Dismuke

But the important context here is the fact that the people in the world who are critical of and hold hostile hatred for Isreal are not clamoring for a secular plurocracy. What they are clamoring for is to replace Israel's very mild theocracy where there exists a great deal of freedom for Jew and non-Jew alike with an Islamic-only tyranny. In that context, such complaints about Isreal carry about as much weight as O.J. Simpson's moral condemnation of an undersized school yard bully who merely calls people names. As for showing the "world" - well, pandering to those people in the world who would need to be "shown" is a total waste of time. Such people are simply not open to persuasion - you cannot reason with those who are irrational. It would be like trying to persuade Ted Kennedy that capitalism is moral and that medicine needs to be totally private with no government involvement. In other words, it ain't gonna happen.

I have never thought of it that way - but I suppose it technically is. In the context in which I intended it, it was more a question of accepting responsiblity and accountability. To me it was more of an issue of justice and not a question of Kendall's honesty - a subject on which I am not knowledgeable enough to call into question. So I see your point and retract my use of that particular word - and will keep that in mind next time I am tempted to use it. And, for the record, I have no reason at all to doubt Kendall's honesty.

I did not see your last posting until after I posted mine. I did not mean to imply in any way that you were impolite. I think the world of Vladimir and stand by every word I wrote about him a couple of postings ago - but your comments on his last posting are entirely justified.

Vladimir - the only thing I have to say in response to the above is that to "improve......the philosophy" one must first understand what one is seeking to improve. In my judgement, based on your postings here you have not yet studied it nearly enough to do that. If someone wishes to say that the above statement is arrogant - well, my friend, you are on your own on that one. You, of course, are free to disagree. Assuming that you are qualified to "fix" Ayn Rand's philosophy - well, this is not the forum to do that in. This is a place for people who are serious in learning about and studying Ayn Rand's philosophy. Hopefully you have an interest in doing that before you criticize it. Any "debates" with particular aspects of it need to be towards the end of understanding the philosophy. And the result of any such "fix" would NOT be Objectivism. It would be something else - Berkovian Philospophy or something along those lines. Objectivism is AYN RAND's philosophy. I cannot recall a single instance where someone here has been banned for honest critique or discussion. Furthermore, while there are posters here who, unfortunately, are dogmatic, Inspector is NOT one of them. If someone wishes to criticize Objectivism - well that's great. Have at it. But most of those who criticize it, unfortunately, have not made very much effort to understand it. And again, the purpose of this board is to provide a forum for people who wish to study and understand the philosophy - not a platform for people to tell us what a crock it is. - - - - - - Note to Inspector and Kendall - THAT is an example of how to politely and respectfully challenge Vladimir on points that he deserves to be challenged on.

There are also times when Vladimir has made broad generalizations about Objectivism which simply are not warranted or accurate. When he does, he needs to be called on it. If he makes such assertions about Objectivists - i.e. if he is making such statements about the people here and not with his objection to specific aspects of the philosophy, then he definitely needs to be called on it. Vladimir, like anyone else who may have disagreements with the philosophy, ought to understand that this is a forum for people who either value the philosophy or who are serious about learning more about it - and as such, the philosophy and its proponents need to be given the respect that they are due. If you have specific concerns about Vladimir, you need to politely take them up with him - not with me. If Vladimir behaves in an arrogant manner, then he needs to be called on it - in the context of the particular thread where such behavior might allegedly occur. The only thing that Vladimir did in this thread was equate his misconception of the Objectivist position as being the Objectivist position. If you wish to classify that as "arrogance" - well, I disagree but am not going to argue the point. Either way, softwareNerd did a pretty good job of shooting him down by asking him to back up his assertion - and he did so in a polite and civilized manner. I don't have a problem with the content of Kendall's objection that the quotes Vladimir dug up failed to back up his assertions - my problem was with the tone in which he made it. And even then, I did not have any plan to respond to Kendall's tone until I read where he suggested that Vladimir was dishonest. I have a HUGE problem with that. I have had philosophical debates with Vladimir on a number of occasions. His undergrad degree is in.....philosophy, a course of study he began before he discovered Ayn Rand. As a result, he has many of the same premises regarding the subject of philosophy that one would expect from someone who has been through the sort of stuff that they teach in modern day philosophy classes on a college level. As someone who has not studied much in the way of philosophy outside of Objectivism, debating with Vladimir is sometimes a challenge because the context he brings to the subject is so very different from my own. And, of course, my context is very different than his. It is sometimes hard for him to follow my points because the meaning that Objectivists attach to certain key words is different than what he is used to from his studies of philosophy - and, for the same reason, I sometimes have difficulty understanding where he is coming from. So, on some occasions, he and I have basically ended up talking past each other. If anyone ever gets frustrated or heated, it is always me. Vladimir is cool as a cucumber and makes his points politely and relentlessly. I am glad that I never had to go up against him when I was on the debate team in high school. If he thinks he is right on a something, he sticks to his guns and does not back down. In that regard, he is very much in person what he is like here. While we have had some rather heated debates, I cannot recall a single instance where he was in any way evasive, dishonest or insincere. I have a great deal of respect for him and think it is great that he has an interest in Objectivism. I wish I was half as together as he is when I was his age. He is also one of the most well-mannered people I know - something which is increasingly rare in this post counter-culture hippie infested world of today. If he indeed posts something here that comes across as rude - well, then he needs to be confronted and told that is the way he is coming across as I seriously doubt that such is his intention. It entered into it when Kendall suggested it in regard to Vladimir. Maybe Vladimir is "arrogant" and maybe he isn't. He sure as heck is NOT dishonest. I have insinuated no such thing. Now it is your turn to back up an assertion. The ONLY thing I said about Kendall was that 1) He was rude towards Vladimir and 2) I questioned how well he understood Objectivism on the basis of his assertion that Vladimir "knew the philosophy well" - which, as ought to be clear to anyone who does understand the philosophy, is simply not true based on the misconceptions he expresses here. My only opinion of Kendall is based on what I saw in this particular thread. I only follow a small number of threads at any given time on this forum - and often I don't follow them that closely. I am not sure if Kendall has posted in any of them or not. There are a lot of user names here and it takes me a while to associate personalities and postings styles with them. I do follow Vladimir's postings - but since he frequently likes to post in topics that I am either not knowledgeable about or do not have a lot of interest in, I usually end up merely skimming through most of them. And since I usually follow his postings through his profile, I rarely see other people's replies and can recall none by Kendall. My comments about Kendall were confined to this particular thread and were very specific and very precise and involved no judgments about him whatsoever outside of that context. I would have made the exact same comments had Ayn Rand or Dr. Peikoff or anyone else behaved in a similar manner and unjustly suggested that a good friend of mine is dishonest. As for Vladimir's conduct - if you wish to make that an issue my only response is he is a big boy and is more than capable of fighting his own battles. If there are legitimate concerns about his behavior, then, like anyone else, he needs to be politely confronted about them in the context of the specific thread.

