In 2000 President Bush ran on a platform of lowered standards and in 2004 was reelected on a promise of “decisiveness” and a bias towards action over strategic thinking. President Bush’s followers communicated support for his ability to talk plainly as to not intimidate the folks. John F. Kerry, on the other hand, was constantly criticized for nuanced thoughts, and “Republicans” scoffed at his inability to deliver simple and concise statements. While I was no fan of Kerry, I have always been a fan of thought, and it frustrated me immensely that supporters of George W. Bush credited themselves and their leader as being practical thinkers when they were anything but.

As a result - it does not surprise me that America literally ignored the glaringly obvious strategy for WINNING the war on terror in a decisive way: Cutting off the cash.

The prospect of hunting down terrorists wherever they may exist throughout the world is totally foolish. Have we learned nothing from the David and Goliath stories of history? Large armies have consistently been defeated throughout history by smaller armies that employ guerrilla warfare - and a smarter strategy is called for.

First a question - is a terrorist that does not have the means to perpetuate violence really a terrorist? The answer is no. A prerequisite for an act to be deemed a “terrorist” act is for there to be a violent action of some sort. The impact of fists are minimal, and so guns, missiles, chemicals, and other cash-intensive equipment is required to perpetuate terrorism. To purchase such means-of-terrorism money is required.

Thus, to end terrorism, simply take away the money.

We must ask ourselves - where does the money that finances terrorism come from? The answer is simple: OIL. With the exception of oil Arab countries have largely existed in a state of subsistence over the past 200 years. I mean no offense to my Arab friends, but before oil, Arabs in Arab countries lived in desert tents, not hundred million-dollar palaces. Without petro dollars there would be no money to fund terrorism, and so to end terrorism we must simply reduce and eventually eliminate petro dollars.

In contrast, the policies of the United States government have led to monstrous windfall profits for the Arab world. President Bush’s friends in big oil must surely appreciate that. The cash that has fallen into the hands of those in the Arab world has financed terror cells and has allowed Arab investors to diversify their interests by purchasing shares in major American companies like Citibank. With each passing day, and with each penny increase in the price of oil, we continue to help Arab interests to diversify their economy and to continue a flow of cash that has historically ended up in the hands of terrorists and aggressors. Without this oil money Iran certainly would not be building nuclear weapons… they would be constructing tents.

The secret to Winning the War on Terror is reducing the price of oil by reducing demand for it. The way to do it is NOT by invading Arab countries like Iraq and Iran (yes I am contradicting my previous post) which unsettles the market and creates demand for oil. Rather, the way to reduce the price of gasoline is to invest in technology and to bring viable energy alternatives to market as soon as possible. The result would be a collapse in oil prices and less money in the hands of governments that consistently support terrorism.

Rather than think strategically and identify an intelligent long-term approach to winning the war on terror, President Bush has literally played into the hands of terrorists by attacking Iraq and wasting precious lives, along with an enormous amount of money. This was the exact response the terrorists were hoping for. As a result it would not be inappropriate to call President Bush a terrorist, in effect. Not a terrorist in a true sense of the word - but a terrorist in terms of the result of his actions. More people… more American people… and more people throughout the world… have and will die because of President Bush and the people that put him in office than as a result of all terrorist acts in the past hundred years combined.

If the money that was spent fighting the “war on terror” was invested into technology, it is conceivable that we would be demonstrably winning the war on terror. Further, the technology that would have come from that research could have spurred yet another economic boom placing the United States at the forefront and creating high-paying jobs.

Thousands of lives and too many billions later… the option discussed above is still our best option… and I would like to see both candidates for president adopt the following platform:

- Invest hundreds of billions in alternative energy research. (edit: Ensure the government is not getting in the way of private alternative energy research)

- Get out of Iraq in 3 months.

- Bank on the fact that without money they are not a threat to us.

Let’s win the war on terror by investing in productive achievement. We’re Americans dammit! We’re creative, resourceful, and entrepreneurial people. Let’s act like it.

This is why George W. Bush should be impeached. His strategic failures served only the oil companies at the expense of innocent lives throughout the world.

After years of debating AGAINST different tax reforms that tax people not based on their value to society (i.e. their income), but based on what they consume, I am ready to throw in the towel.

