SherryTX

I just picked up a copy at a used book store end of last week. Really enjoying it so far, as I haven't really read anything that takes so much of her fiction under consideration - most of it all has just focused on Fountainhead and Atlas. I have always loved We The Living over her other novels, as her characters were so much more human. And her short stories - most of them I adore (Good Copy has to be my favorite). It is wonderful to see read this book, how he discusses her development through studying all her fiction.

I am about halfway. I wish I had read this book a few years ago!

Rand: "A man is defined by his relationship to the universe, a woman by her relationship to a man."

Any female Objectivists here who would like to comment on this? I'm very interested in their opinion.

And what do the others think of Rand's statement?

GRRRR!!!

Barbara

I second that! Isn't this more a question of psychology? I mean, I don't see how the basic principles of Objectivism really supports this, but is Ayn Rand's own personal application - but I still don't see how her own philosophy would support it (like the whole woman shouldn't want to be a president thing. (But then again, I still won't call myself an Objectivist yet because I still have soooo much to learn before I make up my mind.)

I throw up a little in my mouth every time I read this kinda stuff. Seems very anti - individual to me. Very June Clever in a Gloria Steinham sort of way, no?

I was able to attend the lecture on 8/21 - enjoyed it. CRC does a good job with presenting the lectures (I have been to several in the past), as well as facilitating interesting discussions, and a time to socialize after at dinner.

Well worth the small fee and time if you are in the Dallas area.

"The scariest moment is always just before you start."

Stephen King

Ginny - loved what you wrote as well. I totally get what you are saying there!

It is funny, because I feel a bizarre way about letters. I think, for example that the letter S just looks so happy and friendly. But the letter U eh, not so much.

Every now and then, when I write a serious email or letter and have my first name down, I look at it and think "My first name just doesn't match the tone of this letter!"

Strange, I know. But I wonder how much of that had to do with me giving my son a first name with an S as well, haha.

Oh my goodness! So many books and authors I haven't read suggested here! I am updating my list for the next few times I go to the library.

By the way - I LOVED "Brave New World". I read it for the first time several months ago, after my son was assigned it in his high school English class. I was impressed with the book - I thought it read very easily. I would have preferred a heroic ending as well, but didn't expect it. I loved Orwell's "1984" but I thought this was better - tied with "Animal Farm" and "Anthem" as the best I have read about these types of societies.

Regarding Hitchens - I only have "God is Not Great", but I read his articles on Slate from time to time. He is an easy author to read. I cannot read Dawkins. I have to admit part of my aversion to him is because I had a friend that was huge into the whole "brights" thing and acted like reading Dawkins was what was akin to a religious person reading the bible. Some day I probably should read one of his books, because it isn't really fair to be negative about him if I have read his stuff.

Regarding Heinlein my favorite book he wrote was "Job: A Comedy of Justice". I read this several months after leaving my church. It was amazing - it made me angry because it made me think quite a bit. A wonderful story as well. I have read several of his short stories; my husband has almost all his novels.

I just put my list together for a few more personal financial books I plan to borrow next week:

"The Millionaire Next Door"

"The Wealthy Barber"

and the one that was suggested a few posts ago "The Battle for Investment Survival"

I really look forward to reading them all.

After that, I think I am going to re-read a few Agatha Christie books. Possibly N or M. Tommy and Tuppence are two of my favorite characters. Christie's books are just a joy to read. I could use some pure intelligent entertainment that doesn't take place during the modern era.

I will be referring back to this list from time to time the next coming weeks - so I hope people keep making lists of what they are reading so I can get more suggestions on different authors! =)

Gerald Loeb's The Battle for Investment Survival is still around after 74 years; I haven't read it myself. He was a friend of AR, though never her broker or financial adviser.

Thanks - I will look for it!

Anyone else have a flash back to the marriage seen in Princess Bride?

"Wuv, twoo wuv..."

