imurray

Adonis,

I don't want to get into a "my missile is bigger than your missile" debate, but it must be acknowledged that if the US is desperate or our economic survival is seen as desperate then the US has other options rather than nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons - namely remote guided/unmanned aircraft. Public opinion towards such devices is unfavorable at the moment, but I can see that changing.

I must say that I am dead set against any war as I believe, in war, nobody wins. However, I don't think we can look to Vietnam or our recent wars as examples of what a war with Iran would look like. Iran is viewed, and you make a good case for it being true, as a capable and well armed "enemy" - the US and its allies will get public support for using a level of force that wasn't acceptable against nations who were viewed as weak or vulnerable.

That said, I hope we never find out who is right.

The option would be that countries will either openly or covertly support a US victory. The global financial situation will benefit or at least not suffer (as much) if the US "wins" or comes out of it "okay" than if Iran "wins" or does grave damage to the US economy. Just my theory - I simply think that, when push comes to shove, developed nations will make the rational choice, that is, to protect their economic interests over irrational religious or even political differences.

Adonis,

I may not be an expert in Iranian politics or in touch with the thoughts and feelings of Muslims in the region and around the world, but I think you're missing a big part of this - the global economy. While on the face of things, China, Russia, etc. may appear to not be taking sides or hoping for the US to stumble - they are not stupid. I don't believe any of those countries would favor an Iranian victory over an economic collapse in the US. The global economy is a temperamental thing and no matter what you think or others may say - the US still plays a dominant role as importers/consumers of foreign goods. Oil, on the other hand, is going to be in the ground regardless of who is in power, who pumps it out, who lives on the surface above it , or the religion that people practices. A speedy end to the war would be in most everyones favor with stakes in Iranian resources - and since I don't believe they'd actually sit around and watch the US collapse, that leaves only one other option...

Xray,

I know what a tautology is, if I didn't I wouldn't have used the term. You do not come across as a seeker, in all honesty. Frankly, you hijack discussions and lead them way off course with your so-called "questions".

Ian

But again--my basic point: you can't say what X-Ray said because it is a sweeping generalization.

Panoptic,

I can't see any evidence of either Dennis H. or me telling George/others "what should have happened" (?). Can you quote an example of our posts and explain exactly what you mean?

I'd be happy to. You just did it again:

Believers often see oppressive governments as sinners who violate God's law When religious individuals (or groups) stand up against oppressive governments, this basically says little about how they deal with freedom of opinion within their own organization, or if they would grant others freedom should they come into political power.

Rich Engle and Panoptic,

It looks like neither of you read my post thoroughly enough to notice the carefully placed modifiers. The result was a misunderstanding on your part.

I wrote (bolding mine): "Believers often see oppressive governments as sinners who violate God's law."

If I had left out the 'often', only then could it be called a 'sweeping generalization'.

Panoptic: This is your opinion of how believers think and how they behave. It is not based on what actually happened (i.e., supported by rigorous research of historical events), instead it is based on what you think should happen if believers behave and think the way you say they do - your whole argument is a tautology. George is dealing with real people and real historical artifacts, not theorizing off the top of head or fitting historical events to his own way of thinking.

This passage contains many errors:

This is your opinion of how believers think and how they behave.

The error lies in your assuming that it is just my personal opinion unsupported by facts. I base my conclusion on both personal experience and history.

I have had encounters with many believers, and the "sin" motive when we were discussing oppressive governments was of course present in many cases, whether it was Jehova's witnesses pointing out that "Satan" is at work here, or the Catholic nuns in my school who spoke of the "godless" communist leaders of the USSR. Just two examples of believers who brought up the "sin" motive.

As for historical events - let's take a fairly recent one, the Iranian Revolution led by the believer Khomeini. What do you think he saw in the Shah's regime? I suppose you will agree that the premises held by the believer Khomeini leave no doubt that he regarded the Shah and his supporters as sinners against Allah's will.

Or take the Christian liberation theology: "Liberation theology proposes to fight poverty by addressing its supposed source: sin." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Here we have it again.

instead it is based on what you think should happen if believers behave and think the way you say they do - your whole argument is a tautology.

Panoptic, with all due respect, but this makes no sense.

I can provide evidence to support my claim, a claim hich - I'm a stickler for preciseness - does not state that every believer behaves that way.

As for the term "tautology", it does not apply here at all.

Sometimes yes, often no. This is an extremely sweeping generalization about religious organizations--ignoring the fundamental difference between them, that being that some of them are creed-based, and others (like the Unitarian Universalists/ www.uua.org) are covenant-based. The latter groups usually lie within a larger group commonly referred to as the "free" church. The covenants employed in the latter vary slightly, of course, but there are essential aspects that appear over and over again--many of which are democratic- and humanist-based ideas. Ours, for instance, is based on 7 principles:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person.

Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations.

Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations.

A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations, and in society at large.

The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.

Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

I'm interested in the "transcendence" element, for the principles listed above (with a few modifications) could as well be listed in an "atheist manifesto".

From the Wikipedia Article on UU:

Unitarian Universalism is a religion characterized by support for a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth and by the belief that an individual's theology is a result of that search and not obedience to an authoritative requirement. Unitarian Universalists draw on many different theological sources and have a wide range of beliefs and practices.

Both Unitarianism and Universalism have roots in the Christian faith. Historically, Unitarianism referred to the monotheistic belief in the single personhood of God and a rejection of the Christian Trinity; Universalism taught that all souls would achieve salvation and rejected everlasting Hell.

