Greybird

As illuminating as GHS's details have been about the State-"progressive" deficiencies of Randolph Bourne, I can't help but think that nearly all of them have ended up being beside the point of what Antiwar.com's principals may believe or not. I haven't seen, frankly, any signs that any of Bourne's larger thoughts on government and its supposed societal-shaping utility have been taken to heart at that Website, either discursively or in editorial policy. The site remains, if it has any tenor at all, Rothbardian-to-paleoconservative in its outlook, welcoming a variety of political and stylistic takes, along with its being an invaluable digest of news. Its principals neither restrict their opinion blasts to those on the putative Left, nor decline to work with them on genuine antiwar activities — quite the contrary. The brief biographical sketch of Bourne that they host — written by Jeff Riggenbach — emphasizes the personal and professional price Bourne had to pay for challenging the self-righteous world-molders who brought the U.S. into that first great crusade and conflagration. I'd say his genuine skepticism and iconoclasm about war, however deeply or broadly rooted or not, and his famous (posthumously discovered) aphorism, are what the Antiwar.com principals respect. And it may even be simpler than that, with their needing a suitable figure of genuine antiwar resonance to name their not-for-profit foundation, which owns the Website. In any event, GHS's perspective on Bourne is still welcome. Certainly by a few orders of magnitude more than the farrago of unsourced, unevidenced neoconservative blustering and smearing that heads this thread.

Ulp ... I did leave out a U initially. I try to avoid misspellings, and I do so, erhm, strenuously. If you see a misspelling in quoted material, correct it silently, if you so choose. I don't think it needs to have attention drawn to it. (Everyone should know what "[sic]" is for, a device that can be overused when it doesn't involve misspellings causing ambiguity. Yet few do.)

Dumps from the Internet Movie Database are no substitute for discussion. You haven't responded to a single one of my points. This film is not an effects-driven (or CGI-towed) epic, and you're still suggesting it can be sold on the same basis. I am really starting to see that posts here soon become, as far as the good any thinking through an issue can do, the archetypical casting of pearls before swine, as Riggenbach recently said to me.

Well, of course they're capable of anything. I do think, though, that we should give credit to such vestiges of rationality as do still exist, and what remains here is that almost no one is corrupt enough to insist that people not be allowed, de jure, to obtain new employment. It's too easy to stretch Rand's vivid fiction tropes to situations where we think they ought to fit, even if they don't. ... What objection do you have to my use of "strenuously"? (Should have been immediately followed by "say," on second look. I hope you're not going to insist on the archaic prohibition of the split infinitive.)

The cartoon is vivid, but you have the issue almost backwards. This is not Directive 10-289, where those ruling the America of Atlas were decreeing a stagnant standstill as their legally enforced and desired ideal. Instead, the current morass of every kind of statist nostrum has meshed in its aggregate stupidity to create a stagnation that is almost perfect in its inertia as to employment — but one which the planners most strenously, at least nearly all of them, say that they do not want. Aside from the worshipful-tyrannical (and not conservation-prudent) Greens, the kill-all-our-"Islamic"-enemies-unto-nuclear-winter neoconservatives, and others who espouse mass death ... there is really no one in this country who holds up no net improvement in employment as an ideal. As rare as it is, you're almost being unfair to the statists with this one.

