Grames

Actually that is what is called passive-aggressive behavior. So-called non-violent protests such as sit-ins are in fact initiations of force even while being non-violent. Violence is what is required to evict such people, hence the police involvement to keep matters under control.


Yes, but the rest of the scenario is unlike a home invader. The speeder is not blocking the road or otherwise being disruptive.

1) Because the speeder is already in the process of leaving.
2) Because your road is a public thoroughfare with less expectation of privacy and complete control than your dwelling.
3) A speeder is not disrupting the usual usage of your property or business as a passive-aggressive sitter-in does.


Rationalbiker invokes the engineering behind highway design. Also note that this kind of objection you have just raised is exactly the same as the objection that using age 18 as the age of adulthood is arbitrary. It is not arbitrary to pick a number within a reasonable range of numbers.


The only reason I brought up violence was to distinguish incidents that require immediate police intervention from those that can be deferred to a civil suit or a district attorney. I do not believe you are arguing in good faith and do not understand that initiating force does not require violence. The only way to resolve the passive-aggressive unwelcome occupier problem is with violence, hence the police intervention. If there is a disruption of a business or a private dwelling involved then there is also an urgency to get the problem solved quickly, another justification for police to intervene rather than just wait out the unwelcome presence.


She was illustrating the difference between procedural and substantive law by using an analogy. You are overburdening the analogy by assuming that it means any more than that, for example that police ought to be enforcing traffic regulations under full laissez-faire capitalism.

A is A. Fail is fail. Effort is good, but results matter more.

Speaking of fail, there are now nine threads on the Atlas Shrugged movie counting this one. Some consolidation is in order. I would leave the thread about the trailers alone, it is not active.

Most of them are in the Movies, Shows, and Theater subforum, but this one is not. There may be more threads elsewhere and more may be created as the release broadens to more cities.

The similarity between all of these men is that they did their own homework.

I saw it. I hated it. Nicholas Cage makes better movies than this. I was cringing from practically the first moments when John Galt is speaking his absurdly badly written lines to recruit people to his strike. This is invented dialog that Ayn Rand never wrote, and never could have written.

I caught myself staring at the back of seat in front of me several times instead of watching the movie. It was a continual struggle not to leave the theater.

The movie consists of a bunch of rich people talking at parties and in offices. There are more talking heads in this movie than in a submarine movie like Das Boot or Crimson Tide, but I'll grant it has more outdoors transition shots than 12 Angry Men (a movie that takes place entirely within a jury room) so that it can establish that this next set of talking heads is now in a different building. The movie is boring because it has almost no action.

The movie violates basic axioms of movie story-telling such as "show don't tell". The movie opens with a big chunk of narration and is regularly interrupted with fake newscasts throughout the duration. I think Agliaro stole his technique here from Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers. The movie gives no clue why I'm supposed to be rooting for Hank Rearden, he is just another rich guy with a Washington lobbyist until the controversy over Rearden Metal starts being a plot point more than halfway through. Hank Rearden gains the reader's respect in the novel by being a self-made man but there is no hint of any of that in the movie. Also unlike the novel, here Rearden is utterly unconflicted in sleeping with Dagny. An unconflicted Rearden necessarily leaves "the role of the mind in man's existence" an abstraction for politics and economics with no relevance for anyone's personal life. The giant sucking sound you hear is all the drama being vacuumed out of Rand's story.

The ham-handed way John Galt swoops in to steal people is compounded by the screen going to black and white freeze frame picturing the latest person to disappear, augmented with text on the screen. Text on the screen breaks the "fourth wall" and is contrary to Rand's style. That is pure unforced director failure. It also sucks all the mystery out of "who is John Galt?", the audience knows John Galt is the strike instigator from practically the first frame of the film.

Why is Ellis Wyatt announcing to the world that he is on strike in a voice over at the end of the movie? Wyatt leaves a message at his oil refinery he could be reading, but this alternate text he reads comes out of nowhere and is not anything any character in the movie should know about.

