Andrew Grathwohl

I don't think anybody disagrees that it would be necessary to have compensation for armed forces. My issue with what has been said in this thread is that I don't think the government is justified in compensating soldiers by means of establishing a government-run hospital service for veterans nor for soldiers who have been injured in the line of battle. The only medical purpose that the armed forces should logically be involved in are ones on the battlefield, which aid in accomplishing the mission of the soldiers. All other matters of medical care may be paid for by the government through contractual obligation for compensation, but they may not be government-operated or government-owned.

What long list of things? I said that: 1. You assumed whichever hospital(s) the government used for its soldiers would be catering mostly to the government. 2. Because of the above, we can tell that you don't think it's possible to have a hospital managed in any other manner, or that you think this is the best achievable means to manage such an institution. 3. That you would give up a complete laissez-faire government to have veterans' hospitals for soldiers, and that you think this is the right thing to do. You can't refute those three simple points? It's not nonsense at all - it's completely legitimate to wonder why you, who have so rudely defended your so-called rational opinions in the past, cannot even bother to back up your very collectivist claim that the government should run a veterans' hospital service - and that, stranger yet, you think this constitutes a proper use of government.

Imperialism - we run a militaristic empire. There should be no surprise there. I never said we couldn't have battlefield hospitals. I think that's an enormously important asset. Besides, what would we do with all the army doctors, nurses, and medical technicians? Hospitals for veterans, on the other hand, is not a legitimate function of government, and you cannot deny this. Ayn Rand made it very clear that government's only purpose is to protect individual rights; hospitals for veterans - something which does not aid in the protection of individual rights whatsoever - does not belong in the government. The government should provide health insurance for veterans? Okay, that could be fine. I don't know if it would be more effective to simply pay them more and give them their own choice, but I suppose in an Objectivist society that would be something determined by the ones involved in making those kinds of decisions. Of course, this would be okay only if it specifically involves government funding health insurance from the private sector, like a corporation does today. Health insurance run by the government would be an illegitimate use of government. Our soldiers have the potential to fight for our liberty, and a very small number of them still do. However, our armed forces as a whole have made me less safe, not more safe. What debt do we necessarily owe to veterans? Since when did egoism entail an individual necessarily funding anything in government? I would have gladly donated to the armed forces for their efforts in WWII, but I think Vietnam was a disgraceful, disastrous, altruistic shitstorm of a war. Why should I give my hard-earned money to the soldiers who neither obeyed the law nor fought a noble cause? They didn't fight for our freedoms in Vietnam - they fought for the removal of our freedoms. They fought battles based on lies and a false sense of wanting to help savages - none of which were done in the best interest in the United States. And it cost us all a great amount of taxation to cover this destructive, worthless war, which killed some of our bravest men who were cruelly drafted into it. And having this socialized veterans' hospital service would boost morale and performance? Give me a break. So now we need to abandon our morals and rational thinking to boost job performance? I'm sure the captains of industry would love to try that out. That sounds like an argument a lot of people use to defend the minimum wage. I don't care what historical evidence you do or don't have - the capitalist ethic specifically doesn't allow what you're advocating for. A capitalist government, meant to protect individual rights, cannot remove competition from the free market in areas that it has no responsibility in. It has no responsibility in health insurance - it does not deal with individual rights. Why does a hospital that services veterans need to have the government as its largest client? And why couldn't it be private? You're making a sweeping assumption that no hospital could rightly survive without succumbing to a "public" transformation. You're assuming that there is nobody wise or skilled enough to run a hospital that cares for both the military and the privately-employed citizens. Why are you sacrificing your values of laissez-faire government for some unfounded notion of practicality? Laissez-faire is laissez-faire. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, by trying to preserve the sense of (the false facade of) a capitalist government, but also give some sort of beneficial treatment to certain government employees due to some external moral value you possess. Who cares if the government could even run a good public hospital system for veterans? Why does that mean they should? Better yet, why does that mean we must take away this ability from the private sector, as you blatantly suggest here? The distinction that needs to be drawn here is that the care itself still needs to be provided by a private firm. I have no problem with government financing this as payment for the service the armed forces provide. Isn't it up to the employer to determine who deserves what as payment for their employees' services? And you're absolutely wrong; plenty of citizens provide services. Soldiers merely engage in one type of service. Ayn Rand has said that it isn't about the amount of money one makes, nor the job one takes, but rather what you produce through it, and how you choose to benefit from the fruits of that labor. This is demonstrated well by Hugh Akston's character in Atlas Shrugged. I disagree with this senseless categorization of people just because of their occupation. Indeed, some soldiers are incredibly valiant, noteworthy, and spectacular workers, but there are just as many (if not more) who are miserable scumbags. You'll find a whole lot of scumbags in the custodial industry too, but there are also great men who work in that field. But this is all tangential, because the fact is that engaging in any sort of government hospital service is a violation of individual rights. If our government is to be laissez-faire, then that means no interference until it is retaliatory in nature. The burden of being a soldier lies upon the individual who chooses this as his/her career path. They are free to choose any career they want, so to treat them any differently from any other career, employed by the government or not, is absolutely against the Objectivist virtue of individual rights. Let the private sector cater to the health services needs of the military, and allow government to do only what is right - to fund it as compensation for the soldiers' services to their country. It's not up to me to decide who is responsible for injuries. That would need to be drafted in a contract and agreed upon before entering employment in the military. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what the specifics of that should be - I only know what Ayn Rand has taught us about the proper role of government. VA clinics provide a service funded by government that could be performed by the private sector, and is not in any way defending individual rights. The government, again, has every right to provide funding for private medical care for veterans as an employer's benefit, but the government does not have a legitimate role in physically servicing these medical needs. If it were up to me, I'd make sure every military personnel has health insurance, but I would do so only first by making sure that this medical care is as far away from the government as possible.

