Colonel Rebel

If I remember correctly, the case of US v. Curtiss-Wright was not about matter of selling goods to other countries, but rather, about the limits and scope of Executive Power in handling foreign affairs (versus domestic affairs) and where Congress, the Legislative Branch, fit into that scheme.

Ah, Minimalism. Like any genre, it is difficult to find a very good piece. By coincidence, I saw this thread in the middle of listening to Steve Reich's "Music For 18 Musicians", a seminal piece in that genre. While I can understand how one may reactively call some pieces of minimalism as "post-modern", there are other pieces which are unique exceptions. When I listen to "Music for 18 Musicians", I think of possibility, opportunity, and progression. And, movement towards a goal. What is wrong with repetition? Most music is based on repetition of some sort, whether it be drums, some melodic or harmonic theme that carries through a piece in different forms, and lyrics, too. This follows for every genre. Simply because you cannot stomach some repetitious elements does not mean it is bad music. While repetition without movement on it's own is without meaning, when repetition of differnet themes are layered, they create music which I believe is symbolic for the life we all aim to lead. Our lives are largely repetitious, but like a train switching tracks, will eventually move on to different things as time passes. The slowl gradual movement of adolescence to adulthood. The progression of studying in school and then applying it in the private sector. The hobbies, arts, and skills we aim to excel at, and, once achieved, the movement towards a different one. OF course, it may present something else to you altogether. Nonetheless, calling all minimalism 'vile' is a bit presumptive I think.

From my readings of Ron Paul, he has said this is an unjust war for a number of reasons. First, because it there was no constitutional backing for the war, i.e. a vote by representatives elected by the people of this country. Second, because Saddam Hussein posed no threat to this country. If you still believe Hussein was in possession of any legitimately serious weapons of mass destruction, do know that he himself came out and said he was bluffing on this point to keep Iran at bay. And this has been independently confirmed. And third, because even after the president declared that no weapons of mass destruction were found (the original reason we went in), the president who was bestowed powers for waging limited war in times of dire necessity has no necessity to use the armed forces in such a manner despite the threat being nil. Calling Iraq a 'dangerous enemy nation' is clearly contrary to the facts both before and through today. If there were any 'enemy nations' at all, they would be Iran and Saudi Arabia, the latter of which we continually support in light of the fact that the despots that run that country are equally worse, if not more so, than the former Iraqi dictator. American Foreign Policy isn't one-sided. It must be tweaked when necessary and reformed when it fails. The current foreign policy serves only to perpetuate the legitimacy of an expanding government and military. But to what limit, we have no answer. Foreign factions have build up in response to our foreign policy, and as a result, leaves us more vulnerable than before. Ayn Rand quit smoking when the evidence was given to her that it was harmful to her health. Why not apply the same for foreign policy? The evidence we have today speaks for itself. And finally, Ron Paul isn't Ayn Rand, as much as it appears some of you hold him to such standard. Yet, he is the first person in many years to bring to the table the discussion (and perhaps real possibility) of limited government, individual freedoms, and economic responsibility. Few others in recent memory have been as impactive as he has from this standpoint. Most of us here don't just fall upon Ayn's work without some prior cause. And I'm betting that for many of us, it started with an understanding of the nature and relationship between freedom, limited government, and/or individualism. I think his campaign hits all those points.

Yes, that link was posted after the original post in this thread. Thank-you for citing it here.

I have not logged on this forum in quite some time (law school), but I saw, just moments ago, on Drudge, a link regarding CEO's defending thier success through Ayn's work. I cannot, at this point, make any assumption as to where the link is directed because it sends the browser back to Drudge's main page. Being that his site gets tens of thousands of hits per day, I feel this was worth posting. The article he will link to will most certainly get many, many click-throughs. As of this post, this can be found on the left-hand column, third citation down. I'll post the link once the website is fully updated.

Gold pressed latinum? Those are used for external transactions, while most other transactions are accomplished with 'credits' which are not easily converted into other assets, poor liquidity typically is a result of communism. And trade exists??? When was the last time you saw something being bought and sold between two federation citizens? Or the last time you saw a logo that didn't represent the Federation? No stock market, no weapons for the average joe (that I can recall), no personal vehicles, state-run schools..... Seriously. And besides, wasn't it Piccard who said something to the effect of profit is not an incentive anymore? Ok, so i've beat a dead burro. I think you'll probably be wildly succesfull with your bar, being that's the only place I can remember any transactions ever taking place in the Star Trek universe. In fact, I kind of dig the idea of the way this is all set up...makes me wonder if something could be set up along the lines of galt's gulch. All the best, of course....and keep us updated if you can!

sure, there can be an Objectivist barowner on PBE.....just know that the world of star trek is completely communist. look at the currency system, the gov't controlled media, private property and property rights....well that's just a start.

