President's aid sought in battle to save cross

Is an illegal cross acceptable if only one complains?

---

me@rescam.org

Domestic violence law abuses rights of men

By Phyllis Schlafly; she is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of “The Supremacists.”

May 12, 2006

In January, President George W. Bush signed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act without public debate, even though evidence has surfaced that Congress should have examined it before the law was extended.

The act, which costs nearly $1 billion per year, is one of the major ways former President Bill Clinton bought the support of radical feminists.

Why Republicans passed this bill is a mystery. It's unlikely that the feminists who will spend all that money will ever vote Republican.

Passage of the Violence Against Women Act was a major priority of the American Bar Association for whose members it is a cash cow. More than 300 courts have implemented specialized docket processes to address the cases stemming from the act, more than 1 million women have obtained protection orders from the courts, and more than 660 new state laws pertaining to domestic violence have been passed, all of which produce profitable work for lawyers.

A recently issued ABA document called “Tool for Attorneys” provides lawyers with a list of suggestive questions to encourage their clients to make domestic-violence charges. Knowing that a woman can get a restraining order against the father of her children in an ex parte proceeding without any evidence, and that she will never be punished for lying, domestic-violence accusations have become a major tactic for securing sole child custody.

Voluminous documentation to dispel the feminist myths that created and have perpetuated the act are spelled out in seven reports just issued by an organization called Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting, or RADAR, and in an 80-page report called “Family Violence in America” published by the American Coalition for Fathers & Children.

For example, it is a shocker to discover that acts don't have to be violent to be punished under the definition of domestic violence. Name-calling, put-downs, shouting, negative looks or gestures, ignoring opinions or constant criticizing can all be legally labeled domestic violence.

The ABA report states flatly: “Domestic violence does not necessarily involve physical violence.” The feminists' mantra is, “You don't have to be beaten to be abused.”

Advocates of the Violence Against Women Act assert that domestic violence is a crime, yet family courts often adjudicate domestic violence as a civil (not a criminal) matter. This enables courts to deny the accused all Bill of Rights and due process protections that are granted to even the most heinous of criminals.

Specifically, the accused is not innocent until proven guilty but is presumed guilty, and he doesn't have to be convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Due process rights, such as trial by jury and the right of free counsel to poor defendants, are regularly denied, and false accusations are not covered by perjury law. The act provides funding for legal representation for accusers but not for defendants.

Those concerned about judicial activism, i.e., judges legislating from the bench, could observe judges doing this every day in domestic violence cases. Every time a judge issues a restraining order, the judge creates new crimes for which an individual can be arrested and jailed without trial for doing what no statute prohibits and what anyone else may lawfully do.

This criminalizing of ordinary private behavior and incarceration without due process follows classic police-state practices. Evidence is irrelevant, hearsay is admissible, defendants have no right to confront their accusers, and forced confessions are a common feature.

Some of these injustices result from overzealous law enforcement officials (sometimes running for office), and some from timid judges who grant restraining orders and deny due process to defendants for fear of being blamed for subsequent violence. Most of this, however, is the result of feminist activism and the taxpayer money given them by Congress.

The ease and speed with which women can get restraining orders without fear of punishment for lying indicates that the dynamic driving domestic-violence accusations is child custody rather than violence. Restraining orders don't prevent violence, but they do have the immediate effect of separating fathers from their children and imprisoning fathers for acts that are perfectly legal if done by anyone else (such as attending a public event at which his child is performing).

The restraining order issued against TV talk show host David Letterman, allegedly to protect a woman who claimed he was harassing her through his TV broadcasts, is a good example of how easy it is to get a court order based on false allegations. Another ridiculous restraining order was issued against celebutante Paris Hilton to protect a man she had bad-mouthed.

Violence Against Women Act money is used by anti-male feminists to train judges, prosecutors and police in the feminist myths that domestic violence is a contagious epidemic, and that men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims. Feminists lobby state legislators to pass must-arrest and must-prosecute laws even when police don't observe any crime and can't produce a witness to testify about an alleged crime.

Assault and battery are crimes in every state and should be prosecuted. But people so accused should be entitled to their constitutional rights. After all, is this America?