Rich E. - I have some questions about your idea of god.

Do you believe in the doctrine of original sin?

I'm strictly arguing by premises here: since the Jesus figure is based on the idea of original sin, if you don't believe in original sin, it follows that a belief in Jesus is flushed down the drain as well. Agree? Disagree? If the latter, please explain why.

Xray:

You've missed my whole point. George is discussing a specific period of American history. You continue to use examples from other periods and places. The events he's discussing have already happened and George is looking at all the data available to him to create an objective picture of what took place. You, on the other hand, are not. Sure you can find a bunch of historical examples to prove your thesis, buy who here cares? We are not discussing those events here. And yes, the word "tautology" applies to a majority of your arguments. You already have all the answers, it's just a simple matter of making history fit them. Right?

I'm afraid the misunderstanding here is yours - perhaps when several intelligent people disagree with you, you should reassess your position instead of repeating the same thing over and over and...

And yet it moves!

Indeed it does. Nice Galileo reference.

Ian

Panoptic,

I can't see any evidence of either Dennis H. or me telling George/others "what should have happened" (?). Can you quote an example of our posts and explain exactly what you mean?

I'd be happy to. You just did it again:

Believers often see oppressive governments as sinners who violate God's law When religious individuals (or groups) stand up against oppressive governments, this basically says little about how they deal with freedom of opinion within their own organization, or if they would grant others freedom should they come into political power.

This is your opinion of how believers think and how they behave. It is not based on what actually happened (i.e., supported by rigorous research of historical events), instead it is based on what you think should happen if believers behave and think the way you say they do - your whole argument is a tautology. George is dealing with real people and real historical artifacts, not theorizing off the top of head or fitting historical events to his own way of thinking.

Dennis and Xray:

I think you're both falling into the same "trap". George has tried to piece together an accurate, objective, account of what was actually happening in the given historical period, to include: what people where reading, what people did, what people wrote/ said, who people interacted with, etc. He has obviously, necessarily, made some "subjective" leaps, but they are based on the facts that he has gathered through his reasearch. On one hand we have George who is trying to show what did happen through "objective" research and on the other hand we have Dennis and Xray telling him/us how it should have happened based on their own preconceived beliefs. In my opinion, despite claims that George is not being logical or that he is somehow going against Objectivism - he is the only one that is actually attempting to be objective in his analysis. What Dennis and Xray are saying could surely have happened, but George is showing us that they, in objective reality, did not actually happen that way.

We can either sit here and continue to debate what religion should have or could have done or, like George, try to get at what it did do. From my reading I think George is showing us that the standard Objectivist interpretation of religion/Christianity was not the interpretation used by the Founding Fathers. It is therefore wrong to assume that they considered or interpreted religion/Christianity in the same way Objectivists do today or that they followed religious doctrine in the stereotypical way that Objectivists assume people do.

Ian

I'm enjoying our exchanges, but I fear I may be going into too much detail to maintain the interest of many OL readers. But I will take my chances.

George and Dennis:

I am enjoying the exchange immensely. I don't have much to add to the conversation so I've been relatively quiet, but I have been reading every word.

Xray:

Of course you have the right to comment, but we have already had a discussion about altruism where you, George, and others went back and forth. The fascinating thing about this thread is that both George and Dennis have done an amazing job of contextualizing 'abstract' ideas within a well-researched 'concrete', historical, discourse. While it is true that the "debate on altruism" is relevant to the conversation and there is a fair amount of 'abstract' theory-work being done in the 'background', this thread is about Christianity and Liberty and, in my opinion, should not be hijacked by rehashing the general debate on altruism that has cropped up in a number of other threads.

Ian

You hit the nail on the head. In ATCAG, I discuss the moral precepts of Jesus, not their political implications, whereas in recent posts I have been emphasizing the latter.

Consider the issue of charity, an important virtue in Christian theology. When rights theory attained a sophisticated level of development in the early 17th century, an essential distinction was drawn between "perfect" and "imperfect" rights and obligations. A "perfect" right (with its corresponding obligation) is what we think of as a "right" today. It is a right that can be coercively enforced. But in centuries past, "imperfect" rights (with their corresponding obligations) were seen as moral claims that cannot be so enforced. They are moral claims that must be fulfilled by purely voluntary means.

Charity became classified under the virtues of "benevolence" (Adam Smith called it "beneficence"), and as such it was treated by many Christian philosophers as an imperfect obligation. Vattel's The Laws of Nations (1758) -- a book that exerted a huge influence on America's Founders -- gives a typical account. Speaking of the "imperfect right" of "a poor man to receive alms of the rich man," Vattel says: "if the latter refuses to bestow it, the poor man may justly complain; but he has no right to take it by force." (Liberty Fund ed., p. 134.)

This insistence that charity and other acts of benevolence should be voluntary is what distinguishes the Christian approach from the "altruism" of Auguste Comte. When Comte spoke of the duty of self-sacrifice, he was speaking of a "perfect" obligation that should be enforced by the state.

Of course, even the "imperfect obligation" of benevolence defended by many Christians is something that Rand did not agree with, but here I would don my libertarian hat and say that such moral differences -- which are inevitable in any free society -- are of no consequence, so long as individuals are able to decide such matters for themselves, free of coercion by others.

