the tortured one

I think what your teacher was doing was trying to avoid this: you: what did you think? other person: well... it was... good... I guess It fully depends on the context. A good leader can do either. I've seen great leaders of both types. A successful businessman once told me "if you can't take criticism, you can't get better." It's good advice, two of my best professors ever were men who thought "constructive criticism" was hippy hogwash. Your papers always came back full of red ink. But that red ink was ways to improve, those criticisms were methods of pointing out descrepencies in one's own work, in order to improve it. You better believe that after he stamped an F on the first essay to include a comma splice, no one ever did that again. Remember, Henry Cameron didn't believe in Constructive Criticism. And he was one of the fountainhead's most memorable characters. those two old professors of mine in fact, remind me of Henry Cameron.

It is interesting to note that, of the remains of the colonial period, the most prosperous modern nations are those of British descent. America, Australia, Hong Kong, etc. Even India is showing a rapid acceptance of Capitalism after a history of anti-life Hinduism, Buddism, and Islam. Other colonial powers, such as Spain, consistently left mercantilist heritages, which fell into communism and socialism all too easy. for an interesting read on religion in the new world, read the book "Freethinkers" by Susan Jacoby. Don't expect anything Earth shattering, philosophically, as she comes across as slightly liberal. But don't let that detain you, it's a finely written book that presents a history not taunt in the textbooks. She explains how post-Revolutionary War America was a power struggle between different religious factions, all hoping to make a Christian nation. Remember, this is the 1790's, 20 years before the French Revolution. Even though the treaty of Wesphalia made religious wars a thing of the past (though not so distant past at that time) most of the Christian regimes were still in place. It was thought that a protestant America could help tip the balance of power away from Catholic Spain, Italy, and France. She also highlights Patrick Henry, Robert Ingersoll, and highlights some of the fights between religion and secularism. Early religious scuffles include the fight to prevent vaccines, anaesthesia, and other things not even considered today. I wonder if one day our fights: Abortion, stem cell research, and cloning, will one day end up like that, not even thought about. One thing I find interesting about colonization is that of China. During the time that Europe was busy dividing up the world, China was far more powerful, militarily than most of Europe. A bold statement, especially given Europe's high technology. Care to elaborate?

FFX was a downer in many ways. Yuna was just ... bleh. Altruism is one thing, but suicidal altruism is definitely a turn-off... and anti-Objectivist, I suppose. you know, I wrote a long essay on FFX and it's highly positive themes in the first page of this thread. Remember that Yuna starts out as a suicidal altruist, but wholly rejects that philosophy at the end. By the time you are fighting the final boss, everyone is fighting solely for their own values. It really is a wonderfully positive game (despite it's tragic elements) which perhaps is why the failure-worshipping naturalistic American counter-culture despises this game so much. P.S. Your post made me laugh. I aim to please

consider what the Chinese stand to loose if they launch an all out war against the United States: a vitally important trading partner. Without U.S imports, China would simply not have the resources to continue, their economy would grind to a halt like draining all the oil out of a car. and despite a horrible track record, China is making an inexorable crawl towards Capitalism; parts of China are economically freer than the U.S! That's better than the west's slow descent into Socialism, protectionism, and police statism. China is a manufacturing based economy, dependent on western raw materials to function. Cut out the west, and what do you have? Russia? don't kid yourself, Russia is a third world country with an economy run by the mafia, which happens to have a lot of old nuclear missiles. Africa and the Oceanic countries would be China's sole source of imports. Not a good proposition. The U.S, by contrast, is a service based economy, which draws much of it's manufactured produces from abroad, specifically with China. War with China would leave huge voids in the economy that would not easily be filled. How about that? Free-Trade Capitalism has made war an economic impossibility? Peace has broken out! Gee, that's not what Noam Chompsky told me would happen. The real threat is Islamic terrorism, inspiring a conservative revolution amongst the Islamic communities of the West, inspiring Islamic leaders to push their religious agenda in getting free-speech abolished and Sharia law imposed. Because the west; despite having the best guns, planes, and bombs, is rather bad at defending itself morally. If their is one weak front from which Islamists could be successful attacking from, it would be the ideological front, because they would simply be using the same tools Christian conservatists have been using for years.

