Robert Jones

I'm a Cafeteria Catholic, and I only eat the desserts. I believe in Christ's divinity, yes, but moreso do I believe -- as even H.L. Mencken noted -- that J.C. was a gentleman, and that's why the Roman goons crucified him. I believe in transubstantiation, that in my stomach the communion wine and wafer become the blood and body of Christ, which is a whole lot more palatable than thinking about what really happens to them. I believe that Pope John Paul II was a great guy, and so was Father Guido Sarducci. I believe that the Knights of Columbus wear less ridiculous hats than the Freemasons and that their Cadillacs are roomier than the clown cars the Shriners drive. I believe that it's better to take religious and ethical advice from Italians and Irishmen than Brits and Germans (excepting of course Pope Benedict XVI). I believe that John F. Kennedy was the closest we ever had to having a direct line to the Vatican in secretly running America, which is also better than having the secret cabal of Freemasons in charge. I believe that movies were more entertaining when the Catholic Legion for Decency was censoring them. I believe that the Jews killed Christ, and that when they drink Manischewitz wine, it transubstantiates into the blood of a gentile child. I believe that lighting prayer candles helps give people who work in the wax industry job security. I believe in worshipping statues of Mary as I dance around my Virgin of Guadalupe grotto I set up on the sidewalk in front of the Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Halls. I believe that the "Chick" tract "The Death Cookie" may be right, and I'm doomed to hell forever. I believe in Purgatory, so I can party some more before I go to heaven. I believe that William F. Buckley, Jr. is the second coming of William F. Buckley, Sr. I believe that attending Novena is a great way to pick up chicks on a slow Wednesday. I believe in and pray on my Rosary. I also believe that finding pennies brings good luck. However, I also believe it's bad luck to recite Hail Marys when fishing in Lake Tahoe in a boat with Al Neri. I believe that altar boys are a great Church tradition, so long as you keep them away from the rectory. I believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury secretly ordered Fidel Castro, Jimmy Hoffa, Lucky Luciano, J. Edgar Hoover, and Meyer Lansky to assassinate JFK. I believe Spencer Tracy would have looked ridiculous as Rabbi Flanagan in "Boy's Town." I believe that the Holy Pontiff with the Guiness World Record for most excommunications is Pope Leonard I. I believe that any episode of Sister Wendy's television programs about art history that doesn't pass muster over at the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights are evil apostacy. I believe that the greatest Catholic contributions to art are Michelangelo's "David," Leonardo's "The Last Supper," and the baptism scene from "The Godfather." I believe that Terry Bradshaw and Lynn Swann were touched by the hand of Our Heavenly Father when they created the Immaculate Reception. I believe that my vote for Rudy Giuliani in the Republican primaries will simultaneously bring Papal rule over America and a return to partial birth abortion. I believe it's a good thing when it's irrelevant what Reverend Dr. James Dobson thinks about my particular branch of Christianity. I believe in the power of confession, so that I can go out and sin again, and again, and again. I believe that the growth on my porch screen door is an apparition of the Virgin Mary. But some days it looks like Jesus weeping, or Elvis singing "In the Ghetto." I believe these things because I am a Good Catholic and Devout Believer. Or so, that's what I'm told I believe. Dominus Illuminatio Mea. Dominus Vorbiscum. Illegitimi Non Carborundum. Amen.

I don't know the meaning of most of those you listed. :shocked: I had no idea that you were in the army, Robert. I thought you were probably 25 or so. Ha, ha, thanks Kori! I'm 25 all right; I think Mars has probably made 25 trips around the sun by now. I'm 42 actually, but with the maturity of a 25 year-old and the body of a 60 year-old.

Like the proverbial broken clock, Rosie O'Donnell is finally precisely right! (Though certainly not at the rate of twice a day!)

