Peter

I am deleting my letter here and reposting it to Politics. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

Michael wrote that we should move this discussion off of the welcome mat. I will post a reply on (Is it called living room?) Peter

I think Ed Hudgins is correct when he says: ARI folks are clear that they want to teach Objectivism the way Ayn Rand, the philosophy’s creator understood it. In other words, when some idea is put forward, one must ask, “Is it consistent with Rand’s thinking?” David Kelley rightly says that the question should be, “Is it consistent with reality?” End quote Rand’s summery of her philosophy upholds the Hudgins/Kelly approach. The writings of Ayn Rand cannot be changed however, Objectivism is contextual: 1. Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. 2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor The following is an excerpt from a letter by Roger Bissell: From: RogerEBissell@cs.com To: atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Objectivism???? Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 19:25:08 EST In "About the Author" in the appendix to ~Atlas Shrugged~, Rand said "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." Do you agree with that? Then you agree with Rand's statement of the essence of her philosophy. Are you then an Objectivist? ============================================= Or, at the sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of ~Atlas Shrugged~, Rand presented the essence of her philosophy "while standing on one foot." She said: Metaphysics: Objective Reality ("Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so.") 2. Epistemology: Reason ("You can't have your cake and eat it, too.") 3. Ethics: Self-Interest ("Man is an end in himself.") 4. Politics: Capitalism ("Give me liberty or give me death.") Do you agree with these principles? If so, are you then an Objectivist? ============================================= Later, in 1962, in her column "Introducing Objectivism," Rand gave "the briefest summary" of her philosophy: 1. Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. 2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. 3. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not the means t the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own ~rational~ self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. 4. The ideal political-economic system is ~laissez-faire~ capitalism. it is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as ~traders~, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. it is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and ~no man may initiate the use of physical force against others~. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force ~only~ in retaliation and ~only~ against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. Do you agree with this summary? If so, are you then an Objectivist? ========================================== Finally, in "Brief Summary" (1971), Rand said: "If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest [e.g., capitalism and egoism] follows. This--the supremacy of reason--was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism." Do you agree with this statement about the supremacy of reason? Then you agree with Rand on the essence of Objectivism. Are you then an Objectivist? =============================================== The preceding gives more than enough guidance for us to judge other list members as to whether they are Objectivist -- at least in their basic orientation, if not in every application.

