gnargtharst

yikes. I can't believe I forgot Mystery Science Theater 3000. Funniest show ever.

Monty Python movies, plus the TV series. Holy Grail still makes me laugh, even after seeing it about 100 times. The old SCTV TV series. It was uneven, with some clunkers, but frequently brilliant. ("Would you like some...SYRUP?") John Candy is one of those comedians that can make me laugh just by looking at him, because you can always sense he's just on the verge of saying/doing something hilarious. ...Same deal with Steve Martin -- I was a big fan as a kid and Steve was a WILD AND CRAZY GUY. Obviously, considering these two reasons, I loved "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" -- best movie both of them ever made. Simpsons, sometimes. (Favorite Simpsons' line, from Moe: "You know what I blame this on the breakdown of? Society.") Futurama, sometimes. Family Guy, sometimes. Seinfeld was good; I think it was one of the few shows that ever jumped the shark, and then managed to come back. I always enjoyed the Cosby Show. Even more now, 20 years later. Maybe because I have kids, and aspire to be as good a parent as Heathcliff Huxtable. (Oddly, with the sometimes exception of Ellen DeGeneres, I hardly ever laugh at female comedians. I can't figure out why. I think it's just the material -- only a small proportion of comedians are female, and I only ever think a small proportion of comedians are funny, so there's an uphill statistical battle there.) There tons of others, including some extremely obscure moments (From Mystery Men: "I'm the Shoveler. It's what I do, dear... I shovel"). Funniest unintentionally funny movie line: "Magma?" (Tommy Lee Jones, in "Volcano", who, as the director of FEMA managing the eruption of a Volcano in downtown LA, has never heard of "magma".) Most recently, I've chuckled quite a few times at that new show "My Name is Earl".

DPW wrote: "...It implies that Roark has integrity, and so his decisions will fall in line with his integrity. But this is wrong, at least as stated. Roark's integrity isn't what causes him to make the choices he does. It's making the choices he does that allows us to say he has integrity. To put it another way, the fact that Roark had integrity up until that point did not change the fact that he could have evaded in that moment. Yes, even Roark had the power to evade. The reason he didn't wasn't because of his character...it's because he chose not to." Good point. Sure, Roark could evade, and there would be little drama in a tale about a robot whose decisions are made in advance by his programming. My larger point was only that I didn't think this portion of the Fountainhead dramatized an agonizing decision, but rather an agonizing realization of what would follow the decision. ...Okay, gotta run: hurricane's a-comin'.

DPW wrote "That is absolutely not true. Thinking was precisely what Roark did have to do. He was struggling with the toughest decision he ever had to face. What decision? His very real need of the commission and the integrity of his building. In order to make that decision, he had to exercise effort -- the effort of holding in his mind the full context of the decision." I re-read that portion (page 206 of my edition) and stand by what I said. Although I may have been sloppy in describing it -- of course Roark had to think; any decision requires thought. What I meant though is that in the movie Gary Cooper looks to be tortured by the decision. My impression in the book is that the decision is already made, by virtue of Roark's integrity, and Roark is merely portrayed enduring contemplating the hardship that is inevitable. Even then, the decision making process takes only a few sentences: "Yes or no, Mr. Roark?" Roark's head leaned back. He closed his eyes. "No," said Roark. The movie version's Roark has Cooper agonizing: "Should I take the job? Should I change this building? Roman porticos and Greek ornaments aren't really that bad, and I'd sure like to be rich and famous. ... no no no! C'mon Roark, remember your integrity!" etc. I magine the real Roark's thoughts sounded something more like "What are these people thinking? Have they no integrity? Why would anyone want a building like that? Perhaps they can be convinced of the paramount importance of a building of integrity. No, apparently not. Well, this is going to be a long hard slog; I'd better give these folks the obvious answer and move on. Sigh. 'No'"

1 dog: Lucy (after Lucy from Peanuts; a black-haired bitch. ) 3 cats: Euclid, Cosmo, and Goodnight. (I always feel silly calling Goodnight in when it's bedtime and we don't want her out all night... [opening front door] "GOODNIGHT! GOOOOOODNIGHT!" I imagine the neighbors wonder why the heck I'm wishing them all a good night at the top of my lungs).