Damn the consequences - I cannot support a “progressive” tax system that taxes some more than others because those with more money “need it less than others.” If I work double the hours of most Americans for 20 years of my life, forgoing vacations and excessive beer/cigarettes/sex that consume most people’s lives, and if as a result I am able to earn an income that is above average - say $500k to $1mm - I would like to know… by what right do my elected officials have to tell me that I should be willing to spend a greater percentage of my income to compensate for the failings of the bastard-makers and society-looters that cannot provide for themselves?

Remember those losers in high school that laughed at intelligent thought, refused to do their work, and cheated constantly? Or how about the smart ones that did their work, but that consistently showed preference for the “theoretical” as opposed to the “actual?” Tell me… please… how justice is served when I am forced to pay their way through life, and their children’s way through life?

The truth is that there are billions of people in this world that do not carry their own weight, and I do not see why I should be forced to pay a penny to help any one of them live a better life (or to live at all) if I don’t want to. By imposing “consumption” taxes, such as the fair tax, we allow people to control their tax bills not by earning/producing less, but by consuming less, if they so choose. When we buy a product at the store the price is already inflated by the taxes that all the parties to that product will have to pay - so implementing a “fair” tax or a similar consumption tax would not simply inflate prices, as many detractors claim.

Economically speaking, the higher-income people in society, assuming their incomes are earned through an honest exchange of value, are more highly valued to society than those of lesser-income, at least on an incremental basis. That, at least, is the most objective way at looking at the matter. Some may argue that teachers are more highly valued to society, but one need only have a conversation with most Americans to know that most Americans don’t value education highly, and thus teachers don’t command higher salaries. That said, the high-value people are small in number. There are many more parasites than producers, and in a democracy where such a phenomenon exists, parasites will have greater influence on whom becomes elected than their more valuable counterparts. As a result we have politicians that ignore the fundamental principles of economics and justice and enact tax policies that favor need over justice.

I have come to the realization that it is only by manipulating the parasites to some how vote for justice over freebies that fair laws such as consumption taxes can be put into place… but I know I am late to the party on this one. Conservatives have manipulated many parasites who call themselves religious to vote for conservative policies (the religious right), but unfortunately the price of manipulation is so great that the line between Conservatism and Liberalism because very blurry.

I want my consumption taxes but I doubt i’ll get them… and I want many other policies that are based on the principles of justice… but I will never get them either, unless the producers in society learn to more effectively manipulate the parasites into doing the right thing. Democracy is the best option… I am PRO PRO PRO Democracy… there is no good alternative that I know of… but on days like this, for a few short minutes, I have to allow myself to say… DAMN DAMN DAMN DEMOCRACY.

Experimenting with ideas and provoking difficult discussions

Iraq was not handled cleanly…

But on to Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and Syria.

Our technology-of-war is sitting on the shelf as lives of American men and women are being needlessly jeopardized…

“Don’t hit them too hard, don’t kill civilians, preserve their infrastructure”…

Well, we’ve walked softly for too long, let’s bring out the big stick…

Let’s arm our troops to do it right and send them forward.

If the Arab people are to be judged solely by their actions, as a whole…

They are not to be respected.

The Arab world permits its leaders to oppress them with religion as the primary tool…

But to what extent should we be willing to sacrifice our own progress, our own safety, our own interests, out of deference to an enemy that has demonstrated the means, the intent, and the will - to destroy us.

We sit silently as admitted enemies build nuclear weapons that will be aimed at our interests…

We sit silently as so-called allies manipulate and bastardize our economy…

We sit silently as they all train their youth to hate us, and prepare to kill us…

We sit silently as they buy off our elected officials who deliver record-high oil prices to their Texas cronies…

Leveraging the petro-dollars that WE put in their pocket.

Our innovations brought their oil from the ground…

Our innovations created demand for that oil…

That is OUR oil.

Do we wait… silently… as they execute their strategy…

Do we give them time to sharpen the venom-soaked swords they craft in order to kill us…

Or do we treat them like the parasites that they are.

This is not about hatred of a people for who they are…

This is not about hatred of a people at all.

It is about the right of men to claim what is rightfully theirs…

Ours.