If he knew the philosophy well, he wouldn't have the misconceptions that he expresses about it, would he? Vladimir is familiar with the philosophy. He has read through a significant portion of the literature. That is not the same thing as "knowing it well." I wouldn't expect him to "know it well" at this point in his studies. It is true that there are others who have studied it as much and as long as he has who are further along in their agreement with the philosophy. It is also true that there are those who have studied it just as much and long who are very good at being able to regurgitate various aspects of the philosophy back to others. But that is not the same thing as understanding the philosophy. Even if one is quick to agree with it, actually understanding the philosophy takes more time and study than Vladimir has been able to devote to it thus far. Your statement that "he knows the philosophy well" is grounds for me to question just how well you know the philosophy. Good for him. If something about the philosophy strikes him as being significantly off the mark, he should disagree with it. I, for one, am glad that he expresses his disagreements. If he didn't, how else will others have the opportunity to shoot him down and point him in the correct direction? What would you prefer that he do? Mindlessly agree with whatever Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff say? Keep his questions and disagreements to himself so that they remain unanswered and he eventually concludes that Objectivism is either flawed or flaky and simply goes away? So what? I can count on one hand the number of times over the years I have had a debate with someone over a significant philosophical disagreement where the person ended up telling me he changed his mind simply as a result of that conversation with me. And this is with in-person, one-on-one debates, not in a discussion forum setting where it is much more difficult to engage in philosophical back and forth. Convincing someone to change his mind is always difficult - especially when you are dealing with someone who is intelligent, critical and very sure of himself as is the case with Vladimir. If you ever get a chance, take a listen to Dr. Peikoff's remarks on the subject in his Objective Communication course where he explains why it is so difficult. Oh - and by the way: how can he have misconceptions about the philosophy that need to be corrected if he "knows it well"? I have no idea what your history on this board is as I have read very few of your postings. But you did NOT treat Vladimir with respect in this thread. Your tone was condescending, hostile and rude. You also suggested that he was "lazy" or "dishonest." There are plenty of ways you could have made your essential point without resorting to such behavior. As for history - I happen to have a long history of being VERY vocal against self-proclaimed "Objectivists" who disrespect or are hostile to newbies. I happen to hold that any person who values the philosophy and speaks on its behalf in public has a moral obligation to conduct himself in a way that does not reflect badly on the philosophy and cause newbies to recoil away in disgust. There are a lot of people out there who have never really given Objectivism much of a chance because, early on, they ended up being turned off by obnoxious people they falsely assumed were representative of the philosophy. I am not suggesting that you are such a person - and Vladimir is far enough along in his study that he ought to be able to see such people for what they are. My point, however, is that treatment of Objectivist newbies is a very important issue to me. In the case of Vladimir, he happens to be a friend of mine that I know from outside of Objectivism. If someone behaves rudely to a friend of mine - well, I may or may not speak up and throw it back in their face. But if someone unjustly suggests that a good friend of mine is dishonest - and that person claims to be an Objectivist who presumably understands just how serious such an accusation is - well, that is not something that I will tolerate in my presence without speaking out against it very vocally. (And just so nobody misunderstands me - I am not suggesting that Vladimir be accorded treatment any different than anyone else here. Vladimir, like anyone else, must take the full consequences that can come from expressing one's opinions in public - and if he is not prepared to, he should keep them to himself. If he says something that is off the mark, it is entirely proper to shoot him down and to ask that he back up what he asserts. If he crosses the line and expresses his disagreements in a manner that is disrespectful to the philosophy or to Objectivists, he needs to be called on it and people need to be offended accordingly. But that was not the case in this thread - and he did not deserve the sort of treatment he was subjected to.)

I am sorry but you miss my point entirely. Any person who has a misconception about exactly what the philosophy stands for and gives voice to it here in a posting is going to be unable to back his assertion up with quotes from the Objectivist literature. That is the very nature of a misconception. And someone who is new to the philosophy and is studying it is quite likely to have certain misconceptions about it which will eventually have to be corrected before they have a full and proper understanding of it. The "status of his assertion" was that he was misinformed about what the Objectivist position actually is. So what? I think we have all been misinformed about things at least a time or two. In Vladimir's instance, softwareNerd responded by asking him to back up the assertion he made about the Objectivist position. That is a good thing. If somebody is misinformed about something and nobody tells them - well, it could possibly take a very long time for them to come back to the subject and recognize the error on their own. Pointing out why and how the quotes he subsequently provided fall short of being able to back up his initial assertion is also a good thing - for the same reason. Not only does pointing out the errors of newbies give them the information they need to understand their errors, it can also be helpful in teaching them the importance of being a bit more careful about making broad, generalized assertions about subject matter they are still fairly new to. You did provide at least some explanation as to why his quotes fell short. But the tone of your response was condescending, mocking and rude. That is simply NOT an acceptable way to treat someone who is new to the philosophy and has enough interest in it to take the time to study it and engage people in conversation about it. I would assume that you value the growth of the philosophy and would like to see more people, especially promising young people, develop an interest in it. If so, then you sure have a funny way of showing it. If you do not have the patience to deal with people being wrong about things and having lots of misconceptions and having difficulty grasping certain points which seem obvious to you - well, if so, you have no business discussing the philosophy with newbies. When I finally got around to rereading your response to his quotes, (I only skimmed through it the first time) my first thought was: "Who the hell do you think you are to talk to him in that sort of tone?" I pretty much decided to bite my tongue on that - Vladimir is certainly able to take care of himself and he ultimately did the mature and proper thing by simply refusing to engage in further exchanges with you over it. But your insinuation that he might be dishonest - which you did make and are now apparently trying to weasel out of - well, I am not going to let that pass without a response. You have no idea who you are talking about or what you are talking about. And it sure as heck is not your place to call him to task simply because he put up an assertion that you disagree with and involves certain misconceptions. If that is your approach, then, for the sake of the philosophy, please stay away from newbies - or at least just confine your dealings to those who are uncritical and swallow the philosophy whole and become walking "randroids" who usually end up being hostile to the philosophy after a few years anyway.