A comment appears to suggest that DVDs branching to "extended" or "director's" cuts, and including extensive development materials, are desirable or even necessary to qualify their producers as "professionals." That the "Atlas Shrugged: Part One" discs don't have these features is no indication that these people are not professionals, as such. (Aglialoro fell short on effective strategy in marketing the film's expansion, but that reflects bad advice, not a lack of professional attitude.) Development materials comparable to a wholly CGI-laden creation, such as any recent SF film, aren't appropriate. "AS:P1" is an ideas- and dialogue-laden film, and effects work is peripheral to the storytelling. It had to serve the plot, and to my taste, it succeeded fully. (Even beautifully, with a railroad bridge that adds beauty to Rand's described strength.) Massive detail as to peripheral development is what few viewers demand with such a film. As for branching to a "director's cut," rather than simply including deleted scenes, this is rarely done on any film for at least two effective reasons, and for a third on this particular one: ~ It's notably expensive. The whole film, or large sections of it, have to be encoded twice on the disc. That's two efforts at digital compression. Branches have to be created in menus. The computer and design time is not negligible. ~ Rarely does the integration of deleted scenes end up fundamentally changing the storytelling, and this would be especially true with any film of the almost cinematically dense Atlas Shrugged. Amplifications, emphases of tone, and character asides would be added. They stand far more on their own, however, in a film where dialogue and acting do the heavy lifting of the storytelling. In an effects- and atmosphere-driven film, they end up chaotic when seen out of context. For an example, I'll cite Barbra Streisand's "Yentl," released in 2009 on DVD, a full quarter-century after its creation. (Seen fifty times. Trust me. I know this film.) She included a director's version involving changes over about 20 minutes in the third quarter of the film. Several scenes she restored to this significantly altered who was responsible for various actions and realizations, or for dealing with same. They amplified the storyline, and gave more screen time to worthwhile characters — but they also reworked the flow of the plot. So much so that the director's preferred version also dropped about four minutes of expository scenes, so that about nine minutes of unused-in-the-theater scenes could be added without their making no sense. The dropped four minutes had some well-turned acting, superbly chosen lines, and beautiful cinematography. Yet they would have prevented the plot points of the deleted scenes from unfolding. Streisand, as director, shot the four minutes at the time in 1982 because she realized that the nine minutes would have to be deleted, as they interfered with making the film a manageable length, and she had cost and production imperatives. The plot-stream, in this case, did have to branch to another path. (Her also being co-screenwriter helped with mapping the verbal channel.) I seriously doubt that anything dropped from the "Atlas" film involved such a branch. They added flavor, dramatic tension, dialogue, almost certainly. Yet nothing of root importance was omitted from the plot structure. Deleted scenes, here, are missing leaves, not missing limbs. They also would have been discrete and separated as to their position in the film. ~ Finally, a "director's cut" would be a misnomer because this is, to a significant degree, an unfinished project. Two-thirds of the original plot remains to be dramatized. It is not certain that Paul Johansson will be the director to do so. (If it's ever done at all ... let's be honest.) Aglialoro may find a new director with a new emphasis, out of cost or availability. Devoting a "branch" to a variant of a story that's only one-third on screen would be a waste of money at this point, if any part of it is tied to a directorial vision — if one even exists yet — or overarching tone. Turning three movies averaging 1:45 each into, say, one more compact 5:00 epic? (Possibly with a branch version getting around Galt's Speech, of 4:20? {rueful smile}) That might make sense. But it's at least three years away from a Blu-Ray / DVD combo pack of the whole project.

Beyond the truly sad lack of deleted scenes — I wanted to see Dagny's office filled with volunteers to operate the first run of the John Galt Line, dammit! — this is a bit disappointing. It's an odd division of special features in more than one sense: I'd have expected a behind-the-scenes piece to be on the "main" edition, the one they would be pitching for wider sales distribution. I'd also have expected the material from the Brandens to be on the Atlas Society edition, with their past support and its closer focus (far more so than Reason) on Rand. It becomes more of a matter of eliminating editions, at $19.95 each, of lesser appeal. (Unless you choose to spring for the set of four, in a "beautiful collector's case (not pictured)," for $69.95 ... here's the odd instance of Objectivist sales excess {g}) I'd not choose to go with the FreedomWorks or Atlas Society editions, unless I was a member of either (I am not) and saw something noted about a portion of sales or profits going back to these organizations (I saw nothing). The FW features are too narrowly tailored. I've seen the Aglialoro interview on YouTube. Also, at least two of the Kelley pieces — while well-produced, they weren't at all new to me in content. That leaves either the Reason or producers' editions. I'd rather not do without either the spoken commentary or the background documentary, but they're split, and I prefer the former. I'd truly enjoy and revisit the many perspectives on Rand herself, but expect to be yet more intrigued by the cross-section of humanity in the fan-video compilation. At this point, after a third of a century of knowing this novel, I want what will intrigue me. And I simply won't shell out for two (or more!) DVD copies of what is still only the first third of a projected film trilogy. So it's the producers' edition for me, at least in this configuration.

