Space Patroller

I hope nobody's surprised at this. What did you expect of the the Alarmist Bullcrap Company; the truth? They aren't shillling for Obama's scheme. He's implementing theirs. As I said. the media was not taking orders from Moscow. Moscow, and now Washington DC where there are more Marxists than in all of Stalingrad. is taking their orders from the media. Do you think the empty-heads in DC could think anything up on their own?

You're the first perso I've seen put it in those terms. and they are the correct terms. However, in doing its proper mission, government would be much smaller than it is, but that would be an effect not a cause. THis also bring up another bugaboo from 30 years back. The ccnservatives would constantly complain about government inefficiency, which to be sure was and still is a scandal. However their main complaint was not thr role, but the inefficiency. I used to say "You would not like it if the government were simply more 'efficient'. Would you like the EPa or the IRS to be more efficient at regulating your life or taking your money? Efficiency is not the issue, although a government limited to its proper function would be more efficient. But to just make what we have more efficient for the sake of efficiency would cause no end of grief". You have properly focused on the role and scope of government and not the size. Government ought be as big and efficient as it needs to be to do its proper job and no more so.

Oh, I dunno. check my last two remarks and see how thick I laid it on. I think we're all in the hospital with severely dilocated hips here. The scary thing is that in all this sarcasm there is an element of truth that makes the joke hard to find. It is true that the state has the right to act against provably unfit parents. This was usually done by the locality or the State and it was; a) reluctantly and only after the facts were established. Now it seems that those in charge are practically creating the whole thing out of whole cloth to get their hands on kids under the Jesuit maxim of "Give me a child for the first seven years and after that you can do what you want with him". The net result is that it's nervouse time for everyone.

In terms of 9/11 the principles are a bit mixed. I. There is no need for a Declaration of War if we are attacked, or, rather the declaration of war is presumed or is a mere formality. 2. Our primary target was Al Qaeda. the Taliban who ruled Afghanistan were merely accessories to the fact. Hoever, like Hamas and Hezb-Allah, Al Qeada is not a recognized nation so there is nobody upon whom to serve such a declaration of war In fact Clinton was right to believe that this was primarily a problem in law enforcement. The hand of every nation ought be turned against these kinds of criminals. Fictionally it was against these kinds of threats that Space Patrol (specifically formed to attack the hi-tech "super-criminals" of the thirtieth century as well as military targets and space disasters), the Soloar Guard and UNCLE (primarily THRUSH) were set up to act. Even Hawaii Five-O did counter terririst and counter-sepionage work. I don't think that at the time of these TV shows, it was imagined that there would be private groups capable of attacking nations. This was a case where world law enforcement, especially the UN dropped the ball, so it fell to anyone who could to do this by whatever means necessary. I think the ethics of emergencies does apply if one is attacked since it is not a situation of one's choice and is therefore a metaphysically givin as far as the attacked is concerned. Rand did say "The agressor is responsible for the consequences of his action" which implies some metaphysically given aspects with respect to the victim. Also she said "The only thing you can do with a criminal is crack his skull before he cracks yours" and "There are two ways men have to deal with each other; logic or a gun: That is reason or force". So I'm 75% certain that she had it in mind that onces the gun is on, the gloves are off. I can tell you stories about that, too.

Unless I'm missing some joke here. How did we get by before we had persons doing all this testing? Not only did we get by, we became strong. Also who would be most likely dong the tests and deciding who is fit? Hint; those who you would trust for that are too busy being productive and those who aren't too busy being productive, well, would you want them making the decisions on who is smart or stupid or fit? Think: public schools, Social Security, Veterans Administration, EPA, Federal Reserve and now Government Motors. ACORN Community Reinvestment Act, CNN, UC/Berkely, Peoples' Republic of Masstwochitts... I daresay they would first ask who you voted for and if it isn't "Every Democrate past, present and future"....well who knows where you'll be sent to be "upgraded". Or, they would ask you to name the president and 3 Senators and if you could, you'd be scheduled for "DMA recycling". Perhaps they may ask you to name the three branches of government and if you said Executive, Legislative and Judicial' the would decide that your carbon footprint is a size 9EEE and therefore you're a dnagerous pollutant and terminate you under the Pending Clean Air Act of 2017 Part F Section 53 #4 "...Shall be retroactive to 1258 CE". Who knows? Besides which anyone who'd trust these individuals to determine what is child abuse hasn't read ANTHEM or "The Comprachicos". Do you really want to go there? After we started doing all this testing, well... If I told you how post 1970 Earth human types are listed in the Galactic Zoopaedia, you would not like me. Don't Worry, this is all a bad sci-fi story, right?... I said RIGHT?!?... Dammit Jim: I'm a doctor not a Cummunity Organizer.

