Ed Hudgins

Victor -- Interesting story about that song. By that time the the Beatles were doing a lot of their work on their own since Paul especially didn't like Yoko. On this one, Paul actually helped John; he played not only the bass but also the drums -- normally Ringo's job -- and piano. John did acoustic as well as lead guitar -- leaving George off the track as well.

Hudgins Letter in The Wall Street Journal

The October 14-15, 2006 Weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal featured a letter to the editor by Atlas Society/Objectivist Center Executive Director Edward Hudgins. Under the heading “Economic Individualism and the Only Truly Just Society,” Hudgins commented on an October 10 editorial page essay in the Journal by Edmund Phelps, the 2006 Nobel Prize winner in economics.

Hudgins wrote that, “Phelps advocates not economic individualism but moral collectivism. He is on the mark to distinguish the dynamic, open capitalism found in America from the corporatism of established interest groups and government bureaucrats found in Continental Europe (where Mussolini seems to have won!). He’s also correct that capitalism allows all to find a greater sense of self-realization in their work. And he’s right to trace resentment against capitalism to a confusion of the entrenched, government-protected businesses with true entrepreneurs who must survive through open-market competition.”

Hudgins went on to say, “But he’s mistaken to use John Rawls’s standard of social justice. Under this standard, capitalism is unjust if it results in ‘raising the scores of some, though at the expense of reducing the score at the bottom,’ compared with other feasible systems. Prof. Phelps argues that, in addition to the evidence of history that under capitalism everyone wins economically, ‘In an economy in which entrepreneurs are forbidden to pursue their self-realization, they have the bottom scores in self-realization.’ Thus, capitalism is just.”

Hudgins elaborated: “Yet Rawls’s standard is wrong. Capitalism is based on the freedom of individuals to pursue their own self-interest as long as they don’t initiate force against others. This means that no group is entitled to any given distribution of benefits; individuals must earn their wealth by producing goods and services with which to trade with others. Some individuals and enterprises might be worse off in the short term, perhaps because of their own lack of initiative or adherence to out-of-date strategies, like corporatists in Europe and elsewhere. But these corporatists use Rawls’s standard to justify their stagnant systems. If they open their systems, they argue, there will be lots of immediate losers with a few, perhaps hypothetical, future winners. Such a collectivist argument is guaranteed to kill entrepreneurial capitalism.”

Hudgins concluded that, “Prof. Phelps says, ‘Ayn Rand went too far in taking ... freedom to be an absolute.’ But if the individual rather than a statistical group is the ultimate subject of justice, then freedom is the highest good in the only truly just society – a capitalist one!”

An oldie but goodie (but new to Objectivist Living). Happy Columbus Day!

------

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1594...ploitation.aspx

Columbus Day: In Praise of Exploitation

by Edward Hudgins

October 10, 2005 -- Many critics argue that Christopher Columbus gave us a devil's bargain. In October 1492 that Italian explorer, working for Spain, opened America to his fellow Europeans. The result: we got a prosperous New World by impoverishing, enslaving and murdering the natives who were already here.

But this view fails to distinguish between two types of exploitation—one over other humans and the other over nature: the former which should be expunged from our moral codes and civilized society, the latter which is the essence of morality and civilization.

The former form of exploitation was suffered especially by the tens of millions of individuals who inhabited the pre-Columbian lands from Mexico through South America. Cortes the Conquistador, for example, defeated the Aztec rulers of Mexico. Many of the tribes that were subject to the Aztecs sided with Cortes; they hated the Aztecs for, among other things, their practice of cutting the living hearts out of members of tribes that they subjugated, as sacrifices to their gods. Cortes imposed his rule on the Aztecs and their subjects alike, replacing one tyranny with another. The natives were treated harshly and many forced to work as de facto or actual slaves for their new masters.

On the other hand, many settlers, especially in North America which had far fewer natives, took a different path. They came to the New World to build their own lives. They did not prosper by conquering other men but, rather, by conquering nature. They had to clear the land, plant and sow crops. They had to practice the trades of carpenters, masons, loggers, miners, blacksmiths and tailors to build their towns and to create the necessities for life and prosperity. In the centuries that followed, their descendents—including Americans today—built the richest, most prosperous country on Earth.

Today it is chic among back-to-nature types to idealize the pre-Columbian natives and question whether what we have today constitutes real progress. This silliness was given philosophical credence by the eighteenth century thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of the "noble savage." No doubt many individual natives were as noble as one could be in savage circumstances, but America before Columbus was no Eden.

