Ed from OC

I would think wanting to work for a Hank Rearden (and wanting to avoid working for an Orren Boyle) would be more important than geography.

Scott's a good guy, but I often disagree with his movie analysis. This is one of those times. The basic issue at stake is: conformity and anonymous mediocrity vs. greatness and individualism. Should these heroes use their abilities to their utmost potential, fight for justice, and have the courage to risk their lives in battle -- or kowtow to the whines of the mob of mediocrity and give up and blend in? I think this is my favorite Pixar movie to date -- and that's saying a lot, since they have yet to make a movie that was less than terrific. Pixar is today what Disney once was: a movie company that created movie after movie with beautiful animation with stories to match.

Here's a link to a white paper giving an inside look at Electronic Arts, the video game / software company. Those interested in software, video games, the tech industry, and corporate management may find this of interest. The author, a Carnegie Mellon computer science professor, spent a semester working at the company. The paper details his recommendations for creating a college program to train future game designers and programmers. A few points he makes about EA: * EA is bigger than Apple and Pixar combined * Between 20 and 200 people work on each game * EA is "a ruthless meritocracy with a brutally honest culture" * They are a model of how to manage people and processes * "The largest sin at EA is not delivering your game on time." * "People at EA work long hours, in large part because of their great passion for making games." * The company's stock has been an excellent investment: $1 invested in MSFT 14 years ago would be worth ~$40 today; invested in EA, it would be twice that. * Mediocre performers are not tolerated; high performers are well rewarded, encouraged, and promoted. This sounds to me like a terrific place to work.

... and married with two kids. Dang it.

Hmmm... reminds of a certain book about an architect, in which a newspaper magnate "kept coming back" to designs of this one red-haired dude. Sometimes life can turn up the sweetest coincidences...

One idea I had to deal with that issue is to offer a flat tax as an alternative tax. Set up the rules for both the current progressive income tax and for a flat tax, with the proviso that a citizen can pay the tax burden determined under either. For some, who have set up their financial houses to take advantage of the current system, the net tax may remain lower under the present system. For others, who are not yet in that state, the flat tax would be lower. And in between, people who marginally benefit from the current system would switch to the flat tax, trading a little extra money for the simplicity. Would it be worth an extra 1 or 2% in taxes? I think over time many would think so. This would lead to a natural shift into a flat-tax-only system (or perhaps a hybrid, with a very limited number of deductions, such as college tuition, medical, or mortgage).

While I agree we should aim to lower the overall tax burden (and rein in federal spending), one of the hidden costs is simply dealing with the complexity of the system. As I hear it, most companies spend more money complying with the tax code than they spend paying taxes. If we shifted to a flat tax, even at the same nominal rate, we would take a buge burden off the back of businesses. For individuals, the same applies. How much time is spent factoring taxation into financial planning? How much uncertainty about the future hinges on the details of arcane tax regulations? How much whim can the government exert over all of us through this complexity? How much invasion of privacy can the government get away with, in their pursuit of tax revenue? I would say the "how" impacts the "how much", not just in terms of explicit tax bills, but also in the extent of violation of the principles of limited government and individual rights.

By the way, note the architecture in this movie, especially the home of the family (which looks a lot like an Eichler) and the villain's lair (which looks like it was inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright's Marin County Civic Center and John Lautner's Silvertop).

Yep. In a gunfight between Bubba and the hippie, it's Bubba every time.

Wow! Pixar hits another home run.

I disagree. You can't equate a concept with the concretes subsumed under it for a number of reasons, one of which is that a concept is open-ended. In the context of this discussion, I can say "I value reason" but I cannot say "I value every instance of reason." Why not? Because I am not directly, concretely affected by or even remotely aware of every single instance of reason. There is no way I can act to gain and/or keep things that are outside of my knowledge and do not directly affect me. I can, however, say that I value the *principle* of reason.