Ghs

George,

Wow. I am truly looking forward to reading your new book once it is published. We have disagreed in the past and I'm sure we will disagree again in the future, but either way I can and hopefully will learn a lot from the way you think. It is rare to see someone who is adept at working with abstract ideas and is able to represent them in a clear and intelligable way; devoid of the pomposity of so-called "academic" writing. It is a combination any serious scholar aspires to. I have observed the same capacity for working with abstraction (accross multiple disciplines) in Foucault, but only in his most heralded works (like Discipline and Punish) are there shimmers of the clarity seen here.

Ian

Christopher wrote:

"Look, it's really not that Glenn Beck is helping people think. All those who vouch for him here are already self-thinkers, so the discussion is about those who don't essentially think for themselves. And I've met this latter type who follow Beck. They agree with Beck, but their opinions are the opinions of Beck, not self-generated. Is he helping America? Not from my perspective. If anything, he's rallying people into a group that he controls. Hitler had some healthy stuff to say at the beginning of his campaigning as well. It didn't help anyone.

"There's a big difference between an MSK who follows Beck and the average person who follows Beck, and I'll tell you: MSK doesn't need Beck, but the other persons do. That's why Beck is at best unnecessary and at worst a manipulative leader.

"IMHO:"

Christopher, there will always be people who don't think and who attach themselves to those they believe will think for them. Every important figure has had his true believers-- from Karl Marx to John Lennon to George Washington to Ayn Rand to Barack Obama. That tells you a lot about the true believers; in itself, it tells you nothing about those they choose to follow. You say you've talked to people who are blind followers of Beck . How many? Two? Five? Two dozen? That does not give you the knowledge or the right to say that "he's rallying people into a group that he controls." implying that control of unthinking people is his purpose and his goal. That is the method of the most vitriolic of Rand's critics, who say that because there are true believers among her admirers, that means that the purpose of her life and work was to manipulate and control a lot of boobs.

Beck is doing something very valuable., He is working to give people the information and the perspective -- and the spines -- that they badly need in order to understand and to effectively oppose the dangerous mess that is our government. You say MSK doesn't need Beck. I think he does. I know I do. I've learned important things from him.

Because your comments are an echo of the left's party line on Beck, should I announce that you are a non-thinking person who is being manipulated and controlled by a group of power-hungry statists?

Barbara[

Unfortunately this line of argumentation will go full circle: Barbara may accuse Chris of echoing the left's party line against Beck and she'd be mostly correct and, in turn, Christopher may accuse Barbara of echoing the right's party line in favor of Beck and he would be mostly correct. This won't resolve the problem and, in my opinion, speaks to our collective myopia when in comes to the media.

I'm currently thinking through what I think is a stronger argument against Beck and his cohorts on both the right and the left. To fully understand the problem we must take a full step back and look at the metadiscourse in which they are all enmeshed. It is from this wider perspective that we can see what this form of "infotainment" is doing to the public. Here are a couple of hints: it goes beyond the politics and "we get the government we deserve" (and it's only going to get worse no matter which party is in office so long as we support infotainers who work for a handful of corporations who are all a part of the very same system, despite claims to the contrary: when and for how long they get the public's attention is based on their looks and their market value which is part and parcel of their ability to entertain an audience with a shortened attention span).

Interestingly enough - I just heard Keith Olbermann say that his job is to give us a fresh perspective on the facts that we already know.

Michael,

Thank you for the long defense of Glenn Beck's work.

Also thank you for the quotes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I had read the book when it was first published, but had forgotten about that whole argument in the book. Since I had passed it on to a friend I don't have it around to refer to as the current events unfold. We are so going to miss that writer.

Sometime back, my husband and I were watching Beck as he taught the history of Progressivism and Gale made the comment, "Where would we be without him?" It isn't that Beck is the only one who knows the history of this country. It is, as you have described, his ability to relate it in a short, succinct series of lessons that has made him such a helpful public figure. I would not have the "Save our Country" friends that I have now if I had not attended the first big Beck driven meetup back in March of 2009.

Just as Rand had her "Collective", many of us now have our Objectivist meetups and Beck meetups to provide a friendly salon for discussion, enlightenment and further learning. I have taught much about Objectivism to my 912 friends, and in the course of teaching have deepened my own understanding of the work of the Objectivists.

As for the religion that Beck asks his listeners and viewers to accept, remember that he also frequently quotes Thomas Jefferson's "Question with boldness, even to the very existence of God." Rand herself discussed the many tenets of Christianity that provide a framework for living one's life. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent people who are quick to recognize the value of Rand's philosophy even as they reject her atheism. I am frequently reminded by a friend of mine that I took my entire adult life to arrive where I am today and that I can't expect new students of Objectivism to "get it" over night. Rand taught us about the hierarchical nature of learning, too. I try to focus on applauding what is good. Sometimes you just have to out-wait what is less than perfect.

One of the important lessons from Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is that rationality is a way of thinking that is not guaranteed to lead us to the correct answer everytime we commit to it. We have to stay focused and keep on thinking through each problem or question that engages us until we have discovered the governing principle that applies to the problem. That includes how to discuss religion with people who seem to have a very real need for the comfort offered by a Supreme being or a Son of God. There is no need to trample all over these people with combat boots, especially when you consider the truth in the Ten Commandments. I mostly focus on the problem of Altruism as a major problem for good people to understand. They get it because they are in fact and no doubt about it - rational people.

