KacyRay

Kacy, Heh. If you hate Glenn Beck that much now, and his new campaign does what I think it's going to do, you might as well stock up on antacids. He ain't going nowhere. But I suspect several people in the current administration will be. Michael Glenn Beck has no influence over anything relevant. I see him as no different than Donald Trump, constantly challenging the White House just to gain attention for himself. He's a political shock-jock who is always one big revelation away from bringing the whole place down... always one big revelation away... He is the equivalent of a political troll, relegated to backchannels where only those who take him seriously have to listen to him, and (mercifully) no one else. I don't hate him. I'm not sure I hate anyone... but if I do, that emotion would be reserved for someone much more relevant than Glenn Beck. Do you honestly believe anyone at the White House takes Glenn Beck seriously? I mean, I have trouble finding people on the street who do. How can you think anyone at the White House does?

Cathy, Hi, and please accept my genuine welcome to this community as well. I am skeptical, I admit. But it's not borne of any personal desire for you to either be or not be who you say you are. Honestly, I'd be quite happy to find out that you really are Frank's niece. I never knew the man, but by all accounts, he was exactly the kind of guy I'd have liked to spend time around... more concerned with how people felt than with whether they saw the world exactly as he did. I guess the only reason I have a particularly critical eye is because I've been lied to enough times in the past, and I've seen enough people masquerading as other people on message forums, that it makes it hard to accept things on face value. Anyway, I do hope I'm wrong on this count. I will take you at your word that you are who you say you are ... hope springs eternal ... and if that turns out to be the case, it will be an acquaintance well worth having made. - Kacy

I have a hard time discussing information with people who purposefully cut themselves off from information. Dennis Do you call Glenn Beck horsesh*t information? I guess I will discuss information from all sources while you discuss a limited set of information with those who want to only discuss limited sets of information. Dennis Glenn Beck doesn't provide information. He spews sensationalistic, alarmist, conspiracy-theory bullshit and masquerades it around as information. There is absolutely no value to be found in listening to Glenn Beck.

She said "I know my uncle had input on the writings of Ayn's just like my uncle Nick did. Frank wouldn't/couldn't handle the attention that Ayn could." Then, in a later post "This may surprise you, but I never knew Ayn Rand, I knew Aunt Alice." She seems to claim knowledge of some very delicate subtleties without ever having know "Ayn Rand". Not to mention, AR stopped using the name "Alice" in the 40's. But Cathy O'Conner wasn't born until the 60's (based on her own statement that she was in her early 20's when Ayn died). This would mean that, by the time Cathy met her, she would already have long since written Atlas, she would long since have done her Hollywood production of "The Fountainhead", and she would've been very famous by that point. There's no farging way she'd have know little ol' Aunt Alice without knowing of her celebrity. Yet today she wrote "I just found out a few months ago who Ayn Rand really was...and believe me, I was shocked to say the least!" I'm not buying it.

I don’t know that I’d set the bar of evidence quite so high as you Jerry, but I’ll tell you what I’m having trouble with… The fact that she keeps calling Ayn Rand “Aunt Alice” to a group of people that she is fully aware know the lady as Ayn Rand. Also, the fact that she keeps calling FO’C “Uncle Frank”. That’s one. Now, I’ve never been too close to my family, but I stopped calling my uncles and aunts “Uncle Rick” and “Aunt Mel” a long time ago. I’m only 40 – this lady is claiming to be a bit older than that. I don’t honestly know anyone who does that at that age. I’m not saying no one does, but… she came out and said “they were my aunt and uncle”. Why the need to continually re-emphasize it? That’s two. Also, the fact that no one has ever heard of her. That’s three. Add to this the idea that she’s never been curious enough to read a word that her famous aunt has written… yet she shows up at SOLO and starts posting? I don’t know… my bullshit detector is rattling louder and louder the more I think about it. I'm simply not prepared to take this person at their word that they are who they say they are.

