, just so I could vote against this ridiculous idea. It is entirely unconstitutional.

Haha, my thoughts exactly!

I think DiCaprio has been moving towards better and better films, and away from his young pretty-boy image (e.g. Romeo & Juliet, Titantic, etc.) His acting in Gangs of New York was impressive, although the movie on the whole lagged. I haven't seen Catch Me If You Can, I should.

I found this on the shelves of my Dad's library and the title caught my curiousity, while the back of the bookcover lead to my disgust. "The Structure of Scientific Revolution is a landmark in intellectual history which has attracted attention far beyond its own immediate field... It is written with a combination of depth and clarity that make it an almost unbroken series of aphorisms. Its author, Thoman S. Kuhn, wastes little time on demolishing the logical empiricist view of science as an objective progression toward the truth. Instead he erects from ground up a structure in which science is seen to be heavily influenced by nonrational procedures, and in which new theories are viewed as being more complex than those they usurp but not as standing any closer to the truth... Science is not the steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge that is portrayed in textbooks. Rather, it is a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions... in each of which one conceptual world view is replaced by another... Since Kuhn does not permit truth to be a criterion of scientific theories, he would presumably not claim his own theory to be true. But if causing a revolution is the hallmark of a superior paradigm, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has been a resounding success" Nicholas Wade, Science Thomas S. Kuhn is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ---- Maybe I'm just naive, but I guess I didn't realize the crap that was out there was coming from what should be the highest sources of intellect (e.g. college professors) This was originally published in 1962, so I don't know whether or not he is still at MIT. Still, I am just shocked and I understand if this gets deleted simply because it's of no value to anyone. What schools (colleges) in the United States are devoid of this kind of garbage?

Speaking of interesting movie trailers that look promising, has anyone else seen the trailer for The Aviator. It's about Howard Hughes and is starring Leonardo DiCaprio. It looks pretty good.

That is so succinctly what I wanted to say. Thankyou for such an eloquent description of something I have never been able to explain in words before.

Using the media as an indicator, two examples of the popularity of Christianity are: 1. The Passion of the Christ 2. the Left Behind series (whose authors' names slip my mind) I live in a small town where I would guess 50% of the people are religious, and the closer you go towards the outskirts and isolated suburbs the more of them you tend to find. I heard some discussion about Kerry being and atheist but I haven't had enough interest to research it. Has anyone else heard whether or not that is accurate? And why?

I saw it. One of my more liberal acquaintances bid me join him and his friend. His friend's wife is the head of the "Wake up Kitsap" activist group. Go figure. It was laughable, how easily people will eat up anything that they can remotely connect as "truth". I know it gets old drawing parallels between Rand fiction, and the real world, but I couldn't help but see Moore as Toohey and my two accquaintances as fellow Peter Keatings looking up in awe. Just wait until "The Corporation" comes out. Disgusting.

It really comes down to the fact that "Workers" in factories, call centers, etc. are expendable, replaceable and generally a dime a dozen and those who are especially talented probably aren't going to stick around to work an entry level job the rest of their life anyways. Why should a company dole out benefits or reward hard work, when that hard work can be done by the next guy, and the next guy, and the next? According to the executives who started the company you are simply a hired hand bought and paid for to save them time and make them money, and when you take the job you are accepting that that is the way things are. At one point they had to make all those calls, but now they can afford to pay you to do it instead and if you don't like it you are welcome to quit. Temps are just like you, they work for money, just like you. Yes they will take lower wages, just like "strike breakes" in the age of the "robber barons". If a company pays too little then who will work there? If the treatment is too bad then who is going to stick around? That is what determines how much people are paid, supply and demand. If there are a high supply of workers then why should a company cater to their demands? Unskilled workers, are replaceable, like I said before. I worked at McDonalds. Talk about replaceable, it was ridiculous how often we were training new people. It's not fun or rewarding to be good at jobs like those, because there's nowhere to go. Think it's any different in any other kind of unskilled labor? This leaves people with choices, stay or go. I went. I am capable of doing specialized work, and I want to be paid more and treated better. So does everyone else, you might say. So why are they complacent? I remember I would hear those employees complain about their wages and how they wished they had better jobs, and then go spend all their income on alcohol and marijuana instead of saving up for a higher level of education that would have given them skills to carry them to the next level.

