turkeyfoot

I've read Tarbells' account and parts of your recommendation - Reminescences along with Vindicating Capitalism by Alex Epstein and bits of John D. Rockefeller by Dalzell. You can find the stuff of the man, Sr and Jr therein. I would attribute the seeming contradiction to faith and a staggering inherited sum that the family felt needed to be disbursed. Sr was saddled with philanthropic concerns. My research reveals a reliance in the whole on emotional appeal rather than the facts which imo, put him in good stead in my book. He deserves a place of greatness in the pantheon of American business and the Atlas sculpture is a good way to display that. He was probably the shrewdest person in the right geographic area and in the right century. Alas, the system that gave rise to his achievements went under appreciated, was derided and so misunderstood that in its place mediocrity has taken hold. It's fortunate we have an such an excellent example of Capitalism at work! An old rags to rags adage my fil mentioned once in regard to wealth is also apropos to Philosophy. The first generation creates wealth, the second squanders it, (not appreciating the value)and the third has to start from the beginning.

Yes, ObjectiveMan, its clear to me the reaction AR had to the Sherman Anti Trust Act. We seem to hold similar romantic ideals about self made men to the point they become heroes because of our reactions towards govt intrusion into the marketplace that attempted to "right" the "wrongs" of what was perceived at the time as being unfair advantage. The front of Rockefeller building with the scupture of Atlas Shrugging symbolizes the greatness of the man whose inscription reads in part, "“I believe in the supreme worth of the individual and in his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What happened prior to the Act that signaled the advent of govt intrusion in the marketplace is what is important to me at this time. At the heart lies a difficult subject if one is to delve into the how Rockefeller accomplished his deeds, what it says about his intentions and the consequences. What I hate about bios is the self pious nature people maintain about themselves, so we must look at the facts before we judge. A young girl named Ida Tarbell, the daughter of a refiner who was almost ruined by the South Improvement Company wrote a 19 part series and book, The History of the Standard Oil Company, (1904) based in part on interviews of Rockefellers partner, Henry Rogers, who also provided documentation - Its a tendency towards a conclusion about Rockefeller being one of the great ones so lets cut to the chase and what followed that bothers me. I want to know in detail if he is deserving of this reputation. Its much easier for me to take note of Henry Bessemers process, or Tesla for example, who created a thing that changed the world. Its important to me to assign blame or credit in equal measure. What did Rockefeller do that changed the world prior to making his billions?