In the interest of completeness, and in light of some unexpected groupings of features, I should point out that three organization-themed "special edition" DVDs, along with the merely unaffiliated "special edition" (no DVD is unspecial, it seems), were announced today. Each is $19.95 and is available for pre-ordering, to be released on November 8. All are described in full at their main merchandise page. Here are the special features on all four, for comparison (and noted as "subject to change"): Atlas Productions Special Edition "I am John Galt." fan video compilation (35:06) "The John Galt Theme" slideshow (3:17) Special commentary with Producers John Aglialoro & Harmon Kaslow, and Screenwriter Brian O'Toole Atlas Society Special Edition Three beautifully produced video commentaries by David Kelley Exclusive footage from the April 14th premiere Behind-the-scenes interview with producer John Aglialoro FreedomWorks Special Edition "Welcome" from FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe "I am John Galt" from the FreedomWorks Staff "Why FreedomWorks?" Reason Special Edition Behind the Scenes of Atlas Shrugged Part 1 "Who is John Galt?" Reason Foundation Co-Founder Bob Poole on Ayn Rand Reason Foundation Co-Founder Tibor Machan on Ayn Rand Reason Foundation Co-Founder Manny Klausner on Ayn Rand Nathaniel Branden on "My Years With Ayn Rand" Barbara Branden on the Passion of Ayn Rand [not italicized or quote-marked as a book title ~ SR]

Um, perhaps I missed some posts on this thread, but you appear to be the only person talking about defamation and slander. See, when you mention defamation and slander, it's a case of my reading your posts, not your mind. Well, it's what you chose to read into them, then. I ran that risk, though, for in the matrix of public life, too many assume that talking about defamation, etc., equates to talking about filing lawsuits about it. Was Branden defamed? Yes, at least on the borders of the concept, as I said at the beginning. (I recall others agreeing about that, assigning highly differing degrees of blame on Branden's part for what was done.) Does that mean he should file a lawsuit about it? Not if he's the libertarian he professes to be, because the laws are incoherent nonsense, presuming that a reputation is a form of "property" that does not genuinely exist. If he chose, against genuine fidelity to his principles, to avoid "teaching" and to file a suit anyway, would he get anywhere? It's highly unlikely, and we should point out such potential waste.

Seriously? Your approach to something like this is to contemplate legal action for defamation or slander rather than to see it as an opportunity to teach? Penn and Teller (and/or their staff and crew) perceived Branden as vain and they made fun of him for it, and they misunderstood his ideas, and your response is to dream about using the state to punish them? No, it is not. Why are you (mind)reading it this way? In fact, I see no rational foundation for libel, defamation, and slander laws, as one's reputation in others' minds is not one's own property. Others, however, have wondered why Branden hasn't "done something." Aside from finding teachable moments — which Branden doesn't seem to be inclined to do, and after fifty years in the arena, I can see why he'd be tired of it — the only thing in our matrix of public life that one can "do" is to file a lawsuit, based on questionable and incoherent case law and statutes. My point is that even if Branden chose to avail himself of this corrupt system, which he's been reluctant to do (he had a far greater case against Rand), he still wouldn't get anywhere. So that makes it doubly pointless and a waste of his own time and resources.

For those who don't know, the "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" series itself is now over and done with, and the 2010 season was its last. Earlier this year, the duo ended their contract with Showtime. (It's not clear whether the contract simply was not renewed, or whether it involved dissatisfaction on Showtime's part.) They have moved on to a new show on, I believe, the Science Channel, with a different bent. So pursuing actions as to defamation or slander in a legal sense may be pointless on Branden's part, not only because of a likely very weak case (as the show qualified as parody, satire, or commentary), but also because the duo no longer has Viacom's far deeper pockets fully behind them.

Jeff Riggenbach has a contrasting viewpoint, to put it mildly, in "Robert Bidinotto and the Objectivist Subculture."

