The Right Stuff - BBC


Recommended Posts

The Right Stuff

This is a BBC Radio show aired today on Ayn Rand. From the blurb:

Michael Portillo considers the enduring influence of the writer and philosopher Ayn Rand and questions whether her work remains the blueprint for a literature of the political right.

With contributions from contemporaries and critics, he explores the origins and impact of Rand's writings and considers how, while always controversial, her ideas nevertheless continue to offer a stimulating commentary on the contemporary political landscape.

Broadcast on: BBC Radio 4, 11:30am Tuesday 11th November

Duration: 30 minutes

Available until: 12:02pm Tuesday 18th November

I haven't finished listening to it at this moment and won't be able to for several hours, but from what I heard, Anne Heller and Barbara are interviewed.

Cool.

More later.

Michael

EDIT: The audio is no longer available above. Get the mp3 here. (When you click on it, you should have some kind of mp3 player that automatically kicks in. If not, you can download it and play it from your hard disk. I'll add a player in this post later.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've listened to the first 17 mins so far. Pretty good, in spite of a few minor errors. I don't think AR's mother encouraged her to write a novel or tell the world Russia was a huge cemetery. I'm less sure that she lived at 36 36th st until 1965. I thought it was like 1962. I love the way Barbara and Leonard are juxtaposed. Probably gives Peikoff apoplexy.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've listened to the first 17 mins so far. Pretty good, in spite of a few minor errors. I don't think AR's mother encouraged her to write a novel or tell the world Russia was a huge cemetery. I'm less sure that she lived at 36 36th st until 1965. I thought it was like 1962. I love the way Barbara and Leonard are juxtaposed. Probably gives Peikoff apoplexy.

--Brant

I heard the entire broadcast. I thought it was rather well done.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael didn't provide a link, so I did a search on the name of the radio station and got this link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/pip/i1kgv/

Then I tried to click on the 'play this programme' button under the Portillo show on Ayn Rand: "we are sorry, we cannot direct you to this programme at this time."

Did any of you who listened to the show do anything different than I did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael didn't provide a link...

Phil,

That is inaccurate. You should have said, "I don't know how to find links on an Internet page, so would someone please explain how to find them?"

I will explain.

Often when you see a word or phrase underlined on an Internet site, it masks a link. This means that if you click on the underlined word or phrase, you are actually clicking on a link.

If you hover your mouse pointer over an underlined word or phrase, you can tell if it has a link or not because the written-out link appears at the bottom left-hand side of the screen. When you remove the hovering mouse pointer, the written-out link disappears.

If you click on the title in my opening post, you will see that I not only provided the correct link, it opens a new window so you don't lose your place on this one. That is an automatic feature on this forum software, but I also make sure my links open new windows when I code them in HTML on other sites.

Now, after this explanation, you know that when you read some of my posts on news items, all you have to do is click on the underlined title and you will be taken to the article in a new window.

Michael

EDIT: For the sake of being more complete, please note that sometimes a word or phrase is not underlined when it is linked. The underlined form is the one most often used, but anything on a webpage can have a link embedded in it: image, video, even an audio file. Sometimes the text is not underlined. But I focused on the underlining first because it is a good idea to learn the most common form of use before learning the others. In most cases, the mouse hover trick I mentioned above will show you if there is a link or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> If you click on the title in my opening post...

Michael, oops, my mistake. I thought it was underlined just because it was a title.

> it opens a new window so you don't lose your place on this one.

CMD click opens a link as a new tab on my Mac [its' similar on the PC, ctrl click or some such] and my browser preferences are set to -not select- 'when I open a new tab, switch to it immediately" so I don't lose my place.

> That is an automatic feature on this forum software, but I also make sure my links open new windows when I code them in HTML on other sites.

Is there a reason for doing this? I set my browser preferences to -open new tab- rather than -open new window- because it is easier to see a new link immediately pop up on the top right and simply slide my mouse over to it. Also new windows chew up more memory than new tabs. What you and many other web writers are doing is sort of a Bill Gatesian *overriding* of my and other user's preferences for how we like to see things.

> sometimes a word or phrase is not underlined when it is linked...anything on a webpage can have a link embedded in it: image, video, even an audio file...In most cases, the mouse hover trick I mentioned above will show you if there is a link or not.

Since my time is not unlimited, I assume links are underlined. If they are not, I don't have time to 'mouse around' and hover my mouse over much of a whole page. I will simply assume no link and move on, do something more productive with my life than play hide and seek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> That is an automatic feature on this forum software, but I also make sure my links open new windows when I code them in HTML on other sites.

Is there a reason for doing this?

Phil,

Yup.

If you're selling something, you don't want to reader to leave the place where you are selling stuff.

Internet Marketing 101.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> If you're selling something, you don't want to reader to leave the place where you are selling stuff. Internet Marketing 101.

Nope. You don't want to "shout in the reader's ear" by forcing him to be jerked immediately to where you are selling stuff, overriding his preference. His reaction will often be irritation, especially if he has explicitly instructed his browser not to leave the place where he is -currently-. He will treat your window like spam or a pop-up and delete it. Gentleness and respect for people's preferences, the "soft sell" works better. Internet Marketing 102.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

Well I'll be damned, that was simple.

