Michelle

OK, let's start getting into specifics. Bobby Jindal. Why would anyone who values their freedom possibly vote for him? The guy, on almost every major social issue, supports the anti-freedom position. He even wants the PATRIOT Act to remain permanent and voted for the Real ID Act. Palin is a saint compared to this guy.

I love the enthusiasm here. That exchange would be perfect for the movie's trailer, anyway. Those kids have good sense to them.

That sounds like a slippery slope argument, but I have seen very little evidence that Republicans, whether Christian or not, would actually go down that path if given the chance. They certainly didn't do it when Bush was in office and they had a majority in Congress. On the other hand, the Democrats are actively enslaving you and me and all of us at this very moment with health care "reform" and "cap and trade" among other things. You haven't said you would vote for a Democrat, but in my view, just about any Republican is better than just about any Democrat. In fact, the only problem with many Republicans is that they're not conservative enough. Most real conservatives are staunch defenders of freedom in every area except, perhaps, abortion. The squishy Republicans are the ones willing to sell us down the river because they're really closet liberals. BTW, I've never heard of the "Christian National" movement. Is that a real movement or some epithet made up by the lefties? Darrell More specifically, a 'prevent the slope from becoming slippery' argument, but I see your objection. Now, you said: "but in my view, just about any Republican is better than just about any Democrat." Really? Call Bill Clinton what you like, but federal spending actually grew less under him than under either of the Bushes. What does it say when a "tax-and-spend" liberal is doing better for the country than a Republican? It points to the fact that the Republicans gave up defending freedom years ago. They kept the rhetoric, but the records say otherwise. We haven't had a good "viable" Republican candidate since Reagan. I won't vote for a Democrat or a Republican because they're a Democrat or a Republican. I'll vote for the one who has the superior record of defending freedom (or who will do the least amount of damage to freedom). You can play these partisan games if you like. I won't. Christian Nationalism is a label invented by opponents to describe real tendencies and small movements in the Christian community. Not all opponents of mysticism are "lefties," you know. PS: Real "conservatives" are unprincipled. To be a conservative is to support the status quo. A conservative in a communist country would be a communist. That said, you mean real defenders of capitalism and freedom. Most of them seem to have become libertarians. I would like to help reform the GOP and make right the political right. But we can have no illusions about what the Republicans have become. Hell, the only reason the left has gotten its collective foot in the door recently is because so many Republicans have helped to destroy our economy and have gotten involved in so many scandals that people don't trust them any more.

What wacko fundamentalists are you talking about and what the heck is the Christian form of Sharia? If you're talking about the abortion issue, I would agree that some conservatives are too absolutist in their opposition, and I understand why that issue is important to women, but, in my view, it doesn't trump all others. It's crazy to say you'd be willing to give up all of your other rights, just to preserve that one. And, as I recall you're not really a pro-choice absolutist anyway (at least after the first few months) so I don't understand what your big objection is to the current crop of possible Republican candidates. Darrell I'm not talking about abortion. And as you already know, I am opposed to abortion as a rule, and would favor laws making it illegal after the first few months of pregnancy. Let's use abortion as an example, though. Concretely, I agree more with the pro-lifers than the pro-choicers on this issue. But how about the principles leading up to their opposition toward abortion? If you follow that logical train long enough, you will see that the same logic could be applied to some areas of scientific research (note how they are already screaming about the stem cell thing). Do this with most other issues that are important to Christians, and you'll see the magnitude of the damage they could cause. I won't support anti-abortion legislation primarily because the pro-life movement is inextricably tied to the Christian Nationalist movement. Why give power to the people who want to enslave me?

That about sums it up, doesn't it?

Your words of wisdom are appreciated. there are politicians with zero integrity and educators who are moral giants, but, by and large, the mythology of the noble educator lifting the ignorant masses from the great swamp of ignorance is liberal heroic fantasy, and fits like a glove the leftist notion that the majority of people are stupid swine who are unable to manage their own affairs and need to be controlled. I think Aristotle essentially had the right idea with his Golden Mean: all things in balance.

Take that "alternative medicine" stuff with a grain of salt. Now that was funny. Balance. For example, acupressure for a headache works. Knowledge. Urine will kill a foot fungus. Example, my lady was a mid-wife in Bolivia for almost five years and out in the chaco, that was what you used. Alternative medicine "advocates" should be listened too, but selectively. Adam Quite, my good sir. In general, I don't trust people who make a fashion of it. But it would be foolish to dismiss everything lumped under the category 'alternative medicine' because it attracts a few wacko leftists. As you say, selectivity is key here.

