Benpercent

It is fraud. She formed a contract with her employer based on the information she has provided, but since it turns out that it was actually misinformation, she violated the terms of the contract and was rightfully discharged. The employer could have kept her and perhaps suspended her without pay for a bit, if her work was of quality high enough to warrant keeping her, but it is evident they did not choose so or that her work was expendable.

But that's presupposing he can actually say something of substance in his speeches. Edit: To answer NickS' request of a link.

Actually it's for the *repeal* of the 22nd amendment. As to my own opinion on how long the administration will last, I do not know. If Obama goes through with his previous economic stimulus plan where he taxes the "windfall" (?) profits of the oil companies and redistributes them to workers, then I would say four years since the disastrous repercussions would be immediate and he would be without time for a scapegoat. If, however, it's the case that he can temper his poison and make things go downhill on rusty wheels, then it's up in the air.

The first photograph reminds me of those Land Walkers you see in Star Wars. Or are they Land Roamers?

This presupposes that the Amazon bestsellers page gets a lot of attention. How popular is it? I must admit that I myself had never looked at it, despite being a customer of Amazon for years, until last earlier this week or so when that Wall Street article about Atlas Shrugged came out.

Just when I thought it was going to come back down! What's the old record for last year? #52? Right now it's at #34. :-)

Good news! This book is now back in print and is much more affordable. The reason why it was out of my price range last time was because there was a single seller trying to charge $500 for their copy, because, after all, it is the only collection of the 1920's strips. They look quite silly now. Anyhow, I've ordered my copy along with Little Nemo: Many More Splendid Sundays!. My collection is going to be complete!

To add onto Mr. Odden's points, the reason moral responsibility of killing innocents during wartime is placed squarely on those who initiate force immorally is because they are the ones that created the situation. Without them, no such choice would have ever had to be made to begin with. Take for instance a terrorist leader using a baby as a human shield. If a soldier shot and killed both the terrorist and the baby, who would be responsible for the baby's death? The terrorist, for he is the one that made the situation exist. On a related note, this is actually a good thing to keep in mind in a study of ethics. A big warning sign of an evil system of ethics is when the code gives evil people leverage, a blackmail weapon where they can use the practitioner's ethics against him. As has been said, "the devil can quote scripture for his purposes." Edit: Minor grammar and wording

Plus he doesn't seem to understand that the press' health isn't faltering in any way; it just so happens to be that the consumer base is shifting to a different *form* of the press.

While they're at it they might as well bailout cassette tapes. This is the most absurd action I have seen proposed. How do they suppose to keep the papers afloat without their readers, their lifeblood? Will they soon, like an echo of mandatory health-insurance, require mandatory newspaper subscriptions? The comments are rather misinformed in thinking it's serious that he's trying to get someone fired (as opposed to the serious violation of freedom of speech), but it is nice to see that there is a negative reaction at least. But I wonder: How much weight does Blagojevich's words carry? Who can take seriously a guy that swears that much other than when he's carrying an actual gun and carry a bag with a dollar sign on it? Also, are there any other politicians as gangster-like as him?

After seeing previews for it on television, am I the only one that thought the alien looked like a Starman from the Super Nintendo video game "Earthbound"?

I do not believe so. Is "Hake" his first name? If so, then it is not the case. We are talking about John Saxon.

After some more thinking about David and Kendall's points, I have to concur that my desire to change my name was rather rationally unjustified. I have decided then to keep my name the way it is, for it is not the clothes that make the man. So what if it is common? John Galt was a common name in the world of Atlas Shrugged. I thank you all for your advice and say that my personal problem is concluded.

I second Mammon's points. If, however, you were looking for a response in more formal logical terms: It's both a straw man and an argument from intimidation.

Boy, I have never seen a worse case of biased and provocative journalism than when I read the front page of my local newspaper: "U.S. Senate to Auto Industry: DROP DEAD".