I am not criticizing this movie from a purist or fan perspective. It does not matter that Eddie is Black or Dagny is blonde or Dan Conway gets no screen time. What matters is that the movie is inarticulate. The puppet show on screen mocks the sequence of events as they happen in the novel but without any explanation or motivation and as a result no drama. There is no discernible theme, no case being made.

Miscellaneous bitching:
Why is Dr. Robert Stadler speaking with a non-American accent? Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne makes a better fake playboy than the no charisma nobody cast as an unkempt (why?) Francisco d'Anconia. For all the scenes of people eating and drinking I can see the Food Network optioning this movie to play overnights when there is no infomercial to play. The scene of Dagny and Rearden attempting to techno-babble bluff their way through the scene of discovering the remnant of Galt's motor was badly written and badly acted, but the lines were so bad they would be a challenge to sell by any actor.

I hadn't read Ebert's review until I saw the movie myself. I think he was too kind, and even too bored to properly hate this clumsy stupid movie. I can believe he hates Ayn Rand, but since this movie is bad that satisfies him so there is a distinct lack of outrage on his part.

I do not want part 2 or part 3 to be made. If you haven't seen the movie yet, strongly consider not going.

spoiler: Dagny Taggart's last line of dialog is ripped off from a far superior film:

So I just finished "Humor in The Fountainhead," from Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, and its caused me to think some more about humor, a subject I hadn't given too much serious thought to. My purpose here is just to share some thoughts and hopefully hear others' thoughts on the subject.

In the essay, Rand is quoted as making the following two statements:





Upon first reading these, I found myself disagreeing strongly with both of them. My opinion is and has been that the ability to laugh at oneself demonstrates health and good-naturedness. In thinking about it, and reading through the essay and a few more of Rand's statements on humor, I find that these views are actually very easily reconcilable with my own. Consider this statement by Rand:



In the essay, Robert Mayhew distinguishes between benevolent and malicious humor. Benevolent humor is basically humor aimed at objects which deserve scorn and ridicule, while malicious humor is aimed at objects which deserve respect and reverence. Thus, benevolent humor belittles the metaphysical importance of bad things, while malevolent humor belittles the importance of good things. Now, humor which is aimed at one's own achievements, or more generally one's own positive values, is obviously malicious humor. Laughing at oneself in the sense of laughing at these things is indeed bad. However, in thinking about it, that is not at all what I picture when I think of 'the ability to laugh at oneself.'

Consider someone who slips and falls, or misspeaks in some absurd way, or makes an obvious error in a presentation. In all of these situations, I am inclined to think of the person who can 'laugh it off' as good-natured. I would contrast this with the image of the person who, when something like this happens, blusters and attempts to 'save face.' Obviously, this second person is primarily concerned with others' impressions of him rather than the actual error or accident. Such second-handedness is clearly not an appropriate attitude.

But what is the first individual doing? First of all, he is acknowledging the reality of the accident or mistake. Furthermore, he is (in Rand's characterization) belittling its importance by laughing at it. Self-deprecating humor, in this case, is not aimed at ones values, but rather at one's mistakes. This form of humor is indicative of genuine self-esteem; the person in question is acknowledging the reality of his own thoughts and actions (an essential first step for genuine self-esteem) and is able to casually dismiss errors with a laugh. There is no attempt to pretend for the sake of others' opinions that the error was not made; rather, it is acknowledged and then moved on from.

In my experience, the majority of instances of self-deprecating humor fall into this latter category of laughing off a mistake. Thus, while it is true that actually cutting oneself down with humor also undoubtedly occurs, the everyday understanding of 'laughing at oneself,' (at least what I think is the prevalent understanding of it) is a healthy practice, one which should be celebrated.

It is 2011. Where is the book?

It is 2011. Where is the book?

Okay, first off, don't be a smart ass.



