Mindy Newton

I hate to till her but I remember rainbows when the sprinkler was on during the 50ths. I do hope that this is someone's idea of a joke.

Yeah, but not seen since until this video recorded it!

--Brant

I've been meaning to ask, Brant, is that a Corsair in your pic?

= Mindy

Mindy; I was not hurt by Brant's comments. I repeat I think T J Rogers did a very good thing when he took on the nun. From what I heard about his mail he received a huge number of other people agreed with him.

I dislike Baker because Baker is stupid and insane. I think some people on OL have gone round the bend on Ron Paul.

I think my remark was ill-placed, or something. Anyway, I didn't mean to take a position on Baker or Ron Paul.

= Mindy

REB quoted: "I think that the present title works well enough and is more succinct than the possibly less confusing "Objectivist Perspectives on Secularism" (which is what I probably would have called it).

If I were a Secularist unfamiliar with Objectivism, or at least with how Objectivism would relate to my concerns, I think I would be quite interested and open to read about how another philosophical movement's thinkers viewed those concerns. And I wouldn't immediately/automatically write it off as "BS."

I think this book is in the same category as the book co-edited by Mimi Gladstein and Chris Sciabarra: "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand." They're both attempting to bridge between Objectivism and other intellectual/social movements. It seems to me that that is a worthy pursuit."

REB

What I was on about was that instead of actually saying something about why secularists would find Objectivists' opinions of interest, the statement only said that he (Hudgins) would tell them things he thought would be crucial to them. It's vaccuous. I'm going to introduce you to my perspective on matters crucial to you. It's comparable to saying: I wrote a book and I think you should read it.

Aside from being off-putting, he misses the chance to make a substantive point that shows the relevance of Objectivism to secularists.

The more important consequence of such a statement is that it leads the reader to expect that sort of meaningless verbiage, and the "thinking" that goes with it, throughout the book! That's why I'd re-shelve it right away.

= Mindy

Let me do something wright for once, sort of:

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/peter,+paul+&...n_20107689.html

"Shed" in the chorus should be "she'd."

--Brant

Alas and alack,

He'd take that spelling back,

For he wrought what was wrong,

When he referenced the song!

= Mindy

With her apron wrapped about her I took her for a swan.

Alas and alack

It was her my Polly Von

--Brant

A-muse-ing, Brant

Alas and alack,

I want my bullet back,

I will no more hunt swan,

To remember Polly Von.

= Mindy

Thx for fixing that up for me, Mindy, but it wasn't a bullet in the Peter, Paul & Mary version, it was an arrow.

--Brant

"Alas and alack,

I'd take that arrow back!"

How's that?

= Mindy

Let me offer a small defense of T J Rogers.

As I understand Mr Rogers got into the dispute with the nun after the nun had offered him advice on how to run his business specifically on the makeup of his board of directors. I believe the nun wanted him to add more women and minorities to his board. Mr Roger said that his board of directors was composed of individuals who had knowledge that contributed to the business not window dressing. My memory is the nun was not offended by the discussion. I think Mr Rogers stood up for his values as a good businessman should.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I am an admirer of T.J. Rogers.

--Brant

Is it kinder to spare a poster here the painful truth?

= Mindy

All is truth. No truth, no untruths. This is because there is a hierarchy with truth being basic and untruths being derivative. Sooooo ... if you give someone an untruth you have given him nothing. Argue with that, lass!

--Brant

PS [edit]: "Truth" refers to the metaphysical. "Untruth" is purely epistemological. There! My argument is both perfect and complete! It is also irrefutable. Why? You can't refute the TRUTH!

Sure, Brant, I'll be happy to "argue" with you, but I don't know what you're saying--or, at least, I hope I don't get what you're saying. Want to explain?

= Mindy

Let me offer a small defense of T J Rogers.

As I understand Mr Rogers got into the dispute with the nun after the nun had offered him advice on how to run his business specifically on the makeup of his board of directors. I believe the nun wanted him to add more women and minorities to his board. Mr Roger said that his board of directors was composed of individuals who had knowledge that contributed to the business not window dressing. My memory is the nun was not offended by the discussion. I think Mr Rogers stood up for his values as a good businessman should.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I am an admirer of T.J. Rogers.

