Barbara Branden

From tne perspective of our personal freedom, the most ominous of Obama's announed plans is the creation of "a civilian security force just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the military." He has not been asked "Why?" "Security against what?" What precisely is the danger facing us that is not appropriately the domain of such entitles as the armed forces, the FBI, the CIA, and our police forces? In Nazi Germany, just such a civilian security force was formed for similarly vague reasons, with similarly undefined purposes and duties. Created by Heinrich Himmler, at Hitler's command. it was in fact Hitler's Praetorian Guard, his peronal bodyguard, his protection against any dissatisfaction or protests of the German citizens. Its members swore eternal loyalty not to Germany, not to the military, not to the citizens of Germany, not even to the Nazi Party -- but to Adolf Hitler. He owned them, body and soul. They were known as the SS (Shutzstaffel). Ultimately growing to become a force of a million men, the SS became the primary fighting force and military power of the Nazi regime, and was responsible for many of the worst crimes of that regime. The German people, beaten to tneir knees by the end of the war, at last began to understand that tbeir protection had never been its purpose. Barbara

I've occasionally received email to which this is the perfect response. I especially love "Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to you." Barbara

Adam, was there any indication whether or not the interview with Madoff will ever be made public? I'd be fascinated to know, for instance, how he justified his crime to himself for so many years; what he did in his head to avoid knowing -- or caring -- that he was ruining people who trusted him, many of whom were his friends; what he thought the pay-off for his actions was -- because I don't believe it was just financial; why he believed the pay-off was worth the risk, etc., etc. In a word, I''d be fascinated to learn something about his psychology and psycho-epistemology. Barbara

Adam, I agree with everyrthing you said -- except that I don't think Obama is a great orator. But it's been said so often by the press that it's come to be the accepted wisdom, and people don't notice that there is no substantial content to most of his speeches. If you examine them you'll find he's said almost nothing, but in the manner of a man communicating great truths. "Hope" and "change" are not great oratory. Although I'll grant that "redistribution of income" and "transform America" are chillingly specific enough. When he doesn't have his teleprompter, he stumbles and stutters-- and calls police officers stupid. Barbara

For reasons unknown to me, I don't get any sound from the clip. Does anyone have a clue? Barbara

Hello, Jennifer, You have done the readers and critics of Rand's work a great service by revealing the editing of her unpublished manuscripts by those charged wirh preserving her legacy. I've been aware of this unethical practice since 1986. At that time, Leonard Peikof, in a small newsletter he published, included a few brief excerpts from unpublished material of Rand's -- and he remarked, quite casually, that he had edited the excerpts. I jumped a foot when I read this. Over the years since, I have often been painfully aware that Rand was being edited. I am very familiar with her literary style and with her ideas, and I have been made uneasy by formulations attributed to her in ARI publications that did not ring true, and by the omission of issues I knew she had written about. But I had no proof, and so I could do nothing either to reveal or to stop the bowdlerizing of her work. Perhaps now, with your book, this shameful practice will end. At least, it will be known. Barbara

Ba'al: "I have had the view (for a long time now) that pessimists are better off. They cannot suffer disappointment." I'm reading a fascinating book by Martin Seligman, entitled Learned Optimism. The author convincingly makes the case that people who tend to be optimistic rather than pessimistic have happier lives, are more free of illness, are more successful in their professional and private lives, are more likely to recover relatively quickly from losses and disappointments, and even tend to live longer. The pessimist may never suffer from the occasional disappointments that accompany a life of striving and aspirations, perhaps because, expecting nothing, daring nothing, he has settled for a life that is one long , joyless disappointment. Barbara

