Category Archives: Ayn Rand

And my happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose...

I am a man. this miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard, and mine to use, and mine to kneel before!

I do not surrender my treasures, nor do I share them. The fortune of my spirit is not to be blown into coins of brass and flung to the winds as alms for the poor of the spirit. I guard my treasures: my thought, my will, my freedom. And the greatest of these is freedom.

I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask none to live for me, nor do I live for any others. I covet no man's soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

I am neither foe nor friend to my brothers, but such as each of them shall deserve of me. And to earn my love, my brothers must do more than to have been born. I do not grand my love without reason, nor to any chance passer-by who may wish to claim it. I honor men with my love. But honor is a thing to be earned.

I shall choose my friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters. And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey. And we shall join our hands when we wish, or walk alone when we so desire. For in the temple of his spirit, each man is alone. Let each man keep his temple untouched and undefiled. Then let him join hands with others if he wishes, but only beyond his holy threshold. Ayn Rand, Anthem

Go here to see the original:

Anthem Quotes by Ayn Rand - Goodreads

Heres an opportunity to enrich your life with a deep dive into Ayn Rands soul-fueling novel The Fountainhead.

Its the story of Howard Roarkan independent thinker, architect, and innovator, who refuses ever to compromise his principlesand his battle against the collectivist, tradition-oriented, authority-worshiping status quo. Its theme, as Rand put it, is individualism versus collectivism, not in politics, but in mans soul.

Relevant today, wouldnt you say?

Beginning January 24, renowned Rand scholar Dr. Andrew Bernstein will lead a series of weekly discussions about this rich book and its powerful ideas. Whether youre reading it for the first time or the tenth, youll deepen your understanding and enjoyment of Ayn Rands ode to individualism.

Join Dr. Bernstein and readers from all over the world for a series of fun and enlightening discussions about this path-breaking book.

Full scholarships are available to students and young adults aged 29 and under.

For details or to enroll in The Fountainhead Reading Group, click here.

I hope youll join the discussion!

Craig is cofounder and editor in chief of The Objective Standard, cofounder and director of education at Objective Standard Institute, and executive director of Prometheus Foundation. He is the author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It; Rational Egoism: The Morality for Human Flourishing; and the forthcoming Moral Truths Your Parents, Preachers, and Teachers Dont Want You to Know. He is currently working on his fourth book, Thinking in Principles. For updates on his work, join his mailing list atCraigBiddle.com.

Read the original:

The Fountainhead Reading Group with Andrew Bernstein - The Objective Standard

If U.S. Sen. Ron Johnsonmade a New Year's resolution to take a more measured approach when discussing public policy, it didn't take him long to break it.

Because the state's most polarizing politician is already back to offering his often wild and controversial take on things in 2022.

Johnson who last year advised using mouthwash to combat COVID-19 and labeled Social Security a Ponzi scheme has already roped God into his bizarre take on vaccines and againquestioned the seriousness of last year's Capitol riot.

Now he's taking on a new topic: out-of-wedlock births.

And who's to blame for the rate of unmarried childbearing in the U.S.? Former President Lyndon Baines Johnson, the architect of the Great Society.

LBJ, of course, died nearly 50 years ago.

"You know, we had a booming economy and people were lifting themselves out of poverty (in the 1960s). But then we instituted the Great Society programs," the second-term Wisconsin Republican told Lou Dobbs' on "The Great America Show" podcast last week.

The Great Society was an alphabet soup of social and antipoverty programs that Johnson, a Democrat, pushed through Congress in the 1960s. They includedfood stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, federal educational funding, housing assistance andincreased welfare spending.

But Johnson the Wisconsin senator, not the former president said the programs did little to eliminate poverty.

"But you know what skyrocketed? Out-of-wedlock birth rates," Johnson told Dobbs. "Back in the mid-'60s, probably on average, somewhere between 5%and 10%of births were out of wedlock. Now, nationally, we're over 40%."

Johnson, a devotee of libertarian writer Ayn Rand,wasn't done giving his take on the Great Society.

"Why aren't we looking at that and, gee, what caused that?" he said. "You know, could it be the Great Society programs that made it possible for, you know, single motherhood?That actually discouraged fathers from being present in the home, because you won't get the benefits then.