--Brant

Is it kinder to spare a poster here the painful truth?

= Mindy

Nobody is forced to take dollars. I am perfectly free to open a barter store and refuse dollars for my wares.

I merely cannot use the courts for settlement and exclude dollars.

Michael

But can you refuse to accept my tomatoes as payment? How do I know before I go to your store what sort of money or goods to bring? If you try to give me origami figures instead of change, and I don't want it, but you don't want to give me my money back, and the ice-cream I bought is melting, what do we do? I thought legal tender solved all that.

= Mindy

With her apron wrapped about her I took her for a swan.

Alas and alack

It was her my Polly Von

--Brant

A-muse-ing, Brant

Alas and alack,

I want my bullet back,

I will no more hunt swan,

To remember Polly Von.

= Mindy

I'm fine with the title. Many secularists are not Objectivists.

Yes, of course. I don't know why it strikes me as odd.

= Mindy

Yesterday's 777 point slide has precipitated the gnashing to teeth and the rending of garments on a large scale. The nervous Nellies of New York have shown more panic at this than they did the WTC wreck of 2001. Have my countrymen lost their wits? Has their manhood evaporated?

Now hear this. The market fell 7.3 percent. In 1987 on Black Thursday the market fell 22.6 percent! Without any major bailouts the market recovered in a matter of weeks.

Now would someone please tell me, if they would (or could) what the hell is going on here?

Sheeeesh!

Ba'al Chatzaf

But the promise of a bail-out, or anticipation of it, is one factor in the performance of the market, no?

= Mindy

Michael, you missed the point. I don't think any of us needs a whole explanation of "legal tender," rather, what is Ron Paul's error with respect to it?

Here are the first three errors:

"One of the main stumbling blocks is Federal legal tender laws, which state that government-controlled fiat currency MUST be accepted for many kinds of monetary transactions."

"In the absence of legal tender laws, people are free to accept the medium of exchange of their choice, and are likely to insist on payment in something of real value."

"Related to legal tender laws, contracts in gold are not enforced. Meaning if two parties agree to exchange goods or services for gold, and end up in a dispute, the courts will simply settle the dispute in Federal Reserve notes."

Read your contracts. Very often, you agree to arbitration as your first remedy. And, courts being what they are, what would you expect? If I offer to ship you my iron ore in exchange for your coal and we have a problem, the courts will use the common denominator. That only makes sense. Again, you do not have to go to the government courts. That is another canard of the Right Wing and a different topic as well.

"One is also expected to pay sales tax on the purchase of gold."

This is not true in Michigan or in several other states. As a result of the "Coingate" scandal in Ohio, that state resumed taxes on bullion. But it is not a federal tax. Ron Paul glided from a rant against "government" to ignoring the differences among state laws and then back to a complaint about the federal government. Also, sales tax being what it is, would you expect sales tax on gold jewelry or nor? On platinum or iridium or iron or praesodymium or what? What makes gold so special to Ron Paul but a mystical attachment to a chemical element? I understand the case for gold as the standard for money, but, here the issue is conflated by someone who, I believe, knows better but profits from being a demogogue.

"Congress should no longer force Americans to do business in dollars if they would prefer to transact in gold, or silver, or cigarettes or seashells, for that matter."

No such law exists. Buy and sell with sesshells if you can find the trading partners.

Ron Paul plays to the ignorance and self-imposed helplessness of his god-guns-gold constituents.

The U.S. Treasury sells gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes at the market rate for gold. They sell Eagles (ounces and fractions) to a restricted list of large volumne wholesales. However, they also sell numismatic items with modest to hefty mark-ups over bullion. The bottom line is that the dollar is backed in gold at the market rate and those data are available for a mouseclick.

Yes, I see his bit about seashells-as-money is wrong.

I think his complaint about paying tax on gold is that if gold is used as coinage, its being taxed as if it were a commodity being exchanged is improper, doesn't that make sense?