Let’s stop lieing to ourselves…

It IS all about the oil…

And if they were willing to play nice… to play fair… and to accept the gift that we’ve given them gracefully, there would be no impetus for conflict…

But rather than accept their place as the beneficiaries of good-fortune…

They assume the role of divine messengers…

Their message will be the END of us…

Their strategy is to kill us slowly…

And our opportunity is to claim what is rightfully ours…

And to ensure that THEY have everything that they have earned…

Nothing more, nothing less.

So let’s assert our claim to “their” oil (our oil) by deploying big massive BOMBS…

Or let’s set it in flames and create alternatives…

But let’s NOT allow them to use our innovations against us.

No time to post but take a few minutes to laugh at our president.

b

Birth does not end when the umbilical cord is cut

The umbilical cord is meant to sustain us in the womb when we cannot provide for ourselves

But many never learn how to provide for themselves

And those that do learn how to provide for themselves do not ascend over night

Ascending to the world… ascending to consciousness… is perhaps the most dynamic challenge of our lives

We quickly adjust to the burst of sunlight that assaults our being upon the first few seconds of life…

But in that case we are merely beginning the process of adapting…

Of trying to understand the world around us, ourselves, and how we fit in to this tragic and glorious existence

The ascension requires flexibility, an impertinent constitution, and a mindset dominated by reason and objectivity.

Ascending to the world is like traveling blindly through a dark cave filled with fierce obstacles and being called upon to maintain a steadfast faith in yourself, and the power of your own intellectual reasoning; at times putting aside primal instinct and emotion.

Ascending to the world requires one to make a choice that the purpose of life is not to prepare for the next one, but rather to ascend to this one.

Since November of 2007:

Total Views: 8,873
Total Posts: 29
Total Comments 96
Best Day Ever: 242

Trend: Traffic is increasing rapidly.

Thank you for bookmarking, sharing, and visiting.

Brain Dump

As we approach the 2008 Presidential election our democracy “appears” stronger than ever. The electorate is engaged and people of all races and machinations are debating issues, tuning into debates, and showing up to vote.

The problem, however, is that at the same time that our democracy seems to be gaining momentum, the prospect of achieving a free and just “society” continues to dwindle. Unless the electorate reverses a course that was set in motion 70 years ago, we will continue to witness the inverse relationship between the strength of U.S. democracy and freedom for years to come.

The problem is simple: The electorate has formed strong and sometimes educated opinions without the benefit of objectivity and reason, and they have the power to turn their opinions into law thanks to the democratic process. Individuals who are against freedom (without realizing it) make up the majority, and they will continue to bastardize our democracy by imposing their personal morals on the populous. The result will be a gradual decline in innovation and achievement as our nation approaches a state of collective impotence. This will not happen overnight and I don’t mean to imply that the “end is near,” but the foundation is being laid and this election will be pivotal. For example, at the same time that Democrats tout Universal/Socialized health care, less students are going to med school because after the high taxes, high insurance costs, and the increased footprint of government in health care - the prospect of becoming a doctor is becoming less and less attractive.

If you judge modern Democrats and Republicans by their actions - they are the same. They believe that government has an important role to play in our daily lives, and that government institutions have the right to require private citizens to accept responsibility for the health and happiness of their neighbors under threat of force and jail time. The Republicans have been co-opted by the religious movement - who believe in collective morals, while the Democrats have strong foundations in the liberal movement - who also believe in collective morals. The former wants to integrate religion into our lives, while the latter wants to force those who have more value in society to play Jesus to those of lesser value - as if it were their responsibility.

Here is an extreme example: The matter of the U.S. government providing free health care to poor children. Most voters would support the statement that “society has a responsibility to provide healthcare to poor children.” To disagree with that statement would be highly controversial and would evoke a visceral response from many people. Put visceral reactions aside for a second, however, and consider the statement objectively. First of all - consider who “society” is. In reality it is not a monolithic entity - it’s you and me. The statement really is, “You (I) have a responsibility to provide health care to poor children.” Then consider the word “responsibility,” which is defined as “duty,” and the word “provide,” which in this case means to “pay for.” Finally, change “poor children” to other people’s children, because, well, that’s what they are. Objectively speaking, the statement really is, “I have a duty to pay for health care for other people’s children.” Now, if you can make that statement and if you feel such a duty to pay the bill for someone else’s child, I would indeed expect you to pull out your wallet. What I would not expect you to do is support a law requiring that I do so too, under threat of jail time, regardless of whether or not I feel the same PERSONAL duty that you do. I should not be forced to pay the bill for other people’s children if I don’t want to. You, collectively, have no moral right to place demands on me.

