Can you say "word of mouth"? Word of mouth kept folks away, not some liberal plot.

The. Market. Has. Spoken.

>> ^MaxWilder:

The movie failed because it had no distribution deal. It opened on 299 screens. Thor opened on 3,955 screens. It is also the lack of a distribution deal that prevented an advertising budget.
After all the negative press, my expectations were quite low. So when I found it to be quite watchable, I was pleasantly surprised. It is quite flawed in a number of ways, but the abuse it is taking is without merit, and probably politically motivated. I recommend it to anybody who has read the book without feeling the need to vomit. My personal opinions partially agree with Objectivist philosophy, so I didn't find the book as revolting as many do. My nit-picks with the film are pretty much the same as any book to screen adaptation. Too much plot, not enough character development, things left out or glossed over, that sort of thing.
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shuac" title="member since March 6th, 2008" class="profilelink">shuac - When have you ever seen the per screen metric used on something other than a span of days? Even on boxofficemojo where you got your numbers, it shows the per screen over the opening weekend. Perhaps you are talking about the numbers that get discussed by movie insiders, but as far as the public goes, per screen is always combined Fri-Mon. The only time I have ever seen it discussed on a per-day basis is when a major blockbuster does fantastic numbers on a weekday, and somebody compares those days to the weekend numbers specifically to show how a movie is packing seats during the week. A rare exception.

The movie failed because it had no distribution deal. It opened on 299 screens. Thor opened on 3,955 screens. It is also the lack of a distribution deal that prevented an advertising budget.

After all the negative press, my expectations were quite low. So when I found it to be quite watchable, I was pleasantly surprised. It is quite flawed in a number of ways, but the abuse it is taking is without merit, and probably politically motivated. I recommend it to anybody who has read the book without feeling the need to vomit. My personal opinions partially agree with Objectivist philosophy, so I didn't find the book as revolting as many do. My nit-picks with the film are pretty much the same as any book to screen adaptation. Too much plot, not enough character development, things left out or glossed over, that sort of thing.

@shuac - When have you ever seen the per screen metric used on something other than a span of days? Even on boxofficemojo where you got your numbers, it shows the per screen over the opening weekend. Perhaps you are talking about the numbers that get discussed by movie insiders, but as far as the public goes, per screen is always combined Fri-Mon. The only time I have ever seen it discussed on a per-day basis is when a major blockbuster does fantastic numbers on a weekday, and somebody compares those days to the weekend numbers specifically to show how a movie is packing seats during the week. A rare exception.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The robber barons of America's past abused power in a way far more like what Stewart is whining about here. They ran roughshod over people, and there were no laws to stop them. A good thing happened, and the people forced government to pass laws that allowed government to regulate such abuses. It was a good thing.

Yes, so let's do that again. We just need to roll back the robber barons' acquisition of government. They took it over in the immediate aftermath of the progressive era in the early 20th century -- by 1929 they basically ran Washington, just like now.

Back then, people demanded a New Deal, and got one. We had an era of real growth, where the resulting prosperity was relatively equally shared. The rising tide really did raise all boats. Not because businesses were more kindhearted, but because we had strong unions, and regulators who saw their job as actually regulating business.

Then Ronald Reagan came along, and it became Mourning in America. Unions got systematically broken up and destroyed. Business was welcomed into Washington with open arms, and allowed to write regulation. An anti-Fed objectivist became chairman of the Fed. Taxes for the rich were slashed, so were benefits to the poor. Everyone (who matters) wins!

Now we're getting a Great Depression of our own, and it looks like instead of us getting a New Deal, the robber barons are. More union busting, more tax cuts for the rich, more deregulation, and all so we can "compete" with authoritarian dictatorships that run sweatshops, by setting up our own here at home.

I've been told ^that^ comment makes no sense. Let me try again.

By calling himself a libertarian or liberty activist, blankfist creates an irrational mental environment of infallibility. He doesn't see his ideology as subjective reasoning, but rather the embodiment of liberty itself. Argue with blankfist, and in his mind you are arguing with liberty.

It doesn't matter that his subjective concept of liberty is geared towards a very small amount of wealthy business owners at the expense of the working class. It doesn't matter that when put into practice, his ideology produces results that are violent, oppresive and corrupt. Like the Christian soldier who fights as an agent of God, blankfist is a free market soldier that fights as an agent of a higher power called liberty. Right and wrong no longer mean anything when you are fighting for the divine.

With this mindset, Milton Friedman's 'shock therapy' in Chile that replaced a socialist democracy with a capitalist dictatorship and left tens of thousands dead becomes an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice to the gods of liberty. Whenever a newly deregulated market spawns oppression and theft, (S&L's,Enron,Mortgage Fraud) there are always plenty of scapegoats to pawn responsibility off onto, because the true God of market liberty self-regulates. With this mindset, there is no need for introspection, because liberty is perfect. Liberty is Love. Remember Ron Paul's Love-olution billboards? You aren't voting for a man, you are voting for the physical embodiment of love! How could anyone be anti-love?

Same goes for 'objectivism', especially when the concept is tied to 'individualism'. Individuals are incapable of objectivity. Ayn Rand titling her movement 'objectivism' is evidence that she is in no way objective. A 'collective' of people, with different life experiences and areas of expertise would ironically be more much more objective than an 'Objectivist' individual. It's like rain on your wedding day, or titling your subjective ideology 'objectivism'. Sorry Alanis, that lyric doesn't rhyme and is going to need some work.

I believe we reinforce this divinity complex when we use words such as libertarian or objectivist. We should either call them what they are, anarcho-capitalists, or develop our own divine self-definition.

