Dennis Hardin

Peyton Manning Rumors: Broncos and Cardinals Reportedly Front-Runners for Top QB It’s starting to look more and more like Peyton Manning, the NFL’s only four time MVP, may become an Arizona Cardinal. For me, that would be fantastic. Phoenix is a puddle jumper flight from L.A. I might even consider buying season tickets. Manning wants to make a decision before free agency trading begins on Tuesday, and it looks like he has narrowed his options to three teams: Arizona, Denver, and Miami. Manning can sign with a new team now because he was given his release by the Indianapolis Dolts—er, Colts. (Here’s hoping they return to pre-Manning era football obscurity for many years to come,) He is meeting with the Cardinals today following discussions with Denver on Friday and Saturday. Cardinals’ wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald was among those who were there to meet him, along with Coach Ken Whisenhut. When Manning chose to go to the University of Tennessee, the main factor in his decision was the excellence of their receivers. There is no better receiver in the NFL than Larry Fitzgerald. They would make an amazing passing tandem. Another factor Manning is undoubtedly weighing would be the willingness of the coaches to give Manning the keys to the offense. This seems a much more likely prospect in Phoenix than in Denver, where part-owner and ex Bronco QB John Elway might be reluctant to give Manning that degree of control. Another factor is that, unlike the Broncos and Dolphins, Arizona plays in a dome stadium, which Manning clearly prefers. I also suspect that Manning may be very reluctant to join a team that already has a popular quarterback—and Tim Tebow, despite his obvious limitations as a passer, still enjoys tremendous popularity in Denver. If Manning went to Denver, the Broncos would likely trade Tebow, and Manning would have to deal with the fan blowback such a move would generate. The downside for Miami is that they play in a tough division. Miami has terrific weather, but the other three teams play in cold weather. And Manning would have to face his nemesis—Tom Brady and the Patriots—twice a year. Who needs that grief? The one stumbling block for Manning might be Cardinal owner Bill Bidwill, a notorious tightwad. I suspect both Denver and Miami may offer him considerably more money. At this point in his career, though, Manning is probably much more interested in Super Bowl rings than money. He already has more money than any human being needs to thrive for several lifetimes. Manning will probably make his decision Monday, after meeting with the Dolphins. Here’s what John Madden had to say about Manning: Tomorrow, this ex-Colts’ fan becomes either a Cardinals’ fan, a Broncos’ fan or a Dolphins’ fan. Go Cardinals! I can’t imagine a better way to use all my frequent flyer miles.

Can we please get back to a serious discussion of the important issues I raised, gentlemen? A little story (from my troubled youth) about this young girl who liked to swim around the pier in Atlantic City. . . “She could float like a feather, and dive like a duck And show by her motions, she knew how to . . .(Frolic in the water. . .)

Oh, definitely--I'd be willing to bet he harbors enormous repressed resentment against her which he would never acknowledge, least of all to himself. No doubt his bitterness grew each time she banished him to Objectivist Siberia for saying something she despised. But the coup de grace had to be the discovery of the Branden love affair. He must have been crushed. That was the moment when he knew, once and for all, that he would always be Salieri to Branden's Mozart.

Well, he certainly could not have done it without the Ayn Rand seal of approval; but then again, neither could Branden. In Peikoff's case, of course, he had to fake his credentials--alter his ID of 'legal heir' to say 'intellectual heir' and hope no one noticed. Sure enough, no one noticed--until it was too late to make any difference.

For me, there is definitely something symbolic about large breasts, as if the woman adorning them was underscoring her feminine sexuality and sensuality by her physical appearance. Looks like there is some scientific basis for male fascination with the size of the female breast. Breast size: a human anomaly So don't blame us if we're distracted when girls dress like this. It's our ancestors' fault. The same goes for female interest in penis size. Penis size: An Evolutionary Perspective The author, interestingly, is a female.

