Donald Trump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

It's mostly Trump is an action man and Michael is an action man. There's the real congruence.

Brant,

There are other similar areas than the following, but qualify this as action toward productive achievement and NOT Endless War for profit, and you are onto something.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

53 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Hard work, fairness, honest dealings, competitiveness, excellence in execution, competence, hard-ass discipline, and so on.

Also, strong country, live and let live, command to rise (similar to Rand's) and achieve one's best, productive achievement, calculated risk taking for productive goals, refusal to be ripped off, intolerance of morons on the job, and so on.

OK.

Some of these are really broad, but we all understand what they mean.

I now look at Donald Trump's behavior since he launched his campaign—and I see actions that do not appear to flow from adherence to one or more of the above.

Making up statistics, then repeating them over and over after they are questioned, doesn't look to be consistent with honest dealings.

Efforts not merely to defeat opponents, but to make servants out of them or end their careers, don't seem to stem from competitiveness.

Hard-assed discipline isn't what yields half-assed plans (Trump's income tax plan is pretty clear, whatever one's view of its merits, but his health-care plan is still a dumpster fire).

Hard-assed discipline might also preclude sulking, or looking for a new Dolchstosslegende, upon losing a contest.

Fairness is not put into practice by obtaining and remunerating the services of Roger Stone.  Or by likening all prospective immigrants from certain countries to poisonous snakes.

Are these all mere "gotchas"?

The question then becomes whether any action taken by Donald Trump, at any time, is allowed into evidence regarding the principles that actually motivate him.

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, PDS said:

So:  since you don't agree with me about Trump, does this mean you don't see me?   

I say I am someone who thinks Trump is a Braggart and a bullshit artist.   If you disagree with this assessment, does that mean you don't see me?

David,

Don't take this personally, but I used to see you. Now I (qua Trump supporter) am no longer looking. 

I'm not talking about you, David, but more about the people you have aligned yourself with (I'm going by your arguments and questions).

I'll give it one more try, but if this doesn't get you to see me, I'm going to leave it at that. 

People in the elites and intelligentsia are used to making cases to each other, talking this and that, disagreeing about this and that, and so on. That is their norm. They face each other as equals and have standard routines for dealing with interactions.

But when the unwashed masses (me) have appeared, they have been quite dismissive, not talking to the unwashed masses, but instead talking to each other about the issues the unwashed masses raised. (For example, the Republican congressional majorities of 2010 and 2014.) That's the talk. 

Now here's the walk. In terms of action (government getting smaller, less war for profit, less regulations, better borders, etc. etc. etc.), nothing changes for the better. It just keeps getting worse and worse. And they keep talking as if it were not.

Now flip this to me (when I say "me" in this context, I mean a standard Trump supporter--and many Cruz supporters, for that matter). I am not a person who is mostly interested in talking down my nose about the hoi polloi although I might have my share of petty vanities. I am a person who wants to do my job, raise my family, cultivate friends, go on trips, have a hobby, and so on. I couldn't give a flying frack about politics. When I get home from work, I'm tired.

So when I see a political problem arise, I go to the elites and intelligentsia, not as an equal, mind you, but as someone who points and says, "That's wrong over there. That doesn't make sense. And it is harming me."

Then I'm told that employment is increasing when everybody I know has either lost their job or are deathly afraid of the one they have being outsourced overseas. I am told Islam is not at all involved in terrorism, yet I see people yelling Allahu Akbar on each assault. I am told a YouTube video was the reason fanatics burned down an embassy and killed an Ambassador. And that's just a few items with this administration. There's a truckload.

Ditto for the previous administrations, but it got really bad starting with Bush Junior.

And the elites and intelligentsia? What do they do? Well, they bitch a little, but keep their own nests well-feathered. So it's like a game. One day one member of the oh so superior class bitches, and another day a different member bitches. With all due rebuttals. It's musical chairs. And when they look at me, they tell me it's all under control, that I don't understand it fully, that yada yada yada. They do anything and everything but actually resolve the goddam problem.

Then when I turn my back, they talk about me as "low information," and so on.

I am not seen.

So forgive me if I stop looking at those who have refused to look at me for decades. I'm out to fix some serious-ass problems as are millions like me. Then we'll worry about who's the victim and all that crap. Trump is the person we have chosen to lead the charge. Granted, he stepped up, but of all those who stepped up, he's the one we chose.

Why?

You won't believe this because he's a billionaire, but Donald Trump is one of us.

You (meaning those you have aligned with) are not. 

If you keep calling this "victim card," you are not seeing who we are.

