Max Eichelberger

Thank you, sir for your lovely welcome. I believe that the OL boards are a great asset and example of how Objectivists can be and I feel very welcome here. In comparison to the other SOLO board where it seems everyone there must be the Wahhabi equivalent of an objectivist. I'm exceptionally poor at similes and understand little of Wahhabism beyond the evening news. It certainly sounds like a similie that accurately portrays their zeal and fervor. But I am hardly unbiased. Quite interesting, if this was indeed the case, then why are so many Americans becoming Muslim? It isn't the fastest growing religion in the US simply because we like having babies (although I have to admit, we do love having babies!). So why are so many people coming to Islam if it sounds so ludicrous? I believe we should clarify that atheism is the fastest growing affiliation. [http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf]Which is, of course, sort of the point. Right now in today's America, people see Islam and think to themselves... "Wow, virgins? In heaven? Kinky..." Then they turn to their daily lives and think "Surrounded by invisible 'angels?'" Americans have always wanted to be considered part of the "educated and legitimate" international scene. Religion and revolutionary liberty obviously conflict; a love hate relation. But as it's made obvious to Americans... Non-Christians view them the same way they view Islam, and as America has this critical analysis of itself it's hard to maintain that impetus to stay faithful. That affect can only increase with coverage of Muslim practices. Media in general is allergic to theism. Whether or not positive media coverage would increase rates of conversion is a "what if," discussion of almost no value. We might as well consider gravity pushing things away... Or chances of being struck by lighting twice in one day.

Welcome to Objectivist Living. I suppose I should ask: when did you first hear of Ayn Rand?

Anarchist always sounded dirty... I prefer Autokratōr (literally, self-ruler). An attempt to annex both autocrat and "autocracy" from the clutches of statists. I dimly remember the term always referenced with Colorado Liberty (later Rampart) College and LeFevre. Someone help me out? Anyhow, welcome to Objectivist Living. ;)

thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=473 That sums up my feelings (e.g. hilarity).

You believe that Islam becoming the majority religion in the US would result in the US' demise? If so, how and why? If you'd allow me, sir. But before I begin I'd like to thank you. Thank you for coming to Objectivist Living and expressing your views competently, coherently and with great personal character. Something I do not say often, and only when the occasion merits. I will, for now, simply dismiss the notion of a Muslim majority appearing in America or any Western country. Mark Steyn is undoubtedly entertaining in American Alone (a book that must start any conversation these days; for rightists or leftists), but like many entertainers he squiggles the facts. "Religiousness and Fertility Among European Muslims," (published in Population and Development Review) basically recommends common sense as a cold bucket of water for xenophobic flames. European welfare statism and moral relativism acts on new Muslim immigrants fairly fast demographically. They are not invulnerable to the laws of nature which govern all other ethnicities in the EU (unsurprisingly). Increasing levels of Muslim percentages must be found in immigrants and the highest TFR [Total Fertility Rate] Muslim countries (surprisingly) have lower TFR's lower than American Hispanics. The lowest (North African) Muslim countries have "European" levels. Quite simply, with European welfare statism eating into Muslim percentages abroad and less potential emigrants there is little chance that Europe (much less America) will become Islamic. However, a sizable percentage will cause damage disproportional to its size. How? Two ways: Switzerland initiatives and atheistic mockery. I'll try not to ramble, and I'll keep this short. There should never be a choice between freedom and democracy. Most especially when the side representing freedom and liberty has a large albatross around its neck. Like the current Gay "Rights," movement Islam will become unseemly allies to what are classically referred to as "anti-statists." If the choice comes down between liberty of religion, and the threat of religion; security will win out every time. For that salient potential, or the chance of that potential, Islam should never reach American shores. Secondly, Islam sounds ludicrous to American ears. The more the U.S. knows of the religion, the crazier and meaner it sounds. This is not meant to be offensive too you; it's impossible to not be moved by the Koran's value as literature and art. But what it represents is, quite frankly, not Islam but self-reflection. If one religion sounds stupid to our ears, what makes 'our' religion intelligent? I'll talk more later.