I think this is an archaic approach to understanding interactive art, though, and completely ignores the fundamental concept of art being created by means of generative and algorithmic processes. Simply put, in an interactive art work, the point of the art is to project something using interaction as a key component of that projection. The modifications a viewer can create are limited mathematically and artistically, and the artist creates a dynamic installation that vibrantly displays this interaction. In other words, the art is in the interaction. I think it would be incredibly easy to conceptualize the powerful messages an artist can project through interactivity.

Video games are not good examples of interactive art - even ones like Bioshock. It's really just multimedia: it combines interactive, visual, audio, narrative, and emergent contexts into a single whole. Interactive art, as the term is known today, describes installation-based artworks that receive some form of user participation to create an organic performance/viewing experience. Video games are different because of how the user relates to the art; the user reacts to the actions of the game, whereas with interactive art, the art reacts to the user's input. No matter what you do, the video game has a predictable outcome as determined by if statements, whereas interactive art is more likely to incorporate algorithmic or generative processes to accomplish its processes. I think it is pretty legitimate to depict video games as a genre of art all its own, these days. Now, to your question: yes, interactivity is a perfectly legitimate method of creating at. There is no reason why an interactively-controlled installation art work cannot portray a romantic-realist aesthetic, convey a heroic perception of mankind, and demonstrate how man is and should be like. Video games are even more obvious - almost every video game I've ever played puts the player in the situation of being the hero. In the online world, everyone is the hero. Eve Online is a great example of a very Objectivist concept of art - it's a heroic depiction of human society (space voyaging is commonplace, and the player selects his heroic life through a series of quests, missions, trainings, and developments/customizations), you can become a master of many trades/industries, you glorify and respect the art of contracting, producing, creating, building, and earning, and you are discouraged from using aggressive force, while your right to retaliatory force is respected. Ayn Rand would have loved and approved of Eve Online, which is likely why there's a large number of Objectivists who play the game, and run a corporation called Taggart Transdimensional (http://eve-history.net/wiki/index.php/Taggart_Transdimensional). I have a hard time seriously considering interactive art or video games purely utilitarian. Indeed, both are 'consumed' by the viewers to some extent (and often, to a great extent), but the fact that games these days require so much mental capacity to play, and not merely reflexes and repetition, informs me of the incredibly complex and difficult thought processes involved in their creation. Many video games these days are very passive in terms of interactivity, and others make great strides to be incredibly in-depth, detailed, and expressive in a number of fields, including but not limited to sound and visual art, storytelling, or emergence. Perhaps games like TRON, Asteroids, and Tetris don't accomplish these types of tasks, but games like Bioshock, Eve Online, and even Starcraft certainly do.