EDIT: deleted because I couldn't get the darned thing to work

It's hard to understand, Dan, but in America there has been a sort of counter-sexual revolution. After the sixties and seventies era of free love and liberalism, there has been a renewal of conservatism and "family values" (last election, polls found Family Values as the most important factor in voting) Parents who once defied their parents by sleeping with every person they could grab are now horrified at the fact that they, now are parents and their children are doing the same thing. How many people here, when inquiring in to the lifestyle of their parents prior to their marriage, hear the phrase "It was a different time"? I think that there is a greater percentage of declared atheists in America than England, but in America people are more evangelical about their religion (or lack thereof.) Perfect example is the recent scandals at the Air Force Academy, when several Jewish students dropped out because they were getting jeered at because their people "killed Jesus." Thanks for the advice, Synthlord. I doubt he will ever be a true Objectivist again, but as long as I maintain an individualist stance, he can at least understand how I think. Oddly, anyone listening to him would swear he was an Objectivist, such as his rejection of Anarchism and reliance on reason... until you discuss his religion, then you find a man who prays before he goes to bed and before every meal. As much as I like the "if I'm wrong, I'll figure it out on my own" stance, I can already see his retort: "you'd prefer to find out when you're bleeding to death from an Iraqi suicide bomber?" What was that quote about advice being that it is when you want an answer to a question whose answer you already know but was afraid to ask? It's strange how one sometimes knows the answer but just needs to hear it from others for validation.

2). Is it possible for someone to function in life with objectivist views and not be aware of objectivism as a philosophy? interestingly, I was listening to my roommate have a conversation with one of his friends, in which he concluded that: 1: making money is a good thing 2: the world would be a better place if people looked out for themselves rather than other people. 3: handouts like welfare only make people lazy all of this from a black guy who was raised ina devout Jehova's Witness. Needless to say, I was very pleased at the conclusions he made.

Read the manga. That "communist utopia" was described as "A zoo for those wierd animals that build their own cages and hide inside of them." I always liked that line. The only way the "utopia" could work is if humans were "stabalized", ie. no longer human. And Ghia, the computer setup to protect Man from the bioroids, knew that was wrong and tried to destroy the bioroids. There is no bioroid virus or whatever it was, in the manga story. The manga is far superior to the movie. For some reason, I hear and understand the "read the manga" line alot. Ghost in the Shell, DragonBall Z, Akira, and apparently Appleseed were far superior in Manga form than anime form. To respond directly to The Tortured One, the mecha in this movie actually does make military sense. The plot premise is that Earth is under attack by aliens that are much *much* larger than most human built ships, and thus, something very large is needed. I like it when anime has reasons like these. It annoys me in show like Gasaraki, when it shows big mechas fighting each other and I can't help but wonder "why not just take it out with a HEAT round? or a MOAB if aiming is an issue?" Of course, I realize that these are only plot devices, thus it's not like I loose sleep if it is an issue. It made for some badass special effects and fight scenes in Appleseed. Of course, Gasaraki bugged me with it's "America is old and weak, Japan is new and Strong" approach to military might. Apparently someone ain't been reading on Japanese economics. oh, and for the record, I found FL_CL to be fantastically funny. I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I liked Metropolis. I like Ozamu, as his works (Astro Boy, Kimba the white Lion, and Metropolis) all have great themes to them. While I am ranting, has anyone ever noticed that anime women usually fall into two distinct personality archetypes? They are either fiery, wild, freespirited, and headstrong, or they are quiet, reserved, polite, and headstrong. Maybe that is a cultural thing that should be overlooked, but I wonder if there are any heroines out there who have more depth than this. Like I said, I treat anime as neither always good, nor always bad, it is a genre of cinema, with both great aspects, and poor ones.

