algernonsidney

You may remember that Borders suppressed an issue of Free Inquiry because of the cartoons. I quit going to Borders right after that. I personally would love to see them printed all over the place. In fact, if I had the money, I might get a small plane and drop them over some Muslim enclave. And if you want to organize a public Koran burning, you can invite me. I don't see very many people in this country calling for Sharia law. There was one very beautiful Muslim girl working out at Dell when I was there. Other than the fact that she wore long sleeves in the Texas summer, she seemed pretty normal to all of us. We have generally attracted good Muslims here. They are doctors, engineers, scientists. Europe attracts the garbage because of their welfare state. Europe generally also disarms peaceful citizens. If you want to fight Sharia law, then propose something better like a society based on the non-aggression principle. I believe in the non-aggression principle. It's the same reason why I am against this war and America's military adventures in general. I'm interested in fighting ideas with ideas. You are the one who wants to kill everyone who disagrees with you.

I haven't seen many of your posts. You seem to be in the middle. I also respect the fact that you have actually lived abroad. People who have been around the world generally have a more sensible attitude toward issues like American imperialism. My point is that it is hopeless to try to convince them. I'm mainly trying to convince the anti-war people that such people are a lost cause. I have never seen people who are so dedicated to their own delusions. Even many veterans are coming out against the war. Have the war hawks ever asked themselves why? It's everywhere in Objectivism. By saying that the warhawks are hopeless, isn't this just following the typical Objectivist tactic? Rand declared Branden evil in 1968, and it had nothing to do with philosophy. Rand then alienated everyone else with the exception of a worthless Peter Keating parasite who is now running her entire ship into an iceberg. The standard Objectivist tactic is simply to shun people and declare that they aren't worth talking to. Well, I'm doing that with the warmongers. And he does good work. I think CMS is the best Objectivist scholar out there. I know about his health issues and why he doesn't travel. I went out of my way to meet him back in 2004. We had some pizza for lunch, and then I went to an event at FEE. He's a great host. I have only encountered Diana Hsieh. I have no experience with the others. I was perhaps the only person who was not surprised by what Diana did. I knew her character was extremely questionable all the way back in 1996. This was back when she was programming the IOS web site. They even started inviting her to speak, and she did until she broke from them. Unfortunately, it kind of showed that IOS/TOC/TAS was already somewhat doomed. I was kind of happy when her actions finally proved me right. Would I use reason with someone like her? It would be absolutely useless.

Phil's been involved forever, it seems. His involvement goes back to the 1960's, I think. Anybody who has been around as long as he has will be concerned about it. Most of them don't stick around as long as Phil has. They just get fed up with all the baloney and leave. On the whole, Phil's contributions have been positive. Is it possible to have an Objectivist movement without the baloney? I don't know. So far, it has not been done. The movement has been trying and failing for 50 years.

It's a lot easier if you have just have really low expectations. Still, it's hard to bring them down after the very high expectations I had in 1995 when I first attended an IOS seminar. When you do meet the shrinking minority of good ones, you are then pleasantly surprised. The greatest enabler of the duopoly is the legacy media. Their hold on people is already starting to crack. I get most of my news from the new mainstream media--the Internet.

The alcoholic also denies that he is an alcoholic. Just as it is pointless to reason with alcoholics about their alcoholism, it is also a lost cause to reason with war mongers about their war mongery. Of course, the alcoholic only harms the people who are closest to him (unless he drives while drunk). The war monger, on the other hand, is much more destructive. He has a hand in the deaths of millions. I've been around enough so-called Objectivists to have seen all this way too many times. Back in 1995, when I first attended an IOS seminar, I never imagined that the movement would sink as low as it has. I was actually very optimistic when I went there. It's a pretty common story--a young person reads Rand and is enthralled. The reader decides to reach out to others who also like Rand. He meets them personally and today "meets" them in forums like this one. Within a few years, he leaves Objectivism in total disgust because of the people he encounters. If he's lucky, he keeps a few of the good ones in his life. Even Chris Matthew Sciabarra doesn't come to boards like this. I finally met him in 2004 and have known him since 1996. He doesn't go to boards like this because he's totally fed up.

If you are so terrified of all these people, then put up or shut up. Stop being a keyboard jockey. I hear that the military is really desperate now. They could use you and your all-powerful brain. Maybe you could convince the military or Blackwater that they should start setting up the gas chambers now--that's what you really want. It seems that you would rather sit back, eat pretzels, drink beer, and watch the game on television. You love to watch the game. But you never put on a uniform and actually get out there in the trenches--do you? I have no desire to play the game. I have no desire to see it happen.