If you go back to the first page, you will see that I am directly addressing the OP. The thread has already gone off on related tangents.



Lets examine that, shall we?



Property can be privately owned, and there can be public roads. Nothing Rand wrote conflicts in principle with a Constitutional Republic, such as we have. Certain powers are given to government, with the consent of the governed. In order to have an orderly society, there has to be a certain amount of give and take between individuals. We can not function if every property owner builds a small piece of roadway, a 1/4 acre at a time, posting arbitrary speed limits, having differing road surfaces, disputing the presence of law enforcement on "their" road. Under our system of federalism, broad powers are retained by the states, counties and municipalities. People are free to own private property, but are not allowed to impede the free flow of traffic and commerce - which would grind a capitalist society to a screeching halt. Capitalism does not equate with public roads. Capitalism is a system of economics based on the principle of a free market.



The concept of competing governments calls to mind the anarchy that your concept of privately owned roads implies. Let us first examine what Rand had to say about competing governments:



From this excerpt, one can see that there is a correlation between the two concepts. A system of completely privately owned roads would be just as anarchistic as competing governments.A public road does in no way impede your ability to engage in trade, and may only tangentially interferes with property rights if the road passes through what once was your private property, neither does it keep you from enjoying the fruits of your labor, unless you plan to plant crops in the strip that is occupied by the road, which is ridiculous on the face of it.. Your assertion that I implied that "private property leads to chaos is a red herring, as I implied no such thing. Parking lots and convenience stores do not require traffic rules, mainly because they are low speed, limited access parking areas. No one in his right mind is going to attempt to drive 70 mph in a 7-11's parking lot. Most people have the common sense to follow the established rules of the road even in a parking lot - yielding, driving on the correct side, etc.




One does not imply the other. Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum is ill used.

Gripes from people to the left of Obama. Many of these are Obama changing his mind and betraying his political base of support but are the right thing to do.

The military has no coherent ethical system, its no wonder that things like this happen.

Read the introduction to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

I'm tired of repeating myself and yes I can be a bit confusing, I jokingly call it Alan Greenspan disease. Arcane writings and speakings seem to be a second-nature of mine .



If that isn't clear enough, I am suggesting that people take sexuality more seriously. You can end up with worse things than Lillian Rearden as a result of just floating along with the mainstream culture. In fact its becoming a pretty big part of culture to assume sometimes that these people thrown in the slammer for borderline jailbait have actually had something nice. It's not good for anyone - except by one standard: altruism. By that standard the "selfish" behavior is considered by typical way of the intellectual package deal. Much like say, Madoff is considered Selfish, and many assholes caught up in the intellectual package deal of selfishness would like to be him also many people think these people have actually experienced something "good" for them.

To state and repeat the bleeding obvious (excuse the Brittishism) there is certainly more to lose than just capitalism in the mess that is todays culture. Because people have more anonimity we are beginning to see what many people really have to say. Wherever that level of protection exists problems like I'm describing become more apparent. What can we do? I should just refuse to answer. I am beginning to see that, having read all of Ayn Rand's non-fiction that many of you are not taking a serious effort to be Objectivists and should cease using the title. The first essay was and is merely a request for comments and people with similar experiences. I don't think I am quite so confusing - merely I expect my readers to actually understand Objectivism.

What should we do? The same thing suggested by Objectivism you do about everything else: think, speak, and reason with people on all the issues. I know some of you must understand Objectivism quite well, and I am a little obscure but a question like that to me borders on the ridiculous. Especially now that I've not said what we should do once but twice and I imagine a third time. Maybe some of you people need rotes however because you are clearly just reading Wikipedia, and the Lexicon which I am beginning to think should cost cash money like HBL, TOS, and everything else that should only be used by people who have already familiarized themselves with the material.

Edit: Why not try thinking for yourselves. What should YOU do? If you do not care, I am going to report your posts. If that isn't good enough, I am going to report this forum - then its first mention ever in "Todays Culture" at the ARI can be a negative one. I am really starting to wonder if this place is what it says it is or is worth even a dime.

