Bidinotto

VIP
  • Posts

    242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bidinotto

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://bidinotto.journalspace.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Too many to list
  • Location
    Washington, D.C. area

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Robert James Bidinotto
  • Articles
    See the "Bidinotto Corner" here.
  • Description
    Editor of The New Individualist, the monthly magazine published by The Atlas Society. Author, journalist, and lecturer. I've been an Objectivist since 1967. I'm married, live on the water near the Chesapeake Bay with my wife and pet cat, and have a grown daughter and granddaughter. I love music, including playing guitar and singing.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Bidinotto's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Roger, I didn't think that Will was including your contribution in the "crank" category, and I never interpreted it that way. After citing two examples by authors (Karen Michalson and Walter Block) which he clearly intended to disparage as in the "crank" category, he began a new thought: "Many of the essays use Atlas Shrugged as the occasion for their authors to retail theories of their own that are not really analyses of Rand's work." This transition established for me that he was done giving examples of "crank" contributions and was beginning to talk about a different category. Because he cited only one example in one paragraph -- your essay -- he probably didn't think it merited a separate subheading. Supporting this view, Will called your essay "entertaining" -- hardly evidence of hostility. His problems were, first, that it struck Will as confusing, failing to clearly distinguish Richard Halley's (Rand's) views from your own. Because it presupposed intimate familiarity with the character of Richard Halley, Will found that the essay also was not well-suited to communicating with a non-Objectivist reader (he said it was among the many "ingrown and self-referential essays" in the book, and that it was thus "less than it could have been." That is hardly the intensity of criticism that supports the view that he meant to include you in the category of a "crank." I suspect that Will tacked his comment about your essay where he did simply because he was coming to the end of his review, had run out of space, and had no other place to put it. Incidentally -- and I'm addressing this not to Roger, but to participants here generally: If it hasn't already sunk in to readers of The New Individualist, TNI is a philosophical forum, not an ideological orthodoxy. Unlike other publications I could name, at TNI I grant writers considerable latitude in expressing opinions that I think will be interesting to our intelligent readers, even when I disagree with them -- sometimes sharply. A recent example is Roger Donway's "Private I" column in the same June issue, which takes a decidedly un-Objectivist perspective on the principle of individual rights. I disagree completely with Roger's position, even while sympathizing with specific concerns of his that gave rise to the article. Several letter writers in upcoming issues blast him for his views, which is great: I believe firmly in vigorous competition in the marketplace of ideas. And I happen to think that our readers are mature, intelligent adults, capable of weighing the merits of arguments for themselves, without me having to protect them from heresies by wielding a heavy editorial hand. I best serve readers of the magazine as their editor, not as their mommy. And if at times you find the content of the magazine problematic, one simple solution would be to submit publishable, repeat, publishable material of your own for consideration. By publishable, I mean literate, interesting, well-written pieces that would interest our target readership of "sense-of-life individualists." By "unpublishable," I mean blog entries and term papers aspiring to the title of "magazine article."
  2. Judith, Your post here was just called to my attention. You cannot imagine how upset I am about chronic subscription problems like this one. There is no excuse for them. Please send me your address, by private email, to: rbidinotto@atlassociety.org I will see to it personally that you are sent, immediately, all available back issues of the magazine due to you. My apologies. -- Robert Bidinotto
  3. I'm pleased to announce that the March issue of The New Individualist is now out—and it features my 16-page cover interview with #1 New York Times political thriller novelist Vince Flynn. And you won't believe what he has to say about Ayn Rand... To see the cover, go here to my website. Flynn has published nine sensational novels centered in the post-9/11 world of terrorism and the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. His astonishing research and startling insights into that world—drawn from sources embedded deep within political, military, and intelligence communities—have made his thrillers bedside reading for presidents, foreign leaders, and the global intelligence community. Reading a Vince Flynn novel gives you the feeling that you are peeking into the keyholes of the White House "situation room," or the 7th-floor offices of the CIA director—or the secret Special Operations Forces bases in foreign lands. As the magazine’s editor—and as a huge fan of Flynn and his fictional hero, antiterrorism agent extraordinaire Mitch Rapp—I humbly believe that this just may be the best Vince Flynn interview ever. But you can be the judge. I’m delighted to offer Vince’s fans a free copy of the magazine containing the interview, for a limited time only. There’s no obligation to subscribe or to buy anything; all you have to do is go here and request a copy, providing your mailing information. Inside the same issue you'll find Gen LaGreca's hugely popular "Self-Help Guide to Living in a Free Society," spotlighted this past week on the CNN Headline News Network's "Glenn Beck Show." You'll also find a profile of Bosch Fawstin, an up-and-coming anti-jihadist cartoonist (you have to see his cartoon hero, "Pigman"!); an interview by popular blogger James Joyner of outspoken author Jed Babbin, and a review of Babbin's new book, In the Words of Our Enemies; blogger Ed Driscoll's review of Jonah Goldberg's controversial new bestseller, Liberal Fascism; plus more columns, articles, book and film reviews. So, scroll back up and hit the link. If you haven't seen this magazine yet, but have been meaning to, it's time to see just what you've been missing. Free of charge. I'm betting you'll love it.
