Jonathan

I was thinking the same thing when he was quoting from Barbara's old post from SOLOHQ. I wondered why he didn't quote from some of his own posts and show the book store patrons what real, virtuous Objectivist rage is like in comparison. I was expecting that someone who had enough sand in his angina to fly all the way to California to deliver a speech to seven people at someone else's lackluster book signing event would make a point of demonstrating precisely the type of infantile rage for which he has constantly praised and congratulated himself despite its having cost him countless valuable friendships over the past year. ~That~ is the type of rage that is being challenged. Where was it? J (My favorite part of the Chubby Chinz appearance was the moment when the kid in the background asked, "Mommy, can I have a Charlie and the Chocola.... Mommy?")

Robert does great work: http://www.robertjonesphoto.com/ My favorites: http://www.robertjonesphoto.com/ss_concrete.html?23 http://www.robertjonesphoto.com/ss_concrete.html?16

Interesting work: http://www.damianloeb.com/ Click on "ART" and scroll down to the "New Paintings" section. The appropriation of the cinematic format and content is fascinating. J

An example of another approach to attacking a form of ugliness: Many years ago I saw a painting of an elegantly dressed, beautiful woman with a cleft lip. She had a gentle, bashful smile and was looking just slightly to the left of the viewer, which gave the impression that she was with someone not shown in the painting. The canvas was tightly cropped on the woman's upper body and face, and far in the distance behind her was a group of people who appeared to be whispering with each other while glancing toward the woman. The painting had a very Wyeth-like look to it, and the clothing of the characters was from a past century, which brought a feeling of superstition to their disapproval (you could almost hear the word "witch" being whispered). With the shy sweetness of the woman's gaze, I got the impression that she was seated with the man she loved. It was an interesting and very moving contrast to experience the irrelevance of her disfigurement and the certainty of her social isolation, and to recognize the interest that her companion had for her despite her "curse" (as implied by his willingness to be with her and endure or disregard the cruelty of society). I, and others who had viewed the painting with me, felt a strong sense of wanting to stand up for the couple. It felt good to be in their company instead of among the others. After I left the gallery, Rand's cold sore example came to mind, and I wondered what she would have thought of the painting. Would she have grasped the context and the meaning of the work as a whole? I like to think that she would have, but, based on things she had said about other paintings, I have my doubts as well. J P.S. A few years ago I tried to find the painting, or a copy of it. I haven't yet found it, but I was pretty sure that the title was "Dragonflies," and using that and a few other relevant keywords in a web search, I came across several references to Mary Webb's book _Precious Bane_. The story has a chapter in which the main character (who has a cleft lip), while watching young dragonflies coming out of their shrouds, is given some pretty strong hints that the man she loves may feel the same for her. I think there's a good chance that the painting may have been inspired by the book.

Rich wrote, Not only trim, but you also look tall. Ever play any ball? (In addition to having been The Student Conductor, Band President, and Recipient of the John Philip Sousa Award in high school, I was also the Captain and Starting Center on the basketball team. So take it from me that Darryl "Chocolate Thunder" Dawkins was the greatest basketball player ever. I love Dawkins. Darryl Dawkins, Darryl Dawkins, Darryl Dawkins! Most other people think that Jordan was the greatest, but they don't know what they're talking about. Jordan was a gimmicky pomo. Dawkins, on the other hand, was a god who played with total passion for the total height, and his dunking was KASS!!! If there's any hope for the future, it's in swamp-dwellers learning to recognize the unmatched greatness of Darryl Dawkins, so tonight, like every night, I'm going down to the local sports bar with my copy of highlights of Dawkins' greatest moments. I'm going to use my Chaucerian style to gripe about all of the uninformed sports "fans" who hang out there watching current games played by the vile, disgusting players of today, and I'm going to heroically demand that the bartender, if he had any sense at all and wasn't such a fucking scumbag, should shut off that crap and play my tape of the great and mighty Darryl Dawkins to show the pusball patrons what excellence is all about. Why is everyone in the world a low-life asshole except me and Darryl Dawkins?) J