Ive been nursing an interest of pre Sherman Anti Trust era, For instance what was it that invited the scrutiny that led to the Act? Under corporate law, limited liability, provided a "privilege" extended by the state and what is not normally thought of as a natural right imo, allowing for reckless abandonment of fair play. Without the normal financial risk associated with ownership, did they gamble big and win big at the expense of anyone who didnt share their special economic class? Its difficult to see Rockefeller as a victim of govt coercion because I do wonder whether any of what he obtained in business was the result of ill gotten gains.Your recommendation may provide a clue. The book, Lords of Creation, written in 1935 provided a perspective thats leaves me unsatisfied. In the oil industry the control of competition was provided by a severe young man named John D. Rockefeller, who had run his little refining business in Cleveland with such calculating efficiency, had bought out his immediate competitors with such boldness, and had wrung secret privileges from the railroads with such shrewdness, that shortly he was able to dictate to the industry. No impartial referee would have sanctioned some of the practices which had enabled Rockefeller to gain supremacy. Early in the eighteen-seventies his Standard Oil Company and a number of others had joined forces in setting up an association euphemistically known as the South Improvement Company, and had thus secured from a number of railroads (by threatening to take their freight business elsewhere) not only rebates on their was freight charges but what were known as “drawbacks”; in other words, the Rockefeller group had forced the railroads to hand back to them secretly not only a part of the freight charges which the Rockefeller group themselves had paid (in accordance with the published rates), but also a part of what their competitors had paid! No competitor could long exist under such a crushing handicap. The South Improvement Company was short-lived, for when its devices were discovered there arose a howl of protest which echoes to this day; but by that time the pious Mr. Rockefeller had become too mighty a force in the oil industry to be resisted. He had the market in his grip; presently he had a large number of refining companies at his mercy; and by 1879 he was ready to deal the principle of free competition a thumping blow. A lawyer named Samuel C. T. Dodd provided him with the means of doing it. Dodd invented a way of bringing forty separate oil companies into a compact group under unified management. The shareholders in all these forty companies turned their stock over to a group of nine trustees, consisting of Rockefeller and his associates, and received, in return, trust certificates which entitled them to their dividends. The nine trustees, thus having full voting power over each of the forty companies, could do exactly as they pleased with the direction of each, operating them as a gigantic but flexible unit and confronting their competitors with their colossal collective power. Ordinary trade agreements between business rivals on prices and on the division of markets were usually made only to be broken; as a big industrialist testified many years later, they often lasted only until one of the conferees could get to a telegraph office or a telephone; but the decisions of these trustees were unbreakable. The first trust had been born. Now if there was one thing which American public opinion, devoted as it was to the ideal of free competition, would not tolerate, it was monopoly; and when the truth about this trust leaked out— which of course it did, despite the bland statements of Rockefeller and his associates that they were not connected with any oil concern but the Standard Oil Company of Ohio— there was a great public outcry. The small business man saw with acute dread the possibility that some day he might be forced out of business by such a trust. Consumers realized that trusts might be able to force upward the prices of essential commodities and thus take toll of a helpless population. Lovers of fair play were outraged by the spectacle of an economic game in which one player appeared to be a giant equipped with brass knuckles. During the eighteen-eighties a great many other trusts were formed, for the instinct of self-preservation and the acquisitive instinct combined forces to draw men into such combinations; soon there appeared a sugar trust, a rubber trust, a butcher trust, a whiskey trust, a cottonseed oil trust, and many more; but the outcry grew to such volume that in 1888 all the political parties denounced the trusts in their platforms, and in 1890 Congress passed, with only slight opposition, an act prohibiting “combination in restraint of trade”— the famous Sherman Act. Shortly afterward the Standard Oil Trust was forced to dissolve (or rather, to appear to dissolve). Allen, Frederick Lewis (2014-06-10). The Lords of Creation (Forbidden Bookshelf) (Kindle Locations 270-274). Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.

I figure an assumption by a girl, (in the video) in her own estimation is not going to allow a minor epithet to lower her opinion of herself. If thats the case someone or something has been beating her down. This would be the case too with an average boy. Its virtually always been directed towards boys as a way of saying man up, as a way of an offering not to allow yourself to fall into mediocrity, or to take the easy way out, to give a gentle reminder or coaxing to come from a place of strength even when you dont feel like it. Btw, the girls in the video did throw, run like girls. I could spot it a mile away. When I was younger the boys who threw like that in baseball were generally less athletic. You can see a ball thrown like a girl even when thrown by a boy is not thrown as well or as far or as accurately. Kinesiology is the science of breaking down motion to find efficiencies. Young baseball players have their pitching analyzed for proper motion. There are definite ways in which the arm moves that can make it less efficient in terms of what it is youre tring to do. I studied proper spacial positioning in Hapkido. Leverage, flow, tension all can help or to some extent get in the way. Microagression? Oh boy, toughen up, stiff upper lip, stop crying about something that really doesnt hurt (youre pretending). I have no accurate means to gauge whether boys are growing into hyper sensitive men, by my definition, although my feeling is that its true.