J.L - Rational self-interest is neither an end nor some sort of sub-end toward higher ends. Rational self-interest is a principle - it is a standard against which you can evaluate and choose between the countless choices which confront you every single hour of every single day. The only "end in itself" in this context is an individual's own life.

Here is the quote of what Vladimir said and softwareNerd asked him to back up with references: Now, I will be the first to admit that this is not an accurate characterization of the Objectivist position. My strong guess is that is why softwareNerd asked Vladimir to back it up with a reference instead of rebutting it. Here is what Vladimir cited to back up his assertion per softwareNerd's request: Now, KendallJ - while I agree that the quotes he provided do not make his case, you have to admit that there is a connection between what he asserted and what the quotes say. Yes - I know, the quotes he presents are out of context. That was really all that was necessary to say in the first place - that, and to either suggest that he search for some more quotations or tell him outrightly why his assertion is not an accurate representation of the Objectivist position. I think the latter of the two would probably be more useful because, no matter how hard he searches, he is not going to find anything in OPAR or elsewhere in the Objectivist literature to back his particular assertion up. I can think of perfectly innocent reasons why Vladimir made such an assertion in the first place. What about the possibility that somewhere, either in his reading of the source material or reading postings that others have put up here, Vladimir came to a false conclusion about what the Objectivist position is. A lot of people new to the philosophy do that. And I really don't have a problem at all with Vladimir suggesting that the "psychological harms" are "murky." I don't agree with that as I have already mentioned in another posting. But if he doesn't fully understand the issues involved, it is not at all unreasonable that they would seem murky to him. Is it not possible that he is simply mistaken on that matter? I should also point out that Vladimir said the following in response to softwareNerd's initial request: That sounds to me like he very likely got his notion of what the Objectivist position is based, in part, on stuff that he read here on this forum. I am afraid that is a very common mistake for people new to the philosophy. You can't take anything that is said here as being a proper, official representation of the philosophy. Even those here who do have a solid understanding of the philosophy are not necessarily qualified to present it. And, quite frankly, there is no shortage of postings here that are outright wrong or, at best, highly rationalistic and/or dogmatic. Anyone new to the philosophy would do well to keep that in mind. The way I look at it, Vladimir basically made good on his word - he picked up OPAR and found a couple of quotes that, in and of themselves, seem to support his assertion. To point out that they are taken out of context is by all means appropriate. But to suggest that he is dishonest or lazy is, I think, uncalled for. If he understood the context, he most likely wouldn't have posted the assertion in the first place. Vladimir did not promise to go back and re-read a couple of chapters - and since he is a busy student, I completely believe him when he says that he does not have time to do so just for the sake of a discussion board posting. What he promised to do was browse through and look for a couple of quotations that supported what he had already gleamed from the book. That is how someone can innocently "skip over the chapters specifically dealing with the development of the key arguments and find his justification in a derivative chapter." Again, all I think was necessary was to briefly explain why his quotes were inadequate - which you actually did, though in a somewhat mocking tone which really isn't very persuasive or productive. I also don't think Vladimir's request for specific references as to where he can find Peikoff's actual position is at all unreasonable. And it wouldn't have been very difficult to answer as you already provided such an answer a more general sort of way in your initial posting on the matter. All you really needed to do was refer back to it and perhaps narrow the scope a little bit. As for the possibility of Vladimir being dishonest - well, I have had quite a few philosophical conversations and debates with Vladimir. He and I don't always agree on things - but I have yet to see him exhibit any form of dishonesty. Sometimes I feel like he is a bit thick-headed (I am sure he can say the same about me and others here as well). But I have a great deal of respect for his intelligence, his integrity and for the fact that he is approaching his study of Objectivism in a critical manner. To see a suggestion here that he is dishonest - well, I am sorry, that kind of bugs me. It is not true and it is not an appropriate thing to say to him. To level such a charge in an Objectivist forum - well, that is a pretty serious accusation.

Gee -thanks!

I will admit to plenty of fear when there is a gun pointed at my head. Perhaps I might summon up the courage to resist if I thought that it was in my power to succeed. But the resistance that has been described in this thread basically amounts to making the case of reason and logic to other members of the same gang as the gunmen. I don't see how a great deal can be accomplished by that. Why not spend the same amount of one's passion and energy making a case to the general public against the altruist ethics that make the tax code possible in the first place? It is altruism which keeps the makers of Vaseline in business for far more reasons than the tax code. And, like software nerd points out, there are many wonderful things in this world worth doing and striving for - is fighting the tax code really the way you would most enjoy spending your time?

