Missed Yaron Brook on Fox's Dayside

[Tribeof1]

I missed Yaron Brook's appearance on Fox Channel's Dayside with Linda Vester. I, and I assume for those who also missed it, wonder if there is any external link to the video of this event? I could not find any, but was wondering if anyone else might know of one. Thanks in advance if you do!

[Bryan]

I missed Yaron Brook's appearance on Fox Channel's Dayside with Linda Vester. I, and I assume for those who also missed it, wonder if there is any external link to the video of this event? I could not find any, but was wondering if anyone else might know of one. Thanks in advance if you do!

ARI's Media Page has Real Media files of recent television appearances by Objectivists. The top link in the "Interviews" section is Yaron Brook on The O'Reilly Factor on 12/19. My guess would be that they will also have a Real Media file of him on Dayside sometime in the near future, so check that page periodically.

[Marc K.]

Sorry I don't have a link but as you can imagine Dr. Brook was excellent as usual. He didn't really expand on anything he has said previously but he reiterated that we must first defeat the enemy without sacrificing our soldiers’ lives. That the reason the insurgency is somewhat successful is because it has the support of many of the citizens and that we must make them pay. Nothing new as far as Objectivists are concerned but heartening to hear on a major news network.

I was also encouraged that most of the audience and email agreed with Dr. Brook. I don’t know if he was an Objectivist or not but the one member of the audience Linda Vester allowed to speak said something to the effect of: “I don’t think one of our soldiers’ lives should be sacrificed for the sake of any Iraqis.” Hooray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder if any other network has given voice to Objectivist thought? I further wonder if even Fox would if they understood all that Objectivism espouses since Fox seems to be promoting religious doctrine more and more?

-----------------------

p.s. --

Could someone help me with my grammar?

In the last full sentence above what would be the proper punctuation for “soldiers’ lives”? And is it different than the usage in the second sentence?

Is it as above, or "soldier’s life", or "soldier’s lives", or something else?

I suppose I could change the last sentence to read: “I don’t think one soldier’s life should be sacrificed for the sake of any Iraqis.” but then the meaning is changed.

Sorry to tangentialize. (Is that a word?)

Thanks

Marc

[Bryan]

I wonder if any other network has given voice to Objectivist thought? I further wonder if even Fox would if they understood all that Objectivism espouses since Fox seems to be promoting religious doctrine more and more?

As far as Fox is concerned, I think their motto "fair and balanced" is fairly accurate when it comes to the way they discuss issues. In some cases, they really do give all sides of an issue a look. The entire network does have a Republican-conservative tilt but its far more balanced than the other major TV news sources.

I don't think you'll see too much Objectivism on any of the other TV news networks, but you do on the radio. The day before Yaron Brook spoke at the University of Colorado a couple of months ago, one of the local AM radio hosts here in Denver, Mike Rosen, had him on as a guest for a full hour. I loved hearing him debate conservative callers because they would revert to the same canned answers the liberals give them regarding the war in Iraq. “Well I just don’t feel like that’s right.” "But what would the international community think?"

[Marc K.]

I agree with your assessment of Fox. Still, I suspect Fox would be less accommodating if they understood how much faith is despised by Objectivists.

I loved hearing him debate conservative callers because they would revert to the same canned answers the liberals give them regarding the war in Iraq.  “Well I just don’t feel like that’s right.”  "But what would the international community think?"

Yes, and you'll notice how O'reilly does the same with Dr. Brook.

[redfarmer]

p.s. --

Could someone help me with my grammar?

In the last full sentence above what would be the proper punctuation for “soldiers’ lives”? And is it different than the usage in the second sentence?

Is it as above, or "soldier’s life", or "soldier’s lives", or something else?

I suppose I could change the last sentence to read: “I don’t think one soldier’s life should be sacrificed for the sake of any Iraqis.” but then the meaning is changed.

It would depend on whether you intend the thought to be singular or plural. If you intend the thought to be singular, it would read "soldier's life." If you intend the thought to be plural, it would read, "soldiers' lives." Notice how, in the plural tense, the apostrophe is placed after the "s" which makes the word plural.

Also, your sentence would read better if it were phrased like this: "The soldiers' lives should not be sacrificed for the sake of any Iraqis' lives." Using the phrase "I don't think" often leads to clarity issues as it is taken as a given that you think that thought since you wrote it. One of the best things I was ever taught by an English teacher was not to use the phrases, "I think" or "I don't think" in writing.

[Marc K.]

redfarmer,

One of the best things I was ever taught by an English teacher was not to use the phrases, "I think" or "I don't think" in writing.

Thank you very much for the tip, it is one I had never heard. I'm sure you mean it as a general rule of thumb though, right? As we could probably come up with certain situations in which it would be appropriate. Also please notice that the offending phraseology was a quote.

Now, back to my original conundrum, using the original phrase to illustrate.

Yes, I did intend it to be plural in: [... without sacrificing our soldiers’ lives.]; so I'm glad you confirmed my usage.

The confusion arose when considering the second usage and inserting the singular word "one". So if you don't mind, please let me know if the following phrases meet with your approval:

... without sacrificing one of our soldiers' lives.

... without sacrificing one soldier's life.

Can you think of any variations on this theme that I have not considered?

Thanks again,

Marc

p.s. -- what is meant by or what is the origin of your handle?

[redfarmer]

... without sacrificing one of our soldiers' lives.

This is incorrect usage as the word "one" indicates singluar usage. However, the words "soldiers'" and "lives" indicate plural usage. You could correct this simply by saying "without sacrificing our soldiers' lives."

... without sacrificing one soldier's life.

This usage is technically correct. However, it does not sound natural and thus does not sound as good as simply saying, "without sacrificing our soldiers' lives." When writing, a rule of thumb is to make the sentence sound as natural as possible. When it sounds natural, it also sounds clear.

If you're interested in a good grammar and writing book, I would highly recommend Writing and Thinking by Norman Foerster and J.M. Steadman, Jr. This book really goes beyond what most modern textbooks offer by actually explaining the logic behind the rules of grammar.

p.s. -- what is meant by or what is the origin of your handle?

It's actually the English translation of my last name.