Ever since I decided that I was an athiest, I have tried to not make a big deal of it. I don't go out of my way to hide it, but I ain't flaunting it either. I find that people who run up and down the street screaming "I am an athiest!" are more often than not looking for attention. as for my friends, my friends know I am an atheist. They met me with shock at first "You don't believe in God!?" like they had never met an atheist before. Most tried to question me, or defend their faith, but I retorted with this: "If I told you I was a methodist, or Catholic, or Hindu, or anything other than your faith, would you be acting this way?" the universal answer is "uhhh, no" "ok then, my next question is this: does it change anything? Will you look down on me because of my belief (or lack thereof)?" "I guess not" It's a great way to filter who are your friends and who aren't. If someone responds with shock at your atheism, ask them if it changes anything. If it does, you probably don't want to be associating with them anyway. as for girls, I say that I do not practice religion. If that drives them away, oh well. My work is my happiness, not my association with others. I can be comfortable with others, with a girlfriend, or with no one at all. Amusingly, when it comes to situations like those, I ask myself: WWRD? What Would Roark Do? It harkens back to my days as a christian, but I find myself much happier adhering to WWRD than WWJD. as for my family, I have told my little brother and sister, and from what I've heard, my mom knows. My Brother doesn't think much about it, as we are best of friends. My sister is some sort of weird post-modern christian, not entirely convinced by literalism preached by the hard-liners, but still skeptical at the notion that nothing supernatural exists. I am more well rounded philosophically than her, so she avoids any metaphysical debates with me, partly because she has spent the better part of her active philosophical life looking up to me for political advice. My mom found out from my sister. I share a great relation with her, thus it obviously isn't an issue with her. From what my sis tells me, she hopes that my atheism is only a phase that I am going through. That is fine with me, because she no longer asks me to say dinner prayer. My mother, being a recovered alcoholic, knows that change occurs within a person first, and outside interference only puts a person on the defensive. She had to admit to herself first that she was an alcoholic before she sought to correct herself. And for that I am grateful My Dad, however, is the tricky one. He was at one time a hard line Objectivist, but nowadays has rediscovered religion and is more like Lew Rockwell than Ayn Rand. I think he was one of those who were disillusioned with the breakup of the NBI, who rediscovered religion when he had children. Thus he is still mildly friendly to Objectivism and Ayn Rand (it was he who encouraged me to read Atlas Shrugged, which was my first introduction to Ayn Rand) but I find that as I delve deeper into Objectivism, he has tried to non-chalantly persuade me to more libertarian thinkers like Murray Rothbard. The ARI's support on the war on terror has further diminished his support for Objectivism, because he knows that I am heading to the military, and the Idea of me dying in Iraq terrifies him. It's gotten to the point where he likes Michael Moore and liberal anti-Bush fanatics who are always looking to deride the war on terror, despite the fact that politically he is about as right-wing as Ludwig Von Mises. that is my dilemma; how do I break it to him? He has spend the better part of 25 years rationalizing his fall out from Objectivism and he spends most of his free time reading anti-war on terror media. So far I have avoided confrontation, but I feel like it is coming to a focal point where everything will happen at once. And he is much better at debate than I, despite my frantic studying of Objectivism, Atheism, and the War. Like Alan Greenspan looking at an economic bubble, I am trying to soften it up for when it is time to deal with it, but right now, I don't know when is the time to move, and when is the time to wait. I don't need his approval to live my life (I do quite well enough on my own,) but it is something I would like. thoughts anyone?