I left OPAR, etc... at home when I went to see this movie. I simply wanted to watch a movie and not pick every last syllable apart. I wanted to be entertained, and boy did this movie excede my expectations: I thoroughly enjoyed every second. There was no filler in this movie--every scene had a purpose that kept the movie wonderfully paced, but always building to the final climax. Finally, Batman has been done justice on the silver screen. No nipples on the batsuit, an excellent portrayal of Wayne's rise to the Dark Knight, Michael Caine being a perfect fit for Alfred, and there was the right balance of CGI and live action. I'm incredibly content with the way it turned out and how it will bridge into the follow-up, and in particular, that it moved away from the first three films. To the person who asked about Gordon, he rose in rank in this movie, and we'll most definitely see him rise to commissioner in later movies. I wonder if we'll ever see Azrael on the big screen.....hmmm....

I was first BASS trombone in jazz, concert, marching, and everything else. There are few things that make me smile so kindly upon high school as the warm and unsympathetic sounds that came out of my trombone before rehearsals at 6am.....

What would B's claim be against A be? Emotional Distress? Loss of job and wages? Would A's Spouse be willing to testify to such things? I must be honest and admit I'm only a novice student of Objectivism (though a studious and passionate one), but the first topic that comes to mind per Objectivist principles is the issue of force and how that can be applied, if at all, to this situation. Do the consequences of A's actions come as a result in what we would call 'force' against B? Does this also include the actions of B's employer and A's spouse? For now, I would say 'yes' on all three counts, though I won't pronounce to what degree each is responsible in regards to the outcome. Also, I'm a but insure as to what you mean by 'claim' in a legal system based on Objectivist Principles. What would this be in your opinion?

Floor of the Hoosier Dome for BOA Grand National Finals certainly ranks above the 500...

I was definitely rooting for Danica Patrick today at the 500! A near-win....but I'm very happy with how she placed.

Right, but when you go out on a date, it's with someone you've made an acqaintanceship with.....through an intial interaction with that person. It's not common you can ask a person you've never met or talked with out on a date. They may be your friend already which changes things quite a bit, because there is no need to find out about this person. If they are your friend, you are already fairly compatible. However, I honestly can't think of anyone I've ever met, been friends with, or been acqauintances with, who told me that they were friends with a woman for along time, and then they mutually decided to pursue a romantic relationship. I won't deny that it can't happen, but when you tell a girl that "yes, we've been friends for a long time, but I want to pursue something romantic with you" would appear to her that you've had these intentions all along, a bit devious from her point of view. It appears that you are married, but to whoever else has tried this and succeded, do let me know how it worked out. I'd be interested in hearing about it and the process you took. (or maybe this happened with you Tom?) Again, I keep getting this idea that you think the only people one can date are those who are already friends. But how would you decide whether or not a strong friendship you've built with another woman is worth sacrificing for the 'chance' that she may accept your advances towards a romantic relationship versus the same close friend rejecting your desire to become romantically involved with them and thus ruining your friendship? Also, I'd like to hear your opinion on Blind Dates. I"ve been on a few myself. I've never ended up becoming romantically involved with any of them, but I have become really close friends with one. But I guess you'll completely reject the idea of blind dates, for one reason or another. My definition of dating is quite different from yours, or so it appears. When I first start dating a girl, it is an open, non-exclusive date....I can and do go out on dates with a few different girls at the same time. I'm emotionlessly dating two girls right now. And all I'm doing is finding out what these girls are about....thier values, thier passions in life, if they're even passionate about life itself, if they believe in god, thier values on honesty....et al.... dating is for people i could potentially have a romantic interest in....hanging out is for people I wouldn't. The first, and most logical starting point for dating is appearance and looks. Am I attracted to her? If so, then that's a good start. If not...then I either do not ask, or I've already found that they're interesting enough to hang out. Why should one even think about having a romantic relationship with someone they're not even attracted to? That happened to me twice before I even got into Objectivism...and thier appearance grew on me as I become more used to seeing them....but there was no initial attraction... Physical beauty is important to me and it's a bit selfish, no? However, going back to how I begin social relatinships, I start with the idea that nothing is garuanteed....friendships, acqaintanceships, girlfriend, wife....but I only find out how I value a person through social interaction. I know the values I look for in a romantic partner, and they're the things I look for, try to pick out in conversations, when I'm out on a date with another woman. I don't date everyone I meet. More often becuase they're unintresting or they say things that I particularly disagree with. For example "I'm gonig to Bible camp this weekend, what are you doing?". But how could you date everyone you meet? Not enough time. What I do, however, is I ask girls that I'm attracted to out to lunch or to late night cups of tea, and simply find out about them and deciding whether they would warrant me seeing them again. About half the time I never see them again because of, as mentioned before, things they say that sound of alarm bells (though I do tell them that it was nice to hang with them, but that we're not right for each other, but maybe I'll see you around)....most of the other time they turn into either acquaintances who I will either invite out in larger groups (because they have a great sense of humour, a jovial disposition....) OR really close friends over a period of time. And a dozen or so times over the last year have I met someone that just blows my mind and we end up dating openly for a little while to gain a stronger understanding of who they are, and sometimes that leads to a closed, exclusive, and very romantic relationship. Case in point, these two girls I'm openly dating right now: One girl really loves Ayn Rands works, but knows very little about Objectivism (but has an interest in learning more about it)....the other is passionate about her work and studies, focused on creating a future for herself, doesn't believe in mysticism, and is a fairly rational person....though has never read any of Rands works, but has heard OF Atlas Shrugged...and of Rand herself. I've got no emotional interest invested in them at this time. How do I choose which one I will pursue a romantic and exclusive relationship with? Well....that's why I'm dating them....to find out if they even merit being in that type of relationship with me. Based on a certain relocation I will be going through in the next three months...I may decide that I want to leave things open during this time and get through my transition first with work and my own life before I decide I'm ready to return to dating (with them, or anyone else for that matter). I was talking about this with my roomate and he made an interesting point: If you value tasty foods and will only eat tasty foods, how do you know a particular food is tasty or not without having tried it? How do you know all about a person before you even meet them? I just keep going back to this thought that some of you are suggesting that you must KNOW a person before you can actually find out anything substantive about them through dating. Now, what I've told you is my perspective, a bit hierarchical, on dating and the basis of dating and the process I choose. You may completely disagree with what I've said. But so far, I've formed a really wide network of acquaintances, forged some VERY strong friendships, and have dated some of the most amazing women in the area. I've had great fun in this process, and yes....it does take energy, money, and time.....but what things of true value do not cost such commodities in life?