Let's put aside the wars between tribes, the outright brutality and the like, and just look at the daily lives of the Indians before Columbus. Life was lived simply, in primitive cycles. Natives inhabited crude hovels and hunted or used subsistence farming to sustain themselves. Yes, they could enjoy family and friends, tell tales of bringing down buffalo, and imagine that the stars in the sky painted pictures of giant bears and other creatures. The ancestors of Europeans did the same.

But true human life, either for an individual or society, is not an endless, stagnant cycle. Rather, it is a growth in knowledge, in power over the environment, and in individual liberty.

Perhaps many pre-Columbian natives were content with their lot in a simple, animal-like existence. But what of young Indian children who wondered why family members sickened and died and if there were ways unknown to the shamans to relieve their pain or cure them; if there were ways to build shelters that would resist bitter winters, stifling summers and the storms that raged in both seasons; whether there were ways to guarantee that food would always be abundant and starvation no longer a drought away; why plants grow and what those lights in the sky really were; and whether they could ever actually fly like birds and observe mountains from the height of eagles? Where were the opportunities for these natives?

Three ideas from Enlightenment Europe provided keys to true human life. First was the idea that we as individuals have a right to our own dreams and desires, that we are not simply tied to a tribe or the wishes of others, that civilization means that individuals are free to live their own lives, as long as they acknowledge the similar freedom of others.

Second was the understanding that through the rational exercise of our minds we can truly discover the nature of the world around us, replacing myths—no matter how beautiful or poetic—with real knowledge.

And third was the appreciation that such knowledge allows us to bend nature to our wills. Through our thoughts and actions we gain the pride of achieving the best within us.

The clash between the cultures of pre-Columbian natives and European immigrants certainly produced injustices for natives. But it would have been unjust for those natives to expect the immigrants to hold themselves to the level of primitive cultures and beliefs. The true long-term tragedy is that so many of the descendants of the pre-Columbian peoples in North America ended up on reservations rather than integrated into a society that offers opportunities for each individual to excel.

Columbus opened a whole new land for those who would tame nature and build a new, free and prosperous nation. We should celebrate the opportunity for America that he gave us—not apologize for it.

Victor -- Thoughtful post. Much has been written about how large societies like ours produce alienation and make it difficult for individuals to connect with like-minded ones, including soulmates. But technology does offer tools that can compensate.

While I'm just an old bachelor, I have put on my philosopher hat to think a bit about the implications of romance for society as a whole. Here for anyone interested are my musings:

---------

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showconte...mp;printer=True

The Public Side of Private Love

by Edward Hudgins

February 14, 2003 -- Romantic love is the predominant theme in modern American culture. It's the number one topic of popular music. Movies that aren’t love stories usually have an amorous subplot. Affairs saturate soap operas and Oprah-type TV focuses on relationships. Valentine's Day is devoted to love. And the activity that is most associated with and often mistaken for romantic love—sex—is an industry in itself, with magazines, videos, and Web sites devoted to every desire and proclivity.

One wonders, why with all this love in the air we have crime, hate and anger in our society? One also wonders, why something as profoundly personal and private as romantic love should be such a public matter?

Essential activities of human life do not require intimate involvement with others. While good parents are important, ultimately we each create our own moral character. While good teachers are valuable, ultimately we each must acquire for ourselves the skills needed to make a living and to do fulfilling work. Further, we can each pursue elevating or relaxing pastimes by ourselves: reading a book, watching a ballgame.

But how much richer our lives are if we can see in the character and actions of another person those values and traits that we admire most. And how much richer our lives are if another person appreciates us for our highest virtues and best qualities. And how wonderful it is if we can share mutual interests and activities with another: going to movies, plays, museums, sporting events, or restaurants; getting together with friends; and, yes, having sex, not as an ephemeral physical act but as a joyous celebration of our life with someone we love. And how happy we are if we can build a life, a marriage, a family together with another person. How blessed and joyous and full our lives will be if we love another and are loved in return!

"Love" is a verb and "making love" means creating a world and a life with our beloved that only two can share. It is a private world founded on shared experiences, values, and emotions, and on a subtle and intimate understanding of one another. Those who share such a love might want to share the fact of their happiness with friends and family. But ultimately they’ll devote their energy and efforts to enhancing their own world, their own sanctuary. They won’t worry about seeking the approval of others. They won’t want to open every aspect of that world to others because that world is too precious to be opened to the random eyes of others.