---

me@rescam.org

I know that this is a difficult concept for many in the world. The US has private entities that run many services considered the job of the government elsewhere. Trash collection, hospital administration, telephone service, etc. are all run by private companies in at least part of the country. I think San Francisco still even has private police departments.

Yes, some countries also have 'dual system' split for those that can afford and those that cannot (education & health care).

The amount of funding per child in the public school system would pay for a fairly nice private school. Not your "ivy league" schools, to be sure, but private enterprise can do a lot more with the same number of $ than the local government can.

So, you are suggesting a tax break so that the education sector could go 100% private?

Wouldn't these private institutions just end up pushing out statistics and while jacking up the price of education??(or are talking about a regulated private sector education)

Back to supply and demand issues.....

Even without school vounchers, many middle-class families pay for a public education that their child did not receive then pay a completely separate tuition to send that child to a religious school.

Perhaps the problems run much deeper and in actuality start in the home. If children take the example of their parents it isn't any wonder the education system is failing (just look at how some people behave around here LOL.... and these people have offspring <yikes> ) so (IMHO) fundamentally education issues start in the home.

Public schools used to work (and in some countries they still do), why is that?

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

---

Account frozen...

Private records not so private?

Revelations about a secret NSA phone surveillance program have lawmakers on both sides of the aisle raising questions about what other private records might be collected by the government.

Video at MSNBC

MSNBC

---

Private records not so private?

Revelations about a secret NSA phone surveillance program have lawmakers on both sides of the aisle raising questions about what other private records might be collected by the government.

Video at MSNBC

MSNBC

...o0(especially when it may concern them being recorded or having information collected about them)

I know that this is a difficult concept for many in the world. The US has private entities that run many services considered the job of the government elsewhere. Trash collection, hospital administration, telephone service, etc. are all run by private companies in at least part of the country. I think San Francisco still even has private police departments.

Yes, some countries also have 'dual system' split for those that can afford and those that cannot (education & health care).

There are advocates of this plan who have websites you can look up if you are interested. However, he's the theory in a nutshell:

The local juristiction collects a bunch of money from every landowner in the area to fund its schools. People who rent pay this tax indirectly since their landlord has to pay it.

Some of these residents have children in the school system. The school tax money is divided up roughly evenly so there is a small pile of money allocated to each child.

In a normal situation, the schools are funded by some arcane formula decided by the school district. Some part of this budget is used by each school to test its students and report the results.

If the results are unacceptable (and this definition is the subject of much debate), then a family can demand a voucher for the small pile of money allocated for their child and use it to pay the tuition at a private school instead. A school could be "acceptable" for some students and not others (for example, handicapped students or ESL students or Asian students or girls or whatever), or the aggregate of the entire student body could be unacceptable.

Note that most people living in a "failed school" area are not wealthy, so they will choose a private school that has tuition equal to or lower than the voucher amount. Given the amazing inefficiency of US public schools, the amount of voucher money per child can pay for a good (but not Ivy League) private school.

The amount of funding per child in the public school system would pay for a fairly nice private school. Not your "ivy league" schools, to be sure, but private enterprise can do a lot more with the same number of $ than the local government can.

So, you are suggesting a tax break so that the education sector could go 100% private?

Wouldn't these private institutions just end up pushing out statistics and while jacking up the price of education??(or are talking about a regulated private sector education)

Back to supply and demand issues.....

Some public schools have already been caught faking the stats they report about their students thru legal loopholes designed to protect the schools from statistical outliers.

The public system is the system's first choice... they parents don't get a choice of schools unless the local public school system has demonstrably failed.

This is a direct response to the teachers' unions making it impossible to fire a bad teacher.

Even without school vounchers, many middle-class families pay for a public education that their child did not receive then pay a completely separate tuition to send that child to a religious school.

Perhaps the problems run much deeper and in actuality start in the home. If children take the example of their parents it isn't any wonder the education system is failing (just look at how some people behave around here LOL.... and these people have offspring <yikes> ) so (IMHO) fundamentally education issues start in the home.

Public schools used to work (and in some countries they still do), why is that?

