jordanz

Whither IOS/TOC/TAS? It seems like an empty shell. I'm very sad about this.

Can we just stop the legal nit picking. I find it particularly distasteful from individuals who advocate openness, particularly in government.

Why is it nitpicking? The constitution should be followed - everyone in government swears to do so (not that they actually do).

I somehow missed this thread. I would like to add my heartfelt condolences.

OMG - that's hilarious.

Normally I wouldn't talk about this, but seeing as it's appropriate today...

Rita and I are remodeling our house details here: http://www.jordanzimmerman.com/remodel- For our master bath, we've gone for the Bentley of toilets: the NeoRest 500 - http://www.totousa.com/ProductPage.asp?pid=804

Hilarious!

In the same vein, here's Michael Shermer:

I’m voting Democrat because I think lawyers should run the country, because the last two years under their control has gone so well, because the government has done such a great job with FEMA that they should also be in charge of our school choices, health care choices, and retirement choices, because they protect me from crime so well that I don’t need a gun, because I want to pay more taxes (especially Capital Gains), because unions need to be stronger against evil corporations, because trade with foreign corporations is anti-American and we need to protect American jobs, and mostly because I’m tired of having so many choices and want someone else to make them for me.

Click on this link to email or call the LA Times to release the video of Obama at the Khalidi fund raiser. Rashid Khalidi is a Columbia Professor and former PLO spokesman who has denied that Obama supports the PLO.

Nice and easy! Message sent.

Palin's ignorance of the fruit fly is exceeded only by Obama's ignorance of economics, history, diplomacy, the American Constitution, the Bill of Rights, freedom, justice, common sense, and morality.

Touche and brava.

More from Robert on this:

Moreover, it's wildly inaccurate to say that my goal was to resurrect the early Reason magazine. I never said anything of the sort. I made clear my view of the nature and goals of the magazine in my initial editorial, "TNI: A New Beginning," in the Fall 2005 issue:

"For the record, The New Individualist champions the basic principles of Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy of rational individualism. Among our guiding principles:

"Each individual is an end in himself—not a means to the ends of others—and his own happiness and well-being is his highest moral purpose. Reason is the individual's only reliable guide to knowledge and action; he should therefore rely on his own rational judgment and live by the creative efforts of his own mind. He has the moral right to pursue his life and happiness in freedom—as a peaceful producer and trader, neither sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself. Government should be limited solely to the task of protecting individual rights and liberties. Cultural institutions should nurture independence, self-esteem, and personal achievement, honoring the individual at his creative best. To these ends, artists should strive to project a heroic, inspiring vision of human possibility.

"That rational, heroic vision of the individual sharply distinguishes this magazine from other opinion journals—left, right, libertarian, religious, or skeptic. Rational individualism is the philosophy of human potential: a challenging new perspective to meet the challenges of the new millennium.

"Unlike previous incarnations of this journal, The New Individualist is not aimed mainly at Objectivists. It is instead an "outreach" magazine, directed toward a much broader audience of intelligent readers, particularly opinion leaders. To reach them, we intend to put TNI on newsstands within a year, where it can become a distinctive and influential cultural presence.

"Attracting that new readership will require writing that is provocative, persuasive, stylish, and interesting. You won't find in these pages boring theoretical papers or vituperative ideological rants masquerading as opinion journalism. Such articles only attract those who already agree with them. But TNI isn't aimed at those who already agree with us. We don't assume reader familiarity with our philosophical outlook. Nor will the tone in articles here condescend to or insult the very people whom we wish to engage and persuade.

"My goal is to present compelling writing by outstanding thinkers on interesting intellectual and cultural topics—articles, essays, and reviews that assess our world from an individualist perspective. However, I welcome articles by writers who are not necessarily Objectivists, as long as their submissions on specific topics are congruent with our stated principles.

"This last requires elaboration.

"I've heard some complaints that certain authors in these pages not Objectivists. I confess: it's true. Some are not. But their specific articles are consonant with Objectivist principles and values. In some cases their arguments may not go as far as I might take them. Yet these authors do present valid and valuable ideas and information, often bringing special expertise and unique perspectives to bear. Moreover, they can write rings around most of their armchair critics.

"As editor, my responsibility is to police the contents of this magazine. But that's where my responsibility to you, our readers, ends. I can't be a moral or intellectual policeman concerning the private lives, philosophical pedigrees, or personal views of contributors. Nor can I concern myself with what they may publish elsewhere.

"Except for criminals, and those who publicly express hostility to TNI's philosophy, I otherwise don't care what an author may believe, do, or write outside of the four corners of the pages that he submits for my consideration. I can only weigh the quality of the manuscript that he puts before my eyes. If I think that it will engage, educate, and entertain you—and that it's consonant with the principles of rational individualism—then it stands a good chance of being published. If not, not."

