Reidy

Concerning #2 and #3: National Review today ran an article on the intolerance that has greeted Jenner's declarations that he's a conservative. More. Standing desks are common enough; look up "standing desk" in a search engine to convince yourself. Virginia Woolf was one user.

Solely!? That takes some doing. You never read a non-fiction book, or at least you never believed one. You never had a history lesson in any medium. In fact you have no knowledge of history, because necessarily you weren't there for the first-person experience. You never used a map or verbal directions to get where you were going. You found the way by trial and error aided by such memories as you had from having traveled the same routes before. You never checked the weather, insisting on stepping outside or waiting til you got there to see for yourself. How do you manage?

Has anybody noticed that Paul announced his candidacy at the Galt House hotel?

Wright's 1936 Johnson Wax building in Racine has a huge main workroom that, however beautiful, was horrendously noisy in its first several decades, in part because of a slab concrete floor (the better to show off Johnson's flagship product) and in part because of mechanical typewriters. When desktop workstations came in the company had to jackhammer channels in the slab for conduits, and they covered the floor over with carpeting, much to everybody's relief.

On the strength of the information here, I suspect that he'd say "this is what the client wants; it's an interesting visual and acoustical challenge." Then he'd get to work. Part of the work would be getting the client to accept the solution he came up with. We'll have to see photos and, a year or so from now, testimony from people who'd worked there in order to see how well or badly the building solves these problems.

The Republicans decided in January 2014 to convene from July 18 - 21 2016; the Democrats decided the same month to open their convention on the 25th. By tradition the party that doesn't hold the presidency goes first. In any case the nominations are decided in the primaries months earlier. The delegates can't in practice do anything about this at convention time. Warren won't have to worry about money. She can open her own casino.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11480376/Kant-is-a-moron-vandals-critique-the-philosophers-home.html Tracinski: "I swear I have an alibi."

I agree with Kyle. So did Rand. She was an enthusiastic admirer of the glamour of the movies and the other performing arts and of the performers in them. I can't help noticing that the article in #2 is about a corporate VP, not an artist. It counts as evidence against your point. If Jobs were running things today, methinks he'd mind his own business and not kill the goose that lays so many billions worth of golden eggs. People who've gotten rich from IT entrepreneurship and stock options are legendary for their ostentation. Read the real estate ads in the Palo Alto Post. See how many Teslas you can count at any red light in the neighborhood. One might argue that the public does not come down sufficiently hard on stars' hypocrisies in politics, about inequality and about global warming. In fact the media call them out constantly on this, and the public responds to the stars' fatuous pronouncements by flatly ignoring them, no matter how noisily they huff and puff.

Does that mean the marriage isn't a sin if the other party knows the score, as in the cases of, apparently, Rock Hudson or Peter Allen?

Yeah, like too many Barbra Streisand records in utero.

I've read that the Articles allowed states to establish tariffs and to limit entry at their borders. The Constitution expressly ruled out tariffs. They also expressly made mail delivery a government monopoly.

I subscribed to The Objectivist Newsletter and got mailings from NBI Book Service, and read them all repeatedly. I don't recall mention of either of these books. (If you have the Newsletter citation I can probably look it up, as I have all but a few issues.) People in rank-and-file Objectivist circles talked favorably about The Triumph of Conservatism, but I'd have to see documentation for any stronger claim. Maybe you are thinking of The Decline of American Liberalism by Ekirch, which Hessen reviewed. According to the Amazon listing and preview for Tragedy and Hope, it was first published in 1966; the Newsletter last published in 1965. The blurb (emphasis added) suggests a cranky, conspiracy-mongering message, something the Objectivists never bought into.

Where did Rand recommend the Quigley and Kolko books? I don't remember her mentioning them.

I'd wait and see on this one. Bing and Google searches on "texas secessionist" turn up reports on the incident from several fringey little sites and one fairly credible one, VodkaPundit. VP in turn cites only single source, one of the aforementioned fringey ones.

It's dishonest. If you have to ask why... It will quite likely land you in jail. Since you've published the details of the scheme on the web (not a clever move) you are even likelier to be caught and successfully prosecuted if you go through with it. Even if you don't, you already stand a good chance of being subpoena'd when Peter and Mark go on trial. That will be trouble enough, and it's too late to undo it.

Weekly Standard reviewed the Pinker book last fall.

For advanced study, NBI Book Service used to recommend H.W.B. Joseph's Introduction to Logic.

Roark was probably beefier, having worked in the building trades. Can you imagine this guy operating a pile-driver? It would ruin his hairdo.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon has no entry for the word, but a search there turns up several occurrences.

To put it less eruditely than studiodekadent did, have you noticed that they guy is defending his job, his political influence and his class prerogatives (probably including a chauffeured limo) by appealing to Kantian disinterest?

In fact she did live in such a house; http://www.architecturaldigest.com/architecture/archive/neutra_slideshow_072001 When the movie came out the LA Times ran an article noting that The Incredibles.is an exception to the rule that movies usually associate modern architecture with evil characters. LA Confidential is a case in point. The villain lives (and dies) in Neutra's Lovell house, his most famous.

Maybe. Her occupation, glasses and hairdo are unmistakably Edith Head. Her stature recalls Linda Hunt. The accent and vocabulary might be Rand. Another, remoter possibility is Lotte Lenya in the early 60s movie of From Russia with Love.

As a matter of facts that I'd only discovered recently, the Hasidim in New York have long had Sharia - a semi formal criminal justice system that the formal one rarely interferes with and that doesn't always work: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/10/outcast-3 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/nyregion/ultra-orthodox-jews-shun-their-own-for-reporting-child-sexual-abuse.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/satmar-leader-weberman-guilty-molesting-girl-article-1.1217092 For more, look up new york hasidic molest.

The simple (albeit economically illiterate) conclusion is that these countries discriminate against men. Thomas Sowell's writings are full of historical and contemporary examples of women or non-whites making more than the competition. One that I remember is 19th century farms in California. They paid a white wage and a Japanese wage. Initially the Japanese wage was lower, but as the Japanese rose to become foremen and farm owners and as their linguistic skills became more valuable, the Japanese wage got to be higher. Some such answer is available here, too. Maybe it's one of the suggestions earlier in this thread or maybe not. The point to remember is that these are questions of empirical social science and not of theology.

My answer, which I think is the standard Objectivist line as well, is that these are not the kind of claims that you prove. Proof derives a particular fact about the world from other facts. Thus "how do you prove that the world / fact / reality exists?" misapplies the concept of proof and gets you into an infinite regress. Maybe you mean "how do you prove validity of the senses / actuality of the external world?" Rand observed that consciousness is necessarily consciousness of some object; consciousness without an object is a contradiction in terms. The solipsist might come back with the observation that we can be deceived about what we see or remember, and he might point out well-established cases of illusion or bad memory (and I don't mean that guy at NBC). This would be an example of what Rand calls a stolen concept. In pointing out the evidence the solipsist assumes the validity of the senses (the evidence of these experiments) in order to deny it. On this last question, Branden devoted an entire lecture to the stolen concept in his NBI basic course. The lectures are available as a book, so this might be a good source.