I don't see the political principle you are advancing in your bit about arbitration.

= Mindy

Michael, you missed the point. I don't think any of us needs a whole explanation of "legal tender," rather, what is Ron Paul's error with respect to it?

"One of the main stumbling blocks is Federal legal tender laws, which state that government-controlled fiat currency MUST be accepted for many kinds of monetary transactions."

And is that false? And if so, how? Thanks for your patience.

= Mindy

Edit: Ron Paul is saying government's expanding the money supply robs people holding gov. currency, and we're stuck with gov.-issued currency. (Unless we carry barter goods around with us, and are fortunate enough to find a gas station that needs a lot of, e.g., potholders.)

No?

= Mindy

= Mindy

I love it when I can let my inner self out to roam around for a while. This is my version of going out on Hollowean night since I'm way too old to actually Trick or Treat. I'm evil, evil, evil!

--Brant

Perhaps you should consider wean-ing yourself this Halloween.

= Mindy

New Atlas Society Publication: An Objectivist Secular Reader

The Atlas Society is pleased to announce the publication of a new book, An Objectivist Secular Reader, edited by Edward Hudgins.

This 150-page work is a compellation of twenty-four articles, principally by Hudgins with contributions also from David Kelley, William Thomas, Robert Bidinotto, and Hugo Schmidt, culled from The New Individualist, op-eds, and other TAS publications. It includes an introduction by Hudgins and appendix on Objectivism by Thomas.

In recent years books by secular and atheist thinkers such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris have become best sellers and skeptic organizations have filled huge halls for their conferences. Their emphasis on reality, reason, critical thinking, and personal liberty is most welcomed. As you know, Objectivists in general, and we at The Atlas Society in particular, have been at the forefront in promoting these values.

But what many secularists have lacked in the past is a morality based on individual, rational self-interest and the resulting political philosophy of capitalism. That's where we and this book come in.

Hudgins writes in the introduction that this book seeks to introduce those in the growing secular movement to perspectives on matters crucial to them from Objectivist authors. Hudgins also writes that he hopes religious readers will be provoked not to anger but, rather, to serious thought and an appreciation that thinking is our route to the truth about objective reality and self-interest the way to happiness in this world.

The first section of the book is on "Religious Conflict and Culture." It includes David Kelley's classic exposition on the "Party of Modernity," as contrasted with the pre-modern and post-modern. It also contains reviews of recent books by secularist and commentaries on religious controversies.

The second section, on "The Islamist Threat," includes our best work on the current conflict with those who most consistently manifest what Ayn Rand understood as the connected evils of faith and force.

The third section, on "Life's Meaning," contains pieces on the positive side of the secular.

Hudgins and The Atlas Society recently distributed some 800 copies of the book a a major skeptics conference and will use this book as a tool to spread "open" Objectivism to new audiences, and to a country and culture in desperate need of its principles of reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism. (At right, Teller of the magician, comic, and libertarian team of Penn & Teller receives his copy from Ed at the conference!)

You can get your copy of the book at The Objectivism Store for $15.95.

--------------

An Objectivist Secular Reader: Table of Contents

Introduction:

Why Secularists Need Objectivism , by Edward Hudgins

Section One: Religious Conflicts and Culture

1. The Party of Modernity, by David Kelley

2. What Are Creationists Afraid Of? by Edward Hudgins

3. Grand Canyon Sized Silliness, by Edward Hudgins

4. The Problem with “The Passion’s” Moral, Message, by Edward Hudgins

5. Is Miss Cleo a Criminal? She’s Certainly a Fraud , by Edward Hudgins

6. The Witless Battle Over General Boykin , by David Kelley

7. No Faith in Republicans , by Edward Hudgins

8. The God That Failed: Review of Dawkins’s The God Delusion , by Hugo Schmidt

9. From Faith to Force: Review of Harris’ The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation , by Edward Hudgins

10. Liberal Values, Really: Review of Dacey’s The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life , by William Thomas