Vladimir - I somehow overlooked your previous reply. While it is very true that it does result in a degradation of society, that is not the basis of the Objectivist position on the issue. Objectivism argues that the moral is the practical - and Dr. Peikoff does demonstrate at some length the negative consequences that come from not living a virtuous life. His position is NOT that using force is against your self-interest on grounds of "what if everyone did that?" Thinking back, I recall a previous exchange you and I had on this subject where I might have given you reason for thinking that this was the Objectivist position. If so - then I did a very poor job of explaining the position and it only goes to show why it is so important that one base one's understanding and opinions of the philosophy on source material and not what someone on a message board says, no matter how well-meaning he might be. First, such psychological harms have to be considered in context. It is sort of like taking a certain type of poison that the body has difficulty getting rid of and accumulates over time. If enough accumulates, it will make you sick or it will possibly kill you. But it is entirely possible to ingest a small dose and see no discernible consequences. Over time, however, those small doses build up and do have noticeable consequences. If you shoplift a stick of gum from Wal-mart - well, if you are morally capable of doing that in the first place, chances are your existing psychology will remain intact and you will probably not even have a guilty conscience. No lightening bolt from heaven is going to strike you down. But what you are doing is undercutting the values and virtues which are necessary to live a happy life - which hopefully will last many decades beyond the immediate moment. This brings me to the second point regarding the psychological evidence that Ayn Rand and OPAR provide. First off, "psychological harms" in this context is your term and not Ayn Rand's or Dr. Peikoff's. I agree, however, that a psychological component is very much involved and that such harm does occur. But the psychological aspect of the issue is derivative. Rand and Peikoff provided a philosophical argument not a psychological one - though it does indeed have pretty significant psychological implications which they do address. The evidence that you assert is not provided is, in fact, provided in the writings of both Rand and Peikoff that discuss the fundamental requirements of human life. The psychological aspect comes into play with the moral purpose of one's life which is: one's happiness. Happiness is obviously a psychological state. And, as you should already know, Objectivism does not equate happiness with mere short term satisfactions or hedonistic pleasures. Objectivism holds that happiness cannot be achieved at random or in any old fashion. It requires that one live long-range in accordance to the demands of reality and of his nature - i.e. that he live the life of a rational being. In order to live such a life, Ayn Rand, argued, one must practice certain specific virtues - rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride. Objectivism says that to practice such virtues requires more than lip service or adherence whenever it is convenient for range-of-the-moment expedience. It requires that one take such virtues seriously and make their application a way of life. Why? Because that is what is necessary in order to live the life of a rational being and to achieve the reward that can result only from living such a life: happiness. Lying, deceiving, cheating and stealing are NOT in your self-interest regardless of whatever range-of-the-moment gain you may achieve from them because to engage in such behavior is to undercut the virtues which are necessary for your long-term success and happiness. To the degree you continue to undercut those virtues in the name of expediency you are no longer taking them seriously and no longer living them as a matter of principle. You are merely acting on them as a matter of short-term convenience whenever the mood strikes you - i.e. you are not really living by them at all. It is sort of like the old saying goes, the person who tells the truth most of the time is still a liar. To the degree that you undercut practicing those virtues as a way of life, you are undercutting your prospects for long-term happiness - and there are psychological consequences for those who are not happy and they are not particularly pleasant. Look at Peter Keating in The Fountainhead. Look at any person you know in your own life who has, over a long span of time, demonstrated himself to be dishonest, evasive and parasitical. I have absolutely no idea where in the Objectivist literature you would get that from. All one needs to do is read The Fountainhead to see how highly Ayn Rand regarded "societal norms" and to see that she did not consider living outside of those norms as necessarily causing psychological harm. The only time I recall hearing Objectivists say positive things about societal norms was in regard to such narrow matters as the rules of etiquette, the rules of dress, the rules of grammar - i.e., in contexts where such norms are necessary in order for everyone to be on the same page so as to make objective communication possible. Ayn Rand most certainly did NOT argue that morality is a matter of social convention.

I think you are missing my point. I don't deny that there are occasions when a person has no choice but to engage in certain behaviors which are unsavory. My point is simply that does not necessarily follow that such behavior is in a man's self-interest in the sense that Objectivism defines self-interest. If you live in Communist Cuba and are drafted to go out into the fields and help bring in the sugar cane harvest (this happens there) your choice is to comply or to be jailed or tortured - or even worse, perhaps it will be your loved ones who will be jailed or tortured. In such a situation, you may very well decide that the best option open to you would be to comply and properly conclude that a protest in the name of your values would accomplish nothing and merely result in your sacrifice. But that doesn't change the fact that, even though it may be the best of two horrible alternatives, working in the sugar cane fields is NOT an example of working in your self-interest. In Communist Cuba, you are not allowed to pursue your self-interest. As to instances where one is not under compulsion, my overall point about self-interest not being subjective is valid as well. Objectivism does not define self-interest by range-of-the-moment "the truth is what works" pragmatic expediency. That a particular criminal may get away with a particular crime and derive enjoyment from its proceeds does NOT mean that the crime was in his self-interest - though it is true that he derived material benefit from it. The Objectivist view is that man's actual self-interest is based on an understanding of certain specific principles regarding the nature and requirements of human life and holds that a certain specific set of virtues must be practiced as a matter of principle over the long-term range of his life. (For a related elaboration on principles, see the posting I put up just before this one). The error in your postings is that you essentially equate "self-interest" with pragmatic expediency. Objectivists mean something entirely different when they use the term and regard pragmatism or any other form of range-of-the-moment behavior to be ultimately self destructive.

And I think "living by principle" is really the part that people new to the philosophy often have the most difficult time understanding. Because of today's cultural climate, a lot of people come to Objectivism with the implicit view that there are only two alternative approaches to ethics: categorical imperatives/commandments on one hand and range-of-the-moment expediency/pragmatism on the other. They then assume that Objectivism must fall into either one camp or the other and they essentially demand that the Objectivist literature prove its validity using the assumptions of that particular camp. Therefore, the person who falls into the camp of categorical imperatives freaks out when he reads about the Objectivist position on emergency situations. He considers the Objectivist trapped in a blizzard who saves himself by breaking into an unoccupied hunting cabin and helping himself to the firewood and food to be a hypocrite. He trespassed. He stole. He will then claim that Objectivism is full of bs because a truly ethical person would rather die on the edge of the highway than to trespass or steal. Or, he might, instead, claim that Objectivism is full of bs because the only alternative in that situation is to die by the highway or to trespass and steal thereby proving that ethics, as such, is impractical. And the person who falls into the camp of range-of-the moment expediency/pragmatism considers every immorality and crime that goes unpunished to be a repudiation of the Objectivist ethics. An employee embezzles a large sum of money from his employer who never even realized the money was there in the first place let alone that it is missing. Because of that money, the employee was able to quit his job, go into business for himself and now has lots of really cool toys and a Barbie doll girlfriend. Lightening did not come and strike this man down. Nor does this guy spend time on a psychiatric couch. He is just as much of a jerk as he has ever been and everything seems to always go his way. Therefore, since Objectivism is unable to point to any visible negative consequences of the man's immoral behavior, the pragmatist considers it to be proof that morality is nothing more than a collection of useless commandments. The notion of thinking in principle without resorting to dogmatism is one of the things that makes Objectivism unique and very radical. Because such an approach is utterly foreign in today's mainstream intellectual climate, it is an aspect of Objectivism that can be very difficult for a newbie to pick up on and to understand. I know it was something I sure had difficulty grasping - and there are occasional instances when I discover that I still have difficulty with it. There are others out there who seem to absorb Objectivist principles almost by osmosis and are very good at regurgitating them and throwing them back in people's faces - but what they absorbed was not principles that they considered critically and understood but principles which they accepted and hold as what amounts to a form of dogma. Understanding Ayn Rand's unique approach of thinking in terms of principles is crucial to understanding and fully appreciating her philosophy - and since such an approach is not something that is self-evident or easy to make obvious, properly grasping it is something which requires a decent amount of study and familiarity with the Objectivist literature and a great deal of critical thought. Cheating, stealing and violating other people's rights are wrong on principle. The fact that some people get away with such behavior in the short run does not change this or invalidate the principle. Nor is the principle invalidated by the fact that there might exist certain extreme contexts - such as a life or death emergency or being forced to act at gunpoint - in which the principle is simply not applicable. My major point here is this: until someone fully and properly understands what Objectivists mean when they say that something is wrong on principle, it is simply not going to be possible to have a full understanding and an appreciation for the Objectivist ethics.

