Chris Grieb

I can always count on the "Experienced Objectivists" to provide super-helpful information.

Thank You.

Mary Lee Harsha

Robert Bidinotto has a long post on the blog Big Government. about some memorial to Teddy Kennedy.

I hope this goes places.

Ford Hall Forum 1981

Q&A, Track 4, 7:57 through 8:59

(The question is almost entirely lost, as is most of the repetition by the moderator.)

A: For healthy children to use handicapped materials… I quite agree with the speaker's indignation. I think it's a monstrous thing. The whole progression of everything they're doing to feature or pamper or favor the incompetent, the retarded, the handicapped—including, you know, the kneeling buses, and all kinds of impossible expenses…

I do not think that the retarded should be allowed to come near children. Children cannot deal and should not have to deal with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, then they give it some attention if they're interested. But it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something that they have to live down to… [abrupt ending and gap in the tape]

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 124-125):

What do you think of the special education programs wherein retarded children are educated alongside normal children?

I think it's monstrous, as is everything they're doing to feature or favor the incompetent, the retarded, and the handicapped, at an impossible expense. The retarded should not be allowed to come near children, who cannot—and should not have to—deal with the tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When the children grow up, they can give it some attention, if they're interested; but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something they must "live down" to.

[i don't know how Mayhew could have heard the question, unless he had access to a more complete recording. More likely he reconstructed it. The answer ends abruptly; after her final sentence on the recording, there's a gap in the tape.]

Miss Rand seems to have very little inter-action with children in her life so where did she get the idea that seeing or being around a handicapped child was such a awful thing to happen to a child. I think some of the euphemisms are just awful "differently able", "mentally challenged",

Ba'al; I like the quote.

J D Hayward is a former GOP congressman who is currently running against John McCain for the US Senate. I am of mixed emotions about the primary, McCain has committed many sins against freedom. However Hayward is big on illegal immigration and was also endorsed by Sheriff Joe who has committed and continues to many sins against freedom.

Hayward is speaking at an ARI event which seemed to have none of usual speaker. I will get back with more information.

Hayward is an obnoxious blowhard. I cannot imagine why any Objectivist group would invite him to speak.

Ghs

I agree that Coolidge was the best President in the 20th Century but the most under-rated is Harding.

'm not surprised, but have you studied where, intellectually, Korzybski came from? Consulting the bibliography of one book is, at best, a starting point for this. Don't you agree?

To give more substance to why I think there's a Franz Brentano influence here, there are two things. One, the intentionalist view of consciousness in 20^th centuries seems to all come from Brentano. Of course, this doesn't mean any particular thinker holding this view studied with or read Brentano or his students. Two, Brentano had a big influence on Polish philosophy and Korzybski might have gotten his dose of Brentano via Polish thinkers influenced by Brentano or his seconds.

No, I haven't studied where, intellectually, Korzybski came from, I have my hands full trying to understand where he was going to.

Sounds to me that Korzybski is a bit of a name dropper.

Gulch; Enjoy your last question.

Adam is a real person. A prof of math at Los Angeles City College. Met him at two TAS summer seminars and Linz's Solo mini-conference in southern calif. a few years back. He's now broken with TAS and can be found posting in the comments at Noodlefood.

Phil,

I think you're talking about Adam Reed, not Adam Selene, and Adam Selene is indeed a fictional character in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

Jim

Also, Adam Reed doesn't teach math. And he doesn't teach anything at LA City College. He teaches at LA State (Cal State LA).

JR

I am glad beyond words that Adam Reed is not invovled with TAS. He asked long and boring questions at the Summer Seminar. Noodle Food deserves him.

Galt; You're the one who doesn't get it.

The Armageddon comics were just awful but I heard that a chairman of a state LP tried to get other couples interested in swinging by offering them as reading material. I don't know how well it worked

George,

I'd never seen your 1983 piece about Murray Rothbard's attack on "Gandhism" before.

It looks like he could have taught Peter Schwartz a thing or two.

Robert Campbell

Peter Schwartz was an amateur in comparison to Rothbard. I noted George Smith reported that Murray was at Roy Child's memorial service. I am little surprised he would show his face considering all he had said about Roy.

My reason for not being interesting is I can't take you seriously. Your belief that Ron Paul would be the GOP nominee in 2008 and then your denying you had said that and having people that you in fact had. Sorry that's just the way I see it.

It's not as if no one heard of the NOIF principle before her.

The NOIF principle?

"NOIF" Neil; What does that mean? Inquiring minds want to know.

Good video. I must say I laughed out loud at the George Burns and Joan River's comments.

I forgot that Dudley Moore & Peter Cook did the movie called "Bedazzled". Cook was Satan and Raquel Welch was "Lust".

Ed; I will be there. I already have spacious accommodations in the city of Washington and am only three blocks from the Yellow line.

I'm older than most on OL and I got it.

In the early 70ths I saw Dudley Moore and Peter Cook do their two-man show here in Washington. It was a very funny evening. I will warn you don't say "peach & frog" in the same sentence. I may laugh for several minutes.

I don't know exactly what I expected, but it all happened very quickly, and I felt as if I were speaking in a huge auditorium. Very unsettling for a newbie. I didn't overtly feel nervous, but I came across as very stiff in the beginning. (The bright lights didn't help.) It took a while for me to warm up and feel comfortable, but at least I had some time to do so.

