Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
So while the Wildcats learn a few hard lessons of the workplace (bosses can be mean!), Sharpay attempts to seduce Troy with the possibility of the ambitious life, which could result in a basketball scholarship to the University of Albuquerque. Heady stuff, and our boy is tempted, much to the dismay of his friends (hence Gabriella's sad song). But this is Disney, which is to say not Ayn Rand, and so the needs of the individual will always bow to the collective, with the requisite ginormous dance number.
Of course, this shows a misunderstanding of Rand in that it's not the "collective" winning out if he really thinks it's important to follow through with his friends. If he did it because his friends made him feel guilty and he really wanted the basketball scholarship and went with his friends begrudgingly and with resentment, then the interpretation would be right. As it stands, it is Disney, and a Disney kid would think it was more important to stick with his friends than to see himself with a really promising future. Go figure.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Welcome to the August 16, 2007 edition of objectivist round up. There are a number of great contributions this week. Wonderful insights to great sense-of-life posts are found here.
Ergo presents Why Choose to Live? posted at Leitmotif, saying, "Is the choice to live a pre-moral choice? If so, then why should anyone ought to choose life? I attempt to offer an answer to these questions."
Rational Jenn presents Parenting With Objectivist Principles: Honesty posted at Rational Jenn, saying, "This time, I considered different ways my husband and I demonstrate and promote the virtue of Honesty to our kids."
Flibbert presents Define Discrimination posted at Flibbertigibbet, saying, "This week it's far less swearing and cursing, but only thanks to the mountain of self-restraint I keep piled up around my computer. Apparently there's a church in Texas that won't do funerals for gay men, but they don't call it discrimination. But as usual it's not the hate and discrimination that bother me, it's the dishonesty."
That concludes this jam-packed, full of information and good bits, edition of our carnival. Submit your blog article to the next edition of objectivist round up using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page. If you are interested in hosting drop me a line.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Philadelphia is a great place to visit with American History coming up this year. There's the Betsy Ross house, the meeting location of the First Continental Congress, Independence Hall where much of the business of revolution was decided, and the Liberty Bell, which was rung to announce the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence.
Have a great weekend!
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Bill Brown presents An Inconvenient Uncertainty posted at bblog. Getting a handle on the state of science, not consensus.
Stella presents Lybrel: A study in wasted resources posted at ReasonPharm. The FDA and a discussion how it affects prescriptions and insurance coverage.
Rational Jenn presents Compulsory Education Versus Compulsory Attendance posted at Rational Jenn. What the government can and can't mandate (as opposed to should, of course).
Craig Ceely presents The politics -- and economics -- of Prohibition posted at The Anger of Compassion. How can economics drive politics?
Aaron presents The Tie posted at Thought Laboratory. Swimming against the tide (no pun, right?) of casual dress.
Flibbert presents Doggess, Please posted at Flibbertigibbet. A post discussing the recent NYC council attempts. Not for the faint-of-heart when it comes to vulgarities. I definitely learned at least one new term!
I present Another Article Attacking a Neo-Atheist and Promoting Religion posted at Kim's Play Place. I have spent time looking at articles about the slew of recent anti-religion books and articles in response. I do not have the arguments in this debate down pat. In checking out this article, though, something struck me. The true division between the "new" atheists and religion is shown. And I've seen it somewhere before....
That concludes this wonderful collection. If you would like to submit your blog article to the next edition of objectivist round up, please use our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.
If you like the carnival, please consider: hosting, posting, or putting up a post so readers can find the current one!
As a big "thank you" to all of the bloggers who submitted and helped me discover so many great reads out there, all of the submitters' names went into a hat for a drawing for a $10 Amazon gift certificate! Rational Jenn is the lucky winner. The Amazon gift certificate is electronic so as soon as I figure it out, you should see it in your inbox. I won't be able to do this regularly (not having an income and all), but may choose to do so again in the future.
Let the little ones see how late they can stay up!
