Peter

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."

What little bit I read of your work, you seem to me, to be starting in the middle of things, which is called in medias res in English literature. I prefer a beginning a middle and an end. And as a fan of Ayn Rand the people on this list may enjoy fantasy, but for me “hard science fiction’ is the genre I like: real science used as a literary tool to tell a story. Though only a few years old even Robert Tracinski’s article seems a bit dated. Peter September 12, 2016 FEATURE ARTICLE Futurism TV Nine Ways Star Trek Anticipated and Celebrated the Future by Robert Tracinski In the field of future technology, life has a tendency to imitate art. The creators of science fiction are often able to imagine something before science fact makes it possible. The real technology then catches up when somebody sees it in fiction and asks: how could we actually do that? This is true of Star Trek perhaps more than any other science fiction franchise. It's no coincidence, because the show's creators consulted with scientists and technology experts about what was possible or might be possible. They took the future seriously and wanted to know what things might look like when we got there. In a lot of ways, they got it right. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first episode of the original series, let's look at nine ways Star Trek anticipated the future, helping us to imagine the next wave of innovation and to think about how we will live with it. 1. The Gadgets Star Trek predicted or inspired a lot of the devices we have now, and the Internet is full of lists of them--even though this is just the start of my list. Of course, a lot of Star Trek technology still isn't here yet. No, your 3D printer is not just like a real-life replicator. We don't know how to "beam up" anyone or anything in a transporter. And no one has figured out warp drive yet. It's not just that we don't know the specifics of how to do these things. We don't even know if they're possible. So we still have something to aim for over the next century or two. But a lot of other Star Trek technology is ahead of schedule. The communicator has already been and gone, in the form of the good old late-1990s flip phone. Some compare the tricorder to certain new medical devices, but I don't think that gets to the essence of it. You have to cast yourself back into a 1960s mindset and realize that what was really radical about the tricorder is that it was a handheld computer--at a time when your average computer took up an entire room. Speaking of handheld computers, "Star Trek: The Next Generation" brought us what is clearly a touchscreen tablet computer--an iPad 15 years early. Star Trek's universal translator works a lot more smoothly than anything we have today, but you can still go on Google and get your text translated in seconds with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Throw in a few more decades of progress in artificial intelligence and language processing, and real life is on course to match fiction way ahead of schedule. And speaking of AI.... 2. Artificial Intelligence Yes, we'll get to Commander Data in a moment. But the closest thing in Star Trek to what we're doing with artificial intelligence right now is the Star Trek computer, which is capable of communicating in normal spoken English. It responds to commands, gives relevant answers to requests for information, and can even perform some fairly complex (in a few cases implausibly complex) analysis. It is well known that this is the inspiration and goal for Google: to be able to ask a question in normal English and give an accurate, relevant answer. We're still not there yet today, but we're headed in exactly the direction imagined by Star Trek. As for higher-level artificial intelligence--the kind that goes way beyond the advanced pattern-recognition we're experimenting with now and actually achieves sentience--"Star Trek: The Next Generation" gave us Commander Data, and it used him, in true Star Trek fashion, to explore some larger questions about what it means to be conscious, to be alive, to be human, and to be a person with rights. While the original series suggested that uploading a human consciousness into a robotic body would result in a loss of humanity--Ray Kurzweil take notice--Commander Data suggested that a sentient robot could become fully human, or if not actually human, it could be as interesting as a human. All of this came to a head in one memorable story arc in which Data's status is put on trial. What stands out most about this, two decades later, is that this is a benevolent, sympathetic portrayal of a sentient android. Yet sentient robots are featured today mostly as the monsters in our horror films--a dozen different variations on the Frankenstein myth in which the creation turns on its creator and seeks to kill him. Star Trek is famous for its optimism and for its humanism, so it is no surprise that it brought both to its portrayal of AI. It is a surprise, perhaps, that those characteristics are lacking from so much of our contemporary science fiction. Oddly, though, Star Trek did not show us the use of robotics. We got Commander Data, but the Star Trek universe doesn't really have anything below his level--simpler robots performing menial tasks. Except with maybe one exception. 3. Autonomous vehicles. This is not emphasized much in the franchise, and we rarely even see anything like an automobile. Why drive when you can beam up? But by the "Next Generation" era, the shuttlecraft seem to be "piloted" exactly the way we would expect autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles to be piloted. There's no stick and rudder, no steering wheel. The operator sits at a console and gives the computer instructions, which it appears to execute in its own way. In the new "reboot" movies, we're starting to see more of this. Star Trek into Darkness features a fight scene on what appear to be flying autonomous garbage barges. But material from the reboots doesn't hold as much weight, from the futurist's perspective, because autonomous vehicles are almost upon us and don't really count as a "prediction" any more. There are other technologies from today, though, that have older roots in the franchise. 4. Virtual Reality It's fair to say that everything people are doing with virtual reality right now is just an attempt to recreate what "The Next Generation" did with the Holodeck. The Holodeck went beyond mere holographic projections--the stuff of most previous science-fiction speculations--and offered a fully immersive experience with what we're now calling "haptic" feedback: a sense of touch and solidity to virtual objects. It also included taste and smell, which is presumably the next step. What is most interesting about the Holodeck today is the rich and varied ways it is used. It is used for entertainment, for games, for exercise, as a set for plays, a place for a first date, and for bringing favorite works of fiction or historical settings to life in an interactive way. We're basically working on the same thing today. The biggest lesson for today is that Star Trek's most interesting uses of virtual reality are to create a shared experience. Today's VR headsets tend to be a closed-off, individual experience. It's kind of hard to have a first date with one of those visors on. But the Holodeck reminds us that virtual reality is going to have to expand to become something that people can enjoy together. The one thing Star Trek didn't really envision was the mixing of virtual reality with the real world, i.e., augmented reality. The only prominent science fiction franchise to present a really prescient vision on this was The Terminator--so much so that before the Pokemon Go popularized the term "augmented reality," it was generally known as "terminator vision." That's one thing that I think is going to end up looking dated, particularly when it comes to computer interfaces. In "The Next Generation," everyone is interacting with the starship's super-advanced electronic systems through the super-advanced technology of...touchscreens. And the displays are all in Okudagrams, which give Star Trek's visual displays a distinctive look but not a futuristic one, certainly not now. I'm afraid the "Next Generation" user interfaces are going to seem as dated as the clunky push-buttons of the original series. But not always. The closest they got to anticipating elements of virtual reality, augmented reality, and artificial intelligence--and how they could all work together--was Geordi La Forge's holographic brainstorming session with an AI reconstruction of a starship engineer. 