Frank's Niece!

[Cathy]

http://www.latimes.com/food/la-fo-destination-cocktail-20131102,0,2859490.story

[caroljane]

Wowie that looks declicious! Recently I had my first and likely last mai tai. No I did not win a trip to Hawaii, the premixed were half price at the liquor store.

Cocktails are so tasty it is a good thing I cannot usually afford them.

A la votre Cathy!

Carol

Moosehead forever

[Cathy]

Wowie that looks declicious! Recently I had my first and likely last mai tai. No I did not win a trip to Hawaii, the premixed were half price at the liquor store.

Cocktails are so tasty it is a good thing I cannot usually afford them.

A la votre Cathy!

Carol

Moosehead forever

LOL...I don't drink at all...but I bet Conny would love it ;)

[caroljane]

Hey, Conny, Cathy, Carol...make that a triple!

[Cathy]

Hey, Conny, Cathy, Carol...make that a triple!

Ha ha ha ha ha! If you were having one...I would to ....Conny would have one anytime!

[caroljane]

Seriously, I mean soberly, if you gals ever want to make a sister trip to Canada I will rope in my cousin and show you a good time! No philosophy required.

[Selene]

A new YouTube show:

Gettin Jiggy With Cathy and Carol...

My heaven they might even start twerking!!

[caroljane]

Not me . Canadian gals cannae dae the twerking to save their lives.

[Cathy]

Seriously, I mean soberly, if you gals ever want to make a sister trip to Canada I will rope in my cousin and show you a good time! No philosophy required.

That just might happen one day...what part of Canada do you live in? Believe it or not...I am getting into this philosophy! I am really starting to understand it...or at least what my aunt's meaning behind it (talking about government). Yep...I wouldn't mind seeing how the Canadians have fun...and if it ever does happen...I just may have a drink to celebrate! ~Cathy~

[Cathy]

A new YouTube show:

Gettin Jiggy With Cathy and Carol...

My heaven they might even start twerking!!

We would have to get a few drinks in us first Selene ;) ~Cathy~

[Cathy]

THIS CAME OFF OF ANOTHER SITE...I NEED TO KNOW IF SHE EVER DID THIS, OR IF SOMEONE IS MAKING THIS STUFF UP. DOES ANYONE ONE KNOW OR COULD FIND OUT FOR ME, I WOULD APPERCIATE IT. ~CATHY~

Little known fact - Ayn Rand endorsed the land theft, ethnic cleansing and genocide of Native Americans because they held property in common, not privately. Many of her views were really quite morally repugnant.

[Brant Gaede]

It wasn't land thief except maybe purely morally, for the Native Americans held no title in lands and merely displaced each other to the extent they could and wanted to. Then the Europeans did it to them. The worst genocide (de facto) was the spread of European diseases, especially influenza, for which native peoples had little immunity. South Sea islanders were terribly afflicted too. There were quite a few massacres by both civilians and soldiers. Forced migrations did more harm. I think half the Cherokees died on The Trail of Tears. I don't know how traumatic Kit Carson's forced migration of the Navajos was to them. It was a two-way trip for them. There was also the wiping out of the buffalo herds. I think Rand was generally to ignorant of these things to have actually endorsed them even if she had tried. If I were to endorse them I'd be a no good low down evil SOB. Most of what happened to Native Americans running into the Europeans considering the times was tragically inevitable.

Rand endorsing (hoping for) a "just" war with the Soviet Union in answer to a question at the Ford Hall Forum is much more difficult to explain away, for believable ignorance can't float that boat.

--Brant

[Cathy]

It wasn't land thief except maybe purely morally, for the Native Americans held no title in lands and merely displaced each other to the extent they could and wanted to. Then the Europeans did it to them. The worst genocide (de facto) was the spread of European diseases, especially influenza, for which native peoples had little immunity. South Sea islanders were terribly afflicted too. There were quite a few massacres by both civilians and soldiers. Forced migrations did more harm. I think half the Cherokees died on The Trail of Tears. I don't know how traumatic Kit Carson's forced migration of the Navajos was to them. It was a two-way trip for them. There was also the wiping out of the buffalo herds. I think Rand was generally to ignorant of these things to have actually endorsed them even if she had tried. If I were to endorse them I'd be a no good low down evil SOB. Most of what happened to Native Americans running into the Europeans considering the times was tragically inevitable.

