sanjavalen

Does anyone know who (if anyone) owns the rights to reproduce Berton Braley's poetry?

I don't drink alcohol anymore. I did drink from ages 18-19 or so. Mostly straight whiskey but I tried a variety of things. Only got drunk a few times. As an amusing aside, the friend I drank with had such a tolerance for alcohol that his shot glass (straight whiskey) was an 8oz paper cup that he'd fill up to 6oz while everyone else was taking the usual 1-2oz shots. I really don't understand what even a few drinks does for anyone. But I am a very unstressful person and "relaxing," talking socially, etc., is all very easy for me. Those are the reasons I see most cited as justification for a little drinking. I just don't see or get the value that some people do. So I stay away. I tend to think that the proper solutions to those problems (having use for chemical help in relaxing, or in social situations, or what have you,) are best handled by yourself, adjusting your own habits and mental patterns so that you no longer have any great use for alcohol. However, to be perfectly honest, I could care less if you have a drink or two. I'm not the teetotaler brigade. Take my reasoning for what its worth.

Thanks IA. I had completely forgotten about that! I had read that section mid last year and didn't think to note that book. Definitely picking it up now.

Does anyone know of a good textbook for the beginning poet?

Its extra ironic that people cannot advocate against Muslims because it is "hate," but Muslims seem to be fairly free to threaten (and sometimes act out on those threats) the lives of the 'hate-spreading' people. Its funny how anti-"hate" laws are actually supporting the real haters and terrorists more and suppressing people who want to combat it in the context of a civil society.

Ha! Thanks guys Having a great time today. This makes it even better!

The time costs are still real, even if they would be more for someone not as well versed in Objectivism as HB or Norsen. I think the scope of this thread isn't large enough, but an important issue raised by this is effective use of resources (especially a superior intellect) in accomplishing that overarching goal. Define: "Numerous" Does anyone (especially HB, Amy Peikoff, etc.,) have a good idea of how effective that course of action (ie engaging academic philosophers) is? In particular, in attracting intellectuals to Objectivism. Second and more importantly, once that question is answered, is there a better use of time than the above? These are honest questions. I don't know the answers for a fact; but just from a marketing standpoint, I can't imagine that this particular standpoint is especially effective. I'm no super marketing expert, though, so obviously I could be mistaken. Also, I should make clear that I am not trying to criticisize HB or any other "professional" that chooses to engage academic philosophers in exchanges. But I do wish to expression confusion and dismay if this is what they have honestly evaluated as the best use of their (valuable) time.

I was quoting TPS directly (that is why the "(post-)modernism" was in quotes), so the question is better directed at him.

Am I understanding you correctly, tps, in that you are saying that, because of the current positions held by "(Post-)Modernists," Objectivists must engage them and earn their respect in order to "get a hearing" in academia? Edit: In addition, is getting "a hearing" in academia the only way to change the philosophy of a culture?

Can someone, especially West, explain to me benefit of accomplishing the goal he (West) laid out earlier that HB is supposedly trying to accomplish (I only say supposedly because HB has not been here stating his own goals explcitly, though that does seem to be his likely goal)? I'm really not certain what spending lots of time and mental effort (assuming one will succeed!) getting such people to say "Okay, maybe Rand wasn't COMPLETELY whacky and there are SOME semi-respectable Objectivists" accomplishes that is worth the time and effort displayed in this entire chain of events.

"Proportional" force is a ridiculous, unrational legal concept. If a man is trying to beat me to death (or stone me to death) I will shoot him, and be completely justified in doing so. Fighting back with my fists or throwing rocks back unless my assailant pulls a gun out is ridiculous.

A more interesting tactic that would not involve letting a possible riot develop / move around, without targetting people in the crowd who may legitimately trying to express whatever silly opinions they have was written down some time ago. It's not politically correct but I think it can be effective. Its pretty simple: Have sharpshooters placed out of sight (preferably in some building) with suppressed .22lr rifles. An experienced police commander brings to their attention, by radio, instigators within the crowd - people who are clearly and demonstrably attempting to start a riot, egging others on, etc. (at least one cop with a video camera and mic would probably be advisable as well, so that this can be objectively demonstrated in court.) When these instigators begin to get a riot going, the police commander gives the word and they are shot, quietly, in the lung with a .22lr. If you don't know much about guns, a .22lr is not a powerful round, and a lung shot is not immediately fatal (or even fatal for a long time.) In fact the person should have no long-term health effects so long as they get medical treatment within a reasonable period of time. Its quite possible that the person won't even know he has been shot - just that he has the urgent need to stop talking, concentrate on breathing, and get medical attention ASAP. The problem with rubber bullets and tear gas is that they are indiscriminate - you are as likely (or more, with tear gas) to hit someone who had no intention of rioting and piss them off as you are of making someone inclined to riot back down. This, to me, seems preferable to current police tactics which, while effective, can easily backfire and get a large, overconfident group of rioters thinking that they have the police on the run. It also sends what I think is a proper message - if you are clearly attempting to instigate a riot, your ability to do so will be taken away, quickly, quietly, without a fuss. If you simply wish to express your opinions in a public forum, stay the hell away from people who do that and you'll be fine.