"You have to look at the cause and effect of these things, as opposed to just the intentions," he concluded.

If it were only that simple.

Yes, 40% of all births were to unwed mothers in 2019, the latest year for which data is available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The percentage is actually down slightly from its high in 2009 and has been largely flat for a decade.

And it's true that the percentage of children born out of wedlock is way up from 1960, shortly before the Great Society proposals were enacted. The figure was only 5% back then.

But just because there has been a rapid increase in unmarried births since LBJ launched his "war on poverty" doesn't mean the two are connected.

"Correlation does not mean causation," said Timothy Smeeding,professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In other words, if two variables run parallel historically, it doesn't mean the one is causing the other.

A number of factors have contributed to the rise in out-of-wedlock births, he said.

There has been a rise in cohabitation, more permissive sexual mores, a decline in shotgun weddings, easier divorce laws, a drop in manufacturing jobs formales without college degrees andgreater financial independence for women.

And that's just for starters.

The good thing, he said, is the decline in teenage pregnancies around the country. He said more and more parents are thinking about what they are doing and making better choices.

"Can you just attribute it to the Great Society programs?" Smeeding asked. "No."

One other mistake Johnson is making is conflating welfare with Johnson's Great Society. Some of the largest welfare programs, such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, were created under then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s.

Douglas J. Besharov, a public policy professor at the University of Maryland, said the Wisconsin senator may be focusing on the Great Society because Black families were not allowed on most federal welfare programs before the 1950s and 1960s.

Some southern states, for instance, didn't permitfamilies to receive welfare benefits during picking season, effectively kicking Blacks off the welfare rolls.

In addition, Besharov said, a number of states enacted so-called "man-in-the-house"rules, which disqualified families from receiving welfare benefits if there wasanadult male present in the household. He said this ended updiscouragingfemale welfare recipients from seeking to get married.

So, in short, there may be some basis for what Johnson is saying.

But Besharov said, in truth, many other factors have drivenup the percentage of out-of-wedlock births over the last 60 years, ranging from changing attitudes about marriage and sex to the misuse of contraceptives that lead to unplanned pregnancies.

"What I'm really trying to say to you is," he said, "there are loads of reasons."

As it turns out, this isn't exactly a new issue for Johnson.

In 1997,Johnson,who has assets worth between $16.5 million and $78.1 million, set up a trust for his three children, according to a 2016 story on Salon.com. Most of the document is boilerplate.

Butunderthe section labeled"termination of benefits," Johnson and his wife said theirchildren could be cut off from receiving their share of the trust if they engaged in criminal behavior, such as two unrelated felonies,or had "more than one child"without being married.

"As it reads, it seems that his kids are allowedone felonyorone child out of wedlock, and after that, they'recut off," the Salon story said. "While there's no way to know how big Johnson'strust is, odds are that it's huge;heis a very wealthy man, after all."

Contact Daniel Bice at (414) 313-6684 ordbice@jrn.com. Follow him on Twitter @DanielBiceor on Facebook atfb.me/daniel.bice.

Our subscribers make this reporting possible. Please consider supporting local journalism by subscribing to the Journal Sentinel at jsonline.com/deal.

Originally posted here:

Bice: U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson blames LBJ and Great Society for high percentage of out-of-wedlock births - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

OPINION:

Sen. Ted Cruz, in a Senate hearing, questioned the FBIs Jill Sanborn about the identity and activities of a man, Ray Epps, who was caught on video calling for Jan. 6, 2021, protesters to physically enter the U.S. Capitol; who was catcalled by others on Capitol Hill that day as a fed; and who was mysteriously listed then delisted from the bureaus wanted for questioning-slash-arrest list of Jan. 6 offenders. Good questions. But for the answer, it was mostly crickets.

Who is Ray Epps? Cruz asked.

Who is John Galt? might as well have been Sanborns answer.

Thats like saying, a la Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged-like, Who knows? or Why ask me how would I know?

The left wants it believed that Epps is a figment of far-right conspiracy theory imaginations.

House Jan. 6 Committee debunks Capitol riot conspiracy theory around obscure rallygoer, USA Today wrote.

Jan. 6 Committee Knocks Down False Flag Conspiracy Pushed by Tucker [Carlson, of Fox News] and Cruz, The Daily Beast wrote.