To see the show, one need only find a comfortable spot with a clear view of the northeast horizon, away from local lights. A dark rural location is best. Lie back on a blanket or lounge chair and scan the entire sky. In the late evening, starting around 9 p.m. local time, sharp-eyed observers might see "earthgrazing" meteors that skim the northeast horizon.
Professor Ulf Leonhardt and Dr Thomas Philbin, from the University of St Andrews in Scotland, have worked out a way of reversing this pheneomenon, known as the Casimir force, so that it repels instead of attracts.
Their discovery could ultimately lead to frictionless micro-machines with moving parts that levitate But they say that, in principle at least, the same effect could be used to levitate bigger objects too, even a person.
Instead, within the space of minimal but significant structure and discipline, I ended up doing a lot of reading and thinking about life and its possibilities. I remember, in particular, reading Atlas Shrugged that first summer on countless subway rides. After I’d emerge from a station, I’d reflect on the story. And with New York’s great skyscrapers as a backdrop—towering symbols of human aspiration—I grew excited by my own prospects. I wanted to strive for excellence in one endeavor or another while also never forgetting that anyone and everyone I might meet, from college professors to corporate CEOs to the old men who sat on the benches in Battery Park, harboring lifetimes of unshared wisdom in their hearts—potentially had something to teach me.
I'm always heartened to know that Ayn Rand's work has helped others to see man's excellence.
Monday, August 06, 2007
“It’s very plausible that something like this could have happened to Jane, but it’s equally plausible that it didn’t,” says Hathaway, whose own favorite book is “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand. “It’s a love story, but it’s also a portrait of an artist."
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Disturbing indeed. But where Dawkins goes wrong is to assume this is all as irrational as believing in God. The truth is that it is the collapse of religious faith that has prompted the rise of such irrationality.
We are living in a scientific, largely post-religious age in which faith is presented as unscientific superstition. Yet paradoxically, we have replaced such faith by belief in demonstrable nonsense.
It was GK Chesterton who famously quipped that "when people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything." So it has proved. But how did it happen?
The heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the belief in the concept of truth, which gives rise to reason. But our postreligious age has proclaimed that there is no such thing as objective truth, only what is "true for me".
That is because our society won't put up with anything which gets in the way of 'what I want'. How we feel about things has become all-important. So reason has been knocked off its perch by emotion, and thinking has been replaced by feelings.
This has meant our society can no longer distinguish between truth and lies by using evidence and logic. And this collapse of objective truth has, in turn, come to undermine science itself which is playing a role for which it is not fitted.
When science first developed in the West, it thought of itself merely as a tool to explore the natural world. It did not pour scorn upon religion; indeed, scientists were overwhelmingly religious believers (as many still are).
In modern times, however, science has given rise to 'scientism', the belief that science can answer all the questions of human existence. This is not so.
Science cannot explain the origin of the universe. Yet it now presumes to do so and as a result it has descended into irrationality.
The most conspicuous example of this is provided by Dawkins himself, who breaks the rules of scientific evidence by seeking to claim that Darwin's theory of evolution - which sought to explain how complex organisms evolved through random natural selection - also accounts for the origin of life itself.
There is no evidence for this whatever and no logic to it. After all, if people say God could not have created the universe because this gives rise to the question "Who created God?", it follows that if scientists say the universe started with a big bang, this prompts the further question "What created the bang?"
The ending is pretty weak. Talking about how "intelligent design" promoters are shot down by not obeying the scientific principle of evidence in support of one's theory and then stating that some scientists are ignoring that principle well. She does hit on a couple of important points. She discovers the exact false dilemma that Leonard Peikoff discusses in his "Disintegration, Integration, and Misintegration (DIM)" hypothesis. Most people are only aware of religion (truth handed down from "on-high") and subjectivism (anything goes because you can't know anything anyway). I am lucky enough to know that I can have a solid basis for knowledge and values that is anchored in reality, not religion.