Understanding Objectivism, the book, is now available at your local bookstore. I bought a copy of it last night at Barnes & Noble. I can't wait to read it. Because virtues are more important than flaws, as Nathaniel Branden used to say, it is important to me to state very clearly that I think these lectures and this book represent the very best of Leonard Peikoff. I have been very critical of Peikoff here on OL, so I want to emphasize this point. When Peikoff is at his best, he can be a wonderful teacher with a singular gift for clarity. The man has so much to offer in terms of his knowledge and understanding of the Objectivist philosophy. It is a tragic shame that, in the years since he offered this course in 1983, he seems to have taken Objectivism in the opposite direction this course seemed to portend. The book is a long one: 383 pages. The original course was 12 lectures but the book only provides transcripts of 11 lectures. The omitted lecture is briefly described in my previous post, so I will not repeat that here. The book does not have an index, unfortunately, but it does have helpful Q & A sections following several of the chapters. The great virtue of the book is summarized in the very last paragraph (pages 382-383). I first heard this course shortly following Ayn Rand's death. I remember coming away from these lectures with the exact sentiment expressed in that quotation. I was naïve enough to believe that it would not be long before Peikoff reconciled with Nathaniel Branden, and the entire Objectivist movement would begin to flourish in a way it could not while Ayn Rand was alive. Needless to say, I could not have been more wrong. An observer could easily speculate that Peikoff’s shock and dismay upon discovering the long suppressed story of the love affair between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden may have created an insurmountable breach. The bitterness of his attacks on Branden often seem to carry the emotional intensity of a jilted romantic rival. Whatever the reason, Peikoff chose to mount his own personal crusade against Nathaniel Branden in the name of the defense of Ayn Rand's name, and his whole approach to the philosophy took on a distinct flavor of moral reprobation. Objectivism largely became—from his private perspective--the hairshirt he had warned his students not to wear. Who knows? Perhaps this book will help to undo some of the incalculable damage this man has done as the official spokesman for Objectivism during the (almost) 30 years since these lectures were first presented.

I had some additional thoughts about this comment in the above-referenced article, “Subjectivist Objectivists." (See my prior post for the link.) The author says:” Objectivism, as both a systematized philosophy and a movement, exists because of Dr. Peikoff.” The author of that remarkably ignorant comment includes the following in his bio: [The author] was in the first graduating class of the Ayn Rand Insitute's Objectivist Graduate Center, where he studied full-time under the professorships of Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Dr. Harry Binswanger, and Mr. Peter Schwartz. He has studied Objectivism since 1987. I have to wonder: Does the curriculum at the ARI Objectivist Graduate Center incorporate courses on the Stalinist practice of rewriting history? Or do the teachers there simply adopt Stalinist methods? Most OL members are aware that Peikoff never tires of telling his adoring flock that they should not read any books by Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, David Kelley or any other “tolerationist.” The only sanctioned book that discusses the NBI years is Valliant’s Passion of the Ayn Rand Critics. There are a couple of references to Branden’s “Basic Principles” course in Valliant’s book, but obviously all of his focus is on Branden’s philosophical differences with Rand. How would the OGC’s students ever know of the key role Branden played in offering the first systematic presentation of Objectivism and launching the Objectivist movement? Peikoff and his lackeys would clearly be unlikely to disabuse their students of their misconceptions regarding Objectivist history. Peikoff may well be deliberately fostering this poor, pathetic writer’s distorted viewpoint.

Rather than slandering Hsieh, the purpose of checkingpremises.org appears to be that of canonizing Leonard Peikoff. The purveyors seem to be on a crusade against anyone who would suggest that Lenny is not Rand reincarnated. One article posted in the Commentary section specifically targets Hsieh in its title. Another article in the same section, Subjectivist Objectivists, also singles out Hsieh. It offers this bizarre criterion for the class of miscreants it condemns: Interesting. The definition of “Subjectivist Objectivist” used to be someone who did not accept the crap about Objectivism being “closed,” but this article doesn't even mention “tolerationists.” I feel left out in the cold, all of the sudden. How times have changed. The same article includes this remarkable claim: Gee whiz. Peikoff created Objectivism as a systemized philosophy and a movement. Really? I had no idea. How selfless of Lenny to let Nathaniel Branden take the credit for all these years when it was really him orchestrating everything behind the scenes at NBI. Perhaps he means that Peikoff and his incessant sermonizing should be credited for the present dismal state of the Objectivist movement. .I’ll give him that. For me, the essence of a “subjectivist objectivist” is anyone who thinks he needs anyone else’s sanction for his existence or the conclusions of his own mind. That’s the hallmark of someone who treats Objectivism as a religion. That is the essence of someone who has no clue about what it means to look at reality independently.. And then the author adds this remark: Now that’s hysterical. Peikoff recently admitted, in regard to the date rape issue, that he screwed up because he began frothing at the mouth based purely on emotions without thinking through the issue first. Months, years and decades? More like milliseconds in many cases, which is probably why so many of his comments sound as if he had not thought them out. By his own admission, he hasn’t. .