I don't think marriage is for everyone. For me, it works. I have been married for 10 years. I have always wanted to be married at some point, I just had that a positive view of marriage growing up. However, it has took me a few years of being married to realize that while it can be GREAT for those that have met their true "soulmate" I can really understand why it may not be for all.

Personally, I like the legal commitment. I trust my husband 100%, and have no doubts he will be faithful to me, and fulfill his obligations (like helping to raise the minions, for example). He's a great guy - our marriage is not perfect - but I think he has helped bring out the best in me, and I hope I have him.

However if the husband would ever stray- and I think it is more likely that Leonard Peikoff would convert to Mormonism than him cheating on me- say hook up with a 20 year old big busted blonde chick and leave me, well, I most likely would not be above hiring a very aggressive lawyer and making sure that he has to pay me so much alimony and child support that he would be living in a tent, and have to go to the library for internet access. Legal commitment can help you get "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" justice.

Seriously though, to me it shows the individuals are making not just a commitment of their heart, but putting their money where their mouth is, in a way. Again, this may not be necessary for everyone, but I like the legal commitment. Maybe because it is tradition, but I prefer it. However, if I were to outlive my husband, I am not sure I would feel the need to get married again - sure, boyfriends and all that - or maybe even toy boys haha - but the way I see it now, our marriage has been pretty satisfying and I don't think I would want to make that complete commitment to anyone else. It just wouldn't be the same.

Maybe you will change your mind if you meet someone that you connect with as much as my husband and I do with each other. But maybe not. I don't think marriage is necessary to be happy, but I have found it a great thing in my life.

Let me just say, that this project started about a year ago. We bought our house in August of '08, but have been renting it since October of '03. Great landlords - never once raised our rent, and they pretty much let us do anything we wanted as long as it didn't damage the house, and we paid our rent.

Anyhoo...we did some things last year to get ready for the appraisal. We had serious issues with the AC/Heating unit, and because of that long term water damaged the hallway floor. The landlord replaced the whole system, but my husband and I decided we should really take care of replacing the flooring in the hallway, since honestly, we waited to long to bring it to anyone's attention. So, the husband put down tile. He also remodeled the bathroom (new sink, faucet, replacing drywall because our kids cannot grasp the concept of closing the shower door all the way, and laying new tile on the floor), and he replaced a window and all new drywall in my son's bedroom because we had a termite infestation (after Terminex came out and did their thing).

Now, getting back to the living room...so, he laid the tile down, but never grouted it. My poor piano sat in the middle of my living room for almost 5 months - he just didn't have the time to do it, and it was "his thing", and I didn't really know what I was doing. Anyhoo, we put the piano back where it belonged, but we decided to wait until we had the funds to rip up the nasty carpet in the living to grout, because I really REALLY wanted tile in there as well.

Well, of course, that meant we really should paint too, right? I mean, if you are ripping up the carpet any way, why not? So, last weekend the husband and I (okay, mostly the husband - I did a lot of prep, clean up and "supervising") started painting the living room (which meant packing up several media bookshelves and about 6 or 7 regular book shelves, and putting two couches, a small bookcase, an art cart, and other random items in our tiny dining room), ripped up the carpet (why did people in the 70s think it was okay to carpet over horrifyingly ugly tile? Only to shock future inhabitants later?), laid the tile...and we are almost done!

Just need to grout the rest of the hallway. I have to say, grouting is much more of a PAIN IN THE A$$ than I ever thought it would be. Now I understand why the husband was not keen to do it. The 9 year old and I were up really late painting base boards, and I think we will actually be ready to pop the stuff out of the dining area into the living room again. Which I find very exciting, because the minions are getting waaaayyyy too comfortable eating on the one couch we put back in. I don't want them to get too comfortable - that would undermine my Tyrannical Matriarchal powers.