what an awe inspiring scene, Dagny! I am going to my library to see if they have "inherint the Wind" as soon as I finish typing this! favorite movie scenes? Star Wars: Return of the Jedi - The final lightsaber duel between Luke and Darth Vader As if 6 movies worth of build up wasn't enough?! Star Wars, despite minor discrepencies, is a fantastic movie with an objective good and evil. And what makes the movies even more majestic is that pivotal scene where good triumphs over evil. Here is Luke Skywalker, a barely trained Jedi, standing against the two greatest Sith Lords in history. They are trying to make him evil, but Luke resists the temptations of these two juggernauts of evil. In that final scene, there is Luke, alone, against Darth Vader, who right now is at the apex of his power. Though Luke is successful in the duel, that is not the true victory. The Emperor wispers in Luke's ear to compromise that which is good in him, to use the dark side to strike down Darth Vader. Luke's defiant "No!" as he tosses his lightsaber shows a hero who is uncompromising in his values. His showing of valor inspires Darth Vader to forsake evil and save the life of his son from the epitome of evil; a Sith Lord. Very few movies any more have this kind of huge confrontation between good and evil. The Player's Club: The climax fight scene between Diamond and Ronnie Ok, it's a black movie directed by Ice Cube which is centered on an L.A strip club? don't laugh, because despite it's mature setting, the philosophy of this movie is fantastic. The protagonist is Diamond, a talented young girl who must strip in order to pay for college. Along the way she is joined by Ebony, her cousin, who I can only describe as a black female Peter Keating. She becomes a stripper because she craves the attention. The antagonist of this movie is Ronnie; who prior to the settings of the movie sexually assaults Diamond, and continues to try to destroy her. If Ellsworth Toohey was a black female stripper, he'd be Ronnie. Ronnie has it all; great body, awesome car, and is popular and loved by everyone. And Ronnie sees Diamond, who is talented and making something of herself, and sets out to destroy her. When Diamond resists, Ronnie tries to destroy Diamond by destroying her cousin, Ebony. Along the way Diamond's parents are introduced, who are traditionalist Christians who view Diamond's means to an end as debaunched, thus degrade her and try to persuade her to stop without giving an alternative. Same situation with Diamond's boyfriend; Larry. Diamond is alone in a world which mocks her as a slut, when she is only trying to make something of herself. The final fight scene occurs after Ronnie hurts Ebony badly (I won't spoil it, as I encourage everyone to see this movie) and Diamond realizes that Ronnie is out to destroy her, and she confronts Ronnie in a fistfight, in which Diamond breaks with her troubled past. It is a beautifullu put together scene, in which Diamond, in retribution for everything Ronnie has done to destroy her, ruins Ronnie's face, and thus the only thing she had going for her. It was well put together, well built up to, and it was a sweet taste of justice. In the end, Diamond becomes a success story, Ronnie goes to prison, and Ebony learns her lesson, albiet difficultly. Perfectly Objectivist values, despite the mature theme. Aliens: Ripley vs the Queen Alien is a fantastic horror movie, as the common motif of Aliens is rape: the idea that these creatures forcefully use you for sexual acts, whereupon you give birth to an unwanted monster. However, in the second one, James Cameron demonstrated a mastery of directing by adding a measure of depth unseen in horror movies. One of the motifs in the second movie was maternal love: Ripley lost her daughter (see the extended version) and Newt lost her parents, the two find each other and complete the emotional gaps. This bond is demonstrated strongly when Ripley, with only 24 minutes till nuclear meltdown, descends into the darkest depths of the hive to rescue Newt. The queen followed them to the dropship and attacked them while they were on the spaceship. The queen shreds Bishop and Ripley pushes Newt aside, drawing the queens attention, but apparently stranding Newt with the queen in the hangar bay. Just as the Queen corners Newt and is about to move in for the kill, one of the most perfectly orchestrated scenes in movie history happens. The grinding of the door, the bright lights, the shadow of the walker, standing there in a "bring it on stance" Ripley with a resolve of a mother defending her daughter from a rapist, everything comes together with the single greatest one-liner in movie history; Ripley takes a few steps foward, the camera focuses on her, and she utters "Get away from her, you BITCH!" Apollo 13: the rescue Not much to say about this movie; it's a straight foward celebration of the human spirit. I can't help but think about how the Russians, when faced with a hopeless situation (forget which flight it was) told it's cosmonaut farewell and left him to his fate. But this movie was a brilliant retelling of the greatest struggle in aerospace history. There was no faith, nothing mystical or wishy-washy, it was straight science and the power of the mind, saving the lives of three astronauts. Their final descent into the atmosphere was so well built up, one couldn't help but feel the palpable emotion of the Lovett household as they waited for a response from the capsule as it plummetted to Earth, nor could one deny the glory of man's spirit when a response was finally recorded, and the outburst of emotion, both at the Lovett household, and the Houston Space center. One of the few scenes that can drive me to near tears. I dearly love this movie. These are all I can think of right now. If I can come up with more, I'll be sure to post them.