It's less than that, of course. For me, too. But that doesn't mean that I also don't have respect and admiration for many, many others for various reasons. I just love human ability, for instance. After all, Wynand was all but in love with Roark. If they weren't heterosexual they would have wound up in bed. The problem is Rand's idea of "man worship." Galt as a god. Since she once thought Nathaniel Branden was Galt with "a few flaws" you can imagine how insane it can be to try to live inside the world of "Atlas Shrugged." One goes around acutely tuned to the appearance of any flaw in others or one's self. You'll be aware of your "flaws" of course, esthetic and moral, and become very adept at living behind a mask. Worse, you can become the mask. --Brant Philip: That might be true about Roark and the fraction of one percent, but Roark was never a jerk to them, in all fairness. I think that this was Rand's literary device -- more than anything else -- of showing the when Roark had friends, few as they were, they were real; as opposed to Peter Keating, who wants to be liked and loved by everyone. HOWEVER, if one takes this literally, and not allegorically, then I can see that this tends to be a problem. You may note that the people who have tended to leave the orthodox Objectivist movement are those who can discern the literal from the symbolic, those who are nimble thinkers, those to whom the spirit of Objectivism is more important than the letter. The more I read the Bible, the more I realise what a stupendous literary work it is -- and a horrible blueprint for living! Brant: I live in the world of "Atlas Shrugged" everyday. It's quite easy, really. You have to set your sights lower than John Galt, however. Me, I'm that hobo with the pressed collar bumming a ride in the vestibule outside Dagny's Pullman compartment.

Darn it, Ed, so that's it? Just an article about looney environmentalists turning off streetlamps? I was hoping from your title for your take, finally, on Death Metal, how Richard Wagner is the spiritual great-grandfather of Type-O Negative, Marilyn Manson, Mercyfull Fate and Slayer ;) :devil:

Oh boy oh boy oh boy! Look out for your copy of TNI, arriving soon in your mailbox!

Good points, and yes, I was only attacking those fundamentalist types. I made it clear in my other posts. Dodger: See, you argue a thing long enough, and you'll find that you've been on the same sheet of music all along, but just playing in counterpoint. I have no use for fundamentalists -- of ANY religion or ANY secular philosophy -- either. There are two ways to look at the world: Fundamentally or allegorically. The nimble mind thinks in terms of the latter. About when people pray for you, however: 1. You just got run over by a bus, you're in the hospital all bandaged-up and a friend says "I'll pray for you." What they mean is "gosh, that's horrible, I hope you get well soon, and I'll ask the almighty to chip in a little on the healing process." As this variety of unsolicited prayer giving is meant with all kindness and sincerity, the correct reply -- even from an atheist -- is "thank you." 2. You just announce to a religious friend that you're an atheist and the friend says "I'll pray for you." What they really mean is "fuck you." As this is their oblique way of saying they are quite certain -- and indeed, perhaps hoping for -- of your soul roasting in hell for eternity, the correct reply is "fuck you, too!"

Dragonfly: My apologies -- I did not realise this was some regularly recurring thing. Now that I do, let me humbly make amends for saying you were playing the "gotcha" game. Given the full context, I now see you were just looking out for the integrity of the boards. Robert.

Kori: I can sympathize with you. I spent 17 years in the military (14 in the Army and 3 in the New York State Guard) and EVERYTHING in the military is an acronym. A soldier gets so loaded up with acronyms that after ten years, he begins to get what's known as "acronym overload," and either can't say anything if it's not an acronym or can't remember what even the most widely-used acronyms mean anymore, like SOL, PDQ, SNAFU and USA!

This man was a Commie Thug for 9/10 of his adult life. His final act, when he became Boris the Populist is a very small redemption in the scheme of things. How much blood did he have on his hands? I think that you forgive too readily but that is just an opinion. Ba'al Chatzaf Bob: I may forgive too readily, but consider this: Had Yeltsin been anything other than a "commie thug," given his profession, he would instead have been Alexander Solzhenitsyn's cell mate. When history came-a-knockin' Yeltsin answered the door. But, I always leave it to you to find a cloud in every silver lining. ;) Please, at least for today, can't we give the man his due? I mean, he faced down Soviet Army tanks.

