Peter

I wondered about the comedians and artists of Russia. What are their views about the war in Ukraine? Peter From a Russian column about comedians. Jokes are a reason for persecution for Russian and Belarusian stand-up comedians who openly opposed the war in Ukraine. More than 200 artists signed an appeal to Vladimir Putin calling for an end to the bloodshed. Many of the signatories have already left Russia. For such political positions both in the Russian Federation and in Belarus, you can get into jail. What is it like to be a comedian, and humorist in a totalitarian state, see in the material. From Culture / Russian Federation. . . .Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the orders of President Vladimir Putin, the conflict is now in its fifth day, and casualties on both sides are growing. Many of Russia's prominent stars in and outside of the country are speaking out against the war. Others, have been keeping mum. New York City's Metropolitan Opera announced on Sunday that it would cut ties with pro-Putin artists. Other opera houses around the world are reacting similarly. One of the stars directly affected by the decision is opera singer Anna Netrebko, who has ties to the Russian president and was once pictured with a flag used by some Russian-backed separatist groups, as reported by the New York Times. She is scheduled to appear in Puccini's opera "Turandot" on April 30. One of her concerts, planned for February 25 in Aarhus, Denmark, was already cancelled after pressure to denounce ties with Putin. Two days later, Netrebko and her Azerbaijani husband, singer Yusif Eyvazov, released a joint statement denouncing the war, without however naming Putin: "I want this war to end and for people to be able to live in peace. This is what I hope and pray for." She also added, "forcing artists, or any public figure to voice their political opinions in public and to denounce their homeland is not right." "This should be a free choice. I am not a political person. I am not an expert in politics," the statement reads. Yakov Naumovich Pokhis, better known as Yakov Smirnoff, is a Ukrainian-American comedian, actor and writer. He began his career as a stand-up comedian in the Soviet Union, then immigrated to the United States in 1977 in order to pursue an American show business career, not yet knowing any English. He’s been in movies, television, on Broadway and is also from Ukraine. Some of his family has fled from the country and others are still there. He’s known for his catchphrase “What a country!” However, with war breaking out in Ukraine it’s taking on a new feeling. He said they’ve helped some family get over the border but others remain.

I think Russia’s brutal assault on Ukraine has hardened the perceived need of the countries near Russia to join NATO or strengthen their ties to NATO. Sweden and Finland want to join NATO for their protection from the Russian wolf. These three quotes originated in the small countries of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Amid the Russian military offensive in Ukraine, Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte on Friday, 22 April, called on the international community to make efforts to bring the people involved in "war crimes" to justice. According to Simonyte, the situation in Ukraine is a "struggle between tyranny and freedom," LRT.LT reported. Addressing a press briefing with her Latvian and Estonian counterparts in Riga, Simonyte stressed that the war in Ukraine will show how the 'world' and 'Europe' will look like in future. Latvia’s leader Egils Levits has urged Western countries to step up their military support for Ukraine. He believes that Ukraine needs more support to resist a potential new Russian offensive. The Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have also called on Germany to send its main battle tanks to Ukraine, putting further pressure on Berlin to move faster on aiding Kyiv in its war against Russia. Estonia is not at war. However, it has been one of Ukraine’s strongest allies in the war2. Estonia has given “the full spectrum” of military assistance, such as tanks, to Kyiv. The Estonian government has said that while it sees no direct military threat for the country, “every person and organization” should nevertheless anticipate an impact from military action in Ukraine. Estonia’s Rescue Board and the foreign ministry have sent equipment to Ukraine to deal with the flood.