whoa, Felix, talk about your cynicism! Perhaps I am lucky, but I am thankful for every class that I take. perhaps because my school's student body voted 98% Republican (with that 2% being libertarian and democrat) and the entire school of business is run by free-market orientated professors. I've had a single liberal professor in 3 years, and she taught the usual leftist woes of business (glass ceilings, etc) as problems businessmen need to address, not government. My economics and money and banking professor teaches the lessons taught by Ludwig Von Mises. I sometimes wonder if I am all alone, considering the horror stories I have heard about college professors. If you think high school sucks, be selective and ask the right questions when considering college. That is when you do all the learning.

Something I have noticed about Japanese Anime is that the philosophy at times is rather ducky. Whereas western cinema focuses on good vs evil, I find that Japanese movies focus, in general, on hate vs love. It's something I noticed in Princess Mononoke, Appleseed, Vampire Hunter D, among the others I have seen. Acts of hatred are bad because they are acts of hatred, and acts of love are good because they are acts of love. The Atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, of course, acts of hatred, thus evil actions. And of course, everyone here is well aware of the phrase "the age of love." Appleseed in particular disgusted me, philosophically. When it showed a communist utopia where everyone's desires are taken care of, and the only thing that was still wrong was the prejudice against the "bioroids." The bioroids were these genetically engineered people designed to offset human hatred, but in the process lost the ability to love. So of course they played them out as an oppressed minority, who at the happy ending gained the ability to experience emotion, and stop being so logical all the time... There are some Animes that I like. Dragon Ball Z, in particular, had a wonderful philosophy. And do disregard the fact that the american dubbers targetted 11 year old boys, im refering to the original manga, which was targetted at young adults and late teens. My favorite example was Vegeta's soliloquy at the end of the series, when he realizes why Goku was always stronger than he. He realizes that the reason Goku fights was because he enjoyed pushing himself, and that was what it was all about, compared to Vegeta, who pushed himself because he wanted to beat others. If that doesn't scream Howard Roark vs. Gail Wynard, I don't know what does.

No offense to your friend, but it sounds like he has never taken a day of economics in his life. It blows my mind how some people make such arbitrary speculations without a shred of understanding or research. Property first occured when agriculture developed, and much of the world either hunted or subsistent farmed. Making food was the basis of the ancient world. People domesticated wheat and choose a spot of land to raise the wheat on. Nothing of this sort involves theft, because it was an unused natural resource, which in economics is called "dead capita." No where in this process did theft occur. Barbarism and tribalism was the earliest form of socialism; the idea that property rights aren't recognized, therefor the barbarian is moral in taking the land from the greedy landowners. interestingly enough, in my Money theory class, I learned how inflation and price control destroyed the Roman empire. The emperor was minting money in order to finance his numerous social and military programs, and when businessmen raised their prices to deal with the increased money supply, emperor Diocletian declared them greedy and evil businessmen and he set specific prices for all goods. Naturally massive shortages occured throughout the empire, the upperclass fled the cities, and the Legions disbanded because there was no incentive to fight in an army whose pay is useless. Interesting that socialism destroyed one of the mightiest civilizations ever. furthermore, anyone with a lick of economics education knows that common property is the most useless and degraded property of the three major types (private, public, and common.) The reason common property is so rare today is because of it's economic failure: everyone used the common property, no one took care of it. Hence the term "tragedy of the commons" which arose during the middle ages: because the commonlands were typically the worst lands in the kingdom.

I stick with what I know, so I just go with Windows XP. Most of the programs I have been educated on are associated with Windows so that is the program I use. However, I am with Durandal in his support of Steve Jobs. I may not own any Apple stuff, but I am in full support of them. Make Microsoft work for it, I say, competition among companies is a win-win situation for us. Hell, I even have an Apple background on my PC. True it is because it features Ayn Rand, but it is an Apple background nonetheless.