Jan. 6 committee dismisses Ray Epps conspiracy theory, issues new subpoenas, NBC News wrote.

Jan. 6 Panel Seeks to Debunk Unfounded Theory About F.B.I. Role in Riot, The New York Times wrote.

Yet, video clearly shows Epps instructing others in the Jan. 6 crowds last year on Capitol Hill to go into the congressional building by saying, at one point, I dont even like to say it because Ill be arrested. Ill say it. We need to go into the Capitol, and at another point, we need to go into the Capitol, into the Capitol. The crowd, as captured on video, then chants at Epps, fed, fed, fed. Another video shows Epps yelling at a different crowd, OK, folks, spread the word. As soon as the president is done speaking, we got to the Capitol. The Capitol is this direction.

FBI plant?

A false flag event?

Epps denies he was a plant. The Democrats Jan. 6 committee scoffs at both notions Epps as a plant; Jan. 6 as fueled by the FBI and dismisses such talk as right-wing conspiracy.

But his name was removed from the Justice Departments Jan. 6 suspect list. And Americans arent told why.

Federal prosecutors have charged more than 700 for inciting riots, disorderly conduct, civil disorder and other reasons but Epps, videotaped calling for crowds to enter the Capitol, is not among the 700. Epps, videotaped for doing basically what Democrats say President Trump did incite illegal and criminal acts of violence is not among the 700. Why? Why not?

Who is Ray Epps?

Who is John Galt?

Unfortunately, Cruzsaid in the aftermath of his unsuccessful questioning of Sanborn, under Joe Biden, we have seen an incredibly partisan Department of Justice. And both the Department of Justice and the FBI have an arrogance that they are not accountable to anyone, that they can stonewall.

Ahem, Russia collusion.

Gesundheit, Steele dossier.

The Justice Department is hardly blind or nonpartisan. Asking questions about Ray Epps, in this definitely partisan atmosphere, in this day and age of weaponizing the Deep State for political gain, certainly seems in line with both Americanism and logic. Given what we know about the use of federal law enforcement to tap journalists records, to fabricate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court documents, to spy on American citizens, itd actually be less sane to not raise questions about Epps.

Trusting in government is just not called for at this point.

Cruz asks what all the American people who arent obedient sheep and tools of the left want to know: Did federal agents or their informants commit crimes on Jan. 6? Did agents or informants encourage others to commit crimes? Was Ray Epps a fed?

Sir, I cannot answer that question, Sanborn said.

Sir, I cannot answer that question, Sanborn said again.

Why not? Why not just say yes or no and put an end to the debate?

Who is John Galt?

The duck and dodge from our I am zee law public servants continues.

Cheryl Chumley can be reached atcchumley@washingtontimes.comor on Twitter, @ckchumley. Listen to her podcast Bold and Blunt byclicking HERE. And never miss her column; subscribe to her newsletter byclicking HERE. Her latest book, Socialists Dont Sleep: Christians Must Rise Or America Will Fall, is available byclickingHERE.

View original post here:

Who is Ray Epps? Who is John Galt? - Washington Times

Nancy Perkins, enthusiastic reader and student of mystery stories, will explore the rise of the British mystery novel that has become one of the worlds most popular genres in a Zoom presentation for the Cushing Public Library on Thursday, January 13, at 6:30 p.m.

From the northernmost tip of the Shetland Islands to the densely populated Sussex plains, murder and crime are everywhere. From A. Conan Doyle to P.D. James, the British practitioner has created far more than a crime story but rather a literary work recognized and loved worldwide. One unlikely fan, Ayn Rand, states theres nothing like tea in the afternoon. When the British Empire collapses, historians will find that it had made two invaluable contributions to civilization the tea ritual and the detective novel.

Nancy Perkins is a Virginia transplant to Belfast. Her literary passion began with Nancy Drew to Agatha Christie and eventually all the Golden Age writers, even before her arrival at Westhampton College of the University of Richmond. She has taught courses on British mysteries and, as president of Belfast Senior College, she has kept the organization viable through the recent challenges of pandemic and Zooming. Like many, she hopes to return to face-to-face teaching but realizes that online activity affords significant possibilities.