So why should such a private matter as romantic love be a matter of public concern? Much pop culture expresses and reflects a superficial version of romance that one would expect to appeal to sixteen year olds. But hey, we were all sixteen once! To the extent that individuals can retain throughout their lives the thrill and excitement that accompanies a new romance, these aspects of our culture reflect a healthy appreciation that happiness should be our goal in life.

Too often, though, popular culture delivers instant gratification at the expense of real romance, and too many adults, allowing vapid culture to lead them by the nose, stay at the adolescent level of superficial infatuation, thus forgoing the deep and rich satisfaction of a mature love. Such culture dulls the senses and the soul, making romance less likely and life more hopeless and empty.

Still, true romance in the private lives of individuals, which should be a private concern only, makes an important contribution to the public good. As Ayn Rand explained, lovers must "stand naked in spirit, as well as body" before one another. In romantic love at its best, lovers are mirrors for each other’s souls. We want our beloved to see the best within us and we want our best to be reflected in the affection and adoration shown to us by our beloved. Rand also likened love to a "command to rise," to strive to be our best. The moral character of individuals and thus moral foundations of a free society are strengthened by true love.

So those without a love on Valentines Day should at least be glad about what it stands for, and those with loves should count their blessings, renew that love and celebrate the happiness that they have earned!

Christian -- Thanks for posting the thoughtful Friedman piece. And MSK -- thanks for your remarks. I always think it's good to accentuate and play up the positive. If the Pope wants to strongly promote the pro-reason side of the Catholic tradition, that's good. I believe this was just the process -- promoting Thomist philosphy -- that helped usher in free thinking and the Renaissance.

In the case of Islam, I think the more rational Muslims who are closer to the Enlightenment tradition ultimately will need to counter their-irrational co-religionists since the irrationalists are not likely to listen to the Pope. Yes, it could be dangerous, but this points to the seriousness of the situation.

I'm thinking a lot about culture as the most important influence on the ideas and attitudes of most people. Culture is different from the fomal beliefs of a religion; after all, Catholics with an Augustinian outlook and with a Thomist outlook might practice their religions in very different ways and thus create very different worlds. Culture is also tougher to influence and change. But in the long run culture is crucial for a free, rational society.

The Pope vs. Islam: Who Stands for Reason?

by Edward Hudgins

In a long, scholarly dissertation on “Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections,” Pope Benedict quoted a Byzantine emperor as saying “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” While the Pope was not endorsing this view of Islam, Muslims across the world immediately took to the streets in violent, murderous rampages to prove the old emperor right.

As a matter of record, whatever else he was, Mohammad was a man on horseback with a sword who killed people to spread his faith. Of course, during much of its history Christians spread their faith through similar means as well. The example of the sword-wielding Mohammad clearly inspires those Muslims in the streets today demanding death to the Pope, those who demanded the death to the Danish cartoonists who depicted their prophet, those who are calling for the death of the West and the imposition on all of Islam and its totalitarian Sha'ria dictates, and those who are butchering by the thousands one another and anyone else with whom they disagree in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

So why are these Islamists not happy that the Pope, perhaps inadvertently, has captured the spirit of their culture so well?

Perhaps it's just the description of these actions and attitudes as "evil" that bothers them? Of course, one wonders whether, when evil individuals are acting in an evil manner -- when a concentration camp commandant is marching Jews to gas chambers or a jihadist is blowing up innocent children -- they think of themselves as "evil"? The key here is that they don't think. They use ideologies and religions that explicitly reject reason and thinking to block out from their minds the nature and full context of what they're doing. They thus fly into emotional rages when someone tries to shine the light of clear thought into their self-generated mental and moral fog.

After all, in the Netherlands Theo van Gogh produced a short film with actual footage of Muslim women being beaten on their naked backs on which passages from the Koran had been scrawled as the Muslim religious fanatics who were tormenting them read out loud those passages that seems to justify this treatment. Rather than thanking van Gogh for spreading their self-professed belief about how women should be treated, Islamists murdered him.

We always hear the objection that most Muslims don't endorse beating women, killing the Pope or putting to the sword all who don't accept Allah. True! But in the Middle East and among Muslims in Europe especially, these attitudes are what bring Islamists into the streets. Why aren't there far more counter-demonstrators calling for tolerance? After all, in America if ten neo-Nazis stage a rally, a hundred anti-Nazis will be there to counter them. If moderates in these countries fear violence against themselves because they call on all individuals to respect one another's liberty to think as they wish, that fact is a statement about Muslim culture that screams as loud as the fanatics in the streets.