I think that the new guys might still be unaware of the extents of Objectivist tolerance. Allow me to extrapolate. when people hear there is no tolerance, they assume there is intolerance. In other words, images of Neo-Nazis and KKK members pop up in the mind. Such blind hatred is certainly not what Objectivism is about. In fact going by common definitions, Objectivists would be considered the most tolerant people on the planet, since they judge a person by their productive worth, not their religion, race, or other insignigicancies. but toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, it is the counterfeit of it. One espouses evil, the other allows it. Toleration calls for the abandonment of Objective ethics, since it preaches that one must respect another, regardless of how evil they are. Toleration is sending Adolf Hitler a Valentine's card, sending cookies to Osama Bin Laden, and fan mail to Charlie Manson. so when an Objectivist says he will not be tolerant, he is not saying that he hates anyone that is not like him (this is not xenophobia) he is saying that he refuses to violate his own code of ethics for the actions of others, particularly when those actions are in violation of his own moral code. As for India, it is a perfect example of how a democracy alone does not create prosperity. John Stossel's "greed" tv show demonstrated this. However, in recent years the grip of socialism on India has lessened, and the slight move towards Capitalism shows. as for Pakistan, while I have no love for Mussharaf, but he is more accepting of America than most, because Al Queida has attempted to take his life on three separate occasions, and is willing to work with America, and we oblige. I mean, a slightly amicable dicator can be stalled, we know that tommorow Mussharaf will not sell nukes to Al Queida, we can deal with him as we see fit. I shudder to think what would happen if Pakistan, a Nuklear nation, falls under Al Queida jurisdiction while our military is still spread out over Iraq and Afganistan.

I think his remark was that the reason people hold flawed political beliefs is because they stem from flawed epistemological/moral theories, not that economics as a science is inadequate. try, for example, to tell a liberal that the reason minimum wage laws are harmful from an economic standpoint, using supply and demand charts. It's so easy and simple you'd wonder why you've ever bothered using anything else. However, most opponents of capitalism, while it is true they probably have very little education in higher economics, would probably outright reject you, offering some sort of pragmatic excuse that fancy formulas and economics are not accurate in the real world. I've seen it happen before; I took an economics class with a capitalism-orientated economics professor (not perfect, of course, but then again, better than 99% of most college professors out there) where he showed us through detailed economic models, the consequences of minimum wage laws. For the part of class that wasn't actually asleep, they were mostly just doing parrot work, and as soon as class ended, went back to their usual beliefs. It's like A.West said, Reisman, Mises, and any economist are useful in providing for and expanding on economic theory, (which is why mises.org is still one of the few op-ed websites I still visit) but to fight the opponents of capitalism requires a philosophically sound foundation upon which to stand, which only Objectivism can provide.

I cannot think of which Atlas Shrugged character would be equivalent. Orren Boyle of Associated Steel?

oops, heh

I wonder, has Roald Dahl spoken about this movie yet? I heard he absolutely hated the original '71 version and refused to sell the rights to make the sequel. I wonder what his thoughts were about this version?

I can see people trying to use this as fuel against the Objectivist style of politics (that rights derive from the ability to reason.) But only other brands of politcs (particularly the religious-based ones) would have problems here. To an Objectivist, there is nothing sacred or holy about humanity (like, for example, we are the children of God and the animals were put there for our use.) We are animals who stand apart from other life because of our ability to reason. Another animal who evolves a reasoning mind would be granted access to all the natural rights of man. But so far, nothing even comes close. Counting to six, understanding that corn is yellow, and knowing the differences among a variety of shapes is nothing compared to understanding that one has access to rights. Not to marginalize the bird, it's an impressive biological speciment. Nor to marginalize the scientists who are exploring the upper cognitive power of animal brains. I am merely shooting down that arguement before it even gets off the ground.

while that works with rational people like you and me, you have to remember that to Christians their religion is something that can be destroyed, that there are better options out there tempting people away from religion, and only one who remains in willful ignorance can remain true to the faith. A small mind is easily filled with faith, as they say.