Rand endorsing (hoping for) a "just" war with the Soviet Union in answer to a question at the Ford Hall Forum is much more difficult to explain away, for believable ignorance can't float that boat.

--Brant

Thank you Brant...can I use this? ~Cathy~

[Cathy]

This is what he says next...Source - wikiquote and the book "Ayn Rand Answers". She thought native americans had it coming simply because they didn't agree with her assumptions about private property and because she had all kinds of racist stereotypes about their culture and lifestyle.

Most absurd of all, she has the audacity to accuse anyone who disagrees with her on this of "racism", as if saying that a nomadic tribe has some kind of rights to live where they live is "racist" against while colonists. It's utterly nonsensical

[Cathy]

this is what else he said...

Sam Badger · Top Commenter · San Francisco State University

Cathy O'Connor Dupler and what if your SS bills end up being higher than what you paid into the system? Will you not accept any more money? Also you don't "pay in" to medicare the way they do with social security. It's paid for by taxes, and the program was less than a decade old when Mrs Rand got lung cancer. The point is, in the 70s people were being "forced" to pay taxes, then that tax money was going on to pay for her lung cancer that she only got because of her own choices. That makes her a parasite by her own definition.

Poor people pay for their welfare and their social security with their work, which is systematically undervalued by their employers in a Capitalist marketplace, and any sales and income tax they pay too. This whole idea of a "moocher class" is nonsense invented by the wealthy to justify to themselves their entitlement to their wealth. On the contrary, the real "moochers" are people lucky enough to get born into a wealthy family and use that wealth to mooch off of their employees.

Reply · Like

· 2 hours ago

.

Sam Badger · Top Commenter · San Francisco State University

Also Ayn Rand supported the theft of land from Native Americans and their ethnic cleansing because they held their property in "common" not "privately". In fact she saw them as "savages" because of this. So she was a racist, or at least a cultural supremacist, who thought it was ok to rob from some people to help people like herself. She thought it was OK to mooch, as long as that mooching consisted of violently dispossessing tribal people from their land. She was a vile colonialist with deeply reactionary views.

She thought it was fine for the rich to benefit from the US government's land theft and its social programs, but as soon as anyone who wasn't independently rich wanted to use any kind of social service she thought they were a "moocher". That makes her a hypocrite, plain and simple.

[Selene]

this is what else he said...

Sam Badger · Top Commenter · San Francisco State University

Cathy O'Connor Dupler and what if your SS bills end up being higher than what you paid into the system? Will you not accept any more money? Also you don't "pay in" to medicare the way they do with social security. It's paid for by taxes, and the program was less than a decade old when Mrs Rand got lung cancer. The point is, in the 70s people were being "forced" to pay taxes, then that tax money was going on to pay for her lung cancer that she only got because of her own choices. That makes her a parasite by her own definition.

Poor people pay for their welfare and their social security with their work, which is systematically undervalued by their employers in a Capitalist marketplace, and any sales and income tax they pay too. This whole idea of a "moocher class" is nonsense invented by the wealthy to justify to themselves their entitlement to their wealth. On the contrary, the real "moochers" are people lucky enough to get born into a wealthy family and use that wealth to mooch off of their employees.

Reply · Like

· 2 hours ago

.

Sam Badger · Top Commenter · San Francisco State University

Also Ayn Rand supported the theft of land from Native Americans and their ethnic cleansing because they held their property in "common" not "privately". In fact she saw them as "savages" because of this. So she was a racist, or at least a cultural supremacist, who thought it was ok to rob from some people to help people like herself. She thought it was OK to mooch, as long as that mooching consisted of violently dispossessing tribal people from their land. She was a vile colonialist with deeply reactionary views.