Hardin's eagerness to decry (or "barf" on — now, that's reasoned debate) those he patently dislikes has obscured what is a subtle distinction. Wherein, for once, I have to acknowledge both Bachmann and Paul — but with only partial credit for each. That's because she couldn't, since none exists that does so directly. "Incorporating" the Ninth Amendment into a prohibition of such actions to the states, which has been done in the wake of the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, is far from a settled doctrine, at least among the many who challenge the Supreme Court's propriety in having done so at all. Is Bachmann more consistent on this being improper, as a general principle? Yes, she is. Is her view grounded in the Constitution? No, it is not — unless the Fourteenth Amendment is construed as giving the federal level unlimited license to override state laws, in the name of preventing denial of "equal protection," "privileges and immunities," or "due process." The Supreme Court has decreed, on frequent occasions since 1868, that such a license exists to thus compel the states to do the will of the federal legislature and courts. A reasonable case exists, however, for maintaining that such unlimited power makes a mockery of any setup for divided powers, and creates a de facto unitary national government, with its own inherent dangers, and against the original constitutional schema. That, in essence, is Paul's view, and he has been consistent in other venues about maintaining, on a host of issues, that such federal supremacy risks making a hash of a great deal of the practice of the rule of law — given this constitutional system. You may not agree with him, but Paul sees it that way because the Ninth Amendment was framed that way. It was a restriction placed upon the federal government. Only eighty years later was constitutional doctrine extended to begin to place it upon the states. (And even then, it took another century, and a birth-control case that prefigured Roe v. Wade, to do so fully and explicitly. Henry and Erika Holzer applauded this effect of Griswold v. Connecticut on the prospects for disposing of military conscription, in an essay in The Objectivist. They didn't discuss the implications of federal supremacy.) The states were not nonentities or wholly subordinate in this system, as it was framed — and as it had to be, if it were to ever have a chance of initially being ratified. If they were, the Tenth Amendment (reserving powers "to the states respectively, or to the people," unless expressly delegated or prohibited) would have no purpose. Nor would the only remaining absolute prohibition against amending the document itself, that no state would be deprived of "equal suffrage in the Senate." (That same Senate was fundamentally transformed, of course, as to the states' role, in 1913, with the amendment to directly elect Senators.) Paul has continually made the point that in the system we have, properly construed, neither health insurance nor abortion nor marriage are any business of the federal government, among a million other issues. And that they are not, perforce, the proper business of any President — or of any presidential campaign. It is a principled stand, whether one agrees with its scope and justification or not. It also lets Paul keep his focus on issues where the federal level does have authority (or has more strenuously exercised control). But, also, this stand acknowledges that aside from a handful of explicit restrictions in the Constitution (and those being buttressed by the Tenth Amendment), neither are these issues prohibited to the states. Virtue or vice on what the states may or may not choose to do is, in this view, the business of the electorates in each state. So who's more consistent? It depends what one chooses to stress. If one sees this as a philosophical conflict, Bachmann is more consistent. (And it pains me to even momentarily suggest this being true for a theocrat who has abandoned the guidance of reason on so much else in her life and career.) If one sees this as a political contest within the existing framework of a constitutional system, one of two distinct levels of governmental powers, Paul is more consistent. With this being, in practical effect, a contest over who is to be the chief executive within the federal level of that system, I would have to say that Paul's view is more important or more operative — if we are to work within that system. If we are to abandon that system, as many libertarians since before Lysander Spooner have urged or maintained to be proper, then, ironically, Bachmann's viewpoint (at least at this split second and on this issue) is the one to be espoused. Is anyone here inclined to urge such abandonment? If so, then the irony is multiplied, as it always has been, and as many since Roy Childs have pointed out. For to consistently advocate such a cleaving to principle means giving up on the governmental apparatus that Ayn Rand believed — wrongly — was a unique, immaculate, different, historically superior creation. So the issues are far more subtle than Hardin frames, as to his bodily-function reactions to the candidates. With the immediate issue of a Leviathan to rein in before we're all destroyed fully by its mistakes, I'd say his electoral and rhetorical track record — and philosophic cast of mind, with copious written and spoken evidence — pushes Paul forward. Yet if the debates (and her beach reading of Rand, perhaps?) have pushed the importance of principle going beyond governmental structure and realities to get Bachmann to make the broader point about this being wholly improper, it's also to be welcomed. She may teach her children better because of it. Still, as to issues of the greatest importance — especially war and Empire — she wouldn't even try to step on the toes of Leviathan. And Paul would. To me, that's far more important to acknowledge.

Three federal judges (or panels of same) have ruled the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, with varying degrees of side effects trailing in its wake. Two other judges (or panels) have, however, ruled it to be perfectly constitutional. So this fractured judicial tale is going the distance, to be dissected by the Six Old Men and Three Old Women of SCOTUS. If you break out any champagne, make sure it's the cheaper stuff, to get you soused, but to not waste money on esthetics.