Lance Armstrong has a new girlfriend every week! He just holds on to his "official" girlfriend a long time, ha ha! Go Lance! ;)

Boris Yeltsin just passed on. What a great man! Gorbachev gets all the credit, but it was Yeltsin who ushered in, briefly, democracy and freedom and oversaw the breakup of the former Soviet Union. He had a lot of guts when the Politburo fell and he did not relent, even though his life was in danger. I hope that when he gets past the pearly gates, he meets up with Ronnie Reagan, Alexander Dubcek and Pope John Paul II, and that they give a great homecoming to Dame Margaret Thatcher and Lech Walesa when its their turn to leave this world (not for a long time, I hope). God bless ye, Boris! If you only loved Russia as much as you loved wodka, you'd still be among us, and be running the nation as a bastion of democracy, and that rat Putin would be on the outside, looking in.

Thanks for clarifying. Cornelius! Ha! Roddy McDowell was a friend of the Reagans I believe. I am a huge Chuck Heston fan! Even though the poor man is suffering from Alzheimers, as a Life Member of the American Redneck Association, Charlton Heston is My President!!! We can all argue about the "God" part, but guns and guts, they made America! Yee hah! Hey, I wish you well, and just remember when you come back if you have to post fewer times, but be the author of your own words it is for the better. I went back to Madame Bovary and have to agree with Barbara Branden on this, though as I am younger than she and older than you, I think it's a generational thing at root. She is from the generation between World War II and Korea; I was born in the first month of Generation X; I believe you are from Generation Whatever. To many younger people, it's no big deal, the cutting and pasting of material across the internet. To them, the web is just one big electronic scrapbook of sorts. However, as someone who's had my writings on classical music literally cut-and-pasted by RCA Records and used on their website, I can sympathize with those who are concerned about the plagiarism problem adhering to us. I am constantly having to have my lawyer send out "cease and desist" letters to people who use my photographs (particularly of Russell Means and an oil rig, which is my most sold image) as their own. Even if just a discussion starter, please keep in mind that writers are very sensitive to having their material lifted and used without their permission. For one, it is an issue of intellectual property rights. But, the second is the most important: Writers are basically slave labor these days, and it is bad enough that we are paid in dirt (disclaimer: TNI pays me fairly) and then seeing our work used by others adds insult to injury. With that said, Victor you're still a great guy in my book. I know you prefer the word artist to cartoonist, but consider this: "Cartoonist" is considerably more lowbrow, and while the word may not generate the same respect as "artist," it lowers people's guard when they are interviewing you. This is one reason as a photographer I don't call myself an artist, but just photographer. Then, when you're interviewed, your audience can always say "wow, he's really articulate for a cartoonist, so intelligent." Just throwing it out there. Remember, Pat Oliphant called himself a "cartoonist." Go forth young man boldly into that good twilight! (To borrow somewhat from a favorite Welsh poet).

One square of teepee? You gotta admit, she's a regular gal! ;)

Goodbye, Victor. Just as I was getting to know ye. Oh, well. You're right. Socialising by internet can suck you in an soon replace real socialising. Find a bowling alley, a bar, throw some darts and down some pints of Guiness for me, eh? By the way, it is so sweet you and Angie are going to meet at Niagara Falls. Here's a tip from me, having been there: You two see it from the Canadian side, much better view than the one on the New York side. Ontario is like my second home. I'm going to get a cabin one of these days near Thunder Bay and play Grizzly Adams. Don't fret the "plagiarism" thing. I can understand the urge to just cut-and-paste to start discussions, and -- my gosh almighty -- this is just a discussion forum, not a peer-reviewed journal. I don't remember who outed you on that but I think given the cirumstances, it would have been more tactful to just have sent you a warning e-mail in private. But, keep in mind you are among Objectivists, so you always run the risk of the "gotcha" game. I mean, really, who goes around ripping off Wikipedia writers to gain notoriety and riches? You'd have done better changing your name to "Gustav"! ;) Well, til later, goodbye. I'll look you up in your neck of the woods and share a Labatt's with you. Keep up the cartoons! They bring a smile to me face. Robert P.S. : I ned to know before you go: IS that monkey on Ronnie Reagan's back Bonzo or Jerry Ford? R