You could also invent a car that runs on salt water and air. That would really solve a lot of problems - especially those related to our having to use oil controlled by less than wonderful people. And one could afford to leave the car running all the time and let the defroster take care of things. I think it is great that you want to come up with new ideas - and I hope you find some that make you some money. It is ok to be imaginative and to think outside the box with a "nothing's impossible" sort of approach initially. But it is important to know at what point you need to become a hard core realist on any idea - otherwise all you have is an air castle. Air castles can be fun - but five dollars and an air castle will still only buy you a cup of expensive coffee at Starbucks.

Actually, there is nothing wrong at all with referring people to source material. It took Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff thousands of pages to discuss and describe the philosophy. It is simply unreasonable to expect people in a discussion forum to spend time regurgitating it for you. A discussion forum such as this one presupposes that one has already read or at least has an interest in the Objectivist literature. If a person hasn't or doesn't - well, they don't really belong here, do they? A discussion board about Objectivism cannot and should not be a substitute for studying and reading the Objectivist literature. Therefore, it is NOT inappropriate for people to refer you to specific passages or essays that make the point in greater detail than they are able to do in a discussion forum. It is not reasonable to expect a person to sum up in one short paragraph the same exact point that it took Ayn Rand or Dr. Peikoff ten pages to explain and demand that the paragraph be just as persuasive to boot. Now, I do agree that "read this" or "read that" is not a substitute for a specific argument. But, quite frankly, a lot of arguments that are made here with regard to a certain issue do presuppose an understanding of and agreement with more fundamental aspects of the philosophy - and, very often, those more fundamental aspects cannot be convincingly argued for in a brief posting. You can't discuss calculus to someone who is still having trouble grasping certain basic points of algebra. It is entirely appropriate for a person to give a brief summary of the more fundamental issue involved and direct a person to the source material for elaboration. If one's motive is to merely argue against a point about Objectivism without being interested in learning what the Objectivist position actually is and the more fundamental points it is based on - well, I would say that the person is being somewhat disingenuous when he posts here and expects people to take the time to put up intelligent replies. If a person is new to the philosophy and is just learning it - well, there are a lot of perfectly honest and valid questions and objections which may occur to him along the way which simply cannot be answered in brief discussion forums by others who may or may not be all that knowledgeable about the philosophy themselves. Either you decide that there is enough value in what you have read so far to make the effort to study and understand the philosophy in greater detail or there isn't. If you decide that there is - well, there is no online equivalent of Cliff's Notes via a discussion board that is going to get you there. You have to study the material for yourself. And if a person has already studied the material - well, references back to what they should already have read in the first place should not be a problem. If the referred to passage does not provide the answer one is seeking, all one has to do is say so and explain why - and demand either a more specific passages to be quoted or a better explanation provided.

No. (I am excluding very extreme, short term life or death emergencies such as breaking into an empty hunting cabin one stumbles across while trapped in a blizzard and uses its shelter and the food in its pantry to save one's life. That is a different issue entirely - see Ayn Rand's comments on the ethics of emergencies as to why it is a different issue. And even in such emergency situations, one is fully responsible for the moral consequences of their behavior and obliged to do whatever they can to make up for it once the emergency has passed. In other words, even in such extreme circumstances, the person's rights must still be respected.) There is no such thing as being immoral by accident. One cannot be immoral by merely making a mistake. But just because it is inappropriate to brand a person as immoral, it does not follow that the person's behavior is necessarily okay. A person is morally responsible for the consequences of his behavior regardless as to whether the consequences were caused by accident, ignorance, honest error or intentional immorality. For example, a number of years ago, a friend told me about an incident that happened when she was "shopping" (i.e. mostly looking at stuff) at a mall. One of the things she looked at in several department stores in the mall was jewelry - and in each of the stores, she tried several items on to see how they would look. At some point later in her shopping trip, she was walking through the mall, looked down and suddenly noticed that she was wearing a necklace that did not belong to her. It was one that she tried on in one of the department stores. But she could not remember which store it came from. She said that she was very upset because she realized that she had, in effect, shoplifted without even realizing it. So she backtracked to each store in tears, asking the clerks whether it was their store she had taken it from. Did my friend violate rights? Of course she did. She took property that did not belong to her. Was she immoral? No. It was an accident - and when she realized it, she did what was necessary to correct her mistake as quickly as possible. Does this make what she did okay? No, it doesn't. She should have been paying more attention to what she was doing - and the fact that all of us become distracted from things we should be paying attention to from time to time and such distractions are perfectly normal does not change this fact. Had department store security been paying attention, would they have been justified in treating her like a common shoplifter? They most certainly would have. The fact that she was openly wearing the necklace might have given her story a bit more credibility than had she stuffed it in her purse - but the fact is, one could hardly blame security for thinking the worst and acting accordingly. Had she been caught - well, that would have been horrible because a decent person would have ended up with a record that would have made her look like a criminal when, in fact, all that happened was a mere careless accident which, in fact, would was corrected as soon as it was discovered. Had she been caught, she would still not have been immoral - but she would have had to pay certain moral consequences for her careless behavior.