Congratulations! I usually just take the ferry to Seattle with one or two special people, dress up, and eat out. I think the ultimate celebration would be to take time off work and school and take a roadtrip or a camping trip, a cruise or any kind of travel.

I have horses, as well as other pets. I've never really thought of my pets within the context of Objectivism - probably because they aren't human and therefore are amoral. I enjoy riding and do it as often as I can. Perhaps having a horse is different from having a dog or cat because it is recreational in nature, but there are ways that all pets are recreational. Animals respond to us, we all have witnessed it. We decide that certain responses have certain meanings. I.e. when a horse had it's ears back it is dismayed, or when a dog wags his tail he is happy or excited. Since animals don't conceptualize these things, aren't they just innate reactions without any thought? I think so. Still, we've assigned an emotional value to happiness or dismay which is uniquely human. If I were to make a human being who I cared about and valued happy, I would feel good about it because I value them. And in the same like if I were to dismay that person, I would regret it. I think the reason most people are able to have relationships with animals is because they tend to treat their pets like they are human beings. This has given rise to the animal rights movement. This should be a red flag. When I take care of my horses, groom them and care for them, it's like taking care of anything I own that I value. I, or in this case my parents, have worked hard to own these animals and I respect that they have a value and so I take care of the horses to protect and honor their value in the same way I would dry clean an expensive garment. It may feel nice for the horse to be groomed, but that's not the reason I clean him. It might be fun for the horse to jump over jumps, but I ride him because I am the one procuring the enjoyment. While their comfort is secondary, I wouldn't want to jeopardize it because I respect the fact that their existence (and my protection of their existence) give me enjoyment and add a recreational value to my life. So I clean them, spend time and money on them, and care for them. It wouldn't be true to say I love my horses I suppose, although often I feel a strong emotional attachment to them. I think it would be more accurate to say that I enjoy the value which riding horses adds to my life, and that I respect the horse as the means to achieving that value. I appreciate the animal's virtue, or ability to serve his (truly my) purpose excellently. I hope some of you will be willing to go riding at the conference in Virginia in a few weeks.

Tom, I can relate, I am in my first year of (community) college in the WA system and also had all 13 of my public (compulsory) years in WA. I got through the sludge by simply reading and questioning everything and everyone. The more I understood about the world the more it was open to me to explore, and one of the great things about looking back at high school is realizing that it is a lot more of a learning experience if you struggled (at least in my case). Looking back at the times when I thought I was "depressed" I feel like it was ridiculous to feel that way, in the face of all the oppurtunities. And as much as reading about the economic, philosophical and political state of our country might make you think "doom and gloom" I think the best way to combat that feeling taking over your enjoyment of life is simply to do things to reinforce the value of actually living life. That might sound really simplistic, so maybe a little anecdote will help. I hated high school, and for awhile I had some pretty dangerous issues with my self esteem. So in the mornings when I was feeling pretty crappy about going to class I would walk to the bus and starting with my toes and working my way up I would say "these are my toes, these are my feet, ... this my mind, this is my life" It's not saying those things that helps, but being reminded how much you own every second of your life and how capable you are of living it. Try it sometime. -Elle

