IchorFigure

They won't. In fact the reason this film was put together in such haste was because the rights were about to expire. Since the film is officially made the rights are now retained. I'm not sure for how long.

Both Ron Paul and his son Rand are anti-abortion. They still have that crazy sliver of religiousness lurking in them. They think that life begins at conception making abortion murder. This mars both of them heavily.

They said a recording will be made. But I don't know if that means they will offer it for sale in some form or if they'll post it publicly on their ARCTV feed.

Wow the livestream received nearly 900 viewers!

The debate starts livestream on facebook in less than 30 minutes If you want to watch go join in on FB you dont even need an account. You do need to login an account to join the chat though.

It already has passed. It passed with the "Recovery Act" stimulus of '09. Watching the presentation video from the FCC head is a parade of buzzwords and empty slogans as usual. He makes vague suggestions that the U.S. is falling behind in areas of internet and technology as reasons for supporting the plan. Of course that's a blanket accusation the Left uses all the time. That America is not "keeping up" with whatever it is their Platonic ideal wishes. This made me realize how bizarre it is to see Leftists supposedly desiring for America to be #1 (in internet technology, or healthcare etc.). When the Right shows a dogmatic and quasi-nationalist support for America First, they mock them. But when the Left wants says they want the U.S. to excel at something it's just cover to take control.

This National Broadband Plan is about a year old but somehow I've never heard much about it until a friend sent me a link today. Here's the website for you to see, Broadband.gov. The "Plan" was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus. The goals and implications of this subsidized broadband all seem extremely ominous to me, particularly as a way of injecting the FCC's control into the internet. Wiki states the goals of the "Plan" as: And of course this is all being spearheaded by the FCC itself. I guess I'm just a little shocked you don't hear more about this. Obamacare is certainly evil, but I think if anything else deserves widespread denunciation and defunding it is this. What looks like it will lead to a huge wedge into the door of internet censorship.

So here's this: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/03/thedc-exclusive-producer-of-atlas-shrugged-movie-says-part-three-of-trilogy-could-be-a-musical/#ixzz1FZZiCgTD

Does it strike anyone else that TaS, and now Kelly and Barbara Branden keep posting and talking about the movie, getting screenings etc? Whereas I've heard nothing out of Yarok Brook or anyone else in his circle. So what's the deal is the movie rights holder affiliated with TaS in some way or what? Why so cozy?

On the whole the trailer feels better than I had expected, however it's still solidly in "wait and see" territory. A few bits that make me cringe: -That longggggg opening line of clunky dialogue. You can feel him running out of breath to spit it all out. -Out of place guitar riffs. Hollywood has such a boner for edgy guitar riffs in trailers lately, but it didn't work in Clash of the Titans and its way out of place here.

Trains in a modern setting just... can't work. No one uses trains for mass transit anymore, and what there is is little else besides Amtrak. I guess they might be playing some kind of high-speed bullet train angle, but... we'll see. The look is interesting, and could much worse. But it doesn't exactly look very hopeless and dystopian like you'd expect for a world where skyscrapers are cracking from disrepair. That acting is also hella clunky.

Nice. I'll give it a listen.

I read his entire article with interest, and in general I can usually find some interesting things in Tracinski's work. My thoughts on this are not completely sorted out, but I have a number of immediate points where I disagree or think he is misguided. -He keeps referring to what happened as another "crisis" for Objectivism and I've heard this from other people before. But I don't think that personal disputes and disagreements make for anything approaching a "crisis". It's just something those individuals will need to deal with and sort out amongst themselves. And the rest of us are just basically left to make up our own minds about the outcome. -His citation of what amounts to Journo/Brook/Epstein's towing the line seems shaky and unfounded as far as anyone can tell from what he points to. There could be any number of reasons why they think and come to the conclusions they do. -Remarking that scientists might be better off at philosophy than philosophers is just silly, especially now more than ever seeing as how science today is inundated with determinism. -Stating that Objectivists should branch out on their own independently of ARI is nothing earth shattering or dramatic. It's pretty much what everyone has acknowledged for a few years. (And naturally that would give them intellectual independence from ARI if they wished). Despite all this, the issue of McCasky's resignation still does seem very up in the air with Peikoff coming off seeming unjustified. Unless more information is presented, I don't know what else to conclude. However at the same time I'm unsure if such personal conflicts require public explanation. Perhaps an explanation would be justified in consideration of ARI's donors. I do think that the administration at ARI has every rightful reason to see to quality control of its members. e.g. They wouldn't want someone writing about supporting Holocaust denial, or anarchy, etc. Nevertheless, this didn't seem to constitute something like that, and as it stands I don't see why McCasky was dismissed.