Anyway, between that, looking for a job (half heartedly, I admit) and dealing with the son's prom, and his upcoming graduation, I have just been beat and haven't had time to cruise OL lately. (And yes - we survived the Swine Flu "epidemic", and no tornadoes come close to our house - they stay on the west of 35).

I am wondering if others here are Do it Yourselfers? What kind of projects are you working on? When we get this finished, my next big project is scrubbing down the kitchen, haha. And then saving up for materials to build a shed out back to keep the children - I mean to keep the husband's tools, etc.

I wish Home Depot and Lowe's had a frequent buyer's card. I want airline miles or at least free ice cream.

A very VERY belated, but very sincere Happy Birthday to you Barbara!

Barbara - I ADORE Agatha Christie! I have read most of her novels, though it has been several years. I discovered her at my grandparents house when I was 10 years old. The first one I read was Crooked House, and I was hooked! In my late teens, I bought the The Bedside, Bathtub & Armchair Companion to Agatha Christie and just wore it out. Great companion to her books. Unfortunately, in my early 20s, I purged a lot of books, and gave many of my novels of hers away. Thank goodness we have Half Price Books stores around here so I can build my collection back up after I replenish the book fund!

The past several weeks I have been reading books on personal finance. I read these over the past two weeks:

9 Steps to Financial Freedom, Suze Orman

Financial Peace, Dave Ramsey

Rich Dad, Poor Dad, Robert T. Kiyosaki

Total Money Makeover, Dave Ramsey

Rich Dad's Guide to Becoming Rich...Without Cutting Up Your Credit Cards, Robert T. Kiyosaki

Rich Dad's Increase Your Financial IQ: Get Smarter with Your Money, Robert T. Kiyosaki

With the exception of the last one, I borrowed all these from the library.

It has been interesting, because I think Orman's book, though it is about 11 years old, is the most specific and balanced in terms of good advice and information. All three authors have some interesting ideas, though - I don't agree with some of Ramsey's and Kiyosaki's ideas, but I am getting a lot out of all the books.

Ramsey has good advice on getting out of debt and helping you figure out how to live a bit below your means. However, although his references to church and quoting scripture are not really intolerable, my guess is that he wants people to be more focused on just "peace" and the after life, and that is why his program doesn't allow people to take risks. If you ever listen to his talk show, I think he mostly gives out good advice, but I don't think there is a one size fits all plan for everyone. (For example, he states that people should NOT contribute to their 401k until they are debt free, except for their house in MOST cases. I don't think that is smart.) Also, he constantly talks about high rates of returns on certain types of investments that I think are unreal to be consistent given the types of investments they are. To me, Ramsey's books are perfect for those that are willing to take a very strict approach to "snowballing" their debt if they can stomach it.

Kiyosaki...haha..this has proved interesting. I think there are valid criticism out there that his books are basically teasers for his seminars. However, he admits that the whole point of writing his first book was to explain what his game Cash Flow was all about, and it ended up becoming a best seller. And, I he admits he goes for sensationalized titles - for example, in the Guide to Becoming Rich, he does actually state that for some people, cutting up their credit cards may be necessary until they can control their personal finances better. There is also a question as to whether the "Rich Dad" actually was one person or a combination of people, or if he existed altogether. I don't care either way. I have found his books to be very entertaining, and I think there is enough good things for it be worth the read. Actually, I signed myself and the husband up for one of the 3 day courses at the end of the month. Sure, sure - I know about 40% of it will probably be more of a sales pitch for the "advanced" course they offer - but I think it would be fun. Even if it sucks, I got a bunch of cds, the IQ book, and some neat work books and a how to invest in real estate book for enrolling. The cds so far are really good - so I don't feel like I would have lost any money.

Going back to Orman - wow! All I can say is that she has a lot of information packed in that book. I downloaded her latest book for free off Oprah's website a few months ago, but haven't read it yet. I am definitely going to pull it up and read it when I get some time later this week.