Edit 2: By coming along and saying you "dont care" (where the normal reaction is to do what I expected of just about everyone, to ignore it) you are by axiom actually caring. This is really dumb, and a lot of you evidently don't know a damn thing about Objectivist Epistomology nor practice it. Please stop wasting my time and yours.

Every resident of Louisiana has violated that man's rights because the state prosecutor was acting on behalf of the state's residents.
This is why people need to pay attention to politics.

Judges and grand juries have long had common law immunity for their official actions to civil suits after defendants are acquitted. It would not be favorable to the rule of law if only guaranteed convictions ever went to trial. Prosecutors need also be immune to suits from losing cases or else no one would ever want to be a prosecutor and the law would not be enforced.

The additional legal doctrine of prosecutorial absolute immunity was invented by the Supreme Court in 1976 in order to justify the ruling in the case of Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). In that case Imbler was wrongfully convicted, and Pachtman was the prosecutor who convicted him. Yet it was Pachtman himself who came forward with the new evidence that Imbler used to overturn his conviction. It was Imbler's suit against Pachtman that the Supreme Court ruled on.

Quoting from the Supreme Court opinion "In his brief to the Supreme Court of California on this habeas petition, Imbler's counsel described Pachtman's post-trial detective work as "in the highest tradition of law enforcement and justice," and as a premier example of "devotion to duty." 6 But he also charged that the prosecution had knowingly used false testimony and suppressed material evidence at Imbler's trial. 7"

Again, who would want to take on the job of prosecutor if doing the job conscientiously and changing one's conclusion about the case leads to being sued? That would serve neither justice nor the rule of law.

Quoting from the decision section of the opinion Imbler v. Pachtman:

"We emphasize that the immunity of prosecutors from [424 U.S. 409, 429] liability in suits under 1983 does not leave the public powerless to deter misconduct or to punish that which occurs. This Court has never suggested that the policy considerations which compel civil immunity for certain governmental officials also place them beyond the reach of the criminal law. Even judges, cloaked with absolute civil immunity for centuries, could be punished criminally for willful deprivations of constitutional rights on the strength of 18 U.S.C. 242, 28 the criminal analog of 1983. O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974); cf. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627 (1972). The prosecutor would fare no better for his willful acts. 29 Moreover, a prosecutor stands perhaps unique, among officials whose acts could deprive persons of constitutional rights, in his amenability to professional discipline by an association of his peers. 30 These checks undermine the argument that the imposition of civil liability is the only way to insure that prosecutors are mindful of the constitutional rights of persons accused of crime. [424 U.S. 409, 430]

Brady v. Maryland is a related case Thompson bases his argument upon. Brady refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the numerous state and federal cases that interpret its requirement that the prosecution disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.”

This case Connick v Thompson, 09-571 is about the standard of evidence required to establish that it is a deliberate policy of a prosecutors office to make Brady violations. Thompson tried to make the case that one obvious case was enough to establish a pattern. The majority found that not persuasive. Ginsburg in the dissent notes the high rate of turnover of prosecutors under Connick's direction and that at least four different prosecutors handled this case and made the same error. Scalia provides a separate concurring opinion refuting Ginsburg's reasoning and question whether there really were any Brady violations in the case at all. The case is largely premised on Connick's conceding that Brady violations occurred but Connick's understanding of Brady law is under attack by Thompson, Ginsburg and Scalia simultaneously for different reasons.

It is not obvious that this case is decided rightly or wrongly. I am not outraged at the Supreme Court but at the State of Louisiana for limiting its own liability to $150,000 when it is clearly capable of inflicting much more damage than that, in this and other cases. (Thompson had already won compensation at the state level, the $14 million dollar judgement was based on the federal case which he just lost.)