It doesn't help that they are being told to do more and more work that they shouldn't be doing. I have met guys from LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) who seem pretty cool--they are cops who want to legalize drugs. Acton had a rule for this: "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupt absolutely." I think police officers would be better if they just went back to protecting. I lived in Columbus for six years (1998-2004). From 1987 to 2002, I never got a speeding ticket. I got another in 2003 and 2006. I am convinced that they got more arrogant after the WTC. I don't think my driving changed much. Drive a red car for ten years. I bought it because it was a good car and a great deal. I never imagined all the harassment I would get because of it. I remember up near Ashtabula one of them followed me for about six miles. He eventually gave up because we got close to the state line. Work is something a lot of people don't want to do. It also takes a lot of time. It's easier for some to just repeat what they are told and stay in their comfort zone. I believe Rand once said: "You can evade reality. You can not evade the consequences of evading reality." I am a Wikipedia addict. That was also created by an Objectivist.

Rich, With or without Jones, there is plenty of stuff out there. All one has to do is look up the name Sibel Edmonds to see what things are coming to here. To their credit, the _London Times_ did give her some press. I doubt that her story will never see the light of day in an American newspaper. Woodward and Bernstein would have never gotten any press today. Watergate would have been dismissed as the third-rate burglary that it was. It wasn't the break-in that got Nixon in trouble. It was the fact that he tried to cover it up. I'm willing to accept any evidence from credible sources on what happened at the WTC. Still, I do think Hanlon's Razor applies to many things like this. Basically it says: "Never attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by stupidity." With regard to the WTC, there is plenty of evidence of stupidity. The biggest failure was that the government made sure that the pilots could not defend their planes. That was one of the few good things that came out of that fateful day. Right after the WTC, people started buying guns. While they said in polls that they trusted the government, their actions demonstrated that they knew that they were the only ones who would defend themselves. I have seen Jones make quite a few errors, though, much like the legacy media that he despises. If people who worked for the legacy media would just do their jobs, then Alex Jones would be out of business. As long as CNN, MSNBC, and other simply repeat the lies that they are fed, then someone like Alex Jones will be necessary. One part of the legacy media where journalists still are honest is in the world of sports. If it's about politics, forget it.

And what exactly is wrong with this? Only Americans can correct the mistakes that Americans have made. Only Americans can improve themselves. I am coming to understand why so many Rand readers have embraced this war. They have an attitude: "I am unimprovable and am here to judge everyone else. If these people disagree with me, they are 'evil'" Translated to foreign policy, this is: "America is perfect. Every other country is flawed. We must correct this flawed world. If they refuse us, then they are 'evil' and must be killed before they kill us." With such paranoid delusions, I wonder how these people sleep at night. After all, if you go to sleep, you are already letting down your defenses. Personally, I don't want to have that kind of view of the world. I think Rand often said that the universe is benevolent. Paranoid delusions aren't consistent with this.

That's too bad. I certainly would have take some of them if they were early ones. I didn't object to their coverage of Browne back in 1996. It was truthful. And some of their stuff has been just plain inaccurate. Until I ever run for office, I don't expect to find a candidate who agrees with me on everything. I don't think Ron Paul suffers from hatred of Mexicans. However, there are some major xenophobes out there who did just happen to support Doctor Paul. A lot of the material that was passed out was made on people's home computers. I passed 200 or more flyers that I had made myself and printed with my color laser. My guess is that the material you got came from some of the more ignorant supporters of Doctor Paul. I wouldn't call him an apologist for Putin. He has pointed out that Russia has a flat tax and a lower tax rate. I don't remember him saying good things about Putin specifically. Scott Horton has interviewed lots of people for their radio show. He's had people who have been sympathetic to the incompetent Georgian bungler Saakashvili. One had even worked at a law firm where Saakashvili had interned. He knew him personally. Raimondo has always been consistent in that he believes that the purpose of the federal government is to defend the country, that the purpose of national defense is to retaliate against the use of force.

So, you have passed judgment on one billion people because of the actions of about twenty or thirty of them? I believe this is called hasty generalization. Using this same logic, you could say that all Internet users are spammers just because only about 100 or so people are responsible for most of it.

I've had a love-hate relationship with the LP for many years. My biggest complaint about them has been summed up by this comment: "They couldn't sell ice water in the middle of the Sahara." I predicted a couple months ago that Barr would not get more than 800,000 votes. I think it may be worse than that now. Every four years, there is this new found optimism after the LP convention. The "leadership" gets cramps from patting themselves on the back at how great they are doing. On election day, reality hits. They are always disappointed. It's the definition of insanity--they do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. I really don't think they are interested in doing any better than they have done. If they were, they would examine everything they do. I honestly don't think a lot of libertarians know why they do what they do. A lot of the people who voted for Barr also voted for the exact opposite in 2004--Badnarik. Do these people know what they want? I honestly have not been involved much since moving down here. I have better things to do. I have only attended one state convention. I have went to the county meeting twice. I regretfully have never been to national. An old friend of mine (now deceased) believed that the LP had been infiltrated as early as the early 90's. He was not surprised at all by the Browne campaign's shenanigans. The stuff this year has been even worse. I could tolerate a Barr candidacy if they had nominated a libertarian with him. Instead, they nominated a pure neo-con. Wayne Allyn Root is a complete embarrassment to the LP. Also,

Here's an article on how a pig in Michigan uses tickets to increase his income: http://www.motorists.org/blog/traffic-tick...p-sign-tickets/

This really opens up a can of worms. What about teaching history? What happens when someone teaches about the causes of something like the Great Depression? Who decides what is fact and what is not fact? This opens up a can of worms. And what about things like alleged global warming? This also violates the non-aggression principle. You can fight ideas with better ideas or with violence--you have no other choice.