To register call Wendy Roberts at 207-691-0833 or emailwrobertsmaine63@gmail.com.

Read the original post:

Nancy Perkins to discuss: The British Mystery, 200 Years of Murder Most Foul - PenBayPilot.com

As I've considered the real lesson of January 6, I've been prompted to rewatch a movie that provides a hint of an answer Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life," which was released 75 years ago this month.

When I first saw the movie in the late 1960s, I thought it pure hokum. America was coming apart over Vietnam and the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, and I remember thinking the movie could have been produced by some propaganda bureau of the government that had been told to create a white-washed (and white) version of the United States.

But in more recent years I've come around. As America has moved closer to being an oligarchy with staggering inequalities of income, wealth, and power not seen in over a century and closer to Trumpian neofascism (the two moves are connected), "It's a Wonderful Life" speaks to what's gone wrong and what must be done to make it right.

As you probably know (and if you don't, this weekend would be a good time to watch it), the movie's central conflict is between Mr. Potter (played by Lionel Barrymore) and George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart). Potter is a greedy and cruel banker. George is the generous and honorable head of Bedford Fall's building-and-loan the one entity standing in the way of Potter's total domination of the town. When George accidentally loses some deposits that fall into the hands of Potter, Potter sees an opportunity to ruin George. This brings George to the bridge where he contemplates suicide, thinking his life has been worthless before a guardian angel's counsel turns him homeward.

It's two radically opposed versions of America. In Potter's social-Darwinist view, people compete with one another for resources. Those who succeed deserve to win because they've outrun everyone else in that competitive race. After the death of George's father, who founded the building-and-loan, Potter moves to dissolve it claiming George's father "was not a businessman. He was a man of high ideals, so-called, but ideals without common sense can ruin a town." For Potter, common sense is not coddling the "discontented rabble."

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

In George's view, Bedford Falls is a community whose members help each other. He tells Potter that the so-called "rabble do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community." His father helped them build homes on credit so they could afford a decent life. "People were human beings to him," George tells Potter, "but to you, they're cattle."

When George contemplates ending it all, his guardian angel shows him how bleak Bedford Falls would be had George never lived poor, fearful, and dependent on Potter. The movie ends when everyone George has helped (virtually the entire town) pitch in to bail out George and his building-and-loan.

It's a cartoon, of course but a cartoon that's fast becoming a reality in America.Do we join together or let the Potters of America own and run everything?

Soon after "It's a Wonderful Life" was released, the FBI considered it evidence of Communist Party infiltration of the film industry. The FBI's Los Angeles field office using a report by an ad-hoc group that included Fountainhead writer and future Trump pin-up girl Ayn Rand warnedthat the movie represented "rather obvious attempts to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a 'scrooge-type' so that he would be the most hated man in the picture." The movie "deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. This is a common trick used by Communists."

The FBI report compared "It's a Wonderful Life" to a Soviet film, and alleged that Frank Capra was "associated with left-wing groups" and that screenwriters Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett were "very close to known Communists."

RELATED:The harmful messaging of "It's a Wonderful Life"

This was all rubbish, of course and a prelude to the Red Scare led by Republican Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin, who launched a series of highly publicized probes into alleged Communist penetration of Hollywood, the State Department, and even the US Army.

The movie was also prelude to modern Republican ideology. Since Ronald Reagan, Republicans have used Potter-like social Darwinism to justify everything tax cuts for the wealthy, union-busting, and cutbacks in social safety nets. Rand herself became a hero to many in the Trump administration.

Above all, Reagan Republicans, CEOs, and Trumpers have used the strategy of "divide-and-conquer" to generate division among Americans (a kind ofpoliticalsocial-Darwinism). That way, Americans stay angry and suspicious of one another, and don't look upward to see where all the money and power have gone. And won't join together to claim it back.

What would Republicans say about "It's a Wonderful Life" if it were released today? They'd probably call it socialist rather than communist, but it would make them squirm all the same especially given the eery similarity between Lionel Barrymore's Mr. Potter and you know who.

See more here:

Robert Reich has the perfect answer to Trumpism - Salon

Anonymous / Cambridge

People who do this are caught out and ashamed. You saw their bum, not the other way around, so whos embarrassed and scrambling? Not you, Anonymous. Slow your roll here, do deep breaths or count to 10. Let that awkward silence be your voice, telling them that yep, you saw that, and it was indeed a transgression. Then proceed with the business you were there to conduct. Graciously, from the power-up position you now hold, like a queen extending mercy. This time.

