Henry Mark Holzer (Ayn Rand's attorney back in the 1960s and 1970s) says yes! Here is a brief announcement/essay from Holzer's web site. (Henry Mark Holzer) He sounds like he's worn out (perhaps stressed out from seeing our culture going down hill so badly) and ready to retire to a more serene existence. I don't blame him!....reb
===============================================================================
TO A SELECT GROUP OF FRIENDS, ACQUAINTANCES AND OTHERS:

At the end of this month I will celebrate my 75th birthday. During my three-quarters of a century our country has gone from the 1930’s “Great Depression” to 2008’s politically-caused financial/economic debacle.

At the time of my birth, Roosevelt’s “New Deal” ushered in programs which were the antithesis of the principles upon which the Constitution of the United States of America was based: individual rights, limited government, free markets and national sovereignty.

The founding principles were replaced with collectivism, statism and internationalism (an across-the-ocean version of statism) epitomized by bigger and bigger government which, despite ebbs and flows over the years, has grown so large that today a virtually admitted socialist, Barack Obama, is on the edge of becoming President of the United States.

Obama has accomplished this by cobbling together a coalition of racist Negroes, brainless youths, America haters, hard leftists, frightened investors, scared retirees, anti-Bush Republicans, mainstream democrats, suicidal Jews, anti-war activists, rank opportunists, corrupt politicians, crypto socialists, and unprincipled media. (Some have the dubious distinction of fitting into more than one category.)

Obama’s success, the enablers who have made that possible, and the reasons for their enablement are not a pretty story. But that doesn’t mean that’s what has happened to our beloved country is unintelligible.

On a strictly political, not philosophical, level, Dennis Prager’s recent article “There are two irreconcilable Americas” (Jewish World Review, October 17, 2008) goes some of the way to explaining what has befallen the United States of America.

Prager’s thesis is that “[f]or the most part, right and left differ in their visions for America. . . . Right and left do not want the same America. The left wants to look as much like Western European countries as possible.” Prager goes on to illustrate his thesis using concrete examples that are now commonplace. Then, he makes an essential identification:

The left subscribes to the French Revolution, whose guiding principles were ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.’ The right subscribes to the American formula, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ The French/European notion of equality is not mentioned. The right rejects the French Revolution and does not hold Western Europe as a model. The left does. That alone makes right and left irreconcilable. (My emphasis.)

Although they are irreconcilable, often admirably, about concretes (e.g., abortion, gun control, strong national defense), sadly left and right are too reconcilable philosophically (i.e., that rights are not inherent in human beings, but come (or not) either from society (left) or from God (right).)

It pains me to say that the roots of the right’s core philosophy are planted in the same soil as the left’s, and are fed by the same collectivist, statist, internationalist toxins.

What does all this have to do with me?

During my seventy-five years I have been a child, student, soldier, lawyer, writer.

And as a soldier, lawyer, writer, I did my best to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and the principles in which it was rooted: individual rights, limited government, free markets, national sovereignty.

In recent years, especially as a writer of books, articles, essays and reviews I have tried to defend those principles.

But recently I realized that, at best, I have been preaching to the converted (a guess, because I rarely heard from them) and that the unwashed could not have cared less.

No more.

My most recent article, “Barack Obama is No Patriot,” is the last of my writing I will make public on legal, political, cultural, economic or related subjects. Writing on these topics is no longer in my best interests.

My decision is firm. There are no appeals.

I value those of you have appreciated my work in the past, and will not soon forget the many kinds words you have had about it.

As for Erika and me………….figuratively, if not yet literally, we’re heading for Galt’s Gulch.

The simple answer is yes and way past the time, but most "Objectivists" talk the talk, but have all the "it was only a novelic <[might be a new word]device excuse for not walking the walk.

Adams

Don't you think it might be a good idea to find out why many people don't agree with you before you condemn them as hypocrites? (I should make a recording of this thought, so I won't have to keep retyping it.)

Barbara

Well, he either took it down or you gave the wrong link or it wasn't meant for general public consumption.