Incredibly obnoxious, especially his remarks about Wall Street. Notice what a big deal he makes about the questioner having clout specifically just because she's black. Which just goes to show you how the Leftists are the ones who still make a big deal about race.

I asked the uploader of the video and he just said its from Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life. So I guess someone involved in making that docu must know, at least. Perhaps it would show up in the films credits.

Beck is a creep. I can't respect anyone with so much influence who tries so hard to fuse the Founding Fathers with Christianity. And I really wish Yaron would quit interacting with him. I don't care how many people buy Rand's work because of it, Beck is just too awful to affiliate with in my opinion. Edit: In fact Beck's creepy usage of the Founding Fathers with his slogans reminds me of the German-American Bund rally at Madison Square Garden where they used a giant image of Washington.

Obama on the single and FDR on the 100, ugh. This is pretty much dreaming Leftist monopoly money.

Hello, I'm glad to see Bioshock may cause some gamers to challenge their thinking and look into Rand's ideas themselves.

My suspicions are very much similar to yours. This incarnation of "Bioshock" doesn't use Rand's ideas in its story notably. Just watching the preview there's a few things to take notice of: -American flag decorations are everywhere. -During this interview Ken Levine claims the theme of the game is "American exceptionalism". -One of the propoganda type billboards shown shows a women in American striped clothing stubbornly shunning a malnourished infant while holding a baby in her arms. The text reads "Burden NOT Columbia with your chafft". And so based upon this I think it's likely Bioshock:Infinite will be just another anti-American screed circa the Bush administration. America is selfish, America is racist, America is imperialist, etc. I think this a good bet. Bioshock 1 wasn't really an anti-Objectivist themed game. It was anti-ideology, anti-"extremism", which Objectivism happened to fall under. However Ken Levine's themes swipe at ideology as such on a very broad level in favor of "grey" mixed subjectivism. The thing that angers me most about the Bioshock series is the way it appeals to your values and then insults them. Many gamers I've talked to have said their favorite features of Bioshock were its fantastic and spectacularly brilliant style showcasing the hopeful attitude of that time period. If you get past the surface of an early America however you find out the games message is that it is naive and awful, and so are you for thinking otherwise. Edit: Changed the poor grammar of "was" to "were". Changed "American" to "America".

Yeah, you are looking at this way too concretely. Rand isn't "anti social worker". What is more important is her character and attitude toward her job. What are her reasons for doing the job she does? If she finds being a social worker interesting and it's something she's good at then what's altruistic about it? Granted that in an ideal world there wouldn't be government supplemented jobs beyond the minimum necessary. But the reality today is that there are, and frankly it's admirable she has a job at all in this disaster of an economy.

Sadly it looks as though Peter has lost to WWE wrestling manager Linda McMahon. I guess Connecticut is not ready for a representative who will treat them like adults and tell them the truth. I'll hope he will remain interested in politics but if he's not willing to spend any more of his effort and money I can't say I blame him.

The primary is this monday right? Hope he can pull it off.

That link you posted is broken for some reason but this one will work. link

How does the summary of her philosophy there appear to do overall? I don't have time right now to read it all, but the bit I read on altruism seemed decent.

It seems pretty obvious to me that this is just a way for the rights holder to keep them. The movie itself will be forgotten pretty quick and aired on some 3rd rate subscription movie network at 4 a.m.