Dont derail your intended agenda for the jabroni in the moment; you can decide afterward if you should do anything else. If said jabroni is in your company, youve uncovered a risk factor and skill deficit, so do whatever is appropriate with that information. Its unwise to make assumptions in the workplace, and career suicide not to behave with universal courtesy. If a person mistakes a manager for a receptionist, that shouldnt require a radical change in behavior, because everyone deserves respect no matter where their job falls on the company org chart.

Enough about them, lets talk about you. Do you have friends who are women of color, or even a good online forum, to decompress with? You know youre not the only one who experiences these things, but thats different from feeling that youre not alone. And to account for the psychological toll that nonsense like this takes on you, honor it as labor. Factor it in when making decisions like what projects and teams you want to be on, and how much money you will ask for, and how you prioritize your well-being.

And now to your last, heartbreaking question. Try this: Answer it seriously. You obviously, empirically, fit into categories besides your job title (woman, person of color, Bostonian . . . you get the idea). Write down 20. Sleep on it and then see which self-descriptions matter to you, which hold some key relationship or value. I find this a helpful way to remember were worth so much more than how some people see us.

Look at a baby. Unless youre a Charles Dickens villain or an Ayn Rand heroine, you dont see a larval worker whose only worth lies in its potential for labor. You wish that baby a future of love, beauty, good health, and good times, along with meaningful work. We want and deserve those things for ourselves, too.

Miss Conduct is Robin Abrahams, a writer with a PhD in psychology.

View original post here:

Advice: Im a woman of color often overlooked at work until people realize I outrank them - The Boston Globe

Our preview expects the Texans to struggle offensively (again), leaving the door open for the Seahawks to build on last week's 30-point offensive performance. Read more in our NFL betting picks and predictions for Seahawks vs. Texans.

The Seattle Seahawks finally got the offense rolling last week and will look to make it back-to-back wins when they travel to Houston to take on the Texans who'll be starting Davis Mills at quarterback. Russell Wilson & Co. enter the Week 14 contest as 7.5-point road favorites following Houstons zero-point performance a week ago.

Can the Seahawks run the table and finish 9-8? Can the Texans be anything other than a tune-up game for their opponents, especially with Mills under center? Find out in our free picks, predictions and NFL odds for the Seahawks vs. Texans.

Odds via the Covers Line, an average comprised of odds from multiple sportsbooks.

This line was Seattle -6.5 on the look-ahead and opened Seattle -7.5 Sunday night. The total has also fallen with the announcement of Davis Mills starting as it was 44.5 on the look-ahead but has fallen down to 42 as of Tuesday. Use the live odds widget above to track any future line movements right up until kickoff and be sure to check out the full NFL odds before placing your bets.

Predictions made on 12/07/2021 at 3:20 p.m. ET.Click on each prediction to jump to the full analysis.

Best Seahawks vs Texans bonuses

If you're signing up for a new sportsbook for NFL Week 14, here are two of the best welcome bonuses available:

USA: Sign up with Caesars and get your first bet matched up to $1,001! Claim Now

Canada: Get a 100%-matched sign-up bonus (up to $400) at BetVictor. Claim Now

Location: NRG Stadium, Houston, TX Date: Sunday, December 12, 2021 Time: 1:00 p.m. ET TV: FOX

Monitor gametime conditions with our live NFL weather info and learn how weather impacts NFL betting.

Seahawks:Tre Brown CB (Out), Jamal Adams S (Questionable), Kyle Fuller C (Questionable), Alex Collins RB (Questionable), Damien Lewis OL (Questionable).

Texans: Tyrod Taylor QB (Out), David Johnson RB (Questionable), Justin McCray OL (Questionable), Demarcus Walker DL (Out).

Find our latest NFL injury reports.

The Texans are 0-4 ATS in their last four games following a double-digit loss at home. Find more NFL betting trends for Seahawks vs. Texans.

Our predictions are compiled from the analysis of the spread and total and are indications of where we are leaning for this game.Our best bet is the play that we like the most for this game, which we would actually put some of our bankroll behind.

