• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Evil emoticon   04/16/2016

      We now have a devil emoticon. Type colon, evil, colon, all together, then space. See an example by opening this message. Here's the example  .

Peter

Members
  • Content count

    3,660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Peter

  • Rank
    $$$$$$
  • Birthday June 27

Previous Fields

  • Full Name Peter Taylor
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc. "Contact," "Forrest Gump," "Castaway." Doc Martin Rachmaninoff, Fleetwood Mac, Simply Red, TV House, Bones, Person of Interest.
  • Looking or Not Looking not looking

Contact Methods

  • MSN solarwind47@hotmail.com

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location The Chesapeak Bay area

Recent Profile Visitors

14,384 profile views
  1. Donald Trump

    Michael mentioned the media’s superior ratings, prestige, and scratch – my - back relationship with Trump. And then Msk wrote: Ironically, the one exception is Trump's most friendly outlet, Fox and Friends. They don't beg Trump because they developed this call-in thing with him as a schtick over years. In this case it was mutual. end quote Of course the feeling was mutual. But do you see any philosophical or political motivation energizing The Fox Network beyond headlines, ratings and standings? Most people do. The owner and his minions are Conservatives. I watch them and chronical their hijinks all the time for the obvious, sympathetic reason. Raving mania whether it is pro or con is not objective. So, what perplexes me about his support on Objectivist Living is that it is NOT very philosophical. Does angry, rebellious yet pragmatic, hero worship, describe a Trump supporter here? That may not be how they would describe themselves, but their words speak for themselves. Trump supporters flatter and overlook his gaping unknowns and flaws. I think all of us understand the intense, continuous rationality required to plan and build any large structure or enterprise. And that is very worthy behavior. Rand studied and seemed to idolize a few architects before she wrote “The Fountainhead.” But look at all the geniuses in one field who were so terribly wrong about other fields. Rand and human psychology? It's not scientific. Cosmos’ Carl Sagan promoted socialism. I esteem them both, but caution is a virtue too. Politically, Rand worked for Wendell Wilkie and Barry Goldwater but was it her age or accumulated bitterness that kept her from supporting Ronald Reagan? I remember the vitriol then and now from people who despise religiosity in a candidate but I thought she was wrong then. Ten plus ten, plus ten, plus ten . . . , minus five still equals a 95 on a scale of one to a hundred. Is Trump support here, equal to a younger Ayn Rand’s support of Barry Goldwater? Is Donald, Reagan-esque? I wonder if Ayn looked back at some of her past behavior and said, “Cripes, I’m not a kid any more. Thank goodness.” Peter
  2. Donald Trump

    Robert asked: Are you really sure that Donald Trump will be the President you want him to be? end quote I wonder how many Americans will move to Canada if Trump becomes Yankee Royalty? I think a lot of his current supporters may end up spitting and sputtering like Yosemite Sam. Would it be so bad up north? Maybe the climate in British Columbia would be just peachy especially when global warming happens. Peter Notable melodic Canadians: Joni Mitchell, Celine Dion, Alanis Morrissett, Diana Krall, Neil Young, The Guess Who, Dan Hill (Sometimes When We Touch), Shania Twain, Bare Naked Ladies, Paul Anka. My two favorites singers or groups from Canada are: Gordon Lightfoot and Ian and Sylvia.
  3. Donald Trump

    Greg wrote: Trump offers something of value to the media... and the media offers something of value to Trump. WIN/WIN end quote Should we wait for the Indiana vote to be concluded on Tuesday before dismissing the Cruz / Fiorina ticket? Maybe. Unfortunately for the pro – Cruz or anti-Trump folks, and one stupid and dubious Indiana poll that showed Cruz with a 16 percent lead, he is losing in every other poll including the RCP, which is a combination of multiple polls. If Cruz can’t win Indiana he should drop out, even if there is a path for a contested convention. No one should want the Presidency so badly (or the Vice Presidency like Kasich) that they cannot see inevitable defeat and very bad feelings within the Republican Party. Carl Cameron is saying Trump has a 15 point, blow out lead in Indiana. And Bubba Trump has yet to fully draw his sword. On the Cruz, (say it isn’t so, stay in) side? A Fox reporter said that up to now, Trump has received 2 billion dollars in free Press time. He will continue getting a pass because of the headlines and interest he generates, as Greg - Moralist thinks. Yet, Trump will continue to blunder, as when he recently said the only thing Clinton has going for her is the fact that she is a woman. The Trump interviewer mentioned the fact that she was also a Senator, Secretary of State, and a potent advocate for women’s rights too. But Trump refused to back down. He royally pisses off women, in spite of Michael’s insistence on the opposite. He royally pisses off Hispanics like Geraldo Rivera, (who is a friend and was a colleague on Celebrity Apprentice for six weeks. How can Trump boast about breaking up illegal’s families, he asks?) So there is a potential for disaster in anyone’s campaign, but can even The Donald go too far? He will go too far. Madam Secretary? Saying President Clinton could cause confusion. Should we say Madam President when you are elected, to not confuse the issue? It would be funny to call Bill, First Mister. Or Mister Bill. Would you mind? Peter
  4. Cruz Nuz