This is the teachers' union party line: we can't be expected to be these kids parents. Parental responsibility is a hot topic in the US. However, all the education system can do is provide all the kids with a reasonably consistent level of education. It is not the government's job to ensure that everyone has identical life outcomes.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Suspect snooping - NSA data gathering in need of oversight

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

May 15, 2006

USA Today has disclosed that the Pentagon's National Security Agency is collecting information on the phone calls of most Americans and compiling “the largest database ever assembled in the world,” according to one person familiar with the program.

Three of the nation's largest telecommunications companies – AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth – agreed to turn over voluntarily, without court orders, calling information just after Sept. 11, 2001, but without customers' names or addresses. The NSA told the companies it needed the information to detect terrorist activity in the United States. One major company, Qwest, refused the government's request.

President Bush quickly sought to reassure Americans that individual privacy still was being respected. “We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans,” he said. “Our efforts are focused on links to al-Qaeda and their known affiliates.”

The president's efforts appear to have paid off. A small Washington Post poll taken later in the day showed that 63 percent of Americans said the NSA program was an acceptable way to investigate terrorism.

Data-mining, the term for collecting, collating and distributing digital information, may be necessary in the global war on terror. But the super-secret NSA should not set all the rules on how the information is collected and used – all without judicial oversight. Once the information is gathered, what is to stop anyone with access from using it for purposes that have noting to do with terrorism? Already, one wonders why the government needs to store data on the average American's Sunday call to his mother.

Earlier this year, when it was disclosed that the NSA was intercepting calls to and from foreign countries, the president told the nation that the program did not cover calls within the United States. We now know that to be untrue. What else aren't we being told?

In 1975, the nation learned that, without warrants, the CIA had been intercepting international communications for 20 years. In response, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted in 1978. It established a special court to oversee such surveillance. The Bush administration chose to ignore the court and set its own rules.

The Congress appears to have voluntarily surrendered its oversight responsibilities. It must reassert them now. Laws governing telecommunications have not kept up with technological advances. This is an opportunity for Congress to act in the best interests of the nation and individual rights. Update laws, make clear the role of the judiciary, and make sure the president and the executive branch are doing what the law and the Constitution require.

---

me@rescam.org

Acting positively in the Middle East

JIM HOAGLAND
THE WASHINGTON POST

May 15, 2006

The United States and Israel exercise absolute conventional military domination over the Middle East, but are bled by costly asymmetrical warfare. They must now pursue war by other means, through asymmetrical diplomacy and statecraft built on flexibility and open-ended tactics.

For the Bush administration, that means pursuing a strategy of “as if” to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and from interfering in Iraq. Washington should act as if it will secure Russian and Chinese support for sanctions against Tehran, and as if Iran will eventually make a deal – even though neither event is likely.

Moving to asymmetrical diplomacy will involve President Bush – at the right moment – expressing a willingness to talk directly with Iran about all subjects, including security in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. Memo to Bush: You don't have to answer the letter you get, you can answer the one you wanted to get.

For Israel's new coalition government, asymmetrical statecraft means taking active steps to avoid humanitarian and political disaster in the Palestinian territories rather than constantly raising the temperature under a boiling pot. Ehud Olmert has shown early signs of adopting that approach – up to a point.

The Israeli prime minister visits Washington this month for meetings with President Bush that should contribute to a redrawing of strategy toward the Islamic radicals now in power in Iran and in the Palestinian territories. By giving the radicals the room they need to fail on their own, Bush and Olmert can build international acceptance for the hard choices they will be called on to make and present to the world in the near future.

That is the essence of containing what Charles de Gaulle called la force du faible, or the strength of the weak: the willingness of people to give up the relatively little they have in suicide bombings or “irrational” nuclear saber-rattling. They have no other way to respond to the unchallengeable military might that the United States and Israel have established in the region. This in turn creates the need for asymmetrical statecraft by the strong.

