That is so weird. I googled Kelly McGillis earlier today for the first time in several years, and here she is again.

I agree. She looks great.

Let's see now. A racially and politically diverse group of people who want the US governed by Constitutional principles are called "seditious" and "terrorists", but we're not supposed to use the word "terrorist" to describe people who do stuff like the below. Got it.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pear ... obama.html

As I just said in the other post: civil disobedience and protest were civic duties and to be admired when it was directed at Bush. Now its terrorism when directed at the Dems.

Intellectualism bugs me. I recently had a conversation (FB interaction) with an intellectual who declared that because science has proven that sacrifice for others brings happiness that if you give something to someone and your happiness depends on getting something back in return (including gratitude or improvement on their part) then you are not truly sacrificing.

The concept is that those who give sacrificially expect nothing (to me this is altruism) and those who take can expect not to have any obligation in return because the satisfaction and happiness of the giver is intrinsic. Furthermore, those givers who DO expect something in return are selfish and are at fault for their own unhappiness.

This I believe is the underlying fault behind our social services which steal through taxes from the rich and give to the poor without any accountability or improvement in their lives required.

What bothered me most was that there were 2 others who cheered on this brilliance in understanding the true nature of happiness.

Sorry, but you can have your ivory towers full of intellectual figuring out - in the real world this situation is called enabling and it's sad, unhealthy and not at all 'charitable' - it is destructive. I believe those that give in this way LIKE that there are those beneath them that are suffering and in need - it makes them feel better about themselves to keep giving. They THINK they are happy because they feel superior.

I learned from giving sacrificially and I am happy that I gave, but I am sad that all my efforts did not produce an equal, dignified human being, which was my noble goal, but rather someone who is just looking for some other person to continue to give without expecting anything.

The ting to remember about many intellectuals is that their learning is, as the study your FB associate mentioned, from clinical, controlled studies. Most will deisgn a study to look for an answer to a question and they will often rig the study to get their desired answer, thus making them feel smart. This is hard to do with pure sciences like mathematics, physics, etc., though it is attempted as scientists try to prove their pet theories. When it comes to the soft sciences, or more correctly philosophies, such as the social sciences, etc., it is harder to get solid data since tests can be rigged.

What can be learned in the philosophies is through straight observation. By observing the outcome of a philosophy, we can see if it works as advertized. Still, one has to correct for outside variables. For example: today some say Capitalism has failed, ignoring the political dimension that prevent Capitalism from working correctly in the first by injecting favoritism into the system and creating opportunies for criminals to take advantage.

Sacrifice is a term I have come to very much dislike. To me it has come to mean a forced taxation of one's resources to give to another who probably doesn't deserve it. This can be physical force of the threat of the taxman and prison or force through guilt that you "should" help those down on their luck regardless of why they are down or if they intend to stay there living on handouts. I can see helping family if they are really in a rough patch and are intending to get back on their feet, friends too maybe. I don't think it is wrong with such help to give it conditionally and expect them to make good use of it. If they don't, then, well, they don't get anymore, hard as that might be to do.

Giving a gift is different. Giving a gift is something you want to do without expectation of return. This is done because you want to not because you "have to." This makes you feel good because it is done because of your feelings for the person receiving the gift. You could say you still profit from this exchange because you feel good by making them feel good at getting a gift, but that's fine too.

Anyway, here is what Ayn Rand says about sacrifice and I suppose this is how I have always felt about it, just put in clearer terms.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html

Yep, those Communists sure were (and are) compassionate, humane, tolerant and "progressive".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... freed.html

Aren't you glad we've had at least two people in the Obama administration who quote Mao favorably?

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/16/an ... e-tung-fan

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/20 ... nse-video/

http://commonsenselogic.blogspot.com/20 ... n-mao.html

Most of the average people I knew who loved Marx never really got past the "Workers of the World Unite!" slogan, which is right at the front of the Communists Manifesto. They believe the rest of what is told to them, that the system will create a "worker's paradise." Of course, they don't bother to actually read Marx critically. If they did they would see that Marx hated all humanity, not just the Burgousis he himself was from. He hated the small people, too. Often he refers to them as little better than cattle who should be worked, not well educated except in correct Marxist political theory (religious indocrination) and even kept constantly chasing sex with anyone anytime. Hmm, doesn't sound that far off from what we have today.