It's not that Roark is unsocial per se... it is merely that he doesn't hold the social interactions of others as his reason for living. Recall the construction of the Stoddard temple, Ayn Rand quite explicitly shows Roark enjoying the company of others: Dominique, Mike, etc. His work is his reason for living; the company of others is secondary. It's a rare man who enjoys his work, who wakes up every morning excited to go to work, a man who sits in his office waiting for his phone to ring. Therefor social interaction, while not undesirable, is not preferable to Roark's standard of living. Keating on the other hand, hated his work. We see a wretched human being towards the end of the book, grasping for attention. He hates his work, thus seeks escape from it through social interaction. He needs social validation in order to justify to himself the necessity of continuing. I do not know if you have reached that part of the Fountainhead yet, so I will not divulge any incriminating information. But if you have reached the part that explains what Keating does when he leaves for his country home, let me know Fountainhead was actually the last book of Objectivism I read, and interestingly enough, my favorite. Having finished it, I swore to myself that I would one day have a job that I love, and live like Roark does, excited to face the day. To put it in literary terms, I was the young teen who, having walked through the housing projects, asked Roark who built it... and then knew how he wanted to live his life.

Check out the lyrics to this great song. Pop Ya Collar by Usher Hello everybody, welcome today to the wonderful world of U. Now check it, you have two options you can eat it or throw it away... See it's a shame that when you're working hard doing well people hate you yeah buying nothing else but the best for yourself they really hate you yeah ya gotta live for you and no one else don't let em make you feel like you're not being real just live how ya wanna live you gotta do for you (Dig that) If you work hard play hard (Dig that) And do what you wanna do (Dig that) Just pop ya collar don't let what people say bother you (Dig that) You perpetrators I got something to say (Whats that?) You can eat it or throw it away (Picture that) You're just mad cause you're following in my tracks now can u dig that? Hey [Chorus 2x] Hey ladies (Yeah) Hey fellas (Yeah) You know you're doing good cause they're jealous they wanna hate you cause you're a go-getter pop ya collar don't let 'em sweat ya You can see me every week hanging out with a different girl sitting next to me cause I'm not about to settle down right now I gotta be free some of y'all fellas might be jealous but y'all know that don't faze me I just pop my collar tip my hat and turn my backs on the ones who hated me (Dig that) Never going home alone (Dig that) If she follows then you know it's on (Dig that) She gets the beeper not the cellular phone (Dig that) I let her know I won't be around for long (Dig that) To all you haters I got something to say (Whats that?) You can eat it or throw it away (Picture that) Stop hatin, wishin, waitin, anticipating for my heat to fade [Chorus 2x] I break my neck for the things I get so much sweat just so I can get that check and I'm not gonna let nobody bring me down (Nobodys gonna steal the crown) because I eat good I live good, I rock good, my life good if you got a lot and you're working for it pop ya collar don't be afraid to show it [Chorus fades out]

You know, it's funny. not 3 weeks ago, my Biology Professor disspelled the myth of Intelligent design, saying "If we were designed by God, he didn't do a very good job." Especially when you consider the myriad genetic faults and bodily imperfections that are biologically inherint. From a biologically physical standpoint, humans are quite fragile. Just about the only thing we have going for us is our massive brain, which houses a mind capable of reason.

It's funny, I am currently taking a biology class, and my professor confessed that most of all of the environmentalists he has ever known were in fact ex-communists. He's a terrific professor, the first day of class he masterfully shattered any evidence for the "Young Earth" theory that biblicists propose, and he even went so far as to completely disprove any semblance of an intelligent design theory, then went on to expose environmentalism as scare-tactics and political agendas. It's great having a professor so rooted in reason. And in an even rarer situation, virtually every professor in the school of business is a proponent of free-market capitalism. It's a great feeling to see a professor use mathematical formulas to show the more liberal orientated members of the class that outsourcing is beneficial and necessary in a free economy.