You first! --Brant go ahead; give it a shot! OK. Here goes. Women who look like this never seem to want to talk about philosophy.

Somebody said something of substance on this thread? Darn! I must have missed that!

perhaps, if one lives long enough, his brains will rot out. Ba'al Chatzaf There doesn't appear to be any necessary connection between age and mental deterioration. Bertrand Russell remained lucid until his death at age 97.

The May, 1962 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter contains the following announcement under the heading of "Objectivist Calendar:" It appears that the course starting May 24, 1962 was the first time these lectures were offered. Incidentally, several of these lectures were later transcribed by Linda Reardan and sold as booklets through George Reisman's Jefferson School. Lecture #5 was the last lecture they published. The project was terminated following the schism between Reisman and ARI in 1993.

No way. I think this reviewer (Scott Holleran) is way off base to suggest that Thatcher only wanted to be Prime Minister because there were no men who were up to the task. There is an early scene in the film in which Margaret Roberts tells her fiance (Denis Thatcher) that she will never accept the role of a housewife, that she wants so much more than that. If that scene is anywhere close to being historically accurate, it shows clearly that Thatcher believed it was entirely appropriate for a woman to be in a position of power. She begins her political career when she is quite young, and clearly despises any suggestion that, as a woman, she should ever have to be satisfied with a supporting role. I think Holleran was just trying to shoe-horn this interesting aspect of the movie into Randian dogma, without any real basis for doing so. I think it’s interesting that both Thatcher and Reagan experienced severe symptoms of mental degeneration in their later years. Both were exceptionally strong leaders, yet spend their final years in a state of significant detachment from reality—as if the real world began to overwhelm each of them at some point. I’m not really claiming a causal connection here, but there’s a synchronicity that seems intriguing.

From Peikoff’s “correction”. . . Peikoff repeats the words “moral” and “immoral” over and over throughout his retraction, ad nauseum. Every conceivable sexual movement and gesture is analyzed as “moral” or “immoral.” But oddly he does not say anything about the immorality of being guided by emotions instead of clear thinking in a public statement. His act of poor judgment was an “error,” apparently, not anything immoral. And here I thought that letting your emotions take precedence over thinking was the most basic act of immorality, according to the Objectivist Ethics. Papal infallibility, I suppose.

I'm going to try using this as a screensaver.

Can't wait to hear Daunce's comments on that. Delighted. Compare/contrast Rand and Thatcher is a really interesting exercise. I think the movie reviewer got it right. Thatcher and Rand both identified heroism with masculinity. The big difference was that Thatcher early found her heroes in realworld men, most importantly her father whom she loved and admired. He was the independent businessman of the "nation of shopkeepers" she came to champion.She had living and historical political heroes such as Churchill to look up to. She found a husband she could both love and admire, and a deeply fulfilling marriage to sustain her in her work. She approached men as equals, although she recognized that many of them were not her equal - and those she did indeed look down on. Rand 's early heroes were fictional and she could not admire her father. Her whole life was in part a search for a man who could put flesh on the spirit of Hugo's heroic creations, and her own. She had an intense need to worship that hero, not realizing that heroism has no gender. She could not be her own hero, as Thatcher could. Thanks, Daunce. The reviewer seems to disagree with you about Thatcher, suggesting that the reason she is depicted as holding on to the delusional presence of her late husband had directly to do with the “price” a woman pays for holding power over men. The reviewer thinks the use of this particular plot device in the film suggests that Rand was right about the psychology of women in general. Thatcher’s sense of her own femininity suffered because she also felt that heroism was, from a psycho-sexual perspective, gender-based. BTW, according to Anne Heller, Ayn also admired her father, and even wrote about him as Kira’s Uncle Vasili in We, The Living. She also thought he was quite handsome. It’s possible that her father may be one reason she always romanticized men in the way she did. Her father also admired his daughter’s intelligence and independence. It was Rand’s mother that she disliked.