As generally moral and decent individuals many feel a duty to help those who are less fortunate than we are. Many reason that a country as rich and prosperous as the United States ought to “give back.” The distinction, however, is that the country (the state) is not a moral entity. The state does not innovate and create the businesses that drive our economy… they simply tax the people who do and redistribute their money. When you decide that your morals should be imposed upon others, however virtuous, it is not the country (as an entity) that is forced to pay, it is the people that fund the country. If an individual has earned their money fairly, what moral right do you have to force that individual to fund policies and programs that you, personally, deem morally justifiable? The answer is that you don’t. Even if an individual has $50 trillion dollars - when you put your hand in her pocket and steal a buck in order to buy a sandwich for someone else’s starving child, you are still stealing. If you want to feed that child - feed him yourself. In this way, many Democrats are extreme hypocrites. On one hand they criticize conservatives for wanting to impose their moral values on all of us (no abortion, religion in public places) while fighting for similar objectives themselves (institutionalizing charity and enforcing it through the IRS).

Government has been co-opted, paradoxically, by the many for the benefit of the few. Indeed it is a perverted illusion that many refer to as altruism. By contrast, the proper role of government is to maintain order, to provide a court system, to defend our borders, and to stay out of our lives. If government did not pay for poor children to receive healthcare, I guarantee you that you and I would see to it that they receive proper care because I would feel a personal desire to do so, and you may as well. Alternatively, the very idea that you would force me to do so by threat of force (using the State as your proxy) is tantamount to you denying the one thing that should be more important to us than anything else: freedom. According to my value system it is morally wrong to deny another individual freedom, and by definition things that are morally wrong are evil. By extension, forcing me to pay for healthcare for other people’s children, even if they are poor, is evil.

Democrats and Republicans, inclusive but not exclusive to Obama and McCain, all want me to pay for poor children to receive healthcare. They also want me to pay for a lot of other things that pull on our collective heart strings. When I listen to Obama speak, and when I judge his words objectively and reasonably, free of emotion, I do not hear an inspiring individual. I hear a reflection of evil. Pure evil. This evil does not necessarily emit from the speaker, as the job of a politician in a democratic society is simply to get elected, it comes from his audience. I hear a man buoyed by supporters who want to impose their arbitrary morals on me and on all of us. Republicans are no better. President Bush spent more money than any Democrat on non-military spending and tried to sully the line between church and state, and neither he, nor his party, are heroes worthy of reverence. Surprisingly, both parties operate from seemingly identical principles.

People want to deny the fundamental principles of economics but those desires conflict with historic realities. The free market is responsible for the greatest innovations that this world has to offer, and the redistribution of wealth that both political parties support undermines the free market, and by extension our progress as a “society.” As a compassionate individual I want to help people and make a positive difference in people’s lives, but that is my job, not the job of my government.

By voting for Obama, and by voting for McCain, individuals are voting for the evil principles they espouse: namely that the majority has the right to impose their personal morals on society (you and us). On one hand, people should be encouraged not to be evil. On the other hand, an obvious question would be – what’s the alternative?