I follow West Points FB page and saw those soldiers getting their just rewards. Combat is a role that some women can take on and hopefully its one that men will embrace on its own merit while accepting gender differences. Dr Hurd interviewed a retired soldier in his Living Resources newsletter in "A Marines take on PTSD." Latest issue and excellent article. https://drhurd.com Theres a whole other aspect to being a soldier than carrying weight and it has to do with the moral, mental, ROE's and being in theater unable to use your independent judgment, and accepting chain of command for what it is and is not. My ole man went to the Point, became a snake eater, went to VN. Ill just say its not easy living with a combat soldier. Were lucky to have good people willing and able to fight. They look like stand up joes. )

Capital is taken when -ism- is eliminated, Freedoms just another word, for nothin left to lose. )

I earned a brown belt in Hap ki do. There were 12 levels to black belt where most were just getting started and considered rookies by my 8th Dan instructor. Its amazing how far UFC has come since Dan Severn and Royce Gracie, especially in terms of appeal over boxing. There were misconceptions about the fight game, being haymaker contests and we saw at that time everything was won on the ground. I especially like Rhonda Rouseys story and rise from basically nothing. Martial arts got me in the best shape of my life at age 40, My joints are reminders of the damage that could be done with simple joint locks and arm bars. The guy does seem to possess an authentic inner confidence. We'll see if he can back it up and for how long. Ive seen him fight and he is an amazing fighter. Work ethic doesnt always translate to success in the ring and it helps to be a naturally gifted. And talk is cheap. Unless youre Tom Laughlin, a Hap Ki Do guy who played Billy Jack. Recalling the scene he said, 1:33. It was the best inside out crescent kick I ever saw on the big screen. ) But nothing will replace this man. My Kwan Jahng Nim -Cha Sok Park

And it only suppresses symptoms without EVER addressing or resolving causes. This fact assures the continued life of the pharmaceutical industry. Greg I was at the receiving end of a deluge of scripts. A DEA regional office ran printers 24/7 in an effort to keep up. I coulda thrown a wrench and stopped the madness.. ;) My take, on a personal level? A quantitative pcr test looks for the presence of the BCR/ABL gene. Maintaining it beneath a certain level under magnification is what the patient lives for, hopes for, thinks they may die from. So a patient with Chronic Myloid Leukemia hopes for a BCR/ABL ratio of 0 in a blood test that can detect 1 tumor cell in 100k.Its a translocation of chromosomes 9 and 22 resulting in a shortened 22 that then shows the presence of the "philadelphia gene". I asked the patient once, its been 10 yrs, why not stop taking the pills and see (bet your life) whether youve beaten the immunological response of your body? I hadnt thought to approach her with the notion that shes putting poison in her body. Its the elixir of a life prolonged. The antidote to the known causes. Theres a lot I must overcome. I have little to risk by offering questions to challenge her position. She is her doctors "Gleevec girl" with a button and smile to prove it. She orders early to build up supplies in the event processes break down. I even went so far to say, "The stress coming from not having the medicine would kill you long before the disease would." Im not pushing as hard now. Just sayin. I enjoy very good health. I went toe to toe and finally wore down a rookie doc when his plaintive wailing sent me towards pills. I probably learned more from that exchange than all the preventative knowledge he took from med school. He didnt know a thing! What Ive found interesting on a personal level is you gotta wear the t shirt to know what something feels like. Theres an esoteric bubble popping from the sheer weight of what we dont know.

--Brant Turkeyfoot Thx So, what books by Ayn Rand have you read? --Brant let's get started, but we have to know where you are _________________________ Okay --Brant An attempt at humor. Carry on, sir.