Because you say this in regards to the "initial first conversation", I'm in complete disagreance with you here Kevin. To me, this suggests that when you first meet a woman, that if she doesn't have initial intersted in you right from the start...that she never will. This also suggests that you should be interested in dating only those who are interested in you....a bit too passive for me, and having played by those rules, I got burned every time. The thing is, you CAN create romantic interest in yourself by your words and actions. At least you said your statement wasn't a garuantee... I wouldn't suggest doing any of these things, unless of course you intend to hire her for a job. You can have a ten minute conversation with a girl who you are attracted to and never ask her her name once. ask her difficult questions? When you first start dating a girl, she's interested in having fun and hopefully you'll be building up her comfort level with you. This is NOT done by asking her difficult questions.... Disagree. I think it's the first important step in choosing a partner. Are you suggesting that any person you date has a high probability that you'll end up marrying them? I think that's a real backwards way of going about it. Dating, to me, is where you get to find out about the other person, and make judgements about whether or not you want to continue going out on dates and finding more about them in the interest of possibly having a more substantive relationship. You can't possibly know all things about a person that you want to gauge in relation to whether or not they'd make a great partner before you go out with them on a date. Again, it's the first important step, but the important part is to not bring any emotion into it at the start. That's where people get burned badly...it is these people who never question or find out about the other persons' values until that person finally does something that contradicts what they believe in, which is often after an emotional bond is created. Sitting down and THINKING about what kind of person is worth dating does NOT help you get to know the other person. That's completely backwards, friend. How do you know a person is worth dating BEFORE you've dated them? Dating, as a natural process of forming romantic relationships, also brings in the aspect of time, money, and energy. However, there's no way to get around these things...except maaaaybe using online dating services like E-Harmony. YES! Thank-you. How else do you start, if not at looks? A hideous woman with the right values is just as unappealing to me (romantically) as a gorgeous woman with the wrong ones. Looks and appearance are very important when it comes to picking who might be worthy of dating you. This is a really important bit that I like. But I dont' think it says enough. I think that you should add that one also needs to realize that they might never find someone compatible with themselves, and that's ok...the thing is to never sacrifice your convictions and values for lesser ones. I've come to terms that I might never marry, and I'm perfectly comfortable with it. But I'm also not sitting and thinking about women; instead i'm out there meeting them. I'm just getting over my whole "paralysis of analysis" stage. So much thinking about this topic and so little doing.......

