I recently began visiting ObjectivismOnline.net, and on May 20th I signed up after seeing that my quoting of Rand's views on the handicapped and their kneeling buses had been brought up.

Today I checked in and saw that WSS had posted some thoughts, so I replied:



After I posted my comments, I snooped around on the site a little and spotted a thread which contained a review that I had already commented about on Noodlefood, and I decided to cross-post my comment to the OO thread. Here's what I wrote:



I hit the "add reply" button and my post vanished. So I went to the kneeling buses thread, and, as I had suspected, my response to WSS had been deleted. I've been banned or put on moderation at ObjectivismOnline in the name of protecting Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism.

Hilarious.

J

I find the idea of not exposing children to mentally deficient people very disturbing in a mind-control kind of way. Children's minds are are to be taught, not molded.

How can you teach a child to respect reality if you deny him exposure to something as real as illness? How can a child know he is healthy if he is never permitted to see the sick?

How can he learn to measure this?

This is one part of Rand's views I resoundingly do not agree with.

Michael

Sigh.

One of the defenses on OO.net is the following -



Yep, why be honest and say your just a bigot looking for excuses when you can just as easily hide in the la la land of "proper concept formation"?

As for being banned, I've been banned no less than 8 times from that board.

I was once that bored, on said board, I hit my head repeatedly against a board, I was so bor---

Joel,

LOLOLOLOL...


I am trying to read in between the boards with that one.



Michael

Yeah.

I had an art teacher who was phocomelic. None of his students, and none of the children in the school who were not his students, were unable to "deal with" his presence. And I'd be willing to bet a pretty large pile of cash that he could do almost everything better than Objectivists who would point to him as an example when teaching children proper epistemology and the concept of "broken man."

In the same school there was also a very friendly and generous quadriplegic man who assisted elementary school teachers. No children were traumatized by him. None went insane from fear. None became confused, depressed, or evil because they hadn't yet had time to get a solid grip on the idea of a "man" before being exposed to him.

Aside from people I've known personally, I wonder how Objectivist zealots, using the power of proper Objectivist epistemology, would categorize someone like athlete/model/actress Aimee Mullins (who, incidentally, appeared as the Cheetah Lady in the part of Matthew Barney's Cremaster Cycle that Michael Newberry actually saw). "Broken" is the last word I'd think of to describe her. "Intelligent," "confident," "driven" and "babelicious," yes. But "broken"? No.

J

Jonathan, Rand must have changed her view of what children should be allowed to see and to know about. Sometime in the early 1950s, I visited my home town and I spent time with a four-year-old nephew. On a drive, we passed a mental institution, (then called an "insane asylum") and he asked what the place was. My instant reaction was that I didn't want him to know about the phenomenon of mental illness, that it might frighten him, and so, to protect him, I passed off his question with something innocuous.

But I wasn't comfortable with my response, and when I was back in Los Angeles, I mentioned the incident to Rand. She said -- and she was quite right -- that I had made a mistake in not answering the boy truthfully. She said that children should not be shielded from reality, and that if he was old enough to ask the question, he was old enough to receive a truthful answer (which, of course, didn't have to be put in terrifying terms).

I realize this isn't quite the same as a physical deformity, but, remembering the conversation, I'm certain Rand's answer in the latter case would have been the same -- that is, that children should not be shielded from reality. This doesn't mean that we ought to take four-year-olds to hospital operating rooms to witness surgery; but it does mean that we should be truthful with them, not attempt to hide facts from them, and not pretend that reality is always pretty. Besides, children tend to be realists, and are much more resilient and much more accepting of facts -- pleasant and unpleasant -- than many adults give them credit for.

Barbara

Ahh yes, ObjectivismOnline...

Better known as Rationalist Randroid Central. Its unfortunate that some people treat Objectivism as a religion, they give the real Objectivists a bad name.

Jonathan,

I can't speak for the Moderators at Objectivism Online, but I don't blame them for banning you. Of the 3 initial posts you made on Objectivism Online, all were criticisms of Rand. It appeared that your only purpose in commenting on their forum was to bash Rand, goad others that you have predetermined to be rationalistic Rand-worshippers, then stomp off afterwards, decrying the injustice of your banishment. Based on your comments here, I'd say that the Objectivism Online Moderators were spot-on in their judgment of your motives.

This was a self-fulfilling prophecy, Jonathan. You went to Objectivism Online looking for trouble, and found it.

If you find it unpalatable that others would question your motives like that, then what does it say about you to make a blanket statement about these folks "protecting Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism?" You've been making very public claims like that for a long time. When you talk trash about people, they're not going to want you on their forum.