The White House has flirted with a complete cut-off of Western economic help to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in hopes of splitting Hamas or forcing Palestinians to oust the radicals who won January's legislative elections. U.S. agreement last week to work with the European Union, Russia and the United Nations to provide funding to relieve the looming Palestinian humanitarian crisis is a welcome sign that a scorched-earth policy – a symmetrical response to Palestinian violence – has not been firmly adopted at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The White House went along with a European initiative on emergency aid after Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni telephoned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last Sunday and supported help for the Palestinians that did not go through Hamas. Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz on Thursday went further, saying Israel should rethink harsh policies that contribute to the humanitarian crisis in the first place.

The rejectionist policies of Hamas and the rantings of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have brought U.S. and European Union policies on the Middle East closer together. That is an outcome that a distrustful Israel often sought to avoid in the past. But Olmert's flexibility suggests that he understands the importance of Washington's building as broad a front as possible to pursue war by other means if conventional diplomacy fails.

The Treasury Department, not the Pentagon, holds the key to the next steps if the United Nations does not mandate action against Iran. The asymmetric weapon of choice is Treasury's ability to deny foreign banks and firms access to the lucrative U.S. market if they cooperate with an international outlaw. The market-access threat recently helped blunt North Korea's counterfeiting of U.S. currency, and would be devastating to the investment flows Iran needs to rebuild its deteriorating oil industry.

But Washington must act as if it has gone to the limits of its ability to consult and compromise with its partners before taking actions that will affect French, Russian and other international enterprises. And acting as if a deal is possible with Iran is the only way to get Moscow and Beijing to support the effort.

So Bush is right: He should not take any option off the table – including talking to Ahmadinejad or Hamas in certain circumstances, or to Vladimir Putin at the G-8 summit in July. That will be the last chance for a U.N.-blessed deal on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

“We are in a who-blinks-first game,” Bush said of Iran to a recent White House visitor. It is in fact a who-thinks-first, and best, game.

---

me@rescam.org

Perhaps the problems run much deeper and in actuality start in the home. If children take the example of their parents it isn't any wonder the education system is failing (just look at how some people behave around here LOL.... and these people have offspring <yikes> ) so (IMHO) fundamentally education issues start in the home.

Public schools used to work (and in some countries they still do), why is that?

This is the teachers' union party line: we can't be expected to be these kids parents. Parental responsibility is a hot topic in the US. However, all the education system can do is provide all the kids with a reasonably consistent level of education. It is not the government's job to ensure that everyone has identical life outcomes.

Well if the teachers are correct, then private education will not help will it?

I mean really, is modern society geared towards educating the young? Do parents need to take a more active role in child-education? (rather difficult if they are both working).

If there is little or no encouragement at home, and zero at school or from peers... why should anyone want to learn?? Just switch on MTV, XBOX360, PS2,...,..,.., or the Internet.

Of course there will be exceptions, but what will be the rule in time to come?

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

Well if the teachers are correct, then private education will not help will it?

If the teachers are correct, then the students moved to private schools will fail academically at the new schools. Private schools, unlike public schools, have reputations to protect: private schools cannot afford to pass a student who can't read.

That said, private schools, being inherently more efficient, will have the tutoring and Child Study Teams and whatnot that public schools can barely afford.

I mean really, is modern society geared towards educating the young? Do parents need to take a more active role in child-education? (rather difficult if they are both working).

If there is little or no encouragement at home, and zero at school or from peers... why should anyone want to learn?? Just switch on MTV, XBOX360, PS2,...,..,.., or the Internet.

Of course there will be exceptions, but what will be the rule in time to come?

Public and private schools that can "reach" their children will still have students. Under a voucher system, at least parents won't be forced to send their children to a public school that has demonstrated that it can't "reach" kids. Government can only do so much to help... at least it's trying to not be the source of harm.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

If the teachers are correct, then the students moved to private schools will fail academically at the new schools. Private schools, unlike public schools, have reputations to protect: private schools cannot afford to pass a student who can't read.

True, but to me it really does sound like a crutch for the public school system. If it worked successfully for a century there are other problems afoot. Perhaps the additional competition will help, perhaps not. If not then its a great way to get everyone to go private (hidden agenda?). However the concept of 'stamps' is a bit of a farce to me and may become a permanent entitlement, isn't this in conflict with the 'bill of rights'??

