jfortun

Furthermore, if you acknowledge that Kerry is unlikly to follow a retreat with more aggressive action, then how is that strategy not a "half-battle" of an even worse kind than Bush's?

There is a difference between retreating and reforming your attack and retreating altogether. Kerry will give us the latter and in my estimation that makes him a worse choice for President. We can argue endlessly about whether or not Bush's motives are correct (they're not) or if his current strategy is aggressive enough (we all know it isn't), but Bush has said and demonstrated that he believes the US should defend itself with military might while Kerry has said and and demonstrated (pun intended) that the US should not. Retreating from Iraq is only half a strategy- what comes after? If Kerry is not going to deliver on the "after" then that approach is far far worse than Bush's.

Iraq is only part of the war on terror. It would not have been my first battle, but the battle probably would have needed fighting at some point on the way toward victory. It is not up the air. Kerry’s voting history and his own words tell us what he will do: give up the fight and treat terrorism as something to be dealt with by police action. I would say sacrificing US sovereignty to the UN’s appeasement of terrorists is a good deal worse than a battle not fully waged. We have 50 years of evidence that appeasement doesn’t work. I would also like to reiterate that the Iraq war is part of a larger war against terrorism. Whatever his flaws and however significant they may be, Bush intends to see that larger war through. Kerry thinks of it as a “nuisance.” You’re comparing Bush’s mistaken desire to spread democracy throughout the world with Kerry’s almost guaranteed capitulation to UN oversight? The former may be misguided and result in a drawn out conflict but the later approach is a greater threat to America. The UN is just as great an enemy to America and Objectivism as the terrorists. The UN is just a bit more subtle and more deadly because of it. I don’t see how this follows. Who is blinded? The nation is certainly split by what is happening in Iraq but I think it naive to suggest that the split will resolve itself if we step back. It is downright foolish to think that the “no blood for war” crowd will see the light under Kerry and suddenly support national defense. I will take the Bush’s pro-self-defense fog of faith over Kerry’s clear vision of American self-sacrifice any day. That doesn’t mean I will be happy with it, but it will be better than the Great American Bend-Over Kerry will likely bring about. How the nation thinks about this conflict doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is how will Kerry act. I don’t think that is too difficult to predict.

You cut out the most important portion and point of RadCap's post: communism was defeated by the exact sort of tactics that Kerry has opposed again and again during his 20 years in the Senate. Vietnam has nothing to do with it.

More on Kerry: let's not pretend he doesn't bring his own religious beliefs to the table. Kerry may not be evangelical in the way Bush is, but I believe he, more even than Bush, buys into the fundamental ideas of Christianity: altruism and self-sacrifice. While I may cringe when Bush seeks to legislate us into a more socially conservative America, he does recognize the power of the dollar and free trade and will attempt at least to keep government out of the way (relatively speaking) of those aspects of our lives. Kerry will seek to inculcate the religion behind the religion, namely altruism, by further controlling our most important tool of freedom: the $. At the end of the day I think the dollar is a more powerful tool for spreading Objectivism, than a less restrictive FCC or gay marriage.

I think there is a distinction between a battle half-fought and a nation half-defended. Bush has at least shown he is willing to put the military where is his mouth is, even if we aren't all satisfied with the current scope of the operation and level of aggression. The war against terrorism may be half-fought, but I think if push came to shove Bush would absolutely defend the US. Kerry talks about defending the US in the same breath as he talks about usurping our sovereignty. His voting record for providing defense this country is laughable (if such a thing can be thought of as funny). I found Dr. Binswanger’s analysis quite helpful. Theocracy is a threat, but death by terrorism in the here-and-now is a greater one. This may be over-simplifying the question, but for me it comes down to: 1)Who is the US’s greatest enemy today? 2) Which candidate would that enemy vote for? Over the next 150 years, Christianity may be the greatest enemy of the US, but (and perhaps this is the optimist in me) I honestly cannot see the US public handing over control to religion; the occasional religious leader, perhaps, but I don’t see the separation of church and state eroding irrevocably anytime soon. 9/11 has shown us that what can happen soon is a deadly attack on US soil. I have a wife and 2 children; terrorists are a more immediate danger to them than the Christians. I will vote for the man who is willing to use military force to stop them. Although Bush has not fully followed through on his own Doctrine, some defense is better than no defense at all.

heh. I was thinking this myself.

If homosexuals were unable to reproduce children than you'd be right. But they can, and frequently do. As homosexuality has spent most of its time throughout history in the closet (ahem!), it is no surprise that the gene lives on. Assuming there is a gene, anyway. Genetics are not the only way to explain why homosexuality may occur without choice. Early childhood experiences could help shape sexuality and cement it to such a degree that it is not really a choice and cannot be changed.