Sadly I cannot offer an expedient solution to this problem. There is not a single candidate I know of we can vote for, or an action we can take, that would immediately solve the issues presented on these pages. The problem is a systemic one that finds its genesis at the very foundation of our society. Society is torn between capitalism and compassion, as if the two are mutually exclusive. We’re taught from a young age that knowledge is power, and we pursue knowledge throughout our younger years in order to transfer it into a vocation that will provide the means for our long-term happiness. In this way, individual responsibility is promoted as a means to a greater end. If you work hard you will make money, which will enable you to start and provide for your family (and sometimes society), and/or to experience modern luxuries ranging from healthcare to disease-free whores. These concepts are distorted, however, because capitalism is not simply a means to a greater end – it is the end. The added complications of religion and spirituality serve to bring us further from a proper understanding of what capitalism really is – or at least what it really should be. Capitalism should not be a means to an end, and it should not exist in a category that is separate and distinct from spirituality. CAPITALISM IS SPIRTUALITY. History has shown us that unbridled laissez –faire capitalism is the only model under which all individuals can live freely, and can thrive – if they choose – or flounder – if they are weak. I did not sign a piece of paper when I entered this world to subjugate my talents and abilities, however they measure, for the benefit of others. If I decide that I want to live my life in such a way as to allow others to ride on my shoulders – I should be able to – but I should NOT be forced to, and I should be encouraged NOT to. Individuals are at their best when they are motivated to achieve the pinnacle of their potential in an honest and forthright manner, but American society encourages people to do just enough in order to buy the goods and services that supposedly buy them happiness. As many have become painfully aware – money does not buy happiness, but I would argue that it has the potential to become a measure of happiness to the extent that it can be attributed to the achievements of those who posses it. To that end, and with those conditions, MONEY IS HAPPINESS.

Can capitalism exist without democracy? I don’t have the motivation to explore the answer to that question at this time but for the time being I am interested in exploring how our democracy can be utilized in order to foster a truer form of capitalism in the United States.

Turn your focus to the three pillars of our society: The “education” system, the media, and various institutions of faith, religion, and spirituality. In each case information that is not necessarily factual in nature is presented as being factual in nature by individuals that receive the benefit of implied trust: Teachers, Pundits, and men of G-d. In the end, we have imperfect, often un-evolved individuals helping our children to form the principles that will guide their lives and parents who SHOULD be concerned by this instead focus on their average and unproductive lives. Just as you would not permit a garbage-man to perform open-heart surgery on your children, you should not allow a 23 year-old bimbo to help your child formulate the very principles that will guide their lives, and by extension impact all of our lives and the future of our country.

As a society we are smart enough to do many things but not smart enough to do all of the important things – at least not yet. Solving the problems raised above would require an intellectually motivated, and eventually an intellectually dynamic, populous. It would require collective maturity and a revolution of sorts. A transition from a dramatic focus on menial issues, to a fervent dedication to self-understanding, reason, and objectivity. I do believe in revolutions and I do believe that a revolution such as this are possible although I don’t know what steps might lead to it. As we approach our next election I am also aware that revolutions are not always for the better, and I hope that the momentum we’ve witnessed over the past 70 years will not culminate in an eventual revolution of government-imposed altruism.

A better alternative would be a revolution that throws away the concepts of selflessness and altruism that recognizes the inherent value and potential of each human being to keep bringing us forward. Children who are encouraged, empowered, and well-educated strive to reach higher goals than those who are allowed to slide through life without the benefits of good parenting, mentorship, self-esteem, and a solid education. There are mentally handicapped people in this world who fully support themselves financially and who are happier for it, just as there are very intelligent people in this world who come from wealthy families and achieve nothing in their lives – to the point where they would do society a favor by ceasing to exist. The revolution would occur when each of us strives to reach our full potential; motivated by a desire to create. This is not the job of government, and realistically it will not occur unless parents take responsibility for the children they have created, and unless we all take responsibility for ourselves. The parents must create the demand for better schools, better mentorship, and better learning both at home and away from home. They must become better parents as well, and they must demand accountability for their tax dollars by participating in school boards, local government, or by putting their children into better schools. They must stop worrying about other children in their community, and our country, and around the world, and instead focus on the lives they have created. As for the rest of us “adults” – we need to stop thanking others for our achievements and blaming ourselves for our failures. We need to become real adults – individuals who are dedicated to growth and introspection and setting/achieving higher and higher goals.

Revolutions are bottom-up phenomena’s and we are all on the front lines. If you really want to save the world and be a good person stop worrying about everyone else and focus on yourself. Despite whatever illusions you are the most important person in your world.