I just had a horrble thought. Now that that quote has been unearthed, might not some eco's watching this board decide to claim Rand as one of their own: A visionary who foresaw the threat of global warming?

Actually, Rand unearthe the principle that ought have been excercized in the middle '60's with "Doh't let yourself be fooled into thinking 'Aw, they don't really mean it'". The hippoes had zeo credibility, but the larger movement of which they were the teenyboppers; the New Left, hatched in 1967 and coming to maturity in '68 on college campi, did mean it.

Thanks for the memory jog. Interesting. It had to be very obscure since it either got by me, didn't register fully or I forgot it. But now that you mention it. I vaguely remember being amused at that term since I knew it as "the greenhouse effect".I was also suprised that her depth of scientific ideas was that detailed becuase prior to that, I'd only heard of it once which meant that since I was a space and science hound, it was pretty obscure. And you wonder why I think Rand's work and philosphy is a natural for "space cadets [in the 50's meaning of the word]". The big climate bugaboo of the eco's during the 70's and early '80's was freezing and a new ice age. I've known about the "greenhouse effect" since 1960 as a freshment in high school. It was used to explain the high temperatures on Venus, belived to have a very high carbon dioxide content, but it was only considered an unproved theory. As far as "having it nailed before anyone else". I wondered why it took her so long. Being a musician of the psychedelic rock genre, I was aware of the hippies' anit-science and nature-worship as early as the third quarter of '68 when it started and environmentalism sparng from the hippies. I watched it happen. Nobody believed me when I said that if not dealt with on the cultural level this posed a threat. The love affair between the media and the hippies gave them a platform to spread this evil. The real evil is the self-contradiction of the early eco's. As Rand said, they used the prestiege of science, but they were openly virulently anti-science and still are.

This has to be one of the thorniest issues going. First, a trial presumes some doubt as to guilt. This is the only question at hand here. since many of them were just dropped on us by the Northern Alliance and of whom when interred, we knew little about. On the other hand Qalid Sheik Mohammed bragged about it and that he had more in store so he should have been dreained of his info then killed in a high profile execuation. Some of the things that make this a real bugger center around mutlual Martianism. What constitutes fairness to us would be off the wall to someone from an Islamic culture and these cultures were in place and evolved while we were fighting the Vikings. They recognize Sheria, which allows for this sort of thing in the name of Allah but governs its usage and implementation. We do not. At one time killing in the name of God was acceptable to the West so we have familarity with it. Hessein's Iraq was the only major purely secular state in the area (Syria should also be since secularity is a plank of the Ba'ath party). The detainees would probably accept the verdict of an Islamic court since it would have Allah/God's approval. In fact Ben Laden offered to turn himself in for trial in an Islamic court. He know what the outcome would be; he is a Sheik so he knows those kinds of things. These folks have no understanding of our system of justice so this would be like having a person bred to the sabre trying to win a match with foils. They have not had even a Reformation, let alone a Renaissance and Enlightenment. No doubt they would see any conviction with even the most conclusive evidence as a railfoad job or honestly (by their stnandards) deem themselves justified because they were acting in the name of Allah. This is one reason I was opposed to "Charlie Wilson's war" in the early 1980's I became aware of what is now called "Islamism" and "Islamic Republics' in 1978. When fellow rightiest would go on about the Mujahadim being the 'Afghan Freedom Fighters", I'd say "'Mujahdim' means holy warrior, read religious fanatic. Since when were THOSE ever freedom fighters like the Hungarians in '56?" To which I would be told "But they're fighting the Soviets" to which I said "There are things in this world worse than the Soviet Union. These folks hate us more than they had the Russians". To which I was told "Let them have Afghanistan, it's lousey land anyway" to which I said "They're at home there. They'll use it as a staging area to take a shot at us from". And sadly, many perosns who disregareded me were Objectivists in name. So the question might better be put as "Could they be given a fair trial?" Yet we do need to know if they are in fact guilty of any crimes which by nature requires the interplay of offense and defense on a level playing field. The sticking point is the rules. Now, unless we can synthesize some workable method from both their and our systems one set of rules must apply. The best setup I heard about was the military trubunal. There are Imams who aren't fantics who might be able to take part in such a trial to give it legitimacy in the Arab world which would show that we are not monsters or Crusaders. These people live the Crusader era like it was just yesterday. Don't forget the Knights Templar which was both a military and religious order; a sort of Christian Mujahadim I really don't know what to do here> Right now, I favor the Military Triabunnal since Military Lwas in universal and if they wish to be tried as soldiers then so be it. But that's not even an ideal solution. However, they may be subject to the death penalty if found guilty since the Universal Code of Military Justice does govern how soldiers deal with enemy civilians. Much of this is the fault of the Bush administration since they tried to have it both ways as far as status goes by trying to create some bastard form that was neither civilian criminal nor POW. The end to which that would come was easily predictable, and predicted, just by using the precepts of sound epistemology. Also predicted was the effect it would have on the Republicans. None of that was rocket science, either