In Australia, private schools have always been an option and they are relatively affordable. The private schools have kept the public system on its toes from day dot. Although the public system is by no means perfect, its functional.

That said, private schools, being inherently more efficient, will have the tutoring and Child Study Teams and whatnot that public schools can barely afford.

We didn't have any of this when i was a kid (tutoring, 'child study teams'), but i left school and could read, write, do maths, understand science and was ready for Uni. So could all my peers! What's going on here??

Are teachers getting worse, children getting more obtuse? or both!

Public and private schools that can "reach" their children will still have students. Under a voucher system, at least parents won't be forced to send their children to a public school that has demonstrated that it can't "reach" kids. Government can only do so much to help... at least it's trying to not be the source of harm.

But the government is accountable for education up to the end of high school!Talk about taking the easy way out. You sound like you are defending them (the government) are you a teacher?

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

True, but to me it really does sound like a crutch for the public school system. If it worked successfully for a century there are other problems afoot. Perhaps the additional competition will help, perhaps not. If not then its a great way to get everyone to go private (hidden agenda?). However the concept of 'stamps' is a bit of a farce to me and may become a permanent entitlement, isn't this in conflict with the 'bill of rights'??

In Australia, private schools have always been an option and they are relatively affordable. The private schools have kept the public system on its toes from day dot. Although the public system is by no means perfect, its functional.

For whatever reason, private schools have not been a competitive pressure on public schools in the US. My personal opinion is that the teachers' unions have made impossible to take corrective action in the public system.

We didn't have any of this when i was a kid (tutoring, 'child study teams'), but i left school and could read, write, do maths, understand science and was ready for Uni. So could all my peers! What's going on here??

Are teachers getting worse, children getting more obtuse? or both!

There has been a shift away from holding children accountable to syllabi. Giving a child a failing grade would harm his/her self-esteem, so it is forbidden. The situation isn't that extreme in most places, but there has been a palpable lowering of standards of effort.

But the government is accountable for education up to the end of high school!Talk about taking the easy way out. You sound like you are defending them (the government) are you a teacher?

The government is accountable to provide an education. The individual is accoutable to use the education offered.

Aggregate testing is used to measure the education offered, and that the system isn't concentrating on the "easy" students nor is it passing students simply to pass them. A poorly motivated individual is not a sign of a broken system, but if virtually no one in a school district can pass a standardized test then the presumption is that the school district is failing.

What the US public education system is seeing is large segments of the student population failing to "make the grade." It's difficult to imagine that ALL of them just happen to be dumber than their parents. It is much more likely that the system is failing its students in some systemmic way.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

---

This entire post is completely on the mark. It is exactly what is happening in the public school system.

True, but to me it really does sound like a crutch for the public school system. If it worked successfully for a century there are other problems afoot. Perhaps the additional competition will help, perhaps not. If not then its a great way to get everyone to go private (hidden agenda?). However the concept of 'stamps' is a bit of a farce to me and may become a permanent entitlement, isn't this in conflict with the 'bill of rights'??

In Australia, private schools have always been an option and they are relatively affordable. The private schools have kept the public system on its toes from day dot. Although the public system is by no means perfect, its functional.

For whatever reason, private schools have not been a competitive pressure on public schools in the US. My personal opinion is that the teachers' unions have made impossible to take corrective action in the public system.

We didn't have any of this when i was a kid (tutoring, 'child study teams'), but i left school and could read, write, do maths, understand science and was ready for Uni. So could all my peers! What's going on here??

Are teachers getting worse, children getting more obtuse? or both!

There has been a shift away from holding children accountable to syllabi. Giving a child a failing grade would harm his/her self-esteem, so it is forbidden. The situation isn't that extreme in most places, but there has been a palpable lowering of standards of effort.

But the government is accountable for education up to the end of high school!Talk about taking the easy way out. You sound like you are defending them (the government) are you a teacher?

The government is accountable to provide an education. The individual is accoutable to use the education offered.

Aggregate testing is used to measure the education offered, and that the system isn't concentrating on the "easy" students nor is it passing students simply to pass them. A poorly motivated individual is not a sign of a broken system, but if virtually no one in a school district can pass a standardized test then the presumption is that the school district is failing.