William Tecumseh Sherman (expired February 1891) is a man worth learning about. His father, a judge, died unexpectedly when he was young leaving 11 children without financial resources or a father. Despite what was surely a challenging childhood Sherman engaged in numerous pursuits - some successful, some not successful, and played a formative role in the development of the United States. He was an educator, a business man, a banker, and most notably, a general in the Union army during the civil war. He is believed by many to be the father of modern warfare. At one point he was proposed to be the Republican nominee for the Presidential election in 1884 and refused stating, “If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.” This has become known as the Shermanesque statement.

After learning of South Carolina’s secession from the United States, William wrote:

You people of the South don’t know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don’t know what you’re talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it …Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors.You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

I get a kick out of watching Ansley Earhart on FoxNews (or is it Ainsley Earhart?). Ansley is the ultimate cute, girly Southern Bell who never quite matured into adulthood. She is a little girl playing dress-up, acting all grown up. It ain’t cute - it’s PATHETIC.

Things I like:

1) Whenever she is put in her place by a guest, her body language becomes pouty as if daddy just scolded her

2) Her little smiles whenever she talks about going to church, as if the flock she grew up with sits at home giving her props for representin’ JC

3) When she lies about her personal life for image reasons. There was a segment on V-Day when she made up an obvious lie about the sweet thing her husband did for her on V-Day and a coworker called her on it.

4) The look in her eyes that seems to beg for constant positive reinforcement and validation every time she opens her mouth.

5) When she tries to sound clever/cute/smart. “Uzbekistan. That’s near Borat’s country?

I pick on Ansley because she is sadly common. The prevalence of women and man-children just pisses me off.

Grow up, babe.

This is Ayn Rand at 75 years old in her first public appearance after the death of her husband. I suggest that everyone spend the time to watch each of the 5 videos below - it is worth it. I have cataloged notes from each of the videos for your reference. The quotes i’ve listed are close to accurate, but may not be totally accurate.

Segment 1:

- Ayn gets to it right out of the gate, unapologetic for honest achievement.

- Donahue: “You are something.” Rand: “I think So”

- Ayn says Donahue is faking it when he acts humble

- Most men are repressors who hide their feelings out of weakness

- Jimmy Carter’s smile is not genuine. “I don’t think he has any ideas and if so he has no feelings.”

- Rand likes Charlie’s Angels

- Art should be romantic

- Rand pro Aristotle, con Plato

Watch it here.

Segment 2:

- Ayn regards altruists as evil.

- People can want to help other people but that is not altruism. Altruism is sacrificing yourself for other people. What’s wrong with it Donahue asks? Rand responds - what’s wrong with committing suicide?

- What I mean by sacrifice is to give up some value that is important to you for a lesser value. To die for your neighbor is sacrifice. By extension - evil.

- Recent proposals to spend millions on the handicapped (buses, etc) is to bring everyone to the level of the handicapped.

- It is unfair to build special schools for mentally retarded people when we don’t build special schools for the gifted, upon whom all of our lives depend. They carry the weight of everyone else and deserve first priority. Tax payers should not pay for either though - and each should rely on their parents or private charity.

- The gifted will make their own way if we don’t stop them

- Less government. We need only the basics: Police, law courts, armed forces.

- If there is a “mal” distribution of wealth, it is to those who have political pull. “If you made it yourself in free competition then you should keep all of it. Why shouldn’t you? You made it.”

- On the subject of oil, rising oil prices, and the then oil crisis: ” We should not have permitted altruistically all of those nations to nationalize what we built for them.”

Watch it here.

Segment 3:

- On Arab countries and their oil: “They took our oil. We own by contract right the installations which we devised to begin with and we helped them to build.” “They have no right to their soil if they do nothing with it. They want to bring us in to develop their oil and then to exploit and murder us.” It was our fault though for not putting a better contract in place and enforcing it. Blames government.

- It is not their oil. “It was there for centuries and they didn’t know what to do with it.” “We don’t export our technology, we export our minds and our knowledge without which they couldn’t exist.”

- “They can’t even run the oil industry after they copied everything from us.”

- Donahue: “You’re an atheist.” Rand: “Yes.” Donahue: “Tisk tisk tisk.” Rand: “I could do the same to you, you know. Since your the host I won’t say it but in other circumstances I would say that I don’t approve of religion.” It is not based on reason and facts.

- Donahue: “You’ve got to admit, you’re not smart enough to know whether there is a G-d.” Rand: “Yes, I am.” “It doesn’t take much intelligence.”

