Backlighting

Tucked in at the base of the mountains above the Las Vegas basin, I wish all on the board a Happy Thanksgiving.

Ted, it's fine on your site as is. Too bad Rand's appearance on the Johnny Carson show are unavailable.

The interview was recently uploaded to you tube. It was great to hear/ see her. The audio and video quality are first rate. There are 3, 9 minute segments.

I go to cnsnews.com. Additionally, I listen to Mark Levin on AM radio. (www.marklevinshow.com) For financial perspective and recommendations I go to Phil's Gang on AM radio (www.philsgang.com)

Greenspan stated in his book, The Age of Turbulence, they (republicans) traded their principles for power and in the end got neither. Ironically, Alan was divorced from his principles, years ago.

The amount of poison to be administered to the economy, and the damage done, will be substantial over the next 4 years. It makes me want to throw up. WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Saturday the House would provide aid to the ailing U.S. auto industry, requiring that the industry meet new fuel-efficiency standards, produce advanced vehicles and restructure "to ensure their long-term economic viability." Pelosi, D-Calif., did not disclose the amount of funding House leaders intend to seek for the industry — automakers have been seeking $25 billion in loans to stabilize their sinking companies. But she said the funding should come from the $700 billion financial bailout approved by Congress in October. "A restructured, competitive American automobile industry will continue to play a crucial role in our national economy and in the global marketplace," Pelosi said in a statement. The move sets up a conflict with the White House, which has opposed using the bailout funds to help General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC. The Detroit companies have been battered by an economic meltdown that has choked their sales and frozen credit. U.S. automakers are lobbying lawmakers furiously for an emergency infusion of cash. GM has warned it might not survive through year's end without a government lifeline. President-elect Barack Obama said he believes that aid is needed but that it should be provided as part of a long-term plan for a "sustainable U.S. auto industry" — not simply as a blank check. "For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment," Obama said in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" that will air Sunday. "So my hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all of the stakeholders coming together with a plan — what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like?" Pelosi said the plan would call for "immediate, targeted assistance" and must include several principles, including the restructuring of the companies "to ensure their long-term economic viability," new fuel-efficiency standards, and the development of advanced vehicles. She said it would include "even stronger limits on executive compensation and assurances to protect the taxpayer." House aides said the legislation was still being developed and a specific funding level had not yet been reached. Pelosi did not mention any plans for the UAW to make any concessions as part of the legislation. UAW president Ron Gettelfinger told reporters earlier Saturday the problem is not the union's contract with the auto companies. "The focus has to be on the economy as a whole as opposed to a UAW contract," Gettelfinger said. The union has said it made several concessions in its 2007 labor agreement, setting lower pay for new hires and placing retiree health care liability into a trust run by the UAW. Facing an uphill battle in Congress and stiff opposition from President George W. Bush, supporters of the government bailout have considered reducing its $25 billion size. A House aide said Saturday that $25 billion was still the amount being discussed. "There's a need for immediate action," Alan Reuther, the United Auto Workers union's legislative director, said Friday. He said one option under consideration was a smaller, more targeted amount of funding "that would get the companies through to March." Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said negotiations were taking place among senators on what the amount should be. "This is about getting enough votes to be able to solve the problem," she said. Other auto suppliers and dealers with showrooms empty of customers plan to join the effort Monday when Congress returns following the Nov. 4 elections. The key Senate vote on preventing opponents from blocking the package could occur as early as Wednesday. Democrats want to carve a portion of the $700 billion that the Bush administration is using to bail out banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions. The White House on Friday came out firmly against the approach. White House press secretary Dana Perino said the administration would rather Congress expedite the release of a separate $25 billion loan program for the development of fuel-efficient vehicles and have the loans used for more urgent purposes as the companies struggle to stay afloat. "Democrats are choosing a path that would only lead to partisan gridlock," Perino said. Pelosi said Saturday that any attempt to divert money from the loan program would be a "step backward in assuring the viability and competitiveness of the U.S. auto industry." Environmentalists and Pelosi have vehemently opposed using that money for anything other than designing and building vehicles that get higher gas mileage and produce less pollution. Democrats hold a 37-seat majority in the House and bailout supporters foresee little difficulty winning its passage there. But the measure needs 60 votes to survive in the Senate, where Democrats will hold a razor-thin 50-49 majority when President-elect Barack Obama gives up his seat on Monday. A furious search was on for a dozen Republicans to break the anticipated filibuster from opponents. Several Republicans have already lined up against it. "Like most Americans who are concerned about the direction of our economy and more federal spending, I must also ask — when is enough, enough?" said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Two Republicans — Kit Bond of Missouri and George Voinovich of Ohio — said they will back the plan. Several other Republican senators have signaled they might accept a rescue if strict conditions are put on Detroit's Big Three companies, including management and salary changes, union concessions and a commitment to making more fuel-efficient vehicles. Bond, whose home state of Missouri has several auto plants, said the concept of government mixing with the free market was "very troublesome." But he added, "We have to act in unique times of crisis when tens of thousands of Missouri workers are in danger of losing their jobs." Democrats are modeling their bill on the bailout terms that the Bush administration has used for doling out $290 billion to banks and insurance companies. The government would get an ownership stake in the auto companies in exchange for the loans to ensure that taxpayers would get their money back if they return to profitability.