    Liars? I can’t stand liars either. There are sites that rate them for truthiness. Cruz is better than the average bear. Is Trump really going to be a force for fiscal good? How about Cruz / Fiorina? Do we need to collapse into a great recession or depression before anything is done? Peter Some edited for brevity items from Robert Tracinski: . . . . They can try borrowing their way out of this, but by the time Social Security breaks down for good, 19 years from now, they might find it a bit difficult. Why? Because borrowing endless sums of money is how we're already papering over the fiscal unsustainability of the middle-class welfare state . . . . It's middle-class welfare that drives the budget. That's my answer to people who tell me we can deal with the problem by cutting "corporate welfare" or foreign aid or NASA space missions. Look at the federal budget. Aside from national defense--the only really big federal expenditure that's actually mandated in the Constitution--federal spending is absolutely dominated by Social Security and Medicare. Even welfare to the poor--like food stamps or Social Security Disability, which has become de facto welfare for the long-term unemployed--is secondary. Everything else is loose change. Except for one other big expenditure: interest on the national debt, which is becoming bigger and bigger. By the time the next president completes two terms--based on the choice we're about to make--interest on the national debt will be the third largest item in the federal budget. Shortly before Social Security uses up all of its nominal reserves in 2035, interest on the debt will be the second largest expenditure. A few years after that, it becomes the single largest expenditure. We will be taking the lion's share of government revenues and using them just to keep up the minimum payments on all the money we've borrowed for decades in the past. So don't think we'll just be able to go back to that well and borrow even more to save another failing government program. . . . . What we learned in 2016 is that it is also true of a lot of Republicans who claimed they were four-square in favor of small government and free markets and the Constitution and totally against debt and taxes and crony capitalism. And who are now voting for a front-runner who doesn't care about any of those issues. You know how politicians like to tell you a nice story about the principles they stand for, but when it comes time for action, they take the easy way out, kick the can down the road, and vote for the crudest conception of their short-term interests? Well, the lesson of 2016 is that the voters do that, too.
  5. Donald Trump

    I may be a pervert, General, but that video of Carly's face inches from my lap . . .
  6. Donald Trump

