Shotgun

Is football now a Speakers Corner topic too?

http://www.hewasaquietman.com/ Wow, he looks different now.

Can you point me to any (good) studies that show this? I tend to think it's probably true that having say one glass of wine every day could be good for you, but I haven't seen any studies yet that seemed conclusive to me. I've heard it repeated many times in the news, but that doesn't mean much. And as for the effects of heavy drinking, I have no doubts about that. I've seen enough proof - liver failure, pancreatitis, seizures, brain damage, heart problems, stomach problems... Fun stuff.

Well, you're certainly describing a social/economic system that is not what we have right now. And "free" is a sort of subjective word, so I'm not sure that we will all agree on which system allows all individuals to be free. And actually I can't imagine any system where all individuals will feel that they are free. Ok, I'll add it to my list, though I'll admit I already have a biased opinion from reading some of her other books and essays. So I'm expecting it to be some idealistic vision that is not attainable in the real world. (Sheesh, I went for a walk and I'm still being negative!)

Fixed that for ya. Hmm, maybe "root" was the wrong word for me to use. "Contributing factor" might be more appropriate. Greed is probably the root of many of the problems, but that's probably going to be the thing that keeps any economic system from working in an ideal way. Not sure how to get rid of greed though, and we're all guilty of it to some degree. Anyhow, I was just curious what Rand's suggestions were. But I'm guessing that they are idealistic, as is usually the case in philosophy. Oh well, let's just keep "progressing" until we eradicate ourselves. It's not like anyone will miss us.

Does she explain how we achieve true free-market capitalism, without government intervention, or does her theory only hold true in an ideal world? Because the capitalist economy we live in today seems to be the root of many of the world's problems. Not that I have a better suggestion myself... I think that I lean more toward socialism, but I don't see any way to make that work except in an ideal world either. I like the books I've read of hers. She's a very good writer, but I don't necessarily agree with everything she says. Which is ok, because at least she makes me think.

That movie sounds familiar, but I guess I never saw it. I'll rent it if I'm ever in the mood for a chick flick. Oh, and it's a plus that it has Peter Gallagher in it, who was in one of my favorite movies... The Idolmaker, which is definitely not a chick flick.

Well it worked out well for Sandra Bullock so it MUST be OK. I think she even got a trip to Florence out of it. Ok, now you've lost me.

True. I suspect that the alcoholic beverage industry is quite similar to the tobacco industry, and that they have a keen interest in making their product seem as healthy as possible (or at least not unhealthy). I'm sure that they want the fact that many people are dying from their product to be overshadowed by the "fact" that it might have health benefits when used "responsibly". I'm not saying it doesn't have health benefits; maybe it does. But I don't know many people who are honestly drinking it for their health. And we're talking about a very big industry, with a lot of money and power, so I tend to be skeptical about any kind of research that shows alcohol to be a positive thing. Ok, I lied when I said I would shut up. This particular subject just strikes a nerve with me. And it will soon lead to me bitching about capitalism and all sorts of other things.

Unfortunately, I have been in that position before. I'm pretty sure that all I did was tell them that I'm his wife, and they never asked any questions beyond that. I guess they didn't even notice that my last name was different from his when I was signing all the papers. (Hmm, or maybe that's because my signature is unreadable.) So you might get away with that even if you're not really his wife, but there might be legal issues with it later on. I'm not sure how that stuff works.

I see it as mostly a legal thing. If people just want to make an emotional commitment to each other, a legal marriage is not necessary for that, as you already know.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but I didn't say it because I didn't want to sound like the paranoid skeptic that I am. And most studies like this leave me with way too many unanswered questions to draw the same conclusions that they are claiming. For instance, in this study: Did they only take the factors of alcohol consumption and exercise into consideration? And who are these teetotallers, and why do they not drink? Did they have to give up drinking because they had a problem with it (addiction, allergy, etc.)? Do they not drink for religious purposes? (In which case, there might be other dietary factors dictated by their religion.) Etc., etc., etc....... I do believe that it's not unhealthy for most people to have about one drink a day. But from the information they provide about this study, it doesn't sound like they have enough information to honestly claim that "drinking is healthy." (And it's an irresponsible statement, since they later claim that the highest death rate was among the heavy drinkers.) Ok, sorry, I'm being a party pooper. I'll shut up now. (I just can't help picking apart news stories about scientific studies; many of the studies seem inconclusive to me, so the way they're reported annoys me.)