I'm thinking about buying a last-minute ticket to CA, setting up a podium and boom box, and doing some world-class conducting on a sidewalk next door to Perigo's appearance at someone else's book signing event down the street from the AS/TOC seminar. If you'd like, Rich, MSK or anyone else, I'll allow you to make your own brief presentations. We could turn it into a special world premiere air symposium (there are endless possibilities for presentations -- air writing, air directing, air sculpting, air photography, etc.). Let me know as soon as possible if you're up for it and I'll pencil you in for your share of the fringe of the spotlight. J

Rich wrote, From http://www.solopassion.com/node/1059 I've seen him mention it before, and I've heard others (in evil, backroom, "whispering campaign" chatter) giggle about a couple of incidents that are rumored to have happened. Personally, I don't have a problem with someone conducting along with a piece of music. It's just the vision of pompous Perigo doing it as a performance for others that cracks me up. And his trotting out of his high school band conducting glory days in the quote above is pretty precious as well. Rich wrote, Thanks, but I'm not all that big on fruit. Maybe a seafood basket instead? J (1981-82 High School Band Student Conductor; 1982 Band President; 1982 recipient of the John Philip Sousa Band Award.)

Rich asked, I've heard that his primary musical talent is pompous, maudlin air-conducting. Seriously. Apparently it's his method of demonstrating his grand musical passion and instructing the unwashed on how to raise their souls to a level closer to his. But other than that, yes, he claims to sing and play. I'd like to hear what he can do. Wouldn't it be refreshing, perhaps even inspiring, if he were to set aside his air-baton and put as much time and effort into creating original music as he puts into whining about others' tastes and trying to create the impression of his expertise and unrivaled musical ear? Well, even the worshipping of Lanza usually seems to be more about crafting the illusion of Perigo's greatness. It often turns into a means of attacking others, and always has a sort of "my dad can beat up your dad" tone to it... or perhaps something more like, "I may not have what it takes to create, but my hero is better than those of you who do have what it takes to create, and he's better than your heroes. I'm special. I can hear greatness that you can't." J

Rich wrote, Exactly. There's nothing there. There's no productivity -- no original creativity -- emanating from the curmudgeon's alleged musical talents and passions. J

WSS quoted Perigo: I agree with Perigo's general sentiment here. What makes a person become a destroyer instead of a creator? What makes someone convince himself that he's heroic and that he's going to change the world for the better by dedicating his life to becoming an angry, mediocre critic instead of a driven producer? Resentment. Just one of many examples: My enthusiastic neighbor kid and his garage-band mates passionately create good original music almost every day of their lives. They're very ambitious and talented, and they love what they do. In contrast, there are dried up old windbags who, although they like to give the impression that they are quite musically knowledgeable, refined and talented, produce nothing original and do little more than complain, day after day, year after year, that people like my neighbor kid are ruining the world with their music. Clearly the goal of these windbags is to destroy, “spark by irreplaceable spark,” the hero in the souls of those they engage. They want to drag down those who have significantly more talent, drive and originality than they do. They crave a world filled with people like themselves: non-producers who lost their creative "spark" long ago and have nothing left but smoldering rage. J

"But who are the 3 people at the left?" I don't know, but I heard that after the picture was taken someone spiked the punch and they had a blaze of a party. They Bopped all night.

Dragonfly wrote, "BTW, here is the original picture:" Dragonfly is a damned liar. Here's the actual original picture:

I had a good laugh the other night while watching the film _Six Degrees of Separation_. If you haven't seen it, rent it and watch for the petulant "when the children turn" scene ("You gave him my pink shirt?...I can't believe you! I hate you!" etc.). It captures the essence of SOLOP. J

Rich wrote, "All this from a guy that seems to derive an odd pleasure from employing the word 'vomit' in his masterworks. Perhaps too long over at vomitonline.com? I think our ever stalwart Phil got the V-word, and also was advised his writing shines best when he's tossed back a few. Ah, the noble vision of man- as he should be." I listen to a wide variety of music on Sirius, and I can't help but think of Objectivists while comparing the content on stations such as "Hard Attack" and "Buzzsaw" with that on "Classical Voices" and "Symphony Hall." I find myself asking, "Who in the Objectivist movement does this music remind me of? Does Slipknot, Tool and Cannibal Corpse sound like Chris Sciabarra's vision of what life 'ought to be,' or does it sound more like the style and content of the typical juvenile rant from Perigo or Hsieh? Is the spirit of Rachmaninoff or Lanza found on OL, or is it reflected in the infantile temper tantrums and vulgarity of SOLOP?" (It's amusing that petulant rage is a SOLOP virtue -- perhaps the SOLOP Supreme Virtue -- yet Perigo and his fellow SOLOPsists preach the view that people should reach for "something better than rage, pain, anger and hurt" in music. Shouldn't angry music which is expressed in loud, vulgar styles be the SOLOP ideal?) J