A few months ago at a meeting of my Coalition for Common Sense group, we fell to relating how we had come to be involved in this freedom fight. I told them about my discovery of Aristotle at age 16 and Ayn Rand at age 20 and Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden shortly thereafter. I said that I felt as if my entire adult life had been a preparation for this moment in history. Another member related how his wife, watching his growth through the last 1 1/2 years, expressed her admiration for his passion about learning American history, the Constitution, and, now, the Principles of Objectivism. A third expressed a similar feeling of having spent a lifetime preparing for this battle. For all of us who recognize those ideas and feelings, now is the time is to put on the armor of Rand and step forward "once more unto the breach dear friends."

The conversation described above would not have taken place if we had remained isolated, if we had not answered Beck's call to meet with others who love freedom and to learn what the foundation of that freedom is. Beck got my attention with his talk with Yaron Brook about Atlas Shrugged but he kept my interest through his presentation of his and his staff's research on how we came from that glorious beginning to this rather dreadful state of political affairs.

I am very greatful to the thinkers, past and present, who have given me so much. I will make a mighty effort to repay them by lighting my Objectivism candle in my own little corner.

Better that than to curse the darkness.

Mary Lee

Need I say more? Not a single original thought in that whole diatribe. Look at it: she uses a few sources - the same sources that every one of Beck's followers use - because he provided them for them. Can't you see that supporting Beck IS supporting the status quo? You let yourself be manipulated into following "great men." How can you be a libertarian or for small government when you want and think you need great leaders just as much as those on the left? You just want leaders you agree with - and will fight for them as hard as the left fights for their own great men. The only way around this is to educate people to see through the rhetoric which these men use to manipulate them - to teach them to become great men and women themselves. The best part is you don't need a great man to teach you these things - you need to use your own rational mind.

It's not that I disagree with the points Beck is trying to make - it's that he's using manipulation to get people to believe him. If he can do it, you'd be naive to think that he's the only one who can. Doesn't it worry you when everybody is reading the same books and will rabidly defend their profit? If we can see through the rhetoric and get to the message, we will revolt against people like Beck, Obama, Olbermann who wish to manipulate us with appeals to irrational fears and emotions. The fancy rhetoric accompanying the message will become superfluous and extraneous - as it is to anyone who knows how to think now. I don't need my emotions jolted to know what's right. Wake up!!!

So it's not on the basis of political ideology that I dislike Beck (although I don't always agree with him) - I find it disheartening that smart people want leaders who use manipulation. The truth doesn't need embellishment.

Ian

I got to thinking over what you said in this response to my response to Michael Stewart Kelley and I'm puzzled by a lot of it.

1) I can't see the "diatribe" in my response - it felt calm and reasonable to me. Why does it feel like a diatribe to you?

2) You point out that my response contains "not a single original thought." I agree with that. I'm not an innovator - not in my career in IT, not in my philosophical thinking, not in my understanding of human psychology. Everything that I know, I learned from the innovators who made their thinking available to the world. I do consider myself to be pretty darned good at using and applying what I've learned from others. That describes the great majority of people. Great men and women appear in history less often that average men and women.

3) You suggest that I use only sources that Beck has presented. I met Ayn Rand and her early Objectivists in 1965. Beck would have been in diapers if he had even been born by then. Also, I've never heard Beck recommend that we all listen to Barbara Branden's "Principles of Efficient Thinking" or Nathaniel Branden's "Basic Principles of Objectivism". He never held up David Kelley or Tara Smith or Ed Yourdin, or Ludwig von Mises. Not that I used those last four sources in this thread, but you could watch for them on the Beck show.

4) I am not trying to be a libertarian (small or capital L) - I'm trying to be an Objectivist. I am not for "small government" - I am for government that is of a size that allows it be a proper government for the free men of a given country. That might include a large complex body of laws and a large court system that help keep us free.

5) I don't "let myself be manipulated into following "great men"". I look to great men and women, and even not so great but innovative men and women, to enrich my understanding of my human existence in the universe. What's wrong with that?

6) I won't live long enough to become a great woman on my own, using nothing but my own rational mind. When I discovered Ayn Rand, for instance, I discovered issues that I had not even known were issues. I know that the earth orbits the sun because Galileo et al figured it out. I don't have the skills to build a telescope, let alone make the judgments that they made.

7) I don't rabidly defend my "profit". I don't even consider Beck to be prophet. He is someone who is getting the message out loud and clear with supporting details. When he wanders off into the world of faith, hope and charity, I turn the radio or TV off, or just do some dusting until he gets past it. The big thing is that his researchers have saved us a lot of time and effort that those of us who are working long hours would not have to devote to the study of the "here's what happened."

8) You've joined two ideas together that puzzle me - that "we want leaders who manipulate", and "the truth doesn't need embellishment". I gather that you think that Beck is embellishing the truth through manipulation. I can't seem to pull up a concrete example of that to help me grasp your juxtaposition of these concepts. Can you provide one?

9) Given the nature of this site, why do you avoid acknowledging my mention of Ayn Rand or Objectivism in your discussion of Beck?

Mary,

First, I was only commenting on what you wrote and what I read here. It would be foolish of me to think that it constitutes any more or less than a small window into your way of thinking. I'm not surprised to find out that you have many positive qualities.

I will address two of your nine comments from above.

8. I don't think Glenn Beck uses "false" information. If he did, I'm sure he wouldn't last very long - I don't think that his audience is "stupid". I do, however, think he manipulates facts through his interpretations of them. The proofs he provides for his interpretations are usually deductive and tautological. In other words, he only presents certain facts in certain ways (by "certain ways" I primarily mean the ways in which he orders and re-contextualizes facts) which are always already proof of his initial premise. In addition to this he imbues his discussion with rhetorical appeals to emotion (usually fear or "quiet" anger) and authority (usually God or the Founding Fathers). This is why you will find that nobody can dispute his "facts", but what people often forget is that it doesn't necessarily follow that his interpretations are also facts: even the best deductive argument cannot prove the truth of its premise, unless, as in Beck's case, it is also tautological. Watch today's show for an example - it's his modus operandi.

