AllMenAreIslands

Actually, if there were a set amount, say $50,000 for lesser crime and $500,000 for more serious crime, a large portion of that money which is paid by the employer would not be paid to the prisoner but instead paid to the victim on his behalf. The criminal would have to work for those years of his sentence, paying for his keep and paying to compensate the victim. At least when people get out of jail they'd have marketable skills AND they'd have a clean slate (i.e., not owe the victim any more money). It would improve the recidivist rate, I reckon. But also there would be a way to compensate victims. If you translate sentences into monetary values you come up with a number of years it takes the person to pay the amount. There could be a combination of minimum time to serve as well as monetary amount - as in you can't buy your way out of a minimum sentence. I think we probably mostly already have a sentencing structure that makes sense but it might have to be tweaked. The ability of people to earn more money is a function of them learning what it really takes to be a rational human being. Why not make an incentive to improve oneself? To rehabilitate oneself? Prison isn't working to rehabilitate anyone because the society in which we are living is its own kind of prison anyway. Prison would serve us better if it was used to both educate and punish in a way that helps the person BECOME a better person because it is in his self-interest to do so. If someone who is sentenced to 10 years is able to study, work a job, and improve his qualifications so that he can get a better job (even thru the prison system) he can actually become someone who is productive. At the same time, being able to earn the means to pay for their keep and to compensate victims is a better use of the system. There is way too much emphasis in prison at present on getting people hooked on religion as a way to show repentence. That's a crock, as we know. I think fewer people would turn to crime if working for a living legitimately weren't being treated as poorly as it is. But for prison itself to be a worthwhile endeavor on many levels, we need to have rights as individuals NOW - to live our lives as we see fit and not be treated like children or incapable persons for our entire lives.

Not scams but ... perhaps not all I thought they were. Here's some more info from Linenplace The Truth About Thread Count Over the last several years the focus on thread count has dominated the bedding marketplace. The numbers have kept going up… first we wanted 400 thread count, then 600 thread count… and now everyone wants 1000 thread count. The sad truth is that by focusing only on thread count the customer is not getting the best product. In fact, thread count is not even the most important quality indicator. Sheeting Quality Indicators 1. Fiber Quality 2. Yarn Size 3. Finishing 4. Thread Count & Construction Fiber Quality: 100% cotton sheets are by far the most popular and widely used type of sheets. (We do also like silk, cotton/silk, modal and linen; but we’re going to focus on 100% cotton.) There is a huge variety in the quality of 100% cotton sheets. The highest quality cotton is long staple cotton. Staple refers to the length of the cotton fiber; the longer the fiber the better because it creates stronger and finer yarns. Among long staple cottons, the longest are Pima and Egyptian. Also note that not all Egyptian cotton is long staple, only the cotton grown in designated areas (Giza lots) is of the premium quality that is associated with "Egyptian cotton". Yarn Size: The fineness of each yarn is what the term yarn size refers to - the higher the yarn size, the finer the yarn. (think of men’s suiting where they often speak of 100s wool etc) Finer yarns allow for lighter, more supple fabric. Higher thread counts are created with finer yarns, as more of them can be woven into a square inch. Also, super fine yarns can be twisted together, creating 2 ply yarns that can then be woven into sheeting. When 2 ply yarns are made with a very high yarn size, they make a nice product that is not at all weighty or blanket-like. Finishing: After the cotton yarns are woven into a fabric, the fabric needs to be finished. This includes singeing and mercerizing. The singeing process is vital; it burns off the tiny fuzz that can later develop into pilling on your sheets. Mercerizing is a treatment conducted under tension, in order to increase strength, luster, and affinity for dye. Bed lines of lesser quality may not be singed or mercerized. High quality bed linens will always be. Thread Count & Construction: Thread count is simply the number of threads per square inch of fabric. These consist of vertical threads (warp) and horizontal threads (weft) woven together. Construction refers to how the thread count is achieved (# of warp and weft yarns, # of picks in the weft, use of 2 ply yarns etc.) To achieve higher thread counts, sometimes 2 ply yarns are used and sometimes multiple yarns (picks) are inserted into the weft. In weave quality terms alone, the best fabric will be made with single ply yarns and have a single pick. The highest thread count you can get with this type of construction is 360. Above that, 2 ply yarns and/or multi-picks must be used. weft & warp In a quality product, the incremental comfort value of increasing thread count over 300 is very little. A 300 thread count can feel far superior to a 1000 thread count. Thread count has become a simple metric used by marketing people to capture interest and impress with high numbers. The problem with mass produced high thread count sheets is that to keep the price down, important elements of quality must be sacrificed, meaning in the end the customer gets a product with an impressive thread count but that probably feels no better (or even worse) than something with a lower thread count. How does this happen? * Weaving with 2 ply yarns that do not have a high enough yarn size so the end product feels heavy and blanket-like. * Inserting multiple yarn threads into the weft. These are usually visible to the naked eye. We’ve heard of as many as 8. This practice reduces the quality of the fabric; it seems less tightly woven despite its higher thread count. Lately, the sheeting market has been focusing on "Single Ply" as a selling point because customers are catching on to the fact that high thread count does not necessarily equate to quality. But sheets made with single ply yarns with 6 to 8 picks do not result in the best feeling weave. There is no simple answer to the thread count, ply and pick game; there are thousands of combinations that will make a beautiful product. Keep in mind that with higher thread counts, price and quality do go hand in hand. An extremely high thread count sheet at a very low price is exactly what it sounds like: too good to be true. This is not to say that you have to spend a small fortune for quality sheets - just don't fall into the thread count trap. Unfortunately, a lot of companies don't make it easy to be well informed. At Linenplace, we do our best to present you with all the information you need to find the product that's right for you. We would like to encourage our customers to focus less on thread count and more on the other quality indicators (fiber quality, yarn size, finishing and construction). We believe you will get a better, more comfortable product that truly represents quality and value.