I have to admit... there's something not sitting right with me about this. I hope I'm not being overly-skeptical, but my bullshit detector beeped a couple times while reading some of her comments. It beeped faintly, but it did beep.

I'm still a bit lost as to the situation he was writing about, but I agree with him wholeheartedly that PZ Myers is a third-rate ass-clown. His blog is a cesspool of feminist venom and alarmism. Fuck PZ Myers. I have nothing good to say about that guy.

Ah yes, Pharyngula... the 3rd rung of feminist hell. PZ Meyers, King of the Girl-Men and overlord of the most chicken-shit bunch of bottom-feeding commenters on the net. </rant> I'm surprised anyone associated with this blog has anything to do with that site.

Michael, I take your approach. I think if I was going to categorize objectivism in all of its manifestations, they would be: - Canonical Objectivism (That which was written by Ayn Rand or writing specifically endorsed by her) - Orthodox Objectivism (That which is being touted by Piekovian Randroids) - objectivism (self-styled, individually tailored philosophy informed by and on the same foundation as Canonical Objectivism). Bottom line - if you agree with the fundamentals that Rand stated while standing on one foot, and that is your starting point, then as far as I'm concerned, you are an objectivist. And that would be me.

William, Using that standard, anything written by any author who is dead is "incapable of correction." Or do you believe in the afterlife with spirits who can come back to earth to correct stuff? If not, your third objection, as you stated and qualified it with a definition, doesn't make any sense. Michael MSK, I disagree. Once again, I think Darwin is a good analogy here. To this day, evolution is referred to as “Darwinism”, despite the fact that he never lived to know a fraction of the discoveries that have been made regarding evolution that we know of today. We still credit him with being the father of this science, because it was he who laid the foundation for these discoveries. He told us where the right place to look was. He pointed us in the right direction. Can you imagine how irrational it would’ve been for his to say “Hey, evolution is my discovery, and only that which is written under my name about it can be called ‘Darwinism’. Any discovery made after I’m gone, whatever you choose to call it, cannot be called ‘Darwinsim’”. No – instead he recognized that his contribution to science, while vitally important, was limited to what he was able to discover during his lifetime. Further discoveries, so long as they are consistent with the framework he provided, still qualify as "Darwinism". How could Rand possibly imagine that there were no discoveries left to be made by anyone else, either while she was still here or after she was gone, that would not be perfectly consistent with her philosophy? And if she knew that such discoveries were possible, why, then, would she refuse to permit them to be entered into the record as new discoveries of Objectivism? I can only imagine it had a lot to do with how many people kept trying to edit her work in Hollywood, or her novels. I can understand how she got to that point – it must have been supremely frustrating to have people bastardize her material. But to declare that nothing qualifies as Objectivism unless she herself declared it so… this was the very reason I ceased identifying as an Objectivist. Consider how self-contradictory and self-defeating it is to claim adherence to a philosophy that extols the virtue of independent thought and then ostracizes all those who exercise it. The choice at hand is to think, or not to think. And if one thinks, one will arrive at exactly the same conclusions as Ayn Rand did. If one does not, one has failed to think. And if you diverge in any way from Rand's concept of rugged individualism and absolute rejection of collectivism, then you can't be one of us!! I think this criticism is legitimate.

Still not sure how you arrive at this. I’m curious what part of the brain you believe has the ability to act volitionally. I mean the physical part of the brain – all the pieces that come together to create what we call the “mind” – which constituent part of our brain is not constrained by the law of identity? Unless you believe in some mystic “soul” dwelling in your body, you probably (like I do) accept that there is nothing more to the mind than what is contained in our brain. And every part of our brain, from the cells to the DNA to the very atoms that bind together to form all these things is subject to the law of identity, meaning that not one single atom in our brains has a choice on how it acts. Even the electricity which powers our brains is comprised of energy that has no alternative in how it behaves. So if the matter than comprises our brains has no choice in how it behaves, and the electricity which powers it has no choice in how it behaves, how, then, does the convergence of these constituent parts suddenly create a magical pocket somewhere in our brains that does whatever the hell it wants to do? It simply isn’t enough to say “We obviously choose what we do! It’s just obvious!” “We can say the universe determines and has determined that people will self determine by exercising free will, a necessary component of conceptual consciousness.” Sure, you can say it. And you have. But what you can’t do is point to a single aspect of our brains that flies on its own. Not one cell, not one atom, not one electron. You’re are left with the vacuous assertion that the mind is the product of a brain which is comprised entirely of parts that do not possess volition somehow converging to create a machine that possesses it. Every argument I’ve heard in favor of free will depends either on special pleading or mysticism. Objectivist obviously reject mysticism, so the standard “special pleading” argument is the one they typically offer. A=A… except the mind, a product of our brains, which apparently does whatever it wants. And the justification for this? "Well… it’s obvious!"