All three questions are different aspects of the question "what is the foundation of knowledge?" You are correct in being suspicious about using logic to prove logic. In fact, it is simply the fallacy of circular reasoning to even attempt to do so.

Ayn Rand used the word axiomatic to refer to that which is "... a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest." This is not at all parallel to axioms in geometry where the givens can be selected somewhat arbitrarily just to see what can be deduced from them. The axiomatic concepts of Objectivism are existence, identity and consciousness and they are each known by perception and experience and can not be inferred by deduction. (Inferred from what?)

Objectivism affirms your power to perceive and know the world, and that all knowledge however abstract must be justified by its eventual tie to reality. There are abstractions which are not directly perceivable, but there will always be some logically prior component of a valid abstraction which is perceivable.

It is not the case that all knowledge is faith-based. Perception is a causal, natural this-worldly source of knowledge. Faith is an assertion of acausal, supernatural, other-worldly source of knowledge. Perception and faith are quite opposite as foundations of knowledge.

1) The rational basis for free will (volition hereafter) is your own experience in directing yourself through your day. You do not have control over everything that happens to you, but that is not necessary to experience volition which is first and primarily the mental phenomenon of you attention and conceptual faculty and later control of your behavior. Objectivism does not claim that emotions are under the direct control of your willpower.

2) Logic is good if you want to live and live well. If life is not your top priority then logic is not so important, but the practical consequences of attempting to live a contradiction can not be avoided. Because there are people who do not wish to live, and knowing is the means to living, it is not true that "all men desire to know" as Aristotle asserted.

3) It is not the case that knowledge must be faith based, as explained above.

The case for the reliability of the evidence of the senses is given in an academically rigorous form in David Kelley's book The Evidence of the Senses. Ayn Rand's theory of concept formation and of the hierarchical structure of knowledge based on the senses is given in her technical work Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd ed.

All three questions are different aspects of the question "what is the foundation of knowledge?" You are correct in being suspicious about using logic to prove logic. In fact, it is simply the fallacy of circular reasoning to even attempt to do so.

Ayn Rand used the word axiomatic to refer to that which is "... a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest." This is not at all parallel to axioms in geometry where the givens can be selected somewhat arbitrarily just to see what can be deduced from them. The axiomatic concepts of Objectivism are existence, identity and consciousness and they are each known by perception and experience and can not be inferred by deduction. (Inferred from what?)

Objectivism affirms your power to perceive and know the world, and that all knowledge however abstract must be justified by its eventual tie to reality. There are abstractions which are not directly perceivable, but there will always be some logically prior component of a valid abstraction which is perceivable.

It is not the case that all knowledge is faith-based. Perception is a causal, natural this-worldly source of knowledge. Faith is an assertion of acausal, supernatural, other-worldly source of knowledge. Perception and faith are quite opposite as foundations of knowledge.

1) The rational basis for free will (volition hereafter) is your own experience in directing yourself through your day. You do not have control over everything that happens to you, but that is not necessary to experience volition which is first and primarily the mental phenomenon of you attention and conceptual faculty and later control of your behavior. Objectivism does not claim that emotions are under the direct control of your willpower.

2) Logic is good if you want to live and live well. If life is not your top priority then logic is not so important, but the practical consequences of attempting to live a contradiction can not be avoided. Because there are people who do not wish to live, and knowing is the means to living, it is not true that "all men desire to know" as Aristotle asserted.

3) It is not the case that knowledge must be faith based, as explained above.

The case for the reliability of the evidence of the senses is given in an academically rigorous form in David Kelley's book The Evidence of the Senses. Ayn Rand's theory of concept formation and of the hierarchical structure of knowledge based on the senses is given in her technical work Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd ed.

Retaliatory Force which is not subordinate to government leads to civil war and anarchy, a perfect demonstration of the point that government must be monopolistic and strong enough to enforce that monopoly.