I read Your Money or Your Life several years ago, and will probably re-read it again after the books are back on the shelves. (We are finishing up a thrifty - as in DIY- remodel of the living room and I had to pack several bookshelves of beloved volumes away. It is painful, I tell you!) That book changed a lot about what I thought about money in general, and if one can stomach the self sacrifice and service platitudes, then one can get a lot out of it.

If anyone has other personal finance or investing books that they have enjoyed, please let me know. It's my new reading kick. I needed a break from hard core Objectivist books for a bit. My little mind was getting over loaded. =)

Just wanted to pop in and say Happy Mother's Day to all the moms here on OL.

=) I hope you all had a great day.

Agreed.

I did not have time to add that if the Mom's fact pattern is a lie or she has no clue what Jr. was up to the "raid" made sense. However, I know for a fact some details about Ruby Ridge, Waco and the sordid Ellion Rodriguez suppression which was managed by our current Attorney General, Eric Holder.

What surprises me is that, according to the article, the kid is being held incommunicado.

Adam

Yeah - that is not cool. Due process is in order here, what the hell?

I was recently having a discussion with a member of the forums whom I have personal connections with outside of this website. He has been a strong advocate of Laissez-Faire Economics since he discovered Ayn Rand, and it all seemed to add up perfectly for him. He had done his homework on Ayn Rand, something I have yet to do; therefore, I'd like to question the philosophy before I become an advocate of it.

My thought process was that, while Laissez-Faire Economics and is an economical system in which to prosper you must strive to do your best, it could also be the breeding ground for an immense amount of corruption within the private business sector, seeing as this is the primary heart of the country in a Laissez-Faire Economy. I feel it could easily become a corrupt society for several reason, but best explained in the following scenerio:

The hypothetical city for my example will be Smithville. As with the country Smithville resides in, the universal economic philosophy is a Laissez-Faire Economic philosophy. Ranging from the public safety (i.e. Fire Dept., Police Dept., etc.) to the small business across the street, all are without regulation and are free to prosper by whatever means necessary. The common ideal of the people is that, seeing as people need to do their best in this society to thrive, companies will be forced to use any means necessary to meet those goals of economic prosperity.

The idea within this society, along with all other Laisse-Faire economic systems, is that corruption cannot exist within these society's simply based on the fact that people will not pay for a service that is either not worth the price or smudged with deception. Let us take for example, the Fire Department. Seeing as there are no taxes to cover the salaries of those working in this "corporation", they will have to be paid by the individuals who want their fires put out if one were to catch within their home / business. Now, seeing as some people will surely be more prosperous within this society than others, I see a means for corruption.

Fire fighters will have to make judgment calls on what fires they are to put out, and how they are to prioritize those fires in need of being put out. Seeing as they will not be paid simply for putting out any fire, as it is within a non-Laissez-Faire economy, if faced with two homes, one in a poverty state, while the other in a prosperous state, the firemen will surely prioritize the fire within the prosperous estate over the home in a poverty state. They will do this simply because they are forced to make judgment calls on whether or not, based on the facts presented from their home and the intrensic value they see on the estate, to put out a fire for a home that may not be able to pay for the service. So only those who have the "flashy homes" or "flashy cars" parked in their driveways will be sure to get their fires extinguished.

Where the corruption comes into play is when the firefighters of Smithville come to the realization that by committing arson to homes of high value then extinguishing those fires for a high profit return while leaving those homes in poverty state left to burn to the ground, that they can receive a far higher profit from corruption than by moral means of success. The common argument against this is that the police department will come in and stop the corruption, and bring those arsonist to justice. But what if the police, themselves, become corrupt. I see no reason why, within a Laissez-Faire economy, the police department would not strike a deal with the fire department of Smithville to intentionally neglect the arson of the Fire Fighters for a portion of the money gained from them extinguishing the fires of the wealthy homes set ablaze by arson.