Unfortunately, I don't concede that many/most of our soldiers are fighting for liberty at the moment. Most are out there fighting (unconstitutional) altruistic wars or are engaging in imperialism. Many are being trained to handle crowd-control and street-patrolling - jobs fit for a policeman at best. Soldiers are required to disobey unlawful orders, so many of them presently deserve to be fired or tried in court. The last thing we should be doing is giving them free medical care. It's shitty medical care at that - some of the most inefficient and bureaucratic systems in the country! But that's beside the point. Government is to provide protection of individual rights and nothing more - veterans' hospitals don't accomplish this task, no matter what or whom they may be serving. whether funded voluntarily or by taxation. They have no place in the government. Government should pay soldiers with money. Soldiers should then spend that money on medical care in the private sector. Government insurance would remove opportunity from the private sector, and would thus be against the principles of a laissez-faire capitalistic society.

And is there anything wrong with a polygamous relationship, inherently, according to Objectivist ethics? I can't seem to find anything that would back such a suggestion up. "Cheating is ridiculous" is a poor argument at best. I'm trying to seriously figure out what I consider a significant hypocrisy here, or rather a strange non-adherence to a pretty basic Objectivist principle. Well that's my point. Adultery isn't necessarily "cheating." Wouldn't the adultery you're engaging in need to be "cheating" your romantic partner's relationship with you in order for it to be called by that name? All cheating is adultery, but not all adultery is cheating. Would not the latter by appropriate according to Objectivist ethics?

This would be true in a lot of parts of the country, but Connecticut isn't one of them. Trust me; I live there! Connecticut, even among Republicans, has an abnormally high ratio of non-believers, atheists, and individuals who do not "practice."Connecticut is one of the only places in the country that has "legalized" gay marriage, and is one of the country's most abortion-friendly states. Chris Shays was one of our representatives for a long time, who got reelected for his foreign policy above all else. He supported government financing of the arts, abortion, and gay marriage, but was a Republican. Schiff's religious views will probably do little to hinder his chances. His success will be determined by name recognition, and the ability to dodge any attempts in making him look loony (which is hard to do, because Schiff is a good person - a trait recognized by all who see and meet him almost instantly - and extremely bright).

Umm... Have you forgotten about the Patriot Act? Have you forgotten about warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens? Your verbiage reads much more like a Rush Limbaugh fanatic than it does a student of Objectivism. I won't even entertain the idea that Republicans and Democrats are even distinctive enough to argue the pros and cons of each. It's simply ridiculous to argue over which one removed more individual rights, since both parties have allowed our government to grow to monstrous proportions, and both have allowed altruism and aggressive force to be common policies in the federal government without even so much as a whimper. Also, if we're presupposing that the Democrats' position on in being "pro-life" is completely unfounded and unprincipled, which I would agree with, why even use this fact as a basis for argument? Clearly the position on "CommieCare" is irrelevant since they don't even have a valid opinion on abortion, even if they may be "pro-choice." This is akin to how Republicans are against socialized healthcare for all the wrong reasons. That is demonstrated best by the fact that the GOP's interest in getting rid of socialized health exist only on the terms of not wanting the Democrats' bill to pass. Never would they dare remove Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security - that's far too political for them, even though it's right. They're all unprincipled, immoral cowards. Why even bother distinguishing in the first place?

I am interested to know further why adultery is inherently considered unethical. From what I've gathered through reading Objectivist writings, as long as the individual shares the virtues and respects his/her partner, the sexual relationship is OK. Of course, this must also be met with the condition that whomever else you're romantically involved with does not see this as a vice. In other words, if you're engaged in adultery, and you're not either sacrificing your relationship with your romantic partner, or trying to have your cake and eat it too by valuing the new partner more than your spouse and still remaining involved with that person, then adultery should be permissible, right?

