The Warped Worldview of Ann Coulter

[Xray]

[Xray]: As for you using the term "state capitalism" (I assume you mean 'stamocap'), you concede that variants of capitalism exist that do not match your personal ideal.

Jeff's conceded nothing.

I didn't mean any active concession on Jeff's part.

I was just going to comment that debates about "true" capitalism remind me of debates about which is the "true" religion when I read your post, the gist of which is the same.

Arguments like these are why I no longer use the word "capitalism" to describe my ideal economy.

Really, you're stubbornly sticking to the Marxist definition of "capitalism" even when both Jeff and I have made it perfectly clear we are advocating something else.

Imo it is an excellent idea to ditch the (heavily 'loaded') term "capitalism" as a label for your ideal economy.

Coulter & Co make me think of Max Weber's elaborations on the protestant work ethic and the spirit of capitalism.

Coulter and her kindred spirits exhibit an alloy of Christian faith + advocating Capitalism that may well have its historical roots there.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Now, Leftists typically use "Capitalism" to mean a whole bunch of different things. The Marxist meaning of the term is "any economy wherein which wage labor exists." Other meanings include "Corporatism" (aka "State Capitalism," which sounds like a contradiction to classical liberals).

But when we talk about "Capitalism" we don't endorse selling products created via coercion.

In order to eliminate confusion, no longer using the term "capitalism" here is a real option. (See your post #73)

I think I can pinpoint the source of your mistake;

you are separating the market from the people that make it up.

do the free market advocates really devote no thought as to the conditions which provide the basis for this flourishing market?.... If coercion is involved in the production of porn (or heroin), how do free market advocates deal with that?

The freedom of a market is not separate from the freedom of individuals in the market. A market is only as free as the individuals within it are. If individuals in any market are being coerced, forced or deceived, the market is NOT free.

It is NOT an abrogation of "the freedom of the market" to prevent coercive transactions of any kind (including transactions of products created via coercion). "The market" is not an entity in and of itself and therefore does not, strictly speaking, have freedoms or rights. Only individuals have freedoms or rights. We call any market a "free market" when the rights of all individual participants within the market are respected.

Your error is Reification (aka. Hypostasization, aka. Platonism). You are treating "the market" as a transcendent, independent entity that exists apart from individual market participants. But the market isn't independent of the participants; "the market" is the participants!

Thank you for this detailed reply, SD.

The freedom of a market is not separate from the freedom of individuals in the market. A market is only as free as the individuals within it are. If individuals in any market are being coerced, forced or deceived, the market is NOT free.

The question I asked JR addressed the same issue:

Or would you accord the label 'free market' only those economic transactions where no kind of coercion in the production process is involved?

Either way, your own ethical position will factor in.

So in the case of advocating a free market for heroin or pornography (examples used by JR), one would have to carefully examine whether initiation of force and/or coercion was involved.

Who does the examining in your ideal economy?

Now one could argue that in the "ideal economy" you have in mind, things like coercion and initiation of force don't exist. Just as in Ayn Rand's ideal of a "fully rational society", irrationalism doesn't exist.

I also have the impression that in an anarchistic society, dissenters and offenders don't exist either. ;)

The problem with ideals is that they can't be tested because the ideal is always in the realm of the 'not yet reached'.

But of course one can always aspire toward an ideal and have visions and dreams of an ideal society. I too have such visions and dreams. They actually are a source of inspiration in my work with children.

But even if they are 'only' my visions and dreams, I try very hard to base them on what I think is at least possible for humans to reach.

And since several ethical standards which would have been regarded as impossible-to-reach ideals in former times have now become reality, aspiring toward ideals certainly has its productive place in the ethical evolvement of mankind.

More on "freedom of the market":

The freedom of a market is not separate from the freedom of individuals in the market. A market is only as free as the individuals within it are. If individuals in any market are being coerced, forced or deceived, the market is NOT free.

<...>

We call any market a "free market" when the rights of all individual participants within the market are respected.

So in your ideal economy, "free market" is based on a high ethical standard.

Again, the problem here is that "free market" is also used by others who don't have qualms in using coercion.

But thanks for being so clear about what you mean.

It is NOT an abrogation of "the freedom of the market" to prevent coercive transactions of any kind (including transactions of products created via coercion).

