Jake_Ellison

Two (quite separate) clarifications: the first refers to everyone, the second specifically to mr. Cuban and others like him. 1. What Cuban thinks is completely irrelevant to whether the US Government is right or wrong in prosecuting someone, anyone, for insider trading. 2. Since Mark Cuban is a productive member of society, it is in our rational self interest to speak up in his defence, when the gov.(or anyone else) is persecuting him., no matter what he believes in. End of Story. If Mark Cuban were an enemy of freedom who will continue to destroy our individual rights, as soon as he escapes these charges, then there would be an irony in ARI's decision to defend him. (They obviously wouldn't defend such a person, even if he was being arrested for dealing drugs or insider trading-if this was Al Gore for instance, no one at ARI would care, in my opinion.) However, he is not a religious leader or a political activist (environmentalist, socialist or multiculturalist), he is an investor and a businessman, so there is no irony: His dumb idea concerning something he's not involved with is not relevant. (btw. I'm sure someone will bring this up, so here's my answer in advance: Atlas Shrugged examples don't apply, because that world is still very different from ours)

Afew things: 1. So your big idea is that one should remain as shallow as possible, or else he won't be able to stay skeptical? I'd say everyone around here has been pretty skeptical of your conclusions... How do you explain that? 2. What's a preconceived notion and why is it so wrong to have them? Are you advocating erasing one's memory every morning, to avoid all the preconceived notions from the day before? 3. We had a pretty lengthy conversation earlier, so give me an example of a frame (fashioned out of preconceived notions I guess) I made for myself, that I'm fitting everything into. Is it my silly ethical system which bothers you, because it's set in stone, not flexible enough to allow for the full range of human emotions you believe we should base our moral decisions on?

Where did she(Ayn Rand) assert this? My interpretation of your post is that you are suggesting Ayn Rand said society would be composed of peaceful and productive individuals during anarchy(I think that's what you mean by "in their state of nature", although I could be wrong). Am I reading you wrong here? Please clarify this point for me, because it don't remember reading/hearing about this in her work. Also, what type of base would your society have, rather than "self-ownership"?(again, I don't know where Rand said "self-ownership") Who are you contradicting here? Who is suggesting that the state is a "necessary evil"? Surely not Ayn Rand. Rights only exist as provided by the State, because first there was anarchy? What difference does it make that there was anarchy before "order"? Rights come from the nature of man, not from capitalism. Why wouldn't human beings have natural rights in anarchy, if there is no one taking those rights away? What if I'm alone on a desert island, does that mean that I don't have the right lo life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, just because there isn't a Capitalist State to provide them for me? Please, do explain how and why order precedes rights.