    Harrumph, William. Der Trump’s don’t wear flip flops. They wear Stormtrooper boots. Can a thread on any candidate be spin free even when it is full of Objectivists? Or, how honest can a candidate be and still get elected? Do they all make *deals?* To some degree I think they do. And Objectivists can go all gaga over someone they idealize. If you stand up to speak in public you are playing a part so I don’t know how you can tell what the hell Trump will do. The writers here are standing up to speak sort of in public. Can anyone truly know what Cruz will do? Imagine the pressure if you have embraced the mindset to win . . . or go home. I wonder if Trump can even conceive of saying, “I fought the good fight, but now it is time to go back to Trump Towers.” I think someone mentioned the genetic origins of Cruz (Canadian Cuban?) and Trump but here it is again. I wonder if the author of the following will change their cringe-worthy name? Poleax Ghost, Casper, Splash goes the Ghost? Peter Trump or Drumpf – What’s In A Name? By Palash Ghosh: Amidst the national uproar that Donald Trump is creating over where US President Barack Obama was born (Trump said he believes Obama was really born in Kenya, which would make him ineligible to occupy the White House), there are some interesting elements from Trump’s own ancestry. For one thing, “Trump” is not his real name. The Donald’s grandfather was a German immigrant named Frederick Drumpf who emigrated to the U.S. in 1885 and became a naturalized citizen in 1892. At some point, he started calling himself “Frederick Trump,” but it is unclear if he ever changed his name officially. Some have speculated that he didn’t want to be known as “Drumpf” because of prevailing prejudice against Germans (which would heighten, of course, during World War I). Frederick (or more appropriately, Friedrich) returned to his native Kallstadt in Germany’s Rheinland to marry Elisabeth Christ in 1902. Drumpf returned to the U.S, and settled in Queens, N.Y. He would die in 1918 during the Spanish Flu epidemic. Of course, his grandson would attain incredible wealth and global fame under the name “Trump.” “Trump” is an actual name, it is of English origin and according to linguistic sources it is a “metonymic occupational name for a trumpeter, from Middle English trumpe [‘trumpet’].” Quite appropriate for someone who likes blowing his own horn.
  7. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    BaalChatzaf asked: What was Galt's Gulch in "Atlas Shrugged"? Was it not an Eden? end quote Glad you asked. This is Donald Trump speaking to you, Ba’al. Yeah, you. How ya doin’ Jersey boy? Galt’s Gulch had an Immigration Policy. When I developed Midas’s Mulligan’s mountain retreat I had a fully rational and consistently integrated system of philosophy - based on metaphysical axioms and following through the branches of epistemology, morality, and esthetics (and the subgroup of architecture; I build it beautiful and I build it to last). And last but not least, politics. At this time of my life I decided I wanted to lead a Government constituted on individual rights, WITHIN A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, for all time. I am starting my administration using the laws of the United States of America which starts at its borders, just like Galt’s Gulch. We will have no more illegal immigrants unless they look like Melania. A Trump Government has a monopoly over the retaliatory use of force conferred upon it by the consent of the governed, so I want your vote. Tell your friends about me. Ring some doorbells. I will permit various jurisdictional agencies within our territory, like private security firms, as long as those agencies uphold the Constitution guaranteeing individual rights. Do not mess with me. If the United States had no immigration laws, then it would be an anarchist state. I am not for anarchy. Or arachnids. You know, Spiders. I hate spiders. Any militias are permitted to play soldier, but it better stop there. Donald Trump, the frontrunner.
  8. Why is there religion???

