What do you think this portends for America? And are you at all unnerved by the sickness of the skit and the audience cheering for it?

i actually started to read ayn rand just bcoz i became an atheist just a month ago…but now,i am very very happy that she gave answers to few of my quests and will be giving it all my life through her objectivism….
and thanx for ur tweets bot…

http://fetch.noxsolutions.com/schiff/audio/JessePeterson_032812.mp3 (Martin – Zimmerman story – 20 minutes audio)

Peter Schiff interviews Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder and president of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), on the real tragedy of the Trayvon Martin killing.

Peter Schiff interviews Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder and president of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), on the real tragedy of the Trayvon Martin killing.

http://newmedia.ufm.edu/gsm/index.php?title=La_Rebeli%C3%B3n_de_Atlas&p=video1&b=1208&e=2410

Even if you can’t understand Spanish, the spirit should be evident.

Ringer probably got it from Mencken. I slightly misquoted it. The correct version is listed below.

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

Puritanism is that haunting fear that someone, somewhere is happy.

http://www.edge.org/documents/whatnow/whatnow_deutsch.html

The next link is a video of a speech he gave at TED in July 2005
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/david_deutsch_on_our_place_in_the_cosmos.html
Environmentalists may not like it.

All the best.
Harold

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Fusion Power)

As I pointed out on my FaceBook page regarding this issue, it is not as if the man is proposing to cut off her right arm. Sex is a very enjoyable activity for both them man and the woman, and to have all sorts of things specified ahead of time kills the exploration of each other’s bodies during sex.

I will also note that none of Ayn Rand’s heroic female characters had this sort of problem with regard to sex. In fact, Dominique loved Roark for the way he took her without explicit permission, and Dagny loved Fransisco for not asking her ahead of time.

Peikoff is still claiming that at a certain point the woman may no longer say ‘no’ or ‘stop’. The man has discretion to decide whether a given ‘no’ is valid, in Peikoff’s revised view. Do you dispute this? Do you agree with that position?

However, he also explained his position more thoroughly and blasted his internet critics who went around claiming that he was endorsing actual rape. Again, I agree with him about the moral issue — that, yes, a woman has the right to say “No” even up to the last point of no return, but he emphasizes that the saying of “No” is not always a moral stance in favor of the woman. I also agree with him regarding who would want to have sex with a woman who would back out like that and who would want a complete list of things permissible before submitting to her man. This doesn’t mean anything goes, I mean she can set limits, but not an itemized list of do’s and don’t's or she can call it rape — that is ridiculous.

http://traffic.libsyn.com/kerrylutz/Casey-Brook_02-14-2012.mp3

Interview with Yaron Brook.

http://traffic.libsyn.com/kerrylutz/Yaron_Brook_02-24-2012.mp3

Your interview was interesting, but the show-stealer was your female caller, the beginner to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. She was a hoot! And you did a great job talking to her!

I would add that, while this is a serious defect, in the context it is an recommending virtue since the other 3 contenders are not willing to protect individual rights to any extent whatsoever.

That explains Ron Paul. He would not have been able to achieve the popularity he has for the good (and remarkably so) aspects of his policies if it were not for his inconsistencies and rationalizations that twist things to appeal to pervasive popular errors and prejudices.

The moral question is different: If he meant that the woman literally does not have the moral right to say no upon entering the room, then I disagree. But I do not think that this is what Dr. Peikoff meant. If at any point a woman wants the man to stop and allow her to leave, and she communicates this clearly — like by screaming “No! I really mean it: Stop!” while struggling frantically to escape and get out of the room — and the man continues, he is initiating force against her and thereby violating her rights. But one can only act based on what one actually knows. The woman does need to be clear and she needs to *get out of the room* if she changes her mind about sleeping with him. If she feels uncomfortable but does not say anything and does not try to leave, that is not sufficient to clearly communicate her intent, and the man might take it as some kind of flirtatious game. How could he know what she wants if she doesn’t communicate it? So maybe her continued presence in the room, if voluntary, is a communication of consent. If I were in a room with a man I did not want to sleep with and he kept making advances, I would leave. I think it comes down to a question of how a man can know that a woman has or has not consented to sleeping with him.

I will be interested to hear Dr. Peikoff’s further discussion of this issue.