caroljane

Can't wait to hear Daunce's comments on that. Delighted. Compare/contrast Rand and Thatcher is a really interesting exercise. I think the movie reviewer got it right. Thatcher and Rand both identified heroism with masculinity. The big difference was that Thatcher early found her heroes in realworld men, most importantly her father whom she loved and admired. He was the independent businessman of the "nation of shopkeepers" she came to champion.She had living and historical political heroes such as Churchill to look up to. She found a husband she could both love and admire, and a deeply fulfilling marriage to sustain her in her work. She approached men as equals, although she recognized that many of them were not her equal - and those she did indeed look down on. Rand 's early heroes were fictional and she could not admire her father. Her whole life was in part a search for a man who could put flesh on the spirit of Hugo's heroic creations, and her own. She had an intense need to worship that hero, not realizing that heroism has no gender. She could not be her own hero, as Thatcher could. Thanks, Daunce. The reviewer seems to disagree with you about Thatcher, suggesting that the reason she is depicted as holding on to the delusional presence of her late husband had directly to do with the “price” a woman pays for holding power over men. The reviewer thinks the use of this particular plot device in the film suggests that Rand was right about the psychology of women in general. Thatcher’s sense of her own femininity suffered because she also felt that heroism was, from a psycho-sexual perspective, gender-based. BTW, according to Anne Heller, Ayn also admired her father, and even wrote about him as Kira’s Uncle Vasili in We, The Living. She also thought he was quite handsome. It’s possible that her father may be one reason she always romanticized men in the way she did. Her father also admired his daughter’s intelligence and independence. It was Rand’s mother that she disliked. Thanks for the corrections, Dennis. Not having seen the movie, I obviously just went with my own impressions of the two women and my facts were wrong (I have not read Heller either). I had the idea that her father disappointed her because he could not "save" the family from the devastations of the Bolsheviks; that he could not be a hero to her. I did know that she did not care for her mother. Thatcher may well have seen herself as "doing a man's job" because there were no capable men to do it; but do you think she would have yielded place in her political career to a man, even one of abilities equal to hers, just because he was a man? She certainly paid a heavy emotional price for her success, yet she demonstrated the heroism in women, though she may not have believed in it herself.

Of course RL will be fine financially. But with him as their leading popular spokesman, will the Republicans be fine politically?

We're all enjoying the Phil-free air, let's not be beckoning him back. Here it is on Gutenberg.org http://www.gutenberg...98-h/1998-h.htm When you're done, for dessert, you can look at some of the early Wodehouse on the same site. What if it is against my principles to read important philosophical works in translation? (How long is Zarathustra anyway?) Hmmm? I mean, if I don't know the original language, how can I know the translators are trustworthy? I would have to rely on second hand information and not use my own judgment. Those translators could have their own agenda.... Look at the Big Code and the Big Other -- what were the original words in what language? Maybe anything can "translate" as anything if you are postmodernist, it is only slippery old language after all. Personal to Xray: Could you read that Nietszche book and give me the rundown? I'll pay you back! Your bff Carol

Sounds good! I dunno though...it's only eight months, that really isn't enough time for me to read a whole German book and find a date... ...

Carol: We would have to get that from testimonial statements because the active duty military cannot comment on certain issues. Great question though. Adam Thanks. I have heard that his listeners are predominantly male (as are the armed forces of course ) but don't know if that's true or not. Most civilian radio listeners are alone in their cars etc. but I was thinking in the service it would be more of a group listening situation; interesting scenario .

Er um, CBC, Toronto Star? You know I get my news the dinosaur way from the dread CMSM and my only link to the Real Truth is OL!

I read that Rush's show is broadcast to the Armed Forces. I would love to know how the women soldiers like it. Would it depend on their political orientation?