If he still lives in Santa Fe he's not far from Galt's Gultch aka Ouray, Colorado. Probably overrun by Obama supporters now.

I think it's right to strongly bring back "selfishness" since Obama wants to know about its "virtue"--or does he? Maybe Rand's intransigence is the right approach after all. That'd require the Objectivist definition.

--Brant

It was up there, at that link. It has been moved (as of this moment - just checked) to

http://www.henrymarkholzer.citymax.com/miscellaneous.html

Bill P (Alfonso)

My apologies. Not calling them hypocrites at all. I have fluctuated between vanishing and building businesses and raising a family. However, with perfect hindsight, I should have vanished November 7th 1964. The overall handwriting was on every wall I encountered and I kept re-reading it at the college level as a teacher, as an administrator in City government and as a citizen being productive and being penalized for productivity. Certainly, there were short periods of semi-sanity governmentally, but the "Ellsworths" just continued to encyst themselves at the central core of education, the courts, the arts and sciences until the tipping points kept presenting themselves.

I frankly believe that we will dodge another bullet this Tuesday, but the marxist pressure will continue at all levels. It does not appear promising Barbara.

Adam

Roger, is Holzer's original post not available?

Yes, it is. Just scroll up to my post about two posts above yours. Then, click on the link there. The post is there. (YOu will have to scroll down a couple of screens to get to it...).

Just checked again,

Bill P (Alfonso)

Sorry for the confusion--and thanks, Bill, for putting up the actual link to the essay.

When I put up the link for the web site, I was just doing it for everyone's general convenience, so they could start from the Home Page and peruse all the interesting stuff HMH has there. I'm sorry that anyone thought the link was intended to take them directly to the essay. I had no thought that anyone would want or need to "check on me" to see if I had done it accurately. I hope that was not the case, but I do realize that, in this day and age, you shouldn't be too trusting. :-/

And as to when it is appropriate to shrug, I had never considered that it might be appropriate to do so in the 1960s, so I was somewhat shocked to see Adam suggest that he should (perhaps?) have done so then. When I read Atlas in 1966, the main impression I got of its truth to reality was how accurately and sharply she had portrayed some of the evil I had experienced in people around me. I didn't then sense that the world was disturbingly, threateningly like the world of Atlas. That has all changed. In borrowed Pentacostal terms, it "feels to me" like we may well be "living in the End Times." I certainly hope not...

I hope that many strong pieces will be written about Obama's attack on "selfishness" (not wanting to pay higher taxes) and his call for a "new Bill of Rights" (to include economic rights). I intend to write one for the Orange County Register yet this evening, and I will share it here when it's finished.

REB

Oh, government gets bigger and bigger and more and more degenerative. Finally it all collapses. After Obama, if we get him, will come a fascist reaction and eventually the U.S. will end up like Argentina. After the parasites kill off the hosts they'll die off too. The trick is not to be a host. Viscerily I still like the Daddy Warbucks template. An international man if there ever was one. Much more dynamic and efficacious than John Galt, tinkering with his motor in Galt's Gultch. JG didn't start being heroic until the bad guys got their hands on him. Francisco had it all over Galt the human God. The problem with being a man-worshipper is the man invariably defaults into being a man. Then things, in real life, can get complicated if not delusional. Personally, I'm a human being admirer, most particularly of competence and ability. Integrity is much more elusive for me for it devolves into morality and morality is something you use to control yourself and others and others are trying to do the same to you within the common social dynamic. Usually they are just trying to rip you off with their altruistic allusions and political facts and taxes even sending you to jail or the slavery of national service or defrauding you into indebitness. That is why the economy is going to hell: The slaves are waking up and walking away from their financial "obligations." Why not? The government is sending their money--taxes and inflation--into the banks' back-door while the banks are taking their money in mortgage payments on over-valued properties the banks lent freely for in the first place. You see, the banks have no integrity, only smiley faces at the door. The politicians have none either, but they smile too. Nobody better than Obama. But they expect you to have what they lack and keep the racket going. But if you lose your job you'll soon stop paying off your credit card debt with its 23% interest rate. The world-wide empire of debt is being destroyed and that destruction has only just begun. That destruction will be propelled by both necessity and increasing anger--and eventually into war, I'd bet, if the political interference with freedom continues--and I don't mean that little thing going on in Iraq.

