L W HALL

Charles, It does not seem we are really that far apart in respect to many of the main issues which this country is faced with and with which the Bush administration has had to deal. Do not get me wrong I am not sorry I voted for Bush and if the election were held again tomorrow I would still pick Bush over Kerry, but I sometimes get the feeling things are not all that above board with this administration and I am adamant in my beliefs of integrity in the conduct and responsibility to the American people which the office entails. I will leave it at this as far as Iraq goes: I would have much preferred we had used our air superiority coupled with the likes of cruise missiles and Predators to further degrade Saddam's ability to wage war without a coomitment of ground troops and occupation forces. I liken occupation of a country to slave ownership. While you may have the upper hand in calling the shots (no pun intended), you are just as bound if not more so to their well being and preservation as they are to you and it makes for a poor symbiotic relationship. L W

Angie, I really like what you wrote here: The ability for some to grasp this all too important point is paramount to the unvarying disastrous cycle of repetition which many find themselves in. They want to continuously blame other people, institutions, and situations which they see as being created by others for choices they themselves make in regard to their own life. This cycle is repeated over and over and unless something happens to allow a momentary glimpse outside the box so to speak they can go to their graves never understanding or accepting things(meaning their life) can be different. When it hit me one day quite a number of years back that the reason my life was the way it existed at that moment was a direct result of choices I had been making all my life and in effect it could not be any different because it had followed a casual chain which I myself had created, I was able to start understanding the freedom which was available to me if I chose to put some effort and work into it and accept 100% responsibility for my life. The results have been worth every moment of pain it took to bring about the change I was seeking. Thanks for your post about your father. L W

James, Iraq did not attack the U. S.. Your patience or lack of it is irrelevant to the discussion. L W

Charles, On the tax cut issue we are both in agreement that it was a good move, the real difference is it will take time to see if the revenues will balance out, but even if they do not go up I believe it is necessary for us to get spending more under control in this country and Bush has not shown any sign he is willing to do that which would include the massive deficit spending and borrowing that is going on at this time. The use of the veto pen may be his best weapon in dealing with congress, yet I see no real sign he wishes to make full use of it. In reference to what I consider the misleading of America by the Bush administration for invasion of Iraq it comes down to one of a few possibilities. a) The evidence presented was intentionally shown in a biased way to build a case with the belief that WMDs would be found and thus their position vindicated ( the most probable) b) Bad intelligence led them to the wrong conclusions (a definite possibility, but more likely could be linked in with the above) c) Inability to interpret the available intelligence and thus total incompetence. I believe the first is by far the most liklely and some data mining was used to present a case to get congressional approval. The biggest problem of course was when we got there no WMDs were found and so the administration had to fall back on other secondary reasons. What we really have is an administration which either believed the means justified the ends or even more scary was totally in the dark from the onset of hostilites. That the initial invasion went so well is more a indication of the competence of our military than our civilian leadership. You make the same case I have heard before that because we have not been atttacked again you can use that in proving a justification for invasion of Iraq( and remember I am not talking about Afghanistan which was absolutely necessary due to Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban). That in itself is proof of nothing in relation to Iraq due to the fact we ousted the Taliban, and caused disruption in Al Qaeda prior to the attack. We also know that Bin Laden is still at large and it took several years to plan the last attack. Not sure how you are trying to tie the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in with shooting at some of our planes in a no fly zone as reasons for war, but try to keep in mind that we were not attacked on our soil by Sadaam and his crew who were secular by nature, but rather a consortium of different nationalities with one thing in common and that is religious fanaticism. You also might take note that even though our military is willing to do their job and put their lives on the line does not equate to a good reason for doing so and when speaking of no casualties since 9/11 keep in mind the over 2000 service people who have lost their lives in Iraq. You ask should we appease every thug in the world and my answer to that is when did we decide we needed to the be the police force for the entire world at the great expense of people and money. Are we going to invade all the countries I listed plus even more that are known for harboring terrorists? We need to start using more intellect in dealing with these people unless we are willing to fight simultaneous wars on many battlefronts. I am 100% for fighting these fanatics. but I believe Iraq was a bad decision and one which took away a lot of the drive the American people had for dealing with this threat after 9/11. It may well be in the long run that we suffer even grerater damage because of poor leadership and personal vendettas. L W

