erandror

Members
  • Content count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by erandror

  1. Antitrust

    Hello everyone! I am interested in learning everything I can about antitrust. I want more than the theory, laws, and history (which I can find in books, and have). I want inside information about the actual process, the actual people, the dirty secrets behind the scenes, the unseen tragedies that go unnoticed by today's media. This is all for a comprehensive piece I am writing on the subject. (A very good cause). If anyone here thinks he can help, or knows someone who might be able to help, please let me know. I'm particularly interested in hearing from antitrust defense lawyers, though I would definitely not want to erect any "barriers to entry". If you have any stories you want to share with everyone, you are most welcome to post them here as replies.
  2. Antitrust

    Thank you! Now that's something I didn't have on my reading list. And by the way, I had just read about your accident. I'm very sorry to hear about it - hope you are doing well! I won't tell you to be strong because you already are.
  3. Antitrust

    Yes, I'm definitely trying to focus on Objectivists with some intimate knowledge of antitrust at this stage. If I can't find any, I'll have a harder time with the average antitrust lawyer.
  4. Antitrust

    Thank you, that is a very good suggestion. Unfortunately I absolutely 100% require my own interview, as my angle is very unique. There is absolutely no risk of exposure involved, however, as I am only pursuing this interview as a first phase and for my own understanding. No part of it will be quoted.
  5. Antitrust

    Thanks Groovestein! And thanks, RayK - I did read The Abolition of Antitrust, among others, and even contacted one of the authors. None of the writers seemed to have that personal connection that I'm looking for, though.
  6. House

    Hmmm. My impression, and House's criticism, is that Cameron is often letting her emotions interfere with her analysis of a situation. She even lied to the parents of a dying baby because she couldn't bring herself to tell them. Understandable as that may be, she is a doctor and has certain responsibilities. She is often motivated by pitty, rather than by judgment. Do you remember the episode about the missionary doctor? She was the only one who admired him, and couldn't see through him. Does it mean that she'll take drugs, etc - under the situation? Well... maybe we don't know the character well enough to say... Her inner world was not revealed to the extent that others' have been. But we did know that something was wrong with her all along. I agree, however, that the relationships between the characters are less interesting than the medical dilemmas. I trust that the medical dilemmas will remain at the center of this show in the future.
  7. House

    If you like Chase, you've obviously missed much of the first season. The guy is a sleazeball. As for Cameron, she's too much of an emotionalist and it actually goes pretty well with her character. As for House's relationship with Stacy... well - she does seem to be the only one, other than Cuddy, who is not intimidated by him.
  8. Jokes

    Which means you haven't seen the immortal Monty Python sketch where "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" was first introduced to the world.
  9. Perplexing Ad in TIA

    Well, that's why I stated that one must take into consideration ALL the factors involved, including long term hazards and benefits. But once you've reached the conclusion that your PERSONAL interests are better served (short term and long term) by not boycotting - following your desire to punish the evil instead is irrational.
  10. House

    I agree completely. Vogler's problems are due to his power lust, and in fact represented some very dubious business decisions even in terms of maximizing profits (like trying to force House to publicly endorse an overpriced, average quality drug - which of course explodes in his face).
  11. Perplexing Ad in TIA

    Antitrust lobbying against competitors is a confession of impotence. It's not just immoral, it's pathetic. That's mostly why I would tend to avoid products by Oracle, American Express, etc. - they have all but admitted they cannot compete based on merits. As a proponent of the morality of self-interest, your guide in making a purchase should be the effect of the purchase on your life (including the possible reprecussions of financially supporting a hostile regime or hostile legistlation). Not some desire to punish the evil. While that desire is proper, following it when it is considerably detrimental to your life (like avoiding products from China in this day and age), is irrational.
  12. House

    If a show like House can be produced and be successful, anything is possible. Gives me hope every week.
  13. What to call the enemy

    To the degree that Christians today are decent people like you say, they will understand that fighting Militant Islam is in their own interest, regardless of our criticisms of religion as such. And I don't know who is this "we" you are talking about when you say: "By being very open and vocal in our opposition to Christianity, we risk losing some good people." Should ARI stop publishing articles condemning the attacks on stem-cell research, or supporting abortion "for the time being?" That's the same policy the US took with the USSR during WW2. The result can only be the strengthening of the religious right which will result in a Cold War (and there's no guarantee our side will win). I don't see how continuing to honestly criticize religion can jeopardize our (nonexistent) war on Militant Islam. To make my position clear - I'm not advocating attacking Christianity in every article we publish about Militant Islam's war against the West. That depends on the subject and theme of the article. What I AM saying is that we should not forget that it is ultimately useless, when arguing against a religion, to criticize just part of it without showing that the whole religion is flawed from its root.
  14. Bad, bad, bad writing