--Brant

Here's what I plan to send to the Orange County Register, after running it by my wife in the morning:

A Letter to the Editor of the Orange County Register:

On Oct. 28, (soon to be President?) Barack Obama told us that he wants a second Bill of Rights, an economic Bill of Rights, that will guarantee the "right" to a job, to a house, to medical care, to education, etc. Unlike the rights guaranteed to us in the original Bill of Rights, these new, distinctly Marxist (take from those who have to give to those who have not) "rights" are to be provided at the expense of the taxpayers--by borrowing to be repaid by future taxpayers and by higher taxes paid by those of us who Mr. Obama thinks make too much money.

And what if you object to Mr. Obama's proposed tax increase for those making over $250,000 a year (or is it $200,000 -- or $150,000 -- or $120,000), and you would rather keep more of what you earned and decide for yourself how it should be spent? Then you aren't being "neighborly" or "patriotic." Even worse, you are being like John McCain and Sarah Palin who, Mr. Obama says, in best scary fashion on Oct. 31, are trying to make a "virtue out of selfishness."

Actually, though, I think Mr. Obama is onto something there. Could he perhaps be referring to Ayn Rand's book of essays, The Virtue of Selfishness, which defines man's true individual rights and explodes the destructive notion of "economic rights" and explains how your life and the fruits of your labor belong to you, not the government? The same Ayn Rand who compiled a book of essays, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, one of which decried the Federal Reserve System as "putting a penny in a fuse box," and others written by Alan Greenspan, who later turned traitor to the most important things he learned from Rand and accepted control over our nation's money supply, generating a number of economic dislocations and crashes.? The same Ayn Rand who in 1957 wrote Atlas Shrugged, which sounds eerily like the America of today? Yup.

As I say, I think Mr. Obama has put his finger on a vital issue, the need for new rights to be recognized (though his proposals are 180 degrees in the wrong direction), and I don't think that Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin go far enough. Selfishness should not be just a virtue, but a right. To make it more palatable for the faint of heart, we could call it the right to "freedom of generosity," but the point is this. For the same reason that the Bill of Rights guarantees us the freedom of religion -- i.e., the freedom to choose when, how, toward whom, and even whether to be respectful and reverential toward our ideals -- we should be guaranteed the freedom to choose when, how, toward whom, and even whether to be kind and generous toward those in need.

Is it selfish to want these freedoms? You'd better believe it! Personal, individual freedom is a very selfish thing, as it should be. We need freedom from government coercion in order to live our own lives and enjoy the fruits of our labors in a social setting, and no one else can or should tell us how to do it.

Pretty selfish, all right. But consider the alternative. Is it right for the government to tell us when, whom, how, or whether to worship? Of course not. And for the same reason, it's not right for the government to tell us when, whom, how, or whether to be generous.

Neither generosity nor worshipfulness is genuine or moral when commanded at the point of a gun (which is the theocrat's and the tax collector's ultimate authority). No God deserving of reverence would accept coerced "worship," and no needy person deserving of help would accept coerced "generosity." Government mandated religion and welfare are both equally evil, for the same basic reason. Seeing how eager Mr. Obama is to institute the latter makes me wonder whether an assault on the First Amendment freedoms would be next.

My suggestion is for Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden to spend more time voluntarily practicing Christian charity toward the needy (including Obama's half-brother and aunt), and to allow the rest of us to do the same--as we see fit. They obviously are obsessed with the "mote" in the eye of their middle-class neighbors (that would be those of us making more than $250,000? a year), and cannot see the "beam" in their own rather well-to-do eyes.

Roger Bissell
Orange, CA

Roger, a brilliant letter! I especially like your suggestion for the right to "freedom of generosity," and the way you tie it to freedom of religion. And I love your concluding paragraph!