And, again, one would think that, surely, another police department will come in and try to make peace with the situation, bringing justice to those responsible in the corruption, but these new police forces would realize that, they, too, could make all-the-more money, the ultimate goal of this economic system, by not doing what is morally right within their jobs. And if not working for more pay is not enough incentive for these police men to accept the offer, they now have free time that should be spent in the capture and arrest of the corrupt firefighters to earn more money, whether it be through legitimate means or another corrupt scheme like that which goes on within Smithville.

While that is only one of the situations in which I could perceive corruption overtaking the morally just for the aspiration of money, but several more exist. I would much apreciate some input as to whether this is viable within a legitimate Laissez-Faire economy, or am I fundamentally mistaken about the outcome of the events within Smithville?

~Brad

Okay, the problem I am seeing here is I don't think true LF capitalism is a breeding ground for corruption, because it makes no sense in a truly capitalistic society to take advantage of others - it is fair trade. No getting things over on others, etc.

Regarding the firefighter situation, my view is that in such a town, people would agree voluntarily to contribute money towards fire protection. You see it all around the country - there are many volunteer fire fighters/stations through a lot of rural America. I have a friend that lives in a rural part of the DFW area down here in TX, and they receive a bill every year for the suggested donation. So, I think it can be done, if everyone (or most) in that society is rational and realizes that they need fire protection.

Personally, I think that Laissez-Faire capitalism is not only good, but practical. The issue isn't if it could be put in place and work, but the issue is really how to get there from a extremely mixed/socialist economy to LF. THAT, to me is the real issue.

My post was in response to Christopher who wrote that he attempts to see the good in religion.

Imo Rand woud have denied that there is ANY good in religion and would have fought Christopher's position tooth and a nail - don't you think so? For atheism is an integral part of her philosophy.

Rand was not a god, therefore she was fallible.

As for discussions of God, there are a lot of things man cannot "prove" through the use of logic. N Branden commented that an orgasm cannot be logically proved. There is an excellent dialogue between Nathaniel Branden and Ken Wilber addressing the reasoning of subjective content, titled: Exploring the Rational Reconstruction of Trans-Rational Mysticism. You can download this through IntegralNaked.org or IntegralLife.com if you are a paid subscriber. I would definitely try out the one-month free membership on Integral Naked just to listen to this conversation.

Btw, for those interested here's a free audio conversation offered by IntegralLife.com between Branden and Wilber, entitled My Years With Ayn Rand:

--> http://integrallife.com/node/38254

Peace,

Chris

Okay - if you cannot prove an orgasm, then you are sleeping with the wrong person.......

Sherry,

Since you have contact with Mr. Lewis and he is amenable to questions, maybe you could ask him why he does not consider Glenn Beck's coverage (and the coverage of any group outside of ARI) of the current Tea Party issues to be from a moral perspective.

I can find no justification for that position unless Mr. Lewis understands morality to mean solely Objectivist morality as defined by ARI. You said: "... he seemed VERY up to date on what is going on in the world today." That only makes it worse since there is not even the option of claiming ignorance of the fact that such moral issues are being discussed everywhere all the time. Mr. Lewis being intelligent enough to get an appraisal of a "brilliant mind as a historian" from you makes it even worse since these are historical events we are talking about.

You also might ask him if his disagreement with TAS extends to TAS's views on freedom, individualism and the moral issues concerning capitalism that they constantly write about (including the ones concerning the Tea Party). I would be especially interested in knowing which part of these issues he disagrees with since they are identical to the ones promoted by ARI.

Having read some of Mr. Lewis's previous writing, I stand by my opinion of him until I get good reason to believe otherwise. Your comments about your own relationship with him are useful in this respect and I have no doubt he is a very charming person to people with whom he socializes. I always like to base my opinions on a variety of information sources.

