Thanks for listening!

I was wondering if posting show notes (links to articles and videos that you talk about during the show) after the show airs would be a good idea. That way listeners can relax and listen even more closely to the show instead of searching for all that while you’re on the air.

Thank you.
Great show.

(Is it me or the caller named Robert sounds like Joe Pesci?)

You asked me during the show why I wrote in the chatroom, “Out of 5 amendments proposed by Ted Cruz, 1 was good, 1 was mixed, and 3 were bad”. Here are my reasons:

Amendment 1: Border Security
Multiplies by several times resources and personnel in border patrolling, border equipment, and fencing

- I think this one is bad because he focuses too heavy on building a fortress, not at all on the military, and very little on biometric and criminal background checks (which I think are the key to securing national borders). His approach seems too concrete-bound, but I might be a little too harsh.

Amendment 2: Benefits (welfare?)
Indefinitely denies benefits to anyone who has ever stayed unlawfully

- While I’d prefer welfare to be abolished for everyone, the reason I think this one is bad is because it sets no time limit at all, and even provides no benefits in cases where immigrants would be paying taxes all their lives.

Amendment 3: Citizenship
Denies US citizenship to anyone who has ever stayed unlawfully

- I thought this is bad before I listened to today’s podcast, but I am now confused. On one hand, I don’t blame those who flee un-free countries even if it means risking jail for breaking US law. On the other, I find compelling Dr. Binswanger’s distinction between granting citizenship vs. permanent residency.

Amendment 4: Legal immigrants
Increases numbers of family-based and employment-based visas. Creates many new visa categories, such as advanced degree-holders, entrepreneurs, and researchers.

- On a second reading of the text of the amendment, this one seems all good. Not sure why I previously counted it as mixed.

Amendment 5: Spouses of employed temporary visa-holders
Spouses of those holding temporary employment-based visas will be eligible for employment.

- This one is all good.

Overall, I agree with your assessment that Cruz is much better than most of his peers.

Best, Cary

As for you idiotic question, I have better questions for YOU. What will YOU do when YOU or YOUR loved ones are the victim of:

1) Muslim atrocities
2) Black on white murder or rape

No. It will never happen to you.

Until it does.

Putz.

By the way, Doug, now that you’ve turned the rage up to 11 (since a long time ago), what will you do next when people still disagree with you?

1) What is the difference between “Islamism” and Islam? Also, what is “radical Islam” and how does it differ from Islam?

2) Would the Boston bombings have not occurred if we bombed Iran? What of the 2 million Muslims in America and the 60 million (!!) Muslims on the European continent?

3) Why are Muslims not a 5th column population in Western Nations? Do any of you actually know what the Muslim Brotherhood has planned? Is the Muslim Brotherhood a “radical Islamist” organization? Is it Amish?

4) Can the Muslims and Leftist multiculturalism exist in the same time and place? Is A still A?

5) If Hispanics vote 75 percent for Democrats, does letting more of them in bode well for the Republican party? Can America be saved by giving the Left control of the government indefinitely? What if every city in America were like Detroit and you didn’t live in a multi-million dollar ranch in the whitest section of America like Diana Hsieh?

6) Are Ed Cline and Grant Long (formerly an O’ist blogger, ie “The Dougout”) racist and unhinged? Just racist? Do the Sparrow Hawk novels officially exist anymore?

Alright. I need to stop. Heads are exploding and Jim May and Andrew Dalton need time to come up with snarky witticisms. And twitter them no less!

May the non-existent Christian God help the Objectivist movement.

I’ll give you credit Amy for at least raising the Islam issue. The rest of mainstream Objectivism has proven to be as cowardly and as suicidally stupid about this as the Left. Islam is evil. Muslim populations are dangerous. Gee, when will the Objectivist take note of this? And give us something more than the weak commentary that we have seen so far; such as the idiotic things ‘The Objective Standard’ has been posting at its blog.

The Objectivist movement and its “intellectuals” have proven to be a joke. When mainstream Objectivists openly and explicitly state that Islam is evil, the Left is evil and Muslim populations are dangerous is the day that the movement will be worthy of being treated seriously. Until then, give me an anti-Islam Conservative, even if he’s a PaleoCon, over an Objectivist any day of the weak.

Geert Wilders is a far more heroic man than ANYONE in the Objectivist movement. We need men like him that understand the importance of out-migration of Muslims from Western nations. But oh no, I’m a “collectivist” and raaaaaccccisssstttt to boot.

I could spit.

You point out that Ms. Rand never had to raise a family which is a priority in most people’s lives. The people I grew up around counted on their own resources and hard work for the children they brought into the world and were too proud to take “charity.” I doubt they ever heard of Ayn Rand.
Nowadays it appears that American self-sufficient values have changed due to govt hand-outs and dependency on State social services.
This too will pass. As another brilliant woman (who recently died) predicted, “Eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”

To be in a continuous state of confusion would be an overwhelming tax on one’s mind, not to mention continuos distress — unless (as you said) a choice to seek artistic interpretations of experiences of reality.
Regards,
Jules

Ayn Rand would probably say that their lives would have been even worse if it weren’t for capitalism and I think she would be right. In fact, they probably wouldn’t even be alive. The world’s population has tripled has increased about 4-fold over the past 100 years a a result of the scientific revolution.

Rand never had a problem with solving the problems that constitute human poverty. She just figured you shouldn’t forcibly use anyone’s
money to do it.