What it comes down to, is that because this columnist doesn't know about Objectivism, she gives a bogus argument for religion because it is anti-scepticism.
As a step-mother to a girl who was 11 when she began wearing make-up, got her hair highlighted, and had her first "boyfriend," I can see the damage this type of leniency has done. She was so concerned with her looks and social life and friends that she has no academic ambition at all. School is a place she goes to get away from her mom and hang out with her friends and boyfriend. Not a place where anything actually sinks into her grey-matter.
Just imagine how these girls will turn out. The moms express "concern" but say they feel powerless to stop it, or just feel like "maybe it's too much." If you can't put your foot down about this kind of stuff that oversexualizes and over-emphasizes appearance, is there anything that will be enforced? Some choice quotes:
At the weekends, it takes longer. Bethany — who has £70 worth of beauty treatments each week, including a spray tan, pedicure, manicure and eyebrow wax — applies St Tropez blusher, pink eye shadow and mascara. [That is a LOT of makeup! FOR A NINE YEAR-OLD!!]
She prefers to use a Chanel foundation over her moisturiser, but as her 37-year-old mother Catherine, a qualified beautician, puts it, perhaps somewhat mildly: "She's a bit young for that."
She has a point. Bethany is nine years old.
"It started when she was eight, and wanted highlights putting in her hair and her ears pierced. She said all her friends were having it done and so I let her. She's a determined girl, who likes to be thought of as cool. [Her mom is letting her give in to peer pressure. What about helping to develop character?]
"In many ways she isn't a child at all — her obsessions are clothes, hair and make-up.
"She adores pink clothes and goes out wearing tiny tops showing her tummy, skinny jeans and her Ugg boots.
Cheryl is divorced and also has a 14-year-old son, Caspar. Despite paying for her little girl's waxing treatments, she does admit to being disturbed by the way her daughter dances.
"She does all this very sexy dancing, 'shaking your booty' I think it's called. [Her mom allows her to idolize Britney Spears and Victoria Beckham. If you idolize someone who dances like a sex-pot and you're allowed to watch her video (where else could she be learning these move from?) or go to dances with significantly older kids, that's what you're going to do. Her mom could tell her if she dances like that she's not allowed to go out. Hmm--what an idea!]
But she has no idea how sexual the moves are. I wonder what's going to be left for her when she actually becomes a teenager — where is it all headed?" [Precisely. If she's already acting and being treated like a teenager at 11 years old, exactly what do you think she'll feel she's entitle to at 14? That her mom won't feel like she can or won't be able to stop.]
Indeed. Though it's impossible not to feel that Cheryl only has herself to blame for encouraging Belle to dress like an 18-year-old. [Ya think??]
Surely, she and Bethany's mother Catherine could stop pandering to their daughters' unhealthy obsession with their looks and refuse to pay for it? [Again, ya think??]
Catherine says: "If her nails need doing or the tan needs topping up, Bethany complains she doesn't feel right - a feeling lots of women can associate with." [Uh, only it's age appropriate for women and even then, lots of women have to make the choice between lattes, manicure, drinks out, or rent. These children are given everything without a sense of proportion or trade-off.]
Of course, the uncomfortable truth is that, like Belle, Bethany is not a woman, she's a child, one of thousands of young girls being bombarded by society's confused and damaging messages as they grow up — messages it appears are being reinforced by their mothers.
At a recent family party, Catherine recalls how a 14-year-old boy pursued her nine-year-old daughter.
"He wouldn't leave her alone all night, which made me feel very uncomfortable," says Catherine, who runs a furniture business with husband David, 42, in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire. [A family party and she didn't step in? With the way she allows and encourages her daughter to dress as if she's older, certainly others will pick up on that message too and assume she is ready and willing to do things like an older kid. Perhaps that's what the kid wants? I'm glad her mom had the decency to be uncomfortable rather than admiring her daughter for being able to attract "older" guys.]
Pause for thought for Elima Jackson who spends £200 a month on beauty treatments for her ten-year-old twin daughters, Karolina and Daniela.
