Peter

Who would bring in the most electoral votes? Thye hvae a chnance. Hilarity?

You need a spell checker Marc. Just sayin'. joke. From Real Clear Politics, October 31, 2023. Trump 61, DeSantis 13, Haley 7, Ramaswamy 7, Pence 5, Christie 3, Scott 2, Burgum 1, Hutchinson 0. From Rasmussen. State of the Union. President Biden Job approval. Approve 42. Disapprove 56. From News nation. Approve 44, Disapprove 56. From News nation. Direction of the country. Right direction 23 percent. Wrong track 63. In spite of that, Biden and Trump are practically tied nationally with around 44 percent each. Phooey. I still wonder if the bigger news isn’t: Who’s in line to get their butt kicked and miss a chance at becoming Trump’s 2024 Vice Presidential candidate? Next! Peter.

old news from NBC: Trial begins on whether Trump should be kept off the 2024 ballot in Colorado . . . The lawsuit argues Trump should be prohibited from running in future elections, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states no person may hold office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after swearing under oath to support and defend the Constitution. The suit alleges Trump violated his oath of office in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol . . . . end quote The same thing is going in in Minnesota. Of course, he could be a “write in” and still win or at least garner some popular votes.

I picked up on that too. He was a drag to anyone who must have a separation of church and state. He never got that CRUCIAL AMERICAN VALUE. The Republican Party In Total Collapse/ During an interview with “War Room” founder Steve Bannon, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) revealed what he claims was a behind-the-scenes scheme of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to stamp out Speaker nominees such as Jim Jordan (R-OH), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Tom Emmer (R-MN), and Mike Johnson (R-LA). Gaetz said the plan was brought to light in a private meeting. Allegedly, Gaetz told Emmer that it would be difficult to win votes, and therefore should “play into what Kevin McCarthy was working the whole time to try to get people to believe that the only person that could govern the Republican conference is Kevin McCarthy.” “So Emmer agrees that he’s going to have his shot, but that it’s going to be quick so we get that through the gestation system early yesterday,” Gaetz stated. Continue reading What horse shit. They continue to try and sabotage our President Trump . . . Yada yada yada.

I am dumb about this subject so I will go this way or that way or any way, or I will go nowhere. Oh no. Did i just . . .