Barbara

Adam: "I frankly believe that we will dodge another bullet this Tuesday, but the marxist pressure will continue at all levels. It does not appear promising Barbara."

You may very well be right, and in certain moods I think you are. Certainly, it does not appear promising. But notice that Oama did considerable damage to his campaign -- and perhaps gave the election to McCain -- when he spoke of "redistributing wealth," clearly revealing his Marxist credentials. Well, we shall see. But it's still possible to fight and to make one's voice heard. And as long as that is so -- to quote Rand -- "We can't give up the earth to all those others."

Barbara

We can certainly hope Adam is right. The polls appear to be quite volatile at the moment, and Obama is speaking more and more frankly in this last week about his collectivist agenda. Hopefully, the American public will respond to his increasing frankness with revulsion and a turning away from his agenda - but that still remains to be seen. Whether the American public is so terrified by the current financial situation that they cannot either see or think straight will be an important differentiator.

Bill P (Alfonso)

I think things are just starting to get interesting. As things start to reach points of crisis realities become clear. The truth about people's position come into focus. As the truth comes into focus we get to see beneath the covers and get a chance to make sense of the world anew. This is not a time to disappear. This is a time to point to the truth while it is exposed for all to see. The truth about how mistaken the vision of human nature, ethics and politics, that has shaped our political landscapes, is being exposed. We are seeing the ugly mess that has resulted from a distorted vision of reality. This mess will continue to grow to the point where it will break down. As it breaks down the causes will need to be identified clearly and marketed to the public at large. And a new vision will need to emerge.

Yes...It's just starting to get interesting...

Paul

Amen, brother, amen!

It's amazing how similar the Obama candidacy is to the McGovern candidacy in 1972. Despite all the superficial differences, it all seems to boil down to a doubt as to whether they would protect us from our foreign enemies, and a fear that they will redistribute us into poverty and economic disaster.

When you have a chance, re-read Ayn Rand's monthly letters from 1971 and 1972 (not the book of her private correspondence, but her newsletter). Amazing stuff. Still vital and true today.

reb

Interesting and horribly tragic. The human carnage will be beyond belief. And so unnecessary, even so near at hand.

--Brant

The suffering is always tragic. I hate to see it. It is also what provides the impulse for change when people don't have a capacity for a clear vision of life based on projecting realities and positive potentials. The "human carnage" is unfortunately necessary. Most of the world is not able to find the truth via abstract reasonong or creative, systematic visualization. They need to be hit over the head with the truth. We are in the process of being hit over the head. Our world is in the process of learning some spiritual/philosophical lessons..."Take what you want...and pay for it!" Reality will unfold, the truth of bad ideas will be exposed, and there will emerge a space for new ideas to occupy. The bad ideas have to finish running their course for everyone to see them for what they are. You cannot skip a step in personal or cultural development. Our culture is evolving. Old structures, old ideas, old ways of being have to struggle and die before the space opens up for new species to take their place and evolve. This is the process we are witnessing, and have been witnessing for decades.

Paul

**the issue of ‘shrugging’ and character**

> I have been preaching to the converted (a guess, because I rarely heard from them) and that the unwashed could not have cared less. No more. . . [a piece on Obama is] the last of my writing I will make public on legal, political, cultural, economic or related subjects. Writing on these topics is no longer in my best interests. My decision is firm. There are no appeals. [Henry Holzer]

What a sad, defeated, gutless point of view.

> He sounds like he's worn out (perhaps stressed out from seeing our culture going down hill so badly) and ready to retire to a more serene existence. I don't blame him!....reb

I do. How wearying is it, how much time does it take, does it put you in the poor house to speak on talk radio, write a letter or article? Do you relieve 'stress' if you turn a blind eye to bad trends? I'm sick of the pampered whining of well-fed, prosperous people complaining about being overwhelmed by 'stress' because they see negative trends.

Buck up. Fight on.

You [generic 'you' - not you personally, Roger] will not find serenity if you ‘shrug’ and simply stop protesting, speaking out in defense of your values and the ideal society and proper human relationships. Ayn Rand didn't give up and roll over. She never stopped speaking, never stopped fighting. To her last breath.

