knuckles

The original essay that was referenced is over 40 pages long. "Mind/body" is just a summarization. There is much more to it. I second the advice to read the original. I think it is an "accident of history" that the Christian nations were the ones to turn away from religion. There were times in history when the Arabs more Aristotelian than the Christians (see Burgess's book). Calling it an "accident of history" is not to say that philosophy does not determine history. It does: the philosophy that moved away from Christianity was what brought us to reason and capitalism. However, I do not think there was anything inherent in Christianity that made it more likely that it would be the breeding ground for anti-religious philosophers.

Then you hate WalMart's "product", but not the corporation. That's perfectly fine -- not a philosophical issue anyway. I'd bet many Wal-Mart shoppers would love to shop elsewhere (say, Nordstrom?) if they got the same price. Like US airlines and phone companies, Wal-Mart has understood that many, many consumers want things cheap, if at the cost of quality. The good thing is that a company the size of Wal-Mart gets such discounts when it buys that it can offer comparable goods cheaper than the competition. Sorry to take this a bit off-topic, but I just had to post when I saw an "I hate Wal-Mart" remark. For the record, I hardly shop at Wal-Mart myself (mainly because the closest one if miles away), but I love the company.

Analogies are just that: analogies. They are not a form of reasoning. It is a fallacy to substitute analogy (ANY analogy) for reasoning. That said, I do not think the original analogy is far-fetched in the least. A contractual agreement solidifies a relationship. Unfortunately, it also creates an impediment to breaking the relatiuonship. Sometimes, this can be abused by one party taking the relationship "for granted". This can happen in any legal relationship (e.g. a business relationship). It happens every day. Also, it happens in marriage all the time. Ofcourse, it is not necessary nor rational for this to happen.

I'm surprised there are no responses from Australia and Asia (India). I know we do have some Canadians here.

Thanks. Seems that he is back in the US now.

Benjamin Franklin was a true "Rennaissance Man". Perhaps he gets short changed because he wasn't President.

I routinely look through Iraqi blogs to get a better understanding f what is going on there. The regular news organizations are still my primary source, but the blogs provide another set of viewpoints. Thought I would share some links, because I wish I had discovered these earlier. There is a site that I use as a directory to Iraqi blogs (and also to some blogs by US soldiers). iraqblogcount.blogspot.com Ofcourse there are some horrible Iraqi blogs that simply spew venom at anything American. There are some that are mundane. And then, there are some that are from folk who really want to see their country become a better place. This Iraqi blogger wrote today Then there are these brothers who have decided to form a politcal party and take part in the elections. If anyone has any particular Iraqi or Soldier blogs that they find particular useful (either for news or for inspiration), I'd be interested in the links.

Interesting question. I suppose one could make the case that photos show kids concretes and that is a good way to start. On the other hand, one could also make the case that kids need an essentialized representation (a "cartoon" --- actually, a simple sketch -- is one such form).

This is a most revealing argument.

If you really want a split between Republicans and Democrat, vote Kerry. The GOP is going to win the House and Senate regardless. Balance it with Kerry for President.

This fight cannot be fought by airport screeners. We have to take the fight to the governments that aid anti-US terrorists. The Iraq war has positioned huge number of US troops on the border of Iran and Syria. The target we chose is debatable. Still, better to have fought Iraq and be where we are now than never to have fought at all. If this doesn't fix things, we might just have to nuke them.

It is even broader than this. A proper government has not right to dictate that people act rationally, as long as they are within their rights acting irrationally. For example, a proper government does not force a person to rent an apartment to a person from another race even if it is abundantly clear that they are being irrational

States and countries don't really have any rights in the sense that individuals do. Laws allowing a state to leave a country could be good law if formulated properly...I do not think this is the case in any existing country. As for whether it is right for a state to secede -- it depends. If the state secedes to gain more rights for individuals, that is good. If it secedes to deny rights to individuals, that is bad.

Better dead than red.

Remember the Beatles song: "There's one for you, nineteen for me... ...I'm the taxman."

In most areas in the US, if you go to a hospital it appears that a lot of doctors are from abroad. Actually, the doctor's union (AMA) has been the only one that has made the government impose extremely strict immigration controls on members of its profession. For a doctor to immigrate to the US is far more complex than for a computer programmer. Tax laws have moved the bulk of the working population toward a system of middle-man payments. Though we call this "medical insurance" in the US, it is not insurance. Insurance is something one calls upon in emergencies. The middle-man systems has greatly reduced the free market system where consumers "ration" their helth care. Other government regulation -- e.g. forcing emergency rooms to treat all non-emergencies that present themselves, regardless of ability to pay, has meant that those costs are billed to people who offer to pay. The middle-man system has also introduced pricing where the middleman negotiates different rates. This would be fine if this were a market-driven system of middle-men, but not in the current system. A hospital bill for a few nights could work out to $20,000. But, a middleman ("insurance" company) would usually end up paying less than half. The middleman system has altered the landscape so much that many doctors will refuse to handle a patient to walks in without insurance and offers to pay cash.

Sometime an industry gets so heavily regulated that certain people cannot get by within the rule of law. This is similar to what could happen to a country as a whole. Health care in the US is approaching such a state for some people. I have heard of people who have resorted to "theft of healthcare" because the system has left them no realistic alternatives. Govenrment rules have caused health care to be priced way outside their range. These are not poor people, but people in special circumstances related to the nature of their employment or their immigration status. Sometimes government rules get so bad that you are in a "lifeboat sitation". Then, you have to act accordingly.

Dr. Peikoff condemn objectivists who evaluate Bush and Kerry as being equally bad. Would that mean that he more strongly condemns objectivists who support Bush? What does such condemnation mean? That such people are making an error? or something worse? Does it mean they are evil? Did the strikers in Atlantis condemn Dagny?