From: "George H. Smith" To: <objectivism Subject: OWL: Re: Mind as emergent [was: Objectivism's concept of free will] Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:44:30 -0500 Neil Goodell (4/11) wrote: "I'm not sure I agree with Mike Rael's (4/9) characterization of mind: [Rael] 'The way I see it, once the physical constituents of a mind have been created, the mind can control the starting of its own processes to some degree. What happens when I raise my hand up? Physical things are going on, but the determiner is my mind.' [Goodell] In my reading of it he seems to trying to keep the advantages of a dualist perspective of the mind-body question but without calling it that. The term "dualism" covers a broad range of views in philosophy. It is often associated with Cartesianism, according to which the mind is a "substance" that can exist independently of matter. In less extreme versions, dualists are those who repudiate reductionism, according to which the mind (i.e., consciousness) is nothing but "matter in motion." Dualists in this latter sense don't necessarily deny that consciousness depends on matter for its existence. They contend, however, that consciousness (a state of awareness) is not something physical per se, however much it may be causally dependent on physical phenomena. I am a "dualist" only in this latter sense, and I suspect the same is true of Mike Rael. Indeed, the kind of emergence theory that Neil goes on to defend is a common foundation for this variety of dualism. Ayn Rand, in maintaining that consciousness is epistemologically axiomatic, that a state of awareness cannot be explained by something more fundamental, was also defending this sort of mitigated "dualism." But I doubt if she would have cared for this label, given its customary association with the Cartesian theory of mind, which of course she did not agree with. Neil wrote: "George Smith makes a distinction between "hard" determinism and "soft" determinism (4/11), between biology and psychology if you will, concluding, "Even though I disagree with physical determinism, there are powerful arguments in its favor, and it is a position deserving of respect. I'm afraid I cannot say the same about "soft" determinism." "As I've said previously, I'm a complete and committed determinist, but I don't agree with any of these views. My position is that mind is an emergent property of the brain. What this means in philosophic terms is that the nature of the causality that operates at the level of the brain is separate and distinct from that which operates at the level of the mind. (This is similar to a levels of analysis argument.)" I agree with emergence theory, as here summarized. This is one reason I reject physical determinism, and it also plays a role in my not-so-thinly disguised contempt for "soft determinism." The mind, as an emergent phenomenon, needs to be studied on its own terms, and we can access it directly only through introspection. We should not assume that causation in the world of consciousness is analogous to causation as we observe it in physical phenomena. We should not assume, for example, that "motives" operate like physical particles that, upon striking other mental "things," such as choices, "cause" them to move. The mind is not a world of mental billiard balls moving to and fro, engaging in endless collisions which "cause" us to choose this or that. Of course, the soft determinist will repudiate this characterization of his position as unfairly crude and inaccurate. But it doesn't take much scratching beneath the language of the soft determinist to see that this is exactly how he analyzes mental phenomena. He adopts what is essentially a mechanistic, linear view of mental causation, in which a mental event (say, a value) somehow "causes" another mental event (say, a preference), which in turn "causes" us to make a choice to put the eight ball in a given pocket. One needn't defend that view that choices and other mental events are "uncaused" in order to defend volitionism. Certainly Rand didn't take this view, and neither do I. I subscribe (as did Rand) to an "agency theory" of causation, according to which a rational agent -- and not merely antecedent *events,* whether mental *or* physical -- can properly be said to be the "cause" of his own mental acts. This is essentially an Aristotelian perspective, one that has been defended not only by modern Thomists but also by other contemporary philosophers, such as Richard Taylor. It had a number of able defenders in earlier centuries as well, such as the eighteenth-century philosophers Richard Price and Thomas Reid. This position was also defended by Nathaniel Branden in "The Objectivist Newsletter" and, later, in *The Psychology of Self-Esteem.* Neil wrote: "And I do not believe my position is inconsistent with Objectivism. (More on this below.)" Emergence theory does not conflict with Objectivism, but any form of determinism most certainly does. [snip] "Rand says over and over again that the premises a person holds in their mind is what determines their character. As she writes in Galt's Speech, "...that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind—that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining—that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul—that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal..." This passage does not entail or suggest determinism. On the contrary, Rand's claim that man "is a being of self-made soul" is an expression of free-will. Some time ago on another list, I wrote a post in which I discussed the possibility that, according to Rand, our only truly free choice is the choice to think (or focus) or not, after which everything else is necessarily determined. Although I concede that there are some passages by Rand that give this impression, I don't think this is what she believed; and I would further maintain that this interpretation is inconsistent with her overall approach, including many of her remarks about ethical theory and moral responsibility. I think the passages in question were probably instances of rhetorical exaggeration, made for the purpose of emphasis. This sort of thing is fairly common in Rand's writings. Neil wrote: "I don't know whether George Smith would characterize this as "soft" determinism, but it is certainly determinism of a non-biological kind, "your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind." If this were *not* the case, it would mean that the relationship between premises and character was arbitrary, which would have the effect of eviscerating the entirety of Objectivism's concept of virtue." Rand did not defend any kind of determinism, whether "hard" or soft." In calling our character, actions, desires, and emotions the "products" of premises held by our minds, there is good reason to believe she was drawing logical, rather than strictly causal, connections. In any case, one needn't be a determinist to maintain that how and what we think will greatly influence what kind of characters we have and how we will act. This complex issue has nothing to do with determinism one way or the other. Neil wrote: In other words, if determinism is denied, there can be no morality. If specific causes do not lead to specific effects (i.e., indeterminism) then effects are arbitrary and a person cannot be held responsible for them." If this were true, then we could hold a rock or a tree or a snail morally responsible for its behavior -- for in all such cases specific causes lead to specific effects. In order for there to be moral responsibility, there must first be a moral agent, i.e., a rational being who can make autonomous decisions and choices that are not causally necessitated by antecedent events that he is powerless to change or control. If the actions of a mass murderer were causally necessitated by a chain of antecedent events, which reach back (presumably) to infinity, long before he (or any life form) existed, then he is no more "responsible" for his behavior than a snail. Both behave not as they choose, but as they *must.* For what, in a deterministic scheme, could we hold a mass murderer responsible *for*? For being born? For possessing undesirable genes? For not making better choices that were metaphysically impossible for him to make? For not possessing an omnipotent power to alter past events over which neither he nor anyone else has any control? When we pass a negative moral judgment, part of what we mean is that a person *should* not have made the choice he did under those circumstances. He *ought* to have chosen differently in that precise situation. If, however, his "choice" (and I use the word advisedly in this context) was causally necessitated by antecedent events that he was powerless to change, then to pass moral judgments on humans makes no more sense than to pass moral judgments on clouds for causing a flood. Ghs