My experiences have been the opposite (keeping in mind that I've never appeared on anything at the level of Snyder's or O'Reilly's shows). I haven't found camera and studio situations intimidating, but reassuring. The elimination of the distraction of the instant feedback of an audience makes me feel more comfortable and focused. The same was also true back when I was performing music. All of my band mates seemed to be much more comfortable than I was in live situations, but not in studio. They were very uptight while recording where I felt completely as ease. Sometimes it would take them hours to get over their nerves and stop making silly mistakes.

J

I have always felt more comfortable speaking in front of an audience than in a television studio, but I eventually got better at the latter.

In the late 1970's, I appeared several times on the L.A. based regional television program "Talkabout," hosted by a very interesting and intelligent black guy named Truman Jacques. Truman was sympathetic to my atheistic perspective, so he liked to include me in panel discussions with priests, ministers, and the like. I always felt comfortable in those settings.

I don't know if Truman was an outright atheist, but he liked to tell amusing anecdotes, such as the following: When Christian missionaries went to Africa, they had the Bibles and the Africans had the land. It wasn't long before the Africans had the Bibles and the Christians had the land.

My weirdest television appearance was my last. Around 1990 (I can't recall the exact year) two atheist kids were expelled from the Boy Scouts, after which their father sued the Scouts. I wrote an op-ed defending the Boy Scouts that was published in the New York Times (and which got me a lot of flak from fellow freethinkers).

Shortly thereafter, I got a call from a morning L.A. television program that was broadcast throughout California. They wanted me to debate the father about the Scouts and atheists. The host was a liberal female attorney that I didn't like, so I initially refused. (They didn't pay anything, of course, and I wasn't selling anything, so I didn't see the point of taking the better part of a day to drive from Long Beach to Hollywood and do the show.)

The program called again, so I finally relented and agreed. But only on one condition -- I would debate the father, but I didn't want the the two boys present when I did so, since I would come across like a villain in those circumstances. The production assistant agreed and assured me that only the father would appear on the program with me.

Well, guess what? After I got to the studio, the whole damned family was there, including the two chubby and obnoxious boys fully decked out in their Scout uniforms. I immediately suspected the worst, so I located the production assistant and reminded her of our agreement. No problem, she said; the family was just there to observe.

Then, while I was in the make-up room with the father, the host (I think her first name was Sylvia) came in and told the father that she had a great idea. How about if his boys appeared on the program with him? He readily agreed, and before I could register a protest, she walked out of the room.

I tried to talk to Sylvia before the show began, but there wasn't time. The taping began almost immediately, and to make matters worse, the couch on which the two original guests were to sit was quite small, not nearly large enough for four people.

Nevertheless, the father was seated next to the host, with his two boys seated to his left. I, meanwhile, was squeezed in -- and I do mean squeezed -- at the far end.

I figured I would make the best of a bad situation and not complain, but what I expected would happen is exactly what happened. A lot of time was spent talking about the trauma supposedly suffered by those two spoiled brats, and I barely got a chance to say anything. But Sylvia did finally get to me shorty before the first break, so I gave a brief explanation of why I thought private organizations should be able to set whatever membership conditions they wish.

Then, during the commercial break, Sylvia said to me, in a very snotty, tone: "You're one of those libertarians, aren't you?" I replied, "Yes, I am one of those libertarians, and I told your assistant that on the phone. Do you ever talk to your assistant?"

I wasn't given a chance to say anything else during the second half of the show.

Ghs

Ghs; You're insisting that the boys not be there probably assured that they would be invited. This whole story sounds like a low level mugging.

Well, that is just as bad as this Mr. Gilder here, and perhaps even worse.

-----

Mayhew gives this answer the chop, cutting out her reference to George Gilder, among other things.]

Who was George Gilder and why did he earn the ire of Ayn, the wrath of Rand?

Jeffrey S.

Jeff: George Gilder is conservative writer who in a book "Wealth & Poverty" argued that the essence of capitalism was altruism. He was a big deal in the late 70ths and early 80ths. He gave a page one review in the Washington Post's Book World to Barbara Branden's biography of Ayn Rand

Resentment of the Japanese still runs deep for many in China. Even for those who are a full generation or more removed from WWII. (Born in the 1980s, for example.)

Bill P

I think that the longer the Japanese were in charge of a country the stronger you will find hatred of the Japanese. The Japanese were very bad imperialists.

Dan,

We don't know what a conditional surrender would have meant, but a resurgent Japan would not have been at all palatable. It was the Japanese ideology that worshipped the emperor to the death that was dangerous. A conditional surrender would have left that ideology in place.

Jim

I have come to the conclusion that the use of atomic bombs was necessary. I think that unconditional was also necessary. Let us not forget that Japanese Army officers tried to overthrow the government and arrest the Emperor to prevent his giving his speech announcing the acceptance of the Potsdam declaration.

I started reading George Reisman's Capitalism five years ago and hope to finish it in the afterlife. It should be read with caution, however, because it might cause a hernia when you pick it up. And even if you don't like parts of it, I can guarantee that you will never throw the book across a room.

Seriously, it is an excellent book.

Ghs

My greatest fear about Reisman's Capitalism is that I would drop it on my toe. Thanks for your last post.