  4. If you want to read CNN's transcript of the interview segment, go here and scroll about 3/4's down the transcript. The cold print of the transcript can't begin to capture Glenn Beck's manic enthusiasm for the article and the magazine, and of course it doesn't show all the references to The New Individualist that appeared at the bottom of the screen. Also, the transcript has some typos. But it was definitely a home run for TNI, TAS, and Objectivism. The show aired four times throughout the night, and we've been inundated with email inquiries for copies of the magazine...so many, in fact, that they temporarily crashed our server!
  5. I'm pleased to announce that tonight (Monday, Feb. 11), at 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern, "The Glenn Beck Show" on CNN's Headline News national cable TV network will host an interview spot with author Gen LaGreca. The subject will be Gen's amusing and provocative article in the March issue of The New Individualist, "The Self-Help Guide to Living in a Free Society." (Check your local listings for the time of the show in your area.) If you would like a free complimentary copy of the March issue of the magazine -- also featuring an interview with bestselling thriller author Vince Flynn -- just go here to request a copy. See what everyone has been talking about -- and what you've been missing -- in the pages of The New Individualist.
  6. I have returned -- if only briefly -- to add a few points in strong support of what Ed Hudgins has posted to Lindsay Perigo. Please note: I am speaking only on my own behalf, and these comments should not be taken as necessarily reflecting the views of anyone else, including my employer. In my opinion, a full bill of particulars concerning Mr. Perigo's actions could have gone much further. It would include, for example: * repaying his prospective hosts for their invitation by insulting them, even in his announcement of his forthcoming talk, by once again using his juvenile epithet "KASSless" against TAS. * promising in a later post that he'd no longer refer to us by that epithet, yet continuing to host a poll on his website home page that contains that insult. * publicly posting his private acceptance note to Will Thomas under a title that was certain, and that was no doubt intended, to incite controversy ("Batten Down the Hatches!"). Rather than posting a professional, low-key announcement, his was filled with defiant rhetoric and characteristic bravado -- and also with veiled warnings that he would not guarantee to us that, if provoked, he would be able to "bite his tongue." This acceptance note had caused us immediate concern when we received it privately; but we certainly did not anticipate that Mr. Perigo would post this inflammatory statement publicly, and under a title that, in effect, promised a storm. This was an action that he must have known would only further provoke his critics -- and his prospective hosts. * (as Ed noted) actively contributing to online discussions at SOLO where he has continued to mock, taunt, and bait his opponents -- at times resorting to crudely insulting profanity (e.g., his remarks about Barbara Branden). * posting demeaning, insulting comments about the relative abilities and appeal of other TAS speakers. * (as Ed also noted) openly and publicly defying Ed's polite public challenge to him to try to foster greater civility, responding instead with comments such as: “Well, I don't champion Ed Hudgins’ cause, which is indiscriminate, unconditional civility [a demonstrably false claim]. I’ve no objection to name-calling, if it can be substantiated. In fact, in such instances, name-calling is desirable.” And, in reply to Ed's call for Mr. Perigo to offer some constructive proposals about how to undo the incivility of the past, by writing: “Well, that’s too bad, Ed, because I’m not going to make any.... I can’t guarantee it will always be civil (nor do I owe you or anyone such a guarantee).” Any respectable organization that first invited a speaker, then witnessed subsequent behavior of this sort, would undoubtedly and with complete justification revoke their invitation, on any single one of those points. Each, alone, represents a complete lack of professionalism, courtesy, maturity, respect, and personal dignity. Each, alone, demonstrates appalling bad faith in response to a generous invitation extended in good faith -- generous especially in light of Mr. Perigo's