Drawing has always been a side-interest for me. I don't put much time into it, but I still have most of my art materials and it can be quite calming to do a basic preliminary sketch in graphite for a few hours. I prefer the stark textures you get with charcoal, but that stuff gets so messy! When I was little, and was writing my first stories, I always included pictures with them (well, hell, so do most kids, but I put a lot of effort into mine). Boy, that was fun: there is a certain kind of satisfaction I got from writing and illustrating my own stories that I could find nowhere else.

Take that "alternative medicine" stuff with a grain of salt.

GS: "We need to pay people to investigate prevention and there is no profit in that, except it will save billions in healthcare costs! So this is something the government needs undertake as the "free market" system will not address this." 1. We don't have a "free market system" here in America. And I sure as hell know that you don't have a free market system in Canada. 2. If private investors don't think it is wise to sink money into this idea, why in hell should taxpayers be forced to pay for it? In fact, here's an idea: why not privately organize this noble profitless venture yourself?

I'll give it a try. I've been looking for something new to watch, anyway. I remember Ninotchka being fun.

Right there with ya, Michael. I'm just afraid too many Objectivists lose valuable opportunities by adopting a WWRD (What Would Roark Do) attitude. And as you said, most beginning writers are, well, beginning writers, and so the opinions of seasoned editors usually help their work out on an aesthetic level. But it would not be respectable for a person to change plot elements that are vital to the theme of the work. At that point, seeking another publisher is preferable. I want to be reasonable without being a pushover with my work, when it gets published, which is one reason why I won't depend upon my writing to support my livelihood until I'm at the point where I have a large built-in audience. It is hard to be principled when you've gone without food for half a week.

Agreed, to a degree. But one must remember to draw the line with compromise. Especially with works from an Objectivist viewpoint, which are liable to attract the left's ire. Publishers are primarily in the market to make money, and editors are not there to guarantee that your artistic vision is expertly presented to the public, but to guarantee that the book is marketable. And they WILL try to change more pertinent instances of theme and plot points if they think it might hurt the book a bit in the market.

Hell if I'm going to support any of these wacko fundamentalists that would relish seeing a Christian form of Sharia forced on the United States. Can't really support the liberals either, as they seem to be rather intent on ruining the economy at the moment. I suppose ol' Ron 'Tin-foil hat' Paul is the best bet at the moment. Although he's too principled to be anything but a gadfly to the pro-economic-intervention Republicans right now. *sigh* Good to see the poor little ol' Objectivist candidate (what was his name?) is getting so much help from the Objectivist community at the moment.

Two reasons: 1) Comedy is the hardest genre to do well. Ever been to a club and watched amateur comedians trying out new material get booed off the stage? Comedy can either be irritating or hilarious. No in-between. And most people do not fall on the favorable side of that irritating/hilarious dichotomy. 2) Comedy is not something that can stand on its own. The best comedians know this. Good comedy is only supplemental to some actual message or theme. Have you ever seen a Bill Hicks performance, or a video of one of his performances (and yes, I know most Objectivists would loathe watching him merely for the aggressive leftism inherent in his personality, but ignore that for a minute)? He had jokes, sure, but he knew that the jokes were only fluffing for the heart of his routine. Rather, he had something to say, and he would engage in a kind of one-sided dialogue with his audience about the things he cared about. He did so in a humorous manner, but he wasn't being frivolous or nihilistic in the process. It applies the same to art. Comedy is only supplemental. Pure comedy, that is, comedy for comedy's sake, always collapses upon itself, either from frivolity or nihilistic excesses. Watch any good comedy--comedy that you find very funny--and you'll almost always see it is about something. And hell, even with this type of comedy (comedy about something), it usually suffers from the first problem (being unfunny).

Ginny, I have heard of it, but have avoided it until now. Was that a mistake? I tend to get irritated with movies and shows where the focus of the plot is on crossdressing.

Yo.

Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, a film I'm still surprised I enjoy so much, considering I loathe comedy in general and mass-appeal blockbuster comedies in particular. I think it is because the movie, for a mass-appeal blockbuster comedy film, is surprisingly thoughtful in its portrayal of two men who become strangers in a strange land -- Austin Powers and Dr. Evil were men of their times, and now they find themselves baffled and lost in a world where popular morality, currency value, technology, and the balance of political power have all changed dramatically. Also, the parodic elements, which there are many of, are very funny if you 'get it,' but you don't need to 'get' the various allusions to 60s spy films to enjoy the movie. It's too bad they had to go and make all of those horrid sequels.