"The market" is not an entity in and of itself and therefore does not, strictly speaking, have freedoms or rights. Only individuals have freedoms or rights.

I don't think the problem is of epistemological nature; language often uses terms in that way, for example in "What our city needs is ..." The city in and of itself cannot have needs either, it's the people who live in the city that have them.

Your error is Reification (aka. Hypostasization, aka. Platonism). You are treating "the market" as a transcendent, independent entity that exists apart from individual market participants. But the market isn't independent of the participants; "the market" is the participants!

But everything I have written goes exactly in the opposite direction, SD.

At no time did I think of "the market" as being independent of the participants.

But as for equating the market with the participants, I don't agree. "The market reflects people's business transactions in buying and selling" would fit it better imo.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was just going to comment that debates about "true" capitalism remind me of debates about which is the "true" religion when I read your post, the gist of which is the same.

Uh oh...

Xray and I are getting perilously close to agreeing on something.

That can't be good...

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

This isn't exactly a novel conclusion... you learn it in first year Political Science 101.

The French Revolution was indeed inspired partly by Rousseau and as such you get ideas like sovereignty-resting-in-the-nation-state and amorphous concepts like the "general will" and thus the danger of mob-rule-democracy and/or dictators claiming some special knowledge of the general will. Rousseau was also a romantic, and romantic nationalism was clearly one of the ideas that motivated World War 1 and World War 2 (probably the most influential of the relevant ideas).

But yes, Coulter oversimplifies. The French Revolution wasn't pure Rousseau; there was plenty of classical liberalism within it.

But is Coulter really a Lockean? For one, whilst Locke was a Christian, he argued for a secular state and his philosophical argumentation was not faith-based. He didn't claim he had a revelation from God commandeth-ing him to formulate Classical Liberalism. For two, Locke's notion of private property included ownership of the self, or self-sovereignty, which logically necessitates all those property rights that Coulter rails against, like right to use heroin, right to have consensual-adult buttsex in the privacy of one's home, right to listen to music about the glories of Satan, etc (even if he himself was unlikely to have considered those issues).

Now lets commence the tu quoque. "Demanding an unlimited State to implement the General Will" is not unique to Rousseau; Coulter does the same thing and replaces "general will" with "god's will." In both cases, individual rights are subject to approval by some higher power; the pack or the priests. Romantic nationalism is rife on the American right with political peans to the virtues of rural people that haven't been corrupted by the evil cities with their queers, junkies and liberals (i.e. they turn hicks into the Noble Savages)... this precise argument about the superior morality of these 'close to the land and rooted in the soil' farmers has been used repeatedly to justify farm subsidies (!). And of course, country and western folk music about staying in the country with one's 'roots' and the glories of repeating the traditions of one's fore-fore-fore-fathers (such as child-beating, cousin-screwing and lynching black people) (yes, I'm deliberately being a touch uncharitable here) is pure romantic nationalism with the accompanying Sense Of Life.

Coulter is trying to hijack the secular, empiricist Enlightenment in the name of her religionist, romantic-nationalist adgenda.

Oh, and she goes on that today's anti-war protestors are being Rousseau-ist... most of them sound to me like they're following the Lockean Founding Fathers' foreign policy advice rather than Rousseau-ism. Locke wasn't a warmonger either.

Some excellent points here. I don’t mean to imply that I agree with all of what you say, but you are definitely right in terms of the Romantic, anti-Lockean elements to be found in much of modern conservative thought, Coulter included. Needless to say, given how I began this thread, my intention was not to defend the particulars of Coulter’s overall historical analysis. I merely wanted to point out that she cannot be dismissed as being an ignoramus or a lightweight.

Most Poly Sci courses, by the way, would give more weight to economic factors and the nonchalance of the French regime toward the hardships of the lower classes than philosophical influences. I doubt you would find many history teachers who would cite specific teachings of Rousseau as having equal importance. They would just list Enlightenment ideals in general as among the many causes. Coulter traces current liberal trends back to their philosophical origins in a way that most concrete-bound professors of today would never permit themselves.

When knee-jerk leftists dismiss her as comical and moronic, they are simply revealing their own poverty of critical thought and their unwillingness to deal with opposing viewpoints. They should know better by now. They tried to do the same thing with Ayn Rand, and look where that got them.