Though I don't contribute much, I like the crowd at Objectivism Online. And when you make accusations like the ones above, I take it personally. I'm the kind of person you're talking about. Me and my friends. It's not like you hurt my feelings, but I hope you see how offensive your comments come off.

--Dan Edge, Proud Defender of Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism

P.S. Check out my blog for evidence of my fanatic rationalism! - http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/

Dan's right.

You walk into a place for people who like calling themselves the "Proud Defender of Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism", you get cultist idiots.

What did you expect?

There is no intelligence there, just posturing egomaniacs.

Dan,

I just took a look at your blog and was pleased to see how it has grown. I just skimmed, so I can't really say anything specific. (I will go back later and read a couple of things that caught my eye.)

But what brought me a smile was the entry on your marriage. Kelly looks like a marvelous person and you both look so happy together. May you both find deep joy and eternal connection in each other. I wish you both the very best life has to offer.

Michael

I just looked at Dan's last year of posting here and I don't see any egomania.

Dan, the guy in front of the tank in 1989 was IDed and sent to prison. I don't have a record of his name or know what subsequently happened to him.

--Brant

Barbara,

Thank you for the anecdote. I am glad to see that Rand thought that way.

So what if she was a bit inconsistent in her statements at other times about this? We all do that on off days. (But I still find those off day statements somewhat jarring.)

Michael

Brant,

I read that there have been conflicting reports about the Unknown Rebel, and that it hasn't been confirmed what happened to him. But I think I got that info from Wikipedia, so take that for what it's worth.

Joel,

Your denunciations only feed my fanaticism. Huzzah!

--Dan Edge

Ooh, imagine posting criticisms of Rand on OO, scandalous!

But wait, let's have a closer look first. The first post was only a comment on a thread started by Greebo, which referred to Jonathan's comment on ARCHN (which BTW didn't contain any explicit criticism of Rand, only a literal quote from Rand herself). In that comment on OO Jonathan gave only factual information, without any criticism, it was just a clarification of the context of the quote in the post by Greebo.

Now Jonathan's second post might be seen as critical of Rand. But it is ludicrous to call it "Rand bashing", he expressed his disagreements with her statements very politely and reasonably. Apparently any remark that might be found to be critical of a particular viewpoint of Rand is a big taboo on OO.

Jonathan's third post (that Rand probably would have dismissed Rockwell's art as naturalism or as illlustration) didn't contain any explicit criticism of Rand either.

Therefore the accusation that Jonathan's 3 posts on OO were criticisms of Rand is completely unwarranted, let alone that they contained any "Rand bashing".



That is typical Objectivist psychologizing, never mind the actual arguments, they just know that Jonathan had evil intentions. And the fact that Jonathan is pissed off by the completely unreasonable banishment by the OO moderator is used as an argument that the banishment was justified. That must be Objectivist logic...

Up until the last sentence, there is nothing in your comments to warrant moderation, to my mind. Dan Edge has looked deeply into your soul, however, and I think the moderators at OO also have second sight. So your complaints about being banned are just the anguish of a Rand-diminisher who has been uncloaked!

Seriously, OO has a fairly tight set of rules, including "This forum will not tolerate rude or insulting comments about Ayn Rand, her philosophy of Objectivism, the Ayn Rand Institute, the representatives and supporters of the Institute, or the adherents of the philosophy."

Over at SOLO, in the interminable thread on PARC, chapter 4, discussion has lurched into the presumed openness there, with a side track into varied personages who have departed for one reason or another. I am being gnashed at for bringing up the SOLO party line as laid down by the Emperor.

It's funny to compare the varied lists for their in/out group fastidiousness, and for the tone and range of discussion. I find OO posters perhaps unconsciously reproduce a waspish tone. The Rand and the Handicapped thread is patrolled, as all threads there are patrolled, by an assiduous attention to the mythos of Rand.

At the risk of being thought of in an even worse light I am happy to post from my --

OO.Net Quotes List!

That's right! We at JMD Industries, a subsidiary of TrollCorp , have compiled a list which illustrate the evasion, malice, elitism, war mongering, and Galt C&*# worship that is OO.Net.

In no particular order -

1)



In this post OO.Net foreign affairs juggernaut "DarkWaters" soundly defeats prominent internet Objectivist "MyNameIsVlad" (whose real name may shock and amaze you) through insinuating everything and nothing - rather like the media attack on Rearden Steal, wouldn't you say?

2)



This post, written by that great Rand Roid "Burgess Laughlin" has it all. The worship of Rand's 1 dimensional cut-outs as perfect role models, the fact that someone disagrees in some trivial way with these cut outs and last, but sweetest, the veiled implication of the possibility of disagreement with Rand - one last chance to save oneself through confession.... or else.