Charles, Bush himself said no Weapons of mass destruction were found. Whether or not Sadaam was trying to procure the necessary material to build nuclear weapons does not translate into him having them. In regards the shooting at our planes over Iraq air space, that did not constitute the type of danger to us as a nation which calls for an invasion of the country because we were well aware of the inferiority of their air defense system as evidenced by the times we engaged the Iraqi military. The training of terrorists could also be laid at the foot of Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Libya, and others such as North Korea which sells arms to said people. Yet, why did we single out Iraq? Why did we believe Iraq was any more likely to start passing out dirty bombs or constitute a nuclear threat to us than any one of several other unstable governments? Human rights violations! How about North Korea one of the worst in the world? There are places in Africa where people are being slaughtered, but I don't see us making a military effort to stop any of that. I also noticed you either missed it or made no effort to address the issue of the false pretenses which the war was sold to the American people on. I did not like it when Clinton lied to the people of our country, and a Republican doing it or manipulating data does not get a pass for it either. I truly believe the whole thing about Iraq has a ring of poor planning coupled with poor intelligence to boot. So when we got there and found no WMDs we were not prepared, had no clear cut plan for disengagement and were facing a citizenry which was- just as I suspected- highly divided as to our prescence. The administration then changed it's so called reasons for invading to start with and from that point forward has been flying by the seat of it's pants. The big problem with this debacle is the cost of American lives, not to mention the untold amount of money and yes unless you are living under a rock we destroyed one heck of a lot of their infrastructure which we are paying to rebuild. To come to what? In the end I don't see us as any more safe than pre invasion. Fiscally Bush is about as far from fiscally conservative as it's possible to be and still be called a Republican. His tax cuts were indeed a good idea, but coupled with indiscrimanate spending what we wind up with is a sure plan for disaster. You as a businessman know that if you cut your revenues, you must control or preferably cut your spending. If not your business will sink like the Titanic. And in answer to your question of which we would be better off with taxes vs deficit wise, I would opt for the third choice, which is lower taxes coupled with lower spending and lower deficits. L W

Sorry guys, but I have to say that as a Republican for well over 30 yrs and having voted for a Republican POTUS every time except fro one ill-fated decision years ago, I am not very happy with one G W Bush. He made a bad decision to get us involved in a war which I was against from the very start and for reasons which have been shown to be highly suspect if not outright fabrications. For some reason that I have yet to fathom the American government through the years has a great penchant for blowing places all to hell and back which cost us dearly in lives and money, then turning around and trying to rebuild the same damn places we have just blew up at American taxpayers expense. There is no logical reason for us to be in Iraq. It did not present a "clear and present danger" to our country and we durn well knew it. I was also hoping for a fiscal conservative with Bush and I guess that was just another pipe dream on my part. L W

How so very true. Think of the many times we have heard: "I did this because he/she made me, due to (fill in the blank)". The world is chocked full of people who spend the largest majority of their time reacting instead of acting. L W

Roger, What you say above sheds a clearer light on why some think you are the mysterious Evelyn Z Pickering from ROR. http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0066_5.shtml :-) L W

PHIL, Is there more to the quote attributed to Ms Hsieh that what you stated which is the same as I have read elsewhere because I have a problem with what you said above. I will not argue that one part of the statement does not contradict the other however I can't see where you are getting the context of her message concerning the first part as being the following: Where do you derive this? Is this based on something else she said? When one makes a statement that they regard "homosexuality as unfortunate and suboptimal", then is there any real stretech to believe they also regard the homosexual as unfortunate and suboptimal. I don't know about your world, but in mine anyone who considered me as suboptimal would not be in consideration for a Christmas Card this year. L W

Fred, I have read various posts by you and always enjoy the way they are presented along with the evident knowledge of the subjects which you bring to the discussion. Thanks L W