Hey, I know it's not g'bye forever, but it's still sad to see y'all go. 'Twill not be the same, I say! *adjusts monacle* *sigh* Don't worry about the e-mail, homie, I understand you're busy. Hell, I've been so busy as well. I just got done with my last major school project, so I'm pretty much home free. Graduation here I come. BWAHAHA! *sigh of relief* Adjusts monacle???

Victor: What does the monkey on his back (presumably Bonzo) symbolize, if anything? I mean, it doesn't look like your standard issue chimp; he actually sort of looks like Jerry Ford, that is, if Ford were a monkey.

Abortion surely is killing. So is swatting flies, applying antiseptic and pulling weeds. The question underlying the abortion is issue is NOT whether it is killing, but whether it is murder; the termination of a conscious, autonomous sentient being -- i.e. A PERSON. Fetuses are NOT persons, they do not have enough brain tissue or neural interconnections to be persons. Neither are new-born infants. If they aren't persons, then what are they? Answer: they are property, the product of the carrying female who has grown the fetus within her body and nourished it through her own efforts and all to the hazard of her own life. The woman who carries the fetus has the right of disposition. It is NOT a scientific question at all. It is a question of property rights. The woman owns the fetus she has grown in much the same way as she would own crops grown in her own garden in her own soil. She can permit them to grow or plow them under as she chooses. And shame on Nat Hentoff for being such a sentimentalist. Ba'al Chatzaf Bob: I know, I know. I've read every bit of rhetoric about abortion in Objectivist circles, and -- sorry -- find that these arguments, well, are hugely "context dropping," to borrow a phrase. However, my purpose in writing that was not to open up a can of worms on the abortion matter. My gosh, I am very upfront about things and don't use my posts as a Trojan Horse to sneak in any hidden agendas. If I wanted to argue abortion pro and con, I would have done it in a separate thread. I was merely answering Kori and Victor as to why and how I became a Catholic, that's all. Since the matter of abortion was key to that, it would have been both misleading and self-censoring to have left that out. Finally, I have to come to Hentoff's defense here. Nat Hentoff may be a rank sentimentalist about many things: His love for the music of Thelonius Monk and Duke Ellington, his loyalty to friends like A.J. Muste, and so on. However, I think it is injudicious to ascribe Hentoff's eventual anti-abortion beliefs politically as "sentimentalism." Hentoff is a thinker of the first order, and if you are familiar with his writings, then you must come to the conclusion that he formed such beliefs not out of some woozy change of heart, but from remaining intellectually honest with himself. As an intellectual, Hentoff has been my role model, not so much because of changing his mind on abortion, but because he is a consummate thinker. He practices what I consider the hallmark of wisdom: He challenges his own deepest-held principles constantly, and reserves the right to change his mind. Hentoff is the opposite of a dogmatist, he is and has always been an active thinker, in the best sense of the term.