Mike Renzullit writes: Could the same thing that Harris observes about religion also apply to Objectivism? In other words could Objectivists who subscribe to the "Open System" indirectly assist ARI in getting people we bring in to the movement potential candidates ore recruits down the line to become Orthodox Objectivists? . . . I realize that I might be treading on thin ice and believe me, while I appreciate A LOT of what ARI is doing I have no intention to over go over to them . . . However, I think this is a question that merits consideration. End quote First, Mike, always say what you think (unless you plan on running for public office. ) Thin ice is never a problem. If you are a reasoning human being, say what you think with no fear. I am in both camps, and there is no split in my being. I support ARI. I support The Atlas Society. After a few days on OL I support this group too. We are all Objectivists. So, what are we talking about? True Believers. People who treat what Rand wrote as the Gospel. The usual beginning is ‘It all begins with Rand.” And it ends with “Rand is infallible.” I am not in that camp. Here’s an interesting letter from NB that discusses the issue. But first I should say, the following letters are all public access non-copyrighted material, but still should be attributed if quoted. However, anything I write is the property of the person who reads it. Use it or not. Attribute it or not. Make it your own, and I will feel blessed. From: Nathaniel Branden <brandenn@pacbell.net> Reply-To: brandenn@pacbell.net To: atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: ATL: for the record Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 09:28:01 -0800 For the record, I am not suggesting that anyone who challenges some premise of Objectivism should be off this list. If this list is understood to be a site where people who share some or all or few of the premises Objectivism wish to exchange ideas about Objectivism and its implications and its possible problems, there's nothing wrong with that. What I said was that if one does not agree with one or some of the most fundamental premises of Objectivism, then it is misleading to call oneself an Objectivist. I often call myself a "neo-Objectivist" and explain that I agree with the broad fundamentals but have significant points of disagreement, above all in the sphere of psychology and to some extent in ethics. Although more and more I dislike labeling myself at all, because there is always the need for a long explanation. What I also claim is that I know a good deal about what Objectivism is and is not. Nathaniel Branden And from BB. From: BBfromM@aol.com To: atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Whoa! A sea change on ATL? And apologies to BB. Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 19:40:16 EDT Morganis wrote: << Rand certainly didn't see O-ism as being an eclectic collection of beliefs re separate "issues." Being a system, the REAL essence of O-ism is not merely it's conclusions about varied "issues," but what so many have chronically called it's *integration.* This integration is the set of reasons involved in the logical connectivity amongst the otherwise-handled disparate "issues." O-ism, per se, has only 1 "issue": it's a totally and validly connected SET of beliefs (re Metaphysics through Aesthetics)...or...it isn't. >> But some of the issues Ayn Rand dealt with, apart from specifically philosophical issues, can be considered as not part of Objectivism, although they were part of her convictions. For instance, her belief that no woman should be President of a country -- or many of her strictly psychological tenets, some of which are contained in her theory of sex -- or her view of the necessity of moral judgment. Clearly, if one opposes Objectivism in its essential metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics, one cannot reasonably call oneself an Objectivist; but about other issues, not so clearly linked to these three, one may find room for disagreement without opposing the crucial tenets of Objectivism. Barbara And a letter from Ghs, author of Atheism The Case Against God. The lady mentioned, Ellen Moore, is now deceased. She was an ardent thinker, and defender of Rand. I still use Ellen‘s definition and explanation of Volition as my own. She was my friend. From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net> Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net> To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com> Subject: ATL: Re: Ellen Moore and Cultishness (was: I object...from George S.) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 14:04:09 -0500 Jeff Olson wrote: "Though I often share George's frustration with Ellen Moore the Philosopher, I think it unfair to classify her as a "cultist" – to confuse her, by implication, with individuals such as Peter Schwartz or even Leonard Peikoff. First, contrary to cultists and dogmatists that I've read or encountered, "EL&M" is willing to engage in philosophical dialogue with those who sharply disagree; second, despite her "prickliness," I find her to be a basically benevolent person; third -- and this, in my opinion, is very significant -- she has a sense of humor." None of the characteristics mentioned by Jeff has anything to do with adopting a religious attitude in regard to one's beliefs. Indeed, a willingness to engage in arguments about philosophical matters, far from being absent in religious people, is very common, as we see in Protestant evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. As for benevolence and a sense of humor, I have met many, many religious people with these character traits. Jeff wrote: "My basic criticism of Ellen qua philosopher is that she appears to prefer "making judgments" about things to critical analysis; that is, she underemphasizes the role of dispassionate inquiry in support of her desired conclusions." Ellen's method of critical analysis resembles what we find in many medieval theologians when they investigated matters like the Trinity. No matter how sophisticated or complex their arguments may appear, you know in advance that they will come down on the side of orthodox doctrine. In thus defending an orthodox creed, they function as theologians, not as philosophers. Of course these theologians, like Ellen Moore, will tell you that they are simply using reason to defend the truth. But they let the cat out of the bag in (1) their method of defense and (2) their method of dealing with adversaries. (1) A revealed religion typically begins with a sacred scripture that is deemed infallible, and which therefore serves as a benchmark to judge all other knowledge claims. Of course, no religious Objectivist will explicitly declare that Rand was infallible, but *in practice* this is how her writings are treated. If Rand, like the rest of us, was a fallible human being, then it highly likely that she committed errors from time to time -- unless she was the first fallible being in the history of the world who managed to avoid this. Yet if you ask a religious Objectivist to point out some errors in Rand, what response are you likely to receive? He will either be unable to locate any at all, or he will concede some minor "personal" errors that don't relate (i.e., are not "essential") to her overall philosophical system. In other words, in everything that really counts, Rand never erred and was to all intents and purposes infallible. When someone declares that Rand never committed any significant philosophical mistakes, we can interpret this statement in one of two ways. First, this statement, however unlikely, might be true. Second, the statement is false, but it appears true to the religious Objectivist because he refuses to analyze Rand's philosophy in the same critical spirit that he applies to other writers. In other words, whatever Rand wrote enjoys a privileged status; her writings constitute a "sacred scripture" in practice, if not in theory. This reflects a basic attitudinal difference between philosophers and theologians. Philosophers go looking for errors in other philosophers, however much they may admire them, because this is the best way to improve on what went before. The first concern of a theologian, in contrast, is to defend holy writ against all comers -- and this brings us to the second category mentioned about, namely, how religious Objectivists deal with adversaries. (2) Religionists typically inject a strong strain of moralizing in their arguments. In Christian fundamentalism, this sometimes takes the form of claiming that only someone who has been "saved" can possibly understand and appreciate the scriptures. In other cases it is said that unbelievers are blinded by sin, etc., etc. Just plug "rationality," "focusing," or some other Objectivist buzz word into the equation, and there you have the religious Objectivist. Ellen Moore's posts are saturated with moral admonitions for her adversaries to "focus," to "integrate," etc., etc. Many veterans on Atlantis have grown accustomed to this incessant moralizing, and we have learned to ignore it, so we are apt to lose sight of how it strikes others, such as Mona and Kathleen, who immediately picked up on its religious overtones. In short, I honestly don't think I have ever encountered any Objectivist who is more imbued with a religious spirit than Ellen Moore. She has truth on her side, as set down in the Gospel of Rand, and the rest is a mechanical problem of imparting this truth to others. In theory, of course, Ellen will freely concede that Rand was a fallible human being (since this stress on fallibility is itself part of the Objectivist credo), but in practice she is unable or unwilling to point to a single error, or at least a significant one, that Rand ever committed. This tells us little about Rand, but much about Ellen Moore. (In Ellen's defense, I would *not* say she is an Objectivist Borg -- "That is irrelevant," "Resistance is futile" --such as we find in Peter Swartz and some others affiliated with ARI, but the Borg gives even religion a bad name.) One last thing: For centuries Christians debated over the essential and non-essential beliefs of Christianity. What exactly do you need to believe in order to qualify as a "Christian"? It was during these ongoing debates that some beliefs came to be regarded as "fundamental" to Christianity, whereas others were dubbed "indifferent," or non-essential. Although you could differ in matters deemed "indifferent," not so in matters deemed "fundamental." Someone who adopted unorthodox views about an essential doctrine was condemned as heretical and excluded from the ranks of Christendom altogether. There was at least a comprehensible reason why this matter was important to Christians, since only authentic Christians were destined to spend an eternal afterlife in heaven. But Ellen Moore, like every other religious Objectivist I have ever encountered, is similarly obsessed with preaching which doctrines are "essential" to Objectivism – and therefore who does and does not qualify as a *true* Objectivist. Why would this issue of labels matter to any rational person? Why would any freethinker care whether or not he is admitted into the fold of the faithful? This Chevy Chase business of "I am a true Objectivist, and you're not," aside from its obvious childishness, reeks of religiosity. One also finds this phenomenon throughout the history of Marxism, which has many religious adherents. In this respect Marxism differs not at all from Objectivism. Indeed, a number of atheistic writers who have stressed the supremacy of reason have given rise to cults and religiously-minded followers. (The atheistic positivism of Auguste Comte, which actually spawned churches and rituals, is a good example of this.) This cultish mentality is most likely to occur in movements that began with a highly charismatic figure, such as Ayn Rand. Anyone one who thinks that secular and reason-oriented movements are exempt from this charismatic religiosity are either or fooling themselves, or they know virtually nothing about the history of such groups. Objectivists, even well-intentioned ones, are not exempt from this tendency. To someone who claims they are unable to find any mistake, weakness, or flaw in any of Rand's philosophical arguments, I say -- "Keep looking." On the day you find one, but not before, you will have graduated from the ranks of Objectivist theologians and become a philosopher. Ghs End of quotes. Hope this helps. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