Both girls, who have modelled children's swimwear and dressing up costumes for Toys R Us, have expensive highlighted hair and go to a beauty salon near their home in Westgate-on-Sea in Kent each week to have manicures.
They may not be allowed to wear make-up to school, but they won't leave the house without running straighteners through their hair and spritzing themselves with Barbie perfume.
Far from being horrified that her ten-year-olds are obsessed with their looks, Elima, 30, encourages them.
She says: "I'm glad they like to look after themselves from such a young age."
And Cheryl is all too aware of the conflicts at the heart of her daughter Belle's world.
She says: "She is conscious of her body image and is always saying things like: 'I am far too fat, my stomach is too big.'
"She's still got a little girl's body, and she thinks there is something wrong with her because she doesn't look like a woman yet.
"One day last year she came downstairs wearing a tiny mini skirt with stockings," she recalls.
"She looked like a mini prostitute, and I had to tell her to get changed. She looks 14. It's frightening, but I don't know what I can do to stop her acting and dressing like a mini adult." [Maybe getting rid of TV, fan magazines, any Gossip Girl and Clique books, and magazines for 17 year-olds. To say that she doesn't know what to do means she's either not trying, not willing to put in the hard work now that it has gotten this far, or hasn't read anything about parenting. She's the parent!]
The Daily Mail columnist Bel Mooney, who lectures on the role pornography plays in society, says: "Go into town centres and you see pre-teen girls dressed as go-go dancers in mini skirts or navel-showing jeans with skimpy crop tops over their flat chests.
"Do parents have to hammer the nails in the coffin of innocence themselves?"
Set stories such as this together with the release of a UN study in February which said British children were the unhappiest and unhealthiest in the developed world, and a very worrying picture of Britain's young girls begins to emerge.
And what is especially worrying of all is the role of parents in all this and what appears to be an increasing inability to say 'no'.
Belle's mother Cheryl says: "I suppose the obvious response is that I could stop her, but the trouble is all her friends are dressing and acting like this, and she says it would make her too different." [Now would be the time to enforce the idea that your family rule don't change because of other people. A bit of difference is always a good thing, and about this kind of stuff, it's a great thing. Besides, is it true that all her friends are doing it?]
Elima, mother of Karolina and Daniela, adds: "My partner rolls his eyes at the girls' beauty regime and says they should be concentrating on their studies.
"But I don't see anything wrong with what they are doing."
Meanwhile Catherine says her husband David is unhappy about Bethany's obsession with beauty.
"He's always telling her: 'You've got to be a child and that means you shouldn't be standing in front of the mirror putting make-up on.'
"I wouldn't let her wear heels or low-cut tops because that definitely sexualises children, but I don't worry about Bethany wearing make-up." [What is this woman thinking?]
There is, unfortunately, much more in the full article (including pictures). For mothers and fathers of five and six year-olds, it is NOT too early to start thinking about the type of eight year-old you're willing to have in your house. Reasonable boundaries need to be set and followed. Give your girls a chance to have self-esteem apart from their appearance. Allow them to do things! Show them how to play chess, build stuff, cook, make something they can use (not some standard school craft, but something real). Allow them to feel accomplished in other areas.
And the first time they ask for make up, and every time they ask thereafter, set down the law. My daughters aren't allowed to any colored make up until the summer before high school (cover up for pimples and such will be OK). And then it will be brought in slowly, as she shows she can be responsible with it.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Hopefully some of the research they support will actually be well-done and useful. One can always hope. We got to where we are now with vague ideas and no research.
How does he feel now that the Mail has broken to him the news that he has a half-sister whose daughter is one of Hollywood's most high-profile stars?
"Good on her," he says of Keira. "I'm very pleased for her. It's nice to have a niece who is known and proficient in her calling. Someone who does a job well should get all the plaudits they deserve.