A terrible season has gotten even worse for the 2-10 Houston Texans who lost quarterback Tyrod Taylor in last weeks shutout loss to the Colts. Likely one-and-done head coach David Culley will have to turn to Davis Mills again. Mills has started six games this season and has lost each and every one. The team has managed just seven touchdowns in Mills six starts this season.

Houston should be considered the worst team in football heading into Week 14. The Texans sit dead last in defensive success rate and dead last in EPA/play on offense. Finding one positive thing on this Houston team is like finding Waldo in Ayn Rand novel. Mills ranks 30th in ESPNs QBR rankings and could make Jimmy Garoppolos Week 13 performance against the Seahawks look like a masterpiece.

The Seahawks defense did allow 6.5 yards per play to the 49ers last week but Seattle benefited greatly from three San Francisco turnovers and five red-zone trips where the Seattle offense scored three times. In many cases, wed like to fade the Seahawks here as their 30-23 win wasn't pretty as they were outgained by 1.7 yards per play to San Francisco and had four first downs gained by penalties, but this is the Texans here. If Russell Wilson and the offense can muster 21 points off the leagues worst defense, then Houstons league-worst offense will have difficulties keeping up.

Wilson looks like he is getting healthier each week and last week was no exception as he finished with 231 yards passing and a pair of touchdowns. He got DK Metcalf involved for the first time since returning from injury and used a three-headed running back approach that totaled 131 yards and two scores. It may have taken three weeks, but the offense is starting to look like its former self and could be in for a big day versus a defense thats giving up 27 points per game on the season.

Seattle played anything but a clean game last week but as long as Gerald Everett doesnt repeat his Week 13 performance (responsible for three turnovers), it will be hard for the Seahawks not to cover. Houston lost 31-0 as 10-point road dogs last week with Taylor under center and lost 24-9 as 8-point home dogs to the Panthers in Mills first start. This is actually the shortest line weve gotten on a Mills start as he has been an underdog of eight (2x), 11.5, 17, 19 and 20 points in his first six NFL starts.

If this line decides to move north, to -8, it could very well move all the way to -9 or -9.5 for teaser protection (not allowing bettors to tease through a pair of key numbers in 7 and 3). Well lay the points with Wilson and the Seahawks.

Prediction: Seahawks -7.5 (-105)

Covers NFL betting analysis

If you missed the early number on this total that opened at 44, its tough to swallow taking the Under on 42 but still likely the right play. Houstons offense has been awful with Mills under center averaging just 10.2 points per game and was held to under six points in three of those games. Rex Burkhead is the No. 1 running back and if the Seahawks can shut down Brandin Cooks (under 60 yards receiving in his last four games) the offense will stall out, especially with an offensive line that has given up nine sacks over the last two games.

Speaking of sacks, Mills has been taken down 21 times in his last seven games while also committing eight turnovers. The Seahawks forced three turnovers last week and gave up 16 points off of two turnovers and a missed kick to the 49ers. The Houston offense is not built to sustain long drives and with Mills skillset and the O-line sitting fifth in the league in holding penalties, the Texans are always just one play away from shooting themselves in the foot.

The Seahawks allow the fewest explosive rush plays per game in the league and ninth-fewest passing plays of 15-plus yards. Mills and the offense will have to march long distances to get their points and we dont see that happening with the current personnel in Houston.

The Seattle offense hasn't been impressive over the last four games either and gained just 4.8 yards per play last week versus the 49ers. But any offense can look impressive versus the Texans. If Seattle can put up 30 points against the 49ers, there's a chance that Wilson could hang another 30-plus points this Sunday which has us nervous about taking any number below 44.

Expecting Mills and Houston to score 18 points is asking a lot, especially against a sleeper defense in Seattle that sits Top 10 against the rush and has allowed an average of 20 points per game over its last four contests.

Were avoiding the game total and hitting the Under on the Texans team total of 16.5 at -120.

Prediction: Texans team total Under 16.5 (-120)

This is Mills second go as a starter in his first season in the league. There is a ton of tape out there on the third-round rookie and this offense was averaging just 12 points per game with Taylor over the last three games. Mills does nothing to improve the Texans who might be going through the motions at this point in what has been a terrible season right from the get-go. A coaching change is likely coming following the seasons end.