What do you suppose Ms. Rand would've thought about these comments by Gabrielle Reece? Did she ever express any thoughts on traditional roles? Does any Objectivist literature speak to the issue?

This could probably have gone under either ethics or politics, but... The Constitution Project has released its report on detainee treatment. You can find the report here. Without having to read the entire report, you can read the NY Times article on the report here Here are some salient quotes from the article: "A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it. The sweeping, 577-page report says that while brutality has occurred in every American war, there never before had been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.” The study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group, is to be released on Tuesday morning. Debate over the coercive interrogation methods used by the administration of President George W. Bush has often broken down on largely partisan lines. The Constitution Project’s task force on detainee treatment, led by two former members of Congress with experience in the executive branch — a Republican, Asa Hutchinson, and a Democrat, James R. Jones — seeks to produce a stronger national consensus on the torture question." Andrew Sullivan says: "Those findings, to put it bluntly, are that for several years, the United States government systematically committed war crimes against prisoners in its custody, violating the Geneva Conventions, US domestic law, and international law. Many of these war crimes were acts of torture; many more were acts of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. All are federal crimes. None of those who authorized the war crimes has been prosecuted. The report – which I urge you to read in full when you get the chance – dispassionately lays out all the possible legal definitions of torture (domestic and international) and then describes what the Bush administration authorized. The case is not a close one. Bush and Cheney are war criminals, as are all those involved in the implementation of these torture techniques. Perhaps the most powerful part of the case is an examination of what the US itself has condemned as torture when committed by other countries." Is it any wonder that the majority of the country would rather never see this political party have power again? It is truly a mob of thugs... at least it was, while Cheney was in power.

Does a treason law apply to civilians?

I agree. I think the American justice system is reliable enough that we can trust the state of Massachusetts with this case. Anyway, it appears these guys had no real connection to any organized radical group. It looks like the older one was just a sympathizer with radicalists, and the younger brother was along for the ride. These are two naturalized citizens that should be tried by an American court. As you said - let the people they've harmed be their judges.

Wow... I'm clearly in the minority here. I feel none of the animosity toward Obama that seems to be prevalent throughout this site. That's cool... I don't mind being the dissenter.

I don't think so. Although I can't say I agree with Obama's entire approach on foreign policy, a display of weakness is not one fault I'd peg on him. What do we have to do to appear strong? Send in ground troops to every country on the planet? Bomb everyone? I think we're doing fine. We have good relationships with our coalition counterparts, and I can tell you, as a guy who has been on the staff during combined exercises with Canadians, Australians, Maylasians, Indonesionas, Tongans, Peruvians, Indonesians, Koreans, Kiwis, Mexicans, and Chileans, I see no indication of any lack of respect toward the US Military. In fact, I've seen a good deal of deference. I was on the staff of SPMAGTF-3 during RIMPAC-10 and RIMPAC-12, which were each, at the time they were executed, the largest maritime exercise in history. I worked with all of the above named coalition partners - some more closely than others - but enough to get a sense of how we are perceived by them. Hell, one of the Aussie officers from RIMPAC-10 is still a Facebook friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_RIMPAC So sorry... I'm not buying that. And I think my street cred is good on this.