What the US public education system is seeing is large segments of the student population failing to "make the grade." It's difficult to imagine that ALL of them just happen to be dumber than their parents. It is much more likely that the system is failing its students in some systemmic way.

---

This is a pasting of a letter to the editor. It's from my school of philosophy.

Dear Editor,

Please consider this Op-Ed submission from the Ayn Rand Institute.

Catholic Leaders Need to Show a Little Respect for Freedom

By Debi Ghate

This summer's blockbuster movie "The Da Vinci Code" is set to hit the big screen surrounded by controversy. Some Catholic leaders have asked their faithful to speak out against the film and to boycott it. Some bishops, however, take it even further than that. Archbishop Angelo Amato, a high-ranking Catholic official, says the movie is full of "offences, slander, historical and theological errors concerning Jesus, the gospel and the Church," which if "directed towards the Koran or the Shoah would have justifiably provoked a worldwide revolt. Yet because they were directed toward the Catholic Church, they remain unpunished." And Cardinal-Bishop Francis Arinze, a Papal candidate last year, added ominously: "Those who blaspheme Christ and get away with it are exploiting the Christian readiness to forgive and forget and to love even those who insult us. There are some religions that if you insult their founder they will not be just talking. They will make it painfully clear to you." (Emphases mine)

In issuing such veiled threats, the bishops are no doubt hinting at the vehement Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons. In a frenzy of violence, Danish embassies were torched, people were murdered and the cartoonists went into hiding as protestors carried signs with slogans such as "Massacre those who insult Islam."

How can the bishops possibly call such actions justified and suggest that Christians imitate them?

Because, they claim, a person has a right to have his core beliefs respected--a right the cartoonists and filmmakers violated. "This is one of the fundamental human rights," Cardinal-Bishop Arinze pronounced in a statement eerily reminiscent of what Imams said regarding the Danish cartoons: "that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected." The Bishops are demanding respect--but can respect be demanded?

To respect something means to hold it in high regard. Respect is something that we reserve for the people and ideas we judge to be worthy of our love and admiration--we reserve it for what we value. Our respect is a precious commodity, used to express our sanction and approval of others and their actions. We respect Thomas Jefferson for writing the Declaration of Independence. We respect American soldiers who defend this great country's values. In contrast, we disrespect, even hate, those who oppose our values. If a white supremacist comes to your town to deliver a speech advocating that non-whites should be corralled and shot, do you have an obligation to respect his beliefs? Or should you speak out against what you consider to be evil, and in favor of what you judge to be good? And other cases are harder to judge. If your neighbor believes that a hard-working Mexican busboy should be deported because he is here without a work permit, do you have an obligation to respect that belief?

By suggesting that there is a "right to respect." the bishops are clamoring that we owe them respect regardless of whether we think their beliefs are true or false, worthy of our admiration or denunciation. Many people, of course, do respect the Catholic Church, but others agree with Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, who concluded: "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world." Respect can only be granted willingly, where we judge it to be due, not demanded by those whose ideas we conclude to be false or despicable. There can be no "right" to be respected.

By claiming that their "rights" have been violated, the bishops are calling for their faithful to demand government protection from "offensive" content. By asking that the filmmakers be punished, they are asking for censorship--for the filmmakers to silence themselves or be silenced by force. And their statements make it clear: If the government won't censor the filmmakers, Christians should make their displeasure "painfully clear." "Respect" granted at the point of a gun is not respect at all--it is a ransom for your life.

Our Founding Fathers created a revolutionary system that protects each individual's rights, including the right to express his ideas regardless of their popularity or whom they offend. Our country is proof that the system works. Catholics can voice their displeasure, even their disrespect, for a movie; filmmakers can present a controversial story that millions will pay to see. Each can criticize the other and peacefully walk away. It is in that spirit that "The Da Vinci Code" filmmakers have a right to release their movie without the threat of force from Catholic bishops. And this is a right the bishops need to learn to respect.

Debi Ghate is Vice President of Academic Programs at the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!