9. I didn't think it was relevant to the discussion, I wasn't purposely avoiding it. I honestly don't think Beck's methods or even his ideas are analogous to the values of Objectivism (and not just because of his talk of hope, faith, and charity). I will write more on this when I have time. The thesis of my argument is that when analyzing Beck's show within the meta-discourse of contemporary politics and entertainment (and even epistemology) it becomes clear that rather than serving as a panacea for apathy and irrationality, the show is constitutive of and by the very same intellectual somnambulance that perpetuates it.

Ian

Great article, George. Something for me to think about. I'll be back with a more substantive response later if I can think of anything to add. I certainly can't see anything to criticize, but I may tie it back to the Beck discussion since that was part of the reason you reproduced this here.

Ian

Ian,

Disagree with Barbara all you like, but I don't want any of your smartass crap with her.

I mean it.

Do it anywhere on the net the world over if you like.

Not on OL. Please see some of the posting guidelines here.

I will enforce that, as I have always done.

Michael

My apologies. I didn't intend for this to be 'Branden Bashing", but it's your site and I respect your interpretation. My apologies to Barbara also - I didn't intend to disrespect you. I am aware of your contributions and accomplishments.

I was born and raised just outside of Concord/Lexington/Boston and the feelings that are conjured in me when I walk on that historic ground are nothing like the the feelings that I get when I hear Glenn Beck. To me, and this is only my opinion of course, comparing Paul Revere to Glenn Beck dishonors the former to a degree that is incommensurate with what one gains from even making such a rhetorical gesture. I hope that puts some perspective on my last comment.

Ian

Suicide donkey?

I know there is nothing really humorous about this issue, but sometimes things get so ridiculous that you don't know what to think.

Now Islamist terrorists are sending donkeys out on suicide bombing missions!

And the terrorists add incompetence to boot!

Gimmee a break!

Donkey detonated on Gaza border

By Associated Press and Jpost.com Staff

The Jerusalem Post

May 25, 2010

From the article:

A small Syrian-backed terrorist group in Gaza said its activists blew up a donkey cart laden with explosives close to the border with Israel on Tuesday, killing the animal but causing no human casualties.

Abu Ghassan, spokesman for the terrorist group, said more than 200 kilograms of dynamite were heaped on the animal-drawn cart. He added that the explosives were detonated 60 meters from the concrete security barrier that separates the territory from Israel.

What's to be blown up next?

A suicide dog?

Suicide fish?

Michael

When these animal bomb carriers have human casualties you might not find it so amusing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm going to go ahead and defend Michael for a change - not that he needs my defense mind you, but I always like to agree with him when I can because we disagree enough about a certain other topic. Hahaha.

Michael started his post by saying:

I know there is nothing really humorous about this issue, but sometimes things get so ridiculous that you don't know what to think.

I agree, I don't know what they will think of next. Sometimes the only response immediately available to us is to shake our heads and laugh - and then, once it sinks in, cry. I have all but given up on trying to empathize with Islamic terrorist. I will never be able to fully comprehend the feelings, experiences, or ways of thinking that would drive a person to this. This is so foreign to my way of thinking that I'm often not equipped to respond, at least initially, except to say "that's absolutely ridiculous!"

Ian

It is long past time that someone told the American public that they should be afraid of their government. What Obama and his cohorts have done in a year-and-a half is terrifying -- and if we don't understand that, and understand where we are being led, this country is lost. Glenn Beck is today's Paul Revere.

Barbara

Well put. I wish I had said that.

I live about 40 miles from Paul Revere's final resting place and after reading Barbara's comment, I'm sure the shriek I heard last night came from him - right before he rolled himself over (again).

Ian

Also see: http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/national-statistics.html

I work at a public college and I honesty can't say the freshman are any worse now then when I started ten years ago or even when I was in school. In fact, I feel safer now. The students are generally less violent and easier going. They may be a little less inhibited when it comes to talking about sex and drugs around adults, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. We always suspected they were doing these things anyway, but now we know. And it works both ways - these students are not afraid to interact with adults and often show up at departmental gatherings. In my opinion, it makes for a richer environment.

That's my perspective from experience, but then again I'm fairly young and wasn't outside of public education for a long time before I came back. I think that reinforces the conclusions in the article I posted - I hadn't gone away and returned after I had significantly changed. It's different for "new" hires who had been out of academia for a while, they are usually "shocked" by how much things have changed.