Kori, thanks for having my back there. I really appreciate it. Kori, Victor: It's a rather long story, so I'll try to be succinct. For one, it's not that I "became a Catholic again," though I see how you could infer that based on what I have written. I was raised in an Objectivist household in my early years, though not explicitly atheist, just that we never went to church. My mom and dad also never mentioned Ayn Rand, but my dad always made me prove my assertions with common sense. My questions about God were answered by my mom, who said the Greeks' name for him was Zeus. She said gods were omnipotent beings out of fables, akin to fairies and leprechauns. When I was about 13, Mom got religion and the pendulum swung to the other extreme. We went to a Methodist church (Protestant), which at first glance would seem moderate, but this particular congregation in West Virginia was quite Elmer Gantry. From the age of 14 until I graduated high school, most of the lessons in Sunday school were about how to avoid cults (this was right after Jonestown, and Hare Krishnas, Moonies, Scientologists and Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh were big time in the news then). By the time I was 17, and having learned my lessons well, I was convinced of one thing: That this strident Methodist congregation of which I was a member was a cult. Worse, half of my extended family were members of Jerry Falwell's "Liberty" Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, which I considered -- and still do -- a "cult." Around this time, I also invented communism on my own, totally unaware what it was, though I'd heard of Karl Marx. I was mowing the lawn one day, and gnats and mosquitos were bugging the hell out of me, it was humid and about 98 degrees. After getting $3.00 from my dad, I announced to him -- he was a middle manager at an IBM branch office -- that people who mow the grass should be paid the same wage as people who were middle management for IBM. Later that night (and it wasn't for weeks that I put two and two together on it), I asked my dad if he read any good books. He recommended "Atlas Shrugged," and the rest as they say is history. Being involved in a quite religious family (though my dad was always giving no more than lip service, and to this day has no use for the "Born Agains"), especially my cousins, aunts and uncles in Virginia, when I was 19, I told everybody I was an atheist, and was quite the angry young man. For the next five or six years, I was also a vociferous exponent for pro-choice abortion rights, and basically alienated everyone in my town in West Virginia with the heated rhetoric of my letters to the editor of my hometown newspaper. Like many objectivists, I was convinced that there was not an iota of science to the claims of anti-abortion pro-lifers. Then, when I was about 27 or so -- in my senior year in college -- as an exercise in debate class (I was captain of the debate team), we had the topic of abortion. I was given the negative (anti) side, something I relished, as I loved playing "Devil's Advocate." (This is a funny story, because I was very much Mr. Right Wing libertarian and my debate partner was a flaming bleeding heart liberal Democrat. From our constant bull sessions, which went on into the early hours over coffee at a nearby truckstop, we became an unstoppable team -- no one could defend socialism like I, and he could explain supply-side economics better than David Stockman). Through the course of my research, most of which were not polemical, but medical articles, I came to the conclusion that abortion was indeed killing, though not murder in the legal sense of the term, and that from the time of conception, what we are dealing with is a living, growing, human being. The best arguments from a political standpoint were Nat Hentoff's passionately argued articles against abortion. For years, I had dismissed abortion foes as religious zealots impervious to reason. Yet, here was an opponent of abortion using reason and evidence upon which to base his claims. Further, he wasn't some religionist in disguise using scientific jargon to "put one over" on his readers to advance a hidden agenda. Anyone who knows anything about Nat Hentoff is that his agenda is solely his conscience. He was and is an atheist, and a secular humanist liberal (though today, he leans more libertarian). While I did not always agree with Hentoff (and still only agree half the time), there has been no writer for whom I have greater respect. In graduate college at CUNY Graduate Center, I became a voracious student of the Middle Ages, and theology. I was still an atheist at the time. My biggest infleunce there was a distinguished professor of my personal acquaintance named Dr. Howard L. Adelson. Adelson, though Jewish, often quipped that he was a "professional Catholic," i.e., a scholar of Medieval history. I was a Political Science major, and never took classes from Adelson, but I often visited him in his office. I knew Adelson from working with him on Jewish civil rights and pro-Israel advocacy while at the time I was chief of staff at a Jewish civil rights organization. From him, I gained a wealth of knowledge about the Church, the codification of God's handiwork in the cathedrals of the High Middle Ages, and devoured a book he suggested I read, the "Summa Theologica" by St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas's book is an attempt to square Christian ethics and theology with the philosophy of Aristotle. Objectivists regard this as a brilliantly argued, but ultimately failed attempt to reconcile reason with the divine. I, however, was very open to Aquinas's reasoning, and as a result of his brilliantly-argued thesis, became a believer at this point in a Supreme Being in general (though not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God). At this time, I was also struggling with my previously held pro-abortion beliefs. As I kept researching the issue, I came to the same conclusion as Nat Hentoff (who himself was pro-abortion until well past his 50s). From Hentoff, I learned (on this and so many other issues) that it takes a big man to admit when he's wrong and that with age comes wisdom and tolerance. My choice of the Catholic church is multi-faceted, and oughtn't to be regarded as a wholesale advocacy of their positions. Indeed, I am consistently in agreement more with Objectivists than I am with my own church. The reasons for choosing the Catholic faith are many, but they boil down to the following reasons: 1). The Catholic Church is the home of one of its most highly revered Saints, Thomas Aquinas. 2). Aquinas was an exponent of free will, as is the Church; too many Protestants are either outright hostile to free will (predestination Calvinists) or just downplay it. 3). I made the decision to become a Thomist, that is a Deist who believes in God, but believes also that reason is God's supreme gift to mankind and that it is up to us to act based on our free will. 4). I was already predisposed because of my love of the High Middle Ages instilled in me by Prof. Adelson, and my long love for Renaissance art, which often has deeply pro-mankind depictions of its Biblical subjects. 5). As I now consider myself against abortion, the Catholic church is the one most consistently pro-life, as our side considers itself. 6). Finally, an atheist, Nat Hentoff, made a Catholic of me. I concluded that if there is a God, He must certainly work in mysterious ways, and that one need not believe in order to do God's will, which is best summed up with Christ's dictum "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Hentoff lives by this maxim. Strange at it seems, Hentoff continues to amaze me with his scintillating intellect, and to me his very existence is proof of a benign and loving God. There is a line from Jane Eyre which haunts me to this day, which finds Jane as a little girl grieving over the loss of her friend Helen, who died of pneumonia. Jane wants to give up on the world and run away from school. Her doctor mentor counsels her, wisely, "Do you wish to grow up to do God's will? And who will do God's will? An educated woman? Or an ignorant one?" From this and so much else around me, I have come to reconcile my Catholic faith with my objectivist principles. Out of respect for Objectivism, however, I do not call myself an "Objectivist."

