kainscalia

Anything worth doing... It's definitely a very powerful challenge Well, I sang there in March and it seats about 3000 people. The acoustics are simply excellent and the venue is quite large. It's located in Colorado Springs! Sorry I haven't gotten back to you yet, but I promise that either tonight or tomorrow I'll answer your message in full

History has seen many composers whose work was championed by one or another personality. The wonderful Lee Hoiby (his music is wonderful, he's an ass) had Grace Bumbry, the awful Britten had the equally awful Peter Pears. The possibility here allows a very powerful theme of a creator and someone who admires his creation and working for it. An exchange of values. The soprano: A reclusive diva of the stature of Maria Callas who retired from performing because she was simply tired of the quality of operas being composed nowadays (like the most recent atrocity, "The Golden Ticket"). Yet he wants *her* to be his prima donna for his opera/song cycle/whatever. At the end of the opera you could have the soprano performing triumphantly, the composer at the piano or conducting, etcetera. She's his Kay Gonda, he is her Roark, to borrow characters. Also, you are assuming that the work of a composer does not stand alone. This is a fallacy. Performers come and performers go. Maria Callas may have been the champion of Bel Canto and brought Bel Canto back into the full stage, but that doesn't mean that without Maria Callas, Bellini is nothing. "Norma" remains, even now that all that's left of Maria Callas are her bones and recordings. Oh well.

Make him a composer, Emanon. It has been done before successfully-- "Capriccio" by Strauss was essentially a love letter to the genre. Incidentally, when you are finished with it, would you like to have Colorado be the American debut of the opera? I know the head of an opera company here who is always looking out for new operas. Heck, if you make the hero a lyric tenor, I'm your man!

I have a new game to add to the list; Im a huge Adventure game fan, so I keep abreast of new releases.... Well, this one is essentially an ode to socialism and pragmatism. I quote from the promo material: "15 Days is a fast-paced and sophisticated adventure game about Cathryn, Mike and Bernard - a troupe of political activists stealing art for good causes. In meticulously planned coups, the three Londoners steal precious paintings from the best guarded museums in the world. The group then donates their millions, Robin Hood style, to development projects in Africa. Their goal is to share out the money of eccentric art collectors to the poor."

The angle of this video leaves a good amount of things to be desired. Most importantly, when we talk about sex we need to keep in mind that this must be an age-appropriate context: It's not enough to talk to kids about sex, but rather it is important to use material that is appropriate to their level of development. When I reached a certain age (I am trying to remember whether I was 10, 11 or 12, I can't remember) my parents gave me both a book and a video tape called "Where Did I Come From?" which explained the whole issue in a factual manner but with appropriate content considering my age, and very tastefully presented. Both the book and the video have a good amount of humor as well, which helps defuse the embarrassment some parents might have concerning 'The Talk.' The tone of the book/video were also much less condescending than the tone of this video, which I would have found infuriating as a kid. I'm not sure what consequences you're talking about. Are you referring to an adult taking advantage of a kid? I understand what he is referring to: Engaging in sexual behavior at a younger age is potentially dangerous both physically and psychologically--- sex isn't bad, but it is not the optimal choice for their development at that particular stage (that this is a fact of reality, by nature of their bodies and mental/emotional selves at that particular age), and that the risks and potential scarring (through emotional and psychological immaturity) outweigh any possible benefit at their stage of immaturity. Sex, because of its nature, carries an immense level of significance that most youths and teenagers are not prepared to handle at all, and which will blow up in their faces-- not to mention most likely atrophy a healthy regards towards it. As Rand put it in her Playboy interview, "Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important. "

Although I wrote it concerning Proposition 8, my article "Romantic love: Victim to the tyranny of tradition" (http://aristotleslighthouse.blogspot.com/2009/11/romantic-love-victim-to-tyranny-of.html) still applies to these morons in Texas. Feel free to pass it around.

Psst, I don't know if you've noticed, but now the New York Times has pulled ALL comments from the article and is no longer accepting comments for it. Sounds to me like some society-forged institutions decided to give Bernie a piece of their illusory minds.

Dr. Simon Pritchett, why did you change your name? Or, "Hey , Bernie, since there's no such thing as an individual, does that mean I get a cut of your published books? After all, we ALL must have written it!"

Spoken like a true Libertarian. Come back when you can tell your elbow from a hole in the ground.

This is the point I sought to illustrate with my own anecdotal story. The important thing isn't "giving it away", it's finding someone who is worthy of both receiving it and giving it back to you. Rather prosaic, but there you have it.

