Actually, some of Rand's works were translated into Chinese, so they may have had her help.

This is why Obama's speech today, calling for a return to the 1967 borders, is particularly inexcusable:
http://wp.me/pWcxr-8L

"The picketing could not be seen or heard from the funeral ceremony itself. And Snyder testified that he saw no more than the tops of the picketers’ signs as he drove to the funeral."

So long as this was the case, then I would probably agree as well. The real issue here is that we have too much public property. If the funeral site was surrounded by private roads, then whether protesting could take place would be a matter of the rules set by private property owners. Maybe someday....

The attempt to control Americans' diet should be ridiculed, as one valuable way of criticizing it. Keep fighting the good fight, Batton & James!

A utilitarian argument is a species of "values argument." The utilitarian says that what makes an action right is its ability to create the most pleasure for the most people (or sentient beings), compared to other actions available to the agent. Utilitarianism says that one has a moral duty to perform actions that will create the greatest good for the greatest number, and that the individual agent can count himself only as one among the many affected by his actions. In other words, it preaches sacrifice for the group, just as leftists socialists do. The only difference is that utilitarians count on the fact that free markets, etc., typically are the best at producing the greatest good for the greatest number.

Any advantage gained via utilitarian arguments, therefore, is only temporary -- all the socialists/leftists have to do is point to an example where the free market doesn't produce the greatest good for the greatest number and -- BAM -- you have an excuse to regulate, redistribute, etc. This is how we got antitrust laws in the 1890's, and started down that long slippery slope towards socialism.

Only Rand's *moral* defense of capitalism will do, IMO.

As I mentioned on my blog yesterday (www.dontletitgo.com), I'd go after him for whatever property/fraud crimes I could, and, as I said, boycott/ostracize him and encourage others to do the same. No more NFL for him. The idea that even a long jail sentence could magically erase his vile actions is absurd. In terms of law, however, the issue is whether animals have rights. I don't think they do.

As much as I love dogs, I think the law should treat them as property, and so no execution, and probably not even a long jail sentence (unless he was guilty of fraud, theft, etc.), for people like Vick. But as for Vick being welcomed back to the NFL and congratulated by our President? I agree with Carlson. He should be boycotted and ostracized for the rest of his life. I surely couldn't trust him with anything that I cared about after what he did.