I'm in no way defending the behavior of these young men and women, but I don't think it's a new development. I certainly don't think there is enough evidence to point to the public education system as the problem. The public education system has always had problems: it has actually changed very little (there are plenty of the old-school teachers hanging around for an extra percent of their pensions) - it's us old farts who have changed a lot ;)

Ian

The belief that society is changing for the worse is not unique to this era. It has been evident in every generation of the United States since the late 18th century (Scott & Wishy, 1983, as cited in Schwarz, Wanke, & Bless, 1994). Evidence of similar attitudes has been found among the ancient Greeks, and in the myths of cultures as diverse as the Aztecs and Zoroastrians. As historian Arthur Herman (1997) noted, “Virtually every culture past or present has believed that men and women are not up to the standards of their parents and forebears” (p. 13). Robert Bork (1996) made the point that this suggests that each generation’s judgments of cultural demise are likely exaggerated:

To hear each generation speak of the generation coming along behind it is to learn that our culture is not only deteriorating rapidly, but always has been. Regret for the golden days of the past is probably universal and as old as the human race. No doubt the elders of prehistoric tribes thought the younger generation’s cave paintings were not up to the standard they had set. Given this straight-line degeneration for so many millennia, by now our culture should be not merely rubble but dust. Obviously it is not: until recently our artists did much better than the cave painters. (p. 6)

Our thesis identifies one previously neglected factor that may contribute to this belief in societal decline: unrecognized changes in individual perceivers. Perceivers who have undergone changes in themselves, and who have failed to recognize that change, are likely to interpret the world differently and hence conclude that social conditions have changed. We thus began our investigation of the tendency to confuse self-change with change in the world by examining people’s belief in societal decline. In particular, we examined both archival data and our own survey data to determine whether personal changes experienced by respondents are associated, in predictable ways, with their assessments of social decay. We then tested our broader thesis in four laboratory experiments. In the first experiment, we assessed how an experimentally induced change in participants themselves would affect their perceptions of change in a poet’s writing. The remaining experiments explored the boundary conditions of this phenomenon by manipulating the salience of participants’ own changes. If a lack of awareness of self-change contributes to overestimates of change in the world, then making people aware of self-change should reduce their perceptions of change in the world. Furthermore, if people tend to assume that their perceptions of the world are direct and veridical, and if people stray from that assumption only with the expenditure of effort, awareness of self-change should only reduce judgments of external change when people have the cognitive capacity to overcome this assumption.

That's as queer as a clockwork orange.

Michael,

Thank you for the long defense of Glenn Beck's work.

Also thank you for the quotes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I had read the book when it was first published, but had forgotten about that whole argument in the book. Since I had passed it on to a friend I don't have it around to refer to as the current events unfold. We are so going to miss that writer.

Sometime back, my husband and I were watching Beck as he taught the history of Progressivism and Gale made the comment, "Where would we be without him?" It isn't that Beck is the only one who knows the history of this country. It is, as you have described, his ability to relate it in a short, succinct series of lessons that has made him such a helpful public figure. I would not have the "Save our Country" friends that I have now if I had not attended the first big Beck driven meetup back in March of 2009.

Just as Rand had her "Collective", many of us now have our Objectivist meetups and Beck meetups to provide a friendly salon for discussion, enlightenment and further learning. I have taught much about Objectivism to my 912 friends, and in the course of teaching have deepened my own understanding of the work of the Objectivists.

As for the religion that Beck asks his listeners and viewers to accept, remember that he also frequently quotes Thomas Jefferson's "Question with boldness, even to the very existence of God." Rand herself discussed the many tenets of Christianity that provide a framework for living one's life. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent people who are quick to recognize the value of Rand's philosophy even as they reject her atheism. I am frequently reminded by a friend of mine that I took my entire adult life to arrive where I am today and that I can't expect new students of Objectivism to "get it" over night. Rand taught us about the hierarchical nature of learning, too. I try to focus on applauding what is good. Sometimes you just have to out-wait what is less than perfect.

One of the important lessons from Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is that rationality is a way of thinking that is not guaranteed to lead us to the correct answer everytime we commit to it. We have to stay focused and keep on thinking through each problem or question that engages us until we have discovered the governing principle that applies to the problem. That includes how to discuss religion with people who seem to have a very real need for the comfort offered by a Supreme being or a Son of God. There is no need to trample all over these people with combat boots, especially when you consider the truth in the Ten Commandments. I mostly focus on the problem of Altruism as a major problem for good people to understand. They get it because they are in fact and no doubt about it - rational people.

A few months ago at a meeting of my Coalition for Common Sense group, we fell to relating how we had come to be involved in this freedom fight. I told them about my discovery of Aristotle at age 16 and Ayn Rand at age 20 and Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden shortly thereafter. I said that I felt as if my entire adult life had been a preparation for this moment in history. Another member related how his wife, watching his growth through the last 1 1/2 years, expressed her admiration for his passion about learning American history, the Constitution, and, now, the Principles of Objectivism. A third expressed a similar feeling of having spent a lifetime preparing for this battle. For all of us who recognize those ideas and feelings, now is the time is to put on the armor of Rand and step forward "once more unto the breach dear friends."

The conversation described above would not have taken place if we had remained isolated, if we had not answered Beck's call to meet with others who love freedom and to learn what the foundation of that freedom is. Beck got my attention with his talk with Yaron Brook about Atlas Shrugged but he kept my interest through his presentation of his and his staff's research on how we came from that glorious beginning to this rather dreadful state of political affairs.

I am very greatful to the thinkers, past and present, who have given me so much. I will make a mighty effort to repay them by lighting my Objectivism candle in my own little corner.

Better that than to curse the darkness.

Mary Lee

Need I say more?