Considering Coolidge was the President of the United States, we should be overwhelmed with joy that he did anything positive, principled or unprincipled.

I think the other person to say Waking Life really hit the nail on the head. That movie was utterly, despicably, predictably the biggest piece of cinematic (or artistic, for that matter) trash that I have ever had the enormous displeasure of having to sit through. The people involved in making that film really should be exposed and have their careers ended forever for releasing such garbage to the world. Seriously, it was so awful that I don't think the disservice that piece of nonsense has done to this earth is even remotely reparable. But I do think you guys are getting the wrong impressions from Natural Born Killers. Though I did not think the film was anything better than a fun-to-look-at colorful horror show with some unique production qualities, the criticism here isn't warranted. The fact is that Oliver Stone obviously doesn't see the world as he portrays it in the film. The film's point was to portray how savage and sensationalized human beings can be when society uses its tools to glorify hatred, violence, and sickening acts so that it encourages this behavior rather than discourages it. You're supposed to love and hate the main characters at the same time, and I think that Oliver Stone does a fantastic job in creating this atmosphere. It draws you in to feeling sympathetic for the two monsters on the one hand, putting you in the same position as the millions of bystanders allowing the madness to continue. On the other hand, you hate yourself for wanting them to succeed, and understand that the damage their actions are causing are far beyond the moral bounds of any rational human being. That type of effect is quite profound, and I think warrants some respect. The content itself is not violent and disturbing merely for the sake of it; it is included to serve a true point and purpose. The visuals are so absurd, exaggerated, and ironic, that it would be ridiculous to assume any intention to promote perverted, immoral actions. On the other hand, if you were to dislike the film simply because you couldn't stomach the content, then perhaps it would be unfair to criticize the film with any conclusive attitude.

Hitchens has been a columnist for Vanity Fair for a long time, and he's been a pretty outspoken commentator on national news programs in the US. He has been considered a neo-conservative by some due to his foreign policy, which is, from most of my research, pretty accurate. He was very supportive of Bush's War in Iraq because it somehow backs his views on religion. I agree that Hitchens' book is not a very strong case for atheism because it is mostly a historical and literary overview of religious contradictions rather than an examination of any particular moral code. Although he does touch upon how religion is often borderline child abuse, and how it engages in the initiation of force (circumcision and the like). He is a strong admirer of Thomas Jefferson, but I truly don't see too many similarities. I think that Hitchens is great for being sure of himself, grounded in some amount of reason and rational thinking, and is generally unapologetic about it. He even goes far enough to resent not just the Republican party but the Democrats as well (he has given some of the funniest names for Hilary Clinton that I've ever heard in the media). However, he loses a lot of points in my book for being absolutely dead wrong about the role of government and the proper ethical role of the individual in modern society.