Houston sits last in points per game, last in yards per game and second-last in plays per game (Seattle is last) which equates to an offense that ranks last in yards per play and last in EPA/play. Houston has topped 16 points just three times in its last 10 games and is coming off a 31-0 loss at home in Week 13. They gained just 2.8 yards per play versus the Colts No. 25 pass defense and managed zero red-zone trips

Give us the Under 16.5 points on the Texans team total for our best bet for this Week 14 matchup.

Pick: Texans team total Under 16.5 (-120)

Read the original here:

Seahawks vs Texans Week 14 Picks and Predictions: Learning To Fly Again - Covers

MAN IS AN END IN HIMSELF

Why does man need morality?

The typical answer is that we must learn to deny our own interests and happiness in order to serve God or other people and morality will teach us to do this.

Rands answer is radically different. The purpose of morality, she argues, is to teach us what is in our self-interest, what produces happiness.

Man has, she observes, no automatic code of survival. . . . His senses do not tell him automatically what is good for him or evil, what will benefit his life or endanger it, what goals he should pursue and what means will achieve them, whatvalueshis life depends on, what course of action it requires.

This is what the science of ethics studies and what Objectivism offers. Man must choose his actions, values and goals, she summarizes, by the standard of that which is proper to man in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.

Rand consciously saw herself as a moral radical and revolutionary, who challenges both the conventional damnation of selfishness as evil and the conventional glorification of altruism, the doctrine that man must live for others, as good.

She argues that selfishness, properly understood, does not mean doing whatever you feel like doing or exploiting others, and that altruism does not mean benevolence or goodwill but the opposite.

The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his ownrationalself-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life and, therefore, is applicableonlyin the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a license to do as he pleases and it is not applicable to the altruists image of a selfish brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.

AYN RAND,Introduction,The Virtue of Selfishness

Ayn Rand on the Pursuit of Happiness

Ethics, according to Rand, is a science. It studies the values you must achieve and the virtues you must practice to attain happiness.

Crucial to this science is a concrete projection of the moral ideal, a vision of what you should be seeking to embody in your soul. An exhaustive philosophical treatise defining moral values, with a long list of virtues to be practiced, she writes, will not do it; it will not convey what an ideal man would be like and how he would act . . . . There is no way to integrate such a sum without projecting an actual human figure an integrated concretization that illuminates the theory and makes it intelligible.

Only art can do this. Rands stated goal as a fiction writer is the projection of an ideal man; her nonfiction is the theory behind that vision.

To understand Rands new morality, therefore, you must explore both her novels and nonfiction, which these links will help you to do.

Link:

Philosophy - AynRand.org

Studies of technology tycoons have become a staple of the biography shelf in the past decade. Bestsellers such as Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson and Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX and the Quest for a Fantastic Future by Ashlee Vance have walked a fine line between candid exploration and hagiographic veneration.

While showing their subjects as ruthless businesspeople who mistreat their employees and the people in their personal lives, they also praise their innovations as paving the way to a better future. Their personal cruelty and narcissism are often painted as the price the world has to pay for genius.

These depictions conform with Silicon Valleys self-image, as big tech companies claim that their operations offer solutions to all the worlds political and social problems. Government regulation, unions and taxation, by contrast, are forces that impede progress.

But as Bloomberg journalist Max Chafkin demonstrates in his new biography of right-wing entrepreneur Peter Thiel, the progressivism of Silicon Valley is a carefully constructed myth. Since the Silicon Valley area in northern California in the United States became associated with cutting-edge information technology during the Cold War, the regions success has relied on its extensive business and political connections with the US military and big business.

As Chafkin writes, its dominant culture has always been Ayn Rand-style libertarianism, which views the rich as heroic figures who deserve untrammelled power and retains a deep hostility to ideals of democracy and egalitarianism.

These trends are exemplified in the career of venture capitalist Thiel, who made his fortune by investing early in companies such as PayPal (with Musk) and later Facebook, which has now been rebranded to Meta.

Thiel has a public reputation for eccentricity. Widely circulating news stories have him buying land in New Zealand to survive a future apocalypse and promoting a company involved in researching how to prolong life. The latter included harvesting young peoples blood, which led to the surreal headline Billionaire Trump supporter Peter Thiel denies being a vampire in the Independent newspaper in 2018.