I can vouch for the 500 and 600 thread counts being durable and absolutely lovely to climb into. We won't even look at 300-400 thread counts anymore. I hear as well that there's a 1000 thread count... lol guess what I'm getting for the holidays Seriously, tho, high thread count cotton is soft to the touch. The best way to make the sheets last longer is to wash them in COLD WATER, using Zero or some other cold-water delicate fabric detergent. Use liquid detergents also, since they don't seem to leave residues.

Kevin, I remember that (and was going to mention it.) Thanks for saving me all that typing, plus your recollection of the references is better than mine! We just disconnected cable yesterday, but that's because Mr. AMAI put up an HD Antenna. We're not getting all the channels we used to, but then again, we weren't watching all those channels anyway. Another Red Dwarf fan over here. If you like comedy sci-fi, this will have you rolling with laughter. The earlier series are the best, but there's some great fun throughout the 7 or 8 seasons (or was it more?) Fun fact: Craig Charles, who plays Lister, is now a regular on Coronation Street (the British long-running soap, which we also watch all the time). Recently been enjoying Boston Legal. Love Shatner & Spader, plus the whole cast is good. Last night's episode was great. Used to watch CSI (the original) all the time. Forensics shows are fascinating and Gil Grissom was one of the best characters on TV. A show that's very interesting is Canadian-made, called Survivorman. This one guy, Les something, goes out into various environments for a week, on his own, with cameras, and shows how to survive. He often sets it up to mimic the conditions one might encounter if there were a boating, motorcycle or parachute mishap that caused one to be stranded, so that one has some resources on hand to make use of. Making fire, building a shelter, getting water, food, and basically dealing with the elements. He's a little on the eco-side, but the show isn't too overbearing with that and is very informative. Anyone else ever watched? There are other shows I like too, but this post is long enough for now.

I love everyone's answers!!

I'm currently reading George Reisman's "Capitalism." It's great!

First of all, they don't come to conclusions - it's a knee-jerk reaction. Whenever there's a problem, the first thought is the government ought to do something. Second of all, people don't want to know about what actually caused the problem, or that the solution being proposed is actually more of the same poison that caused the problem it's supposedly going to solve. The answer they give to that is, it doesn't matter what caused the problem, something has to be done about families and their kids and mortgages. If people were willing to listen to real economists, we wouldn't be in this mess. But they don't want to listen. They don't want to understand how the market works, they just want everything to be fixed. But apparently I'm the naive one because I'm saying the answer in a nutshell is that government intervention in the economy caused the mess we're in, and the answer is to get government out of the economy.