I think some people (like mr. Shermer) believe in weird things. They can go from being a Hitler youth for instance to becoming a leftist, militant radical, or deeply religious. I am never surprised for instance when someone like Gunter Grass, or some religious leader at the Vatican, is found out to have been raised by the nazis. It is about the inability to be rational- to base your decisions on reason rather than emotions, and to develop the thought patterns that lead you with relative ease to those rational decisions), which is something you aquire as a child, during your education: I noticed how you listed all those things Shermer went through before he became a skeptic: he pretty much ran out of stuff to take at face value, and is now rejecting everything. (those are both emotional reactions) He obviously never was an objectivist, in the sense that he never understood objectivism: it is a philosophy that encourages you to only accept things that you know to be true: so how can you rationally come to a conclusion, and then reject that conclusion? You reject it based on what, if you already employed all your cognitive abilities to study the issue, and arrived at the conclusion that it's true? Which is more likely? Has Shermer become smarter in the past few years, or did he in fact accept Rand's ideas at face value in the first place, just like his previous pattern suggests he is inclined to do? An objectivist is not someone who believes Ayn Rand's ideas to be true. An objectivist is someone who knows that her philosophy is the right one, based on his own rational mind. Shermer was never an objectivist, and many of us, here at this site, are not objectivists either. While I don't consider myself an objectivist (the way Ayn considered herself one), I think I have the capacity to become one.(if objectivism turns out to be the right choice). One thing I do know however is that I cannot become an objectivist the way I became a "christian" when I was ten or a liberal and agnostic when I was 15. I know that Ayn Rand's ideas make sense to me, and that objectivism is the philosophy that is worth pursuing at this point in my life. Eventually, when(if) I understand it, and the world, well enough, I will either become an objectivist, or I will reject it: but I will never claim that I was one, and then I stopped being one. If a person has the ability to evaluate themselves honestly enough, they cannot come to the conclusion that they understand the world well enough to make a rational and definitive judgment on how they should live their life (which Ayn Rand did), and then change their mind and decide they were wrong, and human beings cannot know anything about these issues. There is a huge intellectual dishonesty in someone who would do that, a dishonesty that won't just go away in a few years. In my opinion someone like Shermer, who has at one point in his life believed so passionately in "weird things" as he calls them, does not have within him what it takes to become an objectivist. Nor does someone who used to be just one of those things: christian fundamentalist, true believer-during adulthood-in alien abductions, a white suppremacist, etc. Why do I consider myself different from that, and why do I say that I can make rational decisions? Well, when I was young (11-12), I remember spending a few weeks at a christian camp (pretty liberal protestant church), and I remember how good it felt to believe in God, and I also remember that the same fall I became aware of the fact that I can no longer believe in God, and I had a feeling of sadness over this fact. To this day I thank my lucky stars that I received the kind of education that made it possible for me to make what I believe was a rational decision that there is no God: I think I was conditioned to make rational decisions, and reject emotionalism, by my parents, grandparents and my teachers. Further proof of that is that all throughout my teenage years I sought rational answers, and while before I discovered laissez-faire capitalism and libertarianism( and then Ayn Rand), I was a liberal, I was always a moderate: I never accepted socialism or environmentalism, I just sought out the left because they seemed more in favor of the rational and of science (by rejecting the Pat Buchanan's of the world).

My two word answer would be: politics and ideology. (which were both superior to everyone else's) Sure, the legions were often well organized, certainly better organized than the enemy, but they weren't deployed everywhere: I'd say their distribution was very similar to the way american forces are deployed across the world: massive presence in Iraq and Afghanistan (two hotspots at the edge of the civilized world), with everything else spread around the world. The world is "stable" because of a combination of military presence and politics, but the emphasis is often on the political and ideological/cultural. However, military intervention was often necessary, and when the culture of Rome itself changed, that was no longer possible, so everything went to hell. Of course, that ends the similarities between the Roman Empire and the West today: while we use politics and ideology as well, the roman politics and ideology were both very different. If there's one thing we should learn from them, it is that we shouldn't rely on a constant military presence everywhere, to make the world stable.

That don't make you a bad person. He is sloppy though, he's not exactly a great thinker. He got lucky by selling his Internet startup just in time. He's been making mistakes ever since, and now he got caught with this crap: notice how it's always the amateurs that get caught with insider trading, never the real investment guys.

It's so amazing that someone would call in and say Rand was a "secular humanist"-she sounded coherent too. Is that what coservative radio tells people about her in the midwest?

Abbot and Costello, they did a lot of wordplay stuff, right?

1. Terroroism has nothing to do with doing bad things to people because of their political views, nor does the break in have to do with political ideas: it had to do with one political opponent of his bosses. Terrorism is large scale violence used to intimidate masses. 2. Was Ayers talking about a situation where a specific police officer is threatening a specific innocent man's life, and thus this innocent man has the right to defend himself? Or was he talking about using mass murder to back up his political views? In conclusion: I find your arguments so ridiculous and so thoughtless, that from this point on I do not wish to argue with you, nor shall I ever waste my time reading your posts. To everyone else: if in the future you find yourselves in a conversation with me, and you think Mammon made a good point I need to consider, please repeat that for me in your posts, because I won't be reading his. P.S. What does the title Organizer in red letters mean? Am I in danger of beings screwed with by this guy for not voting Obama?