Very true. I disagree. The fact remains that it is not in a person's self-interest to support or provide moral sanction to persons, ideas or institutions which seek as their objective policies that lead to his own destruction, however slow that process of destruction might be. The fact that the impact of his sanction is very small in the grand scheme of things does not change this one bit - any more than the fact that it is NOT in your self-interest to cast a vote for an Adolf Hitler in an election is somehow undercut by the fact that the odds of the election being decided by your single vote are next to nill. Now, it is true that, in a mixed economy type situation, one may have very few options other than to participate in some of the programs and policies that result from it. For example, it is possible that, because of the heavy burden the welfare state places on the economy a person may have little option than to accept government welfare state benefits. I, for example, went to public schools and had some government grants and loans when I was in college. A lot of decent people accept Social Security benefits despite the fact that the money they put into it was looted and spent decades ago and that the benefits are now paid by loot extracted from current workers. A farmer or businessman who is offered government subsidies may have little choice but to accept those subsidies if virtually all of his competitors are taking those same subsidies and pricing their products accordingly. One cannot stay in business if everyone else is able to offer the same product at comparable quality for a significantly lower price. But that does not mean that this is an example of the businessman deciding to seek or preserve his self-interest by joining forces with the rights violators. Basically such a businessman has a gun pointed at him with the orders: play our game or you will be destroyed. Whatever the businessman chooses in such an instance, it is NOT an example of a person acting in his own, long-term rational self-interest. Rather, it is an example of a man who is forced to act against his own long term self-interest in the name of mere survival. It is no different than if a mugger demanded your wallet under the threat of "your money or your life." You may hand over your wallet in the name of self-preservation - but the fact remains is the mugger is forcing you to act against your own self-interest. It is NOT in your own self-interest to give away your hard earned money to random strangers you despise - though it may be wise to do so if they have a gun pointed at you. An IRS agent may or may not have other job opportunities that are open and available to him. Let's say he does not. And let's say he is a typical mindless Democrat who has no grasp of economics and whose approach to political and social issues is on the level of an 8 year old and consists of such bromides as "Wouldn't it be nice if every person in the world had a decent job, house, education and standard of living" without ever having given a moment's worth of thought as to exactly HOW such things come into existence and WHO is to provide them. Maybe this IRS agent THINKS he is acting in his own self-interest. But the fact of the matter is that he is NOT. Whether he realizes it or not, he is working as an agent in the cause of his own destruction - even if he thinks that the cause is grand, glorious and just. He is wrong. No it does not. Peter Keating tried to pursue the most "comfortable" possible state of existence for himself and look where it got him. Comfort is really a non-essential here. It is more comfortable to watch a movie with friends than to study for an exam - but one could hardly say that getting bad grades as a result is in one's self-interest. And when Objectivists talk about pursuing happiness they are talking about something very specific. It is NOT the same thing as pursuing one's mere wishes or feelings and cannot be accomplished by living as a playboy or drifter. Objectivists hold that happiness can result only from a very specific rational approach to life. For more information on that, reread the literature on the Objectivist virtues. And any time a person finds himself having to act under compulsion, it is impossible for him to act in his own self-interest, which is what makes the initiation of such compulsion so very evil.

I guess it all depends on what you mean when you say that "they are serving their own interests." It is true that IRS agents are receiving certain benefits as a result of their behavior. But the error here is to equate behavior where one is the intended beneficiary with self-interest. Objectivism equates self-interest with behavior that actually IS in one's own self-interest - and it does so in terms of the context of one's life which hopefully will continue on for more than just the immediate moment. Therefore, it equates self-interest with a person's actual, long term well being. Now ask yourself if working as an IRS agent is, in fact, an example of working in one's own long-term best interests. Let's assume that the particular IRS agent used here as an example is one of the better kind. He is not much of a political/philosophical thinker and has not given much thought to the moral implications of his position. Indeed, he feels somewhat patriotic about his position because he sees himself as part of the process that is supporting functions of the government that you and I would regard as appropriate and beneficial - the military, the courts, law and order, etc. When he interacts with taxpayers, he is courteous and respectful - he does not take advantage of the situation to get a cheap power rush to screw people over simply because he has the power and opportunity to do so. He has a strong work ethic, his work is always very thorough and accurate and turned in on time. Think about it for a moment - is this IRS agent really working in a way that serves his actual self-interest? Towards what end is his job function working? Basically to support those aspects of the government that make it necessary for confiscatory levels of taxation to exist if they are to survive. Specifically, he is working to support the welfare state and the regulatory infrastructure that is a huge burden on our economy. Just look at the amazing increase in prosperity, productivity and technological marvels over the past couple of decades - and then imagine how much further along we would all be if it hadn't been slowed down to the degree it has been by regulation and taxation. Imagine if the entire United States became one giant Hong Kong only much better with economic growth rates higher than they were even in the 19th century. Imagine what such an economy would do in terms of providing an environment for impressive and unprecedented progress in science, technology, medicine, art and cultural opportunities, etc. Would this IRS agent benefit from such a society? Of course he would. The positive work ethic and the skills he brings with him to the job would all have market value in a totally laissez faire economy. And, being a productive player in such a highly dynamic and productive economy, his standard of living would be far better than what he has today. And, like everyone else, IRS agents pay taxes too. That burden would be significantly reduced if not eliminated in such an economy. Yet what is this IRS agent doing with his career? Is he working to help bring himself and all of the rest of us that much closer towards such a dynamic and prosperous economy? No. He is doing the exact opposite. He, in his own small way, is working to prevent or, at the very least, significantly slow down, the advent of such an economy and, therefore, all of the benefits it would have otherwise provided him with. In that respect, he is, in fact, working to prop up a system that is against his own, actual long term self-interest. So he makes a decent salary? Well, there are other ways of making a decent salary which do not involve actively working in the service of those who are, in fact, holding him back and limiting his standard of living - and there would most certainly be many opportunities for him to make a decent salary in a laissez faire economy. Self-interest is not the same thing as merely pursuing one's desires and wishes. There are certain behaviors which are in a man's actual self-interest - and there are behaviors which are not. That is why the Objectivist position is sometimes referred to not as mere "self-interest" but rather as "rational self-interest." And for the reasons I provided above, it is NOT in a man's actual, rational self-interest to make being an IRS agent his career.

This is really great.... Krystal, one of my favorite hamburger chains is finally coming to Fort Worth. My favorite actually is White Castle - but those are only found up north. Krystal is a Southern version of White Castle and if you order a Krystal burger without the mustard you have an ersatz White Castle burger. Both are tiny burgers with thin squares of meat that are steamed over a bed of onions on a grill. They are WONDERFUL - though, for whatever reason, Krystal decides to destroy the taste by putting on lots of iky mustard which one can happily order the burger without. They have had one open in Carrollton for quite a while but that is WAY out of my way. I am actually in Waco where there is another one far more often than I am in Carrollton. A few months ago they opened one in Grand Prairie which I have been to a couple of times - but that too is kind of out of my way. The initial location in Fort Worth will be much more convenient for me. Anyhow, Krystal and White Castle are one of those things that people either tend to love or they tend to hate. Whenever I happen to be in a part of the country where one of them has locations, I make a point to get my fill of them. Soon, I won't even have to leave Fort Worth - and most locations tend to be open 24 hours which is even better. Our Metroplex has just become a tad bit more civilized and more of a desirable place to live! If you haven't ever tried one, be sure to do so - just ask for it without the mustard. By ANDREA JARES STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER Krystal, the chain whose tiny square hamburgers have a cult following, plans to open four locations in Fort Worth. The first is planned to open before April near the Wal-Mart SuperCenter at Airport Freeway and North Beach Street, said Stephen Alexander of Hurst, who is planning at least three more. Krystal, which operated briefly in North Texas several decades ago, opened its first new Metroplex eatery in Carrollton in 2004. Since then, more have opened in Grand Prairie and Denton. "Krystals are doing very well in the Texas markets," Alexander said. "There's not one on this side of town. I think the demographics are perfect. Krystals have a great following." Texas is particularly rich in aficionados of the 75-year-old hamburger chain. "They're certainly some of our biggest openings in our history," said Kevin Caldwell, director of franchise and marketing for the Tennessee company. Krystal burgers are typically eaten a few at a time because they're only 2.5 inches across. Their taste is unusual because the bun, meat and onion are all cooked together, Caldwell said. The restaurants have developed a cult status over the years, and openings have attracted long lines of people who have camped out to be among the first customers, Caldwell said. Alexander said, "I'm just very impressed with Krystal's track record." Andrea Jares, 817-548-5522 [email protected]