Ian

One of the more interesting books that Beck held up was American Progressivism edited by Ronald J. Pestritto and William J. Atto. In the introduction the editors tell us how those who brought the most pressure against the U.S. Constitution used Altruism (Rand's favorite bad to the bone idea) to denigrate the founding fathers and their motives. They made snide accusations about the selfish, power hungy founding fathers who just wanted to protect their own financial interests, rather than working selflessly for the good of the country as a whole. One of these, Charles Beard, writing in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, published in 1913 (does that year ring a bell?), asserted that (quoting the book's editors):

"The delegates at Philadelphia, Beard contended, were motivated by personal economic concerns and determined to produce a document that strengthened their control of government and thus assured their continued financial success. While Beard's assertion was similar to J. Allen Smith's, his methodology, which seemed to substantiate the charge of avarice in a way that Smith's had not, combined with the charge that the framers should be condemned for reprehensible self-seeking, was a direct assault on the previously sacrosanct Constitution and its authors. Jefferson may have believed that the delegates assembled in Philadelphia were "demi-gods", but Beard thought otherwise. In Beard's analysis, even Madison, perhaps especially Madison, was charged with subscribing to "the theory of economic determinism in politics.""

"The implications of Beard's thesis were clear and significant for advocates of progressive reform: there had been no popular control of government from the founding erneration to the present; a great people had been duped by the conniving of a relatively small interest group. It was, therefore, incumbent upon proponents of democracy to wrest control of government from the few and place it where, despite the rhetoric of earlier generations, it had neve been, in the hands of the poplulace. "

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how Ayn Rand would have used this analysis of how we lost our Republican form of government?

Anyone still think that Glenn Beck has done no good for this country - for the people who used to read the sports pages and the Dear Abbey columns and are now reading American history with a passion? Seriously?

To answer your question Panoptic - I think you have a whole lot more to say. Go to it.

Mary Lee

Thank you for making my point - again.

The series finale of ‘24’ airs tonight. This gripping drama, which follows a day in the life of special agent Jack Bauer and his personal war against terrorism, has lasted for eight amazing seasons. Like so many others, I have become totally addicted to the breath-taking adrenalin-rush which begins as soon as the ‘24’ clock appears on the screen and does not stop until the last tick. Each show is brilliantly written with a well-constructed plot, surprising twists and turns, and truly fascinating characters. It is unlike anything else on television. Bauer could be compared to a 21st century Mike Hammer in terms of his relentless pursuit of justice despite the countless governmental and circumstantial obstacles being thrown in his path. Without giving his exploits an unqualified endorsement, I could never question his personal moral rectitude, his willingness to stand alone against the forces of evil and the spectacular heroism of his courage in the face of overwhelming odds. I dearly wish the powers-at-be at FOX would reconsider their decision to cancel this fantastic show.

It is, without a doubt, my favorite t.v. show of all time.

This was one of the best seasons. I hate that the show has been canceled, but at least it finished strong. Anxiously waiting to see Jack kick ass on the big screen, but hoping against all odds that someone comes to their senses and picks this show up!

Ian

Michael,

Thank you for the long defense of Glenn Beck's work.

Also thank you for the quotes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I had read the book when it was first published, but had forgotten about that whole argument in the book. Since I had passed it on to a friend I don't have it around to refer to as the current events unfold. We are so going to miss that writer.

Sometime back, my husband and I were watching Beck as he taught the history of Progressivism and Gale made the comment, "Where would we be without him?" It isn't that Beck is the only one who knows the history of this country. It is, as you have described, his ability to relate it in a short, succinct series of lessons that has made him such a helpful public figure. I would not have the "Save our Country" friends that I have now if I had not attended the first big Beck driven meetup back in March of 2009.

Just as Rand had her "Collective", many of us now have our Objectivist meetups and Beck meetups to provide a friendly salon for discussion, enlightenment and further learning. I have taught much about Objectivism to my 912 friends, and in the course of teaching have deepened my own understanding of the work of the Objectivists.

As for the religion that Beck asks his listeners and viewers to accept, remember that he also frequently quotes Thomas Jefferson's "Question with boldness, even to the very existence of God." Rand herself discussed the many tenets of Christianity that provide a framework for living one's life. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent people who are quick to recognize the value of Rand's philosophy even as they reject her atheism. I am frequently reminded by a friend of mine that I took my entire adult life to arrive where I am today and that I can't expect new students of Objectivism to "get it" over night. Rand taught us about the hierarchical nature of learning, too. I try to focus on applauding what is good. Sometimes you just have to out-wait what is less than perfect.

One of the important lessons from Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is that rationality is a way of thinking that is not guaranteed to lead us to the correct answer everytime we commit to it. We have to stay focused and keep on thinking through each problem or question that engages us until we have discovered the governing principle that applies to the problem. That includes how to discuss religion with people who seem to have a very real need for the comfort offered by a Supreme being or a Son of God. There is no need to trample all over these people with combat boots, especially when you consider the truth in the Ten Commandments. I mostly focus on the problem of Altruism as a major problem for good people to understand. They get it because they are in fact and no doubt about it - rational people.

A few months ago at a meeting of my Coalition for Common Sense group, we fell to relating how we had come to be involved in this freedom fight. I told them about my discovery of Aristotle at age 16 and Ayn Rand at age 20 and Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden shortly thereafter. I said that I felt as if my entire adult life had been a preparation for this moment in history. Another member related how his wife, watching his growth through the last 1 1/2 years, expressed her admiration for his passion about learning American history, the Constitution, and, now, the Principles of Objectivism. A third expressed a similar feeling of having spent a lifetime preparing for this battle. For all of us who recognize those ideas and feelings, now is the time is to put on the armor of Rand and step forward "once more unto the breach dear friends."

The conversation described above would not have taken place if we had remained isolated, if we had not answered Beck's call to meet with others who love freedom and to learn what the foundation of that freedom is. Beck got my attention with his talk with Yaron Brook about Atlas Shrugged but he kept my interest through his presentation of his and his staff's research on how we came from that glorious beginning to this rather dreadful state of political affairs.