While looking for old letters discussing force I found these two letters from Barbara Branden which are interesting, though not necessarily about war and I don’t think I correctly cut and pasted them. Peter From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: ATL: The Hallmark of the Objectivist Ethics Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 01:44:54 EDT. I scarcely know where to begin responding to what seems like the infinite number of posts that have come in about the Objectivist ethics. I shall try to handle the most relevant posts one at a time, unless some of them overlap and can be answered together. Let me say that Bill Dwyer gave me my first laugh during all of this discussion by referring to me as "someone who considers herself a pillar of Objectivism." Somehow, I've never seen myself as a pillar of anything. Besides, Ayn Rand would say that I disagree with too many of her ideas for her to appoint me a "pillar." Luka, I'll begin with your comments. You wrote, "My point is that if a person is acting in a way that they think will best promote their self-interest, then they cannot be morally condemned. Not from their perspective. " You said this--and I appreciate it--in response to my question about whether or not one should morally condemn the actions of a Nazi, or a White Supremacist, or a bank robber if they thought their actions to be serving their . . . . From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: ATL: The Objectivist Ethics Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 17:22:42 EDT. I had said that I would respond to each of the posts disagreeing with my position on ethics. That clearly has become impossible. It has also become unnecessary, since so many of you who agree with my position have advanced arguments for it that I would have made. So I shall here present the essence of my position, and leave it at that. If any of you think I've failed to respond to questions or objections in your posts, that is not my intention; but these last weeks are all the time I have to give to the issue. The defenders of Consequentialism (which I see as a species of Utilitarianism applied to individuals) do appear to grant that human rights supersede considerations of short or long-range benefits to individuals. But why is that? It's because the concept of rights derives from the nature of man. And so does the Objectivist moral code. Morality, according to Objectivism, derives from the fact that we survive to the extent that we exercise reason. The monsters of this earth are not evil because they misperceive their self-interest, but because they are anti-life, anti-reason, anti-man. (It's relevant to add, in response to I forget whom, that the word "evil" is one I almost never use, except for axe-murderers and their equivalents. I always intensely disliked the fact that the word was thrown at people so recklessly and unfairly in the early days of Objectivism, and sometimes in the not-so-early days.) Morality is not a function of what I think is good for me or you think is good for you. The Consequentialist argument approaches the issue of morality in midair, not at its root; its root, as Ayn Rand made so clear, is the nature of human life and survival. The Consequentialist argument contains the same internal contradiction as Utilitarianism: after one says that one should choose the greatest good for the greatest number, how does one establish what IS the greatest good for the greatest number? Similarly with Consequentialism: after one says that morality requires that one follow one's self-interest, the question becomes: What IS to one's self-interest? Ayn Rand pointed out that when we say "This is good for me" or "This is bad for me," we must be prepared to answer the question "BY WHAT STANDARD?" And the standard is the life of the kind of being we are. This formulation is Ayn Rand's enormous contribution not just to the content of a moral system but to the entire approach to morality. It bypasses and goes far deeper than either Consequentialism or deontologicalism. How do we decide what is good or bad for us except with reference to our survival as man? I have said before that Nazis, Communists, bank robbers and . . . .

William Dwyer once wrote, "Murder" is the premeditated and ~aggressive~ killing of another human being (who possesses the right to life); it is the ~initiation~ of physical force. And William Dwyer wrote: “The ~initiation~ of force, for an Objectivist or a libertarian, is gaining a value from its owner without his or her consent, which is why fraud is a form of force. Thus, the initiation of force presupposes the concept of property rights, which is a point that Kelley has made. For example, if I physically remove you from a particular place against your will, I have used "force" against you. But I have not ~initiated~ force against you if the place is my property and you are occupying it against my will. Thus, in order to determine whether or not an act of force qualifies as the ~initiation~ of force, one needs to have a prior understanding of the property relations obtaining between the two parties involved in its exercise. Jeff Riggenbach wrote, "Self defense" is all the actions one might resort to *while under attack* in an effort to kill, disable, or repel one's attacker. From “Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Leonard Peikoff. The Initiation of Physical Force as Evil. Rationality requires the exercise of volition, which is the metaphysically given faculty of reason. Human beings must exercise reason (and therefore volition) in order to live. Because thought is an individual and not a collective process, different individuals may draw different conclusions about how to live. Two or more people who disagree about this issue have only three ways to resolve the dispute. The first is simply to go their separate ways; the second, to use persuasive argumentation; and the third, to initiate direct physical force (or its indirect version, fraud), which renders the victim's reasoning irrelevant and therefore impotent. Because individual human life is the standard of value and the individual's own reasoning and property is his proper method of sustaining that value, the initiation of physical force or fraud against the individual or his property is the basic moral wrong and evil. This holds true even if an individual's conclusions about how he should run his life eventually prove to be self-destructive, since he is the exclusive owner of his life and he alone will pay the price for his own mistakes. end quotes