But behind these stories is a cynical and wealthy power broker who used his fortune not only to support Donald Trumps 2016 presidential campaign, but also retains links to even more politically extreme figures in the alt-right movement.

Chafkin shows that Thiel who was born in Germany, spent time in South Africa-occupied Namibia as a child and later publicly defended apartheid while a student at Stanford University in California is motivated by a dangerous mix of rampant self-interest and genuine ideological conviction.

His support for Trump was rooted partly in ensuring a regulatory environment that would allow minimal taxation for himself and other billionaires. But he also viewed Trump and his supporters as an opening to create an alliance between right-wing libertarianism and xenophobic and nationalist political movements.

Thiel, Chafkin makes clear, is motivated by a reactionary vision of the future that combines free movement of capital and the rich with hardline anti-immigration policies. Despite saying that political democracy is a mistake and policy should be dictated by the rich, he saw Trumps mass supporter base as an opportunity to attain more power.

His anti-regulation stance does not translate into a rejection of authoritarian power. In contrast, much of his fortune is linked to his company Palantir, which conducts data surveillance for the US security state, including involvement in the harsh migrant policing regime of the countrys Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Thiel was a formidable chess player from a young age. He attended Stanford University to study law, but spent much of his time running The Stanford Review, which specialised in angry tirades against liberals and left-wingers on campus. From the late 1980s, Thiel associated himself with the culture wars of the Republican Party.

He turned his chess skills of anticipating the future into working as a venture capitalist, providing start-up financing for technology companies. Rather than having a genius for radical new ideas, however, Thiels strength lay in working out how to repackage existing business models for the internet age.

Chafkin writes that instead of pioneering major scientific advances, the tech industry relies on privatisation and monopolisation. Uber, for example, found a way to enclose the taxi cab business, while Amazon swallowed up traditional retail.

Thiel combined this approach with his ideologies. He supported PayPal because he saw it as a way of circumventing government regulation of banking transactions. And in the early 2000s he became involved with Mark Zuckerberg. Facebooks internal motto was move fast, break things, which meant disrupting existing means of receiving news. Thiel saw it as a space perfect for unrestrained right-wing propaganda and fearmongering.

Facebook has been criticised extensively during the Covid-19 pandemic for providing a platform of extreme conspiracism and harmful medical misinformation. Chafkin makes the case that this was not only from a lack of oversight, but also the result of the financial and political model it has followed from its inception.

While building his wealth throughout the 2000s, Thiel threw his weight behind fringe ideologies. Some of the people to whom he has given patronage include neo-reactionary thinker Curtis Yarvin, who has called for tech chief executive-run dictatorships to replace electoral democracy and once said that although Im not a white nationalist, Im not exactly allergic to the stuff.

In the 2010s, as the overtly racist and fascist-aligned alt-right began to grow online, Thiel became, in the words of one of his friends, Nazi-curious. He engaged with this movement while ensuring he distanced himself from some of its more notorious members, refusing to meet white nationalist Richard Spencer after he was caught on camera using the Nazi victory salute Sieg Heil.

In contrast, he viewed Trump as a far more credible political ally. When Trump began his run for the US presidency in 2015, his inflammatory statements on race and immigration caused many Silicon Valley companies which finance both Democratic and Republican candidates to buy influence to shun his fundraising efforts for fear of backlash from their staff and the wider public.

Thiel had no such reservations. He committed money and time to supporting Trump, even speaking at the 2016 Republican National Convention where Trump was chosen as the presidential nominee.

Once Trump was in office, Thiel hoped to capitalise on his support. His plan was to have extreme libertarians placed in high positions in the US federal government and to replace public institutions with a technocracy.

In practice, internal Washington politics stymied his megalomaniacal schemes and he was unable to make any impactful appointments while Trump was in power. But Thiel seems to have lost none of his political ambition. In a 2020 interview, he claimed that Covid-19 means the future has been set free. For Thiel, Chafkin writes, the pandemic is a chance to reset society according to his plans and ideals.

These ideals amount to little more than making capitalism even more brutal, nihilistic and destructive than it is currently.

Read more from the original source:

Book Review | Peter Thiel, tech and power - newframe.com