Very nicely said Barbara, I would tip my hat to Michael-- if I had one! :-)

Thanks Paul, I really enjoyed your piece and I also have another book to add to my list thanks to Eudaimonist. There are no magical cures folks, but there is a lot of satisfaction in the journey if I wish to put some effort forth. L W

Here's a little thing I picked up while reading her proclamation: She puts forth that Chris lied when he stated Peikoff's reply to his inquiry was "The Estate(Peikoff) would notify him if anything relevant turned up", and her basis for calling him is a liar is Peikoff said he didn't say it and then she backs it up With Ridpath saying Peikoff didn't say it and further on stating that other ARI people said he was lying. What I would like to know is where is the evidence other than he said, and he said he said, and so on? Is there correspondence available to back up these assertions by either parties? It would seem if you are going to say someone is lying one party or the other should have some documentation. If not all you wind up with is pointing fingers. Perhaps it's there somewhere, but I was not able to discern it and what we wind up with is one side seemingly believing the reply given was hopeful while the other side states it was totally dismissive; this would not be the first time that context was lost in corespondance and so to call this an out an out lie looks to be the way you want to interpret it unless as I said earlier there is other correspondence to back up the claims. One other thing within the same area of the writing was Ms Hsieh's belief she had up till that point made a air-tight case for Chris being a liar and one thing should then lead to another with this statement: when as I earlier pointed out it doesn't look as if her case is that solid so far as evidence past the hearsay type is searched for. Also to be noted is she uses her conclusion to then say " I do not think any of his work can be trusted, including his purely historical research on Ayn Rand", yet earlier she had made use of Jim Lennox's revue of The Russian Radical as supportive in her condemnation of Chris' work, and in that we read where Mr. Lennox makes the point in the very first of his article of praising Sciabarra's research when he says.. It appears Mr Lennox had problems with Chris' interpertation and conclusions rather than his research yet we are led to believe by Ms Hsieh that he can be relied on as a slam against Chris in her use of his article, but should be perhaps ignored for his appraisal and praise of Chris for his other contributions which she dismisses out of hand as "only a few sentences". and if you follow her line of reasoning would be fairly inconsequential mainly due to what I would suspect as not being in support of her contentions. That's enough to this point. Mainly this is some things that came to my attention and like I mentioned earlier there may be more supporting evidence for her claim of his being a liar up to the part where I stopped commenting, but I just did not see it and it would seem to be very important as corroboration for her assertions. L W

The Scarlet Letter which Diana will be burdened with from this point on is *B*, and no I don't mean anything to do with a female dog. Rather it will stand for *Betrayer* for her disclosure of personal E-Mails in a public forum. I look at this as a serious lack of value on her part heedless of what Chris may or may not have done. She uses one of the older fallacies for justification in the "two wrongs make a right " argument and yet even after reading her whole post( and yes I did break down and read the whole thing[based on something Jason Q brought up] even when I said I wasn't on another forum) I was left with less than conviction of her contention that Chris did her wrong to start with. I plan on rereading the entire post due to the fact that a few things jumped out at me as being somewhat inconsistent with the conclusions she was drawing based on her evidence. L W

Even though I am long past the baby raising years I find your posts ring a bell in a discussion I was having just about a week ago with my daughter and son-in-law in reference to my two granddaughters. My youngest granddaughter is 20 mths old and has a tendency to be aggresive toward her older sister who is 8. She will sometimes hit, or pinch her for no apparent reason and it has been an area of concern for all of us as to exactly deal with the situation. My older granddaughter never retaliates or uses aggresion in interacting with the baby, but she does sometimes try to pick up the younger one or get her to do something and this is OK at times and at other times it isn't and thus when it's not the aggresiveness of the younger one comes out. Now we believe this is a way of establishing her territory so to speak for the little one, but she is still given time-outs when she initiates violence with her sister or others. To get to the point of my post though: in our previously mentioned conversation my son-in-law told me that they have found if the girls are put into the tub together every night if possible and allowed to play they get along much better untill bedtime and the younger one seems to be much less agressive. I found this to be an interesting turn of events and wondered why the bath would have that effect while just sitting them down to play together does not elicit the same calming influence. L W