Let me put it this way. I am discussing this with you, David, because we are friends, this is a discussion forum, there are readers, and so on. So when I say "me" and "you" in this context, it is most cordial and even brotherly love is flowing. (How's that for a non-Objectivist thought?  )

When we are discussing this from the lens of who you have aligned with and who I have, I am not really interested in what you think about Trump--or me for that matter. There is nothing you offer I want. 

Literally nothing. Not even an opinion.

I have a job to do, a mess to clean up--your mess--and I'll take care of it myself. 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

25 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

The question then becomes whether any action taken by Donald Trump, at any time, is allowed into evidence regarding the principles that actually motivate him.

Robert,

For a Trump supporter, this answer is he has no interest in looking at so-called evidence from those aligned with the elites and intelligentsia.

I don't mean you and me as people (as with David, I feel brotherly love with you).

I am talking about political alignment. The people who made the mess, or rationalized it for public consumption (like the National Review crowd among many), have nothing to offer those intent on cleaning it up.

Trump is punking the elites and intelligentsia and I, qua Trump supporter, love it. I am confident he will do his job as president with the same competence and discipline as he has done his job as entrepreneur all his life.

It's a say versus do thing.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

So is it that Trump's actions do not (cannot) offer evidence as to the principles he follows?

Or that what constitutes evidence (regarding Donald Trump) for those who do not line up behind him cannot constitute evidence for any of those who do?

And vice versa?

Where have we landed?

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, Robert Campbell said:

Where have we landed?

Robert,

Those who have refused to see for decades are no longer seen by the ignored.

That's where.

This is my best understanding of what is going on in this election. I don't know how else to put it to say that it's serious this time around. People are no longer interested in anyone but them to clean up the mess. The game is over. And if you don't like who they chose, no problem. But you are not seen anymore if you don't.

They have a job to do and this time no more excuses. After they get it done, then they will go back a bit to the way it was. But not enough to let the evil bastards back in. Not in this generation, anyway.

Michael

[PDS]

23 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Don't take this personally, but I used to see you. Now I (qua Trump supporter) am no longer looking. 

I'm not talking about you, David, but more about the people you have aligned yourself with (I'm going by your arguments and questions).

I'll give it one more try, but if this doesn't get you to see me, I'm going to leave it at that. 

People in the elites and intelligentsia are used to making cases to each other, talking this and that, disagreeing about this and that, and so on. That is their norm. They face each other as equals and have standard routines for dealing with interactions.

But when the unwashed masses (me) have appeared, they have been quite dismissive, not talking to the unwashed masses, but instead talking to each other about the issues the unwashed masses raised. (For example, the Republican congressional majorities of 2010 and 2014.) That's the talk. 

Now here's the walk. In terms of action (government getting smaller, less war for profit, less regulations, better borders, etc. etc. etc.), nothing changes for the better. It just keeps getting worse and worse. And they keep talking as if it were not.

Now flip this to me (when I say "me" in this context, I mean a standard Trump supporter--and many Cruz supporters, for that matter). I am not a person who is mostly interested in talking down my nose about the hoi polloi although I might have my share of petty vanities. I am a person who wants to do my job, raise my family, cultivate friends, go on trips, have a hobby, and so on. I couldn't give a flying frack about politics. When I get home from work, I'm tired.

So when I see a political problem arise, I go to the elites and intelligentsia, not as an equal, mind you, but as someone who points and says, "That's wrong over there. That doesn't make sense. And it is harming me."

Then I'm told that employment is increasing when everybody I know has either lost their job or are deathly afraid of the one they have being outsourced overseas. I am told Islam is not at all involved in terrorism, yet I see people yelling Allahu Akbar on each assault. I am told a YouTube video was the reason fanatics burned down an embassy and killed an Ambassador. And that's just a few items with this administration. There's a truckload.

Ditto for the previous administrations, but it got really bad starting with Bush Junior.

And the elites and intelligentsia? What do they do? Well, they bitch a little, but keep their own nests well-feathered. So it's like a game. One day one member of the oh so superior class bitches, and another day a different member bitches. With all due rebuttals. It's musical chairs. And when they look at me, they tell me it's all under control, that I don't understand it fully, that yada yada yada. They do anything and everything but actually resolve the goddam problem.

Then when I turn my back, they talk about me as "low information," and so on.

I am not seen.

So forgive me if I stop looking at those who have refused to look at me for decades. I'm out to fix some serious-ass problems as are millions like me. Then we'll worry about who's the victim and all that crap. Trump is the person we have chosen to lead the charge. Granted, he stepped up, but of all those who stepped up, he's the one we chose.

Why?

You won't believe this because he's a billionaire, but Donald Trump is one of us.

You (meaning those you have aligned with) are not. 

