Michelle

If you want to win a war, strike with your strongest weapon first and knock the enemy out. Starting light and building up gives the enemy a chance to become stronger. As to hurting civilians on the other side, consider the question: do you want to win or not? If you do, do whatever will achieve that end. In a war, the end justifies the means. The enemy civilians are in, effect, munitions and instruments of war for the leadership on the other side. Since you would not hesitate a minute to blow up his ships and planes, do not hesitate to blow up the workers in his munitions factories or the people who transport his goods. Follow the example of Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris. He had the right idea. Ditto follow the example of Curtis LeMay. He burned Japan to the ground in the Pacific War. A war, is an emergency situation. I recall a certain novelist with a thick Russian accent teaching us that in an emergency, all bets are off and all rules suspended. Victory first, morality later, if at all. Ba'al Chatzaf This kind of thinking you see in Sharia law, where your hand is chopped off when you're found stealing something. Would you blow a kid's brains out for throwing a rock through your window? Following this logic, every country on Earth would probably have ended up a glass crater right now. The idea that you reply to any act of war with the strongest possible response, regardless of context, is idiotic and downright murderous. It is also fundamentally unjust. Moreover, I'll say this: morality shouldn't be breaking down when things don't go your way. A morality that doesn't work when things get rough is a morality which ought to be abandoned. Emergency situations change the rule of the degree of the response. It doesn't throw all moral rules out of the window, however, and say: all is fair. If your country is at a fair risk of being annihilated, you should strike with your strongest weapons, given situational context (nuking the Soviets would have been rather suicidal).

Citizen Kane isn't long. It's a minute shy of being two hours long. Fairly standard movie length these days. North by Northwest is just a little bit over two hours. I'll reserve my judgment until I see NxNW again, as I saw it when I was fairly young, but I've seen Citizen Kane two times, one years ago and one a few months ago, and both times it bored me to tears. It may only be two hours long, but it feels like a four hour movie. That's how boring it is. Well-made and influential it may be, but I won't be sad if I never see it again. My attention span is fine. I've had no problem with films like The Seven Samurai and Schindler's List. Now, if you've seen Seven Samurai, you know it is roughly 3.5 hours long. And films, like short stories, should be absorbed, ideally, in one sitting. If this is not possible, then two extended sittings with a short amount of time in-between each is also good. Michelle; I consider Citizen Kane over rated. Your point about Seven Samurai and Schinndler's List is very true. Hi. Well, Citizen Kane isn't exactly overrated. It was incredibly important in some of the techniques it innovated. I just don't care about the story being told. My approach to it is similar to how most people approach Griffith's Birth of a Nation.

Citizen Kane isn't long. It's a minute shy of being two hours long. Fairly standard movie length these days. North by Northwest is just a little bit over two hours. I'll reserve my judgment until I see NxNW again, as I saw it when I was fairly young, but I've seen Citizen Kane two times, one years ago and one a few months ago, and both times it bored me to tears. It may only be two hours long, but it feels like a four hour movie. That's how boring it is. Well-made and influential it may be, but I won't be sad if I never see it again. My attention span is fine. I've had no problem with films like The Seven Samurai and Schindler's List. Now, if you've seen Seven Samurai, you know it is roughly 3.5 hours long. And films, like short stories, should be absorbed, ideally, in one sitting. If this is not possible, then two extended sittings with a short amount of time in-between each is also good.