After 100 years, roughly the age of a certain great nation, the verdict is in: the ultimate human/animal ancestor, the great-grandperson of us all, is a Canadian! The brain was the size of a comma, but there definitely was a spine, and wormlike it slithered off British Columbia 500 million years ago, reproducing I know not how. Make all the jokes you want, but nous tous sommes canadiens aujourd'hui! Gracie (Carol Jane Pikaia Gracilens Stuart Lynam)

You remember those Super PACs that O'bama condemned at his State of Disunion speech, right? Those Super PACs that O'bama said he would absolutely shun. Those Super PACs that Obama said were evil. That is where Bill Maher gave the million dollars to. Since O'bama has already gone back on his "moral position" concerning the use of Super Pacs, he should keep the alleged misogynist's million as a lesson to his daughters? Right? Adam I am so confused... All I know about the supper Pacs is that they are legal in the US, and look like arms-length influence peddling at an astronomical level. I don't know about O's moral position. But I think he should repudiate money with strings attached or with misogynist political associations, yes. Good. We agree. I would apply the same standard to the Mittens on the Republican side. What about the other candidates? I don't know about any of their big-money donors except for Gingrich's Las Vagas high roller.

You remember those Super PACs that O'bama condemned at his State of Disunion speech, right? Those Super PACs that O'bama said he would absolutely shun. Those Super PACs that Obama said were evil. That is where Bill Maher gave the million dollars to. Since O'bama has already gone back on his "moral position" concerning the use of Super Pacs, he should keep the alleged misogynist's million as a lesson to his daughters? Right? Adam I am so confused... All I know about the supper Pacs is that they are legal in the US, and look like arms-length influence peddling at an astronomical level. I don't know about O's moral position. But I think he should repudiate money with strings attached or with misogynist political associations, yes.

I doubt that Maher's $1 million, or the relatively small influence he has on voters (he has little to none on the Democratic Party itself from what I can gather) has much to do with omitting that reference. There is a valid point to be made about misogynistic mudslinging. But one-off misogynist comments are not comparable to sustained allegations of prostitution and speculations on the personal sexuality of a private citizen, albeit an activist one who put herself into the public spotlight. Women (and men) who run for public office open themselves to every sort of personal examination and comment. The insults to Palin etal were sexist, but they were based on perceived lack of knowledge and/or intelligence about the jobs they were applying for, couched in sexist language, from the context of political opposition. As I said before, I don't like Bill Maher and I think he is a misogynist and more than a little crazy. Limbaugh is much more powerful and not crazy at all; his statements are politically calculated. This time he miscalculated. He thought he was shooting fish in a barrel and now he is, if not swimming with sharks, being nipped at by piranhas in a fishtank.

By way of rebuttal of the thesis of Peikoff's talk A Picture is Not an Argument, here's a little something that provides the answer. Credit where due: the original idea was mine and Jonathan executed it, though in this case he substantially improved on the idea, so, the credit's about 99% his. I call it Pope Peikoff Preens with Parrots. The one at the top is supposed to be a "Norwegian Blue", for all you fellow Python fans out there. Beautiful plumage! Would the Norwegian Blue be nailed to its perch by any chance? Kudos to J and you for a masterwork. You keep making me get pleasure* out of visual art where I never previously knew there was any to be had, The most striking thing to me about LP's comedown on rape, was his explanation that his whole original spiel was based entirely on his feelings. He hated the people whoever they were who criticized Kobe, a rich successful person, so knowing zero about the rape case, he expressed those feelings as we saw. Words fail me. Rush Limbaugh could take lessons from him. or maybe he has. *Consensually!

My bet is he will have about the same. As I said in post above. I do think he was unwise to boast about having turned down advertisers, however. The ones he turned down might consider replacing the ones he lost..... and they might negotiate a big discount for their previous hurt feelings.

Not just Americans. I have read excerpts from Willis's book though not the whole. The Gettysburg Address is one of the most sombrely beautiful, ringingly noble documents in all of human history.

I think this is just a temporary setback for Rush, he will always have his audience. But he might lose some of his Murdoch-like grip on the GOP - mightn't he?