I hate to steer away from the funny side of the story, but here I go: Vicar went to hospital with potato stuck in bottom, and the nurses called the press. Which would be fine, it could happen in the US too. In fact it did happen recently, when at a private hospital Britney Spears' medical records were viewed by people who weren't authorized to view them: people were fired and charges were brought against those who didn't respect her privacy. (people are facing time in jail) In the UK's wonderful socialized healthcare system however, it appears that you should be prepared to be on live TV when you go to a doctor: nurses care more about getting their name into a newspaper by humiliating you than helping you. I love how the article ends, after one of their nurses went on the record in the story:

Sex before marriage is bad, birth control, including condoms, very bad, divorce horribly bad, we know. Inquisition good, torturing Galileo good, crusades and religious intolerance wonderful. We know, buddy we know, and we are very sorry for our sins. In fact I'll go ahead and shoot my fag neighbor right now, send that sinning son of a bitch straight to hell. How dare he say gays deserve the same rights us good Christians do? Satan's gonna be shoving hot coal up his tochus for eternity. Right, guys? Who's with me?

I'm sure many of you have seen this(I hope no one posted it yet), but for those who haven't, here's one of the funniest stand-up bits I've ever seen. It's Ricky Gervais at his best, talking about Bible stories: Ricky Gervais- Animals (the bit on The Bible) (best line at 7' 30'') Some retard decided to cut out some of the dead air(pauses) in the video, so if it bothers you, feel free to buy the DVD. (Animals, by Ricky Gervais)

We get it, you're catholic. Bye now. Stop posting the same thing everywhere, we already know what your church stands for, and no one cares. Why does the Vatican have any wealth by the way, if its pointless? More importantly, why do you?

My list is based on what causes an emotion of amazement (wonder), when I see it. (by seeing I mean understand its workings and usefulness in some detail) I wouldn't claim to be able to decide on a list based on your criteria, frankly I don't think anyone has enough data and processing power to create an accurate list that way. In the case of the F1 car it's not about the race, it's about the technology. (which is worth hundreds of millions even beyond the race). I haven't even seen a full race in years, but I am amazed by how those cars are made, and how that technology is transferred to road cars, and other more useful applications than the race.

I agree, the fact that an American business isn't allowed to hire someone unless the US government first gives them permission (a social security number) is a huge problem. The fact that this awful infringement on behalf of the state is causing the IRS accountants headache is a wonderful thing. Keep it up "illegal" newcomers, you have my blessing to use fake social sec. numbers and screw over the IRS. I'm not even pissed over the illegal border crossing anymore, that's how fed up I am with this ridiculous witch-hunt against Hispanic illegals.

1. The Internet (well, all the tecnology behind the Internet: networking protocols, data transmission, satellites etc.) 2. The PC (architecture and the technology used to mass produce it) 3. Microsoft Software Engineering (Windows Xp & Vista, Visual Studio programming environment, Microsoft Office, etc.) 4. Apple (Mac, Iphone) 5. The Human Genome Project (and related research) 6. Burj Dubai Tower 7. McLaren Mercedes Formula 1 car (the one Hamilton drove last season). Pending the results of their research, The Large Hadron Collider might (it's a big might) come in at number seven, replacing the F1 car. As far as more buildings breaking into the list, I'd doubt there's even a single one on the next 13 spots, in my view, because there are so many great achievements in other areas. ( I might even bump the Dubai Tower when I learn more about it -- I'm not convinced it's as spectacular as people say, and in the mean time there are huge steps forward in the fields of AI and materials science/nanotechnology that deserve a spot on the list)

