Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 27, 2010 Author Share Posted January 27, 2010 Has anybody noticed that sporadic newbies, ones very Valliant-friendly, are showing up on the Symposium to nowhere?And the most devastating critics of Valliant's compromised literary and scholarship standards have been banned?...Hmmmm...Must be a coincidence...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 1, 2010 Author Share Posted February 1, 2010 I have been forcing myself to take time off to read Jennifer's book. I am now one-third the way through. I really like what I have read so far. Jennifer's understanding of The Fountainhead, for instance, is better than that by some Objectivsts I have read.I will be doing my own review of her book when I'm done reading it. (Then I will do Anne's book, then a long overdue review of Nicholas's Old Nick's Guide to Happiness.)Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Lookee lookee, someone out there is giving a perceptive critique of the Burns book on YouTube.<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22xHpLhzqlk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22xHpLhzqlk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22xHpLhzqlk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>You're still a flouncer, Jeff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 (edited) Kudos to JR. Best review I've read* so far. My basic quibble is he, like most libertarians, is politico-economico oriented to the exclusion of morality--except as you get it from individual rights (violation and non-violation)--and the rest of the philosophy.--Brant*it was so well done production/content wise, I felt I had read it Edited February 3, 2010 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 I found that whole thing about the left being more open to laissez-faire and more opposed to corporatism very interesting. I'm not sure it's true, but it's worth considering. If true, it would have to be the more idealistic New Left of the sixties as opposed to the Old Left or the present day left.On the down side, on a program devoted to the two biographies, I wish Jeff had not spent half or more of his time belaboring the one defect of the one biography - a misconstruing of Rand as belonging on the Right.Move on Jeff, move on. Lots more in the two books to talk about, ne c'est pas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) I found that whole thing about the left being more open to laissez-faire and more opposed to corporatism very interesting. This probably fits some leftists, at least those who don't advocate government controlling everything. For example, consider Obama based on his words. He sometimes speaks favorably about small businesses and doesn't demonize them. However, he does the opposite for large businesses. Relatedly, small businesses have near zero influence in the federal government, but large businesses do, and a corrupting one per Obama (except when they support him, which he doesn't talk about publicly). So if "laissez-faire" is used as a euphemism for small businesses and corporatism means large businesses, the duality fits. Edited February 4, 2010 by Merlin Jetton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algernonsidney Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Subject: Nick Gillespie's Relentlessly Hostile PieceI don't know Mr. Gillespie, but he is a former editor of Reason magazine - and this is all he got out of Rand's ideas???REASON has become pretty worthless. Gillespie was a part of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algernonsidney Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 The biggest obstacle will be Chris Sciabarra's health. He posts less and less frequently on Notablog now.It's quite sad to see it happen. He was such an asset on the old groups like the MDOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algernonsidney Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 For example, about a year or so ago, Jonah Goldberg (author of Liberal Fascism) made the rather startling comment that, upon reflection, maybe National Review had been "too hard on Ayn Rand", and should not have published Chambers' attack! This never would have happened under Buckley's watch!I've long believed that it was all about sexual frustration for Buckley.I think the likes of Goldberg may be more sympathetic now that some people like Peikoff have drunk the neo-con Kool Aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algernonsidney Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Jeffrey,Nice article.Now if Rand's novels would only start selling in Pakistan...Robert CampbellHas anyone translated it into any of the languages there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 > Subject: Nick Gillespie's Relentlessly Hostile PieceHaving been very disappointed in that piece on Rand, I was impressed with him last night: He was on PBS debating Lawrence Lessig and more than held his own against this super-articulate Harvard law professor. They even found some common ground in opposing lobbyists, spending for special interests, and political corruption. Best of all, this was hosted by the left-leaning Bill Moyers who made sure each man got equal time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 6, 2010 Author Share Posted February 6, 2010 Phil,That's interesting. I might try to look for this in Internet-Video-Land. Do you have a link?I don't know much of Lessig's work other than a few lectures I have seen about Creative Commons, but those lectures impressed the hell out of me. I've got one posted here on OL somewhere. I imagine that, whatever his views on politics are now, they are well-thought-out views. Even if O-Land and libertarian folks disagree with them--and once again judging by his work with Creative Commons--this is one man who does not dream up something and try to make reality fit it. He looks at what exists and tries to make sense of it. So it is well worth thinking about what he thinks about.I just now read on Wikipedia that he is pushing hard to help clean up political corruption in Congress. That's certainly a good thing.