Coulter is laughing too, all the way to the bank.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Coulter is laughing too, all the way to the bank.

Dennis,

And to the voting booth...

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Some excellent points here. I don’t mean to imply that I agree with all of what you say, but you are definitely right in terms of the Romantic, anti-Lockean elements to be found in much of modern conservative thought, Coulter included. Needless to say, given how I began this thread, my intention was not to defend the particulars of Coulter’s overall historical analysis. I merely wanted to point out that she cannot be dismissed as being an ignoramus or a lightweight.

When knee-jerk leftists dismiss her as comical and moronic, they are simply revealing their own poverty of critical thought and their unwillingness to deal with opposing viewpoints.

That's reasonable. I agree she makes an argument that DOES need to be dealt with via actual discussion and, where wrong, refutation, rather than simply an eye-roll and scoff.

In all fairness I have read some Coulter and her sheer mean-ness does make her funny (political incorrectness is always refreshing). However, every time she makes a correct point, it was one stolen from a libertarian/classical liberal who made the same point in far more extensive detail a long time ago, and she always attempts to use these secular-enlightenment-libertarian arguments to justify her religionist-romantic-conservative worldview. Plus, as I said above, most of the faults she ascribes to liberals are ones she shares (projection, much?). Although I don't think we disagree on this.

Most Poly Sci courses, by the way, would give more weight to economic factors and the nonchalance of the French regime toward the hardships of the lower classes than philosophical influences. I doubt you would find many history teachers who would cite specific teachings of Rousseau as having equal importance. They would just list Enlightenment ideals in general as among the many causes.

Maybe my experience is atypical, but in both high school history and undergraduate-level political science, the ideas of Rousseau and how they contributed to the French Revolution were indeed discussed. Its true, other factors were looked at, including economic/material factors, but I don't think those factors should be ignored and nor should Objectivism be taken as a reason to slide into philosophical determinism.

[Xray]

Has Coulter ever been in a public debate with an atheist?

The type of religious belief she exhibits is that simplistic, dogmatic and unreflected that I can't imagine she would even last for the first round in such a debate.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Xray

[studiodekadent]

Has Coulter ever been a public debate with an atheist?

The type of religious belief she exhibits is that simplistic, dogmatic and unreflected that I can't imagine she would even last for the first round in such a debate.

I'd love to see Coulter vs. Christopher Hitchens (when Hitch was in his prime, at least). That would just be brutal.

[Dennis Hardin]

Coulter is laughing too, all the way to the bank.

Dennis,

And to the voting booth...

Michael

I hope you're right, Michael. Coulter has been in the forefront of those pushing for New Jersey's bull in the chinashop to make a run. . .

[Dennis Hardin]

Most Poly Sci courses, by the way, would give more weight to economic factors and the nonchalance of the French regime toward the hardships of the lower classes than philosophical influences. I doubt you would find many history teachers who would cite specific teachings of Rousseau as having equal importance. They would just list Enlightenment ideals in general as among the many causes.

Maybe my experience is atypical, but in both high school history and undergraduate-level political science, the ideas of Rousseau and how they contributed to the French Revolution were indeed discussed. Its true, other factors were looked at, including economic/material factors, but I don't think those factors should be ignored and nor should Objectivism be taken as a reason to slide into philosophical determinism.

Perhaps the Australian educational system did not suffer the worst effects of John Dewey and his Progressive reformers a century ago. The Progressive Movement’s assault on systematic learning and integration in favor of ‘practicality’ and ‘learning by doing’-which has dominated American schools for decades--resulted in a concrete-bound approach to teaching history which seriously devalued the role of ideas. I honestly do not recall learning much of anything about the importance of intellectual influences on history in a formal classroom setting until I began studying philosophy in college. If the role of ideas was mentioned at all in my history or government courses, they were relegated to an afterthought.

[studiodekadent]

Most Poly Sci courses, by the way, would give more weight to economic factors and the nonchalance of the French regime toward the hardships of the lower classes than philosophical influences. I doubt you would find many history teachers who would cite specific teachings of Rousseau as having equal importance. They would just list Enlightenment ideals in general as among the many causes.