3)

One of my favoritist Objectivists in the whole wide world, a douche bag named "Inspector" deserves a whole section but I'm only going to provide one quote from his profile and one from a thread.

On his profile Inspector proudly proclaims -



That,my friends, is a Loyalty oath to end all loyalty oaths. Why do I say loyalty oath and not just an innocent list of his Roidian credentials? Because he needs the argument from authority at all times. Here is a partial example of his stool pigeon/cry baby mentality, mixed with a little ignorance replying to the claim that Greece ruled not because of superior philosophy (Egadz!) but this insignificant thing called metal working -



In many ways Inspector is the previous DarkWaters quote writ large - hiding behind "sympathy" for the "Objectivist views" (which, thank you ARI, now encompasses a wide array of stupid), appealing to the board authority (you can see him pissing himself over someone being "anti-objectivist" here), and being a generally uneducated loud mouth idiot.

The mods (and some posters) on OO.net can be harsh, that's true. (I actually don't know how I've yet to be banned myself). Even so, I think it's a bit childish to run off to another forum complaining about it. Who gives a shit? So you got banned, and obviously you don't think that place is worth your time, so why not leave it at that?

At first glance it may not seem like it, but there are PLENTY of wonderful people over there on OO.net.

J, if you want a more friendly tone, you should enter OO.net chat sometime.

EDIT: Joel, way to pick the biggest jerks on the board. There are numerous other posters that are really kind, intelligent people, but I guess I'll leave it up to the wise ones to go look for themselves.

Nice to see you actually using your real name for once (if that is, in fact, your real name *raises eyebrow*.)

Yes, like Dwayne, and Kane!

No, seriously there are some good ones. The forum itself however is absolute crap from beginning to end.

^I'd have to agree with you most on that point. The forum is pretty hostile from what I can gather. I don't visit it very often anymore.

I suppose I have to say something to avoid any misunderstanding. Well, here it is.

Each person is stating his own thoughts, not any group policies or attitudes.

As for myself, I hardly think about OO. They do their thing and they are up front about it. From what little I have read, I am not much interested in their approach.

I wish them well from a distance.

Michael

I got into an argument there with a moderator who insisted she was perfectly rational in her decision to remain morbidly obese.

I was banned in record time!

Bob

...

Not wanting to attack the Roids too much for one day.

...

There are good posters, this is true. West, Aleph, Athena, Moose, Moebius, Sophia, John McVey, Mammon, a few others. But they tend not to dominate the discussions, except Moose who seems to have Moose-like endurance. A number of others simply left - Stephen Speicher, Free Capitalist, Alon, Ifa was gone for a while, Hal was banned for saying private roads make no sense, and others. Many can be found on 4aynrandfans.com which has itself similarly faced major issues after an exciting founding. The mods tend toward the extreme, the idiots will put up an endless string of nonsense that gives them the final word as well as the bulk of talk time and a strict Rand Worship is in effect.

In such an environment the knowledgeable are always on the defensive against the ignorant, the benevolent against the hateful, the unorthodox against the Roid majority.

I freely admit of course to not belonging in either group. My last few months there were spent getting others to leave. I was a smart as the good posters but as annoying as Kane, on crack. I thought of it like a drug avoidance program, "Don't by crack off them, look at me!" Its not Objectivist, sure, it wasn't even dignified but I counted some success.

Me and another guy did that. He's still at it, I burned out. Have they figured out who maintains the ED Randroid page yet? Maybe a certain person from .... ?

Anyway, yes, this IS my real name.

Thanks for your post, Barbara. When I read it, I was thinking, "Now that sounds like the Rand that I've always admired."

J

Because it's much more fun to share the fact that I got banned for posting what I posted! Honestly, I thought that I was being very polite on OO, and it really is comical to me that anything I said there would be seen as offensive.



I agree. There seem to be some bright, pleasant people posting there.



I might take you up on that sometime.

J

As Dragonfly said, there was no criticism of Rand in my first post on OO. All I did was report that I had quoted Rand accurately and that there was no additional context on the tape that softened her opinions on the handicapped.

My second post wasn't really criticism, but a brief analysis of what Rand "seemed to be saying," how her statement "comes across," and what it "sounds as if she was saying." I could be wrong in what I was understanding her to mean, as could anyone else who might listen to the tape and get the same impression that I did. But, anyway, I made no moral judgment of Rand, and I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret her statement that children "cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being" to mean that handicapped people are so psychologically disturbing as to cause severe mental and emotional damage in children. What else could she have meant by "cannot deal" with it?