What I find hard to believe is that with all the choices available to him, Barry Schwartz chose to dress as he appears in this video. It's a remarkable video. Schwartz clearly sees himself, despite his protestations to the contrary, as being entirely without choices: that is, as being wholly the creature of his environment. If 175 salad dressings are put before him, he is helpless; he can't merely see one he likes and take it, he must examine all 175 before making a decision. Why? I find it difficult to credit that a grown man is so flummoxed by the spectacle of some bottles of salad dressing! When Ayn Rand's sister Nora came from Soviet Russia to visit her in New York, she almost immediately disliked New York and America. "There are too many choices," she said . One day she went to a supermarket to buy toothpaste, but returned without it. "There were shelves of different tubes of toothpaste," she complained, "and no one would tell me which one to buy!" Nora's fear in the face of the need to choose is somewhat understandable. She had spent her life in a dictatorship, where the responsibility for her choices and her life, the responsibility for choosing values and acting to achieve them, had been taken from her. Barry Schwartz has not spent his life in a dictatorship. His fear and dread of responsibility is not understandable. To live in a free society and yet to long for the forced infantilism of compulsion, to need some authority figure to tell him what salad dressing to buy and, presumably, what house to live in, what career to follow, what woman to marry, what ideas to accept, what candidate to vote for, is an astonishingly craven state for a grown man. It is children who need someone to hold their hand and tell them what to do; we normally assume that adults welcome the need to run their own lives. Schwartz is speaking for himself. He is certainly not speaking for me. I'm about to buy a new car. The possibilities are numerous and varied, But I know that I want good gas mileage, I know generally the kind of places I'm likely to drive to, I know the style of car I like, I know what i can afford to spend, etc. l have no intention of going to a hundred dealerships in order to examine a thousand different cars. I'll go to the dealer who sells the car I want. I shudder to think what Barry Schwartz would do. What is most appalling about his "dilemma" is that he would rather a doctor made life and death decisions for him - even made the wrong decision-- rather than take upon himself and his own intelligence the responsibility for his life. "Don't give me so many choices" means "Don't make me think -- it's you who must decide if I'm to live or die." And, of course, at the end of his talk, he makes clear what it all has been about. All the verbiage has had a single purpose: to lead him to the point where he can say: "What enables all this choice is material affliuence. Income re-distribution would make everyone better off." It would have been an act of kindness had he said that in the beginning, and thereby saved us all from wasting our time. Barbara

Phil: "1. Multiple artistic productions would clearly be across several decades, or some years apart. I never said -anything- about quick succession, so no "dashing"! Instead, some years later one success makes possible another. That's why I specified "sometime in the last thirty years". 2. Atlas + Atlas was not the only alternative in my posts. 3. I said not necessarily all movies. Other media. First breakthrough might be radio, might be tv, might be domestic (or overseas, and not necessarily Europe)." The reality of the situation is that the people attempting to get the movie produced are not planning to live forever. They do not have several decades to spend on lead-ups to the film. Besides, there never has been a better time than the present to introduce the movie, when the interest in Atlas has gone through the roof. And if you say the steps you recommend should have been taken years ago -- the rights were not available years ago. And who could have dreamed of the insanity that has stalked the book in Hollywood for so many years? Barbara

Peikoff: "... an actual evil idea, which means by our definition of evil, an idea who's essence is destruction of something good." Can someone explain to me how the essence of an idea can be the act of destruction? Barbara

Phil, with all good will, I must tell you you do not know what the hell you're talking about. Yes, when you write a post full of contempt, you do need to make clear whatever respect you have for the people of whom you're so disdainful. And I wasn't speaking of Peikoff and Kelley, but of the businessmen involved --of John Aglioloro, who has nursed the project from its beginning and has fought his heart out to make it happen. Do you have any idea what it would cost to get the movie rights to The Fountainhead and to make a new movie of it? -- as a prelude to making Atlas? Do you have any idea of the time and effort required to do it properly? No. you don't. Yet you nevertheless put it forth as a self-evident requirement. Nor do you hesitate to recommend the madness of dashing off to Eiurope in order to dash off a movie of Atlas, then dashing back home to make a second movie of Atlas. Phil, I shall now look down on your life from a great height, as you so often do to others. It's damn well time you stopped patronizing people who struggle in the arena and started getting your own hands dirty.. That might bring you to an understanding of why people resent being told by you how to run their lives and careers. Barbara

X-Ray, I don't know if this helps or makes it worse, but my mistake was not deliberate. Barbara

Ah, Phil, if life were only as simple as you make it out to be. Clearly, you have little or no idea what the efforts of the " enthusiasts" have been over the years, or how dedicated to the project they have been, or how intelligent is their understanding of the obstacles they face. Your confident suggestions either have been tried or should not be tried. You have no way of knowing that "It didn't have to play out this way." You really should have made many more inquiries into the nature of their efforts before concluding that you have common sense and a knowledge of the world of Hollywood and television, but they don't. You are defaming men and women whom you should be thanking for their dedication, their willingness to spend a great deal of their own money on the project, and their understanding of what needs to be done to bring so controversial a book to the big or little screen. Barbara