When I was a kid, my mother would try warning me off from wandering about by myself by telling me that strangers might get me. "I'll just beat em up," I told her. But what if they have guns, she'd ask me. "I'd just kick the guns out of their hands and then beat them up," I responded. The innocence of youth. But seriously, when Rand speaks of the impotence of evil, she is not talking about evil people. She is talking about evil qualities. A purely evil person, possessed of no virtues, would never be any threat to anyone else, as they'd be unable to sustain their own lives. This type of person doesn't exist, of course, but it makes for a nice illustration. CS Lewis addresses the impotence of evil in his "Mere Christianity." Here Lewis is discounting dualism, which he defines as "...the belief that there are two equal and independent powers at the back of everything, one of them good and the other bad...": "The two powers ... are supposed to be quite independent. ... Each presumably thinks it is good and thinks the other bad. ... Now what do we mean when we call one of them the Good Power and the other the Bad Power? Either we are merely saying that we happen to prefer the one to the other--like preferring beer to cider--or else we are saying that, whatever the two powers think about it, and whichever we humans, at the moment, happen to like, one of them is actually wrong, actually mistaken, in regarding itself as good. ... If "being good" meant simply joining the side you happened to fancy ... then good would not deserve to be called good. So we must mean that one of the two powers is actually wrong and the other actually right. "But the moment you say that, you are putting into the universe a third thing in addition to the two Powers: some law or standard or rule of good which one of the powers conforms to and the other fails to conform to. But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard ... is farther back and higher up than either of them..." He goes on to say: "If Dualism is true, then the bad Power must be a being who likes badness for its own sake. But in reality we have no experience of anyone liking badness just because it is bad. The nearest we can get to it is in cruelty. But in real life people are cruel for one of two reasons--either because they are sadists, that is, because they have a sexual perversion which makes cruelty a cause of sensual pleasure to them, or else for the sake of something they are going to get out of it--money, or power, or safety. But pleasure, money, power, and safety are all, as far as they go, good things. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way..."

Michele: Good points. I would modify your statement: "There is nothing good or noble about murder. The question is whether the murder is morally justifiable or not." to: "There is nothing good or noble about murder. The question is whether the killing is morally justifiable or not." "Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission. The word murder is related, in old English, to the French word mordre (bite) in reference to the heavy compensation one must pay for causing an unjust death.[1]" WIKI Adam If you like. But then both sentences would have to refer to killing. So: "There is nothing good or noble about killing. The question is whether the killing is morally justifiable or not." If the words are different in both sentences, the meaning is lost. I tend to refer to any intentional killing of another human being as murder, but the legal definition of the word, along with its emotional weight, make it unsuitable for our purposes. So you're right.

The assertion that American military personnel are not morally responsible for the people they have killed is absolutely amazing. You know you've destroyed the very concept of reality itself when you can see one man gut or shoot another and then say with a straight face that he was absolutely not morally responsible for the death of the other man. The question isn't "is he morally responsible," which he obviously is, but: "was it justified?" War, by its nature, is reprehensible. There is nothing good or noble about murder. The question is whether the murder is morally justifiable or not.

I went there recently and hit the casinos. Filthy, dangerous place. I remember some guy throwing calling cards for cheap whores around in the streets. Another guy took to trailing me. Not much luck with the slot machines. Won 80$ and promptly lost it over the next ten minutes. I won't be visiting that place for pleasure again. That's for sure.

EDIT: NEVERMIND, I SEE WHAT SHE'S DOING

I see your objection. The ARI position is one of total war with no respect for the lives of enemy civilians, whereas this guy makes it sound like Peikoff is saying that we should specifically target civilians (a position Mr. Biddle takes, however, as you've noted). The way I see it, though, this is absolutely worse than pure psychotic malevolence. Psychopaths are obviously sick and need treatment, whereas Peikoff and co. can make their murderous rubbish sound slightly rational, which is enough for some Objectivists. Mr Peikoff associates his bloodlust (I'd have to disagree with your comparison of the ARI position to the government denying paperwork based on a technicality in association with Peikoff: every time I've watched him talk about this particular issue, actually watched him, I could almost see him smacking his grubby lips as he preached collective guilt and collective damnation for people in the Islamic world) with reason, thereby dirtying reason by virtue of that association. Pure evil is impotent and more pathetic than fearsome, as it is a negation. What Peikoff and co. are doing is way worse. That author was obviously going to extremes. Hell, he's a member of antiwar.com. You're not going to get a balanced view from him. And he, like most contributors to the Lew Rockwell site, is partially a nutter, and probably thinks that the American South was fully justified in tearing the country apart and that Somalia is a great place to live, like most of the von Mises-Rockwellians tend to. Either way, the ARI position is monstrous, and Mr. Peikoff is evil for preaching it. I read The Roots of War recently. Quite an interesting contrast to the people now carrying the banner of Objectivism. America might need a philosophical renaissance, but if Objectivists want to pave the way for this renaissance, they need to kick this creepy second-hander out to the curb. If I'm going to extremes, I'll have to apologize, but I love the works of Ayn Rand, and what she stood for, and what Objectivism as a philosophy stands for, and this creep, who is Rand's "intellectual heir," is associating Miss Rand and her legacy with terror, violence, and irrationality.