Another source of disagreement between Objectivists is the process of essentialization. Objectivists can see the same movie and draw opposite conclusions, because we disagree about the essence of a movie. Or we could know the same facts about a person and disagree about the essence of his character. The fact is that principles don't apply themselves. Someone must decide how to apply them. When it comes to complex or mixed cases, it isn't self-evident what trait is the most fundamental -- or even if there is just one fundamental. It's possible to have a mixed case that has two conflicting fundamental premises, and it may be very difficult to determine which (or whether) one is more fundamental. Case in point: this election. Who is the bigger threat: Bush or Kerry? Bush's religion poses a deep, long-term threat, as his actions may pave the way for an even more religious candidate. Kerry poses a threat through his way-far-left socialist agenda, but even more of a threat is his very likely retreat from the war on terrorism. So which is worse for the country: a deep, long-term potential threat -- or an immediate one? I think we're better off dealing with the immediate threat, then going after the deeper one. Other Objectivists thought differently.

Why can't one value an abstraction? Reason, purpose, and self-esteem are all values to me. Yet all are abstractions. I work to be rational not in isolated cases but across the span of my life. It is the principle of reason as a principle that is my concern. To value a principle is to value an abstraction. It seems very clear to me that one can value abstractions.

One principle from Objectivist epistemology is that the arbitrary is neither true nor false, and should be summarily dismissed. If someone asserts a claim, the responsibility is on that person to provide evidence. If someone wants to convince me of something, I insist on proof. The fact that she doesn't prove any of her wild claims is very telling. What you have in this example is a series of assertions. The first sentence I quoted is the right question to ask. Without evidence -- e.g., eyewitness testimony -- such claims are arbitrary. In the particular case of this book, there is today much more information available about Ayn Rand's life than when the book first came out. Those interested can compare contents of multiple sources.

[edit: deleted duplicate post]

Peikoff and some others wrote a short criticism of the book. It came out in The Intellectual Activist at the time. There was also a good deal of debate back and forth on other Objectivist forums. I don't think the debate is worth resuscitating. If you're interested, see the article. It may be up on the TIA website. I've read the book (once) and thought it gave a decent summary of Objectivism. Contrary to opinions of some, I don't see how it could actually do harm to the spread of Objectivism. There are dozens of ways for people to first learn about Ayn Rand and Objectivism; this book provides one more.

The good news: Kerry lost. The bad news: Bush won. The bright side: the reverse would have been even worse.

Great question! My two all-time favorites are Star Wars and Casablanca. Both are prime examples of movie artistry and mean a great deal personally. Kill Bill is up there, too. Of the two parts, I'd give the edge to vol.1, solely for sheer originality. After seeing vol.1, I was counting the days till vol.2 came out. I haven't anticipated a movie so much in a very long time. My favorite acting performance is Jose Ferrer in Cyrano de Bergerac (the 1950 version). I get choked up every time I watch the final scene. It's also my very favorite play, by far. To be fair, as a movie, it is more like a filmed play than a purely cinematic work of art. So I don't think I can objectively place the movie as a whole on the same level as the others.

That's the spirit!

This is one of the more intellectual movies I've seen in some time. Four engineers in a garage playing around with some ideas. Something surprising gets discovered. Then they need to figure out what to do with it. If you want a movie that necessarily requires you to pay very close attention to every second of the story, this is it. And, lest I spoil a series of neat surprises, I'll leave it at that.

