anonrobt

The dark matter hypothesis is a physical hypothesis to account for why stars in galaxies do not follow the motion curve that Kepler's laws imply. It is a physical hypothesis to account for an observable physical effect. The assumption that god, God or the gods exists is a different kind of assumption, the kind of assumption that can not, even in principle, be falsified. In the mean time, every effect that the god-hypothesis purports to explain, has been explained by other and testable hypotheses. So god, like the luminiferous aether is an unnecessary assumption. Ba'al Chatzaf Every effect except possibly "the big bang" ? Except, maybe, there was no 'big bang'...

True - a dog would had been fine - but a cat? disgusting!

Of course, everyone overlooks the 'catch phrase' - giving back... this is not a 'zero-sum' world - so what was taken that needs be given back? [and yes, the joke was very funny - just what was needed to brighten up a rainy morning... ]

I actually found the Library of America book on Washington's papers and writings to be a great companion to any bio [indeed, the same can be said of their collection of Jefferson's, Madison's, the Convention Debate papers [two volumes], Franklin's and probably even Hamilton's [the only one not gotten]]

Well said.

and then, perhaps it is all a fabrication... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/books/21hiroshima.html?scp=1&sq=Hiroshima&st=cse

http://www.amazon.com/George-Washington-Forge-Experience-1732-1775/dp/0316285978/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266986361&sr=8-3 http://www.amazon.com/George-Washington-American-Revolution-1775-1783/dp/B000FGS3BM/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266986361&sr=8-9 http://www.amazon.com/George-Washington-New-Nation-1783-1793/dp/0316286001/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266986361&sr=8-4 http://www.amazon.com/George-Washington-Anguish-Farewell-1793-1799/dp/0316286028/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266986361&sr=8-6

That must had been as much fun as when I tried selling encyclopedias in Illinois and Indiana - lasted six weeks, sold none...

Yep - Happy Birthday ol' chap... [just think, all the things ye seen and thought about this first 50 years - imagine the next !

Per Ayn Rand objectivity "pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence." (my bold; source) Where did you get that notion? It might help if you read some more Ayn Rand. Verily!

Curiosity - how do you answer such as this - http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/12/hating-valentine%E2%80%99s/ It is not enough to say ye disagree - on what basis can ye say they not Islamic in what they proclaiming ?

Adonis, The USA was not founded by people who think like this. And this is exactly what I am talking about. If people find freedom hard to realize and their own intellectuals tell them that it's all someone else's fault, then they will continue without freedom. That's reality, I don't care how many times you or anyone else says it's all someone else's fault. It might make you feel better to say that, but that does those people little good. The result in reality is that they will continue without freedom. The USA founders did not wait to be shown what freedom is supposed to look like. And they had the greatest power in the world against them back then. Say what you will about Jews, but they were in pretty bad shape after WWII. These folks didn't wait for someone to come along and show them anything. They got sick of suffering and did what they had to do. I could go on and on about others who shrugged off despots and gained freedom without relying on a role model country to tell them how to do it, or for ideal conditions to be granted to them from someone else. If you want freedom for the people you care about, stop giving them an excuse to avoid cultivating self-reliance. Encourage it instead. Believe me, they will do the rest. They're not stupid. They can learn it. Everyone who has gone the route of self-reliance has done the rest, even under the harshest of conditions. It's not the USA's job to teach them anything. It's yours. You, and others like you, are their intellectuals. So it's your job. Or... Fold you hands and say it's tough and it's all someone else's fault... It's your choice. I know I am making mine. As to the documentaries, I will get back to you before too long. I need more time and I am a bit swamped in my work. But I will get to them. That's a promise. As to "The Case for Israel," I have to look. How I often find these things is by typing the title into Google using quotes, then choosing the "video" link on the top left. I just now did this and several options showed up. Michael http://www.thecaseforisrael.com/ http://books.google.com/books?id=Dunx_i1P6fMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+case+for+israel&source=bl&ots=uo4tzsDciz&sig=0dJaNGa-6vK1MzpQYFPffWHCMH4&hl=en&ei=-GV3S6GHHM2PtgfUvpCoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Israel http://vodpod.com/watch/1544754-the-case-for-israel-docu-trailer-message-film http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1899267555870962994#