Re: Robert Bidinotto and TAS parting ways:

A couple of days ago, I had a phone conversation with "someone" who was at the TAS Board of Directors meeting where the direction of TNI and also TAS were discussed. According to this account, a number of Board members were concerned that the magazine, while generally of excellent quality, was devoting much of its space to articles that presented cultural-political commentary from perspectives that were libertarian, but not distinguishable as explicitly Objectivist.

*snip*

If true, this concerns me. This would constitute a major distortion of what was told to me as the reason for the changes at TNI. I plan on verifying this.

I sent an email to Robert and he was nice enough to reply:

I can tell you for a fact that I was never told by anyone among the trustees that they were unhappy with the overall content of The New Individualist - quite the contrary. That's not to say that they agreed with every article—hell, I didn't. But nobody ever said, "Bidinotto, we need to cram more explicit Objectivist philosophizing into the magazine."

Re: Robert Bidinotto and TAS parting ways:

A couple of days ago, I had a phone conversation with "someone" who was at the TAS Board of Directors meeting where the direction of TNI and also TAS were discussed. According to this account, a number of Board members were concerned that the magazine, while generally of excellent quality, was devoting much of its space to articles that presented cultural-political commentary from perspectives that were libertarian, but not distinguishable as explicitly Objectivist.

*snip*

If true, this concerns me. This would constitute a major distortion of what was told to me as the reason for the changes at TNI. I plan on verifying this.

Jerry - I'm feeling exactly as you are. I need a drink...

Why is Will asleep?

;)

Happy Birthday Chris! And we do expect to see you at the Atlas Shrugged 75th anniversary event as well as at the movie premiere!

They'll most likely coincide ;)

Roger, why don't you just ask him?

Yes, TNI will become a quarterly. I reported about it here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=52782 (which points here http://www.jordanzimmerman.com/index.php?m...oc2008%2Findex).

Jordan, thanks for the nice summary. A couple questions, if you have time and if you recall while it's still fresh:

1) > Is Limited Government a Small Government....Will Thomas gave a very thought provoking talk exploring what an Objectivist government might look like... [exploring] the possibility that a fairly large governmental apparatus might be required to implement rational laws...a challenge to the idea that limited government is small government.

What were some examples he gave?

2) Was there a single highpoint lecture?

No real examples. He suggested bodies such as the FDA might need to exist in some form.

I don't want to pick one talk as the best. I couldn't go to half of them, of course, so I need to hear all the tapes to decide. However I liked how David Kelley's talk on logical fallacies kept creeping into other talks. i.e. several people kept pointing out Stolen Concepts and Floating Abstractions.

OK - my trip report is up: http://www.jordanzimmerman.com/index.php?m...toc2008%2Findex

I wish someone attending TAS's conference -- going on right now -- had her industriousness!

I've been way too busy to write anything. But, I promise to write a full report when I get home. Short answer: having a great time - it's a great conference (as usual).

I can't see any way around the problem. In order to defend myself, innocents may get hurt. I don't see how caring about them changes the morality of it.

Caring about the morality of it means honoring the morality of making the right decisions. This makes one a moral actor.

--Brant

That's not what I said.

1. The standard argument in the case ARI makes is that enemy innocents killed in war are the moral responsibility of the enemy. If that case stopped there, I would agree. But it doesn't. The continuation is that concern with enemy innocents is evil because it makes us pull our punches. That is a gross oversimplification and just plain boneheaded logic. One day I will break this concept down into its referents and demonstrate the contradictions being packaged together. I find it disgusting.

I can't see any way around the problem. In order to defend myself, innocents may get hurt. I don't see how caring about them changes the morality of it.

But there is something even worse. Concern with innocents in general is a human value that goes deeper than tribalism (our innocents are better than yours).

This is, essentially, Justice. The question becomes more complicated because the "innocents" are not the only actors in need of justice.

2. I am totally in agreement with Bill O'Reilly about keeping the military under civilian control. Peikoff's insinuation in saying that the military must choose which weapons to use is another gross oversimplification.

Peikoff said that the military professionals should decide tactics. I agree. Of course the President has the final say, but he doesn't know anything about the nuts-and-bolts of fighting a war.

A quick way to talk about this is to use Hiroshima as a surrogate. Was it moral to drop the bomb or not? I say it was.

This is Lenny McCrazy on the O'Reilly Factor.

I don't care for Leonard as a person nor do I like his style. However, I have trouble finding fault with his logic. There is nothing he said that I disagree with.

Wow - great speech. If only it had some affect

* snip *

Excellent, Barbara. Thank you for putting so much time into your reply.

You apparently prefer to not answer my questions, or respond to postings of many others on TAS issues.

* snip *

By the way, I did not (nor have others) disparage the faculty selection. What I did say, was that some prominent and well-known Objectivists who presented at previous seminars, were not included.

You see bogeymen where I don't. I don't think that there is anything dark about who was/wasn't included in the seminar.