I am very greatful to the thinkers, past and present, who have given me so much. I will make a mighty effort to repay them by lighting my Objectivism candle in my own little corner.

Better that than to curse the darkness.

Mary Lee

Need I say more? Not a single original thought in that whole diatribe. Look at it: she uses a few sources - the same sources that every one of Beck's followers use - because he provided them for them. Can't you see that supporting Beck IS supporting the status quo? You let yourself be manipulated into following "great men." How can you be a libertarian or for small government when you want and think you need great leaders just as much as those on the left? You just want leaders you agree with - and will fight for them as hard as the left fights for their own great men. The only way around this is to educate people to see through the rhetoric which these men use to manipulate them - to teach them to become great men and women themselves. The best part is you don't need a great man to teach you these things - you need to use your own rational mind.

It's not that I disagree with the points Beck is trying to make - it's that he's using manipulation to get people to believe him. If he can do it, you'd be naive to think that he's the only one who can. Doesn't it worry you when everybody is reading the same books and will rabidly defend their profit? If we can see through the rhetoric and get to the message, we will revolt against people like Beck, Obama, Olbermann who wish to manipulate us with appeals to irrational fears and emotions. The fancy rhetoric accompanying the message will become superfluous and extraneous - as it is to anyone who knows how to think now. I don't need my emotions jolted to know what's right. Wake up!!!

So it's not on the basis of political ideology that I dislike Beck (although I don't always agree with him) - I find it disheartening that smart people want leaders who use manipulation. The truth doesn't need embellishment.

Ian

Michael,

Thank you for the long defense of Glenn Beck's work.

Also thank you for the quotes from Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I had read the book when it was first published, but had forgotten about that whole argument in the book. Since I had passed it on to a friend I don't have it around to refer to as the current events unfold. We are so going to miss that writer.

Sometime back, my husband and I were watching Beck as he taught the history of Progressivism and Gale made the comment, "Where would we be without him?" It isn't that Beck is the only one who knows the history of this country. It is, as you have described, his ability to relate it in a short, succinct series of lessons that has made him such a helpful public figure. I would not have the "Save our Country" friends that I have now if I had not attended the first big Beck driven meetup back in March of 2009.

Just as Rand had her "Collective", many of us now have our Objectivist meetups and Beck meetups to provide a friendly salon for discussion, enlightenment and further learning. I have taught much about Objectivism to my 912 friends, and in the course of teaching have deepened my own understanding of the work of the Objectivists.

As for the religion that Beck asks his listeners and viewers to accept, remember that he also frequently quotes Thomas Jefferson's "Question with boldness, even to the very existence of God." Rand herself discussed the many tenets of Christianity that provide a framework for living one's life. Most of the Christians I know are intelligent people who are quick to recognize the value of Rand's philosophy even as they reject her atheism. I am frequently reminded by a friend of mine that I took my entire adult life to arrive where I am today and that I can't expect new students of Objectivism to "get it" over night. Rand taught us about the hierarchical nature of learning, too. I try to focus on applauding what is good. Sometimes you just have to out-wait what is less than perfect.

One of the important lessons from Barbara Branden's Principles of Efficient Thinking is that rationality is a way of thinking that is not guaranteed to lead us to the correct answer everytime we commit to it. We have to stay focused and keep on thinking through each problem or question that engages us until we have discovered the governing principle that applies to the problem. That includes how to discuss religion with people who seem to have a very real need for the comfort offered by a Supreme being or a Son of God. There is no need to trample all over these people with combat boots, especially when you consider the truth in the Ten Commandments. I mostly focus on the problem of Altruism as a major problem for good people to understand. They get it because they are in fact and no doubt about it - rational people.

A few months ago at a meeting of my Coalition for Common Sense group, we fell to relating how we had come to be involved in this freedom fight. I told them about my discovery of Aristotle at age 16 and Ayn Rand at age 20 and Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden shortly thereafter. I said that I felt as if my entire adult life had been a preparation for this moment in history. Another member related how his wife, watching his growth through the last 1 1/2 years, expressed her admiration for his passion about learning American history, the Constitution, and, now, the Principles of Objectivism. A third expressed a similar feeling of having spent a lifetime preparing for this battle. For all of us who recognize those ideas and feelings, now is the time is to put on the armor of Rand and step forward "once more unto the breach dear friends."

The conversation described above would not have taken place if we had remained isolated, if we had not answered Beck's call to meet with others who love freedom and to learn what the foundation of that freedom is. Beck got my attention with his talk with Yaron Brook about Atlas Shrugged but he kept my interest through his presentation of his and his staff's research on how we came from that glorious beginning to this rather dreadful state of political affairs.

I am very greatful to the thinkers, past and present, who have given me so much. I will make a mighty effort to repay them by lighting my Objectivism candle in my own little corner.

Better that than to curse the darkness.

Mary Lee

Need I say more?

Ian

No. I don't have to.

Then why did you?

What part of "no" didn't you understand? Here comes the club...enjoy the show. I'll give you the last word.

Ian,

Now you are distorting my words?

Michael

Michael,

No. I don't have to. I couldn't make them appear any more ridiculous if I tried!

Anyway, it's useless. Beck has you hooked on a line that is apparently strong enough to hold both of us (and Dan and Chris). I'm letting go with them before I get dragged aboard and clubbed.

Ian