zantonavitch

There's a reason for their silence, Mark. It's called dishonesty, cowardice, intellectual vacuity, and moral depravity. Their Prophet -- who they don't really understand or even like -- aboriginally condemned libertarianism. Now it's an Article of Faith that they must too. But they don't much know why. And how could they? Ron Paul is basically a noble freedom-fighter and kind of like a superior version of Barry Goldwater -- who Ayn Rand rather loved. So the brain-dead soul-less cultists are very confused. They don't know what their Prophet and Faith requires of them. And certainly independent cerebration and rational thought on the matter are out of the question. So they stay silent. These robots and lemmings are waiting for high priest Binswanger and others to "enlighten" them. Then they'll head right over the cliff.

I don't. Let's hear it!

"Heartfelt" -- but intellectually rich too. Food for thought. I truly thank Ed Hudgins, The Atlas Society, and their camera crew -- for capturing this magic on video, and the great generosity of publishing it for free.

Marvelous!

Exactly.

I thought the basic idea of having a great many people -- of all varieties -- give many short, energetic, and upbeat presentations was an outstanding one. Altho' we still probably could have used a nice food-fight or paint-ball battle in the middle! Ed Snider -- who I hope is a great friend of TAS -- gave a frank, direct, simple speech which I found very inspiring. His basic attitude seems to be "Just do it -- Just go for it." I wasn't aware until Saturday that he was the main driving force behind The Ayn Rand Institute -- not Leonard Peikoff. His go-getter approach to life is very impressive, and he actually seems like a true Randian, non-philosophical, businessman hero. He isn't intellectual -- but he's a genuinely good guy who gets things done! The Mimi Gladstein presentation was surprising, amusing, and titillating. I think I agree that Rand was highly influenced by her early 20th century Hollywood background in her various latter portrayals of drama and sexuality in her novels. I also think, as Mimi said, this this may need to be updated for the movie. I also like the line Rand evidently said about why she had so many male heros and so few female ones in Atlas Shrugged: "It's my fantasy!" I thought Tibor Machan was quite droll and entertaining. He maybe needs to give us all lessons in speech-making and the lost art of rhetoric. And as Robert Bidinotto noted, the comments by Barbara Branden were both informative and quite moving. (They were also a touch hard to hear in that ultra-crowded Cato reception room. I hope the audio tape of this gets published first.) John Stossel's speech, near the end, was also quite skilled, funny, and thoroughly entertaining. Just a small handful of my impressions! I count on everyone else to help out here -- because much, much more went on!

I agree. Give that man a raise! B)

It's nice to see I'm not the only one who's exhausted -- even 24 hours afterwards! To make it worse for me, I had a killer workday just before. But I think the key point is: That conference was exceptionally draining -- in an amazing and wondrous way -- both intellectually and emotionally.

Both. (Just a test.)

Thank you!

Kelley mentions the article On Sanctioning the Sanctioners (from The Intellectual Activist 2/27/89). This essay starts the whole debate. It sets the tone and context. But virtually no-one has ever seen it. Neither side deals with it. It's been utterly supressed and unknown for almost 30 years now. How is this remotely right?

Alex Epstein gets it somewhat right, but he misses a lot, and I think his title is disastrous. He needs to recall that almost all Muslims have had their thinking brains washed and their human spirits crushed by Islam. So they're essentially half-alive children who mostly can't think or argue. Thus, intellectually defeating them, or damning their opinions, isn't much of an achievement and doesn't have much of a result. The obvious fact is Muslims are mostly wrong about everything, and thus their views and hatreds should be mostly ignored or casually slammed. But sometimes Muslims have a point. Sometimes they're right. And the simple reality of today is America is not a solidly pro-freedom and pro-justice nation in that it routinely practices torture and detention without charge at places like Abu Graib and Guantanamo. Moreover, the US government consistently befriends loathsome Muslim (and American) enemies like Saudia Arabia and Pakistan. Muslims know all this and they hate and condemn it -- and they're right to do so! So just mindlessly damning "Muslim opinion" is very irrational, immoral, and injust on the part of Alex Epstein. He's not seeing the big picture. He's not seeing this issue in context. If this guy really calls himself an Objectivist, or a friend of Objectivism, then the obvious point is: With friends like him, Objectivism doesn't need enemies.

One obvious point about ARI not publishing this hatchet job is it would be easy to bankrupt them with a lawsuit for slander.

Every bit of truth helps! Sam Harris is fighting the good fight.

I think this open-ended provocation and rabble-rousing raises the level of nationalism and jingoism in Russia. Like Michael says, it portends war. Russia has nationalized (stolen) quite a bit of oil and natural gas lately. The world doesn't need any more of this. Oil and natural gas are a locus of the current growing Russian arrogance, aggression, and tyranny.

Ominous.

Thanks, Jenright. Andrew Bostom can give you a whole education on Islam in just one interview.

Very nice, Matus! I actually think I look better as a cartoon!

How would you look as a cartoon character from The Simpsons? This is a rough approximation of me! Try your luck here!

I heard Schwartz speak at New York University in February of 2006. He claimed slander and defamation of character were real crimes -- and thus it's okay to trash freedom of speech here. He also said Dark Ages Spain was rather nice under the Caliphate. Islamic expert Andrew Bostom immediately and harshly dressed him down, explaining that Spain was a hellhole jihadi theocracy during that period. It was great fun to watch! Afterwards Schwartz was very sheepish and brazenly claimed that the differences between himself and Bostom were "very minor." (I think it's interesting that this ARI panel discussion on the Danish cartoon controversy has evidently not been made available on streaming video -- unlike all other similar events since 2006.)

The likelyhood is this cat is highly empathetic, and considers it her 'job' to add warmth and comfort to some very difficult moments. I only hope there's a cat around like this when it's my time to check out. :cat:

He doesn't believe that Iran is a threat and would try dialog, negotiation, and compromise first... Haven't the Europeans been trying this for 5 years now with zero positive results, but with much moral legitimacy and political power given to the Iranian dictators? How will Paul even remotely dialog better with these monsters? Will he back his words with any physical threat whatsoever (the only language tyrants understand)? The end result of President Paul seems like it will be a quick nuclear-armed Iran. And soon enough other jihadi governments and groups will probably have nukes too. This includes Al Qaida, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. Will this be a better, safer, or more libertarian world?!

This is great, if true. But Ron Paul still doesn't seem very presidential. He needs a heck of a lot more energy, authority, conciseness, eloquence, gravitas, charisma, evident intelligence, solid knowledge of the issues, or something. Some combo of two or three of these at least! Ron Paul doesn't even seem to know or care how terribly far behind he is in the polls. Nor how stunningly indifferent most people are to him. Where's the fire in the belly?! Maybe he could show he's a tough guy by promising to take out Iran's nukes forthwith -- but with no follow-up occupation or "teaching democracy." What's his position on Iran anyway? Better not be dialog, negotiation, and compromise.

He has been speaking with noticeably more energy and intelligence recently. I think if Ron Paul at all hopes to win, he has to be very aggressive and concise. And he needs to very much act like a winner!

Based on my extensive knowledge of Objectivist epistemology and Ayn Rand's theory of sex, the correct choice for the end of the video is: Go for the younger sister! Pass on dad.