TAS 2007 Accomplishments


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

TAS 2007 Accomplishments

I received an email from Barbara giving the text of a communication she received from TAS (Ed Hudgins). I am normally against posting the content of emails from others, but in this case I have no doubt there will be no problem as it was a form e-mail. Also, there is a request for donations and I heartily endorse donating to TAS. It is doing wonderful work and this needs to be encouraged.

Although I have not been requested to promote donating to TAS by anyone, I want to make a personal appeal to all to think about what giving means during the holidays. Should we give to someone, for instance a beggar, who is only valuable to us as another member of the human race, or should we give to someone who needs assistance and who is personally valuable to us? As an Objectivist, the priority will obviously go to someone we value. TAS is personally valuable to me as it strongly reflects my own approach to Objectivism. So I know I choose TAS. Kat and I have donated and participated in TAS events and we promote them. We do this because we want to.

Now here is the part that might not be so Objectivist (but I think it is).

We like to give.

Giving brings good things to our lives. We highly recommend the practice. We even think it is selfish to give. If you think about it, it is extremely selfish if, by giving, we are nurturing our values. When we give, our focus is to give wisely. And this should apply to everyone.

Give to TAS.

I think of TAS as the Quality Control of Objectivism. Their business model is not a lucrative one, which is the reason they need donations, but it is crucial business. So give to success and achievement.

You owe it to yourself.

Dear Friends:

The Atlas Society, your center for Objectivism here in Washington, D.C., has had an extraordinary 2007, thanks to the generous help from you, our members and sponsors.

In 2007 we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged with an all-day conference and gala dinner. CSPAN's Book TV covered the event; my piece on "Atlas at 50" appeared in the Washington Times and David Kelley's piece on "Capitalist Heroes" appeared in both the Wall Street Journal and the Moscow Times in Russia; other publications featured the thoughts of our scholars on Ayn Rand's revolutionary novel.

Our magazine, The New Individualist, continued to present interesting and enlightening articles and won a prestigious Folio magazine award.

Our Summer Seminar continued to offer thought- provoking, intellectually stimulating and informative talks for those who wanted to learn more about Objectivism and its applications. (Don't miss our 2008 seminar in Portland, Oregon!)

Our Graduate Seminar continued to train the next generation of professional intellectuals. Shawn Klein, one of the students who we helped train and who we've supported with scholarships, now has a teaching position at Rockford College.

Our scholars have continued to publish and speak on Objectivism across the country and even overseas.

In 2008 we plan to build on these successes; that's where you come in. If you have supported us in the past, we thank you for making our activities possible. If you have responded very recently to one of our solicitations, again thanks!

If you haven't given to us recently, as the end of the year approaches we hope you will consider making a tax-exempt contribution to us so that we can continue to promote the philosophy necessary for personal happiness and a prosperous, peaceful and free society.

You can donate online at our website, www.atlassociety.org, by mail at our address below, or call us at 202-AYN- RAND (296-7263). We can also give you instructions on how to donate stock.

By the way, as a thank-you gift for a contribution of $1,000 or more, we will send you the video of the day-long Atlas Shrugged 50th anniversary conference, including the discussion of the upcoming Atlas Shrugged movie by the producers, director and studio executive.

And, finally, we wish you all the happiest New Year!

Dr. Edward Hudgins

Executive Director

The Atlas Society

1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 425

Washington, D.C. 20036

I don't speak for Ed, but I am sure his well-wishes extend to all OL readers everywhere.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish TAS/TOC well, in most every respect. Certainly in providing support for an organized Objectivist heterodoxy.

I cannot, however, give them money. I don't have it to spare, anyway, and after the latest cover of The New Individualist, I certainly don't want to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greybird's post confirms that the current cover and issue of TNI is going to be controversial. On all such issues I hope people who disagree will respond with facts and logic.

Michael; Thanks for reprinting Ed's e-mail. I watched the replay of the Atlas 50th yesterday and was re-impressed.

This is a question if others of you have seen the program. Did Ed Snider seem perturbed with John Stossel's question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Wow--how quickly some items can become obsolete on a forum!

Robert Campbell

That's OK, Robert. You can always resurrect it if TAS caves and dis-invites Perigo.

Jim

Jim;

Isn't there a possibility that Perigo will dis invite himself or they could forget to send his airline fare or tell him he has come by tramp steamer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow--how quickly some items can become obsolete on a forum!

Robert Campbell

That's OK, Robert. You can always resurrect it if TAS caves and dis-invites Perigo.

Jim

Jim;

Isn't there a possibility that Perigo will dis invite himself or they could forget to send his airline fare or tell him he has come by tramp steamer.

