Alfonso Jones

Adam -

I am greatly encouraged by the responses of many to the encroachments on liberty. I suspect that many from the latter two decades of the 18th century would be using words such as tyranny to describe the current situation.

For an interesting exercise - reflect on what your grandparents had to say about Social Security and other such encroachments on liberty. So many found it totally unacceptable, even at the extremely modest (by current standards) financial levels.

Bill P

Where are the Taliban kidnap squads when you really need them?

Can someone tell me why this moron was in Afghanistan on New Years?

Adam

Feeling much safer when she is out of the country

She probably didn't have to undergo the routine security measures to which the rest of US citizens are subject.

This is a broad issue, in my opinion: Enabling politicos at a sufficiently senior level to be exempt from the things they make ordinary citizens subject to removes one natural form of feedback.

Example in another context: NOt a few of the problems of the "big 3 US automakers" with customers were rooted in the way the senior executives obtained their vehicles - no need for them to go to the dealer, no need to go through the deceptive and manipulative negotiation process.

Bill P

There's no great mystery about the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

It has always been primarily the work of Chris Sciabarra. And for over a year Chris's illness took a far worse turn than it had for a long time.

Now that Chris successfully avoided Surgery #8, and expects to be well enough to undergo some other needed medical procedures, JARS will be moving again.

And there are plenty of articles in the pipeline.

It was Chris Cathcart who, without inquiring as to what might be going on, chortled over what he imagined was the demise of JARS.

Lindsay Perigo just picked it up and rechortled it.

Who is left to whisper anything to Perigo backstage?

Robert Campbell

Robert -

Good news on two fronts:

1) It sounds as if Chris got some relatively good news in the health department.

2) The pipeline containing a good supply of articles

Bill P (who has served as an AE for quite a few journals and is used to working/managing the pipeline)

Why do I need the posthumous rationalizations of a fourth rate mind to understand her?.

Joel -

That is a wonderful question. I've often mulled about the related question: Does anybody really find that those in the Church of the Orthodox ILLUMINE Rand's very clear writing? Did Rand have her faults - yes. But lack of clarity was not one of them.

I'm reminded of a comment made by someone who I don't remember - "The Bible certainly illuminates the commentaries." Work for Rand and those who would "explain her," also.

Bill P

Subject: Phil's Puzzle for Monday

We have a lot of people on this board with some math or science or technical education. A question just occurred to me. I'm wondering if anyone knows whether in math there is a -general- method to fit a function (create an actual equation)to data points. It would be extremely useful in the real world in hundreds of areas.

Math and scientific applications as you study them in textbooks are regularly about starting with an equation or function and then applying it, using it to see what data is derived from it. (If I know the rate of fall of an object, I can tell you at what time it will hit the earth; if I know the force of gravitational attraction ...) But what about GOING THE OPPOSITE WAY? Often what you know is the data and you would love to find a function that most closely quantifies or 'formulaizes' it.

Let me give an example to make it clear the sort of thing I'm looking for: We have census numbers for the population of major cities in the U.S. (and perhaps even around the world) -- or even population of countries -- for each decade stretching back a century or more. What is the best equation that fits that data?

You could use a graphing calculator and experiment: draw a number of polynomials (ax*n + bx*n-1....+z)and see which comes closest to the data points. Once you have an equation, the first derivative would tell you at what rate the population is or has been growing. And the second derivative tells you whether the growth is slowing down or speeding up. And by how much.

Very useful information. But the problem is if you can induce or derive an equation or function in the first place. (And polynomials are not the only kinds of functions or necessarily the best fit. For example, bacteria and disease grow or spread exponentially due largely to basic rules of reproductive biology.)

Phil -

THere is an abundance of methodology of this sort. The most commonly known one is called regression, in which the criterion of fit is the sum of squared "mistakes" (difference between the value given by your function/equation and the value in the data = the mistake, called the "residual"). The method of least squares minimizes the sum of the squared residuals by choice of the unknown parameters in the equations. See almost any applied low-level statistics textbook (say, sophomore level).

I'm not certain where you are going with this. I have a PhD in the field of statistics and can steer you to reading if you want to learn about the large amount of methodology which has been developed over many decades to handle such problems. There are a variety of different criteria (pros and cons of these can be described), and the associated algorithms, etc... The properties of the lease squares estimators (ordinary regression) are those discussed in most elementary statistics textbooks.

Under the acronym "GLM" you can find a broad variety of other methodologies, of which the above is a special case.

Let me know what is of interest...

Bill P

It's pretty obvious he just came here to pretty much bomb and take over OL as long as he could get away with it. Unlike Xray, I don't think he's going to be able to adapt to his new stricture.

--Brant

Yep. He seems to have nothing to contribute, and no understanding of Rand/Objectivism.