You hoser. No it isn't settled. "Bleep" happens. I have mentioned Haley twice I think and all I can get is a pissed off response from a Canadian . . . who can't vote . . . who sounds like a child. Saaaaay. I get it. You want Canada to become America's 51st state!

Various polls from Real Clear Politics. Haley vs Biden. Harris 10/18 10/19 Biden 42 Haley 38 Fox News 10/6 10/9 Haley 49 Biden 45 NBC News 9/15 9/19 Haley 46 Biden 41 Backup Presidential candidate, just in case . . . or VP?

That is certainly plausible. My own direction would be to pay the "speeding ticket" to avoid the hassle of going to court . . . again.

As the headline states, "ITS BULLSHIT." Being Speaker would only detract from President Trump. The press would have fun with the name "Speaker Trump." The job would waste his time. He would need to hang out at "The House." He is going to be President for another term, so I would leave him alone to pursue that goal.

An aside. Today, from Real Clear Politics. Trump 56, DeSantis 16, Haley 9, Ramaswamy 2, Pence 2, Christie 3, Scott 1, Burgum 1, Hutchinson 0 Biden 44, Trump 43

It is interesting that during continued air strikes, President Biden went to Israel . . . hugged Benjamin . . . and refuted the leftist/Hamas news about who bombed the hospital. Data is now available. That was brave. I think Biden's ratings went up here in the states. Trump 49. Biden 50, Yada yada 1, at least for now. Thank you President Biden. What will the affects be on the ground war with Hamas? It may not get any better for Israel. It’s time to neutralize Hamas, and I hope that America helps . . . well I know America will help but without boots on the ground, I think. Peter

Thanks Marcia. I heard the Israeli proof was substantial that Hamas was the killers, but what were they trying to land their murderous rockets? And where is the outrage that should come from using fellow Arabs as human shields? BERLIN, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Jordan's King Abdullah on Tuesday warned against trying to push Palestinian refugees into Egypt or Jordan, adding that the humanitarian situation must to be dealt with inside Gaza and the West Bank. "That is a red line, because I think that is the plan by certain of the usual suspects to try and create de facto issues on the ground. No refugees in Jordan, no refugees in Egypt," King Abdullah said at a news conference following a meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin. end quote I don’t think he specifically thinks any Gaza refugees would be too big a burden. But I do think King Abdullah is hinting “the usual suspects” who would “try and create de facto issues on the ground” ARE: Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and any sympathizers and agitators in the region and around the whole world. I expect the UN to step up and perhaps the U.S. too, with aid. And I saw a smiling Putin, who may or may not be on his last legs medically, saying there could be a solution hammered out (or shot out) between Russia and Ukraine.

I would say Jules, Israel opinions are to leave or be in harm's way. Israel does not target civilians ever. Nor does the United States. But when you retaliate, you know there may be civilians killed.