I guess I spoke too soon. The following post of mine was just deleted from OO on this thread, with no explanation given to me by the moderators: I disagree. As I see it, we have a choice: we can either be sticklers and strictly adhere to Rand's requirement of objectively identifiable, intelligible subjects and meanings in art, or we can follow her lead in the opposite direction and grant exceptions for the non-objective art forms that we like. Personally, I prefer the latter. See, the problem is that if we opt to be sticklers, then music should also not be considered a valid art form under Rand's criteria, since it is no more objectively meaningful than abstract paintings. As Rand said, music "cannot tell a story, it cannot deal with concretes, it cannot convey a specific existential phenomenon, such as a peaceful countryside or a stormy sea...even concepts which, intellectually, belong to a complex level of abstraction, such as 'peace,' 'revolution,' 'religion,' are too specific, too concrete to be expressed in music." She also said that "until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music," and, therefore, that our musical tastes and judgments must be treated as a "subjective matter." So, I prefer to opt to not be a stickler. Since exceptions can be made for a non-objective art form like music, then there is no reason that they can't also be made for other non-objective art forms (from which millions of people get as much emotional impact and meaning as Rand did from music). Not to be disrespectful, but, to me, your inability to distinguish between Tym's work and the doodle you posted is nothing more than an indication of your personal visual limitations. J J Or yours, the continued fanticization of your 'unlimited' visual ability... and it seems a continued rejection of aural percepts - that percepts must be visual if they're to be objective...

60 is said to be the new 40, so ye in good shape for many years to come... happy b'day.......

Robert, No. On the contrary, it's a cry for principles--correct identification being the most fundamental. Michael Then what are these principles that all are supposedly dancing around that claim each side is the 'good' side - or worse, that good lies in both, making them as 'equals in being misunderstood'?

Michael, Who knows what Harry Binswanger privately thinks about that? But he will never publicly admit, even to the carefully screened and vetted members of HBL, that any character flaw was involved. I think, in light of Dr. Binswanger's public statement of policy, it is distinctly possible that his statement about the Rand-Hospers exchange was an outright lie. It's interesting that Lindsay Perigo, who usually calls him "Binswanker," seized upon this very statement as the gospel truth. Robert Campbell PS. Jerry noted that Dr. Binswanger is the top faculty member at OAC. Not only that, but Tara Smith's book on Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics goes out of its way to cite him, even in areas of philosophy where he has never published anything. Yes, her citings were the poor parts of her otherwise good book...

Isn't the cry of 'over simplification' really the cry against principles?

That was indeed a very good find, Michael...

Not quite - she stated that morals or ethics were guides to furthering one's life, not commandments - the understood, not the ordered... this in itself was a different viewing of morality than what others proposed, tho a valid one I would say - and as such fits quite well into needing it on a desert island as it involves both the personal as well as the social [whereas most of the others involved morality as a social necessity, leaving the personal usually subordinate if there at all]...

Hmmmmmmm... Michael Any more to this? slanted, but interesting...

That gal's getting around - rofl

Michael; I am reminded of David Boaz quoting Bette Davis at the Heller-Burns Cato Book Forum about Miss Rand being a libertarian. "But, Blanche that's what you are." On Ayn Rand's Nietzschean influence perhaps the last word in the quote should be "were". I think, from the reading, that the extrapolations on this made in the Burns book even more forcefully made the connections of the influences - as well as why the shifting away from them in her developmental thinking and how she went about this shifting [which was to me the more interesting aspect of that book - the means she went thru to achieving those philosophical ends of hers [as opposed to the mythical 'full bloom from the forehead of Monerva' ]... it certainly does not detract from the brilliance of her conclusions - indeed actually shows it more, in that how one arrives at conclusions is an immense aid to understanding thinking processes than treating it as an 'oracle' matter...

I’m tempted to dig out my copy of The Romantic Manifesto and transcribe the material about opera, just to pull rank a bit, but don’t have time. You’re applying the standards she used for literature to opera. Besides, I’m convinced you’re just kidding. I’ve had no less eminent a contributor than Phillip Coates chide me for not recognizing when someone’s kidding, so once bitten twice shy. Nevertheless, could you name an opera or five that you do enjoy or at least approve of? Particularly any Puccini, where characters fall madly in love for no good reason as a matter of course. If it’s a matter of what Rand liked (and seriously, I don’t give a damn, but I’ve read all about her so I know), she loved La Boheme, where the lovers are cooing “Io t’amo”s at each other by the time the curtain falls on Act 1, 10 minutes after first meeting. To call that biological determinism is awfully silly. Looks like the Met is still using the production from the ‘80’s that you can get on DVD. Great stuff, and I think Netflix carries it too. This YouTube upload lacks the subtitles, too bad. Or better, Jonathan would probably prefer if you didn’t know what they were saying, it’s such evil and your little minds might be corrupted. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPZR6Y8te2w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPZR6Y8te2w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPZR6Y8te2w&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> I've always enjoyed 'The Marriage of Figaro' and 'The Barber of Seville'...

Now watch the 'value' of it rise - as a collector's item...

I've yet to receive the fall issue...