past comments against us and the risks to our reputation that we obviously assumed by inviting him. To underscore this last point: There is certainly no other good reason why TAS would have even dreamed of inviting him to speak had Will Thomas's motives not been exactly as stated all along: to try to diminish such disgraceful behavior within the Objectivist movement, and to try to encourage a more civil and productive atmosphere -- and public image -- for our movement and for the propagation of our philosophy. Call that hope naive, or worse; but it was sincere. It is clear, then, that it was Mr. Perigo who proceeded in bad faith -- not us. Some will, of course, declare that rescinding his invitation was an act of cowardly capitulation to pressure from his opponents. As I said earlier, in my previous comment on this matter: "At this point, any decision [Ed] makes, either to affirm or rescind that invitation, will merely be seized upon by partisans to score points and to smugly assert their sanctimonious I-told-you-sos. Any decision he renders will be damned by one side as a 'cowardly capitulation' to the other side -- and all of you know it. I could write all the talking points for both sides in advance. Even five seconds of reflection will tell you that this double-bind interpretation of Ed's motives is illogical and completely unjust." Mr. Perigo's partisans are now reacting in a way that makes my words prophetic. But their claim about capitulation is preposterous on its face. Given Mr. Perigo's well-known history and animosities, we knew in advance that his appearance would anger a number of decent people, including many long-time TAS supporters. However you care to characterize our invitation, the word "cowardly" is one that cannot apply. Moreover, we have hosted a number of controversial speakers in the past, including Mr. Perigo himself; yet we have never felt compelled to revoke an invitation simply because of "pressure" from anyone. And despite all the outrage expressed here and elsewhere for extending that invitation, we would not have rescinded it this time, either -- except for Mr. Perigo's own subsequent statements and behavior. The fate of his talk thus rested entirely in his hands. He is the author of the outcome. Now, with all this behind us, let me turn my attention to a final matter. When Ed and I publicly called for civility from participants on this site, too, we meant it. Again, let me stress that I speak only for myself: I was appalled by comments posted here during this controversy -- some addressed against TAS, but even some of those posted against Mr. Perigo. I have stressed my personal dismay about this in private, confidential correspondence to several of you on this site. Let me be clear about the reasons for my concern. Many of you have expressed your objections to our invitation of Mr. Perigo in the strongest moral terms, and I have absolutely no objection to that. I would not suggest for one minute that anyone sanction what he believes to be an immoral action. Thus, I am not saying that those of you opposed to our invitation should have refrained from passing moral judgments; and I am not saying that people shouldn't express their judgments in the strongest terms, when appropriate. That goes for your judgments against TAS or against me. But there is a manner appropriate to publicly expressing even the harshest of moral outrage. However intemperately one may rage in private, I believe that in public settings one's manner should maintain some measure of personal dignity and rational restraint. What I singled out earlier for criticism -- "the personal insults, the obscene language, the gratuitous psychologizing, the He-threw-the-first-punch finger-pointing" -- is neither dignified nor rational. This point is quite apart from the substantive issue of who is right and who is wrong, on this or other issues requiring expressions of moral judgment. I pointed out earlier that in Ayn Rand's novels, you never see her fictional heroes -- whom she explicitly intended to represent Objectivism's behavioral models -- sinking to profane public rants, personal taunts, juvenile name-calling...or, for that matter, obsessive dwelling on each and every statement and action of their enemies. They sought out better things to do, and nobler ways to express themselves. Several others -- including Judith, quite eloquently, and also Phil Coates and Laure -- have echoed similar concerns