“Having felt that abyss, I basically said, ‘O.K., capitalism, I have seen your gaping maw, and I want no trouble with you.’

It is a little unclear from the article but it seems that he had some trouble with his wife and the birth of his children and after going through that he decided that some costs should be borne as a society (at least that is my interpretation of what was said).

later he says:

““I saw the peculiar way America creeps up on you if you don’t have anything,” he told me. “It’s never rude. It’s just, Yes, you do have to work 14 hours. And yes, you do have to ride the bus home. You’re now the father of two and you will work in that cubicle or you will be dishonored. Suddenly the universe was laden with moral import, and I could intensely feel the limits of my own power. We didn’t have the money, and I could see that in order for me to get this much money, I would have to work for this many more years. It was all laid out in front of me, and suddenly absurdism wasn’t an intellectual abstraction, it was actually realism. You could see the way that wealth was begetting wealth, wealth was begetting comfort — and that the cumulative effect of an absence of wealth was the erosion of grace.””

Here he is basically lamenting the fact that you need money to create the money to acquire the “grace” that is necessary to live the life that he would like to live.

I guess Saunders argument against Rand is that some people are more unfortunate than others and that this makes him uncomfortable–especially because there were times that he did not have a lot of money and that he will never be able to make the kind of money that is made by huge capital.

All in all, his arguments don’t seem well-developed but I sympathize with what he is saying since I am pretty much a Rand apostate myself. I don’t think Ayn Rand understood the importance of the relation between a “safety net” or personal security and being able to take the kinds of risks that allow a person to start huge companies. She also never had a family and perhaps did not fully understand the awesome responsibility that comes with bearing and supporting children.

I don’t agree that a man should be permanently confused unless the man is living on the edge of artistic experience and continually trying to develop new truths (like Saunders). But I don’t think that choosing to continually seek new and interesting experiences that alter ones view of reality is a bad thing either and is most certainly not a symptom of cognitive dissonance. This issue seems to fall more in the realm of personal choices.

Anyways, some random thoughts about Saunders and thanks for the link — it was an interesting read.

First of all, great job on the show. It has been part of my week since inception.

I recently heard mention of a talk you gave in Houston some years agon on the corruption of the American Bar Association. Is the talk available anywhere online?

Regards,
Joe

How would Aristole’s “The Golden Mean” figure into this philosophical dilemma? Is the middle ground ever an option? Until we know the entire Truth, can we make positive, absolute choices? IDK, but would like to.

>> “I’d been kind of an Ayn Rand guy before that,” he (Saunders) said. And then you go to Asia and you see people who are genuinely poor and genuinely suffering and hadn’t gotten there by whining.” While on a break in Singapore, walking back to his hotel in the middle of the night, he stopped by an excavation site and “saw these shadows scuttling around in the hole. And then I realized the shadows were old women, working the night shift. Oh, I thought, Ayn Rand doesn’t quite account for this.” << – NYTimes mag

Any media attention re: Ayn Rand catches my eye. I'd like to hear replies on this Rand-apostate. Read entire article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/magazine/george-saunders-just-wrote-the-best-book-youll-read-this-year.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&amp;

p.s. His words resounded: "…wisdom imparted from Saunders to himself: “Don’t be afraid to be confused. Try to remain permanently confused. Anything is possible. Stay open, forever, so open it hurts, and then open up some more, until the day you die, world without end, amen.”

Frankly, I don't know what to think.

Thanks for your hard work Amy

Ach!! Was it just my imagination run amok, or did that banged villainess, wedded to one Barack Hussein, exhibit deflation and disbelief when it had to announce that Best Picture was—not LINCOLN, but ARGO?! The most seasoned and ingenious scriptwriter could not have devised a more diabolical irony. (I’m agog with disbelief, myself—though not deflated; in fact, quite the opposite.) Richly just desserts for all, to have pulled a stunt that atrocious and politically obvious…. And, as frosting on the dessert cake, note that the banged one was ushered onto the screen by none other than the sleaziest of Hollywood’s sleaze…. Color me agog.

Check it out if you get a chance and let me know what you think.

Have a great week!

…who wants to be our next President!

Regarding the What Difference Does It Make pol (sort of a modern version of the 1900’s I Don’t Care Girl—but who, at least, was a cute and amusing character), it should also be pointed out that, in a certain way, the “it” referred to by this entity really does NOT make any “difference”—given the two alternatives it carefully (with feigned casualness) tossed out for momentary consideration: that of (1) a spontaneous “protest” about an amateur video, which suddenly escalated into violence; or (2) some toughs out for a walk, who staged an assault on a spur-of-the-moment whim. Yes, fundamentally, there IS no “difference” between those two scenarios: for both are totally fictional—and either becomes a lie, if proffered (as alternative #1 was, for weeks) as an explanation for the atrocity at issue, which came of neither a vicious lark nor a spontaneous escalation, but was, rather, a premeditated, carefully planned attack by a known “affiliate” of a known terrorist organization.

But of course this repulsive knave had to avoid mentioning the true “scenario”—for it would hardly do, would it, to huffily spew (with obviously phony but well-rehearsed indignation): “What difference does it make, whether it was the result of a protest over a video—or a planned attack by Al Quaeda??!!!” …. I think that—I THINK that—in that case, the entire U.S. populace (including even every Republican) would stop dead in their tracks, and stare, mute, at the glassy-eyed creature—and know it then, perhaps for the very first time, for what it truly is: a lying and despicable, power-lusting shrew.