"But that's her life. It's not mine. I am who I am. I'm very pleased about it, but it won't change my life one jot. Why should it? The cult of celebrity has passed me by."
As for whether he will get in touch, his reaction is an antidote to our Big Brother worshipping society.
"I am somewhat ambivalent. You don't want to intrude in other people's lives. I hate the modern way of hugs and tears and all that."
What a great response. He appreciates people's good work, he understands that just because one shares a biological bond does not necessitate an emotional one when one never existed, and doesn't seek unearned fame. Sounds like the kind of person more youngsters could learn from.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Mark Patterson kicked, choked and wrestled a cougar to rescue a 12-year-old boy from the jaws of the big cat..
Patterson said five soccer kicks to the cat's head were not enough to wrench the boy's head from the animal's mouth. So he put a chokehold on the cougar "and squeezed as hard as I could, and he finally let go."
The cougar finally slinked away as Patterson's wife stood nearby armed with a meat cleaver. Later Wednesday, park conservation officers shot and killed the cougar near the community of Clinton.
And then come the inevitable excuses for the animal:
Conservation officer Rod Olsen said the cougar may have mistaken the boy for a deer or mountain sheep because the attack occurred in an area where such prey is common.
Why can't some people ever accept the idea that wild predators can and will attack humans? Predators instinctually go after anything they think would make a good meal. Heck, even my dog will try to take down the kids if they run around and trigger his predator instincts. By take down, I mean he'll run after them and jump on them. But, as all dog trainers will tell you, even a dog you believe is safe can be triggered in some way by the behavior of people around them.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
The front window of their sturdy mountain home had been smashed, and when Danny Hyde, a school principal, opened the front door, he discovered that a bear and two cubs had taken up residence.
The Lake Tahoe area is experiencing a rise in home invasions by bears.
Ann Bryant, executive director of the BEAR League, which promotes human-bear co-existence, estimates there are five bear break-ins around Lake Tahoe every night. Jason Holley, a wildlife biologist with the California Department of Fish and Game, believes the number is twice that.
She tries to modify the behavior of bears and humans but says bears are easier to retrain than humans.
She urges residents to remove food from vacant houses and install double locks, double window panes, shutters, barking-dog alarms and metal containers, or bear boxes, with keys to secure garbage.
Ms. Bryant recalls one morning feeling a nudge on her elbow while stirring oatmeal. A bear wanted breakfast.
Adult black bears can weigh as much as 400 pounds, and while many have lost their fear of humans, they are capable of inflicting harm.
Once a bear becomes a nuisance, California residents can request a depredation permit to have it killed, although that creates new risks. Recently one homeowner found his bear trap sabotaged and signs posted with his name, phone number and the appellation “bear killer.”
“I feel violated. There’s a predator out there who wants something I have,” said Mr. Hyde, who admits he feels conflicted. “Nobody wants a depredation permit because of the residual community reaction.”
His wife, Catherine, said, “There’s no good solution.”
So bears break into houses, show no fear of people, and have more offspring that they're teaching to do the same. And somehow humans are supposed to co-exist with the bears?
Once you've shown a bear is a menace, your neighbors will harass you and prevent you from following the law because they love the menacing bear? Life loving people who don't want bears in their kitchen are supposed to be "retrained" by these animal lovers?
How inhumane and condescending. As though humans are worse than the wild animals and that we should have to make way for marauding wild life.
Oh, wait...That's what I imagine Gwen Stefani would have said if we lived in a world that made sense. Instead, she has modified her show and allowed the backwardness to win out even though if she had been in Malaysia she would have probably been flogged by now for her work.
Edukey points to this article featuring former president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Gail Burrill.
Welcome to the August 2, 2007 edition of objectivist round up.
Kim (that's me!) presents A Worrying Nexus of Hate Crime Law and Religion posted at Kim's Play Place, saying, "Volokh Conspiracy sees a troubling opening using hate crime laws to punish blasphemy." Christopher Hitchens offers more in Slate (from the Harry Binswanger E-mail List).