Incidentally, if Michael Prescott is right in what he says here -- that Rand talked about "kneeling buses" when she appeared on the Donahue show, and that she seemed to have the mistaken impression that, although the handicapped could ride the special buses comfortably, other passengers had to kneel, which meant that she thought that non-handicapped children were being made to endure hardships in order to accommodate the handicapped -- then how might that change the context of her opinions and alter her readers' (or listeners') perceptions of where her anger was actually directed?

Imagine if someone had explained to Rand that "kneeling buses" are simply buses which include an inexpensive adjustable platform which allows wheelchair access to the bus, and that it has nothing to do with making non-handicapped children kneel -- that it's the bus that "kneels" and not the riders. Might she have then had an Emily Litella "nevermind" moment? Might she have softened her indignation, and agreed that of course any able-minded child, regardless of his or her physical impairment, should be allowed to attend classes with non-handicapped children, as long as the other children were not held back or made to suffer in any way?

And if her little rant about kneeling buses was indeed based on an erroneous view of what the buses actually are, what does it say about those who would "defend" her statement by making shit up about the epistemological importance of learning the concept of "broken man" at the right time?

In my third post, I commented on what I think Rand's opinion would have been of Norman Rockwell's art. No criticism at all. Are you familiar with her concepts of "romanticism" and "naturalism," and her comments on which artists have presented "the folks next door," the "average," the "humble," the "rural," and what she thought of as naturalistic "muddy colors" in their art? It's not exactly a controversial observation that Rockwell painted "homespun" images. Rand is not the only person who I think would have recognized that his art was often folksy. I think his art is folksy. I have very little doubt that Rand would have seen Rockwell's art as not falling within her view of "romanticism." There's nothing critical of Rand about my saying so.



"Bash" Rand? You think that what I wrote came anywhere near the level of "bashing" Rand? Heh. You're sounding a lot like a zealot, Dan.

And I didn't "stomp off" or "decry" anything. I'm laughing about it. I seriously thought about posting this topic in the humor section because it is beyond comprehension that my posts would be seen as "bashing" Rand. The idea that my posts needed to be deleted is comical.



Based on your comments here, you can't tell the difference between someone criticizing Rand and someone asserting that she was quoted accurately; you can't tell the difference between someone politely parsing what she said, and someone "bashing" her; and you can't tell the difference between someone politely doubting that she would have judged a certain work of art as "romanticism" and someone goading others with a vicious attack on their hero.



Really? I did? And here I thought that I went to OO looking to read others' posts, and only signed up and posted for the purpose of assuring "Greebo" that I had accurately quoted Rand's Ford Hall Forum comments. I thought that I checked in yesterday and added a couple of polite, reasonable observations. But if you say that I had darker motives, I'll take your word for it. After all, you know my mind better than I do.



I think your belief that I was critical of Rand in my posts on OO, and nasty enough to warrant banning or moderation, is just one more little bit of evidence supporting my view that there are still a lot of Objectivists who are overly sensitive, overly defensive, and have something resembling a religious view of Rand and Objectivism.



If you don't want to be called a zealot, then stop acting like one. Stop seeing criticism and "bashing" where it doesn't exist.

J

Rand on Donahue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU

At about 4:07 into the clip:

Donahue:
Yeah, well I don't understand why this is important. What are the consequence of the traditional notion that we've got here in the western world that sacrifice is what love is all about?

Rand:
Do you want the quickest...

Donahue:
Yeah.

Rand:
...example that comes to my mind? The newest proposals of having special millions spent on subnormal children, and on the handicapped, including those so-called kneeling buses, is the attempt to bring everybody to the level of the handicapped. And if it's merely an issue of a physical handicap like a broken leg, uh, which doesn't affect the mind, that would be a little more excusable. So I don't believe that such privileges should be granted to any group. But this includes the mentally retarded, which is the subnormal, the children who are unable to learn, so that at the end of spending thousands or millions of taxpayers' money, uh, you're left with a happy idiot who may learn to read and write — may. On the other hand...


Rand then goes on to talk about the lack or small number of schools for gifted children.

So, she didn't specifically say that she thought that non-handicapped children had to kneel on kneeling buses, but it does sound as if that's what she may have believed, since there is nothing about the addition of an adjustable suspension system or ramp that would "attempt to bring everybody to the level of the handicapped."

Unless...Could she have possibly meant that the bus literally lowers the riders momentarily to what she thought was the physical level of the handicapped? Is it possible that she was upset that the bus and its riders might be lowered by a few inches for a few seconds, or that there might be times when some of the non-handicapped riders would walk on a ramp instead of stairsteps?