Chris,

I think it work better to send several cases of Shiraz, Mario Lanza tapes and lots of nubile young men :devil: . Seriously, with the amount of uproar you would have thought they had invited my marine drill sergeant uncle or some of my Intel Israel compatriots to run the seminar.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Your suggestion about how to distract Mr. Perigo is on target :D

But I don't think you're quite getting the contrast here.

Those who attended the Atlas Shrugged commemoration in Washington, or just saw parts of it on CSPAN 2, were not just basking in good feelings. They were seeing TAS at its most effective.

Hence the glowing review of 2007 and the pitch for giving to TAS.

Then Mr. Perigo got the invite, and a lot of us wondered whether some folks on Connecticut Avenue had flipped their lids.

I don't actually think any lids have gotten flipped, but I do wonder how much went into anticipating the consequences.

We know you aren't a big fan of Barbara Branden's, but she played a crucial part at the event in October. It's barely three months later and she's been effectively kicked to the curb by the TAS leadership.

Is that really what they were trying to achieve?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Your suggestion about how to distract Mr. Perigo is on target :D

But I don't think you're quite getting the contrast here.

Those who attended the Atlas Shrugged commemoration in Washington, or just saw parts of it on CSPAN 2, were not just basking in good feelings. They were seeing TAS at its most effective.

Hence the glowing review of 2007 and the pitch for giving to TAS.

Then Mr. Perigo got the invite, and a lot of us wondered whether some folks on Connecticut Avenue had flipped their lids.

I don't actually think any lids have gotten flipped, but I do wonder how much went into anticipating the consequences.

We know you aren't a big fan of Barbara Branden's, but she played a crucial part at the event in October. It's barely three months later and she's been effectively kicked to the curb by the TAS leadership.

Is that really what they were trying to achieve?

Robert Campbell

Yes and Allan Blumenthal and Jim Lennox felt like that when Nathaniel Branden was invited. My friends Eyal Mozes and Irfan Khawaja no longer show up for the same reason. I don't think that's a good reason, but there you are. There are a lot of cases of Objectivists not getting along. Somehow I don't see that being the problem of TAS. I've been going to these things since 1994 and the biggest duds were when TAS didn't do something bold and different. It's not a popular decision around here, but maybe the decision next year will please you.

I'm sorry I've suddenly become the bad guy on a board where I like a lot of people. Hell, I've even been called a liar right out in the open, but at some point Objectivists have to get over their hurt feelings and move on.

Anyway, I like many of the people of this board, maybe they still like me. I think I need to find a different topic :D

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

As Ellen noted on another thread, your analogy to 1996 is imperfect.

Some people did leave when Nathaniel Branden was invited. Besides the departures of Jim Lennox and Allan Blumenthal, Murray Franck left the Board of the organization because he disagreed with the decision. All were significant losses. Had Lennox not left, for example, ARI would most likely have never gained a beachhead at the University of Pittsburgh.

David Kelley probably knew that all three of these guys were going to leave. The decision was thought out in advance, in the full knowledge that there would be costs.

Obviously, I don't think that David anticipated the departures of Eyal Mozes and Irfan Khawaja. In any event, both were delayed. I would probably never have met Irfan had he boycotted the 1996 event. I recall seeing him in 1997 as well. The last time Eyal and I were in the same room was at the 2001 event (by which time, I had long known, from conversations and his website, that he didn't like NB one little bit).

In this case, I didn't sense a glimmer of concern out of Will that anyone would leave over the decision to bring in Lindsay Perigo. Will actually seems to believe that the whole hullabaloo over the Valliant book (which, so far as I know, he has no interest in reading) is something everyone is past now. It wouldn't take a whole lot of time spent on the SOLOP site to dispel that impression. I don't get the notion that he thought to ask Barbara Branden whether everyone was past it either.

Also, there is nothing new about bringing in Lindsay Perigo per se. He spoke once or twice before his 2004 appearance. David even tried to hire him, an experiment that failed before Mr. Perigo took the job, because he picked a fight with Roger Donway over an article in The Navigator. I wish TAS had learned its lesson about him then.

What's new about the present situation is inviting a speaker back who deliberately reneged on a previous invitation, as Perigo did in 2006 (which in turn should not have shocked anybody, because he had been railing against TAS for some time before the 2006 invitation was extended). Also, I can't think of any previous case in which a speaker was invited to a TAS event after constantly repeated, utterly contemptuous public dismissals of the organization.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

As Ellen noted on another thread, your analogy to 1996 is imperfect.

Some people did leave when Nathaniel Branden was invited. Besides the departures of Jim Lennox and Allan Blumenthal, Murray Franck left the Board of the organization because he disagreed with the decision. All were significant losses. Had Lennox not left, for example, ARI would most likely have never gained a beachhead at the University of Pittsburgh.

David Kelley probably knew that all three of these guys were going to leave. The decision was thought out in advance, in the full knowledge that there would be costs.