Truthitarianism? Correctist? IMASMARTYURADUMY.com?

"(Ayn) Rand’s receipt of welfare benefits in no way diminishes her status as a champion of individual liberty. I quote from an interview with Rand for a 1966 issue of The Objectivist newsletter:

It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."

Yes, Ayn Rand accepted Social Security and Medicare benefits, and that’s okay.
by Bevan Sabo


MEANWHILE.......

One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest 1 percent. The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor—like 80 percent of the population—pay off the rich.”

But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in “income-tax planning,” set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.

Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.

Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist

@Tymbrwulf

I pretty much agree with everything you just said. I think the prose you wrote above would make an excellent deface to the preface of the new book I prefaced called, 'Elephants That Became A Morass Relay System That Were "Gored" Into A Multi-Platform Supported Prostitute', written by John C. Dvorak and prefaced by me and your stuff near the back. Right before the end; you'll kindly remind the readers that they read 259 pages of nothing. Literally, (literally) nothing, but THIS (plus our stuff):

"Then on that dissmal day did I look fondly over the barren San Francisco skyline and remembered the quote I had stated so long ago, and evermore..so...truth-worthy now..."
----

'Apple makes the arrogant assumption of thinking that it knows what you want and need. It, unfortunately, leaves the “why” out of the equation — as in “why would I want this?” The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a ‘mouse’. There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I dont want one of these new fangled devices.'

Your video, Keith Olbermann Special Comment: False Objectivity vs. Truth, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thank you very much!

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^colt45:
Where's the video for what he is responding to?

He's responding to an article Ted Koppel penned for the dead tree media:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/
11/12/AR2010111202857.html

>> ^colt45:

Where's the video for what he is responding to?


He's responding to an article Ted Koppel penned for the dead tree media:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html

As long as its clearly marked, like tobacco and alcohol, I would have no problems with that. The benefits outweigh the cost of it - I would think, anyway.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^gwiz665:
That's the usual argument from objectivists. Morally unjustifiable. Pfft, morals are tainted by points of view, so depending on who you ask, there's a different answer.
Just cost/benefit that shit and figure out if theres a higher cost than the benefit. Some people will say, absolutely, some will say absolutely not and a whole bunch of people will be in the grey area in between.
The problem is not the principle of prohibition; lots of things are illegal that should probably stay illegal, but that weed is not proportionally regulated compared to alcohol and cigarettes. It's thrown out into illegal land with meth, crack and heroin, which is hardly a fitting policy, when you look at its impact on people and society.

That's the usual argument from relativists. Pfft, by taking the time to argue the point aren't you implicitly accepting a common standard of truth? Without it no debate is possible. One standard, one correct solution.
Cannabis belongs with meth, crack and heroin - on a shelf in your local supermarket, next to the aspirin.

>> ^gwiz665:

That's the usual argument from objectivists. Morally unjustifiable. Pfft, morals are tainted by points of view, so depending on who you ask, there's a different answer.
Just cost/benefit that shit and figure out if theres a higher cost than the benefit. Some people will say, absolutely, some will say absolutely not and a whole bunch of people will be in the grey area in between.
The problem is not the principle of prohibition; lots of things are illegal that should probably stay illegal, but that weed is not proportionally regulated compared to alcohol and cigarettes. It's thrown out into illegal land with meth, crack and heroin, which is hardly a fitting policy, when you look at its impact on people and society.


That's the usual argument from relativists. Pfft, by taking the time to argue the point aren't you implicitly accepting a common standard of truth? Without it no debate is possible. One standard, one correct solution.

Cannabis belongs with meth, crack and heroin - on a shelf in your local supermarket, next to the aspirin.

That's the usual argument from objectivists. Morally unjustifiable. Pfft, morals are tainted by points of view, so depending on who you ask, there's a different answer.

Just cost/benefit that shit and figure out if theres a higher cost than the benefit. Some people will say, absolutely, some will say absolutely not and a whole bunch of people will be in the grey area in between.

The problem is not the principle of prohibition; lots of things are illegal that should probably stay illegal, but that weed is not proportionally regulated compared to alcohol and cigarettes. It's thrown out into illegal land with meth, crack and heroin, which is hardly a fitting policy, when you look at its impact on people and society.

>> ^gorillaman:

1. Prohibition is morally unjustifiable.
There are no other relevant arguments.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Objectivist idiots.


I think what you meant to say was "Way to go Objectivist idiots."

Let's take this nonsense argument to its logical extreme, shall we?

-An individual is made up of organs, bone and fluid, therefore the individual doesn't exist.
-Organs, bone and fluid are made up of molecules, therefore organs, bone and fluid don't exist.
-Molecules are made up of atoms, therefore molecules don't exist.

Also, isn't there just a tiny bit of irony in forming a group that is anti-group.

Objectivist idiots.

>> ^peggedbea:
what is the libertarian solution to making sure these people are cared for and have the highest quality of life possible?
i obviously believe that a society is responsible for taking care of its most vulnerable members.
but milton friedman and ayn rand say i'm wrong.
so what is the solution? sometimes people with disabilities are born into poverty too. and i refuse to accept that their dignity, health and quality of life just aren't as important as your bank statement.


It's simple. The libertarian solution is to let them die. Actually, that's more of an Objectivist solution...they're far nuttier than your average libertarian. Libertarians generally just claim that personal charities will handle all that kind of problem (taking care of those who can't take care of themselves). Note that they cannot point to any place or time where that's actually been successful, but burying their heads in the sand is apparently more comfortable than dealing with reality.