The Pope's address does deserve attention, but not based on the rage it motivates among Islamists. In his talk Benedict makes another try at the millennia-old task of squaring reason with faith. He acknowledges the importance of reason in human life. He also maintains that experimental science cannot help us with many of our most important problems, for example, our search of meaning in our lives. He rejects the notion that the "subjective" conscience of each individual should be the sole arbiter of what is ethical. The reason for this rejection is that such an approach would rob ethics -- and religion -- of its power to create a community. The implication is that faith is fundamental part of the path to ethics and community.

But what the Pope fails to appreciate is that one can have an objective ethics based on our nature as rational creatures with free will. We discover our ethical standard through reason, not the application of reason that is most useful for experiments in science laboratories but through the application of logic to observable facts of reality. Further, the ultimate purpose of ethics is to help each individual to live a happy and flourishing life and to define the relationship between individuals within a community, a relationship based on mutual respect of the liberty of others.

It is just this concern with community first -- which can subject and subsume the individual -- and reliance on faith -- the notion that something in addition to our reason and observations is needed to determine the standard of values and right and wrong -- that the Islamists take to their logical conclusion.

The Pope wants to reason with them but they have rejected reason. The Pope wants to argue that neither Islam nor Christianity should endorse violence but Islamists don't argue, they take up the sword. There is indeed a tradition in Islam that looks to rational thought; indeed, it was civilized Muslim scholars who re-introduced the works of Aristotle into backwards, Dark Age Christian Europe nearly a millennium ago. But too few of the Muslim scholars in that tradition today influence the culture of their co-religionists.

The Pope is discussing the right issues. The nature and direction of our world today is the result of the conflict between reason and individualism on the one hand and faith and collectivism on the other. But what all must understand is that the problems in today's world are caused by the latter and can find their solution only in the former.

-----

Hudgins is the executive director of The Atlas Society and its Objectivist Center, which celebrate human achievement.

MSK and Kat -- Thanks for your kind replies! I did try to be positive, not bashing union members as lazy bums (my Dad was a truck driver and Teamster, but a very honest one!) but to point out that all human beings must see themselves as entrepreneurs and take charge of their own lives, especailly in a country and time like America right now. We have a dynamic economy and thus individuals must have dynamic minds. Europe is an example of what happens if people adopt the opposite attitude and think of themselves as subjects who need to be taken care of like little babies.

By the way MSK, I'm working on a piece entitled "Hate Thy Neighbor" for The New Individualist. But what I intend to do is show that much of the nastiness and contentiousness in our society (not just on SOLOPassion!) is caused because individuals don't respect the rights of others and desire the unearned. But as Rand was right to say, individuals' interests do not conflict when individuals do not desire the unearned.

Have a nice Labor Day!

Ed

Happy Labor Day: We're All Workers!

by Edward Hudgins

September 1, 2006 -- When Congress declared Labor Day a national holiday in 1894 it marked not only a celebration by workers but a division of Americans into groups often seen as opposed to one another.

The day grew out of a desire to get governments to force employers to offer certain terms of employment to workers. The first Labor Day parade took place in 1882 in New York and was organized by Peter McGuire who helped found the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions. The "labor" involved were salaried and industrial workers and tradesmen. Not included were employers, owners, investors, managers, professionals and farmers; the latter for the most part owned their own means of production: their farms.

At that time in the economy it seemed to some that Karl Marx might be right, that there were distinct economic classes whose interests were opposed to each others and that politics rather than free markets would be the only equitable way for workers to get their "fair share" and not be exploited by others.

By the mid-1950s about 30 percent of the American workforce was unionized. Today it's more like 12 percent and the largest number are not employed in goods-producing private industries, for example, autos or steel, but are government employees. Yet real wages and purchasing power continue to rise. America is the world's job creation engine. Employment has risen from 99.5 million in 1982 to nearly 134 million today. Unemployment is under 5 percent, compared to over 10 percent for the past decade in the European Community.

Marx, of course, was wrong and the implications of Labor Day were wrong as well. There is not a separate class of individuals called "worker" who are opposed to other economic classes. To begin with, without entrepreneurs, investors, managers and, in general, capitalists, workers would have no factories in which to work or those factories would be as inefficient as those in the Soviet Union and the workers as poor as those under communism. Entrepreneurs, investors, managers and capitalists are all workers.

Further, as the great Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out, economic roles are artificial. All so-called "workers" are also investors in the own human capital and managers of their own time. More important today, they are all entrepreneurs.