Obviously, I don't think that David anticipated the departures of Eyal Mozes and Irfan Khawaja. In any event, both were delayed. I would probably never have met Irfan had he boycotted the 1996 event. I recall seeing him in 1997 as well. The last time Eyal and I were in the same room was at the 2001 event (by which time, I had long known, from conversations and his website, that he didn't like NB one little bit).

In this case, I didn't sense a glimmer of concern out of Will that anyone would leave over the decision to bring in Lindsay Perigo. Will actually seems to believe that the whole hullabaloo over the Valliant book (which, so far as I know, he has no interest in reading) is something everyone is past now. It wouldn't take a whole lot of time spent on the SOLOP site to dispel that impression. I don't get the notion that he thought to ask Barbara Branden whether everyone was past it either.

Also, there is nothing new about bringing in Lindsay Perigo per se. He spoke once or twice before his 2004 appearance. David even tried to hire him, an experiment that failed before Mr. Perigo took the job, because he picked a fight with Roger Donway over an article in The Navigator. I wish TAS had learned its lesson about him then.

What's new about the present situation is inviting a speaker back who deliberately reneged on a previous invitation, as Perigo did in 2006 (which in turn should not have shocked anybody, because he had been railing against TAS for some time before the 2006 invitation was extended). Also, I can't think of any previous case in which a speaker was invited to a TAS event after constantly repeated, utterly contemptuous public dismissals of the organization.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Fair enough, if Will doesn't know then there is going to be tough sledding. I was surprised by Will's e-mail to Perigo during the runup to 2006. Ed and Will were obviously chafing under Perigo's criticism, but to send out an ultimatum like that is like sending Lindsay a fastball down the middle.

I didn't know that Nathaniel was the catalyst for Murray Franck's loss. I liked Murray a lot.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted something on Chris G's thread -- See -- and then accessed this thread to cross-post a link. I wasn't aware that Robert had already made some comments on the issue of who left and why (and when) because of the NB invite.

Ellen

PS: Jim, you expressed concern about people here coming to not like you over your posts on the Linz invite. Your and my disagreement doesn't change my liking you, near as I can tell who/what you are from your posts. E.g., I objected to MSK's describing you as lying, and said so. I don't think you are lying in anything you say -- though I often think you're responding hastily and not going a good job of reading what you reply to. But you and I don't know each other from outside listland. The only time, best I know, we were in the same room together was when you noticeably exited the George Marklin talk at the Summer Seminar in 1999. What I feel from your posts is that you and I are on just too different a "wavelength" for us ever to understand each other. But I don't feel any dislike toward you.

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted something on Chris G's thread -- See -- and then accessed this thread to cross-post a link. I wasn't aware that Robert had already made some comments on the issue of who left and why (and when) because of the NB invite.

Ellen

PS: Jim, you expressed concern about people here coming to not like you over your posts on the Linz invite. Your and my disagreement doesn't change my liking you, near as I can tell who/what you are from your posts. E.g., I objected to MSK's describing you as lying, and said so. I don't think you are lying in anything you say -- though I often think you're responding hastily and not going a good job of reading what you reply to. But you and I don't know each other from outside listland. The only time, best I know, we were in the same room together was when you noticeably exited the George Marklin talk at the Summer Seminar in 1999. What I feel from your posts is that you and I are on just too different a "wavelength" for us ever to understand each other. But I don't feel any dislike toward you.

___

Ellen, there are a great number of people here I do know and like and perhaps, being busy, I am hasty. I don't have the background to worry about who did what in the NBI days and don't know much Objectivist history except what I've learned from study, some ARI people then IOS. I do my best to assimilate it. Perhaps it would be better to leave movement issues aside and post a few pieces of original content. I guess I've always been a sucker for a raging debate, but this one is too personal and painful for many here. I'll leave it at that.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim; Hey! I like you and I have had no problem with your positions. From what I have seen you are a model Objectivist and I would disagree with MSK's stronger criticism.

As I hope I have made clear I find Mr Perigo's method of discussion wrong and it should not be encouraged.

I'm glad you're doing well too.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

I was surprised by Will's e-mail to Perigo during the runup to 2006. Ed and Will were obviously chafing under Perigo's criticism, but to send out an ultimatum like that is like sending Lindsay a fastball down the middle.

You got it!

Will Thomas fell right into a Perigonian trap.

Had he done his homework, Will would have known that Mr. Perigo was in an increasingly awkward spot with his closest political allies over accepting the invitation. Jim Valliant heartily disapproved. Diana Hsieh became a major player on SOLOP about a month after he accepted it--and we all know what she thought about it.

Will would have been best off saying nothing and waiting for Mr. Perigo to back out on his own, as he would have done sooner or later.

The folks who run TAS didn't know what they were up against.

They still don't.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now