Thank you for a clear and lucid explanation.

And thank you Barbara for the link from which I listened to the BBC show.

I can only applaud the technique of the speaker to simply hold up a sign and people would come. The Peikoff's of the world can only impede and impinge the positive spread of our ideas. One to one is the fundamental protocol that I have always used unless I was at a school board meeting or public speaking engagement.

It is the way I have spread her ideas. I would always walk around with a book, half of the time it is Rand or other laissez-faire book. Last weeks was Tocqueville in America by G.W. Pearson. To re-understand how much of a shining beacon this Republic has always been to all of mankind is so refreshing.

Sickeningly, it is virtually impossible to hear a younger person talk positively about this country.

As Tom Paine stated clearly, eloquently and prophetically, “A thousand years hence, perhaps in less, America may be what Europe now is. The innocence of her character, that won the hearts of all nations in her favor, may sound like a romance and her inimitable virtue as if it had never been. The ruin of that liberty which thousands bled for or struggled to obtain may just furnish materials for a village tale or extort a sigh from rustic sensibility, whilst the fashionable of that day, enveloped in dissipation, shall deride the principle and deny the fact.”

May we be prepared for what we are about to receive from January 20th, 2009 on.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI

RadioAmerica’s G. GORDON LIDDY is devoting a SPECIAL BROADCAST of his nationally syndicated three-hour talk radio show to Ayn Rand, her philosophy, and understanding the current state of events through the lens of Objectivism.

The broadcast will air live on Monday, November 17, 2008, beginning at 10 a.m., Eastern Standard Time.

The Ayn Rand Center’s Yaron Brook, Onkar Ghate, Elan Journo, Thomas Bowden and Eric Daniels will be the exclusive guests for this extended broadcast. They will discuss the financial crisis, Bush’s claimed defense of capitalism, today’s challenges to free speech, and the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other topics.

The broadcast will air on 200 radio stations across the country as well as on XM satellite radio (on a delayed basis). Live streaming audio will be available on http://www.radioamerica.org/ or at http://www.radioamerica.org/PRG_ggordonliddy.htm.

G. Gordon Liddy encourages call-in questions from listeners across the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

I am amused.

Internet Marketing 102? Where on earth did you study IM? Business Failure University?

You obviously don't sell anything on the Internet, nor have you studied it. Otherwise you would realize how ineffective your advice and observations are in the marketplace. You advise the exact opposite that professionals teach. (btw - Soft sell is good, but it is for Web 2.0 applications. Staying on the same window has nothing at all to do with soft sell.)

You once said if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

That was pretty good advice.

I suggest you study, then teach. I know it's hard to resist the teaching instinct, but if you don't know something, you really shouldn't be trying to teach it. So resist until you study. I know you can do it. I have faith in you if you really try.

One rhetorical error committed time and time again among Objectivists is that, just like in the present case, one will imagine something that seems reasonable to him, then he will call it a principle, then he will go around trying to teach it. But it's all wrong.

Professionals get awfully amused when this happens. And that's not good for those concerned with the Objectivist movement.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

Well I'll be damned, that was simple.

Thank you for a clear and lucid explanation.

Adam,

This is off topic, but if you hang around for the IM beginner's course, you will find a huge amount of simple explanations like that, with the benefit that you will make some money while learning (if you do the stuff as explained correctly). I detect in many people that they don't know some basic computer stuff because they learned it on their own and the people who should explain it don't do a very good job.

For instance, it is possible to find an explanation like I gave above on links, but you will most likely find it at the beginning of a 578 page book chock full of highly technical information, i.e., useless to a beginner. And those who teach beginners usually skip over this kind of stuff.

I am currently toying with a video tutorial template I have outlined that I think will be extremely effective, so it will make putting lessons together a lot quicker. All lessons will be PDF, audio and video, in addition to interaction through blog comments.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

I am amused.

Internet Marketing 102? Where on earth did you study IM? Business Failure University?

You obviously don't sell anything on the Internet, nor have you studied it. Otherwise you would realize how ineffective your advice and observations are in the marketplace. You advise the exact opposite that professionals teach. (btw - Soft sell is good, but it is for Web 2.0 applications. Staying on the same window has nothing at all to do with soft sell.)

You once said if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

That was pretty good advice.

I suggest you study, then teach. I know it's hard to resist the teaching instinct, but if you don't know something, you really shouldn't be trying to teach it. So resist until you study. I know you can do it. I have faith in you if you really try.

One rhetorical error committed time and time again among Objectivists is that, just like in the present case, one will imagine something that seems reasonable to him, then he will call it a principle, then he will go around trying to teach it. But it's all wrong.

Professionals get awfully amused when this happens. And that's not good for those concerned with the Objectivist movement.

Michael

Aren't we mixing up "reader" and "customer"? And I can't figure out if this is an argument from authority or to the man. It is certainly condescending.