Both business and job turnover is higher in America than in any other industrialized countries. Few Americans simply get a job right out of high school and stay at it until retirement. Most of us change jobs many times. This is because in our dynamic economy the factors of productive -- including labor -- are being redistributed quickly by entrepreneurs from less productive to more productive uses. This is why the country is so productive and this is why workers can trade their labor for more goods and services than in other countries and have higher living standards. And this is why workers who know what's good for them will stop thinking of themselves only as "workers" and understand that they are also entrepreneurs who should take their lives and careers into their own hands.

So on this Labor Day we're all workers and entrepreneurs. So let's all relax from our labors for a few days and renew ourselves so we can get back to the job of building prosperous lives for ourselves which, incidentally, will help the prosperity of all!

---------

Hudgins is executive director of The Atlas Society and its Objectivist Center, which celebrate human achievement.

Robert -- Welcome from your friends at The Atlas Society and it's Objectivist Center, which just finished up a week-long conference in Orange, California. I'm glad the silly Noodle stuff didn't turn you off further to the philosophy and that you're on OL. By the way, one talk at our conference was on "Who is an Objectivist?" by Will Thomas and I think that even though you call yourself a recovering Obj, you probably are one by a rational, as opposed to oxthodox, definition. We'll probably publish or post that talk along with Barbara Branden's on Objectist rage, Robert Bidinotto's on cooperation and mine on muture Objectivism.

I'm also glad to find another 'Skins fan, though be careful down in Dallas.

Also see my reply to your Mahler post.

Welcome!

Robert -- Thanks for your email!

I have Solti doing all of the Mahler symphonies with Chicago, except for the 1st, which I have with him conducting London. All are fine. I like the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 9th best. The opening of Solti's 5th is especially powerful, with the opening trumpet and strings coming in. It's a great disc with which to test speakers. I'm not familiar with the Leinsdorf/Boston 5th but will need to check it out.

I also have an interesting Mahler 6th with Barbirolli and the New Philharmonia. The pacing is very slow, different from the Solti and most other interpretations of that piece. It works though I prefer the faster pace.

Also I have Bruno Walter doing the best "Das Lied von die Erde" that I've heard, with Ernst Hafliger as tenor. The opening is one of the greatest first 30 seconds of any piece in the classical repertoire. I should check out Walter doing the 1st; it sounds from your description -- and from my own experience with Walter -- that it would certainly be worthwhile. (I heard Slatkin do the 1st last summer with the National; he's brought a lot of live Mahler to D.C.!)

I've heard a Mahler or two with Karajan and recall them being okay but for me, Karajan is best at Wagner and Beethoven, especially his earlier set of symphony recordings. I've never heard Ormandy do Mahler but I really like his Tchaikovsky later symphonies. (Speaking of Tchaikovsky, if you don't know the 1st Symphony, the Winter Dream, check it out. It's beautiful and not as well known as 4,5 and 6. I have Mutti doing it.)

But you're right, for big symphonies like those of Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Brahms, Rachmaninoff and such, it's really best to hear them live. I find that my ear is far better at picking up sounds that way. On many recordings, when the music goes from a loud to soft passage, I need to turn up the volume, for example, when the bass strings coming in with the first statement of the Ode to Joy in Beethoven's 9th. But live, I can hear it just fine.

Bottom line: Head to the concert hall when possible!

Best,

Ed

[My piece from the Washington Times, 6/26/06. Enjoy! -- Ed]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...12607-8075r.htm

------

Fat cup of trouble

By Edward Hudgins

Published June 26, 2006

Starbucks, of all enterprises, is the latest victim of food fascists. It is ironic that the Center for Science in the Public Interest is attacking the politically correct, rainforest-friendly, self-styled socially responsible Seattle-based corporation for clogging the arteries of Americans.

Starbucks, of course, is famous for offering its customers many choices. It's impossible to order just "a cup of coffee." There are two or three coffees of the day chosen from some three-dozen blends from around the world. You can get them in regular, decaf or half-caf and three different sizes: tall, grande and venti. Maybe you want a latte, cappuccino, Frappuccino, Macchiato, Americano or straight espresso? Perhaps you want it extra hot or with ice? Or with one of a dozen favors, malts, mochas or toppings? Or go for their teas. It's a consumer's dream.

But Starbucks is very conscious of its customers' health concerns. That's why it offers whole, skim or soy milk. Watching carbs? Try your drink "breve" with half-and-half. Watching calories? Order your latte "skinny" so you won't fill out when you ask for "extra foam." Or forgo the whipped cream on the more milkshake-like beverages. Or order sugar-free vanilla or hazelnut syrup. And just skip the many cake offerings altogether.