I'm more interested in judging Mister Raimondo by what he actually says. Facts are facts, whether he is obnoxious or not. That kind of personality is actually pretty good for what he does. He has done way too much good work. If a shoemaker makes shoes that are comfortable, I'm not going to care about his personality. If the shoes hurt my feet, I'm not going to care about how nice he is.

I'm not a big fan of the Constitution. It is intentionally vague and seems designed to be something that is far too easily twisted. However, some people have a great deal of trouble with things that even are explicitly clear. Bidinotto has some type of vendetta against Paul. I have no idea what it is. It is also horribly disappointing because I have heard him make some great arguments in the past. One of his talks at FEE in July 1994 was the best of the week.

I'm beginning to think that keeping money overseas is a pretty good idea. But that raises a few questions: how do you manage it once it is overseas? How do you get it overseas? And how often do you have to go there? Obviously the Internet has made all this easier. But is not much investing or saving going to require some travel? I know a guy who keeps some wealth in Belize. That's not too far away. He travels there once a year by cruise. He does that because cruises aren't subject to all the police state tactics that planes are. He does talk like his bank is quite helpful. He even says that the bank sends a cab to the cruise ship for him. He also pays a lawyer about $1000 a year to take care of everything. I'm not sure how much money this guy does have. I do hear that he still lives like a pauper, though. If I had enough money that managing it overseas was a viable solution, I might very well leave the whole country anyway.

It says a great deal about the current state of the Objectivist movement. Chris Matthew Sciabarra once commented to me that the movement is going "down the tubes." I often wonder why I still keep coming to boards like this one. I would like to believe that all the good people have not left the Objectivist movement. The garbage has definitely stuck around. There's plenty of it that isn't part of ARI. If you want to see a lot of garbage, go over to a board called "Rebirth of Reason." I have found a few exceptional people. They have been worth keeping.

I predicted a few months ago that Bob Barr will not get more than 800,000 votes. I am more and more inclined not to vote for him. Wayne Allyn Root is a total embarrassment to the party. I may end drawing cards between Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin. It depends on who gets on the ballot. It won't matter in Texas anyway.

I am on an Objectivist board, so I should have anticipated that someone would have the need to show everyone else just how "clever" he is. It's my fault for forgetting where I am. Most Objectivists I've known simply can't resist the temptation to make a smart-aleck remark. They make an effort to be disagreeable. Not surprisingly, too, is that my question was never answered. Who does know what they are doing? What investment advisors are actually worth listening to?

It seems as though people have different definitions for romanticism. I think I do know the root of the problem and why it does not lead to healthy relationships. Worshipping a man or a woman comes largely from a scarcity mentality. It comes from the belief that good men or women are scarce and difficult to find. When one does find a good man or woman, the worshipper then goes off the deep end. When both people do this to each other, it creates a high which does not last. What happens is such people eventually start to see the person's flaws and mistakes. They also get bored and start looking elsewhere. It actually becomes easier for them to find people to cheat with because they no longer have the scarcity mentality. Attraction is a process. For people who have a scarcity mentality, it either does not turn on easily or turns on much too easily. Ask yourself why your attraction process works the way it does then go from there. If both of you can keep the process turned on for 50 years, you deserve gold medals.

It varies across the state. Austin still has a housing and building boom. They are still putting up condos downtown. Traffic in Austin is about as bad as any city its size--Austin still isn't that big. My landlord works for Continental at the airport and told me that the airport has not seen many cutbacks in flights, in spite of gas prices. We did lose a direct flight to CLE, but that's probably due more to the depression in Cleveland than here. Austin is a very entrepreneurial city. Lots of people are out there trying to become the next Dell or something like it. I just went to a meeting called Bootstrap (bootstrapping your business), and there was a lot of optimism there. A guy from Houston got out of there because of Katrina. Katrina brought New Orleans's worst trash to Houston. Austin is getting kind of expensive actually. I've heard it's lower than Dallas, yet wages are higher in Dallas. It's quite common to hear a story of someone being offered a job for $50,000 in Austin and $60,000 someplace else and staying in Austin.

So, what should a guy with about $20,000 or so do right now? I have subscribed to Doug Casey's newsletter for several years. I'm about ready to throw it in the garbage. I like Doug Casey's insights, but the bottom line is that his advice has completely tanked. I also subscribed to _Prudent Speculator_ just recently. The longer I stay in the investment game, the less I trust people. I don't think investment is luck. I believe that a person can do well if they know what they are doing or if they follow people who know what they are doing. I don't plan on being a full-time investor--thus I have to follow the advice of others. Who knows what they are doing? Mutual funds are a sucker's bet.

Those Brazilians are brilliant.

What are you babbling about?