PDS

I question the timing.

XRay: the dilemma seems to be one of branding. Most normal people, to the extent they have a basic understanding of and sympathy for Objectivism, recognize that is merely a name of a system of thought more or less consistent with common sense and reality. These same people implicitly assume that "Objectivism" has as many facets as reality. Closed system types seem to think of Objectivism as something more akin to Amway, Dell, or the like: i.e., they believe Objectivism is a proper noun, or type of "brand", and can only be what Ayn Rand said it was, and the last she said it, at that. If you are employed by Amway, after all, you can only sell Amway products. Any other sales would have to be beneath the table, so to speak, and, not irrelevantly, immoral and illegal. This distinction is what prohibits picking and choosing. Frankly, I think it would be much easier on everyone if those outside the ARI orbit simply called themselves Neo-Objectivists, or some such. Then nobody would have anything to bitch about. But then again, having been away from movement Objectivism for at least 20 years until rather recently, and having observed the flame and other kinds of wars over this distinction, it appears that there is one thing Objectivists enjoy more than just about anything else--and that is bitching about one another.

This horse has been beaten beyond recognition. This horse is the Rodney King of Objectivism.

So long as the above is indeed a paraphrase and not significantly verbatim, Speicher has no copyright grounds to demand that it be taken down from here. Unless she entered into some sort of contract with Starbuckle, she has no recourse their either, and even if Speicher did have a valid contract with her readers, it would not bind this website or third parties. Any actions the moderator takes here would be courtesies. Courtesies. Agreed. She has no intellectual property rights in prohibiting another's paraphrase, or parody. The US Supreme Court has ruled this way in the Hustler/Falwell case.

I first came across the term "kerfuffle" by an Canadian internet correspondent of Scottish/Irish origin who used it. It seems to be quite old actually: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kerfuffle kerfuffle, carfuffle, kurfuffle [kəˈfʌfəl] n Informal chiefly Brit commotion; disorder; agitation vb (tr) Scot to put into disorder or disarray; ruffle or disarrange [from Scottish curfuffle, carfuffle, from Scottish Gaelic car twist, turn + fuffle to disarrange] Lame attempts at humor aside, "kerfuffle" became a part of the zeitgeist/political lexicon by its repeated and clever usage by James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal circa 2006-7. Taranto may have even gotten President Bush to use the term. Although the term is not yet passe, it is getting there.

Someone once said that Objectivism is a closed system, ergo, Peikoff's theory of induction cannot qualify as an official part of Objectivism. QED. As such, this entire kerfuffle doesn't even involve Objectivism...it involves what the legal heir of Ayn Rand thinks of what others think of his theory about something that isn't a part of Objectivism. Now that's pathetic. I recall several statements by Rand where she expressly stated that Objectivism consists entirely and exclusively of her ideas (and ideas published with her sanction). By this standard, you are correct; Objectivism became "closed" after her death, and Peikoff has no business presenting his own ideas as part of Objectivism. He tries to get around this by presenting himself as Rand's "intellectual heir," which presumably qualifies him to channel Rand's thoughts, or at least her approval, from the grave. Btw, I have seen "kerfuffle" used more often on OL during the past few days than I have during the rest of my life. Have we been invaded by Brits? Ghs I assure you, sir, I am no Brit. I thought kerfuffle was a recently invented term. By-the-by, wouldn't it be great if the internet had a search engine of some type that would allow me to simply punch in the word "kerfuffle" and then have a bunch of references pop up on the screen? I would then have some idea of what I'm talking about. Damn, my head is full of ideas some days...

Someone once said that Objectivism is a closed system, ergo, Peikoff's theory of induction cannot qualify as an official part of Objectivism. QED. As such, this entire kerfuffle doesn't even involve Objectivism...it involves what the legal heir of Ayn Rand thinks of what others think of his theory about something that isn't a part of Objectivism. Now that's pathetic.

I think DH and PH deserve credit for the way have approached this. DH in particular was expected by some to be one of the "toadies" described by Brant, and those with such expectations were wrong, in this instance.

Marginally on topic: Bauby's The Butterfly and Diving Bell is a wonderful read, and endorsement of how precious life is.