11. The Soul of Science: Interview with Michael Shermer , by Edward Hudgins

12. Skeptics and Humanists: Allies or Enemies of Individualism? by Edward Hudgins

Section Two: The Islamist Threat

13. The Means and Ends of Islamists , by Edward Hudgins

14. The Jihad Against Free Speech , by Edward Hudgins

15. Cartoon Journalists , by Robert Bidinotto

16. Flushing the Koran or Reason Down the Toilet? by Edward Hudgins

17. Deep Savages , by Edward Hudgins

18. The Pope vs. Islam: Who Stands for Reason? by Edward Hudgins

19. The Iliad and Islam , by Edward Hudgins

Section Three: Life’s Meaning

20. Secular Spirituality, by Edward Hudgins

21. Spring is a Time for Personal Renewal , by Edward Hudgins

22. Apollo 11 on Human Achievement Day , by Edward Hudgins

23. Why We Give Gifts , by Edward Hudgins

24. Every Day a New Year , by Edward Hudgins

Appendix:

Freedom . . . Achievement . . . Individualism . . . Reason—Objectivism , by William Thomas

I have to say, the title seems awkward. Doesn't it imply there's an Objectivist, non-secular text?

Also, if I read an intro that told me "this book seeks to introduce [me]...to perspectives on matters crucial to [me]," I'd rate it as BS right there.

= Mindy

When I tried that test, I got the message "the tests cannot run under Opera". What a shit test!

To alleviate your obvious disappointment, oh Medieval one, here is an analysis of your personality:

You are large in your presence.

You look down on people in general (that's when you're flying, of course.)

Your temper can be fiery (that's genetic, of course.)

Your toenails need cutting. (C'est la vie.)

= Mindy

I'd better add my idiosyncratic take on "Dragonfly" which is of a flying dragon... :sorcerer:

I'm a "Tardy Poster." :yes:

I'm a "genuine analyst." I need to "try to embrace the imaginative, creative part of my personality more often," to "try moving beyond the things I find comfortable." I have many friends (not true) but I only trust a few. I should be cautious when judging people, and I need to be more intuitive.

Sounds like Paul Mawdsley's analysis of me.

= Mindy

Animated Leader(??!!!!) That surprised me. I try to avoid positions of authority over other adults.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ah, but it does not surprise the rest of us, Baal. How about that? :yes:

= Mindy

p.s. oops!! I thought it said, "Agitated Leader" my bad. :angel:

If someone said something like that to me, I would do some research to discover what I do not know, but that's just me. Since you asked...

1. Government -- any economic entity, really -- creates a wide range of "money" objects. One example would be the checks issued to soldiers. (Today, they have debit cards, but the idea still works. Same with the money paid to contractors for the production of weapon systems. Payment is electronic. The idea is the same.) Is the check money? Is it "legal tender"?

Another form of fiduciary paper would be a contract. I sign a contract with my city government to deliver services for a year for a million dollars. I can take that contract to a bank and get a loan -- or take it to a "factor" who will discount it and essentially buy it from me for cash. The contract represents a financial obligation of the government, but is the contract "legal tender"? Is it "money"?

The IRS sends you a letter saying that as a result of an audit, you now have a credit for $1000 against next year's taxes. (Lucky you!) Is the letter money? Is it legal tender? It is indeed, fungible, discountable, tradeable, an asset on your books. It is a financial instrument issued by the government. But it is not money. It is not legal tender.

In the days of gold and silver, governments would issue "warrants" promises to pay gold and silver when it came into the treasury, though, well, ahem, right now, you see, we're a little short, you know... Texas Warrants from the Republic are highly collectible today. Warrants would then circulate on their own as a money substitute, though, again, they were not legal tender. Legal tender only means that this particular instrument is recognized for the bearer: "... will pay to the bearer on demand."

That is one development of the definition of legal tender.