Any Ice Road Trucker fans out there? Season 3 starts Tonight http://www.history.com/content/iceroadtruckers-season-three Don't be left out in the cold.

It would not surpise me. Diamonds are made of carbon. Many meteorites have been found to contain loads of micro-diamonds of a specific type called Fullerine. that lead to the synthesis of "bucky balls" in the lab. This material, if made in large quantities would be harder than anything and virtually unbrakdable. The molecular structure is spherical, hnece the connection with Buckinster Fuller. We are pretty sure that many, many meteors and larger bodies struck the earth in the pre-60,000,000 years ago timeframe so it is not at all farfetched that many of these diamond-laden stones introduced carbon into the equation (for which Al Gore has not forgiven God; and also for the fact that he flunked Divinity school) The presence of Fullerine is sought to solve the riddle of Clovis points, "Peleo-indians" of coastal European descent; Silutrian (sp), the extinction of Mammoths, Sabertooth tigers, short-faced bears and a North American liion and the disappearance of human life from the Delmarva Peninsula some 10,000 years ago.

Ayn Rand never said word one about "global warming" so agreeing with her or disagreeing with her on that matter would involve a masterstroke of re-animation. She was long gone by then. This issue did not surface until the post 1986 timeframe and she died in early '82. Unless you're referring to her generalized comments in THE NEW LEFT; THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION in shich she did say that if an objectively provable threat to health is proved to be a man-made thing then the government, using the laws protecting private propery does have cuase for action only against the specific individuals posing that threat. But she stressed three things objective existence of a threat to health, proof of cause and property rights This was a small caveat in the context of codemnation of the "ecology" movement of the 1970's and she did not elaborate. Nor could she, the whole thing has never passed scientific muster, not then and not now. The eco's have spent two generations attacking or, at best, ignoring science and stressing a need for action before the situation gets untenable "We can't wait for the science to catch up [with what, I can't begin to know: Ouija boards? Spirit Guides? Reincarnated Babylonian princesses with Martian amcestry?]". has been the mantra for 40 years.

Roger that.

You never see Frisco and Kafka in the same place at the same time.