On scientific issues, I'd recommend Jay H. Lehr's "Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns". http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047128485...=books&v=glance Interestingly, the book tackles the acid-rain-in-the-Adirondaks issue, reporting that Adirondak lakes tended to be naturally acidic, and without fish. Starting in the late 19th/early 20th century, logging practices (including burning) neutralized lakes' PH, allowing fish to thrive for the first time. As the forests grew back after logging ceased, the lakes returned to their natural acidity. It was my understanding that the largest acid rain study ever commisioned was actually abandoned (i.e., de-funded, by the National Geogrpahic Society among others) after it became clear that its results were not going to implicate acid rain as much as the environmentalists had hoped. Maybe somebody with more knowledge on this subject could comment.

I mostly agree. I don't think the movie was ruined -- it's still better than most movies. But yes, Cooper just did not get it. It wasn't that he read the lines without feeling, it's more than the feelings portrayed weren't what Roark's would have been. The only scene I can point to (without re-watching the movie) was when Roark was finally offered a commision... on the condition that he make major changes. In the movie Cooper's Roark agonized over the decision; the real Roark, though maybe heatbroken, didn't have to think for a second. The decision was a foregone conclusion. Etc. Cooper just didn't get it (which was a shame. He was great in High Noon, among others.)

Jim Wright wrote: "Our Objectivist philosopher's, [sic] in answer to the question "What lies beyond the Observable Universe?" quote the non-answer "There is no 'beyond" beyond." Jim Wright, could you point to an instance of an Objectivist philosopher "quoting" this "non"-answer? Thanks. Also, and this may just be my imagination, but I get a little cult-vibe from the phrase "our Objectivist philosopher". "Our"? Huh? JW continues: "...Curved Space... [sic] is invoked." Jim Wright, could you point to an instance of an Objectivist philosopher "invoking" "curved space"? Thanks. "...All seem content with the notion of an Expanding Universe [sic]..." Jim Wright, could you point to an instance of an Objectivist philosopher "seeming content with" -- i.e., agreeing with -- the "notion of an expanding universe"? Further, could you explain in what capacity a philosopher, qua philosopher, should have a position on this scientific topic? "...but none are willing to go back to the Big Bang era when, if we accept the current scientific dogma, an act of creation occurred. Objective Reality precludes creation of something from nothing, of course, and even precludes the notion of no "beyond" beyond the edge of the Observable Universe. To so claim is to envision galaxies galore and suddenly, after a bit of travel, reaching a place of "Nothingness", i.e., a place where Something is juxtaposed to Nothing. The axiomatic concept of "Esistence" does not allow for non-existence, a state of nothingness. There can only be Existence. "Non-existence" and "Nothing" are meaningless anti-concepts." Jim Wright, can you explain the principle you employ to decide when to capitalize a word? "...But we find our Objectivist leaders blithely accepting the mysticism..." Jim Wright, could you elaborate on who are "your Objectivist leaders"? In another post, JW wrote: "...In my "Curved [sic] space is invoked" I did not mean that Objectivism was the source of the statement. Binswanger, in an interview, made the statement that "There is no beyond beyond." in respect to our current Universe. [sic]" What does if mean for Objectivism to be the source of a statement? Is your real meaning here that Binswanger is not an Objectivist, and that he is onconsistent with Objectivism on this point? In which interview did Binswnager say "there is no beyond beyond"? What is "our current universe"? How is it differentiated from another, say, "non-current" universe? "... Others assert that if one takes off in one direction and travels long enough he/she will will arrive back home from the other direction. Still others claim "curved space" to be the mechanism at work, which is pure nonsense, of course." "Of course"? Does it not seem a bit odd to you to tuck the crux of your point into a throw-away, foregone conclusion? "By accepting the present idea of a Universe [sic], as currently defined by Cosmologists [sic], some Objectivists are, implicitly, accepting the Expansion of the Universe and the Big Bang [sic] and, neccessarily, an act of Creation [sic]. Again, I would need for you to point to an instance of an Objectivist philosopher accepting this idea. Further, You would need to explain to me why the implicit idea of an "unbounded" universe ("there is no 'beyond' beyond) necessarily implies agreement with a big bang/expanding universe model. "...I intend to prove that Existence [sic] is much more than our obervable universe, or an existent, but is instead an infinite and eternal State of Being [sic], within which existents exist. In no way does this refute Miss Rand's axiom "Existence Exists." [sic], but it does describe a far more respectable [?] Existence [sic]. Like the previous poster, I look forward to your "proof" of infinity, eternity, and a respectable existence. Among the highlights I anticipate, is an elaboration on this novel new use of the concept "proof".

