Mark

I read what RC wrote not what he says he meant. Why write “Mark claims X” instead of simply “X” if you’re not questioning X? Given RC’s previous negative remarks this read like one more. Besides that, I never claimed or said I was an “expert on the Ayn Rand Institute.” Inquisitorial, bullying, mostly none of your business, and even such details as might have been legitimate for you to ask couched in such a way as not to deserve reply. Plus, padded out to look like a lot more questions than the substance needed for asking. Yep.

OK, my fault. RC is gifted with mystic insight. He knows what’s in Ellen’s private emails. Hey, I get it: I’m not an expert on the Ayn Rand Institute. Setting that aside, yes, I wanted to talk about “Birds of a Feather” -- specifically I was thinking someone else might have further examples of ARI associating with neocons. The main purpose of posting was to advertise the link.

Certainly Robert Campbell does! He’s using this “Birds of a Feather” thread to post arbitrary accusations, made in a persistently nasty manner, about Ellen’s activity on another website over a year ago (which activity has nothing to do with the subject of this thread).

Robert Campbell wrote: > Ms. Stuttle will *of course* claim that any comparison between Ayn Rand’s behavior and policies before 1968 and after 1968 must be incorrect. ??? Here’s the comparison that RC had made: advertising lectures by LP and others, versus approving an organization like NBI. RC seemed to think they’re equivalent, when they aren’t. I don’t have it in front of me but I believe in Ayn Rand’s “To Whom It May Concern” article (1968) she says that she very reluctantly got roped into associating with the movement aspect of NBI. After this experience her opposition was firm. The following is from that article as quoted on Per-Olof Samuelsson’s website: “I never wanted and do not now want to be a leader of a ‘movement’. I do approve of a philosophical or intellectual movement, in the sense of a growing trend among a number of independent individuals sharing the same ideas. But an organized movement is a different matter.” The article from which Ellen quoted -- “A Statement of Policy” -- came soon after that one. Ted Keer wrote: > My “desecration” in no way lowers the value of the poem ... So long as you don’t recollect TK’s trashy take-off while reading it (Shelley’s “Ozymandias”). > or this thread. The only value of anything TK has posted on this thread comes from the reaction of other posters.

You need the hide a rhinoceros to participate in any of these Objectivist forums. I only skimmed Robert Campbell's posts, usually skip them but since I started this thread ... > ... Ms. Stuttle is one of the least credible sources imaginable That's ridiculous. She’s one of the best people here. > Ayn Rand spent the rest of her days [after "NBI blew up"] acting ambivalent about the idea [of "an organized Objectivist movement"]. Ayn Rand was against it, no ambivalence at all in her position. In Robert Campbell next post: > Ms. Stuttle senses her spotlight being blocked. And it goes down from there. Members like Robert Campbell spoil any discussion. In yet another post he says, after covertly comparing Ellen Stuttle to Richard Nixon and William Clinton: > Since Ms. Stuttle refuses to post any of her private emails to Mr. Valliant, how could anyone else know what she has been leading him to believe she thinks of his book? Because she told us. If RC doesn’t believe her about this, why believe her about anything else? Anyway, if Robert Campbell doesn't post all of his private emails he should stop posting period, LOL. Again I only skimmed WSS's post. He describes others' reactions to ES and ascribes them to her. It isn't her responsibility what Valliant and Perigo think. I'm half-way glad he posted though because Ellen's response was a nice in-a-nutshell account of her position.

Oh the paragraph’s true enough. Daniel Pipes is dishonest. He could have been a dishwasher and made an honest living instead of telling us how Saddam would kill us all. His Middle East Forum really is a propaganda mill. And it is a bit odd that he would single out an Israeli newspaper to boast about. Insults? Mr. Pipes deserves every one. Innuendo? It’s always better to have the reader draw your conclusion. Catty entails envious, an emotion I’ll never feel regarding Mr. Pipes. Smarm and smear entail falsehood, the paragraph points out truths in – what was intended as – an entertaining way. I think any bile, or Lady of Shanghai analogy, applies to Ted Keer himself. (He is welcome to stand behind his previous conclusions.) Since ARI holds up Daniel Pipes for our admiration he becomes a person of interest to ‘ARI Watch’. Pointing out his negative qualities is part of the job. He is not above criticism.