He should have a go-round with Boortz and they can duke it out for the asshole AND prick of the new millenium in one gottendammerung, the loser being the one who drowns in his own bile first. There's a difference between being mad as hell and just a loudmouth jerk. Just how much of this is an act, being "in personna" and is the real person is hard to say. There's also a difference between being a son of a bitch and a bastard. You can at least respect, admire and even like an SOB but a bastard is just...well...a bastard. One deals with you right to your face and does his own dirty work, the other is the knife in the back, usually by proxy. I'm not averse to "destroying" the religious right, depending on what you replace it with, which sets the terms by which you will "destroy" it. When Peikoff said "Religion is worse than socialism", prewuming that there is not more to the statement (which would suprise me; he is usually very thorough) he was making an error in terms specifically level. "Religion" is a mini-philosophy (RM). Socialism is a political economic system and therefore further down on the scale. Relgion and socialism, or rather, what socialism is a particular system of; the Welfare State, are very compatible and most imagined and attepted religious utopias were socialist or it's equivalent at the time. A better comparison is Religion and Nihilism.

The morality issue is complex. In the major Aristotelian philosophys the need and the want to distinguish good from evil is in metaphysics From my education at Providence College this is called "co-natural" and comes from being in the world as a thinking being So thus I had to conclude that the need, want and consideration is innate. and this is reflected in other work such as Piaget. Rand points to it when she says that Man is not infinitely malleable. The content is not inaate. If that were so then there would not be the ability to learn it. Too many persons confuse Tabula Rasa with Tabula Amorpha. Like a computer you have structurally determined characteristics but not innate content. Were there no structually innate functions, there would be no best methodology since the structure could be bent to fit anything so reason could not be an issue and therefore "The Comprachicos" could not exist. http://dancona.spacepatrol.us/crap.html Nor is it all there at once. The brain develops in stages with the final touches in at about 25. During the 20-25 age range, this is experienced as a new existence. hence the "born again" experience. Also this level opens one up to the whole of the universe. This is where "God" comes in in common parlance. It has been the percieved inability of atheism and even Objectivism to answer this need that causes a reversion to religion Try this http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/09feb.html and ask yourself if I am describing a religious or psychedelic experience

In this case there is something worse than Alex Jones. At least he's a nut on the right. I left starship_excalibur. a purported Objectivist and sci-fi Yahoo group with the sci-fi being a bit too Star Trekkish for my liking, becasue they supported Rosie O'Donnell's leftist piece of the Crock. Plus put forth the idea that a "small H-bomb" was used and linking to a site that allegedly showed how such could be made. Now for those who need to know. The H-bomb uses a fission bomb as a trigger. It has been the dream of those who dream of such things to develop the "pure fusion" bomb with yields of up to 2,000 megatons. Conspiracies "work" by setting the process of reasonin in reverse. In the world of the sane, you reason from the known to the unknown. the conspiracy works by reasoning from the unknown to invalidate the known. To get a feel for it, listen to Art Bell, he's a master at it.

I think we may be looking for a rhinocerous when in fact there's a flea in the driver's seat. I really wonder if the question "why" or more to the point by what principles ever gets that far with them and the whole thing is just gotten through "osmosis". Most of the types of whom we speak have undergone childhood indoctrination of some kind to a very deep level. In the case of the cons, it's Sunday School. For the libs, well Mike Savage refers to "Red diaper doper babies" and explains that, as children they were sent by their parents to summer camps that also dished out heavy doses of Marxism. I've heard the same over the past 5 decades so he seems to be on the money. In either case, a child has no defense against this kind of thing. This is for two reasons. 1) He is not physically nor experientially developed to sort this out in a meaningful way 2) The child, being undeveloped and unschooled follows the lead of the adult. This is natural and as it should be. Now can you imagine what it would do to the child if he were to realize that the adult, in whom trust is and must be implicit since that is the source of knowledge of right and wrong, is misleading or doing harm? The joke used to go "How did they punish Helen Keller when she was little?", "Rearrange the furniture". In any case, I don't think there is some dark fundametnal force at work here, just the thousands of little inconsistencies and small lies that make up most persons' training in such matters. Even Ayn Rand treated youth as a mitigating circumstance. Alos as I said in the parent threat to this, Altruism is treated as benevolence, not as what it really is.