Very good point, and it makes perfect sense. I apologize for the way I have come off to you, but I hope that my explanation of my views has helped shed some light on why I feel as I do, and why I react so harshly to some Christians--It is how I react to anyone who forfeits their mind and ability to make conscious decisions. And as for the truce, hell, after that eye opening post of yours, Im ready to give you a brotherly hug I am pleased too we could both reach an accomodation. TRUST ME, I know what you're going through (see reply to Kori and Victor below). It's just that, and I personally endorse cynicism, but saw something very bitter in your first post. Someone that bitter at so young an age is setting himself up for a miserable existence by age 40. Surely, you don't want that. You would, I presume, prefer to be confident and self-assured. Bidinotto once had a line about frustrated objectivists in middle age that haunts me to this very day: "people with long faces and short resumes." Nonetheless, it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. From time to time I will be out of line too, and don't hesitate to call me on it. Cheers, Rob't

Victor: Funny how you posted this in CHEWING! I have this irrational sensitivity to certain words (see my thread on Leonard Peikoff chewing his Alfabits creeal!) I have had for a long time an irrational aversion to ever seeing or reading Madame Bovary. The name sounds too much like a contraction for BOVINE OVARY. It also brings to mind images of this Victorian woman who looks like a cow, chewing her cud in a grassy field. Because of this, I am psychologically repulsed from ever experiencing Madame Bovary. Do you guys think I need a shrink to address this "chewing phobia" of mine? =)