I love the allusion to Cuffy Meigs. It is remarkable how many of the orthodox Objectivists look and act like the villains in ATLAS SHRUGGED. Take Peikoff: scrawny man with a whiny, nasally voice who looks like a cross between a Bond villain and that bespectacled Nazi from Raiders of the Lost Ark and who preaches a doctrine of collective guilt and advocates for the murder of innocents. I can't help but feel that the guy probably deserved to be on that last train that went into the Taggart Tunnel. He's had his rare moments of sanity, but nothing excuses the murderous rubbish he has been peddling for some time now. That opinion might seem extreme, but I have no sympathy for people who thirst for the blood of children and innocents

"GN"?? He'p me, he'p me. Ba'al Chatzaf Graphic Novel

Nothing wrong with the state as long as it doesn't run wild, as it has been recently. We're transitioning from an administration of blood-thirsty warmongers to an administration of Tooheys. Oh joy. There is always a something wrong with the state for an anarchist...lol, but anarchy is a Utopian dream. Attila mates with the Witch Doctor by Michelle...a voyage into passionless primitive pain! :faceless: Post Script: Sleepers great film Not really. I mean, Somalia is stateless (although they do have Xeer in place).

Nothing wrong with the state as long as it doesn't run wild, as it has been recently. We're transitioning from an administration of blood-thirsty warmongers to an administration of Tooheys. Oh joy.

I really would rather see this made as a mini-series. They're going to mangle the story if they try squeezing it into 2.5 hours. Some people have suggested a trilogy, but honestly, do you see people getting excited for a movie called ATLAS SHRUGGED: NON-CONTRADICTION, or ATLAS SHRUGGED BEGINS? A trilogy is an awful idea. With a mini-series, though, they could focus on streamlining the enormous novel and focusing on essentials without having to omit essential details.

Perhaps I should expand on the accusation of the film having a leftist streak. While it is generally a liberty-minded movie, and almost every libertarian I know loves it, there's just little details that rub me the wrong way. For instance, Christians are evil and turn England into a theocracy, but the Koran is moving poetry? Oh, those poor muslims. How about the association of conservatives with nazis? Note also the subtle inclusion of 9/11 conspiracy theory with the introduction of that subplot of the government killing its own citizens to gain power. Don't be fooled by the British setting. The film version was partly a commentary on the Bush Administration Nevertheless, the film, at its heart, has a powerful pro-liberty message. Far superior to the anarchism advocated for in the GN.

The film has a bit of an irritating leftist streak, but it is still pretty good. I will admit to loving how the Wachowski Bros turned the voice of fate into a parody of Rush Limbaugh, though Ahh the 20 million listener man - yes really good satire, an art form I love. Satire only really works in the context of something meaningful, though. The Fountainhead and the film version of V For Vendetta both include copious amounts of social and political satire. And they work, because both of these are ultimately about more than what they're making fun of. This is one of the reasons why Catch-22 is crap.

The film has a bit of an irritating leftist streak, but it is still pretty good. I will admit to loving how the Wachowski Bros turned the voice of fate into a parody of Rush Limbaugh, though

Are you opposed to YouTube? They have the series in full and good quality . Nope. I just live in the boonies here in Tennessee. So all we can get out here is satellite.

Oh. V For Vendetta. Terrific movie. I actually prefer it over the GN. I've never been much of a Moore fan. The Wachowski Bros turn it into a slick and enjoyable action flick.

What do you take me for? You read too much into simple questions. I haven't seen it. I wondered if you had. That's all. I was not offended by the question, just surprised. I assumed you knew somewhat about the series. I hope you read the whole post: What do you take me for? I studiously avoid most gay themes. Especially leftist dribble that makes Reagan out as some sort of monster. I get enough drama with so-called Objectivists with their cattiness, lack of self-awareness and territoriality. I like Bound, for instance, for the plot and because Jennifer Tilly is one of the sexiest living actresses, and so was Gina Gershon before the nose job. I enjoyed Amistead Maupin's Tales of the City miniseries which was great because of its complex dramatic plotting and exuberant sense of life. Other than that I don't watch Will and Grace, and I prefer South Park's take on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Here is the full miniseries. (PBS's highest rated show ever.) I most strongly recommend it to everyone here. Rand would have loved the drama and plot twists; murder, blackmail, love triangles, mistaken identity. That some of the characters are homosexual is secondary to the drama. I really do most strongly recommend Tales of the City. Based on the miniseries, I would assume had I read the novel it might be one of my favorites, ever. Indeed, I'm going to order it now. Oh, duh, I think you must think the reference to cattiness, and territoriality was to you? No, not at all. And remember, you are not an Objectivist, even so-called. Don't worry about offending me. I'm a tough girl, believe it or not. And besides, I'll know if you're insulting me, because there will be no ambiguity about it. Remember? Oh god, no, I know you weren't talking about me. I assumed you meant the millions of warring clans of Objectivists. I know very little about Angels in America. Something about prophets and AIDS. Never really took the chance to read up more about it. I figured you'd probably seen it, so I asked you. It seems I was right. My brother-in-law has just about every TV show ever made. I'll check with him and see if he has that series.