Dennis, This is not accurate. Some states actually adopted Christianity as their official creed. The way you adopt something like that is put it in the charter documents (i.e., the constitution). There's all kinds of evidence on record to support this. A fact and a cognitive bias are two different things. I'm not wagging my finger at you (in the manner of someone we all know and love ) because God knows I have my own cognitive biases and I fight against them, but when facts are undeniable, there is nothing to be gained by calling them "attempted" facts. Michael I should have known I couldn’t get anything past you, Michael Kelly. By “attempt,” I simply meant that none of the states which adopted Christianity succeeded in keeping Christianity as any sort of official religion for very long. I probably could have phrased it better. It was almost 2 am. Any half sane person would be in bed at that hour, not posting on a webforum. You should wag your finger at me for that.

Dennis, As I showed, some of the states that make up the United States actually were founded on the Christian religion. But I know of no reference to Aristotle in any founding documents. Michael, Nor is John Locke mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Would you claim that, therefore, Jefferson was not strongly influenced by Locke? Aristotle's influence is there, just as it was there in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. And the entire history of Western Civilization. Well, I'm not claiming the founders were not influenced by Christianity. And it's clearly true that some states attempted to adopt Christianity as their official creed. I dont think either fact is inconsistent with the fact that the United States was not founded on the Christian religion. It's an issue of fundamentality and essentials. Latter day Rome and the Holy Roman Empire were founded on Christianity. I didn't notice that either of them put a premium on respect for individual rights--which was the primary political idea in the founding of the U.S.A. That concept is the legacy of the Enlightenment.

This is where I would register a slight disagreement, since I do think the Declaration of Independence is just as essential. This is where Santorum actually was correct; the Constitution must be read in the context of the Declaration (which in turn must be understood within the context of its historical and intellectual background etc.). Andrew, But that just strengthens my argument. Santorum is obviously totally off base if he suggests that the Declaration of Independence is any more essentially "Christian" than the Constitution. The opposite is true. The Declaration is unquestionably a product of the Enlightenment. Jefferson, in fact, is often accused of having plagiarized John Locke. I know Santorum makes a big deal out of Jefferson's reference to the "Creator," as if that proves something. Needless to say, it doesn't--except for fools like him. I agree. I'm delighted to know we agree on that point.

Excellent presentation, George. One point you make regarding when revolution is justified prompts me to wonder how familiar today’s liberals may be with the thinking of the revolutionary theorists. They argued that one crucial criteria for undertaking revolution was the likelihood of success, and that this would hinge on the existence of mass support. So how did they go about undermining the likelihood of such mass support? Answer: Create an “entitlement society” in which great numbers of people are dependent on the government for all kinds of special “rights” and privileges, such as the public employee and labor unions enjoy today. Not to mention social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, etc. etc.And now Obamacare. The list of hand-outs and subsidies is endless. Plus all the thousands of regulations that restrict entry and upstart competition. Their strategy has been brilliant: Keep offering people free stuff until the free stuff becomes more important to people than freedom. And it has worked. Just look at the riots in Greece and the recall effort in Wisconsin. In fact, it has worked so well that one wonders if the day will ever come when mass support for revolution is sufficiently widespread to make the prospect of success at all realistic. Thanks very much for posting this! I really enjoyed it.

Dennis, I'm not trying to undercut the wording. I'm just trying, as I'm sure you are, to avoid a double meaning being used in the wrong way. Like it or not, the term "Christian nation" has more than one meaning. Michael, It's certainly true that the term "Christian Nation" could have multiple meanings, but my concern is with the conservatives' claim that America was founded as a "Christian Nation." To say that America is a "nation of Christians" is noncontroversial. That's just a matter of statistics, and I would have to add: So what? From a philosophical perspective, the critical issue is: Was the United States of America founded upon the Christian religion? The essential founding document of the United States and its government is the Constitution. To say that the U.S. was founded on the Christian religion is to say that the founders based the Constitution on the Christian religion. The Treaty of Tripoli makes clear that they did not. The United States was founded on the ideas of The Enlightenment and, to some extent, Aristotle. That was the philosophy embodied in the Constitution--and the founders knew it. Otherwise, those words would not have been in that treaty. Unfortunately, today's religious conservatives do not know it and refuse to accept it. That's the problem--and the Treaty of Tripoli is my evidence that they are clearly and unequivocally wrong.

Meanwhile, back at the movies. . . From another review of The Iron Lady by an Objectivist (Scott Holleran): Can't wait to hear Daunce's comments on that. Here's Miss Rand's explanation as to why a rational woman would not want to be president.