Hamas did not abide by the Geneva Convention. They targeted women and children. Hurray for George H. Smith. This “golden oldie letter” that follows, may not exactly pertain to the free state of Israel today as it did to America on 9/11 but it may clarify some things. And be sure to read the last small paragraph at the end that pertains to any possible sanctions or retaliatory force used against Iran. Peter From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: George Smith and Just War... Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 11:45:57 -0600 Ross Levatter addressed a lot of questions to me, and it is virtually impossible to give each the attention it deserves. Instead, I will outline my general views of a "just war" and then elaborate on a few other points. Ross wrote: "If the military in your homeland is killing civilians, are you allowed to get their government's attention by killing their civilians in return, or are only military targets morally acceptable? Some Objectivist scholars, including Ms. Rand's intellectual heir, believe there are no innocents in war. So on that logic the whole of the American public could be attacked by those who have been victims of America's initiation of force...or is this wrong? I believe George is not a defender of any morality that demands the turning of one's cheek, which claims that one's actions are limited to those that harm no innocents." (1) It is possible to frame a libertarian theory of war in such a way that it is *never* legitimate to engage in (or support) *any* war, even if it is obviously motivated by legitimate self-defense. For any war will invariably result in civilian casualties, and if we do not morally distinguish between inadvertent casualties versus the *deliberate* targeting of civilians, then we will end up with one of two positions: Either (1) war is always and everywhere unjust and may *never* be fought, even if abstention results in one's own death; or (2) anything goes in war, including the mass killing of innocent civilians. Position (1) is logically implied by the arguments of some libertarians (especially anarchists), though rarely will they admit this consequence. Position (2) is the sort of thing we find advocated by Peikoff & Co. I reject both extremes. This problem of killing innocent civilians (i.e., non-combatants) would remain even in an ideal anarchist society. For self-defense agencies, even those voluntarily commissioned, would face the same moral problems responding to 9-11 as we face today. A state of war, including one declared for just reasons, is a public acknowledgment of a serious conflict of interests. (This relates to my earlier insistence that the U.S. should formally declare war against the individuals responsible for 9-11.) If -- or more precisely, *when* -- those who pursue a just war (i.e., one waged the legitimate purpose of self-defense) are responsible for the unintentional killing of innocents, then they have indeed violated the rights of those victims. As I argued at some length previously an exchange with Bill Dwyer, the rights of innocent people do not vanish because it may be in our rational self-interest to violate them -- so we are under a moral imperative to *minimize* civilian casualties as much as is humanly possible. (A moral theory that demands the impossible is useless.) Nevertheless, despite the inevitable violation of rights, a just war renders such violations morally justifiable in the name of legitimate self-defense.. This is what a *just* of war is all about. A state of war differs fundamentally from a state of peace, primarily because in a legitimate state of war the immediate issue of *survival* is paramount over all other concerns. This clearly distinguishes U.S. intervention in Vietnam from current actions against the Taliban and al-Qaida. 2) I think the traditional libertarian policy of non-intervention (as found in some of the founding fathers) is sometimes misunderstood. After all, American revolutionaries gladly accepted foreign aid and even direct military assistance (especially from France) in their fight against the British. More important than French naval assistance (e.g., at Yorktown) was the fact that that Americans, by persuading France and Spain to declare war against England, caused the British to fear losing their West India colonies, which were economically more important than the mainland colonies. As a result the British decided it was more important to protect their earlier acquisitions from the Seven Years' War, so they withdrew many of their troops from America and eventually abandoned the fight, unwilling to spend more blood and treasure for a relatively small prize. If Americans had insisted on pure non-interventionism in regard to their own struggle for independence, it is quite possible that they would have lost that war. Ironically, the massive debt incurred by France was a principal cause of the later French Revolution. This was why the libertarian Turgot, though very sympathetic to the American cause, opposed the intervention of his own country on the American side. He feared French intervention would lead to massive problems at home -- and so it did. As I argued many years ago in "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market," a well-intentioned Third Party is quite justified in forcibly intervening to stop an aggressor from violating the rights of a victim. I therefore oppose foreign interventionism, not because I think this would somehow violate the rights of a foreign tyrannical government, but because such intervention (normally) is *not* directly related to the survival of those in the United States. Yet such "intervention" (as in the case of the American Revolution, which saw many volunteers from other countries) might be perfectly legitimate if undertaken by *private* citizens in behalf of a just cause. A government, in contrast, does not have this freedom; rather, it should be concerned only with immediate threats to the survival of its citizens. And the current campaign clearly has this as its *purpose* -- which is not to say that I agree with every aspect of it.. Ross wrote: “Question: If suicide bombers destroyed several buildings in Italy, killing thousands, and the Italian government claimed it was done by the American Mafia, demanding the American government hand over the head of the Gambezzi family, with the American government responding they want to help but a) first they need some juridical proof of his guilt, and b) they don't keep tabs on everyone in the country and may need some time to find him...in such a situation is it appropriate for the Italian government to bomb Washington, as long as the bombs are aimed only at strategic targets and every reasonable effort is made to minimize civilian casualties?" Yes, if such bombings were *necessary* for the apprehension of the guilty parties (e.g., if the U.S. government were to forcibly oppose any attempt by the Italians to come into America and apprehend the criminals themselves) -- and especially if those criminals constituted a clear and present danger of committing similar atrocities in the *future.