That sort of poster makes me think about what a LARGE number 5 is.

Bill P

Why would any rational person celebrate Christmas?

. . . when there are 14 currently live threads by RagJohn to read?

Those threads are the lumps of coal in our stockings, Ted.

Bill P

Ayn could easily have said the same thing in 1/4 as many pages. It REALLY drags, and that makes the reader miss some important points. Her non-fiction, by contrast,is much, much better, some of the very best writing ever put on paper or screen.

I suspect that the reason for making such a statement is that you missed most of the point of Atlas Shrugged. I find AS to be extremely compact - packed with fascinating plot, characterization and implications.

I suggest the following exercise: Try to summarize the content of Galt's speech more succinctly, her coherently and giving the support for the results (not just a "standing on one foot" summary). See how well that works, how successful you are at cutting it to 25% of the current length.

Bill P

YOu are using the concept "right to defend national borders" in an equivocal sense.

Sense 1 (by allusion to common usage of the phrase): Defend borders from invasion by troops of another nation. OF COURSE there is a right to self-defense.

Sense 2: Preventing immigration.

Yes on 1, No on 2.

Sense 2 - - - silly as a matter of policy to prevent immigration with the POSSIBLE exception of immigration of someone with identifiable hostile intent (terrorism)

Bill P

If you can't answer the question, why post? Black Jack Pershing put an end to the Muslim Insurrection by capturing about 40 of them, making them watch troops greasing belts of machinegun ammo with hog lard. Then he made them dig a pit, and get into it. Then he had the troops pour hog guts all over them, and released them. He told them"Now, go tell your friends what you have seen us do". Since contact with hog-fat condems a Muslim to hell, he's no longer willing to suicide attack anyone. End of problem. Today, they are not THAT serious about the Koran, so you have to nuke their cities, kill every Muslim male over the age of 6, burn all the Korans, blow up all the mosques and minarets, or you can't win and might as well just withdraw from the area and stop wasting your money on Isreal. They will nuke the Muslims for you, actually, and you can just remain above it all.

RagJohn,

I'm glad you made this post because you helped me figure out what to do. I don't have time this holiday season to run behind every one of your posts to see if the blatant racism you display here is present. Your posts tend to be extremely varied in content, from interesting to void of any intellectual content to disgusting like above.

You did 54 posts or so yesterday and today you have reached 39, and it's still early afternoon.

That's too much when crap like the above is put in among the flood.

So it's five posts a day if you wish to keep posting here.

And if there are any more of the kind above, I will simply delete them.

Michael

Thanks, Michael.

Bill P

Welcome to OL, Tim.

Bill P

It looks as if this warning is greatly exaggerated. For the skinny, see the Snopes report:

http://www.snopes.co...us/postcard.asp

Ghs

For many such messages, the message IS the virus - in that it provokes a cascade of folks forwarding the "warning."

Bill P

Bah! Humbug!

Ba'al Chatzaf

You're getting predictable, Bob!

Bill P (Imagining Bob in the starring role in a certain Dickens Christmas tale, perhaps as performed by George C. Scott...)

Best of wishes for Chris. An honorable man.

Bill P

Angle lost because she was honest enough to take on 2 3rd rails. Social Security and Medicare whilst other Republicans like to dance around the issue. Also her political base was split up with some other people running more or less on the same political ground.

David:

You are incorrect. She lost because the Republican Senate Committee refused to finance a "ground game." This is my area of expertise. The "air war" was fought to a draw. By that we mean TV/media advertising. Other than the Christian coalition, she had a poor under financed election day operation.

This cost her the election.

That us a fact.

Adam

Well put, Adam. This was my impression also, but you (as someone with much better knowledge) can speak with authority.

Sad, very sad, that Harry survived because of this.

Bill P

Folks:

I will provide some backup but I have the Republicans taking upwards of seventy-five (75) seats as of right now.

Eight to nine Senate seats at a minimum.

32 to 35 Governorships at a minimum.

One early bell weather of how big this "wave" may, or may not be, are two (2) Congressional seats in Kentucky the 3rd and the 6th:

* Chandler, Ben, Kentucky, 6th D Chandler* D Garland Barr R Rep +9 Possible switch

C. Wes Collins WI Randolph S. Vance WI

* Yarmuth, John A., Kentucky, 3rd D Yarmuth* D Todd Lally R Likely Dem +2 possible Switch

Michael Hansen I Edward Martin L

Both of these Democrats ate new and young. Since the Kentucky polls close at 7 PM, if:

Both are lost - the "wave" will be of historic magnitude.

If it is split one win and one loss the "wave" will be significant probable just short of my seventy-five (75) probably 65 to 69.