Yet another calumny about Rothbard, this one perpetuated by (among others) Peter Schwartz, that you've bought into. Rothbard wrote, and believed, no such thing. His column on "The Death of a State" in April 1975 (printed in both Reason and his own Libertarian Forum) found the event morally deserved on the part of the South Vietnamese despots, who were no paragons (to say the least) of either libertarian or republican virtue. He found the event both instructive and illuminating of how popular consent can be withdrawn in a very short historical timeframe. And, yes, it was "exhil[a]rating" to see one such corrupt institution go so rapidly into dissolution, given how slowly such events have tended to happen. But that is distinct from "celebration": The only matters he noted as even remotely worth any celebration (Rothbard does not use that word) were that public opinion and U.S. law were both firmly against any re-involvement of the U.S. government and its unwilling taxpayers in any more of that murderous morass, legally, fiscally, or militarily. And that the Ford/Nixon/Rockefeller domestic "oligarchy" was likely to get an electoral drubbing the following year, which they indeed ended up receiving. But "celebrating" savagery? Nothing of the kind. Do what Objectivists tend not to do: Read Rothbard's words for yourself.

Why can one not? Are you, more simply, saying Rothbard was a liar, or perhaps just a "tall-tale" teller? And what's your evidence, or is this coming from despising Rothbard on your part? With having heard Joey Rothbard (Murray's widow) confirm, in a taped speech, the tale of how the Brandens and the inner circle were hostile to her — and corroborating what was told by Jerome Tuccille in It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand, which was written for explicit satirical effect — I'm much less inclined to doubt Murray's veracity. (Including about the frequent, and to me spurious, charge that Rothbard plagiarized a thesis on natural rights by Barbara Branden. The insights put forward by Rand and her inner circle weren't anywhere near being as historically de novo as they liked to believe. And Murray was an indefatigable researcher.) Besides, Murray knew enough to distinguish between what he, himself, called "the Ayn Rand cult" and his own such satirical or poking riffs upon it, such as "Mozart Was a Red."

They're giving away $25,000? But you have to describe how you use Miracle Whip?? Meaning, in turn, you'd actually have to eat Miracle Whip??? Some things aren't worth $25,000. There is a rampantly lunatic and evil force at loose in the world, and it must be destroyed. Mayonnaise: One of the sauces which serve the French in place of a state religion. ~ Ambrose Bierce And some Objectiv-ish types, too. ~ SR

That the words "delightful benevolence" can be even indirectly used by anyone to describe such a thorough-going shill for Empire, corporatism, theocracy, and bigotry is ... is ... well, enough to make me go drink this over. And it's only Monday. Find something nice to say about Eva Braun's hairstyles, while you're busily selecting out-of-context nonessentials. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war. ~ Ann Coulter, September 2001

Well, then, seriatim: (1) I'd say that anyone who's had many articles in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is far more than a "hobbyist" in philosophic matters, and to me it verges on false modesty to pretend otherwise. That is a refereed journal, and it has notably high standards. Anyone who doubts this should ask some of those {ahem} who have had article proposals turned down about it. (2) That university positions "require" such publish-or-perish practices does not justify them, and never has. I've seen some of the lamest writing from university presses come across in reworked dissertations that should never have felled trees to be placed in print, but which served to put a book on a faculty member's CV. I fear that you're putting yourself up against a standard that, if not for the artificial pressures of that misguided institution known as "tenure," would never have been ginned up to its present dimensions in the first place. (3) Any "positions of responsibility" are functions of employment in those institutions, not because TAS or ARI demand respect as such, nor that those "organized groups" merit attention merely from being organized. I fear that you're giving far too much weight to affiliation with such institutions as being part of, or a signifier of merit within, "a movement." There is no "movement." Nor is this a proprietary NBI that operated under Rand's aegis and with use of her copyrighted materials. This is an intellectual marketplace, it's free-swinging, it freely self-pollinates (and copies), you're in the thick of it, and you've done more than a host of others who have university positions. Well, their "wants" are immaterial. Whether they've actually performed is what matters. Many of them have, though in smaller and more modular chunks, rather than the larger dead-tree opuses. Many others, such as the Schwartz types, have coasted on their positions, patently thinking that institutional influence (or their pull with Peikoff) substitutes for independent achievement. Must you YELL at me? Did my demurring with your standards offend you that much? What do you think constitutes "power and influence," or should? Being "paid for this"? Having a university or think-tank sinecure? Or should it come from personal examples of clear, persuasive, probing writing? That yours is more granular in its publishing scope doesn't make it less influential or important. I still see you downgrading yourself unnecessarily. I'm deeply disappointed. I am among those who wanted to get a better handle on perusing and taking in what you have done, but cannot afford to gather diffuse sources. (Keeping up with JARS, especially, is expensive.) Why don't you want to get more such exposure? Do you see e-publishing of what you decry, unfairly, as a "mongrel assortment" as more déclassé? Less prestigious than dead trees? Not worth your time to assemble the material? (Send it to me. I'll assemble it. We'll work something out. I've done this for a living for decades.) What I think is that everyone over the age of 40, who actually saw the pre-digital age for enough years to make a lasting impression — and certainly including you and me — is susceptible to the exaggerated mystique of the printed dead-tree book. It's best been described as "Picard's Syndrome." (Gary North limns this far better than I could ever manage to do. And, a digital-age near-eternity of eight years ago, he was remarkably prescient.) I still believe that such obeisance to books is misplaced. It also diminishes the value of what you and a host of others have done. Objectiv-ish culture, such as it is, remains firmly rooted in books (the culture that Rand grew up in, as we all did until about 25 years ago) and oral presentations (the NBI-based historical quirk). Your work, Roger, is neither of the above, as is true for many O-oriented writers. You end up unfairly dismissing it, and restricting it, because of matters of less-than-preferred form, not those of substance. I wish you wouldn't keep it out of the hands of those of us who'd like to more fully read and benefit from it.