Critics charge many Starbucks products are high in calories and high in fat, especially those tasty trans-fats that are really bad for us. So what? Starbucks offers everyone a choice. If you don't like the venti vanilla caramel Macchiato with extra whip, don't order it. In any case, Starbucks lists on its Web site and brochures in its stores the nutritional information about its products.

But that's not enough for the self-appointed health police. They're trying to shame Starbucks into putting all of that information on menu boards in their cafes which, aside from being redundant, would make those menus, crowded with numbers, look to most people as confusing as the big board at the stock exchange. In any case, come on people, we all know whipped cream and cakes are fattening. Starbucks' upscale clientele is certainly educated enough to figure that out.

Critics also want Starbucks to "voluntarily" cut down on the fat stuff in their fare. Normally, boring biddies can natter at us all they want and we're free to take their advice or tell them to take a hike. But that's not what the Center for Science in the Public Interest wants. They and their kind are bent on stopping us from being unhealthy -- by their definition -- no matter what.

For example, that Center recently filed suit against KFC to stop it from frying chicken in high-fat oil. (Perhaps anything short of Kentucky Steamed Tofu just won't do.) They sought to ban olestra -- a fat substitute -- from potato chips because it gives some individuals slight digestive problems. (Hint: If a food doesn't agree with you, don't eat it.) These guys aren't just interested in educating us. They're interested in controlling us, not just taking our coffee and cakes but our freedom. They are part of our social order's degeneration: pretentious paternalist prudes who believe they have a right to run our lives and we have a duty to obey.

In its pamphlets, Starbucks touts itself as socially responsible. It signs onto every nice-sounding environmental, energy, labor and global standard. It's the epitome of PC. While it's questionable whether we're really endangered by a lack of recycling or the loss of animal habitat, there's no question that the greatest danger to all Americans and the citizens of all other countries is the lack of individual freedom and the loss of liberty.

I grant that many Americans would do better to order carrot sticks rather than carrot cake and to plant themselves on an exercise bike rather than a stool at the eatery in the local mall.

I myself am a jogger. I usually order my Starbucks sans the high-calorie, high-carb additives, though as I write this piece I'm sipping a banana-coconut Frappuccino (damn, it's good) in solidarity with my broad-at-the-hips brothers and sisters and with a successful business under siege.

Personal autonomy and our freedom to run our own lives are really at stake here. Enterprises should be free to offer whatever goods and services they want and to advertise them as tastier or healthier, better priced or better quality, utilitarian or stylish, indulgent or eco-friendly -- whatever. But all enterprises and citizens must recognize that the ultimate value in a society is individual choice, based on mutual consent of the parties involved, free from government interference. To defend this freedom is the highest act of social responsibility.

---------

Edward Hudgins is executive director of the Atlas Society and its Objectivist Center, which celebrates human achievement.

MSK -- Thanks for your response. I'm quite impressed not only by your musical background but by the fact that you were in brass sections playing Mahler. This is where the term "kick ass" can truly be applied!

Certainly from his subjects Mahler's works can be on the depressing side. I found your comments on the affects of playing Mahler on the orchestra to be interesting. But as I mentioned, I find in them strength and incredible musical sounds.

By the way, other favorite Mahler first movements of mine are the Fifth, Sixth and Ninth. And he had one of the best First symphonies of any composer, which I heard live last summer.

By the way, in terms of the "best opening 30 seconds" of a musical work, among my top few favorites would be "Das Lied" and the Mahler's Fifth, which is great for impressing people with your stereo system. (Another would be Puccini's "Turandot.")

Ellen, glad you like Mahler too. I'm actually pleasantly surprised that a smaller orchestra did the 4th, a nice piece. I guess you'd need to go down to New York to get the larger, hardcore stuff!

Gustav Mahler’s Second and Eighth Symphonies

Are any of you Mahler fans? On Friday I saw the 2nd Symphony, the "Resurrection," with the Baltimore Symphony under Yuri Temirkanov in his farewell concert, and Saturday I saw the 8th, the "Symphony of a Thousand" with the National Symphony under Leonard Slatkin. Incredible!

The first movement of the 2nd -- one of my favorites -- is one of Mahler’s strong struggle with death themes, starting with low strings, slowly adding instruments and pace, building -- with contemplative, longing and occasionally peaceful passages -- to bold pronouncements by the brass – characteristic Mahler! Temirkanov started slower than in my favorite recording of this work by Solti but built it up well. And the brass truly rose to the occasion of a piece that’s a brass-lover’s dream.

