unskinned

There is a lot of evidence that children become sexual because of knowledge and discovery, well before puberty. I know you already get this but following from it, here are some examples of how someone could choose heterosexuality over a period of years: I like other human beings (age4)-->I'm a male (age 5)-->I would like to be an "adult" (age 6)-->I am important and I value my own pleasure(age 7)-->Sex causes me pleasure (age 9)-->Sex can be had with other human beings/Men have sex with women culturally (age 9, later)-->Sex is physiologically heterosexual (sex education)-->Women get pregnant after sex and that is how I could reproduce, if I wanted to, it's exciting and "adult" (sex ed)--> I like my friend susy and enjoy doing fun things with her--> Feces repulses me, I hate anal thermometers,etc -->And you smoosh that all together and you're a heterosexual And appreciation for the female body has to do with it's difference from men, size, shape, symmetry, and also possibly radiates outward from her genitalia and the understanding of pleasure, ownership, and the act itself. That is a thought train I would induce if I made some biological discovery that lead me in that general direction. In other words, the inconcievablility of chosen sexuality cannot be claimed here. It is concievable.

I think Washington Area Objectivist Psychologist Dr. Michael Hurd went to Catholic University. (-the- Catholic University) For what it's worth.

I'm filling out my absentee from an undisclosed location and was wondering if any Pa. voters out there had some interesting ideas on how to vote and information on our candidates. I'm from Montco/Lower Merion but there are Senator, Attorney general, Treasurer, and Auditor General to have in common. For example here is some of my lame research: Cons: Republican Attorney Gen. Candidate Tom Corbett is Pro-Life and an admitted advocate of a mixed economy. Republican Candidate for Treas. Sec. Pepper used to work for Merril Lynch and now favors boosting "Investment" tax spending. I do not know enough about her to say this is not giving out special boosts to Merril Lynch. It seems a little fishy, superficially. Most republican candidates want to concentrate on drugs and were at one point a part of Bush's war on them. Pros: Republican Auditor General candidate Joe Peters claims to be pro lowering taxes. Many think that the office offers a great check against Rendell spending. Senator Spector is very Pro-Israel and seems pro-war on T. My Representitive, Gerlich, R, signed a house conclusive resolution 332 condemning the Iranian pursuit of nukes. Also: I wonder if it might be better to vote, on domestic offices, for any outstanding Libertarians or Constitution Party members that anyone knows about. As opposed to not voting in the case that neither major party is worthwhile.

"The main thing to notice about this article is that Dr. Binswanger did not address the crucial issue of whether a half-war or no-war is preferable. " No, I think that Dr. Binswanger did address that point. It's not half-war or no-war. Those days have sadly passed us by. It's half-war or retreat/surrender. The principle probably is relevant to war, but the time of relevance for the principle of halfwar/nowar has passed. That's a huge reason why this is a referendum on American independence. Now we have to push forward.

Why does it matter that he may sway your views? Let him try. As long as you don't renounce all consideration of objectivism, let the most righteous idea win. The whole point of advocating a philosophy is that it is correct.

For the record, I don't think Matt Stone and Trey Parker would recommend that anyone take the advice of Officer Barbrady. It could be a compliment.

Great example: There is a story floating around the History/Discovery channels about a murder case in the New York area. For years they searched for the last body in this mystery. They follow tons of leads, make a map of the findings of the other bodies, etc, all to no avail. Finally the lead detective in the case calls in a psychic from France. According to this tv show the clarevoyant heard the details of the case and channeled the body of this last victim, making a sketch of the surrounding area. The detective recognized the sketch and used it to get a search warrant at one of the suspect's former houses. They dug up the backyard pool and, sure enough, they found the body. True story, according to the tv show. I was thinking about this for the longest time. How can it be possible for a psychic to channel someone's dead body? Do psychics really exist? This is unbelievable but somehow credible. It was the most credible "ghost story" I had ever heard. Then it hit me. This was a mafia case. The detective or someone in the department knew where the body was all along and for whatever reason was unable to give this information up without a cover story, maybe they didn't want to blow their informant status (or whatever). They used the psychic as a cover to find the body based on information that was private or illegal for whatever reason. And it worked, because apparently everyone bought it. Now this is just my explanation for that story, it's not official or anything. Still, it makes a lot more sense. It is a great example of the fact that even the most convincing stories that defy what is known usually have metaphysically simpler explanations.

Beagle are great and fit that general description. Very fun too, but high energy. They also smell a little. Can't reccomend them enough all the same.

What about the fact that they are under the American defense umbrella? Has Euro defense spending even approached that of the United States over the past 50 years? No wonder they have money to burn.

