Roger Bissell

Billion?

Not legally. Guilt must be proven in court. Until that happens your are legally innocent. Guilt is a -legal- term. You guys are arguing at cross purposes aka duelling definitions. Webster's New World Dictionary - guilty: 1. having guilt, deserving blame or punishment, culpable (guilt: the state of having done a wrong or committed an offense; culpability, legal or ethical). 2. having one's guilt proved; legally judged an offender. 1 is being guilty *in fact.* 2 is being *found*/*proved* guilty *in a court of law.* You can be guilty in fact and be legally "innocent" (as in: not found guilty). I.e., a guilty man can fail to be *found* guilty, and that doesn't make him not guilty in fact, just not guilty in the eyes of the law. (The same is true for women. ) REB

George, I particularly appreciate how you consistently present the strongest arguments for ideas you consider to be wrong. If enough libertarians and Objectivists, not to mention conservatives and liberals, would approach ideas in this way, our intellectual and cultural prospects would be much brighter! I know it's important to keep rolling these essays out on schedule, but you don't have to apologize to us! I, for one, am grateful to read your thoughts whenever you have some to share. You're always thought-provoking. REB

Ellen, I would sure appreciate it if some rational, artistically inclined person could do this. Being myself very aesthetically limited, visually unaware and unobservant, I would greatly benefit from the advanced knowledge, experience and sensitivities of those who see not only what those with normal aesthetic and visual/observational capacities are able to see, but even more. The following seems like such a good example of the kind of deep aesthetic insight that I am incapable of: Thanks, William, for sharing this. It will have a prominent place of honor in the book I am writing. REB

As of this past weekend's poll results, Trump and Hillary have a combined unfavorable rating of 112% (one has 54, one 58). That suggests that about 12% of those surveyed will not vote for either of them - and since Gary Johnson is polling at about 10% in a three-way matchup with Trump and Hillary, it indicates that the election will be very exciting in at least some of the "swing" states. Johnson (assuming he's nominated by the Libertarian Party) will be the "balance of power" and will receive scalding denunciation from either or both of the two main candidates, and recriminations and revenge plans will abound after Trump loses in November (which he probably would even in a two-way matchup). The sell-out conservatives, libertarians, and Objectivists who gave it up for Trump will shout that the Libertarian Party destroyed the Republican Party or helped Hillary the Horrible get elected - forgetting that the Republican Party no longer stands for anything worth supporting, that it is an empty, corporate-statist shell, barely distinguishable from the Democrat Party, and that it has been taken over by Populist-Pragmatist forces which will drive the government even further toward welfare-warfare statism and collapse. Keep the popcorn handy. It will be very entertaining this summer and fall - and moving forward from the train wreck in November. REB

Timing is everything. Even if Hillary is indicted, perhaps the indictment will not come until, say, November 10, after she is safely elected. Then, still-President Obama could issue a pre-emptive pardon, and all would be well for the third and fourth terms of Barack Obama. As slowly as the wheels of "justice" turn in this country, that is what I see as the most likely scenario for Crooked Hillary's presidential aspirations. REB

I keep sayin' : http://www.aol.com/article/2016/05/21/another-political-model-predicts-clinton-will-beat-trump/21381245/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D-194448326_htmlws-main-bb http://videos.vidible.tv/prod/2016-05/19/573e445ae4b0af043d9fadb2_853x480_v1.mp4?MJw-P531d9Noyusm1Yh_6MjjlQSaqOPiew0P4HMTuGodrRddS88i4V7qP7lY4n9K

To me, it's very Objectivist. Old-school Objectivist, where smoking was a big deal to heroes and heroines, and those who tried to emulate them. If I owned it untitled, I would make a little brass plate to attach to the bottom of the frame saying: "Mind if I (paint) smoke?" REB

George, it's so good to see you doing so well what you do so well: intellectual history. Keep up the great work! REB

I love steak, hamburger, pork chops, sausage, chicken, turkey, and fish (especially salmon). I haven't had to resort to cannibalism...yet...though some folks have tried to tear chunks out of me from time to time. Ribeye REB

This is for Ba'al...heh.