2. Ask the government itself. Go to www.ustreas.gov and put "legal tender" in the search box. The first hit will be to an FAQ. (See this is not hard -- and it is a popular topic.) In the official words of the official govenrment treasury:

Question: I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

Answer: The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy

In other words, if I give my landlord my letter from the IRS, I have not given him "legal tender" but if I give him a thousand $1 federal reserve notes, I have. That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You do not have to accept government money. You can barter for apples if you want. Ron Paul may know this. However, it is painfully obvious that many Objectivists, Libertarians and Conservatives do not. Now, at least, you know.

By the way, in case I forgot to mentiion it more than a thousand times, I win literary awards for writing about money. My first one corrected the Encyclopedia Britannica and the nomination came from a curator at the Smithsonian. That ties to the opening sentence. When someone points out that I am ignorant, my feelings will be hurt, but I still accept responsibility to take the initiative to get smart.

Michael, you missed the point. I don't think any of us needs a whole explanation of "legal tender," rather, what is Ron Paul's error with respect to it?

= Mindy

Otherwise you end up with the "dear in the headlights" look, or hands going up to ask the meaning of a particular word used.

~ Shane

FYI: It's "deer in the headlights"

= Mindy

Oh. I didn't catch that because I once ran down my dear (I shot the SOB she was dearing with) and I saw her eyes in my headlights. Had to replace the whole front end. I was really pissed off I had to drive my Yugo for a month while the Caddy was in the shop. Had to buy a new mattress too. I'm putting a plastic cover on the new one just in case it happens again.

--Brant

Charming, Brant.

= Mindy

There is a common belief that we can define all our terms and so speak without any ambiguity but this is not the case, except in mathematics. Dictionaries give us the usual meanings of words expressed in other words but if you continue to inquire you reach a point where no further definition is possible - at this point you either get it or you do not. Ask your teenager to clean her room and you may see what I mean. You can look up 'clean' in the dictionary but you may have a very different idea what 'clean' looks like than the kid does, for example.

This is simply wrong, GS. We can, for instance, begin with ostensive definitions.

By the way, here is an "absolute" you might like to try to challenge: Whatever moves occupies space.

= Mindy

Otherwise you end up with the "dear in the headlights" look, or hands going up to ask the meaning of a particular word used.

~ Shane

FYI: It's "deer in the headlights"

= Mindy

How so? Can you ellaborate? That seems like a very general statement. I can see where in some cases, that might hold true, but not all. In teaching, for instance, you have to get your students to a common ground (standard) before they can grasp and implement those teachings. It also creates a solid reference for teaching further on that subject. Without a common standard for objective communication, there is confusion.

~ Shane

I don't know what "objective" communication means. I have an idea what communication means but once you add that adjective I'm lost. Possibly you are referring to communication using some technical language where the meanings are quite precise?

It means that your meaning can stand alone. It doesn't need explanations as to what you intended to say, etc.

= Mindy

Making sense is critical. You can't fudge on it. If you don't aim at making sense, you're the devil. :devil:

= Mindy

I have a rule or a standard of sorts. If you can't explain something to your grandmother, than either you don't understand it yourself, or you are not using language properly. Call this the Grandma Rule, if you will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Grandma might be deaf!

Sure, Paul, blame it on Gramdma.

= Mindy

Making sense is critical. You can't fudge on it. If you don't aim at making sense, you're the devil. :devil:

= Mindy

I have a rule or a standard of sorts. If you can't explain something to your grandmother, than either you don't understand it yourself, or you are not using language properly. Call this the Grandma Rule, if you will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Good one. It is even stiffer than mine, though.

= Mindy

Nothing wrong with Barbara's quote.

Rand said, "wish." A wish could, of course, express a mere whim. But a wish also might be a deeply considered choice.

= Mindy

What are you talking about? Barbara didn't quote Rand; I did. On the other hand, one of Barbara's assertions about Rand was very wrong.

I read the embedded quotes wrong, Merlin, sorry. You supplied a quote in response to Barbara's contradicting somebody else. You didn't actually state whether you thought your quote supported or opposed Barbara's statement.

Then Brandt said he thought Barbara's point needed re-formulating. I had assumed that was your position also. Phew.

If you disagreed about something else Barbara said, what was it?

My point was that Rand said "wish" and that that didn't mean "whim."

= Mindy