Or a more specific one from a non-cryptic source: Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone (Ayn Rand)

Sorry. He refuses to admit that he has an addiction . Remember "I do not have a pain management problem, I have a pain problem?" And then, when he FINALLY he concedes that he has an addiction, he ends up saying that it is not a problem because it does not interfere with his work or life. I fail to see the rational in this. "The title diagnostician of the show would be as smart a physician as Dr. Kildare and as sharp a sleuth as Gil Grissom of CSI, it was important to us that he be damaged, both emotionally and physically." =- Shore quote on House's creation. For the record, you seriously expect me to respect someone who uses "full of fail?" in a response after being a rude little twerp? I am obviously dealing with a mental midget here. Not surprisingly, a Tea Partier. What brand of Bleach have you been consuming? That House violated the property rights of an individual is inexcusable because he is bound by his position as a doctor not to betray the trust of his patient. Do yourself a favor and read "The Ethics of Emergencies" and Tara Smith's "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics." While the patients' conditions may have been a medical emergency, it was not ametaphysical emergency. If you knew anything worth your salt you would know there is a marked difference, and that a personal emergency does not equate to a metaphysical emergency. In fact, Smith goes to a great deal of length to point out that should you do something that injures someone else or their property in the course of securing an end to your personal emergency, that it is the Objectivist-responsible thing to do to take the correct measures to atone and pay back for the infringements you have caused directly or legally. So, in order for House to be consistent, he should have spent either an allotted time in prison or paid a fine for breaking and entering, which of course he di---- no, wait, he didn't. Someone has failed here, but it isn't me. Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time watching trashy TV shows, you wouldn't have needed me to point these things out to you.

All I really need to do is quote my earlier post: HOUSE: *House is a Drug addict. Irrational Hedonism. *House suffers from a complete and absolute Emotion/Reason dichotomy, being able to use applied reason and logic -at times- in his work, but his life is a morass of emotionality and chaos that he cannot approach rationally. *He is a Pragmatist: House lacks a moral structure and he is incapable of grasping moral principle (but he seems to be able to understand scientific principle-- again, the dichotomy)- he is a frequent exponent of "The ends justify the means"-- he deceives, he breaks into patients' houses without their consent... In short, the man could not be more of an Un-Objectivist mess if you tried. BRENNAN: *While not nearly as dysfunctional as House, Brennan also suffers the Emotion/Reason dichotomy, as she is incapable of functioning within a normal social context. Her interactions are stilted and most of the time she misses the point. Because of her history I don't think she has any impeding dysfunction such as Alzheimer's, so we're reasonably safe in saying that Dr. Brennan's inability to function socially comes from her inability to incorporate her logical reasoning with her emotional responses--- creating an irrational context since the only rational functioning a human can have is to be a fully-integrated being. Brennan ignores her emotional side, which causes it to conflict with her logical side. Brennan is significantly less of a mess than House, but she still suffers from the Straw Vulcan trope.

You have obviously not been to Ecuador, then. One of the points of the book is that man is benevolent and good when embracing the proper, life-affirming philosophy which allows him to flourish and thrive. Socialism is the opposite of that philosophical stance, and the Welfare system is one of its absolute manifestations in the world, and the idea of entitlement which makes those who believe in it demand something for nothing. It's not only a problem in the United States, it's prevalent in Europe and Latin America. A concrete example that demonstrates the abstract principles at work: My mother found a young woman with a child begging in the streets. (This is Ecuador, BTW, a socialist country espousing "XXI Century Socialism" as its catchphrase) She said she looked like a healthy young woman without any infirmities, and at that point my mother was lacking a cook (you don't have maid/cook/etc employment agencies in Ecuador, most of the time you end up hiring help by word of mouth or recommendation), so she asked this woman if she would like to try out for the job of a cook at our house, with room and board covered. This woman hissed at my mother and essentially spat upon her, saying "I didn't ask you for a job!, I asked you for money!" And she acted as if she was honestly insulted. There is but one example of many.

Do you usually rush in, guns-blazing and spew things about which you obviously have no knowledge whatsoever? If you knew anything about objectivism, you would have already known that Objectivists recognize individual rights and that whatever harm is caused by the spill upon individuals is the responsibility of the company, regardless of whether it was an accidental spill or one caused by negligence. Objectivism sees the harming of others for profit as unethical and against an individual's rational self-interest. Actually, where the hell were you during the Bernie Madoff scandal, that you didn't see just about every objectivist on earth denouncing him as the dishonest thief that he was? I guess probably hiding out under a rock and doing your best to ignore anything that might somehow contradict your secondhanded word-of-mouth image of Objectivism. It's always so easy to let your mouth do the thinking when you never have to worry about the little things, such as knowledge. Here's some food for your noodle BP Would Be Toast in a Truly Free Market Environmentalism is Responsible for the Gulf Oil Spill

Yo también recomiendo la lectura de "Viable Values" por Tara Smith, la cual puedes obtener por Amazon.com. También recomiendo, por la misma autora, "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist"

Drug addict, Emotion/Reason dychotomy, Pragmatist: The ends justify the means (breaking into patients' houses, etc). In short? No. He's the exact opposite.

Actually, you are dropping the context and completely ignoring the conditions of the situation: If a public relationship had been available to me without the risk of serious hostile repercussions upon myself and my family, then I would have pursued the relationship, not sex for sex's sake.