She thought it was fine for the rich to benefit from the US government's land theft and its social programs, but as soon as anyone who wasn't independently rich wanted to use any kind of social service she thought they were a "moocher". That makes her a hypocrite, plain and simple.

First of all, do not respond to anything he said.

Start asking questions.

You make some Interesting points, out of curiosity were you born into poverty?

A...

[Cathy]

this is what else he said...

Sam Badger · Top Commenter · San Francisco State University

Cathy O'Connor Dupler and what if your SS bills end up being higher than what you paid into the system? Will you not accept any more money? Also you don't "pay in" to medicare the way they do with social security. It's paid for by taxes, and the program was less than a decade old when Mrs Rand got lung cancer. The point is, in the 70s people were being "forced" to pay taxes, then that tax money was going on to pay for her lung cancer that she only got because of her own choices. That makes her a parasite by her own definition.

Poor people pay for their welfare and their social security with their work, which is systematically undervalued by their employers in a Capitalist marketplace, and any sales and income tax they pay too. This whole idea of a "moocher class" is nonsense invented by the wealthy to justify to themselves their entitlement to their wealth. On the contrary, the real "moochers" are people lucky enough to get born into a wealthy family and use that wealth to mooch off of their employees.

Reply · Like

· 2 hours ago

.

Sam Badger · Top Commenter · San Francisco State University

Also Ayn Rand supported the theft of land from Native Americans and their ethnic cleansing because they held their property in "common" not "privately". In fact she saw them as "savages" because of this. So she was a racist, or at least a cultural supremacist, who thought it was ok to rob from some people to help people like herself. She thought it was OK to mooch, as long as that mooching consisted of violently dispossessing tribal people from their land. She was a vile colonialist with deeply reactionary views.

She thought it was fine for the rich to benefit from the US government's land theft and its social programs, but as soon as anyone who wasn't independently rich wanted to use any kind of social service she thought they were a "moocher". That makes her a hypocrite, plain and simple.

First of all, do not respond to anything he said.

Start asking questions.

You make some Interesting points, out of curiosity were you born into poverty?

A...

ok thx Adam...I' asking it now

[caroljane]

Cathy, in reply I live in central east Canada not far from Buffalo NY. You could stop off at Adam's place on your way north!

[Cathy]

Cathy, in reply I live in central east Canada not far from Buffalo NY. You could stop off at Adam's place on your way north!

So, I have your permission then ;) ~Cathy~

[caroljane]

You always have my permission Cathy,..Adam is another story!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

THIS CAME OFF OF ANOTHER SITE...I NEED TO KNOW IF SHE EVER DID THIS, OR IF SOMEONE IS MAKING THIS STUFF UP. DOES ANYONE ONE KNOW OR COULD FIND OUT FOR ME, I WOULD APPERCIATE IT. ~CATHY~

Little known fact - Ayn Rand endorsed the land theft, ethnic cleansing and genocide of Native Americans because they held property in common, not privately. Many of her views were really quite morally repugnant.

Cathy,

Rand did not ever endorse genocide or ethnic cleansing. Ever. At any time. This is crap people who don't like her make up. Basically, these folks cannot answer her ideas as she states them, so they simply make shit up and say she stood for it.

Rand did think the settlers had more right to the land than the Indians because they came with a concept of property rights, they cultivated the land and developed it, whereas the Indians were tribal, nomadic, brutal and did not have any kind of concept of individual rights.

What gets the Rand-haters all wound up is that Rand had contempt for savages of all types and she said so very clearly. She considered American Indians to be savages and made no bones about it. But note, she is not referring to the race of American Indians. Any individual who respects individual rights in her view is entitled to them, including Native Americans. And she would have considered attacking such people as a vicious monstrosity.