I am postulating a situation that is anarchic in nature, not utopian or mythic, yet not essentially bad either. The true, old American west perhaps, or Anarchy in Space, might fit the bill: Whatever happens in free space, happens. Anarchy in space is not a reified ‘Lack of a Code,’ it is just the absence of a prescription set in stone. People will bring their systems, mechanical devises, habitats, sense, and sensibilities into space but there will be zones beyond jurisdictions. This is Laissez Faire Capitalism. However, on the frontiers, agreements will be made without the benefit or detriment of a State backing up agreements. This sounds a bit like the chaotic society in Blade Runner, or Star Wars. Periodically, Harrison Ford may arrive to scuttle the Flying Barbary Pirates. What will it be like living and working in Space? Some workers might have long term contracts with Earth and return periodically. Some might be ground workers operating remotely controlled equipment. Some Trekkers may have one way contracts with payment to relatives left behind, like America’s illegal immigrants today. Others may buy their tickets to travel and work as independent contractors. There are any number of combinations of free market solutions. What we need in Space are people, profitable factories and industrialization – and at some point PERHAPS military or generational ships. Different free market solutions result in different organizational structures. The market will decide what will work depending on what technology and what societies develop. Getting government out of the way MAY BE a profitable first step. In time and as populations in space increase, so inevitably will the laws. Most people want surety, more than they want to exercise their “Will.” They always have. It is our nature. I have been neglecting one half of the population in my discussion of The Final Frontier. What does the inclusion of Women change? I can’t speak for women as a group, but from my observations, Women don’t appreciate a lack of surety. They want feathers in their nest. There may be multi-generational ships, with children, that won’t be going WAY off. They will just be going along with the men. Simply by being born in a cosmic ray shielded, low gravity environment could affect the height and musculature of the next generations as in the movie Avatar. Nobody wants extra tall children who could never stand upright on a planet. Propulsion, Air, water, food and rotating space habitats, to supply centrifugal force to simulate gravity, would be a requirement in this fictional Deep Space Habitat. At some point in our outward Trek, there will be exo-sociologists who will attempt to predict where the next generations of humans will go, and they will be half right. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