Simply not true. I made a longer post complaining about your remark, but deleted it when I realized this is some kind of humor thread. --Brant I second that. Roark cared more for people and the human race than most people in the world do. Rand just didn't show this quality of his as much as she could have, probably because it wasn't really essential to the story in her opinion. ~Elizabeth I agree: When Roark found shared values in someone, he was loyal to a fault. The story of Roark and Henry Cameron is a brilliant example of this. There is a passage that was cut from the novel that appears in "The Early Ayn Rand" titled Roark and Cameron, and goes more into depth on Roark's relationship with the old man when Cameron's health was failing. I can see why she cut that, but as a story in itself, it is among her most moving and touching works. Howard Roark was also very charitable, I think, with Gail Wynand. Roark gave Wynand more than his share of the benefit of the doubt, and even while Wynand was wrestling with his own conscience and ultimately betrayed Roark, there was nothing but sadness and forgiveness on Roark's part. The final meeting between the two is simply a tour de force of emotions. To me, the novel's thematic climax is summed up in Wynand's last words to Roark: "Build it as a monument to that spirit which is yours... and could have been mine." So much has rarely been said with so few words. It's beyond eloquence in how Rand condensed all the clash of wills and premises, the heartbreak of betrayal and the compassion of Roark to a man who cannot forgive himself (and so much more) in that one line.

I'm not going to get tied up in a bunch of arguments, I'm just going to say this once: Dodger, as you see this "argument," of course I lose. I think, however, you miss the point entirely: To many people freshly enamored with Ayn Rand and Objectivism, they are suddenly possessed of the urge to go out amongst the people and trumpet their discovery. I've been there myself, as I became an atheist two years after reading "Atlas Shrugged," and remained one until I was in my late twenties. Among many, particularly the young, this can turn into the ugly desire to be a Moral Avenging Crusader. It is not merely enough to disagree with someone, to even think their beliefs are silly and foolish. But, the almost innate need to then get in people's faces, and prejudge them and pronounce moral judgment upon them -- in an unwelcome, uncouth and unsolicited manner -- has become the ugly hallmark of some rabid Objectivists. You just read "Atlas Shrugged." Wunderbar, brilliant, and more power to you. I still re-read it every few years to "refuel" my own soul. But, Ayn Rand never meant her magnum opus to be used as a club to bash people over the heads with, like some union thug. She never meant that, in the pursuit of reason, we drop being *reasonable.* I doubt that you're familiar with the dark side of Objectivism, the scathing moral judgments, the kangaroo courts, the excommunications, the schisms separating the chosen annointed from the profligate apostates, and -- worst in my book -- the unwarranted, unsolicited moral judgment of one's fellows, family, friends and even total strangers. For many years, Objectivists have had adhered to them the label of "cultists," and often not unjustly. This is an irrational and destructive impulse among some who proclaim Objectivism, the thirst in the marrow of one's bones not so much to do the right thing, but to BE right, to be an exemplar of moral perfection. That may be one thing, this type of zealous behavior on the part of the acolyte. However, when this becomes a compunction to take it beyond that, to use one's rightness as a sword with which to smite the transgressors, the heretics, the (dare I say it) Infidel, then this steps into the realm of what Robert Bidinotto rightly called "intrinsicism." This is referring to Immanuel Kant's notion that people need only be vessels of moral rectitude, that the purity of their knowledge and motives is sufficient, actions and choices and exercise of free will take a big back seat in Kant's world. When I read a screed like the one above, I can only see it as "militant intrinsicism." About five years ago, some college kids started a Yahoo! user group called "Romantic Realists," or some such name, a place for the artists, writers and musicians among us to congreagate, and share our works in a generally benevolent fashion. It was a great idea, and even drew in people like Bidinotto, Marsha and John Enright, and even (I think) Barbara Branden. Ah, but that wasn't obviously morally correct enough for this passel of rabid, younger members. These were some (presumably) college kids who jumped all over John Enright in one of their crusades, savaging his character, questioning his sanity and generally sitting as a board of moral arbiters condeming him mercilessly for what were mostly imaginary transgressions. These kids had a field day with assassinating his character, because such concepts as tolerance, good will and giving the benefit of the doubt were foreign to them. What mattered to them solely was that they *were right* and John *was wrong.* My recommendation is to read about this ugly history of the Objectivist movement up front before proceeding further. Books like Barbara Branden's "The Passion of Ayn Rand," Nathaniel Branden's "Judgment Day," David Kelley's "Truth and Toleration," and so many numerous articles on the Internet about the famous Objectivist show trials and excommunications of people like Robert and Beatrice Hessen, George Reisman and Edith Packer, and Per-Olof Samuelsson. Consider these shocking stories of friendship and loyalty betrayed. Then, you will see why some of us here are very sensitive when we see moralizing hooliganism posing as ethical consistency. I am religious, but am very sympathetic to atheists, and even their reasons for being so. If not, then the five people who've most influenced me -- atheists all -- would not have been allowed into my pantheon. But, these atheists, while being intransigent, never stooped to the level of those they claimed to be combatting. I urge you to check out the works of Nat Hentoff, H.L. Mencken, Robert A. Heinlein and Kurt Vonnegut in addition to those of Ayn Rand's. In addition, I also recommend Aquinas's "Summa Theologica." You need not agree with any or all of what these writers have to say, but just please keep in mind that wisdom comes from finding shared values with people whom we would otherwise disagree with. That said: Truce?