Steve, Can you link me to this 'pledge' campaign? I haven't heard of it.

Defining what constitutes a "cult of personality" is probably a good start to putting this thread in some form of order. I suggest the following criteria: - Vocal, public supporters* - A preponderance of positive media coverage, having little if any substantive cause (ie genuinely improving the economy, ending a war, what have you.) - Emotionalist and/or ad hominem responses to criticism of the person by prominent (if not necessarily respectable) followers * This obviously requires some sympathetic media responses and/or some prominent supporters Does anyone have criticisms of this criteria, or something to add?

Okay, that was not made clear to me in your original post. Thank you.

You said "Most certainly not," followed by that, in response to "Also, would any of you consider it positive if states did start to secede?" Then you said "leave talk of secession to right wing kooks." In that case, I have no idea what you were talking about in the post, or if that sentence in particular is anything but noise. Isn't it an obvious point that a country is where it is due to the political philosophy held by its citizens over the country's history? What does that have to do, then, with secession, if you are not making a case against secession per se? If everyone in, say, Illinois had a certain political philosophy contrary to the rest of the United States currently, say, Capitalism, would it be immoral for them to secede? I just do not understand the relevance of that particular sentence, if its not for supporting rejecting secession under any circumstances. If I'm missing something, please enlighten me.

I'm curious, softwarenerd, on why you think secession per se would be bad, without regards to the reasons for secession. Would you regard it as immoral, for example, if the people of a certain state wished to establish a laissez-faire capitalist society and seceded from the union for that purpose? Not saying any state would do that currently, but your post seems to state that secession as such was not proper.

There are many examples of US-born citizens doing both. That is not an argument to forbid giving birth to children. The only entity violating the rights of US citizens when people use "social" services is THE GOVERNMENT.

Wow, some racism here. Immigration regulates itself. The amount of people who will come is roughly equal to the amount that the economy can absorb and pay wages those people are willing to work at. To imagine some fantastic scenario in which a billion people come in all at once and a ton of people cannot find work, is beyond belief. In addition, even giving in to the fantastic notion that this would happen, no one's rights are violated. If you cannot find a consistent, sustainable job, pick up your crap and go somewhere you can. If a bunch of immigrants cannot find jobs then they will leave or go jobless; I do not see the problem with that. The government's job is to ensure no one's rights are violated. Thus, in immigration, its only job is supposed to make sure no one coming in has violent intentions on its citizens, or carries some disease that would harm other people, etc. To claim that its a legitimate station function to disallow certain people from immigrating due to the color of their skin (!!!) is morally reprehensible. This forum is for discussing Objectivism, not advocating racist ideology.

There was a very good article around on how the international monetary system is built on foreign governments/companies spending their American cash on purchasing American debt. I think that is in large effect how the money spent on imports comes back to the US.

You answered 32 out of 33 correctly — 96.97 % I got the last question wrong, having answered that if taxes equal government spending, then government debt is 0.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0B7dOQwKm0 Topic for discussion: Do you think such a thing would ever come to pass? Second, what would you do if it did?

Well, lets see... The implication being, Barack Obama is 'their man' and that SOMEONE said AL-QAEDA would love America if Obama got elected. So...no one here actually said that Al-Qaeda's man would be in the white house. Also, lets see: Link first: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...lections08-iran The Guardian, hardly known for outright making stuff up. They say: So I guess Capitalism Forever was right. The candidate that the Iranian government most preferred got in, and they are 'cautiously optimistic.' As Steve mentioned, does 'emboldened' mean 'will stop attacking us' or 'will keep attacking us with renewed vigor'? I think you ought to look it up. Your own post kind of substantiates that. When you post in the format of a challenge / gloating proof of your rightness, people assume it is directed at the audience unless you actually single out some person or group. I suppose everyone could just ignore you as an alternative, though, since you always attack the ever-evil (and never defined) "they" and "some people." I don't see where he said - anywhere in that post - that Al-Qaeda would be happy if he got in. He said that Obama was clearly the most anti-capitalist of the two candidates. As far as his factual claims - well, they stand on their own. I don't have the time or inclination to research some of them, but if you want to, thats fine.

I'm unaware of who, exactly, in this forum was making an argument that Obama was, in fact, an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent and they'd love America once he waas in and declare sharia law.

Speaking of guns and gun-related things, today is national ammo day! ...and all the stores seem to be backordered at least 2 weeks on ammo. Oh well!