From Wikipedia: You may have noticed that Rand considers thinking to play a major role in the "causal account of a (human) organism's behavior." "Skinner's epistemology"? Oddly ehough, without thinking, there is no such thing as epistemology. 1. Surprise surprise, wikipedia is wrong. You would have known this if you had read anything by B. F. Skinner, or post-Skinnerian philosophers/psychologists. My recommendation is to start out with About Behaviorism by B. F. Skinner for a satisfactory, basic introduction to Skinner's philosophy. http://www.amazon.co...30887362&sr=8-1 I don’t think your insulting, incoherent, rambling diatribe deserves a response, but I will provide one anyway, just to put my position on the record. Here is what B.F. Skinner (and presumably Ravana) calls “thinking.” To twist words in such a way as to define thinking in terms of external behavior is to define it out of existence. And to wallow in the bowels of insanity. How in God’s name you think such bunk in any way relates to Objectivist epistemology is too much for my “mind” to comprehend. There is no such thing as “Skinner’s epistemology.” When you use the word “epistemology,” you obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about. And BTW, as a Ph.D. in psychology, I am sorry to report that I have endured the dreadful torture of reading Skinner at great length. I have no intention of subjecting myself to further such torture by making any additional contributions to this inane thread.

Dennis, Do you honestly believe that playing "pedantic ping-pong" is my motivation for looking at context? Since when did ignoring context (even inconvenient context) ever mean taking something at face value conceptually? Context is important to meaning. Including context in trying to correctly identify meaning is not an "it said X, but they really meant Y" game of semantics. Michael Michael, I didn't mean to imply that the context was irrelevant. I fully agree that context is always relevant. I simply said that a denial of any Christian foundation for the U.S. government would have been unlikely to arise in a treaty with a nation that was largely Christian. You had said that the words "in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" could well have a common sense meaning in a treaty with France, but not Tripoli. Since the treaty is with Tripoli, in your view, they mean "Christian theocracy." It is hard to imagine why there would have been a reason for any such reference in a treaty with France. Therefore, there is no reason to argue for an awkward, restricted translation of the words "in any sense, founded." The words simply mean what they say. I thought this explanation by George was excellent: In another post, George gives a brief summation of some of the actual founding theoretical sources of the Constitution, which was also excellent. Exactly. And this is what I meant when I spoke of "pedantic ping-pong." At a certain point, you have to accept the fact that each side has fortified its position, and the discussion will go nowhere from here. For me, the Treaty of Tripoli--and its full context--completely resolves the question of whether or not the United States is a "Christian Nation." With all due respect--and you know I have nothing but profound respect for you--I simply do not see any logic to the arguments which try to undercut the clear wording of that treaty. (The fact that there is no record of any significant controversy regarding the treaty at the time further substantiates this.) The counter-arguments strike me as agenda-driven, and can best be characterized as "reaching." Perhaps you feel the same way about my position. I think that's true for a lot of issues on webforums like OL. The discussion continues, ad infinitum, long after the debate has been won. But, sadly, winning a debate and getting the other side to acknowledge that victory are two very different things.

Daunce and Adam, Bill Plashke in today’s Los Angeles Times: I thought my suggestion that players were given an extra bonus for injuries resulting in paralysis was surely an exaggeration. Obviously not. Imagine a defensive lineman grinning as he is handed a check for $1000 for putting an opposing player in a wheel-chair after a “cart-off.” Plashke describes this behavior as “potentially criminal,” but stops short of advocating criminal prosecution. His proposed remedies are restricted to suspensions and probation. But if it can be shown, via taped re-play, that players hit opposing players in the head or spine when this was clearly not necessary to take the player down—and was subsequently paid for it-- that player belongs behind bars. I’m sure we could find film showing Saints’ coaches and players applauding in apparent sympathy as a quarterback, running back or wide receiver is carted off the field during the years Gregg Williams served as defensive coordinator—while knowing that the Saints’ player who delivered the hit will be rewarded for his vicious, deliberate savagery. Makes you wonder how some people can face themselves in the mirror the next morning. Listen to all the macho a-holes on radio and TV talk shows claiming that this is just part of the game. "Boys will be boys." What vile crap! Nobody is criticizing players who accidentally cause injury during a clean hit. Football is a violent game. It is the deliberate, needless targeting of a defenseless player’s head, neck or spine for the obvious purpose of inflicting serious injury that is egregious. If such acts can be clearly proven via film—and a reward was given—the people responsible should be permanently banned from the game. After they are released from prison.