    Back to the philosophical. Religion is a product of our human lack of understanding. We not only don’t know it all, but we don’t know enough. A religious impulse includes mankind’s overwhelming desire to be able to explain the inexplicable. That aspiration to explain continues after our species is grounded in science, but unfortunately our budding science doesn’t have sufficient answers to explain how the universe began, or how our portion of the universe will end, or how OUR individual universe will end in death. And that UNKNOWING causes religion to provide an answer to assuage our fear. This religious impulse is not a product of the “lack of a higher intelligence quotient.” Many intelligent humans are irrational. So my brain and gut tells me religion is a product of the mind that refuses to accept reality. It is the mind preferring the irrational to reality. The *trick* to a better religion is for it to explain non existence and to assuage fear of death but to NOT irrationally direct human rationality to live a preposterously, religious life. I can point at preposterous religions like The Amish, Muslims, or Evangelicals and a non believer of that religion understands me even if they profess a belief in some other less invasive religion. I think culture, family, nurturing and education have sway but what goes on in the individual’s brain is paramount. Whew. That Big Bang Theory really makes sense. I feel better now. Peter From, "The Missing Link," by Ayn Rand: I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent. But a certain hypothesis has haunted me for years; I want to stress that it is only a hypothesis. There is an enormous breach of continuity between men and all the other living species. The difference lies in the nature of man's consciousness, in its distinctive characteristic: his conceptual faculty. It is as if, after aeons of physiological development, the evolutionary process altered its course, and the higher stages of development focused primarily on the consciousness of living species, not their bodies. But the development of a man's consciousness is volitional: no matter what the innate degree of his intelligence, he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice. What if he does not choose to? Then he becomes a transitional phenomenon - a desperate creature that struggles frantically against his own nature, longing for the effortless "safety" of an animal's consciousness, which he cannot recapture, and rebelling against a human consciousness, which he is afraid to achieve. For years, scientists have been looking for a "missing link" between man and animals. Perhaps that missing link is the anti-conceptual mentality. end quote Here is what Rand wrote about "acquired skills" in, The Comprachicos, p.156-158. TNL. "If, in any two years of adult life, men could learn as much as an infant learns in his first two years, they would have the capacity of genius. To focus his eyes (which is not innate, but an acquired skill), to perceive the things around him by integrating his sensations into percepts (which is not innate, but an acquired skill), to coordinate his muscles for the task of crawling, then standing upright, then walking - and, ultimately, to grasp the process of concept-formation, and learn to speak - these are some of an infant's tasks and achievements whose magnitude is not equaled by most men in the rest of their lives." "The process of forming, integrating and using concepts is not automatic, but a volitional process - i.e., a process which uses both new and automatized material, but which is directed volitionally, It is not an innate, but an acquired skill; it has to be learned - it is the most crucially important part of learning - and all of man's other capacities depend on how well or how badly he learns it." "This skill does not pertain to the particular *content* pf a man's knowledge at any given age, but to the *method* by which he acquires and organizes his knowledge - the method by which his mind deals with its content. The method *programs* his subconscious computer, determining how efficiently, lamely or disastrously his cognitive processes will function. The programming of a man's subconscious consists of the kind of cognitive habits he acquires; these habits constitute his psycho-epistemology." End quote Rand wrote: “The possession of a rational faculty does not guarantee that a man will use it, only that he is able to use it and is, therefore, responsible for his actions." ("Ayn Rand Letter," 27 July, 1972. "Man's volition is an attribute of his consciousness (of his rational faculty) and consists in the choice to perceive existence or to evade it." (ARL, 27 July, 1972). Rand wrote in her Journals (July 20, 1945): "If men claim that the rational faculty is an innate gift (which it is, or rather its power is, just as the degree of any physical talent varies from birth) and, therefore, a man cannot be blamed if he is born with a mental capacity insufficient for his survival, and he cannot make it the standard of his survival-the answer is that he has no choice except to exercise his mind to the full extent of his capacity . . . .” From “The Missing Link, Part II” (ARL, 21 May, 1973): "But the development of a man's consciousness is volitional: no matter what the INNATE DEGREE of his intelligence, he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice." End quote – I capitalized “innate degree” for emphasis – Peter Rand wrote in "The Objectivist Ethics:" "Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are 'tabula rasa.'" Rand from "Kant Versus Sullivan:" "The possession of means and their use are not the same thing: e.g., a child possesses the means of digesting food, but would you accept the notion that he performs the process of digestion before he has taken in any food? In the same way, a child possesses the means of "interpreting" sense data, i.e., a conceptual faculty, but this faculty cannot interpret anything, let alone interpret it "correctly," before he has experienced his first clear sensation." Rand wrote: "The process of forming, integrating and using concepts is not automatic, but a volitional process - i.e., a process which uses both new and automatized material, but which is directed volitionally. It is not an innate, but an acquired skill; it has to be learned - it is the most crucially important part of learning - and all of man's other capacities depend on how well or how badly he learns it." "This skill does not pertain to the particular *content* of a man's knowledge at any given age, but to the *method* by which he acquires and organizes his knowledge - the method by which his mind deals with its content. The method *programs* his subconscious computer, determining how efficiently, lamely or disastrously his cognitive processes will function. The programming of a man's subconscious consists of the kind of cognitive habits he acquires; these habits constitute his psycho-epistemology." AR Ayn Rand wrote in *Atlas Shrugged*, pages 1020-1021, through the character of John Galt: ". . . as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining -- that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul -- that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is BORN ABLE TO CREATE . . ." I capitalized “born able to create,” for emphasis