This one looks sort of like dung from a cow that got into the grape patch. Or maybe like a blueberry bagel. Whatever. He also produced something in 2011 called "Between Shit and Architecture." See here: http://anishkapoor.com/691/between-shit-and-architecture . It doesn't look as much like dung as it does columns of insulation. Inspiring, huh. Kapoor seems to have a thing about sculpting enormous vaginas, too. Apparently some vicious "extreme right wingers" vandalized his "Queen's Vagina," and he had these comments about it just last year: http://anishkapoor.com/1031/dirty-corner-19-06-2015 REB

Speaking of which, here's some of William's P/A caca now. (It is awfully long, but you should have seen it before he edited it! REB

I hear murmurings that *silver* is "poised for a historic runup," perhaps 2-3 times its present price per ounce. I would vigorously check that out before making a recommendation or purchase. I don't know anything about gold, except that it's purty. REB

I had to re-read that twice. I thought you said, "Greg likes two goats." (Recalling that he alluded on this thread to Jesus being the Great Shepherd, but not the Great Goatherd, I thought maybe he was getting ready to apply for the job.) REB

I'm going to have to do some research, because I'm not sure that's correct. I have in the past, and I will again in the future. Giants are much appreciated as a perch for perspective. REB

How does THIS feel? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/09/trump-shows-flexibility-on-taxes-minimum-wage-in-turn-toward-november.html And THIS? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/08/trump-blindsided-by-ryan-tacks-to-middle-with-change-on-minimum-wage.html?intcmp=trending REB

I agree. You've got to watch those "supposed individualists" very carefully. At least, I think so...not sure. And even if I disagreed, you certainly have a point...I think. REB

At 252 pages and counting, this thread certainly seems that way. REB

Roger, before you can even disagree, it's necessary to at least understand what you're disagreeing with. Your questions indicated that you didn't understand the difference between "man is a cockroach" and "man is of no more or less importance than a cockroach", so I defined that difference so you can at least have an idea of what you have a disagreement. I have no problem with disagreement as long as people first understand exactly with what they do not agree. Do you have amnesia, or are you deliberately pulling our legs here? I'm replying to YOUR words. I never said "man is a cockroach," and I never said that YOU said that. Here is what you said: Then, you said IF that is ALL they truly are... then they are just two legged talking cockroaches. If there is no transcendence: HUMAN = COCKROACH You believe that without "transcendence," humans are "just two legged talking cockroaches." We don't see ourselves that way, and we reject your seeing us that way. If you are serious in this opinion, then you are delusional, and you need therapy. I suggest talking to a psychiatrist or even a non-fanatical minister. Also, before we can continue discussion, you need to admit to what you've already said and stop the disinformation. If it's deliberate, you are immoral and not worthy of further conversation. If it's not deliberate, you are cognitively impaired and need to retrain yourself into remembering what you have said in the past 12 hours, so that you don't blurt out things that blatantly deny what you said. REB

No. Try to follow. If there is nothing transcendent to man... then men are not any more or less important than cockroaches. They are of equal importance. I'm not a sheep. I do not follow. If you wish to apply your condescension to someone as dimwitted as you seem to think I am, I suggest speaking to the mirror. More or less important TO WHOM and FOR WHAT? If you don't consider and answer these questions, then the whole issue of life with or without God is meaningless. So, don't be projecting YOUR failure to consider the source and meaning of value - which is life - onto other people. You obviously haven't grasped it yourself, except in relation to unseen fairytale entities that you think will give you a skyhook to a non-existent afterlife. REB

If you had a chance to live to a thousand in a healthy fashion would you take it? Well, maybe 200, subject to Brant's additional points about companions, memories, etc. A thousand might be difficult, kind of the crow epistemology applied to mental longevity. A very touching movie, my absolute favorite by Robin Williams, was Bicentennial Man. He plays an android who eventually becomes fully human, which is all I'll say about it, except that it's very pertinent to the whole subject of the meaning and value of life, especially in the face of mortality. REB

I am an autodidact. I am a member of a primate species and when I die my body will rot, and my consciousness will cease. All there is are atoms and energy flitting about in the space-time manifold. Do not confuse your subjectivities with the facts of reality. I am enjoying my 10^2 years (order of magnitude) of a non-equilibrium thermodynamic state. That will end soon enough. This is basically what my uncle tells me each time he sees me - right after he gives me a hug and tells me it's really good to see me. All of that would be meaningless and pointless if life just went on and on. It is only with life and death that existence has meaning and significance. REB

Works for me. REB