But, essentially, we respectfully disagree for now. I have no doubt that should Mr. Lewis look at my stuff one day, he will come to his own conclusions based on his own values and not on the people who know me (or at least take that information into account in its due proportion).

btw - My opinions on Mr. Lewis and these issues in general are based on what I have read and seen and studied in the Objectivist world in the last 3-4 years. Before that, I was not involved in the Objectivist subcommunity and barely realized that there was all this animosity. I knew of the break from Barbara's book, but that is all I got down in Brazil. Once I started standing up for her in public against what I perceived to be incorrect information and the ill will of a few (and still perceive to be so), I got trashed in a manner that surprised me. Frankly, this pissed me off.

I wrote an interesting series of articles trying to come to grips with the bigger picture concerning all this hatred called "The Ayn Rand Love-Hate Myth." Here is the series if you are interested. I haven't read these myself for a couple of years, but I have no doubt I still agree with me.

The general tenor is that extreme Rand love and extreme Rand hatred belong to a very, very, very small, but loud and vocal, group. The fringe element. The rest of Rand's readers, the ones who enjoy her books, take the ideas they want from her to apply to their own lives and are mostly silent. So basically neither side of the extreme divide influence much of anything in the world. The real influence of Rand on the world is Rand's works.

(As a continuation of that thinking, if people wish to change the world for the better, they will do so through their own achievements if they are of a proper caliber. This is exactly what the silent contingency is doing. Nobody can do very much on the skirt-hems of Rand other than bitch a lot to their particular choir. )

The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth

The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 2 - Moral Ambivalence

The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 3 - Brotherhood of Hate

The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 4 - Rand's True Value

Michael

Michael,

I don't know him very well, and I have other questions I would like him to answer for me first. However, I will ask once I get to a point where I feel comfortable doing so. I say that not because I am afraid of offending him, but more out of respect for his time, and the fact I have other questions that are more important to me personally I would like his input on.

I can agree to disagree with you as well. =) (That is what I like about this board, we are free to agree to disagree without all hell breaking loose! Very refreshing.)

(I haven't made up my mind totally regarding the whole TAS/ARI thing - personally, I get what I can from both groups and try to judge what I read based on my understanding of Objectivism. That study still has a way to go, and that is why I am reading as much as I can. I don't know if my opinion will change over the next few years, but I personally don't see the need to limit my association(off line or online) based on TAS or ARI loyalty. )

Sherry,

I agree with you. I discovered Objectivism in 1968 just when Rand and Branden split. I had been reading Branden's articles in The Objectivist Newsletter and had finished reading Atlas Shrugged for the first of many times and read The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

The notion of having to choose between them never entered my mind. I naturally kept reading and rereading both and still do.

Just thought I would mention it because it is similar to the TAS ARI thing. I go to their websites too, both of them. I hope that they each succeed in spreading the word and passing the torch in there own ways. Even if either utters a mistaken idea whoever hears it will just have to use their own judgment to figure it out.

www.campaignforliberty.com 19Apr 10AM 146885, noon 146925

gulch

You have pretty much summed up how I look at this.

There is a fledgling site called www.myguitarspace.com

I always encourage things in the guitar community, so at the urging of one of my students I got on there, haven't done much yet.

But, I am greedy. They say if I bring in 10 new members, hey!; I get a groovy www.myguitarspace.com t-shirt.

I want this fairly badly, because it will look good by the pool or something.

So even if you don't play but have a remote interest in the guitar, help a brother out: I need new swanky swagware.

rde

Relentless capitalist greed tells him get the t-shirt, reference rdengle@msn.com

Okay - I joined - all ready to put in your reference email - but there was no place that asked for it???

(I do play guitar - I have been playing horribly for the last 28 years and love every minute of it! I even have some awesome recording software I never use haha).

Sherry, what is rational literature?

Barbara

Barbara,

That's a good question. Our goal is to cover literature based on rational thought, with a rational philosophy backing or influencing it, such as Objectivism.