More interesting to me, however, is her comment, "And if it's merely an issue of a physical handicap like a broken leg, uh, which doesn't affect the mind, that would be a little more excusable." That seems to imply that she might not have had a problem with children being exposed to physically handicapped children who were mentally capable, especially since she didn't mention anything about the value of using them as ostensive definitions of the concept "broken man."

J

Update: It now appears that my account at OO has been canceled, and, even more precious, it looks as though the address from which I posted to OO is being blocked so that I, and any of the other people who have access to the computer that I used (and about a dozen other computers in the building), can't even visit OO!

The blocked address is not the only one that I use, but it may be the only one that others use. There are at least three other people that I know of who have access to the computers in the building and are interested in Rand's ideas. One of them, with whom I've had some good arguments on topics ranging from abortion to evolution, has had some success in putting the ARI's opinions out into the real world. In fact I'd go so far as to say that he has probably had more outreach success than all of the people at OO combined, including Diana Hsieh (and by "outreach," I mean positively exposing new people to Objectivist ideas, convincing them of their merits, and not just being critical of others' ideas from an Objectivist perspective). If he's interested in reading anything at OO, he'll now have to do it elsewhere.

New slogan proposal:
"The Objectivist movement: If we think that you've committed blasphemy against Saint Ayn, or that you've mocked us for worshiping Her, we'll punish you by making our public presence a little smaller than it is. So there. Take that!"

J

The after ban block will only last 48 hours, tops. After that, feel free to sign up again, they don't track IP addresses so you won't be noticed.

Its sad I know that.

However, being banned so many times from the site I have it down to a science.

Let's take her at her literal word. To me, it sounds like her objection is to having taxpayer money spent on things like handicapped accessibility curbs, special bus additions, special ed classes, etc., ESPECIALLY when no corresponding money is spent on classes for gifted children. I don't think she was referring to anything as literal as children kneeling; I think she meant that the parents of physically or mentally handicapped children, and that physically handicapped adults, should be responsible for themselves without taxpayer expense or effort. She would have rolled over in her grave at the ADA act.

Judith

I agree. I don't think Rand was so dumb as to think that a "kneeling bus" meant that people had to kneel. She just had little consideration for handicapped people. It's no coincidence that all her heroes are well-built, strong and healthy and all the villains are ugly, fat, flabby, unhealthty. In her Utopia, Galt's Gulch, the only doctor there has little to do, as all the inhabitants have the right psycho-epistemology, they're therefore always healthy, illness and deformity are signs of bad premises. Even orthodox Objectivists may find this viewpoint troubling. That would also explain the completely unwarranted banishment of Jonathan at OO. It's not that he said anything improper, but the fact that he brought up a subject that made them uncomfortable, and in such cases the cult leaders of course try to silence the messenger.

You're somewhat overstating the matter, especially about the villians who tended to be about as physically healthy as the bad guys and gals. And "ugly, fat and flabby?" There was some of such. While you are basically right you're way too wrong the way you've put it.

--Brant

That is one attitude I have always seen in Rand and Objectivism... respect for the young, rather than patronizing them. That is one of the attitudes of Objectivism that I truly love and one of the reasons I consider myself an Objectivist.



Joel,

I believe I have encountered this "Inspector" in the past. Whilst I do not agree with him on everything he says, I have noticed him deal with one specific issue - the computer game "BioShock," with remarkable rationality and levelheadedness. Most Randroid/Rationalist types simply scream that BioShock is evil and its creator, Ken Levine, is Ellsworth Toohey. Inspector actually INTERVIEWED Ken Levine and showed that Levine was actually sympathetic to Objectivism and was simply skeptical about whether or not humans could really be as consistent with Objectivism as Objectivism requires. So as such, I hold some respect for Inspector, for defending a game that often gets attacked by Randroids and for actually investigating whether or not the game was created out of hatred for Objectivism. As he discovered, it was not.

That said, I do think that the position you describe Inspector as taking; that Ancient Greece's dominance was a product of good philosophy and that to ascribe some sort of technological cause to it is against the Objectivist theory of history; is a position I think is rationalistic and empirically false. For one, Greece had shitty philosophy too: Plato was no less Greek than Aristotle. For two, Greek tragedies were pretty "bad sense of life"-ish in that they explicitly believed in fatalism (see Oedipus Rex). For three, the Athenian Golden Age came before rather than after Aristotle. For four, Inspector's application of the Objectivist theory is rationalistic and based on methodological collectivism: it is INDIVIDUALS that act on the basis of their ideas; collectives (like civilizations) do not simply get swept along in an intellectual tide. Ancient Greece was in no way a civilization of Aristotelians, just like America before the revolutionary war was in no way a civilization of Lockeans (the Founding Fathers were a small group of Lockean intellectuals and not typical of the population, but it was their great gift to the Western World to grant it the Declaration of Independence).