It is only appropriate to ‘shrug’ in a world like that of Atlas. And even that was fiction. Things had fallen so far that only what Holzer calls the “unwashed” existed, the world was full of people’s states, all the producers had been nationalized, etc. In other words, totalitarianism. Loss of any ability whatsoever to fight or be heard. Risk of death or ruin or the gulag. And even then . . .

. . . When I was in my early teens, the most inspiring book I read was “The Bridge at Andau”, the story of the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956. Even with their bare hands, even in the face of a crushing military power and a secret police that was everywhere, they resisted and fought on.

Or imagine Howard Roark giving up when the ‘commanding heights’ of architecture were occupied by those who only wanted to see Greek columns on the top of thirty story skyscrapers?

Imagine Roark as Cameron.

Old. Tired. Defeated. Broken.

.........
I just realized there is actually often an issue of *character* involved in the unjustified propensity to shrug or bail out or shutdown or quit, not in the sense of acting directly morally or immorally and the seven virtues: Someone is not immoral or a bad, deeply flawed person because he is fatalistic (a factual conclusion) or believes he’s been clear and people don’t want to hear (a form of fatalism, another mistake) or exhausted (personal circumstance). Not exactly. But in another wider sense, character goes a bit broader than that list of virtues. (Although it does relate to integrity.) But that is a subtle distinction, for another writing.

After writing the above, I took a quick look at Mr. Holzer's website. My criticism of shrugging and bailing out is in no way a criticism of his long past track record as a fighter, one who has written and accomplished much. Much more than most Oists.

Mr. Holzer is NOT an Objectivist. He is a hard-assed conservative. If he had wanted an Objectivist audience he would have made himself available to Objectivist Web sites such as this one. I had no idea he was writing all that stuff. At 75 or any age he's entitled to do what he wants for reasons sufficient to him. I wasn't impressed with his chasing Jane Fonda around with that treason rationalization of his. There was no declaration of war against North Vietnam. LBJ was responsible for millions of deaths in SE Asia, especially Vietnamese and Cambodians. He should have written a book about that, the real de facto treason.

--Brant

Is it time to shrug?

No.

Michael

Brant, if you really mean all this, I'll argue with you. But why do I doubt that you mean it?

Barbara

Obama and the Democratic Congress will probably bring back the "Fairness" Doctrine. There is talk of a "Fairness" Doctrine for the INTERNET.

Would the imposition of the Fairness doctrine lead to censorship on the airways and INTERNET. Is the imposition of censorship when Ayn Rand said people should go on strike.

Chris,

Don't worry about the Internet. It's made in such a fashion that no fairness doctrine could ever muzzle it. Only a nuclear war that obliterates the major cities off the face of the earth could do that.

Many dictators, to their dismay, are finding this out and it hurts.

There are just too many geeks out there who know how to circumvent stuff. (Also, don't forget all that money.) And damaging the physical installations is tricky, seeing how they interconnect different countries by wire and satellite. Which laws will govern?

Michael

Barbara,

The problem is your use of "all this." I have put an incredible amount of information into a small post each piece of which can be analyzed and argued from different perspectives. The whole point of my rant is to make people think and ask questions and to ask me to explain myself in this or that particular. The gist of it all, however, appertains to morality, integrity, heroism and can people really make a difference against gross cultural inertia? This all comes out of gross feelings of alienation from a political process about to put a dangerous, unseasoned, narcissistic incompetent in charge of the country. If he wins the children will have taken over, but the children cannot defend and protect the United States.

(There is some Devil's Advocate there.)

--Brant

What I've heard talk of is not a fairness doctrine for the net but "net neutrality" which would ban websites from buying higher priorities or better connections. Obama supports http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html) it and McCain opposes it (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/3/224720.shtml). You can imagine where that would lead.