I think it's a fairly conclusive to say that the Global Warming "debate," is now more than ever open to skepticism.

Very amusing. Took the edge off a hard day.

Great find Michael, though couldn't energy be used to, eh, recruit the fellow for a site that doesn't hate his guts? Maybe, perhaps, a great Objectivist site with the initials OL? Who says that Objectivists are for globalism and materialism? Objectivists are for freedom and prosperity, but I'm not sure those things are exactly the same as globalism and materialism. Darrell I think the point he was attempting to make was that it would be good to find people who are perfectly fine being the Liberal Boogeymen (e.g. Objectivist).

I love John Stossel! I'll watch that show, as I do all of his shows.

Oh my, an ignoranus!!! [happy new year - may ye become less ignored of things... ;-)] Ever since Death of a Salesman, I've never been able to call someone an ignoramus. Anyhow, Happy New Year everyone; with that unique moon.

That is actually a very, at least on first inspection, good question. *Subscribes to Topic*

Why is nothing ever on the West Coast, and if it is; somewhere deep in L.A.! Bah-hum-bug.

Lysander Spooner is an intellectual machine. His essay on the "Constitution of No Authority," so directly mirrors my own thoughts it's frightening. One of my gifts for Christmas was "The Libertarian Reader," Edited By David Boaz, and there was a section on Mr. Spooner. Very, very, interesting.

The best book I have ever read in quite sometime. Certainly, not a literary classic but filled with wit, charm and countless memorable phrases. It was a joyous ride of intellectual pleasuring. My girlfriend bought it for me knowing I would agree wholeheartedly with him. I love her, and her amazing choice of books. And I recommend everyone else to pick up a copy if they can.

I'd recommend "Radicals For Capitalism (A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement)" By Brian Doherty. It is exactly what you are looking for. It's arguably light on Ayn Rand's contributions, and that of the National Review/Buckley. But still encompasses large swaths of history not commonly known. It's great if you're looking for a light brush over of the entire anti-statist movement (and by 'light,' I mean 700+ pages).

When Bush did it, it was obviously in violation of American integrity. When Obama does it, it is merely fashionable.

Hello Jay, I think Michael summed it up ("there's not much to say except welcome") for me. Enjoy your stay. *tips hat* And good luck.