X-rat, you seem to require that for a value to be objective, it must be of value to everyone under all circumstances, in all contexts, and under all conditions. But you're arguing against a straw man.That is not the Objectivist concept of value. For instance, (to oversimplify) if you asked me if taking tonight's redeye from Los Angeles to New York is a value -- I'd say it would be an objective value to someone with an urgent need to be in New York as soon as possible -- but not to someone slated for emergency surgery in Los Angeles tomorrow morning. As Rand made clear, "Value" presupposes an answer to the question: Of value to whom and for what? She wrote, "Value presupposes a standard, a purpose, and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative." Barbara

Robert, wasn't it Nietzsche who said: "They muddy their waters in order to make them seem deep"? Barbara

Robrt, I've never seen this excerpt from Peikoff's lecture before. I'm stunned by it. I could make a better case against me than he does. This is sheer comedy. For instance, he says he regards Passion, which he claims he hasn't read, as non-cognitive, meaning that it's impossible to say that anything in it is either true or false -- and that my claim that Rand and Nathaniel had an affair is true. He is quick to say: "I did not refrain from reading the book because of being afraid to face facts." Did I miss something, or did no one claim that that's why he didn't read the book? He says Rand thought Nathaniel was an extraordinary genius, "and, uh, leave [off] that that is wrong but I’m not here to attack him now." I'm glad he's not there to attack Nathaniel -- except to say he wouldn't "put credence" in anything he says, and that "there are lengthy documents in Ayn Rand’s handwriting recounting the salient, uh, facts, motivations, manipulations, lies and other … evils, let us say, to which she was subjected." This is silly stuff. Surely he had to know the question would come up one day and that he'd have to answer it. I'm surprised he was so unprepared. Barbara

Phil, as I read some of your posts, I realize I'm not clear about something -- and I wonder if you are. You seem to swing between wanting to present your ideas to philosophically-sophisticated audiences and wanting to present them to a mainstream audience. It's clear that Roger, for instance, wants to go the route of academic philosophy; I, as another instance, am interested in reaching a more general audience with my work on thinking. These are two very different purposes -- both legitimate, of course -- but requiring quite different approaches and tactics. During the course of a career, one can write for both audiences. But one has to be clear about which work is directed to which set of readers, and on how one intends to reach those readers. Barbara

I spent three years in Canada -- in Winnipeg -- in the 90s. The medical system was a nightmare. My sister-in-law went for her yearly checkup. Her appointment lasted fifteen minutes. It isn't that most doctors don't care, it's that there is a serious shortage of doctors because young people don't want to spend years in medical school only to be overworked and underpaid in a system where one can go to seven different doctors in one week for treatment of a hangnail, making it impossiile for many of the seriously ill to get timely appointments. A cousin was in excruciating and unremitting pain from a bad leg. He waited six months -- unable to work -- for surgery, and then was told he'd have to wait another year. He went to the US, where he had immediate and successful surgery. A friend was dying from an undiagnosed infection. His family chartered an ambulance plane and took him to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, where he was diagnosed and cured. He was told that had he waited another week before going to Mayo, he would have died. Winnipeg is a city of almost a million people, There was great jubilation when it was announced that the city was to receive its first MRI machine. That's right: one, for the entire city. The provincial government announced that it was closing most of Winnipeg's emergency wards; they were too expensive. (The patient with the hangnail again.) The ward in the best hospital was at a far end of the city. That meant that in the winter, with temperatures falling as low as 40 degrees below zero, and with icy streets, it would take an ambulance from the other end of the city 45 minutes to an hour to reach there. And now our Glorious Leaders want to add forty million people to the list of patients that must be seen by a diminishing number of doctors. Bangkok. anyone? Barbara