Unlike writing, where proper grammar and punctuation aids in the communication of the meaning of the words written on the page, music does not possess any type of formality used to help "understand" what is being expressed. Of course, music uniquely surpasses this requirement because sound is such a personal and non-structured entity, which does not serve any purpose other than art. Paintings and literature and film can all objectively project not merely art, but facts, information, and things of this nature as well. Music cannot portray things of this nature, and thus its only purpose for humanity, thus far, is to make art. We do not use it to communicate or mate like birds do. It is only for our enjoyment and expression of abstract ideas. That's why I think that in order to apply an Objectivist context to music, we need to examine it not by trying to make a standardized system for objectively analyzing music, because that would be simply absurd. Music doesn't have anything objective to portray outside of very culturally-defined and composer-defined aspects, so it would be senseless to assign objective values to it other than descriptions of the notational type. That being said, what we also need to remember about Ayn Rand's personal views on music is the context of time. When she formed these views, electronics did not exist in music as they do today. The contemporary experimentation and innovation occurring among musicians who utilize electronics in their works is necessitating a revision on conventional wisdom regarding music. It is quite clear that music does not have to be tonal for it to be good, nor for it to be romantic realist as Ayn Rand regards the best art as being. The noise music being made today (particularly in the aesthetic style of the Swans) does display a great amount of romanticism to it, though it needs to be examined through the lens of their aesthetic instead of traditional orchestral or acoustic instrument lens. Simply put, it's foolish to consider music being made mostly with foot pedals through the eyes of a string quartet musician. The manipulation of timbres in the music of the Swans is incredibly telling to those who understand what's going on. It's just as heroic and romantic as Mahler; it just takes a far different approach to achieving this sound. Bands like this, in fact, make me think we need to really start to appreciate and understand the role that timbre has in contemporary music. I'm not talking about bullshit pop music, but rather musicians like Alva Noto, Rioji Ikeda, and Tim Hecker. So much of what the modern sound architect uses to make music is derived from his/her feelings of sounds, rather than notes. Listen to Tim Hecker's "100 Years Ago" from the record "An Imaginary Country" if you need proof that beautiful, romantic music can be made by largely synthesized "noisy" music. While I feel I could argue against the concept that Edgar Varese's music doesn't fit the category of "good" art as defined by Ayn Rand, I could understand the point of view because the music was made by traditional instrumentation utilizing a lot of extended technique. Anyway, I'm tired, maybe I'll post about that tomorrow.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1353 The latest polling shows that he has a slight (within the margin of error) trail behind Dodd. However, 80-something percent of Republicans, according to this poll, could could not give an answer to their favor-ability towards him because they didn't know enough about him. There's a big movement to draft him into his campaign and get his name out there, once and for all... www.schiffathon.com

With Peter Schiff's almost certain entrance into the 2010 Senatorial bid against Chris Dodd of CT, I think we're coming closer to a breaking point. When he was interviewed sitting next to Yaron Brook a few weeks ago, the two showed miraculous philosophical similarities - most importantly, Schiff agreed completely with the rejection of the altruistic ethic. Schiff is an atheist, who had previously never even been registered to vote, let alone to a political party. He chose to register Republican simply because he felt they would support him more. His father, Irwin Schiff, is the well-known tax protester now serving jail time for his refusal to pay the income tax. He runs a successful boutique investment firm called Euro Pacific Capital, which has made a killing recently for Schiff's correct predictions of the US financial collapse and credit crunch. By investing in foreign stocks, commodities, and precious metals, he has made a good deal of money. His books also forecast the collapse years before it actually happened. Anyway, I think he's a good guy to look out for. He could definitely spark some renewed interest in selfishness and reason within the GOP. This point in American history is a perfect time for a guy like Schiff to win an election like this.

I'm still trying to grasp the Objectivist concepts of objective reality to their fullest extents, but having gone over this, I'm finding myself conflicted. If indeed there is an "objective reality" (and I believe there is), and if a moral life is one that reflects one's perceptions of, responses and reactions to, this reality, could we really make the claim that happiness is 100% dependent on the individual? If a human being were to perceive his surroundings and thus be unable to achieve happiness, would that in all cases make this person irrational? Better yet, is there any way a rational human being can perceive his surroundings properly, act morally, and not be happy? The thing is, I wouldn't find one's unhappiness due to one's external surroundings necessarily causeless knowledge, nor would I necessarily attribute it to a lack of following Objectivist epistemology. After all, is it not unhappiness (discontentment, disapproval, disappointment, etc.) that drives one to react and make decision to better one's life? What draws me away from agreeing with you on the surface is that I believe there are situations where external factors put people in such distress that there is simply no way for the person to be happy. I cannot unequivocally state that it is even possible for an Objectivist to rationally perceive his external surroundings, and then rationally determine that these surroundings make it impossible for him to be happy, however I can't unequivocally claim otherwise either. I'm simply conflicted. On the one hand, I see one's unhappiness as a motivator for rational change. On the other hand, I cannot think of any examples of this in Rand's writing, though I can see examples of the contrary in her writing. I look at Atlas Shrugged, particularly when John Galt said he will kill himself if the looters would capture & torture Dagny. He said that this would bring him to such a deep sadness that there would be no reason for him to live - that if she were tortured or killed, he would have no self-interest in remaining alive. Would the rational human being kill himself before reaching a point where his external surroundings couldn't permit him to be happy in any way possible? And what if he's happy to some extent, but what quantification of happiness can one use to determine if this is enough to continue living or not? If a rational human being is only happy 0.5% of the time he's alive due to how he rationally perceives his environment, is there still justification to the claim that he is "happy"? Or, again, would this not be a possible outcome of an objective, rational lifestyle? But then this leads me to my knowledge of Objectivist ethics. If one only needs reason, purpose, and self-esteem to live, then does happiness (what we pursue in order to live) require any other motivations or factors?