Someone sent me this the other day and it gave me a chuckle: Eight years after Clinton left office, the DC area second grade class is not quite the same.

Vladimir - I have a question for you along these lines. You have some pretty nifty 78 rpm records in your collection - records that I don't have and would enjoy owning myself. Let's say I come over to your place and I bring along a few of my records. You pull out a nice big stack of your records and we spend time having fun listening to really neat music. When we are just about to wrap it up, you end up having to leave the room for a few minutes and I am there alone with your records. I suddenly spot amongst your records one that I have really wanted to own for a long time. My odds of finding a copy of my own are slim because that particular record is scarce and it is even rarer for it to turn up in as nice a condition as your copy. The thought then occurs to me that I could very easily slip that record in with mine. I already have my records packed up and in a few minutes plan to take them to my vehicle so the odds of your seeing it in my stack are next to nill. It also occurs to me that it would most likely take you many, many months to even be aware that the record is missing. You brought out several dozen records and did not take any notes as to which ones. The odds of your noticing that it is missing when you pack the records away is very slim. And your collection is large enough that, next time you are in the mood to hear the record, which could be many days, weeks if not months in the future, when you are not able to find it where you think it is supposed to be, chances are pretty good that you will simply conclude that you misfiled it somewhere else. How likely are you to spend all the time it would take to dig through your entire collection just to look for that one particular record? And, even if you did do just that months from now, how likely are you to remember that the last time you had it out happened to be when I came over? Since we never actually played the record, your odds of remembering it being taken out are pretty slim. Since I very much would like to have that record, I decide to do a benefit/risk analysis. The benefit is obvious. But what about the risk? Well, if you discover I stole your record, you probably would probably decide that I am no longer your friend and would want to have nothing to do with me. Ok, so what? Well, I happen to enjoy knowing someone who shares my interest in 78 rpm records and Ayn Rand and other things. So the risk is that I would lose the benefits I get from having you as my friend. How great of a risk is it that I will get caught and therefore lose those benefits? Very low. My only chance of getting caught would be if you stopped me from taking my stack of records out to my vehicle and insisted on looking through them. I know the odds of your doing so are close to zero - and, in the unlikely event that you did, I could always say that your record must have somehow accidentally become mixed up with mine. And, just in case that does happen, I also add to my stack a small number of your less desirable records that I told you I disliked just to make such a story look more credible. And, in case you are ever at my house and, in the unlikely event you happen to spot that particular record among the thousands that I own, I could always say that I won it in an auction. There are no unique markings or flaws on the record that you would be able to refer to to distinguish it from another in the same condition. I conclude that it would be a perfect crime. It would be a long time - if ever - before you realize the record was missing. Chances are good you will forget you owned it or conclude that you must have broken it or something. The window of time for me to get caught is only a matter of mere minutes and the odds of it happening are very slim and can very easily be explained away if it did happen. I will go home with a cool vintage record - meanwhile you will be looking back on how much fun we had that day listening to records thinking "that Dismuke is a pretty neat fellow, I really enjoyed him coming over." I get the benefits of having the record AND all the benefits I get from knowing you and having you as a friend remain fully intact. Here are my questions for you: Is it in my self-interest to take that record? If not, why? If it is in my self-interest, then by what rational reason shouldn't I take the record? You can't even say I might be sad if I watched you suffer - you will probably never even be aware that the theft occurred in the first place. I get to have the record AND your friendship AND the comforting knowledge that you aren't even aware that something happened. So is there any reason I shouldn't take it - or do you perhaps see certain "rather murky psychological harms" that might happen to me as a result?

This is a very good point. There are plenty of people out there debunking environmentalism - but the general public that gets its news from the mainstream media rarely gets to hear about it. And when such information is published, it is either buried in the middle of an overall pro-environmentalist article or on an obscure page that does not generate much notice or subsequent conversation. But if someone who in any way can assert a claim to the mantle of science says something pro-envioronmentalist - well, gee, that is plastered all over the visible pages of the New York Times and distributed all across the country via their wire service and through other wire services such as Al-ap and Red Reuters. For example, Ralph Nader's merry band of food fascists who have led nihilistic crusades against movie theater popcorn and fettucini alfredo (i.e. occasional treats that people enjoy) calls itself The Center For Science In The Public Interest. Science my ass. They are nothing more than a bunch of hippie nihilist food fascists - the same crowd that is trying to outlaw fast food and dictate to people what they may and may not eat. The fact that some of them may have gone to college and received union cards to call themselves "scientists" means nothing to me - they are still Leftists with a dangerous and wicked political agenda. But the press eagerly eats up everything they dish out in their may press releases and passes it on uncritically. In many cases with the journalists, it is not even a matter of trying to put across a political agenda. Many are too lazy and some are not particularly bright enough to question it or investigate the matter further. And since the vast majority are already ideologically sympathetic, even if they are inclined to be fair minded, they have swallowed the kool-aid long enough that it often does not even occur to them that something put out by a Ralph Nader group might be suspect. It is much easier to simply regurgitate the press release and besides, wild apocalyptic assertions make for better headlines than a bunch of nerds saying that everything is actually ok. Plus it takes much more effort, technical knowledge and column inches to dissect a myth and educate people of the actual facts than it does to assert the myth in the first place - which does not make for good newspaper copy or easily fit into nice 15 second television sound bites. The general public, in turn, simply accepts whatever it is that the mainstream media puts forth uncritically - and thus the notion is planted in people's mind that science and reason is somehow on the side of the environmentalists when, in fact, the exact opposite is true. So the press is a major player in the propagation of the myths and so much of the distortion on the subject - which isn't surprising. This is the same crowd that attempted to use forged documents in order to influence the outcome of an election and bring down a US president. This is the same crowd that utterly distorted actual on the ground operations in both the Vietnam war and more recently in Iraq. This is the same crowd that resorted to filming automobiles that they deliberately caused to explode in order to put across their claims that they were unsafe. And those are simply the instances where they were caught - who knows what else they have managed to get away with over the decades. For that reason, I pretty much take anything I read in the mainstream media with a very healthy dose of skepticism, especially if the gist of what they are saying implies that my life and happiness should be sacrificed to the wishes of a bunch of statists. Finally, observe that Lefitist are now trying to resort to intimidation and even calls for censorship in order to shut down the critics of global warming. Such critics are now called "global warming deniers" and are frequently equated with racists who deny that the Holocaust occured. Here is an article by a scholar out of India that briefly discusses this new trend and also gives a pretty good overview of the global warming myth as well: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/20...17300954060.htm If global warming is indeed backed up by facts and science - well, why on earth does the Left feel a need to go to such lengths to silence its critics?