Here is a better answer to you Adam. Successful humans must guide their actions by independent, rational thinking, using it to produce the resources needed to survive. The basic social requirement for a human’s survival is that other people not prevent him from acting in a rational, independent, and productive manner. Anarchism will not create or sustain a rational, viable society. One source for my denial of Anarchy’s validity is the presumption of many anarchists that their theories are exercises in rigorous, logical, almost scientific reasoning, whereas they are nothing of the sort. Anarchists tell us to read this person or that person, Rothbard or Smith, as if the magic formula can be found by reading, and then mumbling Harry Potter’s words, Alohomora Cave Inimicum: “Open the strengthened door.” Sorry, magic does not work in the real universe. May I point to Atlantis, as proof that ancient civilizations once existed? Or may I claim Camelot as a wonderful Monarchy? Of course not. A basic problem with ‘successful’ anarchism as a valid political or scientific theory is that it has not fulfilled the requirement that you can point to it. To my knowledge you can’t even point to a successful Anarchist commune. Some Anarchist have said that Iceland was an example of a 300 year long Anarchistic society. Why is there only flimsy proof of this? They had a written history, The Sagas. Try and use that barbarian story as proof of Icelandic civilization. So what was ancient Iceland? It was agrarian. If it had a civilization, we could plumb its depths like the ancient pyramids. The closest place and people that I can think of that has a stable society, separate from Government, is the Amish in America. Will you point to that as your realized ideal, Anarchists? You don’t have anything better. I know this is psychologizing, but ‘some of’ the Anarchists that I have talked to are True Believers, beyond persuasion or a need for proof. Anarchism lies within the domain of speculative philosophy. It typically presupposes the failure of all pretentious governments that claim they protect individual rights. Anarchism posits an inevitable decline from minimal government to totalitarian statism. They point at the decline of America, the best example of a Constitutional Government, as the proof. Still an anarchist can only speculate about their own success. One more problem with Anarchy as a political theory or science is that it has not formulated any laws that are specific enough to be tested by empirical means. It can’t be tested because of its lack of any universal enforcer of justice. In a random fashion, anyone is free to do whatever they want to do in an anarchy, until and unless, another anarchist persuades or forces them to stop doing it. Humans are not super rational Vulcans. Anarchy will evolve into a rights protecting Government or it will devolve into chaos, or totalitarianism. Anarchists can no more predict human behavior in detail than can a constitutionalist, but a constitutionalist compensates for this lack. Until anarchists exhibit a superior predictive ability, one that derives from anarchistic laws of human behavior, then they are merely philosophers arguing with other philosophers. Anarchism in the realm of human action is philosophy, not science, or demonstrable fact. It might last for a few years or for a generation, or longer like Iceland and the Amish, but no great civilization would come of Anarchy. Trading would occur but no Capitalism, nor would huge surpluses of food or materials be produced, because of the lack of lasting, legally binding contracts, that might extend across multiple generations of people. Agrarian. Yes. Industrialized? No. Capitalism? No. I will have not have an epiphany about the validity of Anarchy. Anarchy is not a political system; it is a psychological feeling of self-sovereignty, extending from the individual towards others. It is that feeling we have as babies and children that you may do or say whatever you want, but I will do what is right for me. Pushed into the political realm it is the overextended aspiration that the individual should determine what is right for the individual. Would someone please point to the country of Anarchism’s flag? Oh. Of course. They would not have a flag, not even a blank flag. No flag exists. Would someone please point out Anarchism to me? Where is it? Oh. I see it! You’re pointing at your head. It exists in the Anarchist’s imagination. Constitutionalism is a fact, and for all our sakes, let’s fix it. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