This is how we came up with the name for the group (actually credit has to go to my husband, he suggested it, I had no good ideas). I will admit I am sure there will be some works that maybe will have some irrational elements, (sometimes you don't know until you read it, and I doubt I will read everything before we get to it). but I am okay with that because I am looking forward to exploring books, essays, etc., with others.

Maybe the name seems a bit ambitious, but I felt confident using it because the people that I already know that said they will come are pretty reasonable folks, and I would like to attract new people that are interested in reading works that may fall under this category.

Chris - thanks for the suggestions on Erika Holzer's and Kay Nolte Smith's novels. I had forgotten about Erika Holzer - I read about her a long time ago on Atlasphere, and I have heard of Smith - but I haven't read either of their books as of yet.

If anyone happens to come to the Dallas/Plano area, let me know - we would love to have you for a visit!

Sherry,

I just saw the other two videos of John Lewis. This is the first time I heard him speak and he surprised me as to how good he came off. I remember some terrible things he wrote after 9/11 about the morality of using mass killing (including women and children) as a first resort, then asking questions later. He didn't use those words, but that was in essence what he said. He used the Civil War and the Atom bombs over Japan as prime examples (without apparently realizing that the massive lethal force tactics were last resort, not first).

I have been turned off to him for a long time over that.

His speech was a lot better than his interview. I was almost starting to revise my opinion of him when he blurted out at the end of the interview that the Ayn Rand Society is the only organization in the country that is treating the issues dealt with in the Tea Parties from the perspective of morality.

He emphasized that. The only...

Say what? The only one?!!!

Maybe Mr. Lewis doesn't watch TV or read the news...

If you want to see why Objectivism does not spread faster than it does, that cultist attitude is one of the primary reasons. The truth is that Rand's works, principally her fiction, are the true torch-bearers of Objectivism. These other people have very little impact on the culture, yet they fashion themselves as both foot-soldiers and generals.

I think Rand's ideas are spreading despite them, not because of them.

Their present surge in publicity is due to high-profile conservative media stars interviewing them, not because of their own shows and achievements. And in the interviews I have seen, they are merely talking heads—i.e., props—the conservative stars use to promote their own ideas. These folks do not come off as the torch-bearers of Objectivism, but more as cannon fodder for the right.

So I was pleasantly surprised just now. Mr. Lewis's speech was a cut way above that. It's a shame—a crying shame—this other stuff goes along with it and spoils it through discredit.

I do hope Mr. Lewis eventually gets out of the cult mindset. He is a gifted and inspiring speaker when he leaves it aside.

Michael

Michael, I respectfully disagree that Dr. Lewis has a "cult mindset". I do not know him well -but I attended a lecture he gave our local group last night (it was on Ayn Rand and American Culture - he covered many things that he has written for a chapter in the new book coming out with others later this year - sorry I do not remember the name right now and don't have my notes handy), and it was very good. A few of us had an opportunity to chat with him for an hour or so after the lecture. And, tonight, we had a get together, where I and several others had a chance to talk with him more. I think I sat with him with a few others for at least two hours.

At one point, one of my friends asked him about the TAS/ARI rift. He stated that did not agree with TAS, and that is why he worked with ARI. However, he also pointed out that he has never been asked to sign any kind of "loyalty oath" (I asked that question in a roundabout way because I have heard rumors of it before). He also stated that he didn't think TAS had much to offer - at least not anything useful to him. He was NEVER disrespectful at all when he talk about this.

He just doesn't agree with TAS. I don't think that stating you believe that ARI is the organization to go to - remember the way he stated it was as an opinion - is evidence that he has a cult mindset regarding ARI. He is very independent in terms of his work, and I was surprised that while he does have interaction with TOS (Craig Biddle's mag) and ARI of course, he isn't more directly involved with them.

Anyway, I just wanted to add my experience with him on this here. I found Dr. Lewis very approachable, willing to answer any question you asked of him, and if he disagreed with you (I had mentioned I thought sometimes the whole rift was "silly" and he didn't agree) he was very respectful - he laid out his information as to why, etc. What I took away from my conversation from him is learn the philosophy and make up your own mind.