Brant -

So for clarity, can you repost with just the portion you take seriously? The portion you mean? The entire post is pretty short, so it shouldn't take long to delete the parts you didn't mean.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Net Neutrality would put the government in control of the internet the way Putin controls the flow of petroleum to Europe. The FCC would be in a position to approve or deny carriers the ability to buy bandwidth freely. It will be done in the name of giving individual users better bandwidth, but at the expense of slower downloads from sites not deemed worthy of premium access. Popular sites will become beholden to regulators to get more bandwidth. Imagine the FCC telling YouTube they can't keep hosting political vidoes if they want to a`qualify for better speeds under the new whatever doctrine.

As it is now, the same people who brought you the telecom meltdown want to force carriers like Verizon to "share" their fiber optic networks. This will be one of the "reforms" of a filibuster-proof Senate.

Sigh. The whole is serious. I could mean any portion. I'm not sure about a lot of things. These highlighted issues are all important. I keep descending the cliff of absolutism, but my rope remains firmly attached to it. The parts I probably don't mean at all relate to one's financial obligations. I really can't counsel not paying off one's debts, but the business cycle is demanding debt be retired or destroyed so economically we get a bottom that can be worked off of. Unfortunately, terrible damage is being done world-wide fighting the inevitability of this, which will mean inflation, stagflation and an overall lower standard of living in a process that will take us a decade to get through and then the economy will be trapped by its aging demographics.

--Brant

I have been out of the loop, out of the country, and off blithely painting landscapes...but after being back in NY, this last week, the mood of anxiety is palatable. I sympathize with so many people--the financial value of their assets declining, hope for a bright future dimming--gosh I know fine artists that have kids (I don't know how they will continue as artists).

But I would like a share with you all an attitude that never fails to inspire me with the joy of living. Too many people, and artists I know especially, want the end result, nirvana, the finished painting, Galt's Gulch, etc., immediately. They tend to ride rough shod over their work, or activity, pushing to reach the "end." Though having an idea of the goal or the end is essential, it is the process of doing, that brings an immediate paradise to earth in the here and now. Really if you have that, you are living in Galt's Gulch.

Cheers,

Michael

Roger, I've never read these letters. There is lot I want to make time for. Life seems to keep getting more, not less, complicated all the time. How do I get my hands on these monthly letters? Do I have to go through ARI?

Paul

Paul,

You can order The Ayn Rand Letter here for 45 smackaroonies.

Michael

NO! You can buy the Ayn Rand Letter used at abebooks.com. Don't confuse this with the letters of Ayn Rand. There are many sellers at various prices. You should also buy The Objectivist and The Objectivist Newsletter. The Objectivist is by far the best investment. The Newsletter is a bit slim, and The Ayn Rand Letter is more pessimistic and less academic.


The Ayn Rand Letter. Volumes I - IV 1971-1976
Rand, Ayn Bookseller: Aldersgate Books Inc.
(Niagara Falls, NY, U.S.A.)
Bookseller Rating:
Price: US$ 26.25
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within U.S.A.:
US$ 4.20
[Rates & Speeds]
Book Description: Palo Alto, CA: Palo Alto Service. 1979. First Printing (stated). Large format blue cloth hardcover with gilt stamping. No DJ. 389pp. Facsimile signature of Ayn Rand. Turquoise endpapers. VG. Slight corner bump. Pages clean. Binding sound. Private library blind stamp to title page. Bookseller Inventory # 16305

[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask Bookseller a Question]

Now that's service. Thanks for the rapid feedback.

Paul

Here's the cheapest listing I found, click on this link to go there directly:


THE AYN RAND LETTER: VOLUMES I-IV, 1971-1976.
None given. Bookseller: Second Story Books, ABAA
(Rockville, MD, U.S.A.)
Bookseller Rating:
Price: US$ 18.75
[Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within U.S.A.:
US$ 5.00
[Rates & Speeds]
Book Description: Palo Alto Book Service, 1979., Palo Alto, CA:, 1979. na. 4to, VG+/none, blue spine with gilt title, light shelfwear, head and foot of spine bumped. Philosophy. Bookseller Inventory # 7-39-667067

[Bookseller & Payment Information] [More Books from this Seller] [Ask Bookseller a Question]

It's time for — recalling the estimable Jon Stewart signing off "The Daily Show" each weeknight with a wacko media moment from that day — a moment of Zen:

The map is not the territory.