I intend to spread my reaction across all three of your threads, ValueChaser. I want to post my feelings to your work holistically, instead of on a specific individual poem, so I thought it would be misleading if I posted my reception in one thread. If I did I believe it would imply, at best, that I was pulling too much from one poem or, at worst, that I was ignoring the other two entirely. Also, consider that poetic criticism is merely inductive reasoning strengthened by large amounts of dogma. Take my words with a grain of salt. But if your toes are stepped on, don't worry, the pain will fade. What seems good to me, may seem bad to others and vice versa. In this thread I'll concentrate on the use of free verse (blank form, open form et al). Truly, I don't want you writing exclusively in villanella's and sestina's, yet, exclusive free verse rankles my sensibilities. Generally speaking, the proliferation of free verse has unnecessarily damaged poetry. A fairly profound statement, no? That may make me a New Formalist (or Neo-New Formalist, I suppose) but it is true nonetheless. Free verse, now used all too exclusively, has lead poetry into a cultural Dachau. But instead of dying at a quick stroke, poetry has lingered on in a deathly embrace of proletarianization. I am not a die-hard believer of a structured poem, with rime and meter, nor am I snob. At least, I'm not an excessive snob (certainly not old enough, for one, and not British; for another) but as someone who enjoys poetry, the lack of technical charm throughout the genre is disappointing. Poetry (remember that feminist embarrassment that Obama had read at his inauguration?) cannot be a mere spraying of nice saying generalities. Words mean things, and more importantly: stressed utterances mean different things. The poem is certainly sincere enough, and profound in its own unique way. I wouldn't agree with John Derbyshire on Free Verse ("inedible"), it certainly has its place, such as your poem, but writing in exclusively Free Verse cheapens the whole genre and your obvious talent. Cheapens? Well, yes. By excluding the considerations of technical difficulty, you cheapen the decision of every syllable. When you have more options, and less pressure to decide on a course, poems invariably end up in some horrible twilight of sincere emotion and sophistic "me two"ism. It becomes a sophomoric repeat of nice sounding concepts that inevitably produce a gray nothingness. I went to my local bookstore the other day, bought a fairly contemporary book of poetry (filled with the usual clutter of New Left talking points ungracefully slammed onto the pages like a country bumpkin would attempt to slam together the heads of baby pigs) and cannot replicate one line to save my life. I sent some wild stabs today, across the Internet, and contemporary "Post-Modernists," are no better on their websites. There are you few, truly touching poets, which make me understand where the Free Verse mentality comes from (touch as many hearts, as fast as possible). But do I still feel that same thrill remembering them, as I do Robert Browning's “My Last Duchess"? The answer is, quiet simply, no. There are, unlike poets previously, no longer the lines of note. There is only the gray mass of note; the feeling, a left over taste not entirely unlike bitter sweet, which pervades you as you finish a poem. It's saddening because there is nothing better than reading a poem once, twice, four times, eight times, twelve times, twenty times, forty times; each time getting more from its meaning. Not in these new poems, each line is bland and made especially to 'touch your heart.' It is a moot point whether a black feminist can touch people's hearts with poor similies of her vagina and the Middle Passage to America. I want to see a poem, written by you, which is fixed. A poem that I can smile and enjoy, because of its memorability, long past the day I stop contributing to this site. You have the talent, only, you need to utilize it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/27/ftn/main6027124.shtml Don't worry everyone, the system worked fine.

I just saw it reposted on a few of my other political forums. Hilarious stuff.

Good ball club. Western Basketball - fast with great passing. Nash is always a pleasure to watch. Good front line, but how is their bench this year? It's hard to say, Phoenix is excellent (lost but 2) at home; half and half away. So there's definitely quality game happening, and there's a lot of activity coming from the bench though... There's just as much inactivity. Leandro Barbosa is a one man fast break, and I can't wait until Jason Richardson's contract expires. I think if Barbosa had a tad more finesse, and wasn't injured, he'd be a starter already. Dragvic (or whatever his name is), also called NashLite, is doing fairly well but still needs to get used to the NBA. Amundson is also getting the hang of pro-ball too, and is apparently a fan favorite (though, not to me). Yet all conversations on the integrity of the bench immediately crashes down when the words "Robin" and "Lopez" are spoken together. I don't know why one would draft a Stanford post, but Phoenix did, and he's been nothing but crap. Dudley ain't bad, but Hill is impossibly good for his age (or, really, any age) so he's going to continue to post bad numbers until he gets more minutes, gets a better feel... That said though, they are going to the Finals and they'll do well but not win it. After you get over the Nash-Stoudemire there really isn't that much depth. Channing is dead weight (like all posts on the Phoenix Suns' offense), Hill is playing amazing but isn't so much a foundation as he is a convenience and Richardson... Well, it's Richardson. Best days are definitely behind him.

I actually saw this when it first aired. The two guys sniping at each other made me laugh. I was wrapping presents with my girlfriend, and she thought CNBC was similiar to MSNBC, and I was like "give it a chance." As luck would have it, we tuned into it almost the second Kudlow switched to this. That one fellow who said the guy on the upper right was "Godless," or whatever. Hilarious.

I do see a future for the Tea Party! In any event, I agree it will continue to focus the debate on government largess. And that is quite a future.

I love basketball. My team: Phoenix Suns. ;)