Adam wrote: Quick questions. I am assuming that the oath you referred to was the oath you took as a soldier..yes. end quote As a soldier and as a cop. Adam wrote: As to anarcho-capitalist or ism...are they workable phrases for you? end quote Laissez Faire Capitalism, Yes. Anarchism, No. You cannot combine anarcho with anything, without me, looking askance, at you, Adam. I have given it a lot of thought. Ask BB ) She has given the best answers to the Zero of Anarchism. I think Rational Anarchism is the reification of the feeling of persoanl sovereignty we get as babies. You may do or say what you please but I will do what is best for me. Anarchy is what occurs when there is a collapse of a government as in Somalia. Anarchy exists breifly but not as a stable social system that guarantees individual rights. We are not Dudley Do Right Vulcans. People want a system that guarantees their rights. No one can point to a Rational Anarchistic Society where individual rights were acknowledged. Not in the past. Not now. Not in the future. I have heard Anarchists point to Old Iceland as a 300 year long anachic society. I don’t agree. There is no Capitalism in Anarchism. Capitalism requires long term multigenerational contracts. Ye olde Iceland was agrarian Lets wait for the results of 2010 and 2012 before we lose hope. Sorry if I am not making myself clear. Its past my bed time. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

What a clever topic title, Mutiny on The Bounty. The largest single shareholder at the company I worked for before retirement was Warren Buffet. He makes mistakes, but recently he was buying coal and a railroad to transport the coal. This is in spite of the theory of Global Warming and the Obama administration’s vow to shut down or deny the building of new coal fired electrical plants. I think he knew years ago that GLOBAL COOLING is happening and now, that Obama will only be with us for one term. I mention this just to give you a background on where I am coming from. Nowadays they don’t print more dollar bills. They just push a button and a trillion dollars is deposited into an account to pay our nation’s debts. This is monetizing the debt and it creates inflation. Nixon and later Carter paid off the Viet Nam war, using this tactic and it caused terrible inflation. I think gas prices have suddenly skyrocketed in our area by about twenty cents a gallon. Is the predicted hyperinflation beginning? Maybe. I don’t know. I do know inflation is a killer to people on fixed incomes. Saving money in our system is also more expensive than it seems at first glance. Bank fees are augmented, and interest paid is lessened by inflation, because the savings interest rates lag behind the inflation rate. Most people have a sense of this, which accounts for declining savings rates up until very recently, and the growing interest in gold. If I offered you five thousand dollars in cash OR five thousand dollars in gold and you could not touch it for five years, which would you take? What a great commercial line that is. There is a truism that says, during inflation the rich get richer. They put their money in short term ventures and don’t lock in rates. Then in six months or a year, they reinvest to get the better interest return on the dollar. Imagine locking in a twenty percent five year CD with a bank, when you see signs that inflation is going away? If a discount store like Wal-Mart is close, buy your supplies, like paper towels there, but factor in the price of gas and the price of your time. Do you know what a Mormon closet is? Or the new term for urban survivalists, Preppers? A Mormon closet is a year’s supply of food always on hand. It must be foods you constantly eat so the food can be dated and rotated for freshness. As Forrest Gump said, ‘S#%* Happens!’ Be prepared. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