--Brant I have difficulty with the sentiment that champions, not a real world example with objective evidence, but an ideal supported by beliefs in a Capitalist system being only what we say it is and not what it might become in practice. What I mean by that is by removing govt force and adding rights respecting ground rules there is nothing to prevent immoral acts. Laws would deal with those aspects but wouldnt prevent crime. Imo, then, crime or immorality is part and parcel of the actions of the players in the system known as Capitalism The source of my difficulty probably is, what is moral. Im asking. Theres another interesting quirk, can two people agree on what is moral? Is it moral, for example, for WaMu's personnel to have written mortgages to people who couldnt afford them? Ive formed a temporary opinion related by the authors article from her observations of the people involved. My opinion is that if an action I take results in harm to me or my interests then its not good. Clearly the results in WaMus case were not good. But were they attained thru immoral methods? I tend to exclude stupidity, the CE was known to be a financial wizard. Isnt it fair to ask, were their standards of work moral? Im asking. This presents another problem for me. Proponents of C to a man unswervingly support the ideal, I rarely hear criticism. But at the root of many financial stories gone bad, sometimes if you look hard enough, peel away the layers, problems appear. Its issues as in the above example that need to be given honest exposition. Thx what books by Ayn Rand ? --Brant All, and many of the short stories (enjoyed Kira's Viking immensely)at some point in my development, starting with Anthem at 14 in '68, AS in my early 20's. Subscription to TIA and the Objectivist. I am many things but an academic Im not. Could you tell? ) Carpenter, newsroom, computer tech, high speed printer tech. Retired now, writing and pencil drawing along with the interminable honey do list. And my own. No notification flow on messages. All checked. Whats up with that?

Michael Milken was certainly NOT a Capitalist. He was a Creditist. Milken peddled junk bonds which are debt, not capital. And he was "indicted for racketeering and securities fraud in 1989 in an insider trading investigation." (Wiki) Debt is NOT capital. Debt is a LACK of capital. It's like matter and antimatter. Greg Diminishing returns, so Ill end with this. See Gekko Echo by David Kelly Debt evidently created wealth. I figure finding of guilty against Milken is at least suspicious, certainly questionable and possibly wrong. The law isnt always right especially in a mixed economy amongst socialists agendas with an altruist morality. I dont mean to be argumentative for its own sake but present views of mine, some sorted and some not so much. IN A WORLD........................https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=O0wYchCT_1U If you can create your own bubble of Capitalism, then perhaps you dont have to consider the effects outside of your personal interests.

Excellent question. Immoral businessmen are not Capitalists. They're liars, cheats, extortionists, swindlers, and thieves... but they're not Capitalists. In my opinion, there is no such thing as "immoral Capitalism". Greg Youre parsing the word to smithereens. Theres nothing imo, in C that defines it as being free of crime. Its a framework that provides for good behavior not a promise. C cant work well or at all in an environment free of law. Can it?, he asked. ) See Michael Milken. We have to leave realistic room for the law to be wrong or the morality of an action to have been misinterpreted, imo.

--Brant I have difficulty with the sentiment that champions, not a real world example with objective evidence, but an ideal supported by beliefs in a Capitalist system being only what we say it is and not what it might become in practice. What I mean by that is by removing govt force and adding rights respecting ground rules there is nothing to prevent immoral acts. Laws would deal with those aspects but wouldnt prevent crime. Imo, then, crime or immorality is part and parcel of the actions of the players in the system known as Capitalism The source of my difficulty probably is, what is moral. Im asking. Theres another interesting quirk, can two people agree on what is moral? Is it moral, for example, for WaMu's personnel to have written mortgages to people who couldnt afford them? Ive formed a temporary opinion related by the authors article from her observations of the people involved. My opinion is that if an action I take results in harm to me or my interests then its not good. Clearly the results in WaMus case were not good. But were they attained thru immoral methods? I tend to exclude stupidity, the CE was known to be a financial wizard. Isnt it fair to ask, were their standards of work moral? Im asking. This presents another problem for me. Proponents of C to a man unswervingly support the ideal, I rarely hear criticism. But at the root of many financial stories gone bad, sometimes if you look hard enough, peel away the layers, problems appear. Its issues as in the above example that need to be given honest exposition. Thx

JP Morgans Diamond, got WaMu after waiting long enough for the share price to be worthless.They got it for zero. A settlement sought $1B from executives. $60M was paid out by WaMus insurance.