What I'm saying is that Rand's indignation about "kneeling buses," and her opinion that the buses were an "attempt to bring everybody to the level of the handicapped," gives the impression (regardless of whether or not that impression is accurate) that she believed that non-handicapped children would be made to endure something very much like the physical hardships that the handicapped endure -- that's what it means to "bring them to their level." Since, in reality, making minor mechanical alterations to a bus would have no effect on the lives of the non-handicapped, let alone the effect of bringing them to the level of the handicapped, Rand's indignation comes across as being so out of proportion and out of touch with reality that I think it's legitimate to wonder if she actually understood what kneeling buses were and how they worked.

I think that most people would see the issue as being about the minimal expense of removing a few barriers and finding ways of reasonably accommodating the handicapped so that they can contribute to and enjoy the benefits of society -- to welcome them into the human family and give them the chance to lead productive, fulfilling lives. I think most people would recognize that it's absurd to claim that the purpose of wanting to install something like a hydraulic ramp on a bus, or a gentler slope on sidewalk curbs at intersections or entrances to buildings, is to punish the healthy, let alone to punish them severely enough to make their lives as difficult as the lives of the handicapped -- i.e. to "bring them to the level of the handicapped."

When people hear comments like Rand's, I think they generally think something like, "So, we have a choice between, on the one hand, spending $500 to install a hydraulic ramp on a bus, which will allow a poverty stricken but bright little handicapped girl in our community to go to school, or, on the other hand, spending the $500 on gifted students, which will buy them, say, an additional classroom computer. If we spend the money on the ramp, it will make a HUGE difference in the handicapped girl's life. It will probably mean the difference between the girl remaining an uneducated, abandoned shut-in for the rest of her life versus allowing her to potentially join the ranks of the gifted students and to do almost anything she sets her mind to. On the other hand, if we spend the money on a computer for a few gifted students, it might allow them to gain some knowledge a few hours faster than they would have acquired it without the additional computer. It might help them to get into Harvard at the age of 16 instead of at the age of 16 and four days. Which investment delivers more bang for the buck? Why would anyone be pissed off about our choice to invest in the ramp? How could any sane person possibly claim that to not give the gifted students an additional computer is to punish them and drag them down to the level of a paralyzed little girl?"

Or maybe a medical analogy would be better. I think people would be justified in thinking that a person was out of her freaking mind if she said that it is evil to spend $5 on medicine which will save the life of a poor child who had been infected with a deadly (but curable) disease, because the money should instead be spent on medicine which will help a wealthy CEO get over his minor common cold a few hours sooner than he otherwise would have. I think that people would have grounds to suspect that a person was a very cold, inhumane and hateful individual if she said that choosing to spend $5 to save the life of the child was an attempt to drag the CEO down to the child's level.



I would agree that Rand's view is that no one should be forced to pay for others, but that wasn't the essence of her comments on the subject of altruism, kneeling buses and the handicapped.

The question that Donahue asked was about altruism and its consequences, and Rand's answer was meant to give examples of the altruistic mindset of favoring people who Rand thought were of lesser value over those she thought were of higher value. I think she would have said the same thing if she was talking about purely private choices -- that choosing to spend money on those who have more needs is altruistic, where spending money on those who have demonstrated more abilities is rational.

Which, incidentally, makes me wonder how classroom funding would operate under the principles implied by Rand's comments. Since she seems to favor rewarding ability over need in all situations and contexts, I'd imagine that each Objectivist school year would have to begin with the teachers testing their students prior to giving them any lessons. The students who performed the best would be designated as being worthy of receiving the most learning materials and attention. Those who performed not so well might be deemed to be deserving mostly of disapproval and brief, dismissive admonishments to work harder and rise, with no instruction or guidance, to the level of those who were brighter and, therefore, receiving lots of guidance and instruction.

J

I think that you're overlooking (a) a nicety of grammar; (b ) Rand's city of residence.

Notice she's quoted as having said "those so-called kneeling buses." "So-called" indicates non-literal usage; "so-called" and scare quotes are equivalents. Rand knew English grammar well. Further, she said "those so-called," which sounds as if she had a visual image.