Afterburner with Bill Whittle Jon Stewart, War Criminals, & the True Story of the Atomic Bomb I've just watched a superb video. I recommend that you do not walk, you run to see Bill Whittle tell the story of the atom bomb. Here is the context: On his Daily Show, Jon Stewart insisted that Harry Truman was a war criminal for ordering atom bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whittle explains, "Stewart and others maintain that the atomic bombings were criminal acts, claiming that the targeted cities received no warning, that they were of no military value, that Japanese resistance was crumbling and their use was unnecessary, and that Japan was trying to surrender at the time of the bombings which were therefore nothing but an unjustified and brutal signal sent merely to show the Soviets who's boss." Whittle adds --and proceeds to prove in every detail: "None of these positions stand up to facts." Another excerpt: "This [he holds up a photograph] is a photograph of the front side of Office of War Information notice #2106, dubbed the 'LeMay bombing leaflet.' Over 1 million of these were dropped over Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945 - five days before the Hiroshima bombing. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning: “'Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.'" Another: "Japanese pilot Mitsuo Fuchida led the air attack against Pearl Harbor. After the war, he told Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay, 'You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude of that time, how fanatic they were. They'd die for the Emperor. Every man, woman and child would have resisted the invasion with sticks and stones if necessary.' "The use of the atomic bombs saved - at minimum - hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives from continued conventional bombing. If the invasion had been necessary - and no one at the time had any reason to think it would not be necessary, given the pattern of resistance - then millions more Japanese would die holding bamboo spears and wearing explosive backpacks. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would have been killed." And finally: "Mr. Stewart, you do no exist on some superior intellectual plane - and most certainly not on a moral one. You can slander the men who have given you a life where the toughest decision you have to make is what to have your assistant get you for lunch. But those people who came home as a result of Harry Truman's courage deserve a hell of a lot better than to be told that their lives are worth less than your moral discomfort. And the de facto 'voice of a generation' should be someone not quite as self-centered as you." Barbara

Phil, it sounds to me as if you are painting yourself into a corner, facing the possibility of never putting your ideas out into the world. You don't want to go with Objectivist venues. Do you realize how terribly difficult it is to break into philosophical journals and into mainstream publications? It isn't only Will Thomas who is concerned with credentials and degrees. You wrote: "Robert, that's why the single best venue is the non-fiction book. It's appeal is to those in all different intellectual niches. If it's written in a broad 'public intellectual, non-specialized, non-niche style." Yes, that is the single best venue. Have you made any moves in that direction? From observing your writing, I conclude that that's the style that is most natural for you, and I hope that's the style in which you've been formulating your theories. Have you made any contacts in the world of mainstream publishing? Do you have or are you looking for an agent? To break into that world with a book on philosophy will be extremely difficult; there, too, you will find a concern with credentials, and, most particularly, with prior publications and past successes. You say that "It's crucial to me not just to see my words in print and be read by a dozen or so academics, but to REACH THE BEST MINDS. And have a good (and professional) feedback mechanism for interaction. Not just smoke and mirrors and cranky old men." Of course that's what you want; it's what every writer wants. But you can't start there. You have to be like the storytellers of old, going from campfire to campfire spinning your tales -- in your case, your ideas -- to whomever willl iisten. Therefore, I return to the blog idea. You may start with a very small audience, but if you're really good, that audience will grow; there are examples of that happening all over the Internet. If your audience grows, that could eventually be your doorway into mainstream publishing, But you have start somewhere. In conjunction with a blog, I would recommend as well that you publish whenever you can, wherever you can. Many small audiences add up to a single large and impressive audience. Phil, you have people right here on OL who would like to help, myself among them. Don't lump us in with the people who have disappointed you. Take advantage of offers to help. Perhaps some of us will disappoint you; but perhaps some of us won't. Barbara

What is truly remarkable is the amount of bare-faced lying that goes on at such hearings. Sotomayor "explained" her dedication to a careful adherence to the Constitution, and her rejection of identity politics. The senators knew she was lying, but pretended to believe her so that they could vote for her. It was obvious that the senators didn't really believe her, but the press pretended her lies really had changed some senators' minds. None of the people involved expected to be believed -- not Sotomoayor, not the senators, not the press, but they knew their lies would generate other lies that would generate other lies that would generate still other lies -- all leading to the Senate's triumphant and long-inevitable endorsement of Sotomayor as Supreme Court Justice. It makes one believe in an infinite regress. Barbara

GRRRR!!! Barbara

"The total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years." That's the cost of making health care much less effective than it is today. To destroy it completely will take still more money,. But as Obama would say,"Yes, we can!" Barbara

Phil, I was not invited to give my talk on Objectivism and Rage; I suggested it -- and had to battle Will Thomas to have it approved. And you are correct; I have not been invited to speak on efficient thinking. Barbara

Phil has every reason to feel profoundly hurt by his treatment. The only way he could avoid being hurt is to be a total cynic, and to expect nothing from other people. It's probably true, Brant, as you said, that "nobody does anything important without being trashed by the trashers." But surely one does not expect the trashers to be people one admires. Phil, from what you've said, the work you've done is too important to be hidden away. Have you considered creating a blog, where you could publish it yourself ad get responses from people interested in the issues? If you're right, word would quickly spread and you'd have the audience you should have. Barbara