* In this case, the U.S. government, like the Taliban government, would be aiding and abetting mass murderers, and a formal declaration of war would be morally justifiable (if rather stupid, given the military power of the U.S). Ross wrote: "Question: George has made much of bin Laden's statements, goals, etc., and those of the Taliban, arguing that these people are motivated by religious fervor such that they would still hate America (and have eager followers willing to commit suicide?) even if US foreign policy were changed to non-intervention in the middle east. George is a commanding scholar, so perhaps he has in this case, as in so much of his other scholarship, gone to primary sources, but if this is not the case--if he does not read Farci or whatever language bin Laden's writings appear in--is he not concerned that what he hears about bin Laden's desires, demands, goals, etc., has been filtered by the US government and the American press?" This is a disingenuous objection, in my judgment, since we must all rely on more or less the same sources of information -- and I don't see a similar concern among those who presume to *know* that U.S. foreign policy is the only reason why so many Muslims hate Americans. I have watched quite a view interviews with bin Laden and read many other statements by him, such as his declaration of a Holy War against ALL Americans, made just weeks before 9-11, not to mention his claiming credit for previous acts of terrorism. (In his public "cave" statement released shortly after U.S. military actions, bin Laden did everything all but expressly admit his involvement in 9-11.) Moreover, a lot of information is available about the links of the 9-11 thugs to the al-Qaida network, as a quick internet search will reveal. I have simply reached the best judgment I can. Does Ross believe that Timothy McVeigh was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing? If so, why? Because he was found legally guilty? Well, even so, I doubt if Ross personally knows enough details to justify this verdict for himself. Because McVeigh openly and publicly confessed his crime? Well, how does Ross know this wasn't elicited under torture or the threat thereof? This kind of epistemological skepticism, if employed consistently, would destroy most every claim to knowledge that we make, since we can justify very little of our knowledge personally and directly, without relying on the "testimony" of others. This is even true in the hard sciences. Ross wrote: "He is aware, I'm sure, of the role that government propaganda has played in past wars...from the butchering of Belgian babies in W.W.I to the Tonkin Gulf in Vietnam. And we already know the Bush administration has told the TV networks not to replay bin Laden speeches unedited. While I certainly agree religion can be a source of war (just look at the Crusades), I'm not sure what aspect of Islam and/or international trade has changed so dramatically in the last 30 years so as to instill such hatred of America in a part of the world we have traveled and traded in for centuries." Yes, I am aware of the role of government propaganda, especially during wartime. That's why we shouldn't accept anything at face value, but should read as widely as we can and think for ourselves. (See, for example, the article at http://www.drudgereport.com/flash33.htm, which points out that the Delta Force was badly mangled during its supposedly surgical raid (Nov. 12) on Mullah Omar's complex. The official government version of this raid -- or at least the one reported in the media -- made no mention of the 12 -- and 3 badly -- wounded American soldiers and about the widespread discontent within the Special Forces about the incompetence of U.S. military planners.) Ross wrote: "Question: George comments that President Bush's latest war, on terror, comes as close as reasonably possible to meeting the demands of just war theory. I don't have the half-dozen or so requirements for a just war in front of me, but I seem to recall a principle of proportionality somewhere. Is this correct? One day, 4 airplanes, 3 buildings...an act of horror committed by a dozen or so private citizens from several countries. In return, billions of dollars of weaponry aimed at devastating the infrastructure of a poor country (think about what that means for future deaths...roads gone, transportation of food and medicine impossible, electricity and power out, telephone system destroyed, airports destroyed, hospitals destroyed...if all that happened in your city, what would life be like, even if no civilians were killed in the initial destruction" You neglect to mention a relevant fact, namely, that this is *not* just a war of retaliation. Various Mullahs, as well as leaders of the al-Qaida network, have publicly announced that there should be *no* limit whatever to the weapons that may be used against Americans, including nuclear weapons and germ warfare. Do you not take these threats seriously? Do you not believe that we are in imminent danger of additional terrorist strikes that could make 9-11 look like a picnic? I personally didn't take these threats very seriously before 9-11, but I do *now.* And it would be irrational to suppose that this was a one-time "lesson" inflicted by disgruntled Muslims. (Remember, the WTC typically had around 50,000 people in it, and the terrorists would have been more than pleased with this higher body count.) I am as certain as one can be about future events that more mass killings lie in our immediate future. Thus, given the inevitable conflict of interests between myself (and millions of other *innocent* Americans) versus some innocent Afghan causalities, I am not about to call for massive and idiotic self-sacrifice by the former. Although I would like to see the current war conducted along somewhat different lines, I am not about to lose track of the fact that the basic issue here is *self-defense,* pure and simple. Since so much has been said about the virtues of "non-intervention," I would like to ask Ross a question. Bin Laden is a Saudi, is he not? Then, even supposing he is motivated by a love of justice, what is a Saudi doing "intervening" in Palestinian and Afghan affairs? Indeed, many of the Taliban are Arabs and not Afghans at all, and this is why they are viewed by many native Afghans as foreign conquerors. Or does being a Muslim render the members of al-Qaida exempt from our libertarian policy of non-interventionism? Indeed, if U.S. interventionism had some role to play in the current mess, it may be also said that similar interventionism on the other side (e.g., the Iranian financing of Palestinian resistance) of is also responsible. No double standards, please. Ghs