Rational Jenn presents Parenting With Objectivist Principles and posted at Two Great Books for Kids, saying, "On the Parenting with Objectivist Priniciples, I am planning several more posts, each focusing on a different virtue." I am looking forward to more of such posts.
For those who were paying attention, you'll note there was no surprise this time around--except for the great posts, of course. Next week will bring a drawing for a nominal monetary value prize from all of the submitters to next week's carnival as a thanks for being part of this new endeavor!
Again, if you would like to host--drop a line and let me know. Thanks! You can reach me using the contact link on the blog carnival box on the sidebar.
That more bottled water may mean less support for public water, I cannot countenance that argument. Even though people do not want to drink tap water, they still need to cook, clean, brush their teeth and shower. Only the most wealthy can afford their own private water supply for that. Most city dwellers will continue to desire healthy, clean water for those purposes. What an overwrought argument. Those of us with children may choose city water for their drinking water for the flouride, too.
People should take the cost of bottled water into account in their decision whether to drink it or tap. Government should not force people to drink water that though safe, may be unpalatable.
...Austin Lampros received a copy of the school’s grading policy. He took particular note of the stipulation that a student who attended class even once during a semester, who did absolutely nothing else, was to be given 45 points on the 100-point scale, just 20 short of a passing mark.
...Arts and Technology’s principal, Anne Geiger, overruled Mr. Lampros and passed a senior whom he had failed in a required math course.
That student, Indira Fernandez, had missed dozens of class sessions and failed to turn in numerous homework assignments, according to Mr. Lampros’s meticulous records, which he provided to The New York Times. She had not even shown up to take the final exam. She did, however, attend the senior prom.
Ms. Geiger ... characterized her actions as part of a “standard procedure” of “encouraging teachers to support students’ efforts to achieve academic success.”
The issue here is not a violation of rules or regulations. [emphasis added] Ms. Geiger acted within the bounds of the teachers’ union’s contract with the city, by providing written notice to Mr. Lampros of her decision.
...The principal and officials in the Department of Education say that he missed 24 school days during the last year for illness and personal reasons. He missed two of the three sets of parent-teacher conferences. He also had conflicts with an assistant principal, Antonio Arocho, over teaching styles. Mr. Lampros said all of this was true.
The written record, in the form of the minutely detailed charts Mr. Lampros maintained to determine student grades, supports his account. Colleagues of his from the school — a counselor, a programmer, several fellow teachers — corroborated key elements of his version of events. They also describe a principal worried that the 2006 graduation rate of 72.5 percent would fall closer to 50 or 60 percent unless teachers came up with ways to pass more students.
Both the teacher and the administrators are to blame. The teacher missed parent-teacher conferences.
The administration bears the brunt of the animosity, though, because of their underhanded tactics in meeting a goal that was supposed to mean increased school performance but is now just another metric to be side-stepped and boosted up through any means.
The article states that it is not an issue that Geiger was following the rules and regulations that were part of the teacher union contract. I disagree. I don't understand how a teacher union contract could allow a grade change when the student, according to all records, failed, failed, and failed again.
Every year when municipal budgets are debated throughout Connecticut, a terrible irony takes place. A massive bite - more than half the total budget - is off-limits for discussion. It has already been decided by a handful of people months, maybe years before the budget presentation. That huge bite is the teachers' salary and benefit contract. And it is irrevocable
With few exceptions, the contract, usually written for three years, is negotiated behind closed doors, routinely approved by local boards of education, submitted to the city council or board of selectmen and, absent any public comment, quietly approved.
The irony is that, for the fraction of the budget not concerned with teacher salaries, town officials conduct public hearings replete with charts, graphs, comparisons, projections and speeches. But the lion's share remains insulated and unexplained year after year. Before the curtain falls on yet another three-year shutout in many Connecticut municipalities, towns and cities must change this model.