MSK wrote, "I don't think anybody on OL wants to drive a wedge between those two." I agree with Michael. As I said earlier, I like the idea that Hsieh has Perigo on a short leash. I seriously think that it could end up being a very good thing. Right now, it's pretty clear that his staying on Hsieh's good side is more important to him than expressing his "rational passion" about her views on homosexuality. The longer that he remains her obedient little puppy with suboptimal "KASS," the more likely it is that his potty training will be a permanent success (once it becomes second nature for him to be careful about what he shits on in his master Hsieh's presence, it might then become a habit which eventually extends to others as well). J

"What could be less 'KASS' than this display of utter limp-dickness?" Good point, Dirk, but let's not be too loud about it. I kind of like the idea that Hsieh has tamed Perigo. Maybe a few months as a deferential eunuch in the House of Hsiehame will be the first step toward his becoming a grown-up. J

Cool. I haven't thought about casting Atlas in a long time. Assuming Pitt and Jolie are Galt and Dagny, here's how I'd see the rest of the cast: Joaquin Phoenix as Hank. Benjamin Bratt or Marco Leonardi as Francisco (I think Banderas is geting to be too old for the part). Paul Bettany as Ragnar. Chris Cooper as Ellis Wyatt. Jeremy Davies as Eddie Willers. Morgan Freeman as Midas Mulligan. Armin Mueller-Stahl as Hugh Akston. Selma Blair as Lillian. Philip Seymour Hoffman as Taggart. Paul Giamatti as Mouch. John C. Reilly as Boyle. Giovanni Ribisi as Philip Rearden. Adrien Brody or David Strathairn as Stadler. J

Barbara, Do you know if you were looking at an original or a print? Was it anything like these? (El Greco, Van Dyck, Champaigne) J

MSK wrote, "Now Hsieh is a relative newcomer to Perigo’s gang. Her prior endorsement of PARC and hatred of the Brandens is the crucial point cementing their relationship. Everything was going along really hunky-dory in long Branden bashing and TOC bashing threads by the “anointed few,” high-fiving each other’s hatred, until one fine day a couple of weeks ago (maybe a little longer) Firehammer popped up out of nowhere on Hsieh’s site and applauded her for something or the other – I believe it was uhm… Branden bashing or TOC bashing. Cass chimed in shortly thereafter. "I could almost hear the mental cogs screeching as the monkey-wrench hit the gears. How on earth do you get rid of this guy? He’s going to screw up everything. Perigo hates him." So what you're saying is that it's not too early to start a pool on when Linz and Diana will burn through their current love-fest (which is based on little more than their mutual hatred of the evil Brandens) and officially denounce and disassociate from each other? OK, I'll start the pot with a one-year subscription to JARS. Anyone who wants to play should throw in something of similar value. The player closest to guessing the date of Linz or Diana's first shrill, public announcement of disassociation from the other (including website/blog banishment) wins all. In the event of a tie, the player whose middle initial comes first in the alphabet wins. I'm going with November 23, 2006. J

I was searching for current exhibitions of Alyssa Monks' work and came across the Sarah Bain Gallery. I thought some here might enjoy it: http://www.sarahbaingallery.com/the_artists.htm My favorites: http://www.sarahbaingallery.com/monks/wait.htm http://www.sarahbaingallery.com/turner/aqu...uct_at_dusk.htm http://www.sarahbaingallery.com/donley/fig..._black_mask.htm http://www.sarahbaingallery.com/zarbano/woman.htm http://www.sarahbaingallery.com/zarbano/mi...mio_bambino.htm

"Where is Today's Mrs. Miniver? by Michelle Marder Kamhi Attention Hollywood: Are you morally capable of producing the kind of patriotic films about the war against the terrorist that your illustrious predecessors made during World War II?" Is Michelle Marder Kamhi suggesting that artists should create art to serve a primarily utilitarian function -- that of rallying the public to support a specific current political strategy? J

