DavidMcK

Actually I thought I was making a pessimistic statement about the Republicans. Someone pointed out on the radio that the Republicans can't really rescind Obama's health care since he can veto any new legislation. It is true that I am optimistic, but only when both parties have bifurcated into dozens of parties (greens, religious parties, anti-abortion, etc.) and the largest minority (libertarians) can push their agenda through.

I suspect Republicans will have the emotional and intellectual energy to rescind about 70% of Obama's Health care, but since Republicans don't like a consistent principled philosophical approach they probably won't rescind it 100%. This will leave the federal government just about where it was when Bush left (remember TARP was a Bush program), then the Republicans will run out of energy and the Dems will say 'We've tried Laissez Faire and it hasn't worked' and we will be right back to say 2006. I share your concern, there is a huge disconnect between rhetoric and accomplishment that goes back to Reagan.

What I've learned from Christie is not to judge a book by its cover. When I first saw him here on NY television, he looked like the apotheosis of a NJ politician. I had no idea that he had ideas he was willing to pursue no matter what. My respect for him went way up when he put the kibosh on the NJ/NY turnpike or tunnel -whatever it was- in spite of severe criticism. He is really helping the finances of NJ! Compare him to say Schwarzenegger who looks strong and 'heroic' and got CA in deep ****. Strange isn't it?

The Bible is non-fiction?

If your vision of tomorrow is realistic, rational, optimistic and doesn't involve the initiating of force to accomplish your goals what is wrong with saying 'tomorrow belongs to me (or to my idea)'?

Since there isn't an Article 9 you must have meant Section 9 (of the Article 1).

Interesting categories Michael. I would classify myself as the 'lurking' or quiet Objectivist for whom Objectivism is very personal. The criminal objectivist is interesting also; they can instantly recognize that the way to control people is to control them through their ethics (or the lack thereof). There's a limit though to how much damage they can do since these ideas are so controversial.

Directions from the director perhaps?

I plan to vote for the Libertarians in the New York races: This is NOT a wasted vote. Re-read what Ayn Rand said about Republicans, esp. Ronald Reagan. The people who led us into this dark forest will not be the ones to lead us back out. Yes, there can be qualified and interesting Republicans but how many times can they leave us with a government larger, spending more, more regulating etc. etc. before we get the idea that they really are conservative, and not radicals for Capitalism?

Hopefully there is someone on here who knows more about this; I've noticed that when they study 'biological altruism' my sense is that they use the older definition of 'concern for others' rather than self-sacrifice (taking an action to the organisms own detriment and to the benefit of another organism of the same species). Thus child rearing is altruistic, chimpanzees sharing food is altruistic, almost everything is altruistic even if it is to the mutual self-interest of two creatures.

The one with 8 parts is even more explicit in advocating a primacy of consciousness idea; he explicitly claims that it was knowledge of the position of whatever was fired through the double slits that changed the outcome, not measuring and either adding or subtracting energy to the particles/electrons that caused the collapse of the wave function. He claims that they even delayed knowing what the count was at the slits and that the outcome was changed depending on whether or not you look at how many electrons/particles were counted at the slits, even days later. It wasn't too surprising at the end that he claimed this was how he united faith and science in his head (a la Immanuel Kant).

There are many of these links missing now (the series with 5 parts and the last one).

The left has a big secret that they hope you won't notice...they don't have a political philosophy. The dominating influence (Marx) is dead so they are left with the left-overs a crashed political position. They are down to either re-thinking everything they thought they knew or throwing rocks at other people's positions without actually addressing their arguments in a direct and honest way.

Gulch your optimism is duly noted; I wasn't being pessimistic about the future just disappointed about someone who I thought had a certain richness of thought but didn't meet my expectations. My bad for having expectations about people who might have a very different context.

Through the lens (if that is the correct metaphor) of Objectivism.

I distinctly remember that Bronowski said he detested being compared or aligned with Ayn Rand (I don't have the exact quote). I read 'The Ascent of Man' due to recommendations by Objectivists somewhere sometime, and it pains me that such a wonderful expositor of science being anti-Objectivist. As far as the wave/particle duality it is easy to imagine that the physicists are talking about particles moving in a wave, but it is more complicated than that...what does the wave consist of? In water,the wave doesn't have a separate identity, it is just water molecules moving up and down periodically. Like most things in science half the battle is just asking the right question.

No it isn't true. The US debt in the hands of foreign governments was 25% of the total in 2007,[20] virtually double the 1988 figure of 13%.[21] Despite the declining willingness of foreign investors to continue investing in US dollar denominated instruments as the US dollar fell in 2007,[22] the U.S. Treasury statistics indicate that, at the end of 2006, non-US citizens and institutions held 44% of federal debt held by the public.[23] About 66% of that 44% was held by the central banks of other countries, in particular the central banks of Japan and China. In May 2009, the US owed China $772 billion.[24] In total, lenders from Japan and China held 44% of the foreign-owned debt. (from wikipedia "United States Foreign Debt") Americans aren't working for the Chinese they are working for the welfare state and the huge military that we have. When you borrow money from someone and spend it you aren't working for the people you borrowed from; you are working for what you spent the borrowed money on. This is just getting Americans used to the idea that we can just walk away from the mountain of debt the Government has created by claiming that we don't won't to be Coolies or slaves of the Chinese. I can see a trial balloon floating from years and miles away.

The Mandelbrot fractal is my screen saver on my Linux operating system, his work will probably inspire a great deal of self-similarity.

Excellent idea..I was just looking for an online e-book version of Chris Sciabarra's book 'Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical' and couldn't find one. I would have been more than happy to pay a couple of books for an epub or pdf version of it.

I also read a critic who said that at the peak moment (probably Secretariat's record breaking run at Belmont) that a Christian hymn was played. The director comes from a religious background and tries to tag success with a Biblical perspective.

I think you should have put the legit source for your chart (Bureau of Labor Statistics) since we've all seen so much bogus information floating around. Also notice this pattern: It took 35 years (+- just eyeballing) for the dollar to half its purchasing power after the Fed got started then 25 years then 10. After the nearly hyper-inflation of the 70's we got a reprieve thanks the the mighty Voelker (a democrat I might add); now I see nothing ahead but the same pattern, shorter and shorter periods to cut our purchasing power in half. Obviously something has to give in the next 20-30 years.

Thanks for the information.

Kat I went to the website and tried to donate, but I was put off by the fact that they want your name address, etc. and I don't want to be inundated for requests for money...do you know where/how I can make a small donation anon.? I liked the way this guy stood up to Barney Frank too.

His statement would have been reassuring if he had categorically stated that the Fed will not use the power of money creation to print our way out of debt. However daunting government debt is, it is small compared to debasing the currency system.

Right, it would be like waiting till you have a car accident before you pay your monthly premium.