"Criminal intent and action gets retaliatory force under capitalism properly done. This is the philosophy of law put into effective law. What else should we strive for and why? Governemnt doing something outside that context? That would be initiation of force to some extent. I'll keep trying to understand what you're about. Something to do with (as you said) "the moral being the practical"--not!? I guarantee you'll never run out of (faux?) examples out of the history of the American mixed economy. It's the only kind we've had." --Brant _____________________________________________ As close as I can get to it heres the non practical aspect that might occur in an otherwise moral economic system. I guess my concern is how is a moral system implemented in reality with rights respecting laws that compel behavior which restrains the harm done by some. Its said, in economics one person wins and another loses. When the loss is substantial enough to qualify as harm a line is crossed into the others right to voluntarily trade, compete and win regardless of a loss someone sustains. Maybe smarter or wealthier creates opportunities for bigger risk. Risk for innocent bystanders that entails harm. Just food for thought. Stipulating Capitalism as being moral within the guidelines and application of proper law doesnt mean there are never situations where immorality occurs. It just means it gets sorted, eventually, hopefully. I thought WaMu was a good example of this. Mortgage buyers were given free reign to voluntarily sign for something that backers had full knowledge was eventually going to cause harm despite disclosing all the particulars. This isnt moral, imo. Though maybe it isnt an example you would use. There should be plenty to choose from.

Are we speaking of the ideal outcome, Capitalism fully realized and what might happen to immoral businessmen? I suppose that its possible. While I had hoped that would happen it didnt. Its been reported by Grind on John Batchlors show that Ramirez, the sub prime loan writer is still in business and Killinger has his houses. Immoral businessmen may in fact be emboldened to do worse. Apparently what I refer to as immoral was not seen as having criminal intent. Reading the article its difficult to understand why.

The hew and cry is, "Capitalism is moral". I agree that it is. Voluntary agreement vs the force of a gun. Perhaps its a "kiss" proposition, either accept the principle or not. ) I parsed historical references from the 1850's-1929, in "The Lords of Creation, The History of Americas 1% written in 1935 about the captains of industry, monopolies, and anti trust, etc. I found a parallel in the PC story. "The railroad’s charter was signed in 1846, and by 1858 its main line was completed between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Meanwhile, the New York Central was created by Erastus Corning who consolidated ten upstate railroads into one Albany - Buffalo system. The Central was acquired by Cornelius Vanderbilt, who also controlled railroads connecting New York City with Albany. Before buying the NYC, Vanderbilt drove the price of its stock down by stopping his New York-Albany trains on the east side of the Hudson, forcing passengers connecting to the NYC to walk across the river on a cold, snow-covered bridge. This tactic caused the price of NYC stock to fall, until Vanderbilt acquired control of the railroad for some $18 million. The excesses of the late 19th Century’s so-called “robber barons” led to changes in the industry. About a fifth of the nation’s trackage was operated by bankrupt companies by 1895, and rail workers began forming unions in response to low wages and poor working conditions. In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created by the federal government to regulate the industry. After peaking in influence and mileage during the early 20th Century, the railroad industry entered into a period of decline starting with the Great Depression of the 1930s and continuing after World War 2 with the diversion of passenger and freight traffic from rail to road, and to a lesser extent, to air. One response by the railroads to these new competitive threats would be to seek economies of scale through mergers." My concern stems to some degree from ignorance or from not quite being willing enough to say in no case is govt or criminal law to get involved (absent judicial,military, police). In the case of "accidents" cited theres personal injury case law that holds transporters responsible for the safety of passengers, its good company policy and probably a moral obligation from where I sit. In the WaMu example, no amount of incompetence is "enough" to find Killinger and his cronies legally culpable to "pay" up personally for their deeds that resulted in devastating losses. They were protected by corp law, I guess. Apart from there being no money to pay out they walked away unscathed apart from being summoned to Capitol Hill. In the Vanderbuilt example above, thats no example of force used to influence markets bringing the price down. Ive tried to delineate the different concerns bearing on each instance but you can see. Is there no difference to you morally, as an advocate of Capitalism in the $ magnitude involved at WaMu? I put bank operators on the same playing field as drivers/operators, in regard to keeping clients safe, doesnt mean you wont get bounced around. ) My guess is that for years, likely decades, statists will be using the 08 financial crash as "the" reason why govt is needed. Even advocates of Capitalism who arent ardent believers (current crop of candidates) will have a tough time convincing people its better to roll with free market punches than let govt get involved. Im going to take time to answer this for myself. If Capitalism is moral, what happens when immoral businessmen make grave mistakes? Practically begs the question, if C is to remain a moral economic concept, isnt it practical to condemn immoral businessmen and their practices and take punitive measures? What would it take to make it practical? Imo, immorality shouldnt simply exact its own price on the player, as it seems to be in the WaMu example, but should bear sanctions. Rameriez, the sub prime mortgage guy is doing fine and still in business. Killinger also is free.