5. Technological Progress Star Trek doesn't just feature a lot of futuristic technology. It also takes for granted that technology is constantly changing and advancing. I don't want to get into the never-ending battle of the franchises between Star Trek and Star Wars, but this is a striking contrast between them. The story line of Star Wars now spans about 60 years, but the technology is all pretty much the same from start to finish. Sure, maybe this was a period of war, political chaos, and dictatorship that caused the Galactic Republic and the subsequent Empire to stagnate. But not much seems to have changed for a very long time. Star Trek was so founded on the idea of future progress, and the vast changes in technology from then to now, that when they made "The Next Generation," they decided to keep it going, giving the new crew more advanced technology and better gadgets with sleeker design. Just the way it works in the real world. But for all its optimism, Star Trek didn't actually celebrate all new technology. It made a few key exceptions. 6. Genetic Engineering This is an area the Star Trek franchise is notably reluctant to explore. The franchise created a major recurring villain--Khan--to stand for the evils of genetic engineering (eugenics in the original series). We're led to believe that the technology has been banned after a group of genetically engineered super humans tried to subjugate everyone else. This is explored a little bit more in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine," but still mostly in a negative context. The Founders who rule the Dominion, the main Federation enemy in "Deep Space Nine," have genetically engineered whole subject races of administrators and warriors that they use as their minions. This is an interesting contrast to most of the future technology in Star Trek, which is either accepted as natural progress or at least regarded in a balanced, open-minded way, as something with advantages and disadvantages. It is perhaps a missed opportunity to explore the pros and cons of changing human nature itself. The same is true for another form of human enhancement. 7. Cyborgs The Next Generation" features a major character with a visor that allows him to perceive non-visible wavelengths of light and which connects to him through a brain-machine interface. So how come Geordi is the only one who gets this funky new technology? In the real world, everyone else on the crew would be looking at him and thinking: I want one of those. Instead, the franchise's main portrayal of the cyborg future is though their biggest, most reviled villain: the Borg. The Borg are a collection of cybernetically enhanced drones integrated into a kind of collective mind. And while I appreciate the use of the Borg as a metaphor for the evils of collectivism and its subjugation of individual identity, it is the integration of technology with biology that is portrayed as the main mechanism for stripping away individuality. In the real world, we're going to be cyborgs in our own small way. It's just a matter of time. We sure could use a more encouraging model to follow in figuring out how to do it without losing our humanity. Fortunately, Star Trek generally does a good job of that in other areas, and that leads us to one of its happier omissions. 8. No Media Frenzy There's no Twitter in the Star Trek universe and no Facebook. People aren't glued to their devices all the time waiting for the latest news updates or celebrity gossip--thank goodness. It is certainly true that there are whole parts of life Star Trek deliberately omits for dramatic reasons. For example, it's pretty clear that the Federation is not a dictatorship--but we never hear about elections, and the crew never debates politics. We get to see some of the internal political wrangling among the Federation's competitors, and the politics of the Klingon High Council intrude pretty frequently into "The Next Generation." But the Federation's own politics are opaque. Economics is also pretty much absent from the Star Trek universe. This is sometimes a bit embarrassing, as in the (fortunately infrequent) references to the idea that the Federation no longer uses money, which is definitely science fiction--with an emphasis on the "fiction"--from the standpoint of the science of economics. Both of those omissions are corrected a bit in the later spinoffs, especially in "Deep Space Nine," where Quark's bar is the thriving commercial hub of the space station, and Commander Sisko and his crew get swept up in Federation galactopolitics. But they're not a defining feature of the Star Trek universe. Which is probably just as well, because part of the point of tuning into Star Trek is to get away from politics. Yes, the franchise has always dabbled in political and social commentary--the Klingons vs. the Federation were an obvious analogy for the Cold War--but it generally did so allegorically. It distances us from the details of current controversies by projecting some deeper issue onto a weird alien species, which makes it feel more like the show is raising questions and less like it's taking sides. And there's one more reason to omit these things. If the future inhabitants of the Federation don't have their noses always stuck in some future equivalent of the smartphone, you could see that as a failure to project the impact of technology, or maybe as hope that we will outgrow our current ways of using it. Which leads us to the final way Star Trek anticipated the future. 9. Human Progress While Star Trek's futuristic technology draws a lot of attention, the biggest improvement isn't in our machines. It's in ourselves. No, I don't mean in our basic physical or mental capabilities--and maybe that's part of the reason Star Trek doesn't embrace genetic engineering and cyborgs. The franchise tends to be more interested in the progress of our minds and character. The future envisioned in Star Trek is a better place because we are better people. At root, Star Trek is a vision of the eventual triumph of humanistic values. This triumph is portrayed as hard-won, with humanity having suffered through a period of warfare and chaos, a kind of mini dark age. The beginning of this dark age keeps getting pushed back as we keep catching up to it in real life (though sometimes in this election cycle I've thought we might finally be getting there). But we have come through that and emerged into a very hopeful future. One of the things that was shocking and refreshing in the original series is how it showed all of mankind united and at peace, including a ship with black and white crew members and Americans and Russians working together. It was certainly a contrast to the real world circa 1968. This triumph of humanism is occasionally tied in with a certain degree of smug, conventional liberalism. But I can assure you that the show has plenty of fans on the right, too. After all, it would be the ultimate in smug liberalism to assume that only the left cares about a world without racism, poverty, war, and oppression. Star Trek is a little vague about the details of how we achieve this humanistic progress, but there is one aspect it repeatedly dramatizes: the importance of reason, science, and technology. The activities of scientific exploration and technological problem-solving are made into the central plotlines of whole episodes, and these are regarded as a Star Trek crew's most important activities. This is the root of the technological optimism of the series. Not that our machines were automatically going to make the future better, but that we are going to have to be better people--and clearer thinkers--in order to get to the point where we could build that amazing future. When it comes to technology, we're moving along toward the future anticipated by Star Trek at a pace that keeps us right on schedule. I hope we will be reminded to put the same degree of effort into the progress of our souls.