A person isn't born being altruist. Why do they embrace the ideas of altruism in the first place? I think it's a product of resentment, which in turn is a product of jealousy & envy of those who are able to produce goods, to invent, discover or just think up new ways of doing things or of using what has been produced by others.

Calling for another election was premature, in my view.

Thank you, EC. And, to answer JMeganSnow, the point isn't just to educate & illustrate and win over those who are open to the ideas, but to live the dream and make it a reality. I don't see it as an "either/or" situation. Either we have spreading of ideas or we have a concrete demonstration. I think there's room for all kinds of action. However, I disagree that Group 3 in your list are "no threat." A vast majority subscribe in some way shape or form to altruist principles even though they have to be hypocritical to do so. I think they're the ones who do us a lot of damage with their ignorance, because many times they also fall into Group 5, but their ideas for how to fix What Is Wrong take them further in the wrong direction. What I consider now to be a very real threat to all of us is the speed with which environmentalism's agenda is being forced into law in so many different ways.

Great set of videos, aj. Thanks! Nothing like some science early in the morning to kick-start the day. The Big Bang supporters remind me of the supporters of the Earth-centric Solar System. Here's one on Alfven, have you seen it? Plasma & Electromagnetism in Space

Ayn Rand is like a spiritual grandmother to me. How about you?

I'm a fan of the show and of Stone & Parker's work generally. I agree that not every episode has worked, whether from a comedic or "message" point of view. Overall it's refreshing to see things that deserve to be lampooned getting the treatment.

Thanks for your supportive comments, EC. Sorry I didn't respond faster to you - I missed your post before. I agree that it's worthwhile to work "both ends of the room," as it were. I'm definitely not advocating a tv show as a replacement, but rather as an addition to, the current efforts being made. More replies to other thread responders will be made later! Thanks to everyone for your thoughts so far.

True - socialism is acknowledged as a failure but only by some of us. Sacrifice has been around since the year dot in many different forms and for many different reasons. Fact is, it's been around so long that we're up against the fact of its longevity along with the fact that mankind has still somehow managed to remain alive. It hasn't killed us so people don't believe it ever will. What I think the show would display that hasn't been seen before is the kind of joy that happens when people actually live the dream of freedom. What kinds of decisions do people deal with on the day-to-day basis in a fully capitalist society? The one thing this data point has going for it is that it would give fuel and motive power to Objectivists everywhere to keep going.

This thread will make an appearance, since it's the very first place the idea was first communicated by its creator (me) to the world.

Zip, thanks for answering the Hong Kong point. I meant to, and forgot. JMeganSnow, my husband & I are similar in many situations - we have just completed 9 years' worth of major renovations on our home, working MOSTLY from books (with some applicable internet assistance too, along the way.) In addition, many of us who are now convinced of Objectivism's worth are working in part from books, in part from comprehending the enormous achievement of the USA and freedom in general in the better developed countries. But... a lot of people have studied elements of Objectivism, and not been convinced. Others have been subjected to our excited enthused rants, and been skeptical at best. Anyway, those who aren't downright antagonistic do wonder how various aspects would be handled. Even if it took us 5 years to get this project off the ground, we are all of us pretty sure that there's no way things are going to change fundamentally in either the US or Canada - even if the economy goes completely pear-shaped. Faced with a Republican president endorsing the bailout bill of $700 million, people STILL don't get why it's wrong. How much more evidence do we need to know that the way to teach people is by showing them, rather than waiting for there to be enough people who understand the fundamentals. I think part of the tv show will be about explaining the fundamentals, maybe with little asides which could be done with animation for example. The other thing too is to make a living diorama, which could be the means to turn people around and get them to support capitalism AND limited government.

Those who are anti-life and pro-sacrificial will never change anyway. The point of a practical real-life demonstration is twofold: one, so those of us hankering for the experience can have it NOW, and those who say they want to see how it works can see it. Why take the view that it won't work? I think it will work because there are already a lot of people around who are interested in finding out HOW it works.