For "map," read — or, more precisely, internalize, if you're that foolish — the plot of Atlas Shrugged, or any other work of fiction. For "territory," read: Moral terrain in the Real World that one must traverse.


Unarguable, I'd say, and I'm glad someone finally brought up this particular category of moral atrocity, wherein McCain (and his superiors) were integral parts.

I was stupefied at Holzer's obsession with tracing Fonda's supposed treason. It was the largest piece of context-dropping I'd ever seen among those who even remotely qualified as supporters of Rand or her philosophy. It also was, in the sense of choosing windmills to tilt at, spectacularly pointless. Fonda has been denounced from the moment she made her statements. It's not as if the matter was ever swept under the media rug, then or since.

Holzer mapped a territory of actions that had almost no real-world consequence. I found it hard, for many years, to grok such obsessions on the part of supposedly rational, realist, romantic-fiction-loving O-symps.

When I forget, though, I simply keep my eyes open for religious bigots, currently infesting nearly every streetcorner here in California. (Though, blessedly, only for two more days on this go-round, with their being vigorously opposed.)

Paul; ARI is now the only outlet selling the Objectivist periodicals. I recently purchased them for a little more than $100. I would also suggest seeing if there are any available on Amazon..

Well, I was too. I had no problem going to Vietnam and fighting the communists. To me they were wanta-be mass murderers. But I got educated pronto about half-assed wars. When my plane left the country in 1967 I was so exhilarated!

--Brant

I repeat, (see post 34) all the periodicals, The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Ayn Rand Letter are available used but in excellent condition at abebooks.com. I have purchased The Objectivist there several times as gifts and was fully satisfied.

Ted; I should have looked more.

I wasn't looking for an apology - I just want people to be aware of thier options! BTW, I bought a bound reprint of The Objectivist (Vol 5-10) for $35, but couldn't find a listing for an available copy. They are selling a complete collection of the individual issues, for $725...

I usually browse at Amazon, and the buy cheaper at abebooks. Also, Powell's books of Portland Oregon (whose stock is listed at abebooks) is the largest used book seller in the US and ships addt'l books at 99c. Some sellers charge full shipping for each book.

At this moment, McCain just lost Ohio and I don't see a recovery.

Far from being the time to shrug, it is now time, more than ever, to roll up our shirtsleeves.

There is no John Galt out there organizing a strike. If we don't do it, if we don't get it right here on earth and here in America, it just won't get done.

Get ready to get to work, folks. There's a lot to do and we have a humongous financial problem coming.

In every setback, there is an opportunity. It's going to take a very clear vision and courage to see what it actually is and act on it.

In my opinion, Obama has not won qua Obama. Bush was rejected in spades.

Michael

Michael:

Well said Michael. Even if Ohio turns out to be wrong, the margins in NC 8,000 vote difference out of 3.5 million cast and N. Mexico gone there is no path left.

I just do not have your optimism.

Adam

Agreed on both - the incredibly low probability of avoiding Obama being elected, and the fact that now is the time to work ever harder.

The goal of the Obama camp will be to attempt to blame what goes wrong on Bush, on "selfishness," on Capitalism. (As if we had been practicing Capitalism lately instead of a horribly mixed economy! If I hear the failure of Fannie and Freddie touted one more time as an example of the failure of a FREE ECONOMY it is going to be difficult to restrain myself from screaming at the speaker.)

Our path will be to make things clear. To help them see that we have been on a pretty consistent path for many years now, and Obama is just a "leap ahead" on the path - not a turnaround from the path we have been on.

Ironic - even as at least some other countries (China, for instance) are moving toward increasingly free economies - for the pragmatic reasons that such economies work, the USA is moving farther and farther away from a free economy.