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 (edited) > Do you have a link?I don't. The program was "Bill Moyer's Journal", though.> he is pushing hard to help clean up political corruption in CongressUnfortunately, his method is to have government fund (and control) campaigns. Edited February 6, 2010 by Philip Coates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 > Do you have a link?I don't. The program was "Bill Moyer's Journal", though.> he is pushing hard to help clean up political corruption in CongressUnfortunately, his method is to have government fund (and control) campaigns.Michael:http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02052010/watch2.htmlThis will work.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algernonsidney Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Banning flouncers was Rowland's old trick. Maybe he still does.--BrantWhat is a flouncer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 6, 2010 Author Share Posted February 6, 2010 What is a flouncer?Chris,Sometimes, for whatever reason, people decide to leave a forum and announce that they are not going to post on it anymore.To mock these people when they have made such announcements on Solo Passion, Perigo came up with the term, "flouncer."I think he thinks it's cool, but it hasn't caught on much outside of the small group of people who read that site.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Banning flouncers was Rowland's old trick. Maybe he still does.--BrantWhat is a flouncer?NOOOOO!He did it! Niagara Falls!http://www.youtube.c...h?v=9pQii1L8fGkAdam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 (edited) Sometimes, for whatever reason, people decide to leave a forum and announce that they are not going to post on it anymore.To mock these people when they have made such announcements on Solo Passion, Perigo came up with the term, "flouncer."Now he bans people whove announced they wont be posting anymore, or in Neils case when he posts less for a period of time. Coincidentally, the non-arthropod invertebrate named James Valliant started posting again in earnest following the bannings. Hmm.Here, you flounce you just get mocked, both coming and going. The lesson being, if you dont want to post anymore, stop posting. If you lecture everyone about it theyll think youre a drama queen. Like Phil.<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUslGSoEH8I&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUslGSoEH8I&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUslGSoEH8I&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> Edited February 6, 2010 by Ninth Doctor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Coates Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 (edited) I may be a drama queen, but I don't have petticoats so I can't flounce.Make up your mind which feminine epithet you are going to stick me with. Either I'm a drama queen or a schoolmarm. Choose. Edited February 6, 2010 by Philip Coates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 6, 2010 Author Share Posted February 6, 2010 Make up your mind which feminine epithet you are going to stick me with. Either I'm a drama queen or a schoolmarm. Choose. Phil,That's a false dichotomy.I've met you and I have another that is far more accurate.I think you're cute.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 7, 2010 Author Share Posted February 7, 2010 http://www.pbs.org/m...010/watch2.htmlThis will work.Adam,Thank you. I saw the program and I was not disappointed.I didn't fully understand Lessig's idea of a citizen funded campaign, but if it is as Gillespie said, where his tax dollars will fund a candidate he would not vote for, I am with Gillespie.However, Lessig has his finger on a problem that is not yet clear to most people: the lack of the citizen's confidence in America's institutions. This is a very serious issue.I lived under a regime for over 30 years (in Brazil) where the people did not have respect for the government institutions. But the institutions maintained their position by the police and the armed forces. At times it was a free-for-all. It was far easier to get things done by bribery than it was by justice. If you were out of bribery funds, you were out of luck. Well, not really. You were only out of luck if you got caught since nobody obeyed many of the laws. Brazil has not turned into an armed uprising because Brazilians are wonderful people. But being wonderful people is not a very good political principle. Disrespect for government institutions has turned really ugly in other countries. I believe it would here, too. American heroes are