Thanx for the wake-up call. I've held for years that ideologies are part of the branch of philosphy known as Politics. Then when I see someone else doing that same kind of analysis it almost gets by me. I had to go deep in the hole at short to get it. Now here's the kicker. If you told both the cons and libs that their systmes incorporated altruism. They would freely agree and in spades seeing nothing wrong with that In the overwhelming number of cases. altruism is used synonymously with benevolence rather than in the real meaning as propounded by Compte which is literally the imolation of the individual for the sake of the group One of the articles from THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER that did not show up in tVoS was "Benevolence Versus Altrusim" That would have been a vital part of understanding what altruism really is. Repressive states need altruism since it does a dictator no good to have independent subjects so he sure's hell don't want to touch egoism with a 39-1/2' pole. and altrusim necessarily sends the political system inot a repressive state

A better way to put that would be "philosphy provides a guidence system" From Rand "Philosphy will not tell you if you are in Zanzibar but it will tell you how to find out". The purpose of philosphy is to provide a coherent (internally consistent), correspndent (matches reality) means to address the world at the highest (over-arching) level. http://dancona.spacepatrol.us/crap.html The implicit irreducuble primary here is "grownup human". Philosophy is not germaine to animals and babies since they have not the physical capacity for it. Children byond a certain age, about 5 are equipped with a kind of philosophy stand-in called "sense of life". A sense of life i "...a preconceptyally, emotionally integrated equivalent of philosphy; specifically metaphysics." and even this is because children aren't equipped physically to access full out philosophy. This is a matter of the Law of Identit. To bring in babies, animals and children is to stretch the discussion beyond it's rational bounds, like bringinging oranges when the discussion is about apples. As far as persons acting against their interests or life, There is no guarantee that a person will get it right or wishes to continue living under the existing circumstances with such being immutable. In fact most persons function under a mixed system of ideas and principles learned in a haphazared manner or contradictory principles indoctrinated into them before they reach the level of dealing in principles.

What is or is not a primary is decided by the person who accepts something as a primary. That decision may be right or wrong but since nobody can think for anyone else then the choice of primary rests with the chooser. Add to that the fact that Man is a creature of "self-made soul" then that chosen primary IS the primary. Did not Rand note that "the fundamental evil is the man without a purpose" and did she not include "whim-worship" as a characteristic of not having a purpose? In "Kant Vs Sullivan" did she not show that the greatest fundamental act was making the essential connection between consciousness and the external world, saying that the consciousness should be focust outward [to the external world]? Well, for the whim-worshipper, whose defining characteristic is that he hasn't made that connection, the emotions are the primaries, or rather the feelings of the moment are the primaries because, of these, he is immediately aware. One of Rush Limbaugh's templates is that , for the liberals, emotions, or rather feelings trump reason. Of course he goes and wets himself on an interstellar scale when he bemoans the "fact" that "liberals laugh at people who believe what can't be proved". Isn't believing what can't be proven feeling trumping reason by putting the focus of consciousness inward ("Proof destroys faith": Urban VIII to Gallileo). Integrity anyone!? Well, doesn't the altruist look upon selfishness as the go-to evil, usually mis-defining it? What it tells me is tha, at this stage of societal evolution, ethics is the battleground. Acutally good and evil are set by Metaphysics. I tend to think that centering the "go-to" on ethics is a function of age and experience and mostly the latter, I had this down when I was 30. Ethics is not an irreducible primary, therefore, not a fundamental. Before you can determine how to discern the good, you need two things, the world and how it goes, which is Metaphyisics and Man and how he goes, which is... Rand has said "Philosphy is mostly epistemology". Which goes back to the fact that the only choice open to Man is the choice to think or not to think which sets the choice of primaries. The altruist tries to run the show on the basis of guilt, which is a feeling. We should be trying to run the show on the basis of reason. This points back to the first part of this post where the whim-worhipper looks inside to find "the answers" and the properly functioning adult builds on the basis of the objective, Existence exists prinacy of the external world.