- “Religion is a psychological weakness of a man who is afraid to stand on his own mind and his own responsibility. The absence of proof has gone on for centuries.” “I regard it as evil to place your emotions, your desire, above the evidence of what your mind knows.”

- Donahue: “Aren’t you filled with wonder when you look up at the stars.” Rand: “No. And I don’t like to look at them. I like this earth. You know when i’m filled with wonder - when I look up at sky scrapers. At what man was able to achieve of their own… without the help of faith or desire.”

- Rand admires people who have helped to bring us so far from primitive jungles.

- Loathing of Russia.

Watch it here.

Segment 4:

- “For the good of the whole and sacrifice to the state… and whoever says it is or wants to be the State.”

- “I don’t believe that society has any responsibiliy towards anyone.” “Society has nothing to do with the life of anybody except to get out of his way.”

- “I don’t like the word responsibility.”

- “Do what I rationally think is right according to the right morality. And help others if you can but not as a primary obligation.”

- “We can’t have unearned obligations.”

- Questioner asked Rand what she thought of the architecture in Chicago. Rand said she has not been there in a while but liked the frank lloyd wright buildings. And likes the early Sullivan buildings which she hopes are preserved.

- Rand confronts a (”recently matured”) questioner who says she is trying to build an elitist society. Rand asks her why she came “here” to my show. “You want responsibility - go and practice it, but your not going to force any responsibility on me.” RAND BASICALLY THREATENED THIS IDIOT WOMAN TO STEP OUTSIDE AND DROP FISTS.

- “I would love to see an honorable adversary, but i’ve stopped hoping for it.”

Watch it here.

Segment 5:

- “I’m for freedom of the mind.”

- Donahue: Could you ever plot to overthrow a person you thought was denying civil rights to other people? Rand: Certainly. You have moral right to retaliate with force. But i’m not for murder.

- Calls Iran a “miserable” country

- “It is dangerous to ascribe your achievement to somebody else.” Don’t share credit.

- “I lost my top value,” referring to her passed husband. If I really believed I could reunite with him i’d commit suicide immediately.

Watch it here.

“Dagny heard a cold, implacable voice saying somewhere within her: Remember it - remember it well - it is not often that one can see pure evil - look at it - remember - and some day you’ll find the words to name its essence… She heard it through the screaming of other voices that cried in helpless violence: It’s nothing - i’ve heard it before - i’m hearing it everywhere - it’s nothing but the same old tripe - why can’t I stand it? I can’t stand it - I can’t stand it!

The first blog post I made questioned whether joining online forums solely dedicated to the discussion of Ayn Rand could be considered “consistent” with objectivist principles. The reason I made the post was because I have long struggled with the boundaries between “leading” and “following.” The idea of participating in a community, online or offline, that is dedicated to the memory and ideas of a single individual, just seems “collectivist” in nature. When ideas become popular movements it is hard to distinguish the real individuals from the want-to-be-real phonies. Maybe i’m wrong, but it just seems fishy.

Anyway - I made this post in which I challenged the forum and its members, and someone posted it to 4AynRandFans.com forums with a link to my blog. Pretty much all of the forum members condemned me and criticized the poster for posting such trash. They dismissed me as a disenfranchised objectivist - a very silly (untrue) notion, and proceeded to pick apart my entire post. I will admit that they had some good points, and that I may have been too quick to generalize about the people on those forums, but in reading the thread, and with what happened afterward, it confirmed some of my initial skepticism about the forum.

People really let the original poster have it for posting my blog (I still don’t understand why), even though it stimulated a discussion that seemed productive - which was my original intent… not to bash anyone, but to challenge their conventions and learn from their responses.

In the end - they actually deleted the thread. They censored it!

The original person who posted the thread then started a new thread from which the following quote is extracted:

“I have recently made a post that was both crude and not worth putting on the forum, for that I am sorry.
First, let me explain my actions so you might understand that they were neither evil, nor malicious.”