I remember Ted Turner the owner of CNN married Hanoi Jane Fonda so this may be karma. From American Insider: It appears that CNN has hit rock bottom as the network recorded the lowest weekend ratings in a key demographic in its entire history. Critics say this is “a real sign” of the collapse of the network. CNN has been criticized for becoming increasingly biased and promoting a radical far-left political agenda. Many of the network’s hosts and reporters openly express their vehement hatred of former President Donald Trump. CNN saw just 55,000 viewers from the important 25- to 54-year-old demographic during the past weekend. Only 43,000 watched its Sunday prime-time shows.

From American Insider: . . . A poll from the left-wing outlet Washington Post found Trump is leading Joe Biden by a whopping ten percentage points. Trump is predicted to win in a hypothetical match-up with 52 percent of the vote. Biden is receiving just 42 percent. Trump is also the 2024 Republican frontrunner with a massive lead against GOP rivals . . . Moreover, Biden is struggling in several key demographics. Among independents, the poll found that Trump is leading by 13%. Among Hispanics, Trump is ahead 6%. end quote Peace. Freedom from wars. Fiscal responsibility. A free country and culture, and a free market. Prosperity. I think the Trump ticket will resound among Independents and Republicans. And perhaps some democrats too, may not vote in the 2024 election as a protest or disinterest in Joe Biden. t’s looking good for free America.