Ted Keer has as much taste as distilled water. If only he were as clean. Right, I’m making buckets of money out of ‘ARI watch’. I’m being sarcastic. (And what of it if I got rich doing something that needs being done.) Per usual with this jerk he attacks motivation, which he cannot know: > ‘ARI watch’... pretends it is concerned with Objectivism in order to get an audience. And utters unjustified epithets: > ‘ARI watch’ is ... pacifist/anarchist ... From the perspective of 2010 a government of the proper size and scope would look a lot like anarchy. And from the perspective of empire minding ones own country would look a lot like pacifism. The real pacifists are those who don’t fight the corruption in our government. To see how bad it is the books of Rodney Stich are a good start.

Regarding the people at ARI, Rich Engle says that the media despises them. They do pretty well on Fox News. Also Forbes magazine, in denatured form. "They can't/won't compromise anywhere on anything ... ." I don't think that’s the issue at all. What's wrong with them are the positions they hold, not that they are uncompromising in holding them. Interested people go "to them (the supposed 'source')" and run off "to places like HERE (which means they are sane...)" Is there a HERE, here? If OL is sane I must be crazy. Well, at least it tolerates some good posters, which is something. Some of these leave OL in disgust now and then, then come back because, indeed, there are precious few places to post at. I think reports of ARI's imminent demise are premature. ARI possesses (via Leonard Peikoff) Ayn Rand's copyrights along with the money that comes from them, useful idiots like John Allison, the Ayn Rand trademark, and skill at fund-raising. They'll be publishing for some time, and ARI Watch will be there to write a review. Anyway, this is off the thread’s topic, which is that the ARI crowd has a lot in common with Irving Kristol.

In a long article about neoconservatives Ted Keer is surprised — and annoyed — to find that the word “neoconservative” occurs often. <br><br> He exaggerates the often, by the way. In the current version “neocon” occurs 16 times, or 17 if you include a quote from a, pardon me, neocon. “Neoconservative” occurs somewhat over 50 times. Again, the repetition was unavoidable in a 14,000 word article about them. <br><br> Ted Keer claims that the article fails to define the word. Yet neoconservative is a common political label and about as necessary to define as conservative. The article does point out (Mr. Keer reads no better than he can count) that: “The hodgepodge that constitutes the notion ‘neoconservative’ makes defining it difficult, but common to all who call themselves neoconservative are, in brief: big state at home, empire abroad, Israel forever.” <br><br> And there is the list at the end that Ninth Doctor points out. That it’s a package of disparate elements is their doing not the messenger’s. <br><br> Ted Keer claims that no reason is given that neoconservatism is evil, as if deceit, treason, statism, etc. were good. <br><br> Finally, Ted Keer knows what to make of “Birds of a Feather”: it’s mindless crap, with references no less. <br><br> I thought it wasn’t half bad myself, modest author that I am. Here’s one of the better lines regarding foreign policy: “[ARI and neocons alike] use the language of selfishness – without the substance – like an incantation that transforms their desire into yours.” <br><br> And another in the same vein: “Perhaps one day a philosopher will write the book <i>The Subversion of Selfishness: How Ayn Rand’s Ethics Got Twisted Into Its Exact Opposite</i>. It would expose the ARI / neocon masquerade in philosophical detail: how they couch altruism in the words of self-interest, either in self-deception or Straussian lies for the masses.”

New on <a href="http://www.ARIwatch.com/">ARI <font size=1> </font>Watch</a><font size=1> </font><b>:</b> <br><br> <a href="http://www.ARIwatch.com/BirdsOfAFeather.htm"><b>Birds of a Feather</b></a> <br><br> Despite that ARI writers denounce neoconservatism <br> they promote some neoconservatives again and again.

I just found out that this jerk’s an OL moderator! My last post to OL.