Maybe my experience is atypical, but in both high school history and undergraduate-level political science, the ideas of Rousseau and how they contributed to the French Revolution were indeed discussed. Its true, other factors were looked at, including economic/material factors, but I don't think those factors should be ignored and nor should Objectivism be taken as a reason to slide into philosophical determinism.

Perhaps the Australian educational system did not suffer the worst effects of John Dewey and his Progressive reformers a century ago. The Progressive Movement’s assault on systematic learning and integration in favor of ‘practicality’ and ‘learning by doing’-which has dominated American schools for decades--resulted in a concrete-bound approach to teaching history which seriously devalued the role of ideas. I honestly do not recall learning much of anything about the importance of intellectual influences on history in a formal classroom setting until I began studying philosophy in college. If the role of ideas was mentioned at all in my history or government courses, they were relegated to an afterthought.

Oh, we've had our share of intellectual corruption, trust me. The Comprachicos said a lot about my real life experiences, too.

[Xray]

One of my strongest perceptions of NBI in the 60's was the absolute absence of a sense of humor. This raised sonorous alarm bells in my mind. Unfortunately, my worst fears manifested themselves.

A total lack of humor can indeed be quite problematic.

Humor includes being able to laugh at oneself and not to react miffed if others poke some fun at you.

Isn't a good dose of humor, isn't seeing the comical aspect of things often a wonderful relief?

What do you think was the reason why many Objectivists at NBI seemed to have problems with humor?

...was Hitler a picky eater?

Very. He was a vegetarian.

Being a vegetarian does not mean one is necessarily a picky eater. I'm the type who is perfectly happy with e. g. a slice of bread with butter and some chive rolls on it. Simply delicious!!

With "picky eater", I connote more those picking with the fork at the food on their plates, nose wrinkled, frowning, complaining.

Or those who complain to the waiter over food that is perfectly okay, their additional motives being to show off to their dinner friends just how 'selective and refined' their tastes are ...

Edited August 26, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

One of my strongest perceptions of NBI in the 60's was the absolute absence of a sense of humor. This raised sonorous alarm bells in my mind. Unfortunately, my worst fears manifested themselves.

A total lack of humor can indeed be quite problematic.

Humor includes being able to laugh at oneself and not to react miffed if others poke some fun at you.

Isn't a good dose of humor, isn't seeing the comical aspect of things often a wonderful relief?

What do you think was the reason why many Objectivists at NBI seemed to have problems with humor?

...was Hitler a picky eater?

Very. He was a vegetarian.

Being a vegetarian does not mean one is necessarily a picky eater. I'm the type who is perfectly happy with e. g. a slice of bread with butter and some chive rolls on it. Simply delicious!!

With "picky eater", I connote more those picking with the fork at the food on their plates, nose wrinkled, frowning, complaining.

Or those who complain to the waiter over food that is perfectly okay, their additional motives being to show off to their dinner friends just how 'selective and refined' their tastes are ...

Angela:

Your example is one type or aspect of a "picky" eater. Additionally, a refusal to experiment, taste something new, or a person who is very restricted in what they eat on a regular basis are all examples of picky eaters. They are, in general, awful in bed.

Adam

[studiodekadent]

One of my strongest perceptions of NBI in the 60's was the absolute absence of a sense of humor. This raised sonorous alarm bells in my mind. Unfortunately, my worst fears manifested themselves.

A total lack of humor can indeed be quite problematic.

Humor includes being able to laugh at oneself and not to react miffed if others poke some fun at you.

Isn't a good dose of humor, isn't seeing the comical aspect of things often a wonderful relief?

What do you think was the reason why many Objectivists at NBI seemed to have problems with humor?

Angela,

To answer this question, it has to do with Rand's understanding of humor. Basically, Rand believed all humor was ultimately satire, or the use of humor as a tool of ridicule.

To make humor about something is to diminish its importance, to humiliate it, to degrade it, etc.

Therefore, to make jokes about Ayn Rand, Objectivism or Atlas Shrugged (etc. etc.) is to humiliate, degrade and diminish these things.

To be honest I'm kind of mixed on this issue... humor often IS a tool of ridicule. All the humor I find genuinely funny is basically a giant overdose of offensiveness and/or schadenfreude. Humor-as-abuse is the kind I'm most familiar with.