That's interesting... I read CNN every day and this is the first I've heard of the media building up a Tea-Party terrorist narrative. Good thing you told me - wouldn't have known it from actually reading the stories they have been posting. First of all, thank you for your service. Secondly, I am not aware of what information that you have access to. However, what would happen if you logged on to Al Jazeera @: http://www.aljazeera.com/# ???? A... Thanks brother. I have no doubt that there are people logging onto al Jazeera's news site on the ship every day. We do keep up on such things, you know? ;) As for what information I have access to... I'd tell you, but them I'd have to kill you.

I wonder how long it's going to be before people start saying attacks like the Boston Marathon bombing did not happen on USA soil under Bush after 9/11. Not that I'm any fan of Bush. (I'm not.) But I predict this is a crack and the Bush comparison mantra coming from it will grow and grow and grow... Michael Obama expressed confidence that the objective of defeating the core of Al Qaeda was achievable. Foster apparently interpreted that as "Don't worry America, our problems are over! There's simply no possible way we'll ever have another terror attack here in the USA." Sounds like Foster is thrilled that he now has some material to help him keep to fear machine alive.

Yeah, I guess I had deliberately avoided using a dictionary to describe it, preferring to drill down to the essence of what I see respect as... Quote re·spect (r-spkt) tr.v. re·spect·ed, re·spect·ing, re·spects 1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem. 2. To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit. 3. To relate or refer to; concern. n. 1. A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem. See Synonyms at regard. 2. The state of being regarded with honor or esteem. 3. Willingness to show consideration or appreciation. 4. respects Polite expressions of consideration or deference: pay one's respects. 5. A particular aspect, feature, or detail: In many respects this is an important decision. 6. Usage Problem Relation; reference. See Usage Note at regard. To feel (an internalized recognition) or show deferential regard for (demonstrated capabilities and/or value) Notice there no necessary aspect of admiration, affection, or acceptance there? You can show deferential regard for a dangerous situation just as well as you can for an admirable one. I think I've been pretty consistent with my examples. And yeah... didn't catch the ol' context switcheroo. Rascal!

That's interesting... I read CNN every day and this is the first I've heard of the media building up a Tea-Party terrorist narrative. Good thing you told me - wouldn't have known it from actually reading the stories they have been posting.

Not their values, of course not. But their capabilities... I'll bet if one of them sprang out of your closet and started making demands, you'd probably treat them differently than if it was the ice cream man offering you a free cone. I'd be willing to bet that, internally, you would recognize what these guys are capable of, and you would probably treat them accordingly (depending on what options you had available).

To be clear - no one should respect the Boston bombers' values or actions as terrorists. They are deserving of nothing short of full condemnation. What they police did demonstrate respect for were their "jaws" (metaphorically speaking). They did not approach these guys lightly. Even when they had the one 19 year old kid cornered, they did not treat him like a 19 year old kid. They treated him like the most dangerous of criminals. They took every precaution. They demonstrated an internalized recognition of what he is capable of. Just another example of why respect is not dependent on love or affection. Or, in this case, an admiration for ones values.

Michael, In a very strict sense... yes, they have demonstrated a respect for what that guy was capable of. They didn't just walk up to him and say "Hey there bub, you gotta come with us!". No, instead they shut down the city of Boston and used every measure at their disposal to hunt and bring him down. They don't do that for everyone. This guy merited it (in the strictest sense). Again, in this case, the word "respect" is used in the strictest sense (as one would respect the jaws of a caged tiger)... but the word does apply. I was watching a UFC fight they other night, and I had to laugh... about 3 minutes into the first round, the announcer started saying "Both fighters showing a great deal of respect for one another"... he said it two or three times, and I chuckled and said to the guy sitting next to me "Is that what they're calling it now, when neither wants to get close enough to the other to throw a punch?" But again, it does describe "respect" exactly as I have defined it. It's demonstrated capability and/or value.

Jerry/Brant, Great info. Thanks, and now I have a lot of reading material for tomorrow. B)