Good guess. Do he be one a dem movie stars? He has the looks and the chatter, but I don't think he would get 50 percent of the votes.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, sponsored by Matt Palumbo's MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN, for Friday shows that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Biden’s job performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove. The latest figures include 26% who Strongly Approve of the job Biden is doing and 42% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16. end quote Well Pooh. Who might run in Biden’s place? Surely not Kamalalala. Maybe one of dem Kennedy’s?

Michael wrote, “Guess which one of these guys never made a dime off of military issues involving Russia and Ukraine?” Impressive! And now, for some of my world class sarcasm. Has there been any retribution for bribe taking for Bush, Obama or Biden (BOB for short)? Have you found any account of how much they were paid and where the money was spent or saved? Why haven’t any of them gotten a nickname like “Tricky Dicky” yet? Has the press gotten “ahold” of this? As Beevis said, “Not that I disbelieve you, but gee willikers.” Or as auto correct would say instead of gee willikers, "Am I jay walking?” What Should those three have done? If Russia tries that sort of shenanigans when Donald Trump is President again, what would he do to avert that scenario? I think the pattern you are seeing is clear proof that Russia is the villain in all those tragedies. And yes, I agree there is Still, a military / industrial complex. I recently started contributing to Donald J. Trump again. I think that when I typed in his donaldjtrump web site it directed me to winred or some such site. Peter It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire.

Some questions to ask someone who has really studied the “situation.” Why did Ukraine invade Russia? Who is winning the war? Why is the Russia’s military performing so wonderfully? What has the war meant for ordinary Russians and Ukrainians? What do Ukrainians think about the war? Can the war end with Ukraine becoming a sub-state of Russia once again? Is the Soviet Union reemerging?

If you try it, put some peanut butter on the celery. Yummy.

How to slow down speeding cars on your road? Park on the side of the road or at the end of your driveway. Have aviator sunglasses on. Point a hair dryer at anyone speeding past your house. Voila!

How many letters are in the English alphabet? Only 22. Somebody shot J.R. and E.T. went home.

I was able to weigh a rainbow with AOC on it. It turned out to be pretty light.