Bill P (Alfonso) (very sad, but not giving up)

A wise comment from Robert Bidinotto:

"A brief post-election comment
posted 11/04/08

"There are a great many things I want to say in the wake of the Democrat victory this evening, but my comments may have to wait a bit. I've been nursing a nasty bug for the past two weeks, which has been and cutting heavily into my work schedule.

"Since Barack Obama and the Democratic left are going to be with us for a while, until I've bounced back from this illness, I'll appear here only briefly.

"Meanwhile, let me say that if there is only one good thing to emerge from this election, it is this: The outcome completely lays to rest one of the insulting claims against the American people by anti-Americans -- that the United States is a racist, bigoted nation, unwilling to judge people except by the color of their skin. Well, name for me any other predominantly white Western nation that would have selected a black man as its leader in a free and open election. America does retain a core individualism, demonstrated this time not by its politics, but by its willingness to transcend issues such as race in order to judge individuals as individuals. Even if I believe it was a grave misjudgment, that color-blindedness is worthy of celebration.

"Let us hope that during the next four years, Barack Obama can also do a bit of transcending: namely, to transcend his leftist ideological pedigree and associations in order to judge ideas and issues with the same independence of spirit with which the American people have judged him."

Barbara

I listened to McCain's speech and Obama's speech tonight.

I know there is gloom and doom in the Objectivist-libertarian world right now, but what I heard impressed me enough to feel optimistic. I do not mean that all will be good now. But I do believe that things are better than they appear to be.

On McCain, I am highly impressed with his character, as I have stated several times. Even in defeat, he placed his chosen values first and did what he thought best for the country. I do not see his campaign as anything but heroic. With the world in the state it is in right now and America's overwhelming disenchantment with Bush, any other Republican would have been squashed. It's a tribute to McCain's character that he came out as well as he did.

I am very hopeful that Sarah Palin will be groomed for the future and it was good to hear McCain hint at this.

On Obama, I find a glimmer of optimism in his personal ambition of all things. His method of political ascendancy has been to get next to a person or group, get endorsed, then betray that person or the values of that group on moving to a higher rung where he reinvents himself ideologically.

What I heard tonight is that he clearly imagines himself as receiving the torch of liberty handed down through the ages. I believe that he will be far more interested in molding himself into a great American President than in adhering to any ideological party line that borught him there. Interestingly, his vanity and lack of ideological principles, but focus on common sense, gives me hope that he will grow into something halfway decent in office. Since he will need princples to fulfill the self-image I perceived, I believe he will turn to the traditional principles of the Founding Fathers to make sure he gets it right. Let's wait and see.

One thing is for sure. The economic disaster is coming and he will have to face it. I don't give the mainstream press 2 years before they start crucifying him.

I have a personal feeling in all this. In addition to being spiritually exhausted, I am profoundly relieved that the Bush style crony politics is coming to an end. When I contemplate that idea, I get an an astonished feeling that I did not realize how much this has weighed on my soul, and it will be gone soon.

Maybe what is coming will be worse, or maybe it will be better. I believe it is too early to say with any degree of certainty. But it feels really good at this point in time to know that it will be different.

Michael

It won't be different, Michael. It's now 1932 all over again only worse. Obama will have his own "Brain Trust" only it will be brain-busted. Just like Roosevelt's. My own grandfather never got over his infatuation with FDR. One reason he wrote a six-volume biography of James Madison was he was taken to task for quoting Madison in Congressional testimony supporting Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court. Madison was the "Father of the Constitution." (Vol. 3.) Irving Brant may have been right, after all. Before there was a Republic there was a Confederation of States. Might the world not be a better place now if that had been left be? I don't know. But Madison wrought the country we are living in. It's the world of Hamilton, not Jefferson.

--Brant

Thank you Barbara for posting Bidinotto's comments. His point about no other Western nation electing a person of color to the highest office in the country is an important one.

Michael; Let us Obama transcends much of his past.

Brant; I think you need several hugs. Lighten up!

This is insulting bullshit. It suggests that the fact that other countries don't have a black president or premier is due to some racist prejudice. That is in itself an example of racist thinking.