Which do you think will happen first: 1. A kind of "protestant reformation" will transform Islam or 2. Islamic crazies will get a hold of weapons of mass destruction, possibly radiological bombs or even full bore nuclear fission weapons and they will take out New York City (where the Jews are) or Washington D.C.. ????? Ba'al Chatzaf Hey, listen, here's the thing: I have to be honest, I'm inclined to think the latter will happen before the former. I only wish our leaders of both parties understood the gravity of the situation and stopped playing politics and got on this like they should. Both parties are consumed with power lust and don't give a whit about stopping these insane people. That said, what am I to do on the other hand? Give up? No. When I see someone like Irshad Manji, my heart goes out to her. Of course I know she's in a miniscule minority. But, you've got to start somewhere. I do not think that her's is the only path to stopping this madness. I think that Trident submarines in the Persian Gulf are our best friends right now. But, one of the smart things Edmund Burke said was how evil prevails when good people do nothing. Irshad Manji, who's braver than you or I or anyone else on the planet, is not doing nothing. At the risk of her life, she is doing a whole lotta something. She wants to return Islam to reason, evidence, science, cosmopolitan art and culture, and debate. I must honor that, for if I don't then honor doesn't exist anymore. She is my hero.

This quote is so spot on I just had to point it out to the parents around here. For the last week or so, the theme on the every day thread has been children/parents, so go take a look at February 4–10 for some good insights from Nathaniel Branden's Self-Esteem Every Day. The above quote is from February 6. Kat That is so important. I make every day an adventure for my 19 month year old boy, Evan. My biggest success is that I've taught him to be cautious, but not fearful, of heights and of falling down. The first time he fell down when he was learning to walk, and he cried, my instinct was to run to him, hold him and tell him it would be all right. But it was just a fall, he can recover. So, I looked at him and firmly said "get up," making an upward motion with my hand. He got up, stopped crying and then I went to him and dried his tears. Because of this, when he falls now, he doesn't cry or even pout; he gets right back up again, sometimes smiling all the while. When he climbs stairs on his own, he never runs up them, but goes up slowly using the bannister. He is a very confident child, yet has a good, kind, heart, and shares everything since the age of six months -- very mature -- not because I even taught him, but because there is something benevolent in his nature that gives him joy to give something to others. He understands he is a capable child with something to offer others.