really violent when they need to be.It is interesting to note that both Gillespie and Lessig agreed on the corruption problem, and even the essential nature of the problem. They just didn't agree on the solution.As to my view, I would not mind one restriction against corporations for campaign financing. In my formulation, a corporation that is a government supplier under contract would not be eligible to make campaign donations. And I would make it a felony for another company to front for such a company. That would blow a lot of BS out of the water. Conflict of interest is a legitimate concern.As to the issue of campaign financing being one of the reasons for the current poor reputation of Congress, I think Lessig is off the mark. It may be a minor reason, but certainly not all that important. The "business as usual" porkbarrel form of passing laws has done far more PR damage than any election practice, except, maybe Acorn's monkey-shines.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 I may be a drama queen, but I don't have petticoats so I can't flounce.Make up your mind which feminine epithet you are going to stick me with. Either I'm a drama queen or a schoolmarm. Choose. Now Phillip, you know, as a teacher, that you could be, logically,...a bi-polar flouncing schoolmarm...albeit,you would still not be particularly funny, but you could achieve it. I have confidence in you. You can do it Phil!Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 http://www.pbs.org/m...010/watch2.htmlThis will work.Adam,Thank you. I saw the program and I was not disappointed.I didn't fully understand Lessig's idea of a citizen funded campaign, but if it is as Gillespie said, where his tax dollars will fund a candidate he would not vote for, I am with Gillespie.However, Lessig has his finger on a problem that is not yet clear to most people: the lack of the citizen's confidence in America's institutions. This is a very serious issue.I lived under a regime for over 30 years (in Brazil) where the people did not have respect for the government institutions. But the institutions maintained their position by the police and the armed forces. At times it was a free-for-all. It was far easier to get things done by bribery than it was by justice. If you were out of bribery funds, you were out of luck. Well, not really. You were only out of luck if you got caught since nobody obeyed many of the laws. Brazil has not turned into an armed uprising because Brazilians are wonderful people. But being wonderful people is not a very good political principle. Disrespect for government institutions has turned really ugly in other countries. I believe it would here, too. American heroes are really violent when they need to be.It is interesting to note that both Gillespie and Lessig agreed on the corruption problem, and even the essential nature of the problem. They just didn't agree on the solution.As to my view, I would not mind one restriction against corporations for campaign financing. In my formulation, a corporation that is a government supplier under contract would not be eligible to make campaign donations. And I would make it a felony for another company to front for such a company. That would blow a lot of BS out of the water. Conflict of interest is a legitimate concern.As to the issue of campaign financing being one of the reasons for the current poor reputation of Congress, I think Lessig is off the mark. It may be a minor reason, but certainly not all that important. The "business as usual" porkbarrel form of passing laws has done far more PR damage than any election practice, except, maybe Acorn's monkey-shines.MichaelMichael:My pleasure.Your campaign idea is similar to a law that I had drafted almost thirty years agoAs to my view, I would not mind one restriction against corporations for campaign financing. In my formulation, a corporation that is a government supplier under contract would not be eligible to make campaign donations. And I would make it a felony for another company to front for such a company. That would blow a lot of BS out of the water. Conflict of interest is a legitimate concern.Essentially, there would be no limits, but the "contributions" would have to be filed with the respective jurisdictional entities, e.g., town, city, county, state, federal board(s) of elections.I designed the legal scheme in the obverse, by banning any corporation and or individual who made "contributions" from contracts or employment, in any capacity, by any level of the government, during their term(s) of office. I would extend it to family and friends, but that part might not stand up to legal review.Additionally, as to the felony part, any elected official who is convicted of graft, bribery, influence pedaling, etc. would receive a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. I have a major problem with the death penalty except for treason and child molestation. One strike and you are out. However, Lessig has his finger on a problem that is not yet clear to most people: the lack of the citizen's confidence in America's institutions. This is a very serious issue.As you note this aspect has this Republic dangling by a thread. I have to admit that there is a rage building in me and I see it with a lot of substantial folks and it is growing exponentially.I have always taken your Brazilian narratives very seriously. I agree that Americans are quite dangerous in this area. We are cowboys at heart.I have absolutely no trust in government at any level. I have served in it at different levels and ways. It is a failed scheme.Those chickens that Fidel and the Reverend "Wrong but who wants to be" Wright said were coming home to roost are going to be quite savage.I am very sad for my beloved country.