  9. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    Brant criticized Tony: If you can't deduce Utopian thinking from Rand's work you're purblind about what's there and what she was about. end quote I think Tony is on to something Brant. A Utopian *place* does not exist. If you deduce it, it is still a mental idea. Rand did not attempt to set up her own Eden, though she insulated herself from outside influences. To the extent that any person tries to live a utopian existence they fail. Hippies come to mind and cults. Utopias are not of this earth. Peter Oldies. From: Monart Pon < Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com,To: Starship Forum Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Starship_Forum] Starship and Utopianism Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 21:13:58 -0700 I've started reading and studying about utopianism, in preparation for an essay I want to write. "Utopia" was coined by Thomas More in his portrayal of a place called Utopia, with the double-meaning of "ou" or "no" -place, "topia", and "eu" or "good" -place. By this logic, a dystopia is a bad place (like hell). There have been written many stories of utopias, in all civilizations, stories told of a good, or better place. Other names for this place are paradise, eldorado, shangri-la, nirvana, heaven, enlightenment, atlantis, and galt's gulch. Utopianism is the belief that there is a good, or better, place for human beings to live. Utopianism is also the study of the beliefs that people have about what that good place is, why it is good, and how that place is found or built. With very rare exceptions, the utopian beliefs have all been altruist and collectivist, from Plato's Republic, to Thomas More's Utopia, to Marx's Commune. Numerous varieties of collectivist utopias have been implemented throughout history, most noticeably in 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries in Britain and America. Even though most of these settlements have not survived as autonomous and sovereign entities, most of their altruist and collectivist doctrines have already been applied, and by force, in the culture at large. In the mid-to-late 20th C. and leading into the 21st, a new possibility of utopias and utopianism is developing: the liberal, libertarian, objectivist vision of a world, a place where human beings are free from aggression, free to pursue a happy life as they choose, where individuals are not involuntarily bound to each other or to the state. And more, a place where the unfettered people will use the power of reason to achieve abundance and prosperity, benevolence and goodwill, freedom and justice. This individualist, heroic vision of utopia is portrayed in "Atlantis" or "Galt's Gulch" in Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ There are connections between objectivism, utopianism, and the idea of starship(ism), which I'm going to understand more about. I want to post some of my thoughts as I progress, so that I may benefit from any comments. Thanks. Monart From: Andre Zantonavitch < Reply-To: So much of our universe, in my judgment, is self-created and self-contained. Thus, Utopia might not be NEARLY as unreachable and unobtainable as most people suppose. It should be interesting to see what Monart and other Aurorans come up with on this topic... I've long thought that current Objectivism errs in focusing so intently on the outside world. This is probably the source of much of Ayn Rand's and Objectivism's destructive rage and bitterness -- and consequent unhealthy, unhappy retreat into cultism. Objectivists today could probably benefit from a little radical "eastern philosophy" in the mix. Perhaps something involving both meditation and visceral martial arts. With a good philosophy, I think we can mostly create OUR OWN utopia and high culture to exploit and enjoy. But "Rome wasn't built in a day," and so inventing and then continuously improving this private Galt's Gulch may take a while. Zanton From: "Technotranscendence" On Thursday, January 03, 2002 12:43 AM Andre Zantonavitch zantonavitch@yahoo.com wrote: I've long thought that current Objectivism errs in focusing so intently on the outside world. I'm not sure about this, since much of Objectivist focus is on changing personal thought patterns and actions. Rand's notion of "the sanction of the victim," e.g., seems to place emphasis on how personal life -- the life of the mind, so to speak -- plays a major role in shaping social structures and how changing it can change all of society. Not that all Objectivist work sees the inner life merely as a means to change society at large. For example, much of Rand's and almost all of Branden's work focuses on making individual, personal lives better. While it's probably likely that a society of individuals practicing, say, Branden's views on self-esteem and personal improvement will be much better than one not -- all other things being equal -- the focus is on the inside, in your terms, no? > This is probably the source of much of Ayn Rand's and Objectivism's destructive rage and bitterness -- and consequent unhealthy, unhappy retreat into cultism. I think this only applies to some Objectivists and, at the same time, can apply to any movement. Of course, some philosophical systems seem to encourage this more than others. > Objectivists today could probably benefit from a little radical "eastern philosophy" in the mix. Perhaps something involving both meditation and visceral martial arts. With a good philosophy, I think we can mostly create OUR OWN utopia and high culture to exploit and enjoy. On Eastern philosophy, check out Savaka Sukhothaia's "A Call to Objectivists and Randians For Dialogue With Buddhists" at http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/buddhists-and-objectivists.html Andrew Gole, a wayward Objectivist who runs a philosophy discussion group in my area (Northern NJ) covered some of these issues in a recent meeting. Cheers! Daniel Ust From: "zantonavitch" My understanding is that several historical attempts at objectivist/libertarian utopianism have taken place. There were evidently a few Objectivist 'communes' around in the 1960s – at least according to my normally-reliable college professor. Some wealthy libertarian in the 1970s also tried to create his own city- state in the south Pacific on the unclaimed Minerva reefs (so-named by him). But the mighty government of Tonga thwarted it with a single small gunship. And libertarians in the 1970s apparently helped engineer a coup nearby on the Vanuatu isles -- which was successful, but which didn't result in anything like a free state ("Tax-Haven Takeover!" screamed the front page headline in the old 'Los Angeles