As the election approaches, I want to make a final plea to vote for Bush. Some Objectivists who are voting for Kerry argue that electing Bush would pose a greater danger from the Religious Right than we face from the Left. I believe the threat of a theocracy in America in the next few decades is mistaken, because there is too much opposition. I see too many obstacles in daily life. Let's look at where we are politically and culturally compared to, say, the 1950s. What were things like back then? Abortion was illegal. School prayer was widespread and often mandatory -- and uncontroversial. Segregation was accepted. Radio, television and movie content was far more conformist and aimed toward the suburban middle class; controversial content was rare. There is simply no way today's culture would let any of these things return. Even if abortion were illegal in, say, Utah, California and New York voters would never ban it. If school prayer were mandatory for every child in the country, so what? Many older Objectivists managed to live with it. Would people really turn away from "The Simpsons" or reality TV to watch a televangelist? Not in significant numbers. Some advocate programs like mandatory service for high school students for religious reasons, but some advocate it for different reasons. Both do so because they believe altruism is moral. Keeping the explicitly religious advocates out of power will not stop those who are altruistic for other reasons. I work with many conservative engineers. Most are religious, but in the "Sunday Christian" sense. The few who talk about Bible study groups or prayer meetings are almost entirely of an older generation. Most engineers I know in their 20's and 30's do not treat religion as a serious issue. Some go to church every week; one fellow prays before every meal. But most are agnostic, either in the sense that God's existence can't be proved or disproved, or in the sense that the issue doesn't affect one's life. Those who wish to believe we face an imminent threat of theocracy need to clarify the path such an encroachment of our rights will take. Even the religious people I know do not want or advocate the forced conversion of the country. We aren't miles from becoming another Iran; we're light-years away. One other point: electing Kerry will not stop them. I saw a poll a few weeks ago that evangelical Christians support Bush over Kerry by a factor of 2:1. While this group leans to Bush, by no means are they united. After all, many of Kerry's positions are altruistic -- in many cases more so than Bush's. The more consistent religious voter would, I think, pull the lever for Kerry. Finally, if one votes for Kerry in the hopes that the GOP will next time nominate a less religious candidate, how does one prevent them from misinterpreting the loss to mean that a more religious candidate is desired? I've never understood the logic of voting against a candidate to "send a message", since there is no way to specify the content of that message. In fact, since the war is the major issue this election, a Bush loss will tell the GOP that the public wants a weaker President, one who will ask the UN or NATO or the EU for permission to defend itself. This election is nothing less than a referendum on Bush's "cowboy" image: does the American public support that image or not? (I realize he is not quite the cowboy in actual fact, but it is by that image that he is known -- by the public, by world leaders, by his supporters, and by his opponents.) In summary, I encourage people not to vote for Kerry. We do not face an imminent religious threat. Electing Kerry would not reduce significantly the spread of religion. Electing Kerry would tell the world that we reject the "cowboy" approach to fighting terrorists.

I want to encourage others on this forum to donate specifically to this project. I consider it to be the most crucial aspect of the effort to spread Objectivism to future generations (with the possible exception of the essay contests). The best salesman for Objectivism is the author herself. Putting copies of her books in as many hands as possible (especially the hands of eager young minds) is the best way to reach potential Objectivists. At the very least, future Hank Reardens will be aware of Ayn Rand's defense of them. While training new Objectivists to be teachers and professors is sorely needed, a broader cultural awareness of Objectivism is needed to provide a society receptive to Ayn Rand's arguments and consequently turning the culture around. By analogy, while an army needs well-trained generals, it needs far more enlisted soldiers in order to succeed. So if you are disgusted by the prospects of the upcoming election, take a moment to realize that Kerry and Bush come from the contemporary American culture, and that we must change the culture if we are to hope to have more admirable candidates in the future. To change the culture, we need to present the public with better ideas. This project will place those ideas in the hands of as many high school students as possible.

"Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment" = O.G.L.E. Cute.

If you mean one long, boring, unfunny, undramatic exploration, then no. Exisistentialism is a factor, but the movie is quite funny and has several touching moments. I hesitated to see it, but I'm glad I bit the bullet and tried it. It is more of an offbeat, oddball comedy than a serious sales pitch for exisistentialism.

I wanted to pass along a recommendation for two movies in current release: "Garden State" and "I (heart) Huckabees" -- especially the latter. Both are offbeat psychological explorations of the inner world of the main characters. GS focuses on the search for meaning (i.e., values) in life, while IHH searches for the inner selves of several characters (and shows the consequences of living secondhand). Both aim for the release of past demons through a moment of catharsis as a gateway to meaningful happiness. IHH stands out as an explictly philosophical film, with some characters taking a one-with-the-universe new-age-y view while others are explicitly nihlistic / exisistential. A lot of mumbo-jumbo is tossed around, but it is intended for comic absurdity. There is a lot of kidding around, but the fundamental morality and practicality of being true to one's self is the theme. I could say the theme is selfishness, but that's not quite it, and that point is not made explicitly. In negative terms, the theme would be: don't betray the self. Both have offbeat and unusual styles which aren't for everyone, especially IHH, so be forewarned. GS is the more conventional.