Her problem was with societies based on tribal leaders and dictatorships. She held the position that if a country or people had no concept of individual rights and dealt with each other mainly by force, they should not be treated as if they were entitled to those rights. She held that anyone has the "right" to invade and settle where brutes are and fight them off if attacked. Here is what she said in Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 103-104).

(Note: I am adding paragraph breaks to make this easier to read on the Internet. This was spoken, so there were no inherent paragraphs. Anyway, this was edited in a ham-handed manner by Robert Mayhew, so there might be some things distorted, albeit I do believe this represents Rand's views. Also, in the first question, in Rand's answer, she bashed slavery, said a war was rightly fought to abolish it, and that the progressive President Franklin Roosevelt placed Japanese Americans in labor camps, not defenders of capitalism and Americanism. I did not include those parts.)

When you consider the cultural genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of blacks, and the relocation of Japanese Americans during World War Two, how can you have such a positive view of America?

. . .

Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages.

The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not.

Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using.

It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect?

The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights.

But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights.

. . .

Should this country return some of the lands that were seized from the Indians under the guise of a contractual relationship?

As a principle, one should respect the sanctity of a contract among individuals. I'm not certain about contracts among nations; that depends on the nature and behavior of the other nation.

But I oppose applying contract law to American Indians. I discuss this issue in "Collectivized 'Rights'" [in The Virtue of Selfishness].

When a group of people or a nation does not respect individual rights, it cannot claim any rights whatsoever. The Indians were savages, with ghastly tribal rules and rituals, including the famous “Indian Torture.” Such tribes have no rights.

Anyone had the right to come here and take whatever they could, because they would be dealing with savages as Indians dealt with each other – that is, by force. We owe nothing to Indians, except the memory of monstrous evils done by them.

But suppose there is evidence of white people treating Indians badly. That’s too bad; I regret it. But in the history of this country, it’s an exception.

It wouldn't give the Indians any kind of rights. Look at their history, look at their culture, look at their treatment of their own people. Those who do not recognize individual rights cannot expect to have any rights, or to have them respected.

If Rand had written this for publication, I believe she would have explained the hooks people like to distort in more depth. She was talking off the top of her head.

Here are my thoughts. The initial rights of any country is problematic for people who believe in individual rights. All countries in human history have started with settling on some land, violently defending it against attacks from those who used the land before or who want it, or outright conquering another country. So I see the institution of individual rights for social organization as belonging to a secondary stage. The first stage is violent and it always has been since prehistoric times.

I am not in full agreement with Rand's contempt for savages (I find the study of them fascinating at times), nor her characterization of American Indians as savages. Many were, but not all. And certainly, much of the crap the US Government did to the Indians once they had the upper hand is inexcusable. I think Rand's views on this were oversimplified.

I don't like to channel Rand, but I believe if the Indians had been practicing a civilization where rights were respected, she would not have held the position she did. And once again, under no circumstances would she have ever condoned genocide or ethnic cleansing.

The people who accuse her of that do so because they only think in racist terms as fundamentals, not in principles, so guess who are the racists?

I hope that helps.

Michael

[Cathy]

THIS CAME OFF OF ANOTHER SITE...I NEED TO KNOW IF SHE EVER DID THIS, OR IF SOMEONE IS MAKING THIS STUFF UP. DOES ANYONE ONE KNOW OR COULD FIND OUT FOR ME, I WOULD APPERCIATE IT. ~CATHY~

Little known fact - Ayn Rand endorsed the land theft, ethnic cleansing and genocide of Native Americans because they held property in common, not privately. Many of her views were really quite morally repugnant.

Cathy,

Rand did not ever endorse genocide or ethnic cleansing. Ever. At any time. This is crap people who don't like her make up. Basically, these folks cannot answer her ideas as she states them, so they simply make shit up and say she stood for it.

Rand did think the settlers had more right to the land than the Indians because they came with a concept of property rights, they cultivated the land and developed it, whereas the Indians were tribal, nomadic, brutal and did not have any kind of concept of individual rights.