Herald-Examiner'). And there may even be a few secret Galt's Gulches hidden around somewhere. All of this is fascinating to me, but I have very little information on any of it. Any help here? Zan From: Monart Pon < Zan asked (1/09) about any more information on objectivist/libertarian attempts at creating a sovereign country (or autonomous community). Who knows for sure whether there are, or are not, any secret "Galt's Gulch"es out there, hidden from the world with force-shields? Who is John Galt? We only know about the ones that failed. Of these, I have s little more information, provided by a hand-written letter here that I'm about to type out, from someone who was among the people trying to build a free country in the South Pacific. He didn't provide much detail about what happened to Minerva, but he does give a glimpse. (He was also an early reader of my pamphlet, "Project Starship", in 1977 -- which was the context of his letter.) -------------- "Jan 19, 1977 ... "In 1973 I became interested in the "Minerva" project in the South Pacific, and the principals thereof. When that collapsed, the principals became interested in Palmyra(?) Island as a future new country based on objectivist philosophy. "We bought a ship and sailed there, cleared the airstrip and made some other improvements in the beginning of 1975. "In September of 1975 I moved my family to Hawaii expecting to further the Palmyra(?) project. However, the requisite support was not forthcoming, so that out of monetary survival necessity, I move my family back to Canada, to B.C., in late 76, and am presently practicing medicine. "My philosophy has not changed, but presently I am not able to pursue its logical implications. I'm certainly interested in finding people of like mind and communicating and working with them. -------------- Later, from another Project Starship reader, I received a 20-page bound photocopy of the "Constitution of Minerva", with this as its Preamble: "This Constitution is founded on the principle that the only true and proper function of government is to protect its citizens from force and fraud, and that this government is limited to this function only." The document contains eight Articles, including ones defining the structure of government, functions and organization of the military force, foreign relations and immigration, fiscal matters, and judicial system. Anyone interested in reading and studying the document? A thread can be started on it (or not): "The Minerva Constitution", to see if a conclusion could be reached about its viability as a political constitution. Monart
  10. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    Is John Wayne not worthy, pilgrim? Should his movies be banned from theaters? Peter From AP: Racist statements lead lawmakers to reject John Wayne Day. Alejo cited a 1971 interview with Playboy in which Wayne talked disparagingly about blacks. "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people," he told the magazine. Assemblyman Mike Gipson, D-Carson, who is black, said he found Wayne's comments personally offensive. Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, cited his comments defending white Europeans' encroachment on American Indians who Wayne once said "were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves." Wayne is the latest deceased white icon to recently come under attack. Former President Andrew Jackson, a slave owner and Indian fighter, is being removed from the face of the $20 bill. Princeton University recently announced that former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's name will remain on its public policy school despite calls to remove it because he was a segregationist. Harper's resolution fell on a 35-20 vote to what Harper called "the orthodoxy of political correctness." "Opposing the John Wayne Day resolution is like opposing apple pie, fireworks, baseball, the Free Enterprise system and the Fourth of July!" he said later in a written statement. Harper said he sought the resolution, ACR137, to keep up with a Texas resolution commemorating Wayne's birthday a year ago. He represents the legislative district that includes John Wayne Airport in Orange County. The airport, among the largest in California, was renamed after Wayne's death in 1979 and hosts a nine-foot-tall statue of the actor. "I think the assemblyman would know if there was a cross word about having the airport named after him," said Harper's spokeswoman, Madeleine Cooper. Several lawmakers supported the resolution, recalling Wayne as an American hero whose family created a namesake cancer foundation after his death. "He stood for those big American values that we know and we love," said Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach. Lawmakers have honored others despite controversies that eventually clouded their legacies, said Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine. Wagner cited President Franklin Roosevelt, who has been honored despite his internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. "Every one of us is imperfect," Wagner said.
  11. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    Jonathan wrote: . . . Psychological disruption, on the other hand, is not a violation of individual or property rights. Images which Rand thought of as "offensive" do not physically affect others. Being offended is a psychological effect. end quote Common decency, current laws, precedent, and unwritten but understood, common law are facts. Is there any image that would bother anyone so much that it should never be shown in public? Shows like “Bones” show gruesome dead bodies which cheapens human life . . . but I must add, “that is in my opinion,” and maybe not in your opinion, Doctor Brennan (The “Bones” character.) But I don’t think it should be shown as you walk down the sidewalk. Or on the Times Square giant screen. Amped up speakers blasting rock and roll, as Jonathan mentioned, is a potential, physical harm. But are being drunk and rowdy, disorderly conduct, nude bathing and fornication just peachy as long as you do them in your own front or back yard? We are assuming here that there is no “neighborhood agreement” that the landowner signed, so, does anything go? Not on this planet. Not anywhere. You need to talk your theories on psychological effects over with a realtor, a surveyor, the county commissioners, or the local sheriff. Buy and own some property. Build on in. Live on it. Your perspective might change from the doctrinaire and philosophic, to the factual. You can’t do on your property as you please. And that is a good thing. I have argued before that if you have a view of a mountain, the seashore, or something you like then no one should be allowed to build to block your view . . . if you were there first. And once again I would add, “within reason.” This is what litigation, zoning, and coming to the nuisance laws are about. I would rather have some limits and that sentiment is not in conflict with libertarianism. Peter
  12. Rand's Kind of Censorship!