Excerpt from Ayn Rand's address to the graduating class of the United States Military Academy at West Point on March 6, 1974. . . . The army of a free country has a great responsibility: the right to use force, but not as an instrument of compulsion and brute conquest - as the army of other countries has done their histories - only as an instrument of a free nation's self-defense, which means: the defense of a man's individual rights. The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task . . . . end quote In Israel it is a complex situation when innocents are in the line of fire . . . but if attacked, America should defend itself as should Israel. I would defend myself if attacked. Peter

Another 9/11? From Newsweek: Americans are "armed" and will not be intimidated, commenters including Rep. Matt Gaetz have said, after a former Hamas chief called for a "Day of Jihad" by Muslim communities around the world on Friday, October 13. Khaled Mashal, who now heads the militant group's diaspora office in Qatar, told Reuters on Wednesday that Muslims should "head to the squares and streets of the Arab and Islamic world on Friday" and hold mass protests in support of Palestinians as the conflict with Israel intensifies.

British warships, aircraft, and a force of Royal Marines are joining a US Navy carrier strike group in waters near Israel. Story by Jake Epstein I was watching Hannity for a bit, but it was just too gruesome. Hamas likes to have their pictures taken on film while they murder people.

Israel did not start this. The initiation of force was from>because of Hamas. Therefore . . . retaliation is essential as we Objectivists suggest. Kill all of them. Period . . . Of course. humanitarian, Israel is still 'bull horning" those in buildings about to be destroyed: "Get out now unless you are Hamas before we destroy you." But next, unfortunately, Americans may be put in harm's way. But WE signed up for that. I say kick their asses into oblivion. And obituaries. What monsters are the Hamas.

“600 plus Israelis killed in Hamas terror attacks.” Israel is an ally and I am sure we are providing any intelligence on Hamas we have to them. And perhaps America can do more. Here is some news: “The US military plans to move navy ships and military aircraft closer to Israel as a show of support, according to officials. Some 800 Hamas targets have been struck in Gaza - with hundreds of fighters killed and dozens captured, Israeli officials say . . . .”

On the news it said, Israel and Saudi Arabia had "Met" an "Accord" and that is when Hamas, backed by Iran, began their terrorist actions. And "I heard" on the news yada yada yada. We are backing Israel. edit. some more bad stuff is about to happen.

The movie, “Reptile.” Benicio Del Toro stars in the detective movie and Justin Timberlake and Alicia Silverstone also appear in it. This movie is what used to be called “noir” or dark, but I enjoyed it.

As John Wayne said in his cowboy hat and best Frenchy accent, "May we, mon sewer." At least I recognize Jordan's face.

You missssspelled favorite and Mr.Peter. My name deserves a space. I see Biden is going to extend the border wall. What a hypocrite.

This is off topic but “The Irrational” TV show is interesting? Off course using the word irrational in the title made me think of Rand's works. I’ve watched two episodes and I think it is quite good. From NBC. Here's an official description for the show: "Alec Mercer is a world-renowned leader in behavioral science who lends his expertise to an array of high-stakes cases involving governments, law enforcement, and corporations with his unique and unexpected approach to understanding human behavior."