The second and third movements are like the somewhat peaceful reflections of someone at the end of a life. The final movements are strong Mahler, with a soloist and then large chorus on the theme death and rebirth. Mahler’s use of instruments and orchestration give a unique, individualistic and unmistakable sound. There are passages in this symphony that I queue up on my CD to listen to, to savor!

Some Objectivists might argue that the 2nd (as well as other Mahler works) are simply too tragic, with too malevolent as sense of life, and with the only respites coming only from religion. But what you hear in the 2nd is power, passion and strength. You don’t have to have a malevolent sense of life to appreciate that and you will find no better place for such an experience than Mahler.

The 8th Symphony is called the "Symphony of a Thousand" for the size of the ensemble. Being in a concert hall where this is being played is an experience in itself that you will rarely have and should never pass up!

I counted at least 350 chorus members and soloists. They were not only arrayed behind the orchestra staked to the huge organ pipes near the ceiling, they were arrayed in the special box seats on the sides of the stage and in all of the third tier seats on both sides of the Kennedy Center concert hall. (No wonder tickets were hard to come by! Condi Rice, did manage to get a ticket; she was there in the box where, years ago, I saw Henry Kissinger at a concert conducted by Karajan. I guess secretaries of state have good taste in music!) Slatkin even put eight of the brass up there in the left rear third tier. There was a soloist up in the fourth tier as well. There were about 150 musicians manning the instruments.

Talk about a stereo effect! This is something that no sound system could ever reproduce. You really need to be there. By the way, no one could fall asleep during this symphony. If you could, it’s because you have serious ear or neural damage and should see your physician immediately. Of course some would say that the volume of this work will create such damage in any case!

This has to be a tough piece to conduct because of its size as well as the complexity of Mahler’s score. But Slatkin, the best conductor NSO has had, pulled it off well.

The symphony itself is Mahler’s only one that is completely joyous and triumphant. It is choral throughout with a few purely instrumental interludes. The first part is to the text of a Medieval Latin hymn "Veni creator spiritus" ("Come creator Spirit"). The second part is to the German text of the end of "Faust" with various choirs of angels and other powers declaring the hope for a shining eternity.

Objectivists should not get too hung up on the religious themes. If you don’t understand Latin or German, just listen to the beautiful voices and powerful, triumphant music.

Back-to-back evenings of Mahler, each symphony an hour and a half long: Too much Mahler? Never! I’d like to try all nine symphonies, one each for nine nights in a row. That would separate the true from the fair-weather fans!

Kat -- Just happened upon this on your site. Beautiful piece!

Hi Cindy! Welcome to the website.

You also might check out The Objectivist Center/Atlas Society Summer Seminar, which will be in Orange, CA the first week of July. Here's a link to the information on our website:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-61-14...7-SumSem06.aspx

We'd love to see you there!

Ed Hudgins

And for those who don't read Latin, it's:

"Who, therefore, is free? The Wise, who are in command of themselves." That's Horace.

My favorite Roman and personal hero is Marcus Tullius Cicero. I did a talk about him at last year's Summer Seminar, available on CD from our bookstore, of course!

Dragonfly, you're a true Renaissance man. Why the way, one of my favorite Latin quotes is:

Quis igitur liber est? Sapiens -- qui sibi imperat!

Sehr gut!

Ich hatte fur ein jahr in Munchen gewohnt, von 1980 bis 1981. Ich war ein lehrer fur die Universitat Maryland. Das war ein Americanische schule fur die Americanische studenten. Ich lehrtet auf Englisch aber ich lerntet ein bishen Deutsch. (Ich habe gern die Deutsche Kultur, zum beispiel, music und opera.)

Tschuss!

Nick -- Wo hatten Sie in Deutschland gewohnt?

Everyone's discussing this on other sites so let's bring it into the Objectivist Living Room! By the way, the phones at Lionsgate apparently are ringing off the hook because of this story. A very good sign! -- Ed Hudgins

-----------

April 27, 2006 -- The effort to film Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged has just taken a big step forward. Daily Variety reports a leaked story that Lionsgate, the independent studio whose movie "Crash" recently won the Oscar for best picture, will be distributing the film.

We've confirmed today that a deal is going forward under which Lionsgate will take an option to finance and distribute the film. The executive producers are John Aglialoro, a Trustee of The Atlas Society and The Objectivist Center, and Howard Baldwin, whose movie "Ray" won an Oscar for best actor (Jamie Foxx). Lionsgate will put around $35 million into the film.

The film will be based on a script of the first part of the novel, written by Jim V. Hart and reviewed by David Kelley, founder of The Atlas Society-The Objectivist Center. Hart also penned the script for the film "Contact," based on the novel by astronomer Carl Sagan. It is anticipated "Atlas" will be a multi-part film.