Rand lived in New York City, and she didn't keep completely within the confines of her apartment, though she didn't get out a lot. I can't recall exactly when the trial fleet of kneeling buses was put into operation, but I think it was before the Donahue appearance and that she'd likely have seen actual examples of the buses, not just photos in the newspapers. (I'm not industrious enough, at least at the moment, to try to track down when kneeling buses started to appear in NYC.)

Ellen

___

I'd like a list of exactly which villains are described as "ugly, fat, flabby, unhealthy." ;-)

Did she ever say that "illness and deformity" generically "are signs of bad premises"? Not that I know of. She thought that cancer was caused by bad premises. She certainly didn't think that cholera, e.g., was caused by bad premises, else she wouldn't have washed dishes in scalding water from residual fears of the cholera epidemics in Russia.

Ellen

___

I might be wrong about this, but wasn't there a sort of mini-scandal about NYC kneeling buses that didn't work around that time? That may have been the tie-in.

--Brant

Brant, I think there was. Your question made me start laughing with some kind of memory of there having been a flap. I don't remember details of exactly when it was but I remember laughing with friends about it -- one of those, "Wouldn't you know, a government project?", sorts of laughs.

Ellen

___

Well, "exactly" is a bit too much work, but I can give you some quotes from AS:

[About Paul Larkin:]
He saw the flare of the open coat, the wrinkles of a vest pulled tight over flabby bulges, and a stain of perspiration in the armpit of the shirt.

Standing unnoticed on the edge of the group, Rearden heard a woman, who had large diamond earrings and a flabby, nervous face, ask tensely, "Senior d'Anconia, what do you think is going to happen to the world?"
"Just exactly what it deserves,"

"Who's the president of the National Council of Metal Industries, Jim? Orren Boyle, isn't it?"
Taggart did not turn to her, but his jaw snapped open. "If that fat slob thinks he can—" he started, but stopped and did not finish.

"Who is Mr. Boyle?" she asked, stupefied.
"Oh, a fat slob that's inclined to overreach himself.

But when [Rearden] felt the wish to fight and kill in the rightful cause of self-defense—he saw the fat, grinning face of Mayor Bascom and heard the drawling voice saying, ". . . you and the charming lady who is not your wife."

A youngish, fattish kind of man took his stand by the switchboard—
and raised his eyes expectantly toward Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson looked blankly bewildered for an instant, as if something had slipped his mind, until Wesley Mouch leaned over and whispered some word into his ear. "Contact!" said Mr. Thompson loudly.
Dr. Stadler could not bear to watch the graceful, undulating, effeminate motion of Dr. Blodgett's hand as it pulled the first lever of the switchboard, then the next. He raised his field glasses and looked at the farmhouse.

"That's all there is to it," the fattish Dr. Blodgett announced through the microphone, in the ingratiating sales tone of a department-store floorwalker. "There is no nail or rivet remaining in the frame of the structures and there is no blood vessel left unbroken in the bodies of the animals."

A fat, jellied woman, with an inadequate brassiere under a dark, perspiration-stained dress, was saying into the microphone—Dr. Stadler could not believe it at first—that the new invention was to be greeted with particular gratitude by the mothers of the country.

He had a fat, blank face and the eyes of a killer. Watching him at tonight's reception, Taggart had concluded that the man was impervious to any sort of feeling, he looked as if a knife could slash, unnoticed, through his pendulous layers of flesh—except that there was a lewd, almost sexual relish in the way he rubbed his feet against the rich pile of his Persian rugs, or patted the polished arm of his chair, or folded his lips about a cigar.

That fat fool, Orren Boyle, couldn't have swung it in a million years

the vision of a fat, unhygienic rajah of India, with vacant eyes staring in indolent stupor out of stagnant layers of flesh, with nothing to do but run precious gems through his fingers and, once in a while, stick a knife into the body of a starved, toil-dazed, germeaten creature, as a claim to a few grains of the creature's rice, then claim it from hundreds of millions of such creatures and thus let the rice grains gather into gems.

Mr. Meigs sat silently, his legs crossed, smoking a cigarette. He wore a jacket which was not, but looked like, a military uniform. The flesh of his neck bulged over the collar, and the flesh of his body strained against the narrow waistline intended to disguise it. He wore a ring with a large yellow diamond that flashed when he moved his stubby fingers.

It was Cuffy Meigs. He wore a tight, semi-military tunic and leather leggings; the flesh of his neck bulged over the edge of his collar; his black curls were matted with sweat.

So if you want to be a Randian hero, you'd better do something about your weight. Of course there are other physical signs of depravity, like a gangling body or gawky movements, and pale eyes are also a sure-fire sign (really bad luck if you're born with such eyes!):

Philip had always been in precarious health, though doctors had found no specific defect in his loose, gangling body. He was thirty-eight, but his chronic weariness made people think at times that he was older than his brother.