Moose, I can appreciate your stories about coindences between you and your fiance. I and my wife sometimes feel like we're reading each others' minds (which is sometimes fun, and sometimes not! ) Over our 15 years, we've had some truly paranormal-sounding coincidences. And if I were you, I would critically consider the issue of telepathy, etc. That said, I'm certain you'll arrive at the conclusion that there's nothing paranormal about your "synchronicity". In fact, I have found that whenever something strangely coincidental happens between me and my wife, I can often look at the event very closely and find the common event that inspired us both to mention "peanut butter", out of the blue, or whatever. Further, after you find this common event, and then work your way through your thought processes to how you both arrived at the same point, you've incidentally learned a little epistemology, some introspection skills, and grown a little closer to your fiance/wife. Better than telepathy any day.

AisA pointed out: "Note also that this ["the universe is complex"] argument invokes the fallacy of the "stolen concept". The concept of "complex" has meaning only in relation to the concept of "simple", i.e. it is only by comparing one thing to another that we arrive at the notions of "complex" and "simple". Since the universe (nature) is everything that exists, there is nothing to which it can be compared. Thus, the concept "complex" has no meaning in relation to the universe. Not only is this concept stolen from the context of referents (i.e., "complex...compared to what?"), but is stolen from another context as well: "complexity" is an epistemological concept, not a metaphysical one. A thing is not complex, except in its relation to a conceptual faculty attempting to grasp it. When a creationist utters "a tiger is complex, and couldn't have just randomly formed without divine intervention", what he's really saying is "the theory of evolution is complex to me, and I don't grasp how a tiger might have evolved." From a "metaphysical perspective", there's nothing essentially more or less complex about a tiger, and the rock upon which he naps. The universe and her laws, being somewhat more intelligent than the "intelligent design" crowd, sees no necessity to "explain" what already makes perfect sense.

As I post, I am looking at a Schefflera actinophylla. It's directly outside my window. This particular schefflera also acts as the elevator for squirrels taking the popular roof-to-ground route at the corner of my house. If someone now chooses the username "Ficus", or "Dracena", I shall become very confused.

From SoftwareNerd: "The Who! Baba O'Reilly? That's my generation." That SoftwareNerd, always t-t-talkin' 'bout my generation.