I read the first paragraph of Bissell’s post. the first line of the next, then stopped. Besides his thuggish manner of expression, Bissell seems incapable of making even course distinctions. As Greenwald makes clear, Greenwald approves of the arrest of some of the “protesters.” But there’s more to the situation than that. Attacking bona fide journalists, arresting bona fide journalists, arresting people in their own homes who’d done nothing wrong, the use of spies against people who’d done nothing wrong, and more that you can read about in the links.

With an elapsed time of four minutes since it was posted, and a statistically estimated time of two minutes since you found it, I wonder if you gave it much thought.

Street protests are usually a waste of time for those protesting as well as a nuisance to the passing public. But, from the public’s point of view, between this nuisance and the police described below I’d choose the nuisance any day. Three of Greenwald’s blog entries about the police outside the Republican National Convention: Sept. 1, 2008 Scenes from St. Paul -- Democracy Now's Amy Goodman arrested Beginning last night, St. Paul was the most militarized I have ever seen an American city be, even more so than Manhattan in the week of 9/11 – with troops of federal, state and local law enforcement agents marching around with riot gear, machine guns, and tear gas canisters, shouting military chants and marching in military formations. Humvees and law enforcement officers with rifles were posted on various buildings and balconies. Numerous protesters and observers were tear gassed and injured. ... Here are several photographs taken from around St. Paul from this morning – before the march or any of the protests started – showing how militarized the city was. For whatever reasons, the brigades of police officers would periodically chant military terms and march around in formation (“Double Time!”), while helicopters hovered overhead and Humvees drove by frequently ... Aug. 31, 2008 Federal government involved in raids on protesters ... the raids were specifically “aided by informants planted in protest groups.” Back in May, Marcy Wheeler presciently noted that the Minneapolis Joint Terrorist Task Force – an inter-agency group of federal, state and local law enforcement led by the FBI – was actively recruiting Minneapolis residents to serve as plants, to infiltrate “vegan groups” and other left-wing activist groups and report back to the Task Force about what they were doing. There seems to be little doubt that it was this domestic spying by the Federal Government that led to the ... home assaults by the police yesterday. So here we have a massive assault led by Federal Government law enforcement agencies on left-wing dissidents and protesters who have committed no acts of violence or illegality whatsoever, preceded by months-long espionage efforts to track what they do. Aug. 30, 2008 Massive police raids on suspected protesters in Minneapolis Last night, members of the St. Paul police department and the Ramsey County sheriff’s department handcuffed, photographed and detained dozens of people meeting at a public venue to plan a demonstration, charging them with no crime other than “fire code violations,” and early this morning, the Sheriff’s department sent teams of officers into at least four Minneapolis area homes where suspected protesters were staying.

You oppose Ron Paul because the Pakistan government harbors bin Laden, or because Pakistan soil holds bin Laden’s grave ? What’s the connection either way? And if bin Laden’s so bad, what of the G-men who helped create him during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan ? Let’s not let them off the hook. (Perhaps they’re worse than bin Laden.) I gather Ron’s Paul position, at least as a quick approximation, is that if the G-men hadn’t mucked around in the Middle East since WWII – propping up Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Iraq once upon a time, Iran another upon a time, killing countless people directly and indirectly through these governments, etc. etc. – there’d have been no bin Laden. This is called “blaming America” in some circles, as if rational self-criticism weren’t benevolently selfish. Actually, the first “self” here is not us, it’s our government’s insane foreign policy. Ron Paul can be criticized for a number of reasons, but not wanting to nuke Iran (or whatever) is not one of them. (That’s addressed more to ARI supporters than Chris.)

Pakistanis furious over U.S.-led border raid (Reuters) Way in the background, Sibel Edmonds: Website ... More

Chris, Paul gave two reasons for supporting Young: He’s anti-environmentalism and he supports Paul’s Liberty Amendment. But that doesn’t seem enough to overcome Young’s deficiencies – you mention some of his pork-barrel spending. If Paul’s support of Young is inconsistent, Young’s support of the Liberty Amendment is itself inconsistent since it would repeal the 16 amendment and consequently end the pork-barrel spending he’s accused of. Confusing politicians! I think Paul made a mistake here, but maybe it’s not a slam dunk. McCain’s VP choice, Sarah Palin, is important because of his age and health. I don’t know much about her. She may have been corrupted by power, because as governor of Alaska she’s accused of causing the summary termination of a police administrator who refused to fire an ex-in-law, if I’ve got that right. Except for that (rather big exception) she looks good at first glance. Bad as McCain himself is (see here) Obama is worse, an out and out Marxist.