Lindsey Graham said: “I am very pleased that President Biden took the time and effort to visit Ukraine, and meet with President Zelensky. This was the right signal to send at the right time. A presidential visit to Ukraine, along with the statements made by Vice President Harris at the Munich Security Conference that Russia is committing crimes against humanity in Ukraine, are a powerful combination. “However, for the visits and statements to matter to their fullest extent, decisive action must immediately follow. “First, we must designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law. That would also help ensure any lethal assistance to Russia, provided by China, is devastating to the Chinese economy. Second, we should stop the debate about advanced fighter aircraft for Ukraine. Instead, we should start immediately training Ukrainian pilots and maintainers, and provide them the advanced fighter jets to not only win this war, but deter future aggression. “We must be doing all we can to allow the victim of the crime against humanity, Ukraine, to defend itself from the war criminal, Putin. “Words are powerful, but they must be followed by powerful actions as well.” end quote During Senator Lindsey Graham’s recent trip to Ukraine he made a few other interesting points. Russia is the aggressor. America is not losing any of our troops to the war there. Ukraine is depleting Russia’s resourses to take over other countries. Ukraine has halved Russia’s ability to wage another war. So any countries Putin had his eyes on are safer. I think Ukraine will repel the Russian monster, and give the world a breathing space. I think we will monitor any countries that are trading with Russia and watch out for any Communist Chinese assistance. If China does butt in we will cease all trade with them. Humanity has come a long way towards universal peace and prosperity. But we the free world, must watch out for three international villains: North Korea, China and Russia.

I told a family member about my suspicion that Michelle is testing the waters but they think she is merely selling her book. MO has no political background. She has no understanding of the military or being commander in chief. I will wait for more evidence to be broadcast to be sure she is running. Of course there could be an argument made that she picked up "experience" through her husband's two terms . . .

Biden continues to have memory problems and in speeches he may tell a story, forgets he told the story, and then he tells it again. Ted Cruz suggested the Democrats may ditch Joe Biden for Michelle Obama before long. From TrendyMatter: . . . Cruz said, “Here’s the scenario that I think is perhaps the most likely and most dangerous. In August of 2024, the Democrat kingmakers jettison Joe Biden and parachute in Michelle Obama." From the web. The prevailing question on many people's minds centers around the possibility of the Democratic Party nominating former First Lady Michelle Obama as their presidential candidate in the upcoming 2024 election. Recent polls illustrate Michelle's significantly higher favorability and admiration among Democratic voters in comparison to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. end quotes But how good a candidate would she be? All I can say is, she does quite well on Talk Shows. I have no idea how she might do be campaigning against other democrats. And as far as having solid policies and arguing with Donald Trump? That is a big “what if.” As yet, I don’t think she needs her own site here on OL. But if she launches a site, that is when she will have more relevance. Peter

Nope. The last big "upheaval" was Trump nominations for the Supreme Court. The Court is now totally linked to the Constitution. IN our lifetimes.

About the upcoming Republican debate, on Wednesday from Axios: . . . What to watch: The debate, co-moderated by Fox News Media's Stuart Varney and Dana Perino and UNIVISION's Ilia Calderón, is scheduled for 9 p.m. ET on Sept. 27 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Trump's speech in Detroit that evening is scheduled in prime time as well, the New York Times first reported . . . .

The Powerball cash payout is $320,500,000. After taxes? You only get, on average minus federal taxes, state taxes, etc., 55 percent. Soooo . . . 320.5 x .55 = $176,275,000. Round it off to $176 million. I think it is getting high enough that I may buy two tickets for the Wednesday, September 20th drawing which I think is around 11pm. Four bucks is worth the fun.

The 2020 election fraud is getting old Marcia. beat a dead horse idiom chiefly US, informal 1 : to keep talking about a subject that has already been discussed or decided I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I still don't understand what happened. 2 : to waste time and effort trying to do something that is impossible Is it just beating a dead horse to ask for another recount of the votes? From The Wall Street Journal” Trudeau Says 'Credible' Allegations Link India to Killing of Canadian Sikh Leader. Canadians, what’s the story about that? Alas. Roger Whittaker, British Folk Singer Known for 'Durham Town,' Dies at 87. I have one of his albums. Good bye Roger.

Another message blocked by Microsoft Edge. A box comes up when I try to see the message.