So far no actors have been cast; that will be done by the director, once one is chosen, in conjunction with the executive producers and Lionsgate.

Variety also reports that stars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are interested in parts in the film. This will come as no surprise to subscribers of The New Individualist. The current issue features the two on the cover, and in an article by the publication's editor, Robert Bidinotto, which looks at the interest in Rand's works among Hollywood's elite.

We will keep you apprised of further developments.

Hope you all are having a happy holiday! Here's my piece from the Christmas day Washington Times. (Sorry I didn't post earlier but I've trouble accessing this site from my home computer.):

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...83632-5710r.htm

---------

Gifts...

by Edward Hudgins

One year I gave my then-young nephew who was in the first years of elementary school a rock for Christmas. Not just any old rock but a piece of sandstone from a science store. In it were embedded fossils, shells and other little surprises. But you couldn't just take a hammer, smash it to pieces and extract your prizes. The rock came with little scraping and brushing tools and, like a paleontologist, you had to slowly and methodically scrape away the rock.

It was exciting for me over the next weeks to get my nephew's excited phone calls telling me he thought he could see a little white piece of bone sticking out and he would keep me informed on his progress. I was watching a curious mind and a fired imagination learning patience and perseverance.

One Christmas season tradition that makes this holiday stand out from all others is gift-giving. Crowded malls lead to brightly wrapped packages and then to bright eyes and smiles as the surprises are revealed to their recipients. Inevitably this tradition is criticized as too commercial, though it seems strange anyone should complain about living in a society of productive individuals, which allows us to purchase all the material comforts that make life pleasant. In any case, we need to produce before we can give. Some suggest it is more blessed to give than to receive. Is this true? Is this pure altruism or is there something in it for us the givers? This is a good time to ask about some of the reasons why it is of value to us to give gifts.

The valid reason for giving gifts to others is that others are of value to us. Sometimes we might give to others because of the continuing services they render to us. We're happy for good co-workers, for the folks who park our cars, cut our hair, deliver our mail or have principally commercial relationships with us.

Sure, they were only doing their job. But it's still not a bad idea to remind them we appreciate both the specific services they render and their virtues -- fortitude, focus, productivity -- that allow them to provide those services to begin with.

We give gifts to children not only because, obviously, we love them but also for the joy of exciting and delighting them with their holiday surprises. Of course, we also want them to understand that as adults they must work for most things of real value to them. But we want to instill in them the notion the universe is ultimately benevolent and there is a world of beautiful and wonderful things worth working for.

And we also get a special pleasure if we manage to pick out an educational gift -- my nephew's rock -- that actually delights and engages a young mind.

Sometimes, if we're really creative, we can pick just the perfect gift we know will have special meaning to the individual we value -- a book or music CD that they've been looking for but can't find or perhaps something of which they are entirely unaware. It gives us a particular joy when we manage to pull off such a present because it's actually a case of "to love them is to know them." It's our recognition of their interests, values and emotions -- the things we love about them -- that allows us to anticipate the joy that will come both from their gift and from their recognition that someone really sees and appreciates what is essential about them, that they are visible to another's understanding mind and soul.

Even when we can't find that perfect gift, we still take joy in giving a little something because of what parents, siblings, children, relatives or friends mean to us. So as you sit around handing them even just a token tie or box of chocolates, think of what they mean to you and why you're giving them the gift. Think of what they've meant to you in recent weeks, months, years or all your life. Or better still, tell them.

Both giving and getting are great. But the gift is not just in the box given or received but in the hearts and minds of givers and receivers as an affirmation of the persons they value.

Edward Hudgins is executive director of the Objectivist Center and its Atlas Society, which celebrates human achievement.

Marsha and John Enright do hold events in the Chicago area. Here's a website:

http://www.newintellectualforum.com/

I'm told the last meeting, which is not listed, had Michelle Fram-Cohen discussing aesthetics or something of the sort, and received mixed reviews. But just the chance to talk to John and Marsha is a pleasure in any case!

Kat -- Glad you noticed the changes even before we sent out the email announcement and that you like them! That's four new or redesigned Objectivist websites in the past 10 days. At this rate we'll soon dominate the world wide web!

Hi Kat and MSK! Congrats on your new website; three Objectivism sites in three days. Wow! Soon we'll dominate cyberspace.

Kat, good to see you on your visit to D.C. recently. Feel free both -- both of you -- to see us if you get to D.C.

Regards,

Ed Hudgins