What is tradition based on? Where does it come from? All traditions have a start in some guy with an idea. Nothing about an idea being old or traditional gives it any special status. The fundamental distinction between ideas the true versus false. There is no inherent value in tradition. (This is one of several ways Objectivism is not compatible with conservatism.)

If you actually understood the distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made, the flaw in claiming anything about government is metaphysical would be obvious to you.

His objection to the big bang seems to be connected to the amount of carbon produced, not the philosophical point that that the universe can not have a beginning. If he hasn't realised the later he can't be that much of a genius.

Talent call for short film: Self Hate in America

Project Description:

Self Hate in America is a short film about "Brandon" a child from an upper middle class home accustomed to getting blue ribbons for his 6th place performances. After barely getting his degree in environmental science he is unable to find a job, except as a Greenpeace panhandler. People's lack of generosity, his requisite low pay, and his own lack of a sex life brings him to the end of his rope and he attends a more extremest environmentalist meeting where he hopes to get on this bitch, Ashley. Soon he's befriended by "Sebastian" the groups leader. Sebastien takes him under his wing and soon takes over Brandon's life leading him down an path of anger, hate and murder and finally abandons him because Brandon banged Sebastian's slutty girlfriend, Ashley. To redeem himself as a mindless follower of the group, he tries to free monkeys in a medical research lab where he has to kill the postdoc who had just found a cure for HIV.

Character Description:

Brandon: 20-25 multiracial, (black, Hispanic, and islander; no whites, Asians, or other privileged races), good looking. I'm looking for a talented and professional actor that's willing to challenge himself and work for the earth, because I don't want to share the little money I make.

Compensation: This is a low budget short film because I have no capitol and no one willing to back my poor writing with their money because the man is keeping me down. Compensation will be deferred(and by that I mean, non existent.) All meals, and snacks will be provided by potluck and everyone will receive a dvd copy of the film.

Waitaminute. Who takes the Nazi philosopher Heidegger seriously besides other Nazis and crypto-fascists?

Waitaminute. Who takes the Nazi philosopher Heidegger seriously besides other Nazis and crypto-fascists?

I think Thomas Paine was getting at the absurdity of assuming a properly restrained government. I haven't seen one. It's kind of like who will police the police? And who will police them? And so on. The nature of governments is to find, create, and make up excuses and reasons for their continued existence and why they should become more influential (at the expense of natural rights). Their nature is what I consider evil.
Also, I think a common saying around here is the only evil is the refusal to think. Well the only people who are elected to run the government continually refuse to think. How do we fix that aspect of evil? Each generation would have to relearn what those before them discovered, which actually requires intelligent effort. The tendency seems to be that each generation becomes dumber, and therefore, the government becomes more evil over time.

Oil is a fungible commodity for which there is a world wide market. It is in the economic interest of every country in the world that uses oil that Libya participate in the world oil market by exporting to someone, anyone.

Oil is what makes Libya important as a country. Libya was already exporting oil into the worldwide market before the present anti-Gadafi rebellion, and no doubt will export oil into the world-wide market after the rebellion is settled. There is a disruption in Libya's oil exports while the conflict plays out, and if Gadafi hangs on in control of the oil there could be a longer duration disruption. Then the western powers will be forced to choose between changing their policy and accepting him, settling for a long term boycott or blockade to enforce sanctions, or to invade Libya and finish what the rebels could not.

I defend Obama's legal authority to take action, but he is going about it poorly and this will likely end badly. The time to intervene with the lowest cost and lowest risk was when the rebels were marching on Tripoli weeks ago, not as Gadafi was marching on Benghazi. So long as regime change is not an explicit goal of the intervention of the western powers then it is less likely to happen, leading to the prolonged loss of Libyan oil on the world market. Eventually Obama will need Congressional authorization if this plays out as it is now going.

The moral justification for the intervention is to prevent Gadafi from "murdering his own people". That moral justification is being read narrowly and not as a justification to get rid of Gadafi entirely. This will lead to the worst possible outcome for everyone involved (and not involved), a long civil war and sanctions that stop Libya's oil trade.