Strange. I haven't met a single non-Objectivist who has believed that the fetus is not a life. In fact, I've heard far more people say the fetus is life, but that the precedent of owning your body is more important. While I believe that you do own your own body, I think this is a weak argument when "pro-lifers" make the claim that the "life" of the fetus supersedes one's claim to their possessions. Showing that the fetus is merely a potential life completely debases the "pro-life" argument.

Aren't you forgetting that Objectivism regards art as an effective way to communicate a moral or ethical ideal? Art can say a lot about what a person's state of mind while creating that art was like. Of course, many people change, and it's clear that Michael Jackson changed quite a lot during his life. When he stopped making music, things started getting really weird. While Michael Jackson was a great entertainer, a good singer (for what it's worth), and invaluable for his contributions to the art of the music video, I think the most important characteristic of Michael Jackson was his dancing. Michael Jackson's bubblegum style of dance, which fused so many different styles so seamlessly and provokingly, was a really personal and unique aesthetic. Michael Jackson's character WAS his dancing.

Would this not be best done through contracts? That's vastly oversimplifying the conflict. What? Absolutely not, all I meant to say was that a nation of savages could never build such a sophisticated and great military as the US has. Look, Marxism is not the only ideology that makes the claim that the US runs a military empire. And it's incredibly unfair and dishonest to label it that way when you flat-out know that I am not a Marxist. The reason for citing those examples was to demonstrate how Marxists are historically imperialist - Marxism is quite in favor of imperialism. WWI was an incredibly altruistic war. Vietnam was simply idiotic. Yes, the Iraq war is the most prominent contemporary example. However, I'd say that troop and building subsidies to over 130 nations, including the handouts we give to nearly every impoverished nation on the earth, is a pretty good indication that we run a PRIMARILY altruistic foreign policy. I think we're moving closer to fascism than democracy. I'm seeing a lot more corporate-governmental collusion and involvement than I'm seeing tyranny of the majority.

I already responded to that. Britain did not uphold their ends of the contract. They were the aggressors. I am not concerned with what Rand would have advocated. I am concerned with what is right. Objectivism is a philosophy, not a set of conclusions.

If the people who committed 9/11 were driven only by the fact that we weren't fundamentalist Muslims, then I must pose a significant hole in your logic. Why us, after all? There are easier targets. Why not Luxembourg? Why not Bermuda? Why not Brazil? Would you be upset at all if Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the UK established military bases on American soil? I highly doubt any member of Al Qaeda would give us a pass if we were fundamentalist Muslims. However, that hypothetical is absurd to begin with, because no group of fundamentalist Muslim savages could ever progress to the point of our foreign policy. Who says that our foreign policy's effects on radical Islam is a Marxist idea? That's a very peculiar and compelling statement, which surely requires some evidence? I don't see anything Marxist about that - Marxists were the first modern imperialists! How do you explain Nazi Germany? How about Soviet Russia's ridiculous attempt to overthrow Afghanistan? What about present-day China and their dispute with Tibet? You used the term "Marxist" with the precise intent of passing off intellectual dishonesty. I already made it quite clear that terrorists act irrationally, but my point was that we acted pretty irrationally as well. The United State's foreign policy of altruism was an enormous detriment to the citizens of the US, and it also did nothing to help keep us safe from terrorist attacks. As we can see from history, our altruistic foreign policy has caused a lot of Americans to die needlessly, a lot of money stolen from Americans needlessly, and, rational or not, was cited as a reason for 9/11. I hardly see how maintaining military bases, and a militaristic empire, and providing troop subsidies to so many countries, could be seen as anything but horribly altruistic and wasteful. The domestic reasons behind such a foreign policy alone should be enough of a reason to never engage in such actions again. An enormous irony is that we tried to give them "democracy" - a system which we don't even use in this country! Why yes, a wonderfully deceptive misquote from KenndallJ. Anybody who actually reads that post would know immediately that I was not speaking of the present-day Iran, or even an Iran of 50 years ago. You know, Iran did used to be a free, peaceful nation.