I have my father's last name, the name I've had since birth. I think my family has always followed the "wife and children take husband's last name" thing, up until I came along.

Thanks for the explanation. I do agree that divorce can be a bad thing for children, but living with parents who no longer love each other can be a bad thing for children too. In both cases, the effect on the children depends on how the situation is handled. It sounds like the problem you describe has more to do with people having children before they're ready rather than a problem with so many people getting divorced. A person could get divorced twenty times, and if there are no children involved, then I can't really see anything wrong with that. (Though you would think they'd get tired of the hassle. ) And making it more difficult to get married (like requiring a class) might change the divorce rate, but it probably wouldn't do anything to reduce the number of people having kids before they're ready for kids. I don't think that everyone means "forever" when they get married. (Marriage means so many different things to different people.) But everyone does mean "forever" when they decide to have a child, whether they like it or not, and whether they are married or not. And I don't think that the divorce rate has much to do with people having kids before they're ready for such a commitment, but I don't know what can be done about that since we can't restrict people from reproducing. And I guess I don't equate a high divorce rate with "hopelessness" because I didn't grow up thinking that my happiness depended on falling in love with one person and being with them for the rest of my life. Not that there's anything wrong with wanting such a thing for yourself, but I guess that would cause us to have different perspectives on what marriage and divorce mean.

Ok, because this is Speakers Corner, and it's weird to have a thread where everyone is just agreeing with you, I have to come back and ask: Why are you upset about other people getting divorced? Doesn't seem like it should affect you or your own marriage in any way.

Actually there is, but it's SO outdated. What is the logical conclusion? Yep... I'm just glad that I live in a time and place where I am free to choose whether to keep my name or change it. Hmm... and now that I think about it, The Artist Formerly Known as Keely might be a cool new name.

Yes, it would make some things easier, but there seems to be no logical conclusion as to which partner should change their name. And some things are made more difficult when people change their names, such as trying to locate an old friend who may have changed her name when she got married.

Our agreement is that if we have a boy, he gets Rich's last name. And if we have a girl, she gets my last name. I know that's sort of weird, but it's the best solution I could think of.

I don't know. It's something about a man and a woman becoming one. I quess if you don't really believe that, why even waste the money and energy of going through the process? I can understand why a married couple would want to have the same last name; I just can't see any reason why the male's last name should be preferable to the female's. Oh, and I don't personally think of marriage as being about a man and a woman becoming one, but that's just me. But luckily most of us can still get married even if we have different ideas about the meaning of marriage. Well, unless you're gay... but now I'm getting way off topic.

Well, not really. Unless she thought that taking his last name would help his or her career. Other than that, I can't think of any reason why it would be odd for her to keep her own last name. I find it odd that anyone still expects women to take their husbands' last names.

Ok, so lawrocket was also making a big deal out of nothing. And anyone else on here who is talking about Hillary "crying" or being "in tears" - makes me wonder if they actually watched the video or if they just assumed that some exaggerated news story was accurate.

What does that have to do with anything?

I've watched the video of that interview several times, and I'm not seeing anything that looks even close to crying. In fact, she appears to give a very composed answer to the woman's question. I guess I'm just missing it, but if it's that subtle, then it doesn't seem newsworthy to me. Though I'm not surprised that the media would make a big deal out of nothing.

[peers down into empty bottom of 4th double size mug o' coffee] Meh, could be. Ah, I see. The only reason I said that was because, as I was reading your rant, I was thinking wow she sounds just like me when I've had too much coffee.

I was just wondering if she had too much coffee this morning.