They also don't look at history to see that ever single Marxist regime has slaughtered its own people. Maybe they don't care because they know that most who are killed are the smart people, business owners, etc. (except those able to make themselves useful to the leaders). Again they don't realize how bad that will make things for themselves either, but that's a longer post than I want to write at moment.

Some of the US leadership's co-ideologues overseas demonstrate their devotion to human dignity, fairness, community support, and not least, magnanimity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... d-Cup.html

While in a discussion on another board that started as complaining about USPS losing packages and turned into 'which courier is the most reliable' one of the resident commies came on telling me that they ship millions of packages and it's really difficult and I should be GRATEFUL if any of mine make it there instead of complaining about the one irreplaceable piece of artwork that didn't make it.

This is a man who continually tries to shut down any complaining or negative discussion about the state, always making excuses for them and seems to truly look at citizens as benefactors of a benevolent group of wiser elites who should be sympathized with for all they have to put up with when people aren't happy about the good work they do.



I told him

And his response was 'sorry, but I live in the real world'



THAT kind of pretzel logic is why our country is being taken over by greedy overlords.

I'm not going to respond. It's the same guy who said the difference between 'lawful' and 'moral' was semantics.

indeed.

I was reading an issue of Scientific American today and came across two things like that.

First was in the letters section. An older edition had evidently been about things like better use of natural resources. Common comments were about the failure to address the ever-growing human population (mostly ignoring that most of that is in the Third World and NOT the developed world) and complaints about desire for economic growth and a bettering standard of living. That was funny since the whole between-the-lines undercurrent of their comments was concern about THEIR standard of living, or what they imagined it to be.

One person wrote that all freshwater should be considered the property of the state and thus the property of all. He went on to say that people should then pay for the water they used and the profit motive would encourage thrift. It gets better. He said that farmers and agribusiness should be charged for their water use even if the water came from their own land. "Revenues" from that could allow low flow toilets and showerheads to be installed in public housing, etc. In other words, it was more steal from the thrifty and give to the shifty.

Another was from a "known" writer and scientist who had a column. He was complaining about how there were so many religious people in the US that less than 50% of the people believed in Evolution or the Big Bang. He went on to condemn religious people for effectively being bigots, for judging people, while enlightened Atheists only condemned wrong beliefs. I guess he neglects those prime enlightened atheists like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who murdered more people than religious types ever have. He complained about how religious leaders at a Catholic science symposium railed at him when he asked a scientific question, then why they opposed condoms to fight the spread of AIDS, followed by a critique of their aiding pedophile priests from secular prosecution. Hmm, maybe it wasn't anger about the scientific question but something else, maybe? I can't think of many people who'd take being called a pedophile in good humor.

Exactly. And the real world we live in (around here anyway) does work that way, for the most part, which is a big reason why our part of the real world works as well as it does.

I think you were right to stop responding. You made a good point. This guy sounds like he is just a troll and contrarian, and probably someone who just likes tearing down the good work of others out of spite.

Lerl. A few years ago, a majority of Britons voted Labour in again,and again, and again.

Now a majority of those same Britons would prefer to retire overseas.

Tsk. Looks like at least some people aren't willing to lie in the bed they themselves helped make.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ia ... e-country/

I'm reminded of all those New Yorkers and New Jerseyans who, mainly in the postwar years, fled those places for locales like California, then proceeded to remake them in the very image of the hellholes they'd left. It's no coincidence that today's bankrupt, expensive, toweringly corrupt California bears such a resemblance to the US northeast.

Gee guys, if you loved that sort of thing so much, and undoubtedly voted for it in droves, why didntcha stick around?

Vits, we have the same problem in the South. Lots of Yankee tourists come through and tell us how much they like it down here because people are friendly, the cost of living is lower, etc. Then they move down here and they bring their politics with them, which is one of the things they said they wanted to get away from. By that I mean they will come down and start demanding all kinds of services from government, mandated things on business, etc., that cause taxes and prices to go up. Its like they come down here and have to show us yokels how to do things, and some do have very superior attitudes.

That's not to say all of them are like that though. One lives not far from my place who fits right in. He's from South Jersy and doesn't even have much of an accent. Rides around town on his four-wheeler, hangs out with the timber folks, etc. Pretty decent guy.