Here’s an interesting letter just a bit about “discrimination." Peter From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: Blacks and women and Jimbo Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:26:46 -0500. Russell Madden wrote: "As for treating "'freedom' in past eras of massive tyranny" "lightly," what a joke of an accusation. I've written often about such issues (e.g., Lincoln). I don't want a return to the "good ol' days." I'm for returning to the kind of freedom we had in areas where we were freer in the past and for correcting abuses where we were not free in the past. What's so hard -- or "unproductive" -- about acknowledging both the good and bad of the past, wanting to return to the former and repudiating the latter? Another straw man of what I stated and what I believe. Jimbo seems to want to claim that _in no areas_ was the 19th century freer than today. Such blindness to the facts is hardly helpful." This controversy raises the interesting question of what standard we should use when "measuring" the amount of freedom in a country during a given period. One obvious method, namely, to examine the amount and nature of legislation and administrative regulations, can be historically misleading, since the fact that a given law or regulation was on the books does not necessarily mean that it was widely enforced. We may be looking at a "dead-letter law," i.e., one that popular opinion, enlightened leadership, or the effects of time had rendered obsolete. We find this sort of thing with statutes against blasphemy, which though technically in force in England of the late 18th century, were rarely enforced, largely thanks to the influence of Enlightenment ideas. A classic example of unenforced laws occurred in the American colonies for many decades until the 1760s, during a period that Edmund Burke dubbed the era of "salutary neglect." Robert Walpole, who was prime minister (in effect) during the 1720s, favored free trade, but he also understood the political impossibility of repealing the many mercantilist regulations that had been on the books for many years, some of them since Elizabethan times. Walpole therefore instituted his preferred policy ("Let sleeping dogs lie") of appointing relatives and political favorites as custom officials in America, where they routinely accepted bribes from smugglers which amounted to a fraction of the legally required duties. This policy of salutary neglect assured that trade was essentially free in fact, if not in theory. Hence the amount of freedom actually enjoyed by Americans was considerably greater during the period of salutary neglect than would be indicated if we merely examined the laws that were officially on the books. We sometimes see a similar phenomenon even under early despotic regimes, such as that of the "Sun King," Louis XIV in 17th century France. The problem here, from the ruler's perspective, is that effective enforcement requires an efficient bureaucracy and police force, and these institutional mechanisms tended to be highly inadequate until well into the 19th century. In some respects (though by no means all) the average Frenchman during the 17th century enjoyed more de facto freedom than the average America of today. (This is especially true in regard to the rate of taxation.) Although Thoreau protested a small poll tax, he noted that the average American citizen would rarely encounter a government official in his entire life, and then it was usually a mail carrier. When Lysander Spooner decided to become a lawyer, he did not require a diploma from a certified law school, nor did he have to pass a government-sanctioned exam. He merely became an assistant to an established attorney, studied law on his own in this environment, and then set out on his own when he felt qualified to practice and when clients were willing to enlist his services. This ability to practice a trade without jumping through the hoops of certification, licensing, and other government regulations that inhibit market entry is one significant example of greater freedom in 19th century America. I am not suggesting that we should downplay discriminatory legislation in 19th century America against blacks, women, etc., but we should not rely entirely on enacted legislation when assessing the severity of enforcement, which typically varied from one locale to another. (For example, the citizens and officials of Boston often made it difficult to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.) One thing you don't find in 19th century America is millions of Americans imprisoned for victimless crimes, and this speaks volumes. True, such injustices did occur, but not nearly on the scale we see today. The "spirit of the law" (to use Montesquieu's term) was far more individualistic than it is now, even if this spirit did not always manifest itself in practice. (Of course, this depends on which part of the 19th century we are discussing. The ideology of Jeffersonian individualism suffered a steady decline after the Civil War.) The legal disparity between men and women, which was quite real, is not a sufficient indicator of the degree of overall freedom in 19th century America. A disparity of freedom is still better, even for women, than an equality of oppression. I doubt if many American women of that time would have been willing to change places with women in a communistic regime like the Soviet Union, where men and women had legal equality (at least in theory). Equal rights don't mean much when you have virtually no rights to begin with. Ghs

Ayn Rand wrote: "In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate." I have always been a bit leery about Rand suggesting that in a “public store” it may be reprehensible to discriminate based on race in “your store” (or simply based on “any factor”) but it should be your right. I think there is a clear distinction between “public” and “private.” Now in a private club or zone you should be free to keep out anyone you don’t want “in.” If there is another reason other than just race, you should be free to use your own judgement in a public place to discriminate. Like in a bar, any owner or manager should have the right to not serve a drunk. Did I get that right? Peter Some more interesting Rand quotes? "What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion." "Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity." "The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others." "Rights impose no obligations on [neighbors] except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." "Any alleged 'right' of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right."