Hell no. There are several things that come to mind here and they all point the same way. Recently, both according to Boortz and repeating something Limbaugh said. As a rule of thumb, Republicans are happier than Democrats according to Pew Research and this cuts across socio-economic lines. Boortz attribute it to the character of the conservative vs that of the liberal. The conservative is not always seeing things as bad or evil From my understanding this goes back to the late 1800's. What the modern liberal has morphed into over the last 40 years was originally call "Progressive". In the 1800's the originators of this movement was a pretty even mix of clergy, politicians and intellectuals. This is taken from the mid to late 1970's PBS multipart piece THE SECOND CENTURY or THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS. Now I interpret this in two ways. First what do we know about clergy, polititians and intellectals? They are either anti-world, unhappy malcontents (please note that they criticize any non-introvert as being "shallw") or thrive on unhappiness. My other interpretation is this, and it does not conflict with the first, Things are not static. Evolution, especially psychohistorical evolution takes place in stages. The United States, as a product of the Enlightenment, offered Man a choice in practical terms. That choice centered around Mysticism vs Reason. The Judeo-Christian complex had to either go one way or the other, or break. It broke with what we know as the present "conservative" Christian opting not to go down the road of mysticism any further and the liberal, that is most of the churches veering to port. Part of that was that religion itself was going through a crisis of confidence in God, see Kierkegaard and Heidigger, as it ceased to be of relevence to the world. Then came the 1970's and the first wave of Environmentalism. This caused the conservatives to lean more toward reason if only in reaction to the fact that the New Left had co-opted the liberal end of things. The true liberal of the 1960's was not the wild-eyed radical of Jane Fonda or the Chicago 7, We were more of a technocratic, rational, if flawed bent. The 1960's conservative was a bit on the Neanderthal side with the possible esception of thsoe under the sponsorship of William F Buckley who started adding an intellectual component. The 1970 eco's were more like the 1950's conservatives "Things was all right until they started puttin' up them there consarn satellite things". By 1978 there was a functioning alliance between conservatives and Objectivists and in 1977 I commented that "All our liberals have become conservatives and the damn conservatives have become liberals". The Right had grown to include both Objectivists and Libertarians and religion had almost vanished from the debate Now the reason that liberals, more self-defining as Progressives (see above), are so dislikeable is mostly a matter of poisonality, being in character, a mixture of a Masachussetts social worker, a fire-and -brimstone preacher, a prophet of doom and a whining bitch: what's not to dislike about that? I asked a fellow Rightist about 6 years ago "Did we stop being liberals or have liberals stopped being us?". It was liberals of an elder day who were the champions of progress and industry, It was liberals who led the real civil rights movement and it was liberals who fought for a more open society, in short, it was liberals who were the champions of Reason. Of the liberals Rand wrote in the middle 1970's "Though they were wrong, I envied them their methodology. Today they are in no such danger". It must also be realized that this is an abstraction of a very subtle thing and over 130 years running so it would not be readily apparent. However, the conservatives are not without fault and this may only be temporary: http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/endof.html

There was a book written in the middle of this dacade called RUMSFELD'S WAR the author of which appeared on Jim Bohannon's show and he said that Rummy was under the influence of "the Vulcans", mainly Perl and Wolfowitz who were his intellectaul superiors I heard that Perl and Wolfowitz were involved since '98 with something called "The American Century" which I dismissed as tinfoil tyrolian stuff until I saw the webstie in '04. What this amounted to when you get through the verbiage was some kind of US quasi-empire from what I got of it.

Would there be this dust-up had he used Objectivist quotes? Would you care to count the Biblical quotes that are used as a matter of course?? "Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind", "in the twinkling of an eye" Even the prfanity "God dammit"* Many of the quotes have secular usage. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". etc... To drive home a point I often say "Go to Hell. Go directly to Hell, Do not pass Purgatory, Do not collect 200 indulgences" Most people would understand what is meant in those terms. We speak of Apocolyptic and "all Hell breaking loose" Now, some of the practices of the Marine Corps might be questionable. You guys would hate this http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/09feb.html *"Galt dammit"?....Hmmmm...I dunno. It can, however, be abreviated "GD"

This is what I have: Time=10:20 am, Location=Fall River, MA, Direction=approx True North+ 60 deg, Size=7 Mp, Quality=Fine, Mode=Landscape, Focus=Standard (auto), File Size each 3.40 MB EDIT: from image to url due to page display time 1. Raw http://mediazilla.spacepatrol.us/5_21_pic1.JPG 2) Processed via Microsoft Photo Editor Auto-Correct http://mediazilla.spacepatrol.us/5_21_pic2.JPG