Yet somehow I can't help but crack the occasional joke about the excesses of quite a few Objectivists.

Perhaps its a way of defusing excessive gravitas.

[Reidy]

NBI's corporate voice may have been humorless, but Peikoff used to be a laff riot in his lectures. Hard to believe, but true.

The vegetarian story is a matter of controversy. Paste "Hitler vegetarian" into the search engine of your choice.

[Selene]

NBI's corporate voice may have been humorless, but Peikoff used to be a laff riot in his lectures. Hard to believe, but true.

The vegetarian story is a matter of controversy. Paste "Hitler vegetarian" into the search engine of your choice.

Thanks. Very interesting search.

This struck me as so contradictory as to be hilarious, but for the horrors that the Nazi's produced:

There was widespread support for

animal welfare in Nazi Germany

[1]

and the Nazis took several measures to ensure protection of animals.

[2]

Many

Nazi leaders

, including

Adolf Hitler

and

Hermann Göring

, were supporters of animal protection. Several Nazis were

environmentalists

, and species protection and

animal welfare

were significant issues in the

Nazi regime

.

[3]

Heinrich Himmler

made an effort to ban the hunting of animals.

[4]

Göring was an animal lover and

conservationist

.

[5]

The current animal welfare laws in

Germany

are modified versions of the laws introduced by the Nazis.

[6]

Wiki cite here

I would hope that Angela, who is both German and a PETA member, might give us some insight on this apparent Germanic trend.

Adam

[Xray]

Angela:

Your example is one type or aspect of a "picky" eater. Additionally, a refusal to experiment, taste something new, or a person who is very restricted in what they eat on a regular basis are all examples of picky eaters. They are, in general, awful in bed.

Imo it is quite difficult to generalize here, but then personal experience cannot be completely discounted either.

I've always "suspected" hard-core tightwads to rank quite low on that list. Not from personal experience, but I can imagine that extreme penny pinchers are as unwilling to lavish attentive caresses on their 'Queen/King of Hearts' as they are unwilling to spend a little money.

"Queen/King of Hearts" might be an exaggeration in that context. They probably think of their partner as "the one who spends half of my paycheck" ...

[Disclaimer: All that is to be understood as a purely speculative, comic relief-type of comment which would of course not stand up to serious epistological scrutiny. ;)]

Edited August 27, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

NBI's corporate voice may have been humorless, but Peikoff used to be a laff riot in his lectures. Hard to believe, but true.

The vegetarian story is a matter of controversy. Paste "Hitler vegetarian" into the search engine of your choice.

Hitler was a vegetarian, yes. Vegetarian organizations often have problems what to do with Hitler when they publish their lists of "famous vegetarians". I recently read a list where he was left out. "Infamous" vegetarians have no place on that list.

Hitler's is a case where the 'ethical pride' quite a few vegetarians display about their eating habits comes back to bite them.

This struck me as so contradictory as to be hilarious, but for the horrors that the Nazi's produced:

There was widespread support for

animal welfare in Nazi Germany

[1]

and the Nazis took several measures to ensure protection of animals.

[2]

Many

Nazi leaders

, including

Adolf Hitler

and

Hermann Göring

, were supporters of animal protection. Several Nazis were

environmentalists

, and species protection and

animal welfare

were significant issues in the

Nazi regime

.

[3]

Heinrich Himmler

made an effort to ban the hunting of animals.

[4]

Göring was an animal lover and

conservationist

.

[5]

The current animal welfare laws in

Germany

are modified versions of the laws introduced by the Nazis.

[6]

Wiki cite here

I would hope that Angela, who is both German and a PETA member, might give us some insight on this apparent Germanic trend.

It is true that animal welfare was a concern of Hitler's, and it too strikes me as totally absurd in view of the horrific cruelties committed by the Nazi regime against humans.

But these are the facts.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Xray

[Dennis Hardin]

One of my strongest perceptions of NBI in the 60's was the absolute absence of a sense of humor. This raised sonorous alarm bells in my mind. Unfortunately, my worst fears manifested themselves.

I don’t remember it that way at all. Nathaniel used to work a lot of humor into his lectures.