I was listening to a radio program today about the now dead Jacques Derrida, father of Deconstruction. As I listened to the program and tried to decipher what exactly descontruction is, I found myself more confused than before I cared or new anything about the subject. After a bit of web surfing I no better off. Assuming that is can be described in rational terms, is anyone familiar with it and can they sum up a few of its fundemental tennents? I suspect this is one of those "they muddy the waters to make them appear deep" situations, but I am interested in knowing more (if "know" in the right word).

The fact that a parent may teach a child dubious values does not remove that child's free will and judgement to choose different values as they continue to mature. "Abuse" is a word to frequently bandied about.

I would reiterate what Free Capitalist said: find your heros and let them (mentally) stand beside you. It brings to mind a lyric from The Shins' Young Pligrims:

To piggyback on the above. Evolution is outside of Objectivism's scope.

Evolution does not describe a process of random chance, it describes a process whereby advancements come about because reality dictates what aspects of an organism are best suited for survival. Over time certain capabilities grow while others fade away. Evolution is caused by a species' interaction with the world over long periods of time. To my knoweldge evolution does leave a few questions unanswered (I haven't brushed up on it recently) but a few unsolved questions don't change the nature of the process and the fact that we can observe it happening (albeit on a much different scale). There is no embarassment in this fact. It simply is.

I'm not able to resist flame bait. Beyond the possiblities you offer, namely random chance or a made-up creator, there is another option: casuality.

As for the draft, I certainly can't say it any better than Ayn Rand did: To read more check out the full essay "The Wreckage of the Consensus" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

From the 9/30/04 Washington Times: Only in the National Guard and Reserves is recruitment down. Apparently people are wiling to put their money where their mouth is...

Beautiful. I could do without the Indian touches but the rest of it is quite amazing. I really like the wall to wall pool and the lone tub. I'd buy and add it bit of color with furnishings.

I find The Sopranos fascinating because of the glimpse it gives (artificial though it may be) into the lives of those with no (or incredibly debased) morality. Contrary to sympathizing with that element, as the Soprano's goes on, it continues to show what filth these people are. That show is wholly unsympathetic. When I laugh, I am laughing at the absurdity of it all. As for "The Cell", if the goal is for a sympathetic portrayal of terrorists then the show borders on treason. If it is really willing to show their hatred and the nature of their hatred for the US, it might have some value. I recognize that's a big "if".

Unless one knows with absolute certainty that all men in the future will be law abiding and not initiate the use of force one cannot remove the insitutions which protect individual rights.. We call such knowledge omniscience. A government cannot be built on the assumption that everyone will play by the rules. But to learn what? What does speculating on the requirements of a government in a non-existing world where only Objectivists exist teach you? How does that follow?

Not correct. Let's assume the absurd situation that all men are Objectivist is true. A government exists to protect not just against current violations of individual rights, but possible future violations of rights. To safely abolish the the executive and legislative branches of government , one would also have to throw omniscience onto the absudity pile. The whole discussion of what kind of government would be required if we all believed the same thing and we all omniscient is a bit of a waste of time. If I can ask a meta-question: what is the goal of this line of inquiry?

A couple thoughts: 1) Given your scenario, government would still be necessary to arbitrate between honest parties in a dispute. 2) More importantly, Objectivism is not some utopian world view that requires all humans to act in accordance with it's principles for the principles to be of value. The purpose of rights and government is to protect the rights of the individual, full stop. The concern is not in "conversion" (though that would be nice), but in setting up the proper environment for heroic man to flourish. If a man fully accepts and practices Objectivism then happiness and success is within his grasp, if he does not, well, just take a look around you. 3) A system of ethics and politics should not be built upon abberations from normal human capabilites. Using Stephen Hawking as an example is beside the point- the point is: what ethics are proper for man living qua man, not man living qua parapalegic.

Animal right's activists' use of hyperbole just begs to have some of it slung back at them. The only thing the most rabid of them understand is shock and hatred, so given that a rational arguement will serve little purpose, one can either be silent or respond in kind. Sometimes it's more fun to respond in kind. Given the context of the thread and the content of their posts in other threads, I don't believe anyone here has expressed a genuine desire to harm animals. We have enough enemies outside the ranks without looking for more amongst ourselves.

Nope. Animals do not have any rights. period.

Deedlebee, The point I think you are missing is that the ultimate value to which morality is beholden is not any life, but human life. A set of values implies the question of "value to whom?" Not to anything, but to humans. The other point you might be missing is in the definition of rights and who has them. Rights only apply to rational beings- beings capable of reasoned choice living in a society of other reasoning beings. Refer to "Man's Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness for the final word.

I am enjoying it thus far. I hope it didn't jump the shark with the polar bear. Plus along with 24's Jack Bauer, Alias' Jack Bristow and Clancy's Jack Ryan it has highly efficacious character named Jack.