(I haven't made up my mind totally regarding the whole TAS/ARI thing - personally, I get what I can from both groups and try to judge what I read based on my understanding of Objectivism. That study still has a way to go, and that is why I am reading as much as I can. I don't know if my opinion will change over the next few years, but I personally don't see the need to limit my association(off line or online) based on TAS or ARI loyalty. )

Also - regarding whether he watches TV or the news - he seemed VERY up to date on what is going on in the world today. He also has a brilliant mind as a historian.

Here is the link to the pictures. If you scroll down the fifth picture features slides of different signs which are curious:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/t...y_n_186752.html

Looks like the natives are getting restless!

I wonder if any of these protesters voted for Obama?

This country is so full of ignorant people who cannot think critically and whose choices are based on gullibility and superficiality it is always inspiring to see a sign, pun intended, which shows intelligence and a respect for the Constitution and individual freedom from an oppressive government.

www.campaignforliberty.com 18Apr 5PM 146708

I predict that this movement will grow and coalesce around the crucial issues and the Campaign For Liberty will play an instrumental role in upcoming elections for decades to come until and beyond when we are set free.

gulch

Huffington had a post a few days ago online entitled "The Ten Most Offensive Signs" at the Tea Party. There were a lot of really bad ones (references to jews and ovens - basically likening Obama to Hitler, etc., etc.) I was really upset that any of those would be there, but also upset that they seem to go out of their way to find only the worst among the crowds. I see several of those on this page as well, but at least they have more this time, showing a better balance.

[brant Gaede] Objectivism is also not based on the idea that the moon is made of green cheese.

Imo diluting the issue by a joke won't get us anywhere here.

I'd prefer if we keep focused and get to the heart of the issue.

Which is why I'd like you to answer my question regarding the belief in god.

You wrote:

Objectivism most emphatically is not based on atheism. It is based on reason.

And your reason has led you to which conclusion regarding the god question?

I think if one learns Objectivism, and integrates it, they will be lead to the conclusion that there is no God, based on reason. I think it sometimes easier for some one already an atheist or at least agnostic to integrate it, since giving up belief in God can be very difficult to do.

Here are two more videos that people may be interested in:

http://www.capmag.com/news.asp?ID=1830

His short speech at the Tea Party on April 1th

http://www.capmag.com/news.asp?ID=1831

His interview with CapMag after his speech.

Good stuff. He does a good job explaining the meaning of the Tea Parties, and how it isn't just the taxes we need to fight, but also the government programs.

Well worth watching!

I can be a bit of a cold hearted cynic, but I actually got teary eyed watching her sing.

And it was such a beautiful song - the lyrics are wonderful.

She had a lot of courage to sing on that show. I thought she was pretty damn heroic.

During the Glenn Beck program (Fox) yesterday they were showing the crowd at one of the tea parties.

A large poster with just the portrait of AR was visible.

A few minutes into this video of one speaker in Dallas, you can see a large black sign that says on one side "John Galt Lives" and on the other side has the CRC logo.

My buddy Donovan is holding it up (you can see him at some point, he has on a blue shirt).

The big yellow "Atlas will Shrug" sign is held by another friend of mine.

To really know what black citizens look like?

I saw one in Dallas, and a fellow that I believe was Mexican/Hispanic with his two kids.

I spoke with a friend that was at the one in NYC last night and she said there were blacks, whites, Indians, Native Americas...a nice mix.

I admit I sought the black lady and the Hispanic fellow and made sure I gave them a flier.

I wish we had more minorities - because I think once we have more "people of color", perhaps more people will wake up and take the philosophy more seriously.

And perhaps those that are not white (or male for that matter, there seems to always be more males than females at the groups I attend), would feel more comfortable coming and talking with others in such groups.