Considering Brad Thompson's quotes first... I don't interpret his (Jefferson's) disagreements with Washington as quite so conniving as you apparently do. Jefferson disapproved of the Jay Treaty. He criticized it, and criticized Washington in connection with it, in a polite way. To take a "thinly veiled" reference to a criticized party, as described to a third party, and describe it as "betrayal", seems to play fast and loose with the gravity of the concept "betrayal". Jefferson, Washington, and Adams were politicians. They disagreed over political issues. They expressed these disagreements, sometimes in confidence to others. They didn't offend those criticized with an "in-your-face" direct insult, a la Jerry Springer. This is "dishonest and conniving"? I don't buy it. As for Ellis' quotes, I second the previous poster in dismissing Ellis altogether. his conclusions are broad and sweeping, with no support. E.g., "Jefferson felt] the urge to assure Washington that,..." "Jefferson felt the urge"? Supported by what document? Based on what verifiable premise? The very phrasing of this sentence is condescending: "...felt the urge", as if he were a unreasoning brute who was caught doing something he shouldn't and resorted to blind rationaization. "Felt the urge..." Sheesh. Continuing: "...contrary to the gossip circulating in the corridors and byways of Philadelphia, he was not responsible for the various rumors describing the president as a quasi-senile front man for the Federalist conspiracy against the vast majority of the American people." Look at the loaded phrasing here. "Quasi-senile front man". "Federalist conspiracy against the vast majority..." It's not even been established by Ellis that this was the content of criticism of Washington, and yet it's repeated here, with the exaggerations taken for granted. "...The historical record makes it perfectly clear, to be sure, that Jefferson was orchestrating the campaign of vilification, which had its chief base of operations in Virginia and its headquarters at Monticello." Uh huh. So perhaps a quoted letter would be helpful here, since we are assured that "the historical record makes it perfectly clear". Even if we include the earlier "thinly veiled" reference (allegedly) to Washington, -- a detail which Ellis conspicuously omits -- Jefferson's criticism hardly can be described as an "orchestrated campaign of vilification". This is just plain bad history. It's out-of-context smatterings of quotes, offered together with large helpings of sweeping interpretation, for the purpose of butressing a not-so-thinly-veiled agenda of sensationalism. I won't spend any more time dignifying Ellis with criticism. Perhaps we should stick more with original sources.

This is beside the point somewhat, but I wanted to rein this in before it was left to simmer too long: Felipe said "As I noted in the comments, however, my sentiment is shared by C. Bradley Thomson..." Are you suggesting that Brad Thompson shares your assessment of Jefferson as a "conniving, self-delusional, pathological liar...", and "hypocritical", and "duplicitous"? ...If you are not suggesting this, do you think you should disavow these attributions now?

From Felipe: "So, did he not betray Adams and Washington? Did he not lie to them? Was he not duplicotus?" One thing at a time. How did he "betray" Washington? Please restate the case briefly. If you must cut-and-paste from your website, please edit appropriately. The website commetary is very long. Also, I find that almost all of it is summary from a single book. In fact, regarding Jefferson on Washington, there is only one quote (and that with limited context). Did he not betray them [him]? Did he not lie to them [him]? Was he not duplicitous? ...Why are you asking us? Show us.

I disagree with almost all of Felipe's critiques, as posted on his site (linked above), not to mention strongly disagreeing with the sweeping conclusions (e.g., the description of Jefferson as a "conniving, self-delusional, pathological liar".) I didn't want silence regarding the above link being construed as agreement. However, I won't address these issues here, unless they are tersely re-stated onto this forum.

I saw the dedication to Rand in the Rush album "2112". The name "Ayne Rand" looked mysterious and interesting, so I looked it up in an encyclopedia. A philosopher? Sounds a little boring. The name sat in my mind for a few years until we were assigned to read a book of our choice in a social studies class (as long as the book had some social or political issue). "We the Living" was on a friend's bookshelf (it belonged to his mom), and I asked to borrow it. It was a very moving experience. Even so, it took me 2 more years to get around to reading The Fountainhead. After that, I devoured the other work very quickly. This was all in the mid-80's. I remember going to the school library to find everything I could in periodicals about Rand. The unrelenting mischaracterization of her ideas in popular magazines actually made me more interested ("...why are these people acting so insane in response to Ayn Rand?...).