1. So he was a burglar, who was punished, and there is no way you could reasonably expect that he will do it again. How does that make him a domestic terrorist? Which large american population did he terrorize? Was he involved or did he support the only act of domestic terrorism of the past decades, the Oklahoma City bombing? 2. Or is this quote your argument? While I disagree with him on what happened at Waco, on which he is free to have any opinion if he wants (that isn't illegal), I do agree with the statement, which basically says people should defend themselves against tyranny. The statement did not cause the violence at Waco, since it was made a year and a half after that was over. So where's the act of terrorism? P.S. He explained his statement in more detail here: 3. As far as calling for the death of a police officer, that isn't worse than calling for the death of anyone. Police officers are not special, they have the same exact rights we have. If someone, anyone is an immediate threat to your life, you are within your rights to kill them in self defense. The fact that they are police officers is irrelevant: if you have a problem with him calling for someone's murder, the issue should be that, not the victim's profession. And please, prove that he's calling for murder, and explain why he hasn't been prosecuted in a country in which that is quite illegal.

I'm actually getting fed up with Jimmy's new found liberal opinions, but I still tune in from time to time. Hopefully with the election over they'll stop with the political nonsense, so that I can listen without having to fast forward every time politics comes up.

I've found a not so complimentary commentary on Mr. Olbermann's little speech on the issue. WARNING: It's quite graphic (AIDS jokes and such), but the jokes aren't hateful, it's from the Opie and Anthony radio show.(they are pro-gay marriage) I've found it very funny, and it confirms my take on Keith Olbermann:

The second one you might dissagree with, but I'l have to go with "Crime and Punishment" and "The Sound and the Fury"(Faulkner).

I like that. It's cool that there is no explanation to it, he just put it in there, and didn't care that most people won't get it. It's like the guy just did it to entertain himself, he isn't looking for validation like most people who try to be funny or misterious. (an inside joke for one)

Ok, I can agree with that. It would be hard for me to defend the letter, because it does bother me too, I just felt a subtle difference between it's language and Obama's campaign's.

Sorry, but just by reading the letter, I don't agree with you. I had the impression that the subtext of the letter was: "Hey, slow down, buddy, we understand that you ran on change, but America is the best country in the world, and that's because of the way we have been doing things." The 5 points(including the global warming one) mentioned America's interests, market-based solutions, "an environment that rewards innovation". These are all arguments against socialism. Sure, they were not explicit, or consistent and principled, but I don't think they should be qualified as "evil". They didn't ask for political favors, it seems to me that they were just trying to point an inexperienced president away from the disastrous direction in which he intends to point this country. (there's talk of executive orders, getting things done early, etc) If you compare this letter to Obama's campaign plans, it actually takes up a far more moderate position on every single one of the issues (while keeping things vague, careful not to contradict him), I'd say in an attempt to slow him down. I don't think this is particularly dignified or helpful in the long run, but the intentions aren't evil, only misguided. I think a better plan would be to let Obama fail miserably, and then point the finger at him and denounce his policies as evil. But I can understand someone trying to prevent him from failing too, because that would cause some serious damage to the country. In closing, I think the real US is not close enough to the America in Atlas Shrugged to be considered evil, and the businessmen who condone government policies while trying to help out, urging moderation, don't qualify as evil because of that. In Atlas Shrugged America, however, a similar letter would be an evil act on the part of any group.

Then, please, don't mention society in the same sentence, because people will misunderstand you, expecially those who don't see a problem with the use of force: Bill Gates is not society, he's Bill Gates. And by building Microsoft he has done more good already than his charity will ever do. And Warren Buffet didn't donate that money yet, he'll hold on to it until he drops dead: apparently mr Buffet is all progressive talk, but he was more than happy to take advantage of the evil capitalist America he came up in. He never once thought that his fortune would be in better hands if given to the poor, and he still wants to keep it until he dies, but he sure wants more of my money given to the government. As far as your idea goes, I think I'll stick to a for-profit organization, when it comes to medical care for me and my family.

That is not true. You are using oil that was extracted exactly there (this is too easy), just as readily as if it was extracted in your back yard. There are plenty of organizations just as sofisticated as oil companies, that make it possible to help anyone, anywhere, at the click of a button, at the same cost, often less, of helping someone next door.