It will be interesting to see how thoe whole concept behind Objectivism goes over with the modern day crowd. At least they have some heavy box office draws considered for the lead parts, but in my estimation it is very few good books that are translated well on film and one of the main reasons is the inability to capture the thoughts of the characters. L W

"Will I Live To Be 80?" I recently picked a new primary care doctor. After two visits and exhaustive lab tests, he said I was doing "fairly well" for my age. A little concerned about that comment, I couldn't resist asking him, "Do you think I'll live to be 80?" He asked, "Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer or wine?" "Oh no," I replied. "I'm not doing drugs, either." Then he asked, "Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs? I said, "No, my former doctor said that all red meat is very unhealthy!" "Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, sailing, hiking, or bicycling?" "No, I don't," I said. He asked, "Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have a lot of sex?" "No," I said. "I don't do any of those things." He looked at me and said, "Then, why do you give a shit?"

So I guess what Diana is saying is that Lindsay is OK as far as suboptimal human beings go. And they say that politics makes for strange bedfellows. :-k L W

Paul, I would have to disagree with you here. Although I am also a relative newcomer to Objectivism and still trying to catch up on the full story of what has brought this schism to the community so I can better understand the involvement of the different players, I believe it would be a disservice on Barbara's part if she did not stand up for a person she considers a friend in spite of or maybe more aptly because of her postion in the community. L W

Good one Ciro!

Thanks CNA, My friends send me quite a few, but I am a little hesitant to post a lot of them because they are somewhat off-color and I don't wish to offend anyone. I'm like Kat and can relate to all the above songs since I was born in 1950, but I am not ready for pasture yet and still throughly enjoy life albeit sometimes a step slower. L W

Subject: BABY BOOMERS It was fun being a baby boomer; until now. Some of the artists of the Sixties are revising their hits with new lyrics to accommodate the Baby Boomers. They include: 1. Herman's Hermits: Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Walker. 2. The Bee Gees: How Can You Mend a Broken Hip. 3. Bobby Darin: Splish, Splash, I Was Havin' a Flash. 4. Ringo Starr: I Get By With a Little Help From Depends. 5. Roberta Flack: The First Time Ever I Forgot Your Face. 6. Johnny Nash: I Can't See Clearly Now. 7. Paul Simon: Fifty Ways to Lose Your Liver 8. The Commodores: Once, Twice, Three Times to the Bathroom. 9. Marvin Gaye: I Heard It Through the Grape Nuts. 10. Procol Harem: A Whiter Shade of Hair. 11. Leo Sayer: You Make Me Feel Like Napping. 12 The Temptations: Papa's Got a Kidney Stone. 13. Abba: Denture Queen. 14. Tony Orlando: Knock 3 Times On The Ceiling If You Hear Me Fall. 15. Helen Reddy: I Am Woman, Hear Me Snore. 16. Willie Nelson: On the Commode Again 17. Leslie Gore: It's My Procedure and I'll Cry If I Want To

I like dogs and plan on getting one, but I live in town and my yard is not fenced at the present and there is too much danger of one running into the street and getting hurt. Hope to have a fence up by the end of the year and will probably visit the animal shelter. L W

Fran, While I know next to nothing about Dubai, it sounds like an interesting place to visit, but as far as living there I believe I would have problems with what you state here: "The rules are: you don't speak out against the ruler, you don't speak out against Islam". I would probably wind up in trouble since discretion is often cast aside when it is something I feel strongly about. Here in the U. S. we have plenty of problems, but I can still address them through various means and that includes talking loudly against the leadership as long as I make no threats against their lives. L W

Then if I understand what Barbara is saying, the sense of self identity as pertains to the social metaphysician is not one which is arrived at through self searching and learning by the afflicted(?) individual, but one rather which is borrowed or affected with little thought put into it. The form the prescribed identity is based on is not material to the claim of it being social metaphysics. L W