yes, I have. In fact, I work for her. I never was physically attracted to her, but over time, my perception of her positively changed because of her unparalleled intellect (she's a judge, btw), so that there was this attraction, but not a physical one. TomL....I know exactly what you're saying, and that is something I often point out. Appearance in the sense of clothing and presence is a very important aspect. But I'm going a bit further than just clothing...particularly I'm talking about the face and the body (in general). How the person values his or her appearance is very important, and it does play a role, like other values, in how one would percieve that person, but it is not the only one. Paris Hilton, for example, still is pleasing to look at even if she is wearing tattered clothes, because her face is very symmetrical (and well taken care of, i'm sure). Discussing the topic of how one analyzes the face of others, and how that affects the person taking in this raw physical appearance of another, a friend began suggesting that this may have much to do with psychology...particularly how a child learns what is beautiful, attractive, dull, ugly....during childhood. I hope this puts you both on the right track of what I'm talking about....and apologies for not having made the clarification in the first post. edit: right, there is no dichotomy whatsoever. better, this would include the body features of that person....but what about facial structure/composite?

What about appearance? Over the last few months I've been talking with many others about this exact topic. To me, as far as I've thought this out, there is a difference between who you are attracted to, and who you find appealing to your eye (hot, cute, pretty, et al...). Has anyone ever experienced a time when you saw another individual and you just were instantly drawn to them, that they were just the most beautiful person you had seen in a while, and made everyone else disappear in the room? To me that is how I define attractive. Then you have others who are cute and good-looking, but by no means are you attracted to them. For me this would include women that most meny gawk over...Paris Hilton, Jessica Simpson, Cameron Diaz....and so forth. And thus is how I decide who to date in a sense. It's given me a tierred system on how to 'start' analyzing a person in reference on whether or not I want to date them. This, of course, changes over time depending on a variety of factors based on my own values. SO, there are some girls who I think are cute which have this grand passion for life and has a driving desire to better herself...and I would date them OVER a girl who i found attractive yet believes that nothing is absolute, corporations are enslaving men, and so forth... hope this made sense, and if possible, I would appreciate feedback.

AIM: kaishen88

lol! almost didn't. I was lucky enough to have a friend who I met via Protest Warriors who suggested Atlas Shrugged. Only then did I decide to read it before my last semester here. There are maybe a half dozen other students of Objectivism here, plus a large group who enjoy and appreciate Rand's writings (which, doesn't mean much, but I count it as a plus anyways). How about on your campus?

Nice to see another Hoosier on this forum! I'm currently in Bloomington (a recent grad of IU), but I'm going to be moving back to Indianapolis this summer. I know there are at least two others on this forum who are from the moderately central Indiana area, and about four true Objectivists here on this campus. At any rate....welcome!

absolutely fascinating! have you chosen which one you want to study first? I myself am the same way. Am greatly interested in conversational skills more than reading and writing at this point in time, and am confident that those two communication skills will develop over time. I definitely want to nail japanese, russian, and greek myself.

I'm interested in pursuing a new language to learn, to develop, and to use in the future. I think it would be important to use a language that is highly marketable. I'm able to speak Spanish minimally having practiced it for some time now. But i'm looking at expanding my ability to speak just two languages to three or more, and It's a difficult decision to make, of course. I think that Japanese would be an excellent language to learn. But i'm curious, has anyone here chosen to speak a new language, put a lot of effort into it, and can now speak it, and how did you choose that language in particular? Thanks in advance!

Richard Salsman is the first perosn that comes to mind. Definitely check his books out and articles on capmag.com

i'd suggest you check out prepmasters. it's an actual weekend course. it helped me figure out all the puzzles. in fact, i even found an error on an old lsat while taking the course. it definitely gets you prepared for figurig out time issues and...again, on puzzles. i myself am going to retake the LSATS (regardless of what i get on the one i took in december) and i'm going to take the testmasters course. but, if you need, princeton review has some really excellent introductory books. but, if you want the real deal, purchase 10 More Actual Official LSAT preptests. Actually, pick up two of those books and just run through them.

Thomas Conor James Patrick all strong names, free of association, simple, and....well yah...

I say partake in winter-time activities. Walks are excellent, but try ice-skating or curling or hockey. I've enjoyed all three here in Indianapolis. If you get enough snow, even youthfull activities like sledding are fun enough. I'm already looking forward to a multitude of books i've collected my undergraduate years here at IU and read them over this break now that I"ll have graduated. I'd also suggest you take a weekend and do some traveling, if only for NYE.....