    Crafty bastards!
  15. What to call the enemy

    I see no reason to wait with the ideological battle. We should urge the administration to combat the physical threat, while at the same time criticizing its religious tendencies. And we can certainly criticize Islam thoroughly at the same time.
  16. What to call the enemy

    And just to make it clear if it isn't - the distinction I'm making between physical and ideological enemies is not a false dichotomy between mind and body - but a practical division: the physical enemy is the one you fight with guns, the ideological enemy is the one you fight with words.
  17. What to call the enemy

    Well of course, in the war against Militant Islam, all civilized countries must participate, regardless of their faith. That's why it should be our goal to point to the large militant segment of Islam as the *physical* enemy, rather than Islam itself. But don't expect Bush to be your ally in the *ideological* battle. Objectivists are more or less alone in this battle, and they mustn't dilute their criticisms in order not to offend religious people.
  18. What to call the enemy

    Not sure I understand what you mean... but the difference I see between Islam and other religions today is mostly a difference of degree. Many more people are serious about Islam than are about Judaism and Christianity. When both these religions had a large, committed following, the results were just as bloody. It's true that Islam is a current danger, while Christianity is a gathering one - which is why I support military action against militant Islam. But there is no proper way of IDEOLOGICALLY fighting Islam without going to the root of what's wrong with it, by attacking mysticism and by identifying the arbitrary element that is part of every religion. To put it more colloquially: You can't argue with Allah about his commandments. The proper thing to do is argue that Allah does not exist.
  19. What to call the enemy

    Well I have studied Islam in college, and while it's true that Islam has some special attributes that make it much more prone to become militant (that's an understatement, actually - The Koran does call for a holy war on heretics, and Mohammed himself did just that) - its basic evil is the same as any other religion. I.e. - that it is boastfully irrational. The means to fight Islam is by exposing and ridiculing its inherent irrationality; but you can't do that without at the same time attacking all other religions.
  20. What to call the enemy

    The enemy of whom, and in what battle? In the battle of Western survival - the enemy is that large sect of Islam calling for jihad against the west. Call them Militant Islamists if you will. The name doesn't really matter as long as you know who you are talking about. In the battle of ideas, Islam is just one more religion - and it should be fought as such.
  21. Ender's Game

    This is my second-favorite science fiction book of all times. The first is Atlas Shrugged. This book is the first part of a series which I highly recommend to ignore. Ender's Game, however, is incredible.
  22. Terrorists have attacked London

    I'm sorry I have to welcome the United Kingdom into the not so exclusive circle of Islamist terrorism victims. Unfortunately, I don't believe the UK will now take any stronger measures against militant Islam. I don't believe America will be swayed by this to take any stronger measures. I don't believe anything will change - and so I believe that other, bigger attacks will happen soon. In London and elsewhere. Destroy the governments Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia - then I'll believe.
  23. Should defamation be against the law

    Defamation is a kind of fraud, whether the defamer profits from it directly or not. It's a fraud calculated to rob someone not merely of his good reputation - but of the goods and rights associated with it.
  24. In Praise of Obesity

    Obesity is vulgar and disgusting. It's true that it would have been impossible without economical and technological advancement, but so what? So would a nuclear holocaust.
  25. Flag Burning

    What about a Muslim walking down Fifth Avenue and not consenting to see the bare legs and unveiled heads of women? Or if it's just a matter of numbers, what if he managed to convince enough Americans that it was wrong, so that they were the majority, would they then have the right to force women to cover themselves completely when outside their homes? To make things worse - what if enough people decided that they do not consent to ever seeing a woman outside the home, fully covered or not? No-one has "the right not to be exposed" to unwanted sights and sounds. There has to be an objective principle prescribing what kind of things a man must bare, and what he can forcefully prevent, through government intervention. I would say under laissez-faire the owner of the property will decide what kinds of dress codes/expressions are permitted on his premises (but if it includes anything unusual, like pornography, he would have to put up a sign - whether it is a privately owned store or a privately owned city). In today's political stay, I am for limited government: Government should have the power to block only those forms of public displays that are inherently disturbing or distracting, regardless of political orientation, ideology, etc.