All it would take is the right kinds of clauses in the contract. The goal of course is to become too big to be stopped. Seeing how the Ideal Political System works out the various problems, especially as more people apply to be "on the show" would soon show that it is the way of the future. There'd be no need to stop the Model version, it would prosper on its own motive power. One of the first people I'd approach to help fund the project would be Richard Branson. He seems the sort to enjoy this kind of thing.

Here's my 25 cents (damn inflation has had its way with everything!) The interest level among non-Objectivists is growing, but there is fear that it won't work. What will happen with roads, schools, health care, etc.? What if, instead of thinking in terms of developing a Galt's Gulch in isolation, hidden away, we think up a plan to develop a Model Version and seek investors among the rich? The plan would involve making a reality tv kind of show, documenting how problems are solved, how the region grows and prospers. SHOW the people, the doubters & naysayers and convince them that way that their fears are unfounded. It's hard for people today to imagine what it was like to witness the change from the horse & buggy to the automobile. They've made TV shows in which people go back to various points in time to live those conditions, for example 1900 House. So how about a show that depicts how life would be in a fully capitalist, fully voluntary-funded government? I bet there would be thousands of applicants to be "on the show," in effect, to live the life of a modern-day pioneer. The thing is, of course, that the TV show would be for the purpose of educating the public at large, but the point of the exercise IS to create a Galt's Gulch type of county which is in full view of the public and is an ongoing area. I bet there are many possible sites around the US or even in Canada. Most important would be to secure freedom from ALL government intervention on the part of the existing government infrastructure. A bold experiment, but one that has more chance of working in my view, than disappearing into the woodwork to live our lives quietly. We need to make a real stand for freedom in as big a way possible. Thoughts?

Soupdragons is good too. I'd heard of Tesla before, and enjoyed the one about him and his achievements. Nikola Tesla YouTube

I thought the idea with Steady State was it expanded and contracted on a regular basis. and in some respects seems closest to what I think is the proper form. I don't see it as expanding without end, since to me that implies there is un-travelled space into which the Universe hadn't previously traveled. But on the other hand, if things are expanding and contracting, then how exactly does that work? It might be that objects in a more confined group like a solar system or even a galaxy (or bigger slice of space) may be moving apart from each other but that does not necessarily follow that all objects in space need to be moving away from each other. Thanks, aj. That's actually a lot to take in, and very helpful. Whenever you do get a chance, I'll be happy to read more on the topic. I'll check out the link in the meantime, and go from there. eta: Fabulous - I really enjoyed the video, aj.

Because of my interest in Objectivism, my immediate family doesn't want me. To them, the fact that I was drawn to Ayn Rand's books in the first place is just another piece of evidence that I'm a complete selfish cow (hence my choice of "real life" name to the left heehee.) it's a shame, really, but what can one do? Since they (mum, dad, sister & brother) are all in Australia and I've not seen them since 1981, there isn't much chance of changing minds via email. I'm happy with my wonderful husband with whom I agree on all the important values in life. He wasn't raised atheist, but came to it after attempts by the Catholic school system to indoctrinate him. And now I'm pleased to meet everyone here.

Why do you think it took a long time for you, Steve? For me, it was "of course" from the beginning. I was quite shocked (at first but then realized that of course they would be anti-Reason, since they support socialism) when I told my parents about Rand and encountered incredible hostility towards her and her ideas. I had to make a choice really, and I chose Objectivism.

Thank you for the links, aj. The plasma idea - can you help me with the description in "layman's terms"? Here's what I've got so far. I imagine the stuff that IS space consists of something with a property capable of keeping distinct entities apart, but not being so invasive that it infiltrates atmospheres like ours. Space is that which provides a medium for entities to move through. It doesn't pull apart things with enough gravitational pull to hold themselves together. Does any evidence support explosions of any kind happening from time to time in space? Obviously it won't be the kind capable of creating the entire Universe, since no explosion or other cause is capable of doing that. But if explosions do occur, then they would be responsible for dispersing matter, causing galactic renovations and remodels, wouldn't you say? On a more philosophical note, I conclude the reason the Big Bang has hung on for so long as a respected explanation of "the origin of the Universe" is that people desperately needed any kind of scientific support which permited the existence of God and why the question "how did the universe begin" still requires more of an answer than "It didn't."