I agree, but I wish they would have left out the introduction, which was snarky ("Of course, things look entirely different to members of 'free-market advocacy groups,' as they like to be called.") and misrepresentative ("One such group is the Ayn Rand Institute, [...] whose antigovernment and anti-regulation views are embodied in her best-selling novels[...].). They should have just gone straight to the interview transcript. Oh, and here's a relevant quote: "Speak reason to a fool and he'll call you foolish."

It may sound silly, but if you get burned out, then I suggest you place all your valuables in your room and then take a nap in the library. People at my old college found all sorts of weird places to sleep.

Tomorrow's another day and a brand new, completely unrelated line of thinking for the pragmatist at heart. As Ordr said, he's not in office yet so he could very well do a 180 once he's in. His flip-flopping on so many promises already means we can't count on anything he says. When he was on The View (my grandmother watches it!) he said his first priority was going to be the socializing health insurance, er, making healthcare available to everyone, but now it's the economy. So who knows who bama is?

I plan on never retiring since whatever work I plan on going into wouldn't require much physical stamina (though tons of mental stamina :-)). In my personal experience with people around me, I've seen that most don't actually want to retire; they just mistake the desire as such and what they really want is a one or two (or three) week vacation. I've heard of one guy who sold his business to a couple only to turn around and become an employee! My own grandfather continued working full-time in his profession despite retiring from it and my grandmother simply traded her full-time job for a part-time job when she retired. But all in all, as Sophia said, whether or not you want to retire it is up to you. I would think that if people explicitly identified and pursued their life's purpose then they probably wouldn't wish to retire. Would you happen to be talking about John Allison?

Greatly put. A misunderstanding. I am not considering changing my name because I have read Rand's opinion on names; reading that quote just reminded me that I have been thinking about changing my name for quite some time. I just got around to make a thread about it now, after a few weeks of entertaining the idea. Since a man's self is his mind, my position on the "name=identity" issue is that it is invalid. But really, I'm not looking for my identity, I'm looking for my own symbol. All words are symbols which represent percepts. I dislike the idea that my symbols (all three of them) are very commonly shared. Well, for one I wouldn't consider this too deeply personal. I did not know where to start in my thinking, or if I have covered enough bases in what thinking I have done, so I opened this thread to not only get some leads, but other perspectives I haven't considered. Adrock3215, for example, has given me another blessing to count. Plus I'm not asking random people, I'm asking people who share a common way of thinking, most commonly a philosophy.

(Italics are mine) This is odd. Why did you have to say this before you said you were doing well? Is this derivative from another conversation you had? This is inappropriate if you are trying advocate explicitly Objectivism. Continued practice will make people see you as a "Randroid" and they will shut out your arguments as an effect. To be clear, although Randroid is used as an insult it is not a term rejected by Objectivists. It is used to denote people who accept the philosophy on faith and regurgitate arguments for it almost word for word. All in all, I think you're making a mountain out of molehill. [Edit: Grammar touch up]

I had some thoughts after reading this: Then I remembered that for quite a while I have been wanting to change my name. Not only are "Ben" and "Skipper" by themselves extremely common names, but there are many men existing today with the same exact combination! Far too horribly common for me. It will probably be awhile before I can get the funds to change my name (even if the actual process is cheap, there are other things to consider such as license's and my SS card), but I would at least like to start right now entertaining alternatives. My main focus is to actually invent a name, but lacking knowledge in linguistics I am not sure where to start in my thinking or researching. But, of course, this thread is not limited only to my changing my name. The things I would like to discuss are 1.) what are your views on someone changing their name, 2.) in the process of changing a name (whether it be inventing or selecting it), what criterion should one focus on; and 3.) should names mean something etymologically, or should they just be pronounceable? Thank you for your time.

In so few years too! Now that's inspirational fuel!

Yes, that is right.

Mr. Ellison is right: behind the humor of this issue is the serious question of the professionalism of the nurses. I would encourage Vicar to press charges for violating their oath of and his right to privacy.