Those involved or looking to get involved in the stock market might want to check out Phils Gang. He advocates capitalism, follows the money going in and out of sectors and stocks. His members are reportedly up 25-30% for the year. He has a daily radio show on AM, commenting on the current rush to socialism in addition to market evaluation and recommendations.. Web site is www.philsgang.com for AM airing schedule. I also like his sense of humor.

Thank you. It seems quite appropriate, especially in today's intellectual cesspool.

I remember reading back in the early seventies an article authored by Rand (Objectivist Newsletter) entitled "How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society? It was a question submitted by a reader. I would appreciate it if anyone having it, could post it here. Thank you.

If the "hopes" of some people involved the joy, for them, in obtaining the earned property of some via "redistribution", I'm certainly not "celebrating" and or encouraging anyone else to. Am I in the friggin' land of the Stepford Objectionists? I said: "even black people" who voted for McCain""have been crying tears of joy" "people did not vote for a communist, whoever Barack Obama may be." The almost universal response is: "If the 'hopes' of some people involved..obtaining...redistribution...I'm...not 'celebrating'...." Is this Obizarrojectivist Living? I'm going to have to stay away from any piers here in Manhattan...thank god I'm only friends with a girl named Cheryl. I can't celebrate "hope" as such, unless I know what I or anyone else is hoping for. BTW Obama is significantly closer to the principles of communism than he is to capitalism. I don't care to celebrate that.

If the "hopes" of some people involved the joy, for them, in obtaining the earned property of some via "redistribution", I'm certainly not "celebrating" and or encouraging anyone else to.

Not sure why my post appears 2x-Apparently did something wrong-my apologies.

I just went to Peikoff's site to listen to his latest podcast. After just 2 minutes I couldn't take it any longer and hit the stop button. He sounds like he's severely constipated. Waterboarding would be more merciful than listening to him. Anybody else feel that way?

"Americans hate to lose. We are not "good sports" I've often read this and find it quite ridiculous. Who likes to lose?

NEW YORK (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI celebrated his final Mass in the United States before a full house in storied Yankee Stadium on Sunday, blessing his enormous U.S. flock and telling Americans to use their freedoms wisely. Hopefully his followers will exercise their freedom by abandoning the life-hating Catholic Church. Arrivedeci Benedict, glad to see you go back to your life of self-sacrifice!

The hypocrisy you correctly mention will never be exposed to the American population. The mainstream media will never have the chutzbah to report such.

Well, what did you have in mind as possibly false on that page? Just threw it out for discussion. What I do know is Obama is a rabid fan of entitlements and big government. That's enough, no?

How much of this is true? http://www.dontvoteobama.net/?gclid=CJqZm5...CFQWiggodNm8n4g

After suffering through 8 yrs of Catholic elementary school I went, reluctantly & at the insistence of my parents, to a Catholic HS. I only stayed one year. The Brothers who taught there were fond of slapping us around. One would turn his college ring around, so the stone was facing palm down. If he didn't like your attitude or answer to a question, would strike you, repeatedly, on top of your head, palm down. He seemed to enjoy it.

Michael, Couldn't agree with you more. Additionally, the BS spewing from the mouths of the candidates and the Pope, during his visit, is enough to make me vomit. It's getting to the point, for me, where I don't even want to watch the news anymore. It's difficult to be optimistic regarding the status quo. Where's Galt's Gulch when you need it?

As the poster boy for altruism, he preaches self-sacrifice and support for the poor of the world. Yet he lives in a guarded palace, rides in a limo, dresses in silks, has servants and a personal chef.

Of course the alchoholics are in good shape. Their drug is legal and easily obtainable.

Would a vote for an insane person be evidence of insanity? Absolutely!

The news reported last night that Hilary, if president, would create a new cabinet level post whose purpose would be to eliminate poverty. The woman is insane!

Las Vegas, life is rarely as simple, alternatives rarely as clear cut, as your post suggests. Ayn did not know hos deeply she hurt Frank; perhaps she did not want to know, but that is not quite the same as knowing. Nor would she have accepted the idea that she had made a "mockery" of their marriage. She truly loved Frank -- and she truly loved Nathaniel. And she believed Frank could and did understand and accept that. Can you really look into someone's deeply personal and complex emotional life and say what she "should" have done? Frank was not a weak man. There were many reasons why he did not seek a divorce. The major one was that he loved Ayn but believed he was not her ideal man, although she insisted that he was. He felt that in that respect he had failed her; he wanted her to be happy, and he decided that if her happiness required that she have an affair with Nathaniel, he would accept that. Yes, her ideas on morality did pertain to her. That is, had she been considering four other people whom she thought to be in the same position and of the same stature as she believed she and Frank and Nathaniel and I were, she would have advised them to do as she did. Whether she would have been right or wrong to so advise them -- I think she would have been mistaken, and that she was mistaken in her own case -- is a separate issue from whether she applied her moral code to her own actions. Barbara Barbara, I appreciate your comments to my post. I guess I'm from the old school. I believe in fidelity, otherwise why be married? For me it's either, or. It's just not fair to all parties involved. Better to get a divorce and continue the affair honestly, without deceiving anyone. As for Ayn not knowing she was hurting Frank, perhaps she just, as she often wrote, blanked it out. My intention is not to bash Ayn. I've been an ardent admirer of her work since I first read Atlas some 40 yrs ago. Throughout the years I think I've read, and enjoyed, everything she published. I just find this infidelity thing a contradiction to the values she espoused. Best wishes, Las Vegas