Without even going into any "hard science" the attempts on the part of environmentalists to panic everyone into statism don't even pass the smell test on a superficial level. For example, climate change has always occurred since long before evil human beings (those horrible demonic creatures the environmentalists keep hoping for "the right virus to come along" and wipe out) came on the scene or became industrialized. For example, the climate enjoyed by the ancient Greeks and Romans was a lot warmer than it is today. Here is an article about some of the more recent climate changes: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279o.html So even IF the climate is "warming" it does not necessarily follow that it is caused by the capitalism and human freedom that the global warming fanatics essentially propose to replace with an especially bleak form of communism. Furthermore, a warmer climate is not necessarily a bad thing - it means that areas that are now not able to become agriculturally productive gradually would be. I have read somewhere that some of the so-called evidence often cited to support "warming" is based on temperature readings taken at the same location over a prolonged period of time. Well, guess what? Temperature readings from a big city such as Fort Worth back in the 1850s probably ARE going to be cooler than those taken today simply because the location where that temperature is officially measured was out in the middle of the wilderness in the 1850s and is now in the middle of a sea of concrete and skyscrapers which does elevate temperatures in the immediate area a slight bit. Context is everything. The other thing to keep in mind is the dismal track record of accuracy of these people. You may be a bit too young to remember this, Vladimir, but in the early 1990s there was a HUGE panic over the so-called "ozone hole" over the Antarctic which was supposedly getting larger and would eventually cause us to fry to death. Then, on the basis of a single airplane flyover and data gathering mission, they press then went all nuts over an alleged new ozone hole that was forming over the Arctic region - and the Leftist press was having little orgasms about the "ozone hole over Kennebunkport, Maine" (where the first President Bush had a summer home). Well, guess what? The data from that Arctic flight was flawed and it was eventually demonstrated that the ozone hole over the antarctic was NORMAL and has been occurring long before industrialization and capitalism came on the scene. The ozone is created by interaction with the sun - and during the winter months when the alleged "hole" exists, there is no sunlight. When the sunlight returns in the spring and summer, the hole repairs itself. One does not hear much about the ozone hole anymore - they got their mileage out of it and moved on to other things once its credibility was in jeopardy. So, yes there was a "hole" in the ozone - but it was natural and normal. Context is everything. Back in the 1960s, the panic was that industrialization and capitalism was going to cause global cooling and we would all freeze to death. Since then, the same crowd has changed their minds and now its global warming. I recall some Objectivist or another once pointing out that arguing with an environmentalist is like arguing with an old time communist. Back in the day before communists morphed into environmentalists and pretended to actually care about human standards of living, the communists would list 10 alleged facts and reasons why communism was better than capitalism. When one thoroughly debunked all 10 of them, the communist would completely ignore everything that was said and simply come up with 10 new reasons. The environmentalists are the exact same way. Consider the actual and widespread environmental destruction that was exposed in the territories occupied by the old USSR when that tyranny fell - and then ask yourself why it is that the only solution advocated by environmentalists and global warming crowd is essentially another form of the same old communism. Bottom line is that Leftists, like communists, lie. What motivates them, whether they will admit it to themselves or not, is a lust for absolute power. One cannot persuade people to surrender their lives and everything they care about and value over to universal slavery by means of facts and reason. To do so, one must twist the facts and deceive. The only time that Leftists appeal to facts and reason is if the facts just so happen to be convenient to whatever agenda they are pushing at the moment - and you can be damn sure that whatever "facts" they present are almost always completely out of context. For that reason, I take anything asserted by hard core Leftists with a grain of salt in the exact same way that I take anything asserted by someone I know by my own personal experience to be dishonest with a grain of salt. Of course, taking such people's views with a grain of salt does NOT constitute a proper refutation of them. But, on the other hand, one cannot merely assert: well, we should take them seriously because maybe this time they are being truthful. It is simply not possible to go around and spend time researching and refuting every assertion irrational and dishonest people attempt to put forth. In the case with the Left, it is necessary to do a certain amount of debunking because, unfortunately, such people dominate the mass media and large numbers of people by into their ideologically motivated distortions about a wide variety of issues. Any time someone - I don't care how impressive their "credentials" are or how popular they are in upper West Side cocktail parties that staff at the New York Times and other media organizations frequent or how widely quoted they are in the media - makes some sort of assertion in order to allegedly support and justify depriving YOU of your freedom and your standard of living, your default reaction should be to automatically regard it as highly suspect. And if they do present supposed "facts" to back up their allegations, be on the lookout for them to have been presented to you very much out of their proper context. And if you don't have the time to spend researching and debunking the allegations, be darned sure that you are on guard not to allow them to influence your wider views when it comes to how you should live or vote.

Response from Algore: "It's much worse than we thought! Global warming has heated things up so much that existing meteorological assumptions are no longer valid making it impossible now for meteorologists to predict the weather! The hurricanes that would have formed this year had we not had so much global warming are now waiting to combine with hurricanes that form in future years in order to create superhurricanes so large that they will blanket the entire Gulf of Mexico and extend inland as far as Arizona! And, instead of lasting a mere day or so when they make landfall, these new superhurricanes will stick around for weeks. We need to declare a state of National Emergency NOW! The fact that there were no major hurricanes this year is proof that global warming is real and is a bigger threat to the United States than those relatively harmless so-called "terrorists" in the Middle East that everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over! To quote Howard Dean: "Aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!' "