about instances of gross incivility here. Too often, however, their comments have been dismissed, sometimes with scorn and mockery. I applaud them for their outspokeness and for the dignity of their demeanor, maintained in the face of these provocations. Perhaps now, with the heat of the moment subsiding, I might invite readers here to go back through these threads and reread closely what they had to say. Then, rather than rush immediately to your keyboards and compose angry, defensive replies, please take some time to absorb and weigh the merits of what they have said. The public reputation of Objectivism is established every day by the statements and actions of its proponents. We must all remember that. I include myself in this admonition, because as I said before, my own record on this score is hardly perfect. But I aim to do better. And the reason is that I don't want the bad example of Mr. Perigo to infect my own character. I don't wish to absorb, even unconsciously, his false premise: that "moral passion" must be expressed by vulgarities and vituperation, by psychologizing and conspiracy theorizing, by name-calling and all-consuming rage and obsessive preoccupations with evil enemies. Surely we are better than this. This is my challenge to you -- and to myself: We should now give our leave to Mr. Perigo, letting him reclaim his monopoly on incivility, and ceding to him those dwindling few who prefer to share his warped form of "passion." And then, in the words of a noble American, we should proceed to raise a standard to which the wise and honest will repair. --Robert Bidinotto
  7. I have checked my premises, Michael -- and those in your response, which promises only a continuation of more of the same. For that reason, I take my leave of this website.
  8. While the recent posts on this thread have strayed -- mercifully -- off-topic, there is a lot posted earlier, and on a related thread, that prompts me to break my silence. Let me emphasize that this is my personal viewpoint, and it should not be taken as representing the views of my employer or anyone other than myself. I am saddened and depressed by what is transpiring on this site and elsewhere concerning the matter of the TAS Summer Seminar speaking invitation to Lindsay Perigo. It didn't have to come to this, and frankly, participants on all sides of these contentious issues are deliberately making any positive resolution impossible -- by pouring more gasoline on the fire and then finding "moral" reasons to rationalize their gleeful pyromania. If there is a market for civility, it is not easy to find on many online Objectivist discussion groups -- and sadly, that observation is not meant to apply exclusively to the SOLO-Passion site. Let me admit that my own past record on this score has hardly been unblemished; but -- seeing too clearly the dead end of this acrimony -- I have been trying to set a better example more recently, in the interests of better promoting the philosophy that we all claim to value. However, the continuing competition in vituperative, intramural one-upsmanship is putting Ed Hudgins (and TAS) in an impossible position, when his only aim all along was to heal wounds within the Objectivist movement by encouraging greater civility. Put yourself in his shoes: At this point, any decision he makes, either to affirm or rescind that invitation, will merely be seized upon by partisans to score points and to smugly assert their sanctimonious I-told-you-sos. Any decision he renders will be damned by one side as a "cowardly capitulation" to the other side -- and all of you know it. I could write all the talking points for both sides in advance. Even five seconds of reflection will tell you that this double-bind interpretation of Ed's motives is illogical and completely unjust. Since I realize that all the combatants on all the competing websites furtively follow all the threads devoted to this food fight, let me address you collectively: Can any of you honestly imagine a Howard Roark sinking to this sort of mud-wrestling? Could you imagine his posts on any of these threads? Then, ask yourself why. So please stop rationalizing the all personal insults, the obscene language, the gratuitous psychologizing, the He-threw-the-first-punch finger-pointing. This behavior is undignified and unseemly, and nobody involved seems to realize that it is only providing Objectivism's real enemies with an abundance of footnotes.