Mr Swig said, referring to my links to pro-Harry Potter ARI op-eds: "Nothing you linked to supports your assertion that Harry Potter is fundamentally at odds with Christianity." First, I believe there is plenty within those op-eds that does support my assertion. Harry's contrast to Christianity was not the main theme of those op-eds, and so such is not the crux of those articles, but even so, the author's comments about whether the world is benevolent or malevolent, the value of pride, the trustworthiness of one's own thinking (and more)... these things are certainly not consistent with Christianity. I don't want to get into a debate about what these authors intended, whether the articles in question "supports my assertion", etc. At best, fleshing this out would resolve whether or not what someone else wrote was consistent with what I wrote (the answer to which, incidentally, is as easy as e-mailing Ms Durante and asking her) ... and leaves the issue about my original point still up in the air... ...my original point being: whether or not Harry Potter "erodes Christianity in the soul". The Pope says it does, and I have to agree with the Pope on this one. Harry is this-worldly (compared to Augustine, for example), proud, and intellectually independent. How many kids will pick up those values reading the Bible? When I want my kids to erode a little of the influence of Christian culture, I'll gladly recommend a trip to Hogwarts, via the Good Book. (You may disagree with me. And if you do, you shall have the last word on the issue. It's not a point I'm interested in pursuing any further.)

I like Stephen Wright's idea: "I'm getting a full-body tattoo of myself, only taller." I've been pondering a tattoo of a third eye right in the middle of my forehead. I think this would really hold people's attention.

Mr Swig comments: "Harry Potter is not a long term threat to the Bible, because it is only fiction...", Huh? Whereas the Bible is not? I dont' understand the comment anyway. How about: Atlas Shrugged is not a threat to the Bible, because it is only fiction..." Swig continues: "...and the hero is not clearly and fundamentally at odds with the morality of the Bible." Although I realize Harry Potter is not a metaphor for egoist philosophy, I'd say the underlying theme of the Harry Potter books is fundamentally at odds with Christianity. I'm not the only Objectivist who thinks so: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6156 http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7536 http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7758 http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7589 Etc. "...He's a wizard, but he's not an egoist. And he's certainly not anti-supernaturalism or anti-faith." I disagree. It may sound ironic on the surface -- how can a supernatural character not implicitly advocate supernaturalism? Simple: fantasy characters are not to be evaluated literally. Let the religionists do that and fear that Harry Potter novels erode their own brand of otherworldly supernaturalism. Harry's brand of fantasy, by contrast, is benevolent and this-worldly. The Pope is right. Harry Potter does erode Christianity in the soul. Thank God.

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20050714/D8BB81FG0.html The Pope is concerned that Harry Potter "erodes Christianity in the soul". Bless you, J.K. Rowling.

Charles, the term "Islamist" -- as distinct from, say, "Muslim", has been used for quite some time to denote a radicalized, violence-advocating Muslim. "Islamism" is a synonym for fundamentalist (or radical) jihadist Islam, whereas mere "Islam" is the broader concept that includes all degrees of adherence to/interpretation of Islam. An Islamist is, by definition, violent. (A Muslim, on the other hand, is only violent to the extent he is consistent.) [only semi-joking there] P.S. Earlier you mentioned the notion that "jihad" refers only to an internal, spiritual struggle, not to armed conquest. Could you cite the Koran or other Muslim sources to support this intperpretation?

Here's a link to an image of the Declaration of Independence. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/image.htm

Here's wishing everybody on ObjectivismOnline.net a happy 4th of July. Thank you, Thomas Jefferson, for this best day in the history of humanity. "...For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them..." [Jefferson; link to excerpt of letter at http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/academi...t/rogweight.htm]

I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. Obviously I don't know who you saw on the tonight show. Perhaps I should have said: Harry Lorayne has appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, and he memorized a bunch of audience members names and details. ...on a slightly different topic: as I said, these memorization techniques worked well. The reason I ultimately didn't stay skilled in them, is that I have little use for memorizing a lot of details. I would think this would apply to most people in modern society. For example, if we need to know digits of pi, we can resport to a calculator. If we need to remember place names, phone numbers, etc., we have internet resources, computers, cel phones, etc. I can't think of reason to conclude that our growing non-reliance on memorization is a bad thing. Comments?