James Taggart sat at his desk. He looked like a man approaching fifty, who had crossed into age from adolescence, without the intermediate stage of youth. He had a small, petulant mouth, and thin hair clinging to a bald forehead. His posture had a limp, decentralized sloppiness, as if in defiance of his tall, slender body, a body with an elegance of line intended for the confident poise of an aristocrat, but transformed into the gawkiness of a lout. The flesh of his face was pale and soft. His eyes were pale and veiled, with a glance that moved slowly, never quite stopping, gliding off and past things in eternal resentment of their existence. He looked obstinate and drained. He was thirty-nine years old.

[Lillian Rearden]
Her face was not beautiful. The eyes were the flaw: they were vaguely pale, neither quite gray nor brown, lifelessly empty of expression.


Well, that's bad enough, I think.

> ...Her face was not beautiful. The eyes were the flaw: they were vaguely pale, neither quite gray nor brown, lifelessly empty of expression. [Dragonfly]

OK, this had me worried.

So I went and looked in the mirror after reading it. My eyes are greenish-brown. Hazel is the technical term. In some lighting they look green, in others sort of a pale, 'weak ale', kind of anemic brown. Vaguely so. My eye color can't make up it's mind. Neither A nor non-A. Hmmm... I got to do something about that. Since that and my weak chin are a proof of bad character.

1) Maybe get contact lenses in some sort of primary color, or fluorescent or neon. I'll ask the optometrist if he has something 'laser-like' that gives me a penetrating gaze.
2)My characteristic emptiness of expression? I'm going to have to start slapping myself in the face so I look alert before I teach a class or am among people. I probably won't have to do it when I go the drugstore to get some nachos and black cherry cola because the people there all have weaker chins and worse eyes than I do. (Especially the sales people at my local Wahlgreens's. They all look like Jimmy Taggart after he had gone ten rounds with a circus bear.)
3) Ears: my ears are sort of loose. In a real strong hurricane force wind they will oscillate. Or maybe even blow off. This seems to me to quite clearly indicate moral indecisiveness. That I am a fence sitter and can't decide which of ARI or TAS, which of Peikoff or Kelley is an irretrievably evil monster (or association of monsters), and I persist in thinking it's possibly neither. But Rand didn't make any obiter dicta about weak or indecisive ears. On the other hand they DO have a definite -shape-.

So maybe I'm ok on ears.

It's a good thing Rand didn't mention flatulence as a sign of bad premises, else I'd really be in trouble. I might even have to give up black and refried beans. . . .

(On a positive note, I'm just happy to know that it's all physical. I can fix that. I was worried I might have to do something COGNITIVE. Like start thinking more clearly and stop evading three or four times before breakfast.)

LOL, DF. I think that's enough for fat and flabby, tho not enough for health.

In any case, I always though of Midas Mulligan as fat but not flabby, but I don't think Rand described him that way. I disliked his SOB character so I probably projected that onto him for that reason, plus, all bankers are fat--no?

--Brant

Phil, hazel is not greenish-brown. Sorry. The idea that it is has to do with a military corruption concerning draftee classifications during WWII if not WWI--I think, but don't know this. "Light, golden brown."

--Brant

hazel = light brown color: a light brown color with a tinge of green or gold, like a ripe hazelnut - e.g., hazel eyes [Encarta Dictionary]

Ah, a corrupted dictionary too boot!

Seriously, if your eyes are just as green as they are brown they are greenish-brown, as you said, not hazel. I grew up thinking my eyes were hazel, but they are predominantly green tinged with brown.

--Brant

I have the hazel eye curse also.

Maybe that's why I became addicted to drugs...

Hmmmm...

Michael

A smooth skin is also important in Objectivist land, at least to judge from a a post by a Soloist:

No, a pockmarked face is. Enables stupid animadversions upon, in this case, an odious person.

Ayn Rand didn't like facial hair. Not even for the villains, I think!

--Brant

Curiously enough one of her heroes, Henry Cameron, does have a beard. But in AS the heroes are all clean-shaven, so it seems she developed that strange aversion later in life.

And Brendan Hutching is certainly not an odious person.

He made some odious posts. The kind of language he used is a major turn off to someone like me. Same goes for Linz, though he's not as repulsive that way.

--Brant

edit: I reviewed all of Brenden's postings here for the last year (discovering that this isn't the first time I've done this) here on OL, and it is obvious he has a fine and strong analytical mind. But if he wants to describe Ayn Rand using the words he used on SOLOP he'll get a rise out of me every time.