I always mind you, Michael. I am interested in your individualistic take on class. You don't have the mindset to think of women as a "class", quite rightly in my view. Aside from being minds with wombs, as men are minds with testicles, we can all be classified according to whatever socioeconomic group we fall into, or classify ourselves. It's the framework within which we live and think. You also don't have a "class warfare" mindset; yet in the bitter ideological divisions played out on all levels in the US now, are there not "wars or rumours of war", where the ideas and ideals are translated into dollars and cents and bodies and lives?

Come on Adam, you are ecstatic when the other side makes unclever blunders that you can pounce on, that is politics. I did not realize the immense influence he had before this. If we have an equivalent to him here I guess it would be Don Cherry, who is a right wing hockey commentator. I don't mind him. For the record, from what I have seen of Bill Maher, I don't like him either. It could just boil down to personal taste in satire and wit.

OK I looked it up. He sent a written apology, then on the show he said it was sincere and "I again apologize". So I guess that makes two non-apologies.

According to this report he's lost 9 advertisers and is even losing stations. I'm afraid any apologies are too little, too late. http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews It was such a stupid and pointlessly nasty thing for him to say. It's enough to make me look back on Bill Buckley wistfully. Me, too. There was a great boxing match between Buckley and (I think) Julia Child on SCTV. Saying something stupid and pointlessly nasty once is forgivable, but saying it for three solid days makes the apologies a little hard to swallow.

Carol: She is not a "slut," but her "supporters" sure use the word a lot. By his "second apology," you are referring to what? Adam He apologized again didn't he? I read it on the yahoo news homepage - I think! - I will check, maybe it was the first one but I was sure he said "again".

Hi guys, Now that you have given that slut Fluke and those whimpering leftist men another good whomping, I wonder if you have any comment on Limbaugh's second "apology" ? I thought it was fairly humorous though I only read the text, I did not hear his tone of voice.

Can't wait to hear Daunce's comments on that. Delighted. Compare/contrast Rand and Thatcher is a really interesting exercise. I think the movie reviewer got it right. Thatcher and Rand both identified heroism with masculinity. The big difference was that Thatcher early found her heroes in realworld men, most importantly her father whom she loved and admired. He was the independent businessman of the "nation of shopkeepers" she came to champion.She had living and historical political heroes such as Churchill to look up to. She found a husband she could both love and admire, and a deeply fulfilling marriage to sustain her in her work. She approached men as equals, although she recognized that many of them were not her equal - and those she did indeed look down on. Rand 's early heroes were fictional and she could not admire her father. Her whole life was in part a search for a man who could put flesh on the spirit of Hugo's heroic creations, and her own. She had an intense need to worship that hero, not realizing that heroism has no gender. She could not be her own hero, as Thatcher could.

William, That's no problem. How about a little rape for real at an OWS rally with the downtrodden? There's plenty of that to be had. Michael Michael, that reply is unworthy of you. I thought you were against hate, per se. Because others are despicable, does that excuse ourselves (or our spokespeople) from being the same?

I looked at your blog. It's cute! Is it, like, viral? '?I can't catch anything can I? Are you sure you know where Darren's been? Um, where are the people of higher intelligence we can learn from?

Fair enough. If my memory serves me correctly, you do not listen to the show. So how do you make an evaluation of him? Again, I thought Rush totally missed in his satire. It was humorous, but I knew it was missing the mark. Adam I have listened to his show exactly once, for an hour, one of the longest of my life. It was while I was driving across Canada between coffee stops, very tired and needed the radio to keep me awake, and by a fluke (no pun intended) of reception, the only station that came in carried him, yelling about Obama the MARXIST, I forget the issue he was hammering on, but on and on, the MARXIST< THE MARXIST, really he just yelled it for an hour. Sometimes he lowered the voice a little but believe me I heard no satire, no humour, just the yelling. I thought at first it was a commercial but it didn't stop. Needless to say it did not make a good impression on me but it did keep me awake and I got to Riviere du Loup in record time, I have never driven so fast in my life.