If they both win, the "wave" will be a relatively normal off year with a slight uptick probably around 45 to 50.

Adam

Let's hope you are correct in your assessments, Adam.

Regards,

Bill P

Now, this is funny.

Bill P

I may (will) be back next year for more conversation. Right now Mom is dying, in slow motion. She's tough but demented. She insists on living every minute of her life--a life I've saved several times but I've run out of tricks. I just hope she makes it to her 96th on the 25th. All those brains reduced to simple humanity. A PhD in English literature, she once took 24 semester hours and aced every course. It's hard for me to bear. Everyone else I've loved who has died has died in the hospital, except my sister Patricia. Mom will die at home, I swear. She may die tonight. I don't think she will, but it's time to put her to bed. Ruth Brant (Gaede) Davis. That's where I got my name. I never believed that it came from getting it from her father, Irving Brant. She named me after her. She even started a school for me, the Tucson Community School, for pre-schoolers, still going strong. It was for socialization, but I needed brainization. No matter, I did that on my own.

Thank you for this wonderful forum, Michael.

--Brant

Brant -

Best wishes. You will be missed. Keep us posted.

Bill P

Well, . . . . .

1) The homeowner was stupid. He should have paid the insurance back when the offer was made at the beginning of the year (or whenever). And to hope that the firefighters would put out the fire when he was only willing (per the report) to reimburse FOR ALL COSTS to put out the fire was unreasonable, in fact ridiculous. The price was to pay the $75 at the beginning of the year. He turned down that offer.

2) I wish the firefighters had put out the fire (perhaps asking him quickly to commit to pay $X for their services, $X being considerably in excess of the marginal cost of putting out the fire).

Note: If a homeowner just has to pay the marginal cost of putting out the fire, that is surely a better deal for him (in expectation) than properly priced insurance.

Bill P

Well, . . . . .

1) The homeowner was stupid. He should have paid the insurance back when the offer was made at the beginning of the year (or whenever). And to hope that the firefighters would put out the fire when he was only willing (per the report) to reimburse FOR ALL COSTS to put out the fire was unreasonable, in fact ridiculous. The price was to pay the $75 at the beginning of the year. He turned down that offer.

2) I wish the firefighters had put out the fire (perhaps asking him quickly to commit to pay $X for their services, $X being considerably in excess of the marginal cost of putting out the fire).

Note: If a homeowner just has to pay the marginal cost of putting out the fire, that is surely a better deal for him (in expectation) than properly priced insurance.

Bill P

As we grow older, we become more firmly and openly the person we really are. Leonard Peikoff is not senile. He is merely Leonard Peikoff.

Barbara

Barbara -

Well and succinctly put. And chilling.

I wonder how many other self-styled Objectivists refrain from Peikoff-like behavior only because nobody is willing to yield any "authority" to them.

Bill P

Michael -

It will be painful. But it is long time past time for "Objectivism" to become more Objectivist.

Ironically, "faith and force" must be banished.

Bill Parr

Ed -

As we have come to expect from you, another well-reasoned and well-written piece.

I have to concur that some of the "Tea Party" favorites such as Angle and O'Donnell are lacking in credibility. The only arguments in their favor are "they aren't the other one, who seems much worse."

Bill Parr

<<<"

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

">>>

Did Jefferson really say "allow PRIVATE banks to control..." as you say above?

That seems very strange, in the context of the rest of the quote. I wonder if the quote may be spurious.

Bill Parr

"You have to go through an interim period, after you know the proof of the right ideas, where you say, 'I'm not asking those questions, I am not voicing those doubts; I am turning off that whole context even though I want to pursue it. Even though I feel it is essential to my being clear about this issue. I am resisting this feeling - I look at it as neurotic or diseased or at minimum erroneous. In any event it is a part if my thought which is built in but which I am in process of repudiating.

"Now if you follow that process, ultimately you will automatize, stabilize, institutionalize the right context. And then when you return to the old questions, doubts and problems, you will undoubtedly have the experience that I did, because I went through this experience many times - had all these burning questions, but I said I am going to get Objectivism, to hell with all those questions, I just won't ask them, and it was almost like they were 'banned in Boston' and they couldn't come up. But then of course I was conscientious, I never forgot what they were, I just didn't think about them. When I finally did get Objectivism solid in my mind, I returned to those old questions you know with a certain degree if trepidation that well, now I am ready to take them on, and I found that the great majority seemed puerile to me pointless, silly, needless."

This is an actual, published statement?

Does anyone have the page number?

Ted -

As Barbara said, it's in Peikoff's course on The Art of Thinking. I have the CDs, and remember that. I'm not saying it is a verbatim quote, but it agrees in meaning with my memory from listening to the CD.

Regards,

Bill P