"This is simply a blank check for mass slaughter. If the “government who made the war necessary is responsible for all resulting deaths,” then the opposing government is utterly free to commit any outrage: poison water supplies, blow up hospitals, kill people in neutral countries." No, the evil government is in the wrong. They are the initiators and are not even morally justified in living. They don't have the right to life. That is the whole point. The only people who have the right to kill innocents by accident are the retaliators and only when that is the best way to destroy the rightless government, as is sadly often the case.

and what happens when they put the bullets in the gun? they... own them? also evw, under separation of economy and state and with low taxes, government real estate is unconstitutional and impossible. But the government owning military bases and courthouses and bullets still exists. Lastly, I think we can imagine a world where taxes have a positive stigma attatched to them, sort of the opposite of the way it is now. In a world where taxes almost only go towards the right actions people would not be so cynical about them. There is always freeridership but magine living in a free society with tremendous wealth and getting a red, white, and blue envelope on the fourth of July or something. Would you really not make a contribution? How would the Mellons of the world (ironically the author of Taxation: the Peoples Business) pay for giant marble art temples and pittsburgh universities but not for their own positive civil government? Also, maybe the government would have a policy of a steadily growing surplus (property!) in case of war.

Also, Charlotte, how do you rent bullets? I think you will concede that the government needs to own bullets. As long as they're owning bullets, I think it's right that they alone should own weapons of mass destruction as well. With separation of state and economy and voluntary taxation (and compromises on the road to it) the issue of government land ownership becomes more a question of policy. But I am still warm to the idea of a privatized capitol building as a matter of good fiscal policy.

I think it's Nathaniel Branden. something about that bee... just kidding deedlebee, welcome.

"I'm not sure how we take care of large, expensive disposable items like missiles, torpedos and bombs. " My bad. You're right Charlotte. You do like my answer because it implies anarchy. Which is the real statist collectivist myth as I am coming to understand it. But the point is that the government has to own the nukes and I don't mind Marriot's reminder that public property is owned by the public. This is more true when there is a healthy separation of economy and state so that the politicians can be held accountable on a more limited and focused set of issues.

Why can't Congress rent the building from private owners? Why can't the military operate on unclaimed land or rent from landowners? I don't know why not. So why does the government have to own property? And to the congressmen: bring your own pens and paper, etc.

What a great article Mr. Swig, thanks for posting it. I am supprised at its fairness from someone who apparently disagrees with Dr. Brook.

No, maybe I wasn't clear enough. He has already initiated the process, if there is one, of going to the United Nations and THEN taking unilateral action when that fails. This is what he did on Iraq. That's what I meant. I don't like it either, but that's the way it went down.

Americo- Did you notice some interesting things about Jude Law's character in Road to Perdition? Specifically, did you notice a parallel between his character and the role of the director? There is a scene where he alters the outcome of a failed murder and then photographs it. Meanwhile the El moving behind the windows looks like film sliding over a projector or movie screen. In the esthetics chapter of OPAR Peikoff mentions a director who films "nothing by accident." In this case itwould make the story about the Michael Sr's struggle and interaction with a godlike director. (also he shoots him in the eye through a "looking glass" I think) I don't know if you care that much, but I'd be interested if you noticed these scenes.

i.e. that Bush will use his religious philosophy to justify curbing freedom of speech in our 2 most important public forums, tv and radio?

So now Robert Tracinski is explaining why he is an anti-Bushite for Bush. This mirrors what I mentioned earlier that the Bush Administration messes around with the U.N but ultimately takes unilateral action and will do so on Iran (and has already initiated that process). Also "Whatever it Takes" is a decidedly clear and strong campaign message for the Republicans. So again I say there is a strong case for voting for Bush, and for anti-Islamofascism, and thus giving his admin. the go ahead on Wolfy's "End States..." policy. Is it the FCC and religion that bother you anti-Kerrites for Kerry?

That's true it was "Let's get it started," but the song is "Let's get retarded" and it was priceless. Perfect theme song for members of the Dem Party.

Bush is going to cause inflation. Inflation is like another tax.

Off the heezy is ebonics, I was just kidding around. The republican convention was really great (err, dazzling), though. That's what I meant to say. I'm not pro-republican exactly, but am a former republican. It was easy to catch the fever over the past few nights. NYC, Guilianni, the Terminator, Dick Cheney, and Bush "taking the mound" last night. Can you blame me? Yet I am agonizing over this decision. TR expanded government and humiliated the right to private property with anti-trust. Bush is a fan of TR and apparently of John Ashcroft and the FCC. A stretch? The idea, though, is that "whatever it takes" is code for "I can't mention it for political reasons, but you know who is next." TIA daily seemed to imply that Bush likes to mess around with the UN for a while and then take action and that they have recently begun that process. He won't be campaigning for reelection. The republicans don't want us to "change horses mid-stream." There is some wisdom in that. Then again, why wasn't it Iran to begin with? Agonizing.

Bush's speech last night at the garden was pretty good. Maybe I'm just caught up in Bush fever but that Republican convention was OFF the heezy. For all his flaws, Karl Rove is a genius at making the Democrats look stale as bread. Maybe some of you caught the Black Eyed Peas singing "Let's Get Retarded" at the DNC. It was perfect. There has been debate about voting for Kerry to keep the GOP from Teddy Roosevelting free speech. But, iaddressing foreign policy, tonight Bush said "Nothing Will Hold Us Back." That sounds like a promise to me. I'd love to hear what you all think.

It is a no brainer that muslims and people of color should be profiled. Few persons of color should be able to get on a plain without being searched. You don't have a right to someone else's property. Random searches can be conducted on the rest of the population but obviously the first priority is to weed out those who look muslim. People's lives are at stake.