John wrote, "She had developed a particular dislike for the other woman he in fact preferred. In her notes to herself, she seems to say that she could accept being passed over for some other woman, but could never accept being passed over by this particular woman." Yeah, I had read in other forums that Rand saw Patrecia as the lowly "shop girl" type. In fairness I also understand that NB played a part in contributing to that evaluation since he apparently focused on Patrecia's alleged flaws when discussing her with Rand. But then again, if I had been in his situation and Rand had told me that she might find it acceptable for me to try to cure my "sexual problems" by jump-starting myself with an unimportant younger woman who was inferior to Rand, I might have done my best to point out ways in which lovely Patrecia was inferior. J

Charles wrote, "It is not the business of every busy body who thinks he or she is qualified to dictate the nature of a relationship as complex and individual as a marriage. Your role is just that of a citizen and comes into play only when the married couple come into a state of legal disagreement." I'm not advocating the idea that anyone should dictate anything, and I wasn't addressing legal issues, but social ones. I was suggesting that when two people voluntarily request that society recognize their marriage, they have ~invited~ society into that aspect of their lives, and have given up the right to claim that it's "nobody's business." They have requested a specific type of public recognition which carries with it a certain kind of social respect and expectation (the kind of respect that was apparently so important to Rand that she had to conceal her affair from even her closest friends in order to keep it). Now, admittedly, I'm assuming that on her wedding day Rand accepted the common meaning of marriage as monogamous. If there's evidence that when taking her vows, she specifically avoided forsaking everyone other than Frank and made it a point to publicly redefine marriage so that hers was an open one, I'd be more than happy to reconsider my position. Charles wrote, "A failure to understand this is one of the reasons for the fury about same-sex marriages. People entangle their own religious views with the legal contract of marriage." Well, I don't think I'm entangling anything into the concept of marriage by suggesting that honest Objectivist couples should alter the terms of their marriage as publicly as they've established them. If you wanted to define marriage as, say, an exclusive union between nine people of varying genders and orientations, that would be fine with me. If you and eight of your romantic partners were to ask me to recognize all of you as married to each other, I'd happily do so. But if four of you then started having a secret affair with Nathaniel Branden, I don't think I'd be a "busy body" if I disapproved of your violating your own promises that ~you asked me~ to witness and sanction, nor would I be a "busy body" if I disapproved of the fact that you had actively concealed your affair in order to falsely retain my respect. J

I don't think I could choose a single favorite, but in addition to several films mentioned already (Rocky, Godfather, Shawshank, etc.) I'd add a few favorites that I've enjoyed watching over and over again: Awakenings A Beautiful Mind To Kill a Mockingbird Dances With Wolves The World According to Garp Reservoir Dogs Pulp Fiction The Sound of Music My Fair Lady Mulholland Drive Forrest Gump J

In response to my statement on the public nature of marriage, Ellen wrote, "I don't think I actually agree that she made it everyone's business specifically for that reason." What did marriage mean to Rand (initially, not after she had an affair) if not an official, public declaration of an exclusive romantic relationship? Why did she seek to include the public (or society, the state, or however you want to put it) as a participant in the establishment of the status of the relationship in the first place? It seems odd to me that an intense moralist would value and voluntarily attain a form of publicly granted status but then disregard the public's involvement as irrelevant when the meaning of that status is no longer convenient. Ellen wrote, "But I very strongly believe that she made it the whole world's business when she published 'To Whom It May Concern.' And I thought that, ironically, she was almost announcing to the world exactly what she wanted to hide. (A certain percentage of the world didn't see the same fine print, however.)" I've now read "To Whom It May Concern." You're right, Ellen, in what you wrote earlier -- that Rand seemed to think that she could make momentous charges without presenting evidence. This part stuck out to me: "In conclusion, I want to indicate, at least in a general way, an answer to the question that is now torturing his former students here in New York: How could Nathaniel Branden do this?" The only questions that repeatedly came to my mind while reading "To Whom It May Concern" were not, "How could Nathaniel Branden do this?" but, "~What~ did he do? What were his crimes and why is Rand avoiding naming them? What were his 'conscious breaches of morality,' his 'departures from the principles of Objectivism' and his 'ugly actions and irrational behavior' which mustn't be revealed, but for which he must be thrashed?" It's seems pretty obvious that his crime was that he preferred another woman to Rand. J