The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand

What do you take me for? You read too much into simple questions. I haven't seen it. I wondered if you had. That's all.

Okay, the Birdcage? You got me there, indeed, I choked when I read that. Yes, I'd rather watch BBM and Rear Window back to back for a week straight than one sitting of The Birdcage. As for "bitter to" above, the proper word would have been "contemptuous of." I can very strongly recommend the film Bound with Jennifer Tilly as the gangster's moll and Gina Gershon as the lesbian handyman who wins her heart. The movie is a smart gangster movie and it has the added gimmick of the hero being a very attractive lesbian rather than a man. Rope is horrible. The characters are scum. Hitchcock should not have expected his audience to identify with them. I found the movie pretentious and insulting, and boring as well. I thought that allusion would make its mark. Media portrayals of homosexuals do tend to be overall less offensive than media portrayals of transsexuals, though. Films like Normal and Transamerica are just painful to watch. Not to mention The World According to Garp. There are, of course, things like Ma Vie En Rose and Boys Don't Cry (the latter left a bad taste in my mouth, but it at least treats its subject with dignity). Have you seen the miniseries adaptation of Angels in America? EDIT: I'll check out that movie you mentioned. Sounds intriguing.

Okay, well, watch Marnie ASAP. Sorry, I can't find it on line. I did indeed find the ending of Vertigo laughable, but was more angered at it than amused. He could simply have overcome his fear and saved her as she clutched the bell tower ledge. That would have been a fine heroic ending. As for Rear Window, I would only feel powerless and horrified if I were stuck in a wheelchair and so couldn't change the channel or eject the movie. Here is The 39 Steps Most films don't have heroic themes. This includes Vertigo. The film was a study in obsession and illusion, and the film's internal logic demanded an unhappy resolution. But it wasn't really a resolution, was it? Scary nun walks up. She tips off over the bell tower ledge. SPLAT. We see the nun isn't so scary after all. Ferguson looks over the edge. THE END. Great end to that boorish slog of a film. Have you seen Hitchcock's "Rope?"