I don't quite see why it indicates you are doing something wrong. I made the mistake of having sex at the age of 17 with a high-school peer simply because of the fact that he was gay and so was I, and he was the closest thing I thought I would ever get to a boyfriend-- I lived in a catholic country that is extremely ignorant as far as attitudes towards homosexuality go, and coming out of the closer and having a relationship with someone as one would normally do would accrue rather heavy consequences-- social ostracism, and with most good job opportunities out of your reach. At the time I was terribly depressed and living in the closet, I thought that the things which I longed for- being able to court someone, having a boyfriend, dating, and then finally 'going serious'- would be forever out of my reach and thus I decided that if those things were forever barred for me, I would at least experience intimacy the way most other gay men and women in my country did: behind closed doors, like a shameful secret. It was a trainwreck, of course: We were both having sex not out of a desire motivated by an appreciation of each other or out of value, but truly out of desperation and having sex for the sake of having sex. By sensory standards, I guess, you could call the sex good, but having sex for sex's sake without any important context and emotional value, true value not simple lust, made the act all the more depressing because all it could be was a constant reminder of our desperation. Eventually we stopped having sex altogether and drifted apart, and I could have had sex with a myriad people that I found through the local internet gay forum--- but I didn't want more of the same, I wanted something real, and despite the many people I spoke to, I couldn't really find anyone I could establish the kind of connection I desired. I didn't know how to explain it then, but now I can say that I didn't share in the general sense of life that most people in the country had-- deep inside I've always known I resonated with the sense of life of America and its founding values. I was a fish out of water and I didn't want to compromise again for empty thrills. I didn't find anyone who matched my (early) standards until I was 22 and had, thankfully, come to the US (something I thought I would never be able to do, hence my almost permanent depression during my teens). Although by my current (Objectivist) standards my first serious boyfriend at 22 was definitely not up to par (and it eventually showed in how dishonest he turned out to be), if I could change things knowing that I would eventually come here and be free to explore what was forbidden back home, I would have willingly waited those three more years, and it would not have meant that I was doing anything wrong. It is perfectly possible, and specially so in today's world with the state of the culture as it is, that an Objectivist may not find anyone with whom they could form a meaningful relationship in his or her immediate vicinity, regardless of their age range.

Instead of speaking about "Undiluted" Islam or Christanity, let us instead speak of "saner" Christians or Moslims. The religions themselves are mystical and anti-life and anti-man, the measure in which their tenets are observed literally without the sanitizing influence of logic and reason (which, unfortunately, isn't always enough to sever off the mystical and irrational thoughts altogether, often these irrational precepts being deeply ingrained from childhood) is the measure in which they will be more prone to homicide, destruction and barbarism. Saner Christians and Moslims aren't epistemologically better than their more dangerous counterparts (since they attempt to compromise between magic and science), they are only not as immediately dangerous (nevertheless they are still dangerous, as their magical beliefs shape the way in which they will more often than not vote and thus attempt to infringe upon the rights of others in different magnitudes in accordance with the magnitude of their God Delusions). In the scale of insanity the fundamentalist is the most dangerous specimen, operating on an almost sociopath level, whereas the saner among them tend to be closer to minor mental ailments- still suffering from impaired judgment, but less so.

Ben, correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost seems to me that you're saying that if you rationalize 90% of the movie, you'll be able to enjoy it?

It is nonsense like this to which I point when I say that you people obviously need to re-read the books that allegedly brought you here. Freedom is a right. You cannot have your rights infringed in the protection of your rights. That is a contradiction on a level that really makes me wonder...

So does that mean that the U.S. owns your property, and you're just leasing it from them?

Actualy , it is you: You are somehow taking the position that the United States is collectively owned by y'all, as they say back in Asheville, and that's simply not true: You own *your* land, but you have no right to prescribe whether or not someone has the right to set foot on land you do not legally own. The government does not have the right to prescribe who enters this country or not outside of prescriptions against criminals and terrorists. You require no protection by the government unless it be from criminals, and those occur regardless of any nationality. To attempt to link the concept of Immigrant=Criminal is a feat of un-intelligence that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Honestly, Leonard Peikoff, Harry Binswanger and Yaron Brook, even Ayn Rand herself. I wonder how you can't see that your position is antithetical to the core of objectivism- and no, I'm not going for an article from intimidation, but rather saying that you can't be for something and support something that contradicts its core principles, and still have the gall to claim to be both consistent and an adherent of the philosophy. There's Objectivism, and then there's David Kelley and Alan Greenspan. Your arguments are statist in nature and tremendously suspect- to question whether or not those laws are immoral is beyond you, you treat the state and its laws as an axiom, as opposed to a consequence of principles. The only proper course of action when inquiry identifies a law as immoral is to oppose it- to support it would be even more immoral. I suggest you and Maximus stop being in love with Gaius and Octavian and start re-reading some of the books that allegedly brought you to this site.

Please show us your deed of ownership to the whole united states or, failing that, at least the whole terrain of the border.