Judith

Dagny gets my vote. Nothing about her rings false or unrealistic to me. I think everyone agrees that Galt is not drawn well or fleshed out. Judith

Can't agree with the last one -- at least not if it's in the context of "do you know why I pulled you over?" or "do you know how fast you were going?" The correct answer to those questions is always some form of "no". Their purpose is to gain from you an admission that can be used in a court of law -- and is also a fishing expedition in case they get lucky. Maybe they pulled you over because your tail lamp is out and you go and admit that your inspection is out of date, which they hadn't noticed. Maybe their radar clocked you at 73 and you admit to 76, which pushes you up into another bracket. Etc. You have absolutely nothing to gain from answering those questions with anything other than some polite negative. Judith

Phil, who writes Wikipedia? Have you seen any of the articles by those challenging "climate change" who say that when they try to put anything about their own views up there the articles are taken down in a matter of minutes? No it isn't. It's also intended to cover the increased incidences of hurricanes and any other unpleasant weather that "environmentalists" want to blame on humans. I agree with these points. But would you say that these so-called "definitions" would be agreed upon by one's opponents in a debate? These aren't definitions. Yes. That's the proper definition of environment. Again, who writes Wikipedia? This so-called definition is devoid of meaning. If not on Earth, then where? Is the term "environment" meaningful with respect to anyplace other than Earth as long as we're unaware of alien life forms? They've taken the term and applied it to the entire freaking planet. Nowhere on Earth is not "The ENVIRONMENT" by this definition, and that's the exact intention. And, by means of arguments such as David's and mine, one must attempt to make people aware of such attempts to subvert meanings. I think it has been made DELIBERATELY vague, for the reasons I've stated above and in my previous posts. Exactly. One must be able to define them when one's opponents cannot, and one must always say what one means and mean what one says. And one must also define the opponent's terms when the opponent refuses to do so -- which is what this subject is really all about. Nonsense. By pointing out attempts to muddy the waters and by calling things by their right names one brings clarity to the table and subvert's one's opponent's attempts to confuse people. I think we're talking past each other here. I suspect we have different views about the meaning of "definition". Judith

Yeah, I always hope I can think of the right wisecrack on the fly. "Ma'am, do you know Jesus?" "Yeah! Jesus Martinez. Mows my lawn. Great guy. I see you've met him too." (*blink*; *silence*) "See ya. Gotta go." "I mean Jesus Christ." "Hmm. No, I don't know a Jesus Christ, but I do know Mike Crist. He pronounces it with a short "i", though. He's a lawyer down the street. Owns a BMW. Maybe he's a relation to Jesus Christ." "Ma'am, I mean Jesus Christ, the lord of the universe." "Hmm. No, none of Mike's relatives have any delusions of grandeur. He and his family are known for humility, even though he's a lawyer. Well, gotta go..."

Do they? Or have they just heard it so many damned times that they THINK they know what it means? Repetition and familiarity can sometimes substitute for knowledge, but when you ask someone to define a term like that, they end up waving their hands around their heads and saying, "Well, YOU know -- EVERYONE knows what that means...". Back in the '60s when people first started talking about this stuff, they used concrete terms. "Pollution" is a concrete term that one can understand. That's probably why no one talks about "pollution" anymore. What in hell is "environmental degradation"? "Climate change" was recently invented when "global warming" was discredited and is intended to include global warming, global cooling, and whatever the hell else they want to blame on humans, and as such is inherently vague. Resource depletion again is concrete and capable of being understood. Judith

I've read it. It's quite a lot of fun. Not top-of-the-line Vince Flynn quality thriller material, but I kept reading to the end, which says something... Judith

I was delighted to see this article by David. I've often thought, when people say, "Don't you care about 'The ENVIRONMENT'?", "WHICH environment? I care very much about my own environment, but a man sitting alone in his apartment in Sao Paulo, Brazil smoking a cigar is polluting his environment, and I couldn't care less." Judith

It's certainly true for many of the great inventions. They've come from people outside of the field, who didn't know that it "couldn't be done". Pasteur comes to mind off the top of my head, but there are many others. And you're right -- it's easier said than done. It's hard to un-know what one knows. Judith

That is freaking amazing. ATCAG is one of the most important books in my library. I stumbled across it in the school library when I was a grad student, about a year and a half after I became an atheist (and before I had read Ayn Rand), and it was wonderful to find in cogent form the arguments I had formed somewhat intuitively in my own mind and to find other superb arguments as well that supported my new and lonely position. I bought my own copy as soon as I found a source for it. Judith

I looked back at my own list and tried to see what they all had in common. They were all grandly heroic in some sense or other; none were comedies; all moved and inspired me on some deep personal level; many had scores written by master composers that I listen to apart from the films. Judith

No military background whatsoever. Just a wannabe... Judith

Spartacus. Slaves revolt against imperial Rome -- and come damned close to winning. Humans carry themselves like proud humans who know their worth instead of like animated meat. Beautiful love story, wonderful friendships, great acting, intense drama, unapologetic romanticism, fantastic Alex North score. My favorite movie of all time, hands down. Judith