Shayne, I agree with you. There is no need for an Objectivist movement today, and attempts to build or keep one pose too many liabilities. This why any expectation on Yaron Brook's part of absorbing the vanquished remnants of TAS is nutty and hubristic. And why Will Thomas's dream of uniting the Objectivist movement behind TAS was no less so. Robert Campbell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-QKSNCFuC0&feature=related At 4:27 Deep Throat utters the timeless wisdom "Just follow the money", and that injunction is just as important for understanding the fate of the Objectivist movement today as it is for unraveling political conspiracies. ARI brings in at least $6M per year, and its president Yaron Brook made $$348,398 in 2009, and even the secretary pulled down $123,684 according to public records. https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.charitynavigator.org/__asset__/_etc_/CN_CEO_Compensation_Study_2009_Final.pdf Even after those generous salaries, there is plenty of trickle down remaining to keep the insiders in line. And to keep a lot of folks on the outside salivating. Until the money flow stops, it is unrealistic to expect negative events like the McCaskey purge to slow ARI down. I'm not buying this argument. After taxes and tithes, there's not much money left over with those figures...

Too bad. The Starbuckle interview was rather hilarious.

It's a miracle!

Putting aside issues of LP's personality, motivations, etc., isn't it fair to say that his recent Podcast is "fairly big news"? If we accept his pronouncement at face value, and not as some kind of Tomkin Village, what the hell have Objectivists been fighting about so hard for the last 20/30/40 years? Surely 40 years of potential momentum hasn't been pissed away over personality conflicts, have they?

What kind of life of quiet desperation leads one to be a "whistleblower" in this context? Not quiet enough, apparently.

I am eager to hear responses to Barbara's query/comment. I do not see this as a suicide, but merely a more-audible-than-usual death rattle from a movement that has been in an obscure nursing home for quite some time now. What a shame.

MSK: Off topic, but how is Super Yoga treating you, if at all?

anxious.

That was a serious pimp-slap by Stewart.

I miss Phil. Come on back Phil. You bring out the best/worst in Ninth Doctor, at least.

Re: the issue of infighting: is there an Objectivist "fusion" candidate out there with the credibility and lack of personal connection to the last 3 decades of schisms, i.e., someone with the stature to throw a pass over Leonard's head? If not, then I doubt the infighting will stop--at least not until (no offense...) the 60's Objectivists have mostly died off.

Does this paragraph remind anybody of any countries they may be residing in?: "In the second century of the Christian era, the Empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilised portion of mankind. The frontiers of that extensive monarchy were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valour. The gentle but powerful influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of the provinces. Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury. The image of a free constitution was preserved with decent reverence: the Roman senate appeared to possess the sovereign authority, and devolved on the emperors all the executive powers of government. During a happy period (A.D. 98-180) of more than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by the virtue and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines. It is the design of this, and of the two succeeding chapters, to describe the prosperous condition of their empire; and afterwards, from the death of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the most important circumstances of its decline and fall; a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by the nations of the earth." Chapter 1

From his first paragraph to almost his last, Gibbon very rarely disappoints.

Excellent points. Ultimately, mankind needs to become more rational about himself but it is a "long and winding road". Objectivism is just one of countless attempts to achieve this. GHS: your analysis of this is one of the best I've seen. I would another point, at the risk of ruining the momentum: heretics are also (usually) personally known to the Orthodox in some way, thus creating the "hell hath no fury" factor.

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Or, in my humble life experience(s): incompetence, sloppiness, or perhaps, mere over-zealousness. I have been in the Objectivist equivalent of an Okinawan Cave for the past 25 years, and it is really quite remarkable, over the past 6 months, to come out of the Cave and see the vitriol between and amongst Objectivists/Objectivist sympathizers. Forest and trees and all that. Back in the Good Old Days, we were lucky if our campus signs for Peter Schwartz weren't torn down by the latter day Hippies. We certainly weren't concerned about fellow O's.

And Fitts, to his credit, says this about the McCaskey situation: "From the content of the Dr. Peikoff's letter, he seems to be reacting to his judgment that Dr. McCaskey thinks that either the way Harriman and himself applied the philosophy (i.e. his theory) is wrong, or that Objectivism is wrong due to its inadequacies in this area. Either reason appears good enough for Dr. Peikoff to deem a person unqualified for a position on the Ayn Rand Institute's Board. It should grab one's attention that this applies to not only public assertions of such judgments, which I could understand for obvious reasons like public image, but also for private judgments, such as those of Dr. McCaskey's." This post was cited approvingly by DH in the comments to a Noodlefood entry, so there may more to Fitts (and DH? Biddle?) than meets the eye, at least at present.