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolandpericles Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 http://www.pbs.org/m...010/watch2.htmlThis will work.Adam,Thank you. I saw the program and I was not disappointed.I didn't fully understand Lessig's idea of a citizen funded campaign, but if it is as Gillespie said, where his tax dollars will fund a candidate he would not vote for, I am with Gillespie.However, Lessig has his finger on a problem that is not yet clear to most people: the lack of the citizen's confidence in America's institutions. This is a very serious issue.I lived under a regime for over 30 years (in Brazil) where the people did not have respect for the government institutions. But the institutions maintained their position by the police and the armed forces. At times it was a free-for-all. It was far easier to get things done by bribery than it was by justice. If you were out of bribery funds, you were out of luck. Well, not really. You were only out of luck if you got caught since nobody obeyed many of the laws. Brazil has not turned into an armed uprising because Brazilians are wonderful people. But being wonderful people is not a very good political principle. Disrespect for government institutions has turned really ugly in other countries. I believe it would here, too. American heroes are really violent when they need to be.It is interesting to note that both Gillespie and Lessig agreed on the corruption problem, and even the essential nature of the problem. They just didn't agree on the solution.As to my view, I would not mind one restriction against corporations for campaign financing. In my formulation, a corporation that is a government supplier under contract would not be eligible to make campaign donations. And I would make it a felony for another company to front for such a company. That would blow a lot of BS out of the water. Conflict of interest is a legitimate concern.As to the issue of campaign financing being one of the reasons for the current poor reputation of Congress, I think Lessig is off the mark. It may be a minor reason, but certainly not all that important. The "business as usual" porkbarrel form of passing laws has done far more PR damage than any election practice, except, maybe Acorn's monkey-shines.MichaelMichael:My pleasure.Your campaign idea is similar to a law that I had drafted almost thirty years agoAs to my view, I would not mind one restriction against corporations for campaign financing. In my formulation, a corporation that is a government supplier under contract would not be eligible to make campaign donations. And I would make it a felony for another company to front for such a company. That would blow a lot of BS out of the water. Conflict of interest is a legitimate concern.Essentially, there would be no limits, but the "contributions" would have to be filed with the respective jurisdictional entities, e.g., town, city, county, state, federal board(s) of elections.I designed the legal scheme in the obverse, by banning any corporation and or individual who made "contributions" from contracts or employment, in any capacity, by any level of the government, during their term(s) of office. I would extend it to family and friends, but that part might not stand up to legal review.Additionally, as to the felony part, any elected official who is convicted of graft, bribery, influence pedaling, etc. would receive a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. I have a major problem with the death penalty except for treason and child molestation. One strike and you are out. However, Lessig has his finger on a problem that is not yet clear to most people: the lack of the citizen's confidence in America's institutions. This is a very serious issue.As you note this aspect has this Republic dangling by a thread. I have to admit that there is a rage building in me and I see it with a lot of substantial folks and it is growing exponentially.I have always taken your Brazilian narratives very seriously. I agree that Americans are quite dangerous in this area. We are cowboys at heart.I have absolutely no trust in government at any level. I have served in it at different levels and ways. It is a failed scheme.Those chickens that Fidel and the Reverend "Wrong but who wants to be" Wright said were coming home to roost are going to be quite savage.I am very sad for my beloved country.AdamEye my self hate influence pedaling. Won day knot long a go, eye was peddling my bicycle over two the Burke Lee campus too get a cup of coffee at the student coffee shop when watt two my wandering I should a peer butt a common pedaler sitting behind a table on Telegraph Avenue trying too cell influence two passing students. Eye was sew shocked eye all most wrecked my bike. Sum thing kneads two bee dun.Distractedly,Roland Pericles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Roland, you honure thus us lesser stuff with ure stuff fer sure enuf.--Brantcan't do ure stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now