Life is great! I hope you're doing well. Judith

Off the top of my head (I'm sure I'm missing quite a few here): Spartacus Ben-Hur (1959) Balto Contact Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World Apollo 13 The Heart of Me Ladyhawke JFK Das Boot Original Star Wars trilogy Braveheart Star Trek I and II Beauty and the Beast (Disney animated) Now, Voyager Rocky I, II, IV Batman Begins (2005) The Dark Knight (2008) Batman (1989) Batman Returns (1992) Ordinary People Judith

I bought the first five seasons of the series on disc and watched them for the first (and only) time in marathon sessions, seeing the entire season in one sitting. I felt that way about the character and the show -- until Bauer killed Ryan Chappelle in Season 3 or 4. After that, I was so disillusioned by the character I stopped watching the show. Judith

Rozsa was the MASTER. Thank you for that, George. There've been more than a few times when I've felt down or low, and happened to hear something by him, and been powerfully pulled back to a deep sense of who and what I am -- and to the joy, and glory, and possibilities of what it means to be human and alive. Judith

Perhaps we read too much into her choice. After all, she had to make it a FICTIONAL university, and there are already universities named after Washington and Jefferson, the obvious choices.

I'm sorry to say that "taut, arrogant thighs" is an exact quote from a romance novel I read many, many years ago. The book is long forgotten, but the phrase was unforgettable. A good example of why I mostly detest the genre. Judith

Mike -- I didn't mean to imply any such thing. I'm sorry it seemed that way to you. I was trying to distill some of the essential components of "romance" that many women find in romance novels and can't always put into words. I was also writing, not only for you, but for the benefit of any other guys who cared to hear hints from women about what works with them. It's not uncommon to see women swooning over some film actor -- say Kevin Costner. Their men say, "Oh, hell -- I can never compete with that. I'll never look like that." But if one looks at Costner, he's not really very good-looking. It's what he DOES with what he has on film -- the way he looks at a woman, etc. -- that women find so hot. Judith

Take a look at the Harlequin website. There are different lines with different emphases. I can't stand most romance novels, but I've enjoyed a few. Some are plot-driven, some are relationship-driven (which I can't stand), some are more explicit than others, some are historical, some are suspense-related, and there are even some supernatural lines coming out. Doranna Durgin's books are very, very good. She's written some kick-butt spy-type romance books and has a couple of shape-changer supernatural books out recently. I wouldn't let the supernatural part put you off; it's just part of a fantasy fiction world-building exercise like any other science fiction/fantasy novel (at which she excels). Unlike some romance novels, which drown you in "heaving bosoms" and "taut, arrogant thighs", her books put the relationships in the context of a tight, suspenseful plot while yet showing a hero that any woman would want. Judith

Hi, Mike -- Let me add some comments to Ginny's. The most romantic, sexiest thing you can do for a woman is to give her your full, undivided attention. Do you look at her when she talks? Do you listen patiently without interrupting? If the phone or doorbell rings during an important conversation, can you ignore it? Do you give her your full attention when she talks, without doing something else at the same time? She can tell if you're thinking about baseball when she's talking to you about feelings. Do you do this, not occasionally, but ALL THE TIME? For most men, this sounds like an impossible demand, but what does "I love you" imply if not "I am truly interested in what you have to say"? A close second to attention is respect. Do you take her seriously? Do you ever say anything disparaging about her thoughts, feelings, suggestions, proposals? Including indirectly, such as by proposing something else, changing the subject, etc.? This isn't to say you aren't supposed to have your own ideas and express them, but there's an attitude that a lot of men convey toward women without realizing it that what the woman says, does, feels isn't important, valid, worthy of time or thought. Think hard about it before you decide, "This isn't me." Judith

As stated, it doesn't seem that difficult. He has an exclusive business, i.e., no competition. Some people shave themselves and don't use his services. And he shaves himself as well. Judith

I'd like to see the development of habitable space stations, so there could be an unlimited number of them, and people could form as many independent societies as they wished. There would be literally no limit to the number of splinter societies that could form, with peaceful coexistence and commerce between them, and one could simply ignore those one didn't like. Decent self-defense capabilities, coalitions among small societies to prevent aggression by big outsiders -- it could work. Judith

!!!!! Uh -- why? I do hope, even though I won't live to see it, that the private sector manages to open up space. I think it's the only real hope for freedom. People need to be able to get away from each other when they disagree; otherwise they kill each other. It's why no-fault divorce by either party to a marriage should be easily available; it's preferable to murder. Space, as the old Star Trek TV show said, is the final frontier, and it's pretty damned big; easy to find a place of one's own... Judith

Why not take it from the horse's mouth? A few years ago some woman reporter (Katie Couric, maybe? I didn't see it myself, only heard about it second-hand) interviewed guys in Iraq -- snipers, I think -- and asked, "What do you feel when you shoot an Iraqi and see him die?" and the guy deadpanned in response: "Recoil." Judith