The largest bank ever to fail in the US was WaMu. It grew to 2k national locations with 30k employees. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lost-bank-the-story-of-washington-mutual-by-kirsten-grind/2012/07/20/gJQAsPoQ0W_story.html Whether Capitalism is a moral/ideal economic system is answered by W. Williams and A. Rand. But is it a practical system? There really has to be big time trust when entrusting your money, your retirement, your nest egg, what you intend to rely on at 64 to an entity. Sure FDIC is there for depositors up to $250k. Beyond that nothing will save their loss from being your loss. Perhaps a difference in quality of life. Killinger wasnt as financially exposed personally as a result of his failed oversight as CE of the bank. He still has his houses. "If Killinger was clueless about the amateur way his company was being run, it wasn’t long before even some of the normally sympathetic bank examiners at the Office of Thrift Supervision took notice. They were, in their own words, “concerned” about the quality of mortgages in WaMu’s portfolio, “concerned” about the bank’s underwriting standards and “concerned” about the concentration of higher-risk loans on its balance sheet." What manner of deterrent is available in the free market/legal system to make a banker personally responsible for errors he created? "Grind is much more comfortable telling stories than drawing broad analytical conclusions about finance, corporate culture or public policy." At the center of her book is Ramona Hermanez, a willing "victim" of her own desires and the consequences she created along with that of the banking industry. And Killinger.....his personal embarrassment. "Although he didn’t say so, perhaps what really irritates Killinger about Grind’s book is that she calls attention to his midlife crisis, complete with the predictable divorce, remarriage and headlong rush into the corporate fast lane: private jet travel, lavish homes, a fancy new headquarters and, of course, a big boost in executive compensation." His punishment didnt fit the "crime". The writer of the article, correctly admonishes the author and, imo, proponents of Capitalism, in saying there were no "analytical conclusions about finance, corporate culture or public policy." An alternative to stuffing a mattress with life savings and dealing with sleep deprivation might be private citizens could audit the auditors of private institutions and safeguard their monies. But advocates of Capitalism might put their shoulder into solutions statists can sleep with more comfortably. The money vanished overnight, leaving no individuals nor remnants of WaMu left to prosecute for the disaster as statists moved in for the kill. On a scale thats never happened before in the US, WaMus' wealth destruction leaves unanwered - the question of whether the moral is the practical.