Chris, Simply saying RP won’t get the nomination, it’s impossible – wouldn’t that have been enough? Why the anger, the sarcasm? What you wrote sounds like you enjoy the impossibility. I doubt you really meant that. RP’s nomination, though extremely improbable, is not impossible in the exact sense of the word. It’s true that a description of possible scenarios would only underline the extremeness of the improbability. (Probably Kolker will treat this as an excuse for yet more vulgarity.) Some people are turned off by the hyperbole used in this last ditch effort, but hyperbole is nothing new to promoters and advertisers. It’s not as if RP’s supporters are trying to con you out of your life savings or commit some other crime. To repeat an earlier point, their effort is worth it even if it’s doomed.

If nothing else, the last ditch effort of galtgulch and other Ron Paul supporters – or rather supporters of the best of what Ron Paul stands for, their effort is more than about a man – demonstrates to one and all how strongly they feel about the direction our country is heading. The probability of their getting Ron Paul on the ballot is irrelevant to that point. Our situation is desperate, and of course Ron Paul does have a better chance than a cartoon drawing, however low it is. Don’t jeer at the effort. Not that Ted should care, but personally I like Ted’s attitude generally and think he made a misplaced joke without any vicious intent. Can’t say the same for Kolker (aka Baalwhatever). Considering his other posts, this ever vile individual dearly wants Ron Paul supporters to give up. He prophesizes to help ensure the prophecy. He can say “I told you so” if and when Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination. He can die laughing about it, while in other ways better men keep on trying.

Ellen, May I comment on your last post even though I’ve read only a small fraction of this thread? ... Yes. [My imagination saves you the trouble of replying. {smile}] You say there’s evidence that AR “might well have been feeling enough dissatisfaction over her communication with Frank to entertain the idea of divorcing him ..., ” the evidence being a letter by AR indicating “she might have felt” that he “was intolerably slow to see the significance of Atlas.” If I’ve understood the gist of your position correctly then I’d like to argue otherwise. You hedge rather a lot with that “might have ” — which means you’d entertain “might have not” — but the tone of your remark, what you seem to want to convince the reader of, is that AR’s letter strongly suggests that she felt her husband was intolerably slow to see the significance of AS, and the stand-out word is “intolerably.” Yet reading the letter excerpt you provided, the whole tone of it is one of general admiration for her husband. There’s no “intolerably” there, nothing like it — I don’t sense any negative emotion at all. This includes the remark about his being a severe critic — “pulling a tooth” etc. — which only serves to highlight his compliment. Would you reconsider this point (which doesn’t cover all your post)? Mark

Reviews of Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together say that he claimed that, even though many of their victims were Jews, many in the early Soviet leadership were Jews. Apparently it’s true (Trotsky, Yagoda, Kaganovich, etc.). What’s the point in caricaturing that into: Solzhenitsyn “blamed the existence of the Soviet Union on Jews.” You can almost hear Kolker breathing “all” right before “Jews.” There’s a big difference between: I see a lot of what I eat. and I eat everything I see.

Greybird wrote: “On every appearance by Peikoff on Fox, et al., including his last, where he literally babbled on that topic [killing innocents] in front of O’Reilly ... .” Has anyone posted an audio or video file of that interview?

What’s Wrong With the Theory of Elementary Waves

(withdrawn)

Links to heroes? For a hero, in the sense that one of the men who risked his life signing the Declaration of Independence was a hero, consider Rodney Stich — a former multi-millionaire and federal agent with the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). For fighting government corruption he got sent to federal prison, twice, and eventually was bankrupted. This interview is a good place to start learning about his career.