People victimized by others. Obviously. OK... I've seen death, AIDS, children thrown out of their homes, gay bashers, bashing of gay bashers, and a hell of a lot more as well. I've known friends who were murdered and who died by AIDS, and have had more than a few brushes with the criminally insane. Is there a reason we're making these lists? Brokeback Mountain is no more a 'gay movie' than Romeo and Juliet was a play about the conflicts between two upper-class English families. It makes no attempt at analyzing gay life beyond the immediate necessities of the plot. It is not about 'gay people' in any thematic sense. Homosexuality, still being socially taboo in several parts of America, allows the theme of people letting society's demands destroy their lives (which is what the movie is about) to stand out. It wouldn't have been as effective if an interracial conflict or a conflict of differing religions was used. It isn't trying to make gay people seem 'good and sympathetic' or portray the gritty realities of life in that era. If anything, both of the main characters come off rather badly in the film, devolving into hatred and making life miserable for their wives and children. You wouldn't know this, of course, as you only watched the first thirty minutes of a two hour and fourteen minute movie. I fail to see how adding poppers and AIDS to the movie would have improved it. Look, if you don't like it, that's fine, but you're not going to have an accurate perspective on a movie you've not even watched half of. Poppers? I think you will admit that BBM was described as if it humanized homosexuals for a wide audience. As far as I am concerned, it patronized homosexuals with two pretty actors who look ever so boy-next-doorish and unthreatening and wholesome as possible so as not to alienate a certain target demographic. If you think it is worth watching, do you want to say why? If there is some good reason I actually should watch the whole thing, I will be happy to be corrected. Did you watch the clips I suggested? I was being a smart-ass. The characters in that setting and time period would not have been using poppers. It humanized them, sure, but it didn't idealize them. Later in the film, Ennis del Mar in particular becomes quite violent around his wife, and he ends the film an embittered and broken man. Jack Twist (Gyllenhaal) starts sleeping with prostitutes and grows distant from his family before he dies near the end of the film. The actors are pretty boys, yes, but the characters are not idealized. They're certainly not wholesome and unthreatening. The cinematography is gorgeous (come on, watch some of the mountain scenes from a purely aesthetic standpoint). Michelle Williams and Heath Ledger both turn in riveting and heart-breaking performances as their respective characters. Moreover, the film never devolves into a slog about gay oppression at the hands of evil heteros. Like I said, it isn't about gay or straight. That element is not central to the core of the film. The film is majestic and lonely and unflinching in its analysis of its characters. I'm not saying it doesn't have flaws. I rolled my eyes at some of the dialogue ('Ah wish ah knew how to quit you!' etc.). A few of the initial mountain scenes are a bit corny. Moreover, Gyllenhaal doesn't do a great job as Jack Twist. He's way too boyish for the role, and I never fully buy him as a 35+ year old man later in the film. Jack's wife Lureen never gets properly developed (Anne Hathaway is nowhere near as compelling in this role as Michelle Williams is playing Ennis' wife). But compared to what it does right, these flaws are insubstantial. It isn't the greatest film ever made, but it is superb, and I'd whole-heartedly recommend it to almost anybody. Yes. The Living End looks terrific (by its trailer, at least). Not too sure about Paris is Building. I tend to avoid documentaries like the plague. I judge movies by plot and theme. I don't see that this movie offers either. The last thing I would say about BBM, then, is what is it about? Mountain scenery? Making homosexuality sympathetic, and showing how men shouldn't force themselves into marriages? Is it just about two unhappy men? I quit my job and dropped out of school in order to move to the South Bronx to live with the love of my life. We lived as "gay terrorists," going to heavy metal concerts and making out in the mosh pit, threatening to beat up people who made queer bashing remarks, living as if the world belonged to us, with no shame, until he was murdered in a car jacking. I have been out to family friends and girlfriends since 14, before I was an Objectivist. Watching a film about two "gay" victims? Meh. I really liked the film Donnie Darko with Gyllenhaal. It's an interesting sci-fi story. A dead teenager is offered one last month in which instead of living a life of conformist hypocrisy, he takes a different path. The film has flaws, it is very cynical in a typically leftist way, but it does skewer its targets. Gyllenhaal is certainly not a hero, but you can suspend disbelief and enjoy it. The film isn't about gay victims though. Ennis del Mar is the heart of the film. He meets a young man for a job on a mountain, falls in love, denies this love because of his fears, cultivates a phony family life around him, and spends the rest of his life in growing misery as his growing love for that man haunts his existence. He is several times offered a chance at redemption by Jack (who wants them to live together), but Ennis fears for his life and Jack's life and ends up as a bitter shell of a man who was so afraid of death and violence that he never learned to experience love and happiness. It is, in essence, a cautionary tale, and a character study. You've never met people who have been so deathly afraid of life's possibilities that they never learned to truly live? I see it all the time. If you don't like films that have a negative theme, you probably won't like this one. It isn't a film about gay victims, though. I can appreciate how your experience would make you bitter to sanitized media portraits of homosexuality, but this film isn't about the "gay experience" (god I hate that phrase, but there you go). Now, take something like The Birdcage. That's more the type of film that deserves your ire. Only plot and theme? That's one of our differences, I think. I don't mind something with a lack of content if it is expertly made and engaging (although I do not think BBM falls into this category). Take Kill Bill volume one. Very, very silly film, but it is wacky, inventive, and generally fun as hell to watch. Groundbreaking? No. But a damned good watch. Not art, but expert escapism. I wouldn't call Donnie Darko sci-fi. More like dark fantasy. It was okay, but not as great as people led me to believe it was. The theme of authenticity wasn't well-presented, and the experimental aspects feel contrived. I still enjoy it, but it isn't one of my favorites. David Lynch is a better 'experimental' filmmaker.