Interesting topic. As usual its but one example of drugs at exorbitant prices, politicians will use to their advantage. Rather than make a pill more cheaply available to the masses, the kid figured hed make more money by appealing to a smaller market of those with funds enough. Novartis invented Gleevec. Its hard to tell really if thats accurate due to an NIH scientist discovering how well the drug acted on the philadelphia gene. In any event, it was brought to market by the companies efforts. After 10 yrs the patent falls away and a drug becomes available in generic form. Its been delayed due to litigation by Novartis with the generic form maker. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304908304579563560797460496 "A seven-month delay of generic forms of Gleevec will probably cost U.S. consumers and our health system half a billion dollars or more," An insured person has avoided cancer being detected for 10+ yrs and avoided paying the wholesale cost of $300+ per day. There are 2 other CML drugs in the pipeline to assist patients with intolerable side effects from Gleevec, none of them cheap. What price on a wonder drug capable of saving your life?? Gleevec was a truly remarkable discovery available only after yrs effort. I wouldnt want govt assistance in reducing prices nor would I expect the creator or marketer of a drug to take less than what they can get. While saying you wouldnt pay $750 a day for a pill, if you had funds, I bet you would explore the downside of alternatives and come back to pay for a drug able to save your life. What allows the kid to get the price he asks are the patients willing to pay. That leaves some without a benefit that others receive. In a free market, *especially* a free one unhampered by govt controls, its more likely than not that "chaos" ensues causing distortions in price at some level while leaving some unable to benefit. The free market is neutral about individual needs apart from profit motive. With every bad example of unfettered Capitalism, safety from it is sought by its opponents. Thus has the market spoken in asking for a gun to be pointed.

I somewhat agree with the ops op. But from the stand point of economics not poor diagnosticians. A policy runs $15k per yr. Last yr my COBRA benes ran out. I opted out of major med and put savings towards future needs. Im working on clearing up taxes so theres no refund for the IRS to pull the penalty from. I use a service that runs diagnostics, blood tests etc for most everything under the sun and exercise regularly, with no health problems at 62. The running joke over having accidents at the house is if Im injured drag me to my motorcycle, where I can get coverage. My wife, oth, has CML. The street price for Novartis Gleevec is in excess of $300 per pill, one every day forever. The non deductible policy she has pays for the otherwise hefty expense. It goes generic next yr although we dont worry about the cost but whether her system will tolerate the cocktail recipe. Never say never. )

Freedomland '60 had some semblance to what Epcot Center was in '83 and '12 in Orlando. The American Adventure hadnt been noticeably upgraded in those 29 yrs between visits. But I was delighted to see Ayn Rands quote dead center coming through the doors as if in a place of honor. "Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision." https://nicolecushing.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/great-moments-in-bizarro-history-ayn-rands-1946-letter-to-walt-disney/ "Disney was exactly the man who Rand wanted to bring Anthem to the silver screen. In the introduction to Anthem, Rand’s “intellectual heir” Leonard Peikoff quotes from a letter Rand wrote to Walt Disney. Rand writes to Disney that if Anthem were ever made into a film, “I would like to see it done in stylized drawings, rather than with living actors”" It seems as if the feeling between them was mutual.

70 yrs on. The day AR is said to have started writing Atlas. I see 12 references to the date scattered throughout the book. Not significant in and of itself but an anniversary of a wonderful achievement.

Was this tongue in cheek? Sound the clarion call, to the ramparts! I understand Windows, since 3.1 thats a mainstay os. Sure suffered the occasional crash or virus, only once did I lose significant data. But that was "my" loss not MS's. Just tried Linux Mint to see whether there are compatibility issues. It looks friendly enough. Im probably a couple of time honored apps away from it. The lady with the prell hair cant demonize it enough, extracting just enough from the TOA to put it on par with Russkies trying to penetrate a TEMPESTed machine. I read the agreement, its not what she gushingly intimates. She starts with if its free it cant be worth anything rant. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/servicesagreement/ http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement/default.aspx

Like it as much today as when I first heard it.

My wifes "Uncle" Henry Romanek landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day. He was shot in the chest before he hit water, dragged up to the first shingle. His medic wasnt as lucky. Henry went to England, got patched up and returned to the battlefield. We interred his ashes to the grave of his first wife at USMA in '08. He was the subject of Lars Andersens, The All Americans, a history of 4 men who played the Army Navy game in '41. http://www.amazon.com/The-All-Americans-Lars-Anderson/dp/0312308884