I am very familiar with this straight edge trend, although I personally do not practice it. While I will respect the fact that you have been edge your entire life I personally think there are various drawbacks to the lifestyle choice. 1. Group association. It is traditional for straightedge to focus around active involvment in the hardcore (music - for those of you who did not know) community, and when someone "breaks" edge they are kicked out of the crew. 2. Pretentious self-righteousness. I.e. thinking that you are better, more valuable, more valid a human being than someone else simply because you are straight edge and they are not. 3. False identification and application of this ideaology. Straightedge originates from a Washington DC punk band, Minor Threat. Meet their singer, he will explain to you what the "philosophy" (I use quotes, because it is more of an ideaology than a philosophy in my opinion) he created really means. It's about self-respect, as far as he is concerned. While I think that self-respect is important... I don't think it has to advocated within the collective group setting. I'm not saying these attitudes are yours, only that they are prevalent in the straightedge community. I'd also like to ask you if you are vegan/vegetarian, humanitarian, or enviromentalist (because MANY straightedge people also gravitate towards these - it is part of the activism of hardcore music). If you are, why? I, personally, believe that straightedge is a backlash to a lifestyle that comes from irrational choices (i.e. drinking as an escape mechanism, drug addiction, and sexual promiscuity as a form of degrading the value of human emotions). You don't need to be straightedge to live a fulfilling life in which your values are aligned with your lifestyle and you are living in a productive way. For example, I am happy to drink when I am in the company of people I value and we have something to celebrate or want to relax with a few drinks and just talk. However I would never drink to escape the world, drown my sorrows, or as a crutch. I don't smoke or do drugs for health reasons, I want to live as long as possible in as healthy a state as possible because there is so much to see and do. And as for promiscuity... do you need a group of straightedge bros to remind you that promiscuity (i.e. not knowing the name of the boy who is in bed with you) is a sure heading towards pyschological dangers in the long run if it becomes a common practice? Do you think having a few promiscuous encouters in your lifetime is going to send you directly to "hell" or devalue your life? -Only if you let it.

Yes I hear that he and Jennifer Aniston have an incredibly unique home and an incredibly collection of function art (a.k.a. furnitute). It's amazing, sometimes those celebrity worshipping shows do actually do these people justic. They were showing some very futuristic chairs that they had custom made. I'm sure there are all sorts of websites out there with pictures out there, and I think it is interesting. As for Brad Pitt, he could make an excellent Howard Roark. I know he's getting up there in years, but I always thought that if a remake took place Robert Redford might also be an excellent choice.

There is actually a post in the meta-blog for this site about the artist's body of work which can be foundat this link Edit: My mistake, that blog refers to the same prints you were saying you didn't think you could afford. Umm.... you might make Barnes and Noble an offer for their Atlas Shrugged cover posters. But it might be awhile before they take them down, and i think the one that is up right now was done be a previous artist whose name I do not know. Sorry for the mis-information.

I can't wait to vote, because I love our great country and the freedoms of it. I just want to be sure to know exactly what is going on before I cast my ballot, because I do believe that every vote has an impact and mine had better be a rational and informed one.

When it gets down to it, if your mother really loves you for what you are and what your existence adds to her life then in the end she won't care whether or not you are religious. This is mainly because the whole point religion (from the perspective of an atheist), in its convoluted mess of "faith" compromising reason, is the same point philosophy has... to determine how man ought to live in order to live a good life. A lot of people would rather simply follow a faith or ideology rather than think for themselves, because for them that is easier, and you might actually inspire you mother to think for herself too. Even if that is not the case, you can make the choice to like her, or not. You don't have to love your mother, and anyone who is preaching unconditional love is trying to make a world of Hank Reardens.

This is such generic interpretation of what the Fed does and potentially what Greenspan could do. You are headed in the right direction, in that he has an enormous impact on what happens to the economy (hence his lack of public commentary beyond the responsibilities of Fed Chairman); however, there are a lot of factors that would have to come into play for an Atlas Shrugged-esque catastrope to ensue that go far beyond setting one interest rate. That's not to say it isn't possible, or that it won't happen... only that the Fed (while strong) is not the only player in a situation like that. I would say Greenspan is the individual who has the most influence, but I don't think he could make or break the economy with one hike in the interest rate, although a few words would probably be significantly more effective.

Wow that's about the same year as my Chevy, with 2X better gas mileage!