People who define morality in relation to their country's legal standards are subjecting philosophy to the whims of government officials. A country's legal system can respect and honor justice by institutionalizing it, or it can spit upon it by disregarding it. If murder is defined primarily as "illegal killing," then to speak of murder is not to speak of a legitimate concept as such, but is merely to speak of killing that the state does not approve of. The focus shifts from philosophy to power-relations. From reason and logical analysis to men with guns. The laws of a country are only as legitimate as the philosophical ideas behind them. Better not to use words with multiple meanings and emotional weight unless you're writing propaganda, though. Immoral killing and illegal killing are both appropriate stand-ins for the word, based upon the context (philosophy or law).

Whim-worshipping inconsistent transcendentalist. I like that. Sure, you like that NOW... but two seconds later, nope! You can be a funny guy.

Do it! You are quite clever, I must say.

Wow, it took him fifteen minutes to say what Yoda said in eight words... "Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'"

Torchwood is actually good? After trying to watch what Russell Turner Davies did to the "new " Doctor Who (although I must admit the continous commercials on SciFi don't help) I assumed that Torchwood would be just as bad. Of course, effectively jettisoning the whole Gallifreyan context pretty much ruined it for me at the very start--on top of which was the whole Saga of Rose. It's telling that the main reason I watched the most recent season of Who was for the sake of seeing Catherine Tate. Meantime a voice from my childhood insists that Dark Shadows be included (the original show). It's not GREAT, but I enjoy it pretty well. It's good character drama. Then again, keep in mind this is the opinion of a person who has not seen even one episode of Dr. Who, old or new.

I think they largely copied this theme from the show Charmed (a show which many BTVS fans also like). A constant theme on Charmed is that they are to use their magical powers in defense of the good against evil only, not for personal gain. Power abuse is a lot like drug addiction--the addict constantly searches for a greater and greater high. My main problem was the baloney with Spike, who should have been killed around the middle of Season 5. His constant wavering between good and evil, and the fact that Buffy started banging him totally ruined her as a hero. The show had generally been very moral. I mostly blame Marti Noxon for this, as it seems that Joss was not involved much with the show and it shows. She made some very idiotic quotes on the subject of sex and relationships. Evil Willow was a reaction to the death of Tara (which occurred on my birthday--leave it to Joss Whedon to ruin my birthday). It showed what happens when a good person becomes obsessed with vengeance. Willow had just gotten back with Tara, and it ended like this. After this, many fans on Fan Forum asked: "Does love ever work out in Sunnydale?" Incidentally, a friend of one of my Facebook friends mentioned that he had just sold his house to Adam Busch and Amber Benson. That's right--BTVS fans--the excellent actors who played Tara and Warren are a couple in real life. I want the Great Amberous One all for myself! It was so nice to meet Amber in person at the convention back in Houston in 2005. She is such a sweet and kind person. Yes, the two (power and drug addiction) have similarities, but making Willow's magic use a metaphor for drug addiction was completely wrong psychologically for the character. Throughout the show, issues of self-confidence and power constantly pop up for Alyson Hannigan's character. Magic for Willow is a control issue, a substitute for self-confidence. The sex between Buffy and Spike in season six was supposed to be distasteful. Buffy had just been torn out of paradise, brought back to the demon-filled world of Sunnydale, and, on top of this shock, which made her previously normal problems ten times more difficult for her to bear after experiencing the splendor of Heaven, must also deal with responsibilities such as raising Dawn and making enough money for them to survive. Naturally, she wants to escape this, but realizing that there is no escape (I believe normal suicide leads one to a Hell dimension in this show), begins expressing a subconscious urge to destroy herself. This is what her fling with Spike is about. Sleeping with him both heals some of her emotional pain and satisfies that self-destructive urge. I believe after the episode Normal Again, when Buffy is presented with two "realities" and definitively chooses the more painful one (which she realizes is the really real one), she ends her relationship with Spike, as she has chosen life over death. As to Spike, I always had problems believing that he really loved Buffy. It just seemed so... out-of-character for him, you know? As to Dark Willow, Tara's death is NOT the cause of it, but the (admittedly heavy) straw that broke the camel's back. She had been going increasingly insane with power as the show went on, and when she realized that she did not have the power to bring Tara back from a "natural death," it was too great a contradiction for her to bear (the contradiction between her power over everything and being unable to bring her lover back from death, as she had with Buffy). That episode was on your birthday. Ouch. Then again, my mother's birthday is September the 11th. Would you recommend Charmed? I've always thought about watching it, but have never made the leap. For some reason I have this fear that it is similar to Passions.

"...individuals who refuse to purchase affordable insurance will have to pay a penalty." Wait... ...so a person will be penalized for not buying something? Soviet States of America, here we come!