Labor negotiations between municipalities and certified teachers are governed by the Connecticut Teacher Negotiation Act. According to the CTNA, the local legislative body, upon receipt of the contract, may remain silent for 30 days and the contract is deemed to have been approved. It can, of course, approve or reject the contact within the proscribed 30 days. Should it reject the contract, a cascading torrent of time-sensitive strictures engulfs the municipality in various levels of arbitration.
The state statutes, however, do not prohibit a public presentation. In fact, the local legislative body (city council, board of selectmen, etc.) has full authority to decide how much or how little public input it will allow, from no discussion whatsoever to an all-day referendum.
In a perfect world, negotiations would be held in the open, with the public invited to observe. Let municipalities bring them out of the shadows, where they have languished for decades. It's time for towns and cities to show respect for taxpayers, who fund these contracts. Open the book and start a new chapter. It's the right thing to do.
This is a great point. Our local district mandated an 18% increase in teacher salaries over a three year period when the average raise in wages for the rest of us was 2.5%. These contracts should be open for public discussion as long as the public is paying. The school districts always pretend that there's nothing that can be done about the contract when budget time comes around. Only something can be done about the contract when it is being negotiated.
Nietzsche: Your mama is dead.
Schrödinger: I shut the box and opened it again. And there was your mama!
Locke: In a natural state, your mama is so dumb, she tried to set the tabula rasa with Chinette.
Rousseau: In man's natural state, man is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. But then he saw your mama and decided inherently ugly.
Ayn Rand: Man - all of mankind - is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. But your mama is so fat, this means she never ends.
Hegel: Your mama is so fat she broke the dialectical cycle.
There are more (if you think you can stand it) at the link!
I hope a full report details what caused the collapse and I expect that most construction firms and the contracts that hire them will enact safeguards to prevent a similar collapse in the future. It will be interesting to see if the repairs were responsible or some original engineering or material flaw.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Escheat is a feudal concept that arose from the despotism of the Dark Ages. It stemmed from the principle that property rights depend upon the sufferance of the sovereign, and when a person dies or disappears without heirs, his property reverts to the feudal lord.
California revived this medieval doctrine in 1959 and began seizing personal assets on the smarmy pretext that after a few years of account or safe-deposit box inactivity, property is obviously "lost," and the state needs to "protect" it by selling it off and depositing the proceeds into the general fund.
They seize assets after three years of inactivity. They would have seized my 401K from my first job five times over by now. I would hate to have that go missing when I'm looking at retirement.
Thanks to my second grader's course with Mr. Powell, I actually know what escheat is and so does she!
This problem has made me consider buying American (or at least not Chinese) more than any "Buy American" campaign ever could. Of course not poisoning my children is more of an incentive than propping up uncompetitive American businesses that suffer from too much government regulation, taxation, and mandated unions.
I was already to ignore this story because the baby is generally unharmed. Until I read the following quote:
John Calchera, a pet store owner in nearby Pineville, took in the constrictor snake. He thinks it may have been abandoned by a pet owner and that it won't survive being beaten.
"It's a totally harmless thing," he said. "Why attack a harmless thing?"
OK--The snake bit and wrapped itself around the leg of a 15 month old--and the pet store owner calls it harmless. Regardless of what he seems to think, it is a predator and you don't get to be a predator by being harmless. Idiot.
Jolie recently indicated the adoptions of her children likely would force postponing a number of film projects, but that obviously has not been the case. Along with ''Wanted'' (also starring Morgan Freeman and James McAvoy), Jolie is also providing voice talent for the upcoming ''Beowulf'' and ''Kung Fu Panda''; starring in ''The Changeling,'' and is expected soon to begin the long-delayed ''Atlas Shrugged,'' based on the Ayn Rand novel.
I am excited to see Ayn Rand's epic translated to the big screen, though dubious about how it will play out in only two hours. A great hero, as can be envisioned through Objectivism, is sure to be a hit.
Announcing the carnival on your own blog can help gain exposure for Objectivist bloggers and introduce a new blog that others may not know about!