His jokes were often about minor things, such as saying that intermission (during lectures) would last "15 and a half minutes." Or talking about how, when waking up in the morning, certain people might be a bit groggy "for a few seconds—or a few minutes—or a few hours." And I recently made a post on another thread about his comment, during a lecture on sex, that the man “does not have to be on top to be on top."

I remember his audiences cracking up on numerous occasions—both during my visits to NYC and listening to taped lectures. I thought he was often funny as hell. It was part of Nathan’s wit and charm.

[Selene]

One of my strongest perceptions of NBI in the 60's was the absolute absence of a sense of humor. This raised sonorous alarm bells in my mind. Unfortunately, my worst fears manifested themselves.

I don't remember it that way at all. Nathaniel used to work a lot of humor into his lectures.

His jokes were often about minor things, such as saying that intermission (during lectures) would last "15 and a half minutes." Or talking about how, when waking up in the morning, certain people might be a bit groggy "for a few seconds—or a few minutes—or a few hours." And I recently made a post on another thread about his comment, during a lecture on sex, that the man "does not have to be on top to be on top."

I remember his audiences cracking up on numerous occasions—both during my visits to NYC and listening to taped lectures. I thought he was often funny as hell. It was part of Nathan's wit and charm.

Dennis:

As Lazarus Long said, one man's engineering is another man's magic.

Do you remember Ayn being humorous? It was a rarity and, unfortunately, as it got later in the decade and closer to the split, I perceived that her "humor" was generally at someone else's expense. Sarcastically slashing some sad student's fumbling question with a put down was not particularly amusing to me. Yet, many in the audience laughed at the student's humiliation.

I did not find Nathan particularly amusing, but he did have a sense of humor. I thought it was a little too controlled, but it did exist.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

One of my strongest perceptions of NBI in the 60's was the absolute absence of a sense of humor. This raised sonorous alarm bells in my mind. Unfortunately, my worst fears manifested themselves.

I don't remember it that way at all. Nathaniel used to work a lot of humor into his lectures.

His jokes were often about minor things, such as saying that intermission (during lectures) would last "15 and a half minutes." Or talking about how, when waking up in the morning, certain people might be a bit groggy "for a few seconds—or a few minutes—or a few hours." And I recently made a post on another thread about his comment, during a lecture on sex, that the man "does not have to be on top to be on top."

I remember his audiences cracking up on numerous occasions—both during my visits to NYC and listening to taped lectures. I thought he was often funny as hell. It was part of Nathan's wit and charm.

Dennis:

As Lazarus Long said, one man's engineering is another man's magic.

Do you remember Ayn being humorous? It was a rarity and, unfortunately, as it got later in the decade and closer to the split, I perceived that her "humor" was generally at someone else's expense. Sarcastically slashing some sad student's fumbling question with a put down was not particularly amusing to me. Yet, many in the audience laughed at the student's humiliation.

I did not find Nathan particularly amusing, but he did have a sense of humor. I thought it was a little too controlled, but it did exist.

Adam

I think you're both right as far as you've gone. Now I'm pretty sure my NBI NYC experience was less than Dennis', but my sense of the humor was it generally came from Nathaniel, maybe a little from Leonard, and it was top down, from him to the audience. That was natural enough in that environment, we were there to learn about Objectivism, but the learners were too busy posturing amongst themselves trying to have the form, while learning the substance was playing catchup. It's not that we were social metaphysicians, which is a general statement about one's psychology, but that one facet for many there has aspects of that. Please understand that I think "trying to have the form" meant most were too scared to be spontaneously who they really were.

--Brant

[Selene]

I think you're both right as far as you've gone. Now I'm pretty sure my NBI NYC experience was less than Dennis', but my sense of the humor was it generally came from Nathaniel, maybe a little from Leonard, and it was top down, from him to the audience. That was natural enough in that environment, we were there to learn about Objectivism, but the learners were too busy posturing amongst themselves trying to have the form, while learning the substance was playing catchup. It's not that we were social metaphysicians, which is a general statement about one's psychology, but that one facet for many there has aspects of that. Please understand that I think "trying to have the form" meant most were too scared to be spontaneously who they really were.

--Brant

Brant:

I think that is a fair statement on what I experienced also.

Essentially, I have never been "moldable," which has allowed me to achieve some great things and has also gotten me into trouble. So be it.

Good points on the NBI gestalt of the 1960's.

Adam