The snippet on www.peikoff.com is short and there is obviously to the talk which is not public. The thesis of the published snippet is that a large percentage of Americans are very serious Christians (25%) and that Bush is one such person, who will move the country closer to a theocracy. I think... 1) The Passion of Christ was a blockbuster. I know that many people in my office saw it. I would say that a few of them would consider themselves "good Chirstians", but they have too many decades of nihilist upbringing to ever impose their religion on others. Most of the others who saw the movie did so out of curiosity. Neither group would be likely to watch the Ten Commandments if it were showing on free TV. 2) Bush attacked a secular state. True. He did not do so *because* it was secular. He did attack the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is true that Bush says that Iraqis should have an Islmaic constitution if they see fit. This isn't theocratic thinking, it is multiculturalism 101 combined with the common fallacy that democracy is the highest ideal of politics. In my opinion Bush attacked Iraqi because that was the only "real" country against whom American (and Arab) public opinion would allow an attack. A politically pragmatic decision. In retrospect, it might have been the easiest way to get a few hundred thousand US troops on the Iranian border. (But, being politically pragmatic, Bush dare not say that.) 3) Stem Cell research. Yes, Bush curbed it; but he didn't ban it completely. His decision is typical: politically pragmatic. He had to do enough to be able to tell the religious right how he stood up for them. 4) Gay marriage. Bush proposed a constitutional amendment. What can be more politically pragmatic than suggesting something that you know can never happen! And even if it does -- which it will not -- it is hollow word-play. 5) One state (Missouri?) did pass a referendum banning the use of the term "marriage" for gay unions. On the other hand, in many primaries where Christians had fought Republican incumbants who had supported the idea of "gay marriage", the incumbents won anyway. This is in spite of the fact that only 20% of the more extreme party-members vote in primaries. 6) The morning after pill has been made legal under Bush. Again, in a politcally pragmatic move, the FDA banned over-the-counter sales. This is not good. (The pill must be taken within 72 hours.) Yet, it is not an outright ban. There is no doubt that the Republican strategists understand that they have to get the extreme-Christian vote if they want to win. The way they see it, the only way to win is to turn out that vote. That means that one has to have one or two issues that get that base excited (mad or glad) and then pose as their clear champion on that issue. There is a large active liberal base in this country. Just today I heard a story on PBS about liberal groups that sent "spies" to churches to listen to sermons. They were given checklists of things that, if said, could be used to complain the the IRS and remove the tax-exempt status of churches.

Something that used to work for me when I had stage fright was to imagine I was someone else. Sounds weird, but it works. I think my starting point was a self image of myself as someone who was serious about life, not flippant, intelligent, and so on. Somewhere in the mix was the feeling that I was reliable and therefore I would not say something that was wrong. On the whole, it cramped my style into a boringly slow plodding seriousness. One day a colleague told me that when he wants to change something about his outward persona telling himself to have more XYZ doesn't work. Instead, he tries to think of the best person he knows personally who has the traits he is looking for. Then, he visualizes and models that behaviour. Example: "Walter always seems certain of himself, sometimes too certain...I wish I could have his kind of confidence. With his style and my substance I could go places". In the privacy of my apartment, I think of Walter and pretend to be him. I then think of how Walter would act in certain situations where I felt inadequate. I pretend to be in those situations and act like Walter. In my apartment, I *am* Walter. I then choose some selected real life interactions. It could be something really simple. I am checking into a hotel today. I know how I would approach the conceirge to ask about a nearby restaurant. Not today; today, I am Walter. I play the role. After a few times of doing this in incosequential sitations with strangers, I try decide to try it in ONE single more important situation. If I know some of the people involved, I have to decide if it is appropriate to display a radical change in approach. I am all ready for quiet thoughts, or even amused comments: "You're all perked up today, Knuckles!" Try this once and see if it woreks for you.

For anyone who has a Hotmail account, Hotmail is going to offer 250MB of space. For Yahoo folks, it is already 100MB. If you have either of these, it is pointless switching to GMail. The competitive response has been quick. Consequently, instead of going down in MBA case-studies as a great strategy that worked, GMail will go down as an attempt to create a competitive advantage that was readily replicated by competitors. The bottom line, all mail-providers end up with higher costs.

While I agree with some interpretations of this, I would caution against any idea that the opposition are generally stupid or evil. Our strongest opposition on the "right" and the "left" are not the talking hjeads one sees on TV. They are the people who are very right about many things, and very honest about many things, and yet disagree with us. Like compartmentalized minds, the good and the bad are mixed in these individuals. The good "subsidizes" the evil. My favorite left-winger is Christoipher Hitchens, who writes in Vanity Fair. A google search will bring up his articles. Read a sampling and decide just how witless the opposition is. Get real folks!

The good is the only thing that can acheive anything. Even in a dictatorship, the evil has to rely on the good: the thinkers and acheivers and builders (alive and dead). While the evil often feeds on the carcases of the good, there is a bigger danger. The biggest danger is when good and evil reside in the same individual. As long as Bill Gates produces great stuff, and thinks he has to "give some of it back", the evil in him feasts off the good in him. It is not the mullahs of the world who are leading it to perdition, it is the men of compartmentalized minds. We must fight Bin Laden, but that is easy. The tough fight is the one against George Soros.

I agree. I would add that someone might have formed a concept and someone else might not. One person might hold "political prisoner" as a single concept, while another might hold it as two concepts.

Some US jurisdictions have laws giving visitiation rights to grandparents. This means that grandparents have a right to visit their grandchildren over the objections of the parents. Does not seem right to me. Any thoughts?