"Is it ethical to resist a government thug?" You feel you have to ask? It may not be prudent, given their usually greater firepower, but it is always ethical.

I share your perplexity at Roger's criterion about Kelley. Especially with Roger's plan to publish a collection of nearly forty years of his own essays, this Fall, in eBook formats. One I plan to purchase, with its having been difficult to gather such works by Roger over the years. (Apart from the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, that is, but I sold off the partial collection I had of those issues.) Unrugged Individualism? Laissez Parler? Truth and Toleration (original version)? I have all four of these, and a host of essays from my stints of being a contributor to IOS/TOC/TAS over the years. I value all of them. (As I do a small booklet entitled "A Study Guide to the Ethics of Objectivism," written by an interesting pairing — Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley. {rueful smile}) I'm seeing a conflict of standards here, with exaggerated obeisance given to "published books" — when so much of professional or semi-pro Objectiv-ish intellectuals' work is found in essays, articles, referreed journals, monographs, and op-eds. Not easy to follow, in total for a particular author, but not unsubstantial or uninfluential solely because of that. To be fair, that assessment takes in those affiliated with the Church in Irvine, including Peikoff himself. Though they give far too much emphasis on oral presentations, making excuses to not reduce them to written works, and always have. (A high irony, in that the Orthodoxy has until very recently been the faction most sustaining the use of the technology of NBI, not the open-Os.)

Are those available on Amazon.com? Or just at the ARI's bookstore? {grin}

Well, that degree of good taste and restraint is singularly uncommon around here.

In light of what he's done to use, abuse, and eviscerate Rand's intellectual estate, I'd say Lenny's morally deserved to have his clock cleaned for about thirty years now. Unfortunately, the abusive and government-granted "intellectual property" monopoly regime means than any substantial repair for such damage will soon be up to Kira Peikoff — and for most of the rest of this century. She hasn't evinced much interest as yet in such matters, and probably will just sit back and cash the royalty checks.

As one of the latter "idiots," who actually thinks that "we" (the SEAL mob-hit squad and those commanding it, to be accurate) subverted the rule of law, and that the raid's propriety may deserve civilized debate ... I wonder about the scope of your verb "delete." Especially since it's used in close juxtaposition to mentioning a military attack. Does your "delete" go beyond removing a Facebook contact? If I were accompanying you and Michael to a concert performance at Northwestern, and upon leaving Pick-Staiger Hall we were accosted by an armed robber, on a byway of the lakefront campus that did not permit escape or other alternatives, I would not hesitate to use my concealed-carry handgun to "delete" such a marauder. If, that is, I had a concealed-carry handgun at that location. Since such self-defense is illegal in Evanston, Illinois, as I know well, and I am not sure I would challenge the authorities on their prohibiting such use, and I am 2,000 miles away from my alma mater anyway, the scenario is moot at present. Nonetheless, I would do it. Yet I don't think that's quite how you mean "delete." {/sardonic} * I believe you meant "180."