Have a nice Fourth of July and thanks to all who post to Objectivist Living. I proudly served my country and I profoundly thank Ayn Rand for loving our Constitution, (she did!), and our unique land, and values. “Stand up!” Peter Lee Greenwood If tomorrow all the things were gone I worked for all my life And I had to start again With just my children and my wife I'd thank my lucky stars To be livin' here today 'Cause the flag still stands for freedom And they can't take that away. And I'm proud to be an American Where at least I know I'm free And I won't forget the men who died Who gave that right to me And I'd gladly stand up Next to you and defend her still today 'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land God bless the USA From the lakes of Minnesota To the hills of Tennessee Across the plains of Texas From sea to shining sea From Detroit down to Houston And New York to L.A. Well, there's pride in every American heart And it's time we stand and say That I'm proud to be an American Where at least I know I'm free And I won't forget the men who died Who gave that right to me And I'd gladly stand up Next to you and defend her still today 'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land (love this land) God bless the USA And I'm proud to be an American Where at least I know I'm free And I won't forget the men who died Who gave that right to me And I'd gladly stand up Next to you and defend her still today 'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land (love this land) God bless the USA.

From Fox tonight, July 3, 2024: “American liberties defended by Supreme Court.’ The recent Supreme Court ruling . . . and it may have been a quote from Thomas Sowell. “No one should be discriminated on because of race.” end quote

Weird. We need a crossword clue. A land was named for him; six letters. Answer: Disney.

Phaw. Anyone who trifles in another country's politics is a terrorist. Like you . . .

Mayday! Mayday~ I will cancel him as a possible runner for now.

I am still not agreeing with RFK Jr. as a potential Trump running mate in 2024 but he seems like a decent democrat. Peter Democrat RFK Jr. details how he differs 'profoundly' with Biden ahead of 2024 election by Rachel Looker. WASHINGTON — Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. weighed in Tuesday morning after President Joe Biden announced his reelection campaign, saying he differs "profoundly on fundamental issues" from the president . . . Kennedy, the son of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, both assassinated in the 1960s, announced his presidential campaign las week running as a Democrat and campaigning on a platform of fighting for the "liberties guaranteed by the Constitution." Kennedy said during his campaign announcement that "corporate feudalism" in the country commodifies children, harms people with chemicals and prescription drugs and weakens the middle class. He highlighted polarization blaming corporate mergers for "loving the fighting among us." "My mission over the next 18 months of this campaign and throughout my presidency will be to end the corrupt merger of state and corporate power that is threatening... to impose a new kind of corporate feudalism in our country," he said.

One more insight or just a thought about Larry Elder from “Psychology today”: . . . You, however, regard meddlers as questioning your ability to handle your own affairs. The communal perspective, similarly, can be understood from these two perspectives. Meddlers, again seeing themselves as well-intentioned, think their behavior will bring the two of you closer together. From your vantage point, by contrast, meddling only becomes a wedge that drives the two of you apart . . . . end quote Well “screw” getting closer together with Larry Elder. If former President Trump is still thinking of his options for his Vice President or IF Trump for some unforeseen reason does not get the nomination such as health issues, I think I would not vote for any Republican who trashed President D.J. Trump.

Daaaamn! Talk about a convoluted argument from intimidation! 'Houston we've got a problem': Trump rival makes brutal observation about his electability Story by Tom Boggioni: . . . Speaking with Newsweek, Elder proposed that GOP primary voters -- before casting their ballots -- ask themselves, "Have you lost friends because of Donald Trump? Are you walking on eggshells at work because of Donald Trump? Do you have strained relationships with your family and relatives because of Donald Trump?" Continuing in that vein he added, "If the answer is yes, Houston we've got a problem, and that problem is called electability." Gee whiz Larry. Where’s Moe and Curly? Does anybody Ever flip their vote and just go with the floe? Must you agree with what your in-laws, cousins or coworkers think? And oh by golly, what about those bumper stickers or campaign buttons you might start “sporting” in 2024. Eeeeek! It isn’t a Trump problem. It is a violent left-wing problem. Peter

Excellent analysis. Of course, there can still be suits filed because of individual bias from institutions, but the idea that grades and merit have outlived racism is a tremendous win for the Rand universe which includes some of the United States. It is a great day for job seekers too, who can present their resume, talk to Human Resources, and be considered the same way as anyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, physical handicaps, etc.

I personally don't see that coalition occurring but who knows? When are you Kanucks going to topple the crown? Maybe youse guys need a French Revolution. And stop sending smoke of all kinds down here to the lower 48.