Meanwhile in Bahrain their army is ordered back into town and gets reinforcements from Saudis, and then they proceed to establish martial law to preserve the King and his Sunni minority in control of the Shiite majority. The Shiites killed in Bahrain are just as dead the tribesmen of eastern Libya are and would be if Gadafi were unchecked. I am in favor of the suppression of the Shiites of Bahrain as they the tools of Iran, but the fate of the rebellion in Bahrain demonstrates the humanitarian justification for intervening in Libya is a hypocritical lie.

It would have been better if Gadafi and the rebels had been left to fend for themselves. Once the "Gadafy must go" propaganda was flying in western capitals, he should have been eliminated quickly, energetically, ruthlessly. Either course of action could be justified based on Gadafy's history. What is actually playing out is just stupid.

Oil is a fungible commodity for which there is a world wide market. It is in the economic interest of every country in the world that uses oil that Libya participate in the world oil market by exporting to someone, anyone.

Oil is what makes Libya important as a country. Libya was already exporting oil into the worldwide market before the present anti-Gadafi rebellion, and no doubt will export oil into the world-wide market after the rebellion is settled. There is a disruption in Libya's oil exports while the conflict plays out, and if Gadafi hangs on in control of the oil there could be a longer duration disruption. Then the western powers will be forced to choose between changing their policy and accepting him, settling for a long term boycott or blockade to enforce sanctions, or to invade Libya and finish what the rebels could not.

I defend Obama's legal authority to take action, but he is going about it poorly and this will likely end badly. The time to intervene with the lowest cost and lowest risk was when the rebels were marching on Tripoli weeks ago, not as Gadafi was marching on Benghazi. So long as regime change is not an explicit goal of the intervention of the western powers then it is less likely to happen, leading to the prolonged loss of Libyan oil on the world market. Eventually Obama will need Congressional authorization if this plays out as it is now going.

The moral justification for the intervention is to prevent Gadafi from "murdering his own people". That moral justification is being read narrowly and not as a justification to get rid of Gadafi entirely. This will lead to the worst possible outcome for everyone involved (and not involved), a long civil war and sanctions that stop Libya's oil trade.

Meanwhile in Bahrain their army is ordered back into town and gets reinforcements from Saudis, and then they proceed to establish martial law to preserve the King and his Sunni minority in control of the Shiite majority. The Shiites killed in Bahrain are just as dead the tribesmen of eastern Libya are and would be if Gadafi were unchecked. I am in favor of the suppression of the Shiites of Bahrain as they the tools of Iran, but the fate of the rebellion in Bahrain demonstrates the humanitarian justification for intervening in Libya is a hypocritical lie.

It would have been better if Gadafi and the rebels had been left to fend for themselves. Once the "Gadafy must go" propaganda was flying in western capitals, he should have been eliminated quickly, energetically, ruthlessly. Either course of action could be justified based on Gadafy's history. What is actually playing out is just stupid.

Bloomberg: Japan Nuclear Disaster Caps Decades of Faked Reports, Accidents

Daily Mail ran a story with lots of big photos.
Here is an alleged photo of the crane and spent fuel pool of unit #4 before the accident


Here is photo of the same green painted gantry crane over the spent fuel pool of unit #4 photographed from the air after the accident.


Naked fuel rods exposed to the atmosphere is not the worst case nuclear accident, but it is never supposed to happen.

TEPCO says the spent fuel pool (SFP) of #4 has water in it, but I don't believe them. Gamma radiation shining upward out of the pool caused the helicopters dumping water the other day to bolt extra metal under the seats as shielding for the pilots. If the rods were fully covered there would be no gamma radiation from them.

Nope. Only statements about something that exists can be true. Of course false statements can be made about things that do not exist, that is mainly what it means to be false, the non-existence of the referent is what makes it false. Statements that are contradictions are false because contradictions do not exist.