He then went on with a long email defending himself but also bowing down to the community for being so bold as to paste in words from another individual who seemed to question them. Does this sound like a community that fosters free-thinking and allows the challenging of convention to you? I thought objectivist principles CHALLENGED “group-think” like tendencies!? Rather, (SOME) of these people seem to represent a new brand of “collectivist objectivists,” which I find ironical. Finally, the poster (John) thanked Betsy for deleting his thread, and said, “it means a lot.”

To the members of that forum - i’m sure that if I gave many of you a chance I would find a lot of people who are more intelligent than I am, whom I would both be interested in, and privileged to, learn from. Unfortunately, however, some of you have now confirmed my skepticism, and I feel sadly (and slightly) vindicated.

Warning - this is a disorganized rant.

Israel’s foreign policy is inherently flawed and unreasonable because it is too moderate, and because it is too focussed on a diplomatic peace that will never come.

In 1967, Israel was attacked (sadly a common occurrence). Not by a single enemy, but by all of its neighbors in the Middle East… at the same time.. from every angle. Israel pushed back its attackers and, in the process, claimed land that they believed would serve their strategic defense, a common practice in war. For the decades that have ensued, Israel has either given back or tried to give back most of this land in exchange for peace with its neighbors. When you have neighbors who are only willing to accept a single outcome: Israel being annihilated, it is very hard to use such diplomacy to achieve any real peace. Rather than accept the disputed land in exchange for peace, Israel’s neighbors have engaged in a public relations war, preferring to blame Israel for occupation of their land rather than gaining back that land in exchange for offering a promise of peace - a deal Israel has offered time and again.

The fundamental problem with Israel’s approach is that it is based on good-will and diplomacy with neighbors who themselves are unreasonable, in a world that consistently treats Israel unfairly and applies a double-standard. Hundreds of rockets are fired into Israel each day (still)… children are commonly targeted in terrorist attacks… its neighbors continually threaten to push Israel into the sea… and when ever Israel tries to defend herself - by building borders, or by attacking missile factories, or by using their military, they face disproportionate outcry from suckers throughout the world who simply do not understand the nature of the conflict.

Israel needs to learn that it can never win the PR war. That people will never treat them fairly. It’s not just that people are anti-semitic… most people are simply ignorant and do not understand the conflict… and perpetuate the propaganda that exploits the plight of the Palestinian people who are used as pawns by terrorists and powerful forces in the Middle East (namely, Iran and Syria) to add legitimacy to the terrorist approach of killing Israeli civilians.

If Israel really cared about their peace and security and looked at the situation realistically, they would stop focusing on how the world perceives them… they would cease their attempts at moderation, and they would act like most other countries of the world when its borders are threatened (U.S., Russia, France, Germany, England, Turkey, Japan, etc, etc, etc) and employ aggressive military tactics to win peace and security at all costs. Terrorists do not believe in moderation - and if we’ve learned anything over the past 100 years it’s that the only way to beat a terrorist is to cause their heart to stop beating.

If Israel placed peace and its own security as a top priority, it would indeed launch a war throughout the world to target and kill every terrorist and extremist, and every individual who supports them. I think people are smart enough to not underestimate their ability to do this.

Why does Israel refrain from pursuing its own self interest and begin a policy of killing all enemies who 1) have promised to kill them, and 2) have demonstrated the proficiency to do so? The answer is simple: in the face of threats and fear, and in the face of continuous and disgusting murder, the people of Israel continue to hold themselves to higher standards… they are fighting the terrorists without going down to their level, and without resorting to the same tactics that any other sovereign nation would use to protect themselves if they were in the same situation.

Israel is in many ways a victim of its own principles. International (and domestic) press can operate freely in Israel… something they cannot do in other Arab countries (well documented), and this leads to an unprecedented level of scrutiny. As a result, it becomes very easy to blame Israel.

I foolishly hope that one day people will look deeper into this issue and apply reason, rather than fall victim to propaganda.

Jeff Neugebauer Unveiled Choices in Feb of 2006.

““Choices” is an allegorical painting about love, and passion. Wine serves as a metaphor for the object of desire. In “Choices”, the woman has chosen the one glass of wine that suits her taste; exhibiting a subtle look of ecstasy, she discriminates against the rest. Just as in life, we make choices and forgo the others. Like his other paintings, “Choices” conveys a profound meaning about life that resonates with many of us.”

www.jeffneugebauer.com