What gets the Rand-haters all wound up is that Rand had contempt for savages of all types and she said so very clearly. She considered American Indians to be savages and made no bones about it. But note, she is not referring to the race of American Indians. Any individual who respects individual rights in her view is entitled to them, including Native Americans. And she would have considered attacking such people as a vicious monstrosity.

Her problem was with societies based on tribal leaders and dictatorships. She held the position that if a country or people had no concept of individual rights and dealt with each other mainly by force, they should not be treated as if they were entitled to those rights. She held that anyone has the "right" to invade and settle where brutes are and fight them off if attacked. Here is what she said in Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 103-104).

(Note: I am adding paragraph breaks to make this easier to read on the Internet. This was spoken, so there were no inherent paragraphs. Anyway, this was edited in a ham-handed manner by Robert Mayhew, so there might be some things distorted, albeit I do believe this represents Rand's views. Also, in the first question, in Rand's answer, she bashed slavery, said a war was rightly fought to abolish it, and that the progressive President Franklin Roosevelt placed Japanese Americans in labor camps, not defenders of capitalism and Americanism. I did not include those parts.)

When you consider the cultural genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of blacks, and the relocation of Japanese Americans during World War Two, how can you have such a positive view of America?

. . .

Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages.

The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not.

Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using.

It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect?

The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights.

But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights.

. . .

Should this country return some of the lands that were seized from the Indians under the guise of a contractual relationship?

As a principle, one should respect the sanctity of a contract among individuals. I'm not certain about contracts among nations; that depends on the nature and behavior of the other nation.

But I oppose applying contract law to American Indians. I discuss this issue in "Collectivized 'Rights'" [in The Virtue of Selfishness].

When a group of people or a nation does not respect individual rights, it cannot claim any rights whatsoever. The Indians were savages, with ghastly tribal rules and rituals, including the famous “Indian Torture.” Such tribes have no rights.

Anyone had the right to come here and take whatever they could, because they would be dealing with savages as Indians dealt with each other – that is, by force. We owe nothing to Indians, except the memory of monstrous evils done by them.

But suppose there is evidence of white people treating Indians badly. That’s too bad; I regret it. But in the history of this country, it’s an exception.

It wouldn't give the Indians any kind of rights. Look at their history, look at their culture, look at their treatment of their own people. Those who do not recognize individual rights cannot expect to have any rights, or to have them respected.

If Rand had written this for publication, I believe she would have explained the hooks people like to distort in more depth. She was talking off the top of her head.

Here are my thoughts. The initial rights of any country is problematic for people who believe in individual rights. All countries in human history have started with settling on some land, violently defending it against attacks from those who used the land before or who want it, or outright conquering another country. So I see the institution of individual rights for social organization as belonging to a secondary stage. The first stage is violent and it always has been since prehistoric times.

I am not in full agreement with Rand's contempt for savages (I find the study of them fascinating at times), nor her characterization of American Indians as savages. Many were, but not all. And certainly, much of the crap the US Government did to the Indians once they had the upper hand is inexcusable. I think Rand's views on this were oversimplified.

I don't like to channel Rand, but I believe if the Indians had been practicing a civilization where rights were respected, she would not have held the position she did. And once again, under no circumstances would she have ever condoned genocide or ethnic cleansing.

The people who accuse her of that do so because they only think in racist terms as fundamentals, not in principles, so guess who are the racists?

I hope that helps.

Michael

Thank you very much...it helped a lot! can I use this to defend her? ~Cathy~

[Cathy]

You always have my permission Cathy,..Adam is another story!

LOL! Well, I don't hear him

[Cathy]

This is what another person said.

The majority of human beings are "leeches." Even her disabled husband's illness "sickened" her (which she used as an excuse for her affairs.

How could she have said that? Uncle Frank wasn't disabled when she had the affair. Why would that say affairs (plural) I only heard about one affair.

[caroljane]

Cathy, Rand made many false analogies in her passion to express her ideas. Comparing human beings to insects was one of her worst, in my opinion,