Adam wrote: So you are from Minnesota or Omaha Nebraska? How did you, or do you support the state now? end quote Ah. Zen, Rorschach test questions. Where am I from, Minnesota or Omaha Nebraska? end quote At least once or twice in my life I was moving towards these places, then I was in or over these places, and then I left these places, usually by car or airplane. So now I am from those places too. However I inhabit The Land of Sky Blue Waters, (not the Minnesota lakes area) in a tri-state area called Delmarva. It is a peninsula with the Delaware Bay on the east side, and the Chesapeake Bay on the west and south sides. I live on the southern side of the Mason-Dixon line, so on the north side I am bordered by Yankees. Do I support the state? No. The state supports me through Social Security and the VA. I have been a teacher, and I have worked in printing and banking. Do I support the state? In some ways reluctantly, in other ways, less reluctantly. To paraphrase Madison, power will not be snatched from one branch of government, because of checks and balances, to make another branch more powerful. Rather the power will be snatched from the rights of the people. I am for a lesser state. I doubt that the Federal Government could exist on the voluntary system Rand promoted, especially in an emergency, or war. However, war bonds, savings bonds, etc., added to paying for services, and a national lottery, could keep mandatory taxation to a minimum. Could we have defeated the world domination of Hitler or The Soviet Union without mandatory taxation? No. You could argue that a complete rewrite is required, but you cannot prove that a better position would be to have no Constitution. I do not advocate a negation of the power-to-tax clause of The Constitution, but I pay few taxes. I swore an oath to support The Constitution, and there is no time limit on my oath, so in this sense I do support the state. Do I support the state? Am I shrugging? There comes a time when it is necessary to accept that one's efforts are no longer supporting life but, instead, largely supporting its destruction. The Tea Party movement gives me hope. The last spoken words in Atlas Shrugged are: "The road is cleared. We are going back to the world." I hope we do not need to leave. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

Avatar I saw the movie in comfortable, stadium seating, two thirds of the way back, in the center. I went early to assure myself of getting the best seats. I worried about getting a sea-sick feeling, after watching the trailer for the movie, but that did not happen. The 3D glasses were not a problem. I tried taking them off, and things on the screen seemed blurred, so I quickly put them back on. It is three hours long, though it did not seem that long. To avoid having to get up, don’t drink a lot of coke. If you get up during the movie, take the glasses off and watch your step. Do not look at the screen. The movie is ground breaking. I enjoyed it and thought it was worth the money. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

I suppose I should ask: when did you first hear of Ayn Rand? In 1964, when I was in High School. Someone gave me a copy of Anthem to read. Later, another person let me see their back copies of The Objectivist Newsletter. Then I read the rest of Rand. I think of Ayn Rand's years associated with the Branden's and NBI as "The Golden Years." Three years later I was drafted into the Army and eventually sent to South Korea. I belonged to The Headquarters and Headquarters Battery Seventh Infantry Division Artillary. On our base there were three officers for every enlisted man like me. I had my copies of The Objectivist (The name had changed and it was now more like a magazine) mailed to me and they would arrive a week later than they should have, already well read and thumbed through. The officers were reading it first. I would be stopped a couple of times a day to discuss philosophy with the officers, which caused suspician among my fellow enlisted men. Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

Greetings, Humans. I am still trying to navigate OL. Hope this gets thru. This is an oldie but a goodie video. And one of my favorites. www.symphonyofscience.com Scroll down to 'Our place in the Universe,' with Carl Sagan. It's the first video you come to. Hit the start button. What an extraordinary video for a scientist, or anyone looking for the spiritual and rational side of life! And you can download it for free. Semper cogitans fidele, Live long and prosper, Peter

That last episode really upset me. Dexter's wife was just too fine. I wish it had been written differently. I may have more to say about that. semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor

“Dexter” is a Showtime cable network show about a serial killer who has a job as a forensic technician specializing in blood spatters. He has a “Code,” taught to him by his father and mentor, a police officer for the Miami police department . . . Dexter will only torture and kill a killer who has escaped the legal system. He hides his true nature from everyone except a few select, and understanding people. Wouldn’t this be a great acting role for our fearless leader, Barack Obama? His mentors are William Ayres and Sol Lowinsky. His “Code” is Marxism and Totalitarianism barely hidden from patriotic Americans. He is killing us softly with inspirational blather, and someday he will reveal himself to everyone. “Good morning Mr. President. How may I be of service to you today?” “Leon, you are the head of the CIA and my ears around the world. This is for your eyes only. The next time we torture a terrorist I want to be there.” “We don’t torture misguided Islamic nationalists any more, Mr. President.” “Yeah, sure. There are some Americans who need it too. The next time we do it, I want to participate. I can’t ask anyone to do what I won’t do myself.” “Well, of course, Barack. If you insist. Amnesty for everyone involved?” “Yeah. You bet, Panetta. Let’s see. There’s that Glenn Beck guy, and Limbaugh. Definitely domestic terrorists. We’ll start with them. I’ll bring my own South Side of Chicago tools. Damn, it’s been too long. Let there be blood!” Semper cogitans fidele, Peter Taylor