I see. Well, for the record, I don't think "we got what we had coming to us" but I do think 9/11 is a good demonstration of the consequences of following an altruistic foreign policy. The terrorists can come up with any reason they want, but there are logical, rational reasons behind the attacks, and foolish, nonsensical reasons. Surely, we can distinguish them? Clearly the primary motivation for them, as irrational as they are, was not that we wear jeans, are godless, or allow porn online.

Are you suggesting there's no rational evidence to show that 9/11 could have been a calculated retaliation against what the attackers considered long-term aggression against "their people"? (Remember, they're collectivists). I must say that if this is the case, I disagree. We pursued a foreign policy that was irrationally based on occupation, rather than retaliatory defense, and a group of extremists responded with an even more irrational attack against us, taking this policy as an insult against them individually. It is not to be suggested that we "brought on" the attacks, but rather that we should have anticipated blow-back for engaging in such ballsy policies, and perhaps been more wise with our decisions. After all, if we could reason with irrational, religious people, there wouldn't be any irrational, religious people. If we'd just taken them out quickly and swiftly, instead of meddling in their affairs and slowly giving them fewer and fewer reasons to be fair with us, we surely would not have had anybody attempting to fly buildings into airplanes to begin with. Of course, then there's the obvious issue of governmental coercion being a detriment to our national security interests. It still amazes me only slightly that the terrorists were able to outsmart the so-called greatest country on earth.

I'm lucky enough to have my parents funding my tuition bills, but even that isn't enough. If I didn't work 30hrs a week, on top of being a full-time student, I'd be done for. Let me elaborate a bit on this, because I'm experiencing a somewhat similar thing as the OP at the moment. I am doing a similar type of study as film production - I'm double majoring in Recording Arts (audio production and technology), and Digital Synthesis (a more scientific major). The former is basically film school for music and audio, and find that it is a very unimportant thing to have a degree in, for the most part. At the end of the day, film and audio production majors alike spend an assload of money to learn things that are easily discovered from being in the industry for a few years. And plus, working in the industry will get you money, or at the very least top experience and good credentials, whereas college will just be a drain on your finances in addition to those things. When you graduate, many people your age in the industry will have already been employed for 3-5 years, and therefore have the upper hand. Unless you're pursuing more academic and more intellectual fields of study, where lecturing will be found more often than workshop-based courses, you may not find it as beneficial as you'd like. Workshop-based courses and other small-group study/learning environments, are easily found without having to go through a university, are cheaper, and are often better quality courses with more one on one time. If your primary motivation is to get the experience necessary to technically operate machinery and understand various practical aspects of your industry, then you may be much better off, in the long run, working your way up the ladder. Then again, your mileage may vary; I don't have any real interest in the least of becoming a studio rat or any of the other BS jobs that this major "prepares" you for. Anybody can be an expert knob-twiddler, in the end, so it's best to approach this kind of thing by asking yourself: Do I want to challenge my mind, or improve my muscle memory, by paying for a four year education program? If your answer is the latter, I would recommend skipping the college thing. In the arts, to this day, it is not necessary to have a degree, and some of the most successful people who have pursued these fields - even the youngest and most contemporary ones - avoided college altogether to pursue their dreams. Whatever you choose to do, good luck to you!