Michael, Phil pissed you off a while back and you've been trying to drive him away since. That's my impression.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

Precisely. I learned linearly by "reading" and doing. I never saw complex joint highway sewer civil engineering plans until I walked into city government. However, I understood them instantly as the engineer was explaining them. This was due to the way I was taught by both the quality public school system and by my parents and their friends. It was like being brought up in a Greek academy.

The foundational thinking skills were well set.

My father was a Mason and many of his friends and acquaintances were also. Moreover, education, knowledge, the scientific method etc. etc. were always present. The household was quad lingual with Latin as the fourth language. Learning and questioning was expected and always present. It was great.

I learned to play chess at 5 years old - it was taught to me by a fireman, my uncle, who rose to be a Battalion Chief of Rescue Two in Manhattan. A hero and a brilliant man.

Teaching basics is the most important element of being a good teacher.

Once again,

Thanks. I never even thought to look at the lower left hand corner of the screen because I perceive the words on my flat screen as the pages of a book versus a multi dimensional in depth expandable medium.

I have to remind myself of it all the time.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I'm not pissed at Phil.

Wrong is wrong. And it's wrong to teach what you don't know, then get stubborn about your errors. Especially to people who do know from in-depth education.

It's that simple.

As to interaction, if Phil wants to make negative opinions about me one of his main topics of focus, I will make him one of my topics. He might not like that as much, and some people might find that condescending, but fair is only fair.

It boils down to this: if you don't want it, don't dish it out. Or better. Dish it out only to people you can control or intimidate.

At least, as it stands, when Phil starts trying to teach stuff he doesn't know or preach stuff he doesn't practice, I get to correct his errors. I know it shouldn't be, but I find that entertaining.

:)

Michael

EDIT: btw - When I stated "One rhetorical error committed time and time again among Objectivists...," I don't mean only Objectivists or all Objectivists. I do mean that I have seen this error by some individuals enough in the Objectivist world to note a pattern. This pattern is also present by many individuals in many other systems of thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to interaction, if Phil wants to make negative opinions about me one of his main topics of focus, I will make him one of my topics. He might not like that as much, and some people might find that condescending, but fair is only fair.

It boils down to this: if you don't want it, don't dish it out. Or better. Dish it out only to people you can control or intimidate.

At least, as it stands, when Phil starts trying to teach stuff he doesn't know or preach stuff he doesn't practice, I get to correct his errors. I know it shouldn't be, but I find that entertaining.

Why is it better to dish it out to people who don't or can't fight back?

It's possible Phil does know something about this.

Professionals who teach? Are they professional teachers or professional in business? Both? IM? What is being marketed? That's what seems to be the missing focus for you and Phil both regarding this particular (public) matter.

I have a great sense of humor but am never entertained by this sort of thing. Phil's been heroically throwing himself at putting Objectivism out there in the world. I think he's made the same basic mistake as the ARI crowd--that is, "Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" cannot be anybody else's philosophy. It's not the same thing as "Objectivism."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Professionals who teach? Are they professional teachers or professional in business? Both? IM? What is being marketed?

Brant,

All this will be answered in due time. I am organizing the material and, as I said, I will provide it for free (at the beginning level). I posted about one such teacher/businessman here on OL because he likes Ayn Rand. If you are interested, read his stuff. He is buddies with Richard Branson of Virgin, but he made his own money from scratch on the Internet to get there.

There are many such businesspeople and teachers. I have studied a ton of them and communicate with several.

People can sell what they want on the Internet and there are very rich people doing it in all major niches. Each product has its own reality so not all products are sold in the same manner, but all products need to be sold according to some basic principles and procedures, otherwise they will not be sold. You can't force people to buy, so you have to learn how to entice them and serve them well.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
EDIT: The audio is no longer available above. Get the mp3 here. (When you click on it, you should have some kind of mp3 player that automatically kicks in. If not, you can download it and play it from your hard disk. I'll add a player in this post later.)

Thanks for posting the mp3. I missed the broadcast, and am now downloading the mp3. Something to listen to on the flight Atlanta - Shanghai later today.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I just tried to go back over the thread. It looks like MSK's mp3 was still on the BBC website. He didn't make a copy here. And things don't stay up on commercial or news sites forever.

However, I just did a google search on "michael portillo ayn rand" and found it here: http://www.michaelportillo.co.uk/the_right_stuff.wma.

Unfortunately it's only a two minute snippet from right in the middle, not the whole thing, and you can't tell much except that he is a smooth, polished speaker and it has good production values.

MSK can correct me if the whole thing is still available here somewhere.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The broadcast was of interest mainly because it was fascinating to hear a Brit talking about Ayn Rand. There wasn't anything especially revelatory or incisive in it.

I suspect that Michael Portillo is one of the Thatcherites that Christopher Hitchens admits to having bedded in [Hitch] 22.

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher Hitchens admits to having bedded in Catch 22.

You mean Hitch-22. BTW he recently debated Berlinski, so he must be up and about, I'm looking forward to it getting uploaded to YouTube. Berlinski's such a clown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now