  9. I'm "double-posting" this comment, here and on the thread in which Ed Hudgins issued his public statement. This is my personal viewpoint, and it should not be taken as representing the views of my employer or anyone other than myself. I am saddened and depressed by this thread, and what is transpiring on this site and elsewhere concerning the matter of the Summer Seminar speaking invitation to Lindsay Perigo. It didn't have to come to this, and frankly, participants on all sides of these contentious issues are deliberately making any positive resolution impossible -- by pouring more gasoline on the fire and then finding "moral" reasons to rationalize their gleeful pyromania. If there is a market for civility, it is not easy to find on many online Objectivist discussion groups -- and sadly, that observation is not meant to apply exclusively to the SOLO-Passion site. Let me admit that my own past record on this score has hardly been unblemished; but -- seeing too clearly the dead end of this acrimony -- I have been trying to set a better example more recently, in the interests of better promoting the philosophy that we all claim to value. However, the continuing competition in vituperative, intramural one-upsmanship is putting Ed Hudgins (and TAS) in an impossible position, when his only aim all along was to heal wounds within the Objectivist movement by encouraging greater civility. Put yourself in his shoes: At this point, any decision he makes, either to affirm or rescind that invitation, will merely be seized upon by partisans to score points and to smugly assert their sanctimonious I-told-you-sos. Any decision he renders will be damned by one side as a "cowardly capitulation" to the other side -- and all of you know it. I could write all the talking points for both sides in advance. Even five seconds of reflection will tell you that this double-bind interpretation of Ed's motives is illogical and completely unjust. Since I realize that all the combatants on all the competing websites furtively follow all the threads devoted to this food fight, let me address you collectively: Can any of you honestly imagine a Howard Roark sinking to this sort of mud-wrestling? Could you imagine his posts appearing on any of these threads? Then, ask yourself why. So please stop rationalizing the all personal insults, the obscene language, the gratuitous psychologizing, the He-threw-the-first-punch finger-pointing. This behavior is undignified and unseemly, and nobody involved seems to realize that it is only providing Objectivism's real enemies with an abundance of footnotes.
  10. My blog commentary on the Ron Paul article in The New Individualist can be found here. It is loaded with links to the various publications and commentaries in question, for anyone who wishes specifics. It also discusses the wider views of Ron Paul that are completely inconsistent with individual rights. It's unfair to ask me to rehash here everything I said there, or that Steve Green wrote in his TNI article on Ron Paul. Those who want to see the TNI article that set off the furor are invited, once again, to subscribe to the magazine. TNI continues to be discussed in the major media (this article alone was cited in the Washington Times, the Tampa Tribune, and the Seattle Times) and all over the Blogosphere. To get a free sample copy of TNI and learn what you've been missing, click here. -- Robert
  11. In the interest of avoiding tedious retyping, my own analysis of the state of the campaign, based on the latest trends and numbers, can be found here.
  12. Oops, you're right, Michael. I forgot. Funny that he hasn't provided a lick of evidence for that claim since making it in 1989. Given the absurd nature of what he was asserting in that essay, however, I can perfectly understand why he would want to give his assertions the borrowed support of his late mentor. One can only wish that she had been alive to render her own public verdict.
  13. If you read Rand's "To Whom It May Concern" in 1968, and her subsequent article or two of elaboration, she made it clear that after her experience with her only publicly designated "intellectual heir," she would never endorse any organization or individual to speak in her name again. Thus, I can't conceive of her so designating Peikoff or anyone else. There is certainly no language of this sort in her will (of which I have a photocopy). The significance of this matter is that Peikoff's statements and theories after Rand's death are regarded by many as having been given a special benediction, as if he was specifically authorized to speak for her by that claimed "intellectual heir" designation. But despite having publicly questioned the validity of this claim for years, not a single soul has ever complied with my request for a source or citation for it. In the absence of any evidence for that claim, I believe it is justifiable to conclude that such a title was never granted to Peikoff, or to anyone else, by Ayn Rand. In support of that interpretation, Peikoff himself says only "legal heir" on his own website; in his Preface to Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand the term he uses is "chosen heir." He also has been cautious enough to concede that his own theories and books (such as his "DIM hypothesis") that have appeared after Rand's death are his interpretations alone, and not an official part of Objectivism...although you would never know it by how these ideas are discussed and treated by many in his orbit. And sometimes, by how Peikoff himself describes his ideas. Consider Peikoff's confusing description of the relationship of his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand to Rand's philosophy, as he presents the matter in the last two paragraphs of that book's Preface. Is he claiming that his book is a reliable guide to RAND'S ideas, or not? If you can figure it out, let me know.
  14. But then there is this about Leonard Peikoff, from the ARI website "FAQ": http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...q_index#obj_q12