    I just looked at the end of this thread, but I felt like opining. Tony wrote: A free society is also a civil society, and viewing by-laws as "government enforcement" and "legislating morality" is the sort of muddled, alarmist thinking that can justify any uncivil behavior - and even anarchy. This makes a mantra out of "property rights" as if they aren't a derivation from morality, but the base of it. An individual must as much "be free of his brother" as to be free from government (which is the same thing basically). end quote I remember that there are certain things that a person can defend themselves and public decorum from - such as desecration of a flag or monument. If a person yells in your face you can physically stop them. If someone is quarantined due to disease you may insist they stay inside. If someone calls a loved or revered person a bad name you can get away with punching them if you do it in the heat of the moment. I remember something that struck me as hilarious when I was a kid were taboos against touching someone with your left (butt wiping) hand. A lot of that common law is based on precedent, a general conception of what is morally acceptable, and that does change from region to region, and country to country. If we were to start from scratch then “ideal laws” could be composed but as it is we are starting in the middle of things. It is a complex issue. Does a citizen have a right to expose themselves in public? Well, no, in general, but is a woman’s uncovered head or face obscene? Peter
  13. Cruz Nuz

    Against incumbent B. Boxer she was destined to . . . do less well, but an aspiring politician needs to jump into the surf. California here we come. Carl Cameron on Fox is saying Carly adds to the buzz but Trump is the buzz master, and he mentions her lose in Calif. and her dropping out early in the primary. But Carly neutralizes the lefts, war against women narrative and she broadens the ticket. I agree. The pot is boiling. Peter
  14. Cruz Nuz

    I still haven’t seen any new polls showing if the alliance between KC will affect Cruz positively in Indiana, and no one has posted any new polls showing if in California, Carly Fiorina will change the Trump lead there. But this is as good an endorsement that a Tea Party man can get. “Lucifer in the flesh,” John Boehner said during a talk hosted by Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., according to the Stanford Daily. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.” OMG! The former speaker in the midget / moron costume hates Ted Cruz. Cool. But Lucifer? And why now? Oh, oh. I smell a RINO conspiracy. They want Trump over Cruz. Wake up guys! Peter
  15. Donald Trump

    I was born into the Navy but served in the Army. Before I left the service I tried to rid myself of saying things like CF which always sounded perverted to me anyway. Of course the Great Unification of this CF *Cruz Fiorina* is questionable, and the timing suggests desperation, but it is still a brilliant move. Indiana and California are next, and Carly is from California so the move is . . . ? If not brilliant, then it is strategic. I think it makes a contested convention much more likely. I like her and Cruz. It's a good team. Did you hear her singing? Very nice. Tuesday in Indiana will show us the future. Peter