If you keep calling this "victim card," you are not seeing who we are.

Let me put it this way. I am discussing this with you, David, because we are friends, this is a discussion forum, there are readers, and so on. So when I say "me" and "you" in this context, it is most cordial and even brotherly love is flowing. (How's that for a non-Objectivist thought?  )

When we are discussing this from the lens of who you have aligned with and who I have, I am not really interested in what you think about Trump--or me for that matter. There is nothing you offer I want. 

Literally nothing. Not even an opinion.

I have a job to do, a mess to clean up--your mess--and I'll take care of it myself. 

Michael

Well, given the last three paragraphs of your post, I think I will go ahead and bow out of the conversation. 

[Robert Campbell]

46 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is my best understanding of what is going on in this election. I don't know how else to put it to say that it's serious this time around. People are no longer interested in anyone but them to clean up the mess. The game is over. And if you don't like who they chose, no problem. But you are not seen anymore if you don't.

Michael,

I did not work for either of Ronald Reagan's campaigns.

But I never heard this kind of rhetoric out of anyone who supported Ronald Reagan.

Nor can I believe that the man himself would have been anything but dismayed and disheartened, to hear it from a single one of his supporters.

I will leave it there.

Robert

 

 

[Brant Gaede]

Trump may be a builder but he has not built a competent campaign. I don't think he gets nominated but if he is I don't think he wins the general but if he does--

Be careful what you wish for. I have a very weak and vague wish--I don't want to explore it--about a President Biden?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think I finally got seen.

 

But, I'm pretty sure tomorrow I will become invisible again.

I wasn't speaking just for myself in these last few posts. If anyone wants to see for themselves if the sentiment I depicted is a fiction or me being grumpy or whatever, go to any post on Facebook where Trump posts and read the gobs of comments.

See if it isn't like I portrayed just now. Some of the folks are even hostile, but that's just a flash in the pan. The root is the same. Underneath, they don't want to argue with the elites and intelligentsia or beat them at anything. They think most of the elites and intelligentsia are morons who are wrecking America, but they don't hate them. They just want to clear the path so they can clean up the mess and get back to their lives.

Trump embodies that perfectly. Maybe not to the elites and intelligentsia, but to Trump supporters he does. Just read the comments. Here is the latest post he made. He made it 50 minutes ago and already there are 802 comments. By the time you get there, there will be oodles more. And that's just one post. So read the comments and see for yourself.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And now a word from Paul Manafort:

(btw - He was a Reagan dude. ) 

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Confession:  although Phil's argumentative ploys and styles most often irked me, and despite my distaste for his shitty departure notice (Gimme a C U en and a tee), I keep in touch, with a twice-yearly social health check.  I must report that Phil is phine, phine phine. 

Phil's last post, dated January 31, 2012 - link - ends simply with "Sayonara."

If what you're thinking of is the photoshopped image of Phil in front of a blackboard, the addition of "you cunts" in the "quoted" farewell is a contribution from Ninth's doctoring.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

23 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Just read the comments. Here is the latest post he made.

I just read a whole bunch to make sure. I didn't read them before posting above because I am very familiar with how they turn out. But I decided to make sure. And sure enough, this thread is like the others.

Here are a few characteristics:

1. Lots of love and hope and optimism.

2. Lack of hostility.

3. Not one call (in the large number I sifted through) for an opinion or input of any kind from the establishment. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. It's like the establishment folks don't exist except for a sporadic caution about establishment types who want to steal the election.

I could come up with more similarities, but the point is, these Trump supporters are people who are doing it on their own. They don't care about getting permission from anyone or arguing about it or analyzing gotchas or whatever. There is a job to do and they are busy doing it, which right now means electing their guy. 

It's almost like the Roarkian, "But I don't think of you."

Michael

[Selene]

Folks, could we not let this thread be talking about Phil. 

Glad to see he is healthy,

Michael:

Thanks.  Excellent interview.

By the way, I have been arguing for quite a while that June 7th, the NJ primary is the one that can clinch it for Trump.

However, Cruz's campaign has a great strategy plan.

FYI, these internal battles in campaigns happen ALL the time, from the local School Board/Council/Alderman/Clerk campaigns to the Presidential.

Constant battles between the two, or, three components of a campaign are par for the course.

I am tempted to say that it happens in most dedicated human activities.

A...

[Ellen Stuttle]

On April 7, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan said somewhere he thinks [Rand] would have had the hots for Trump. That sounds right to me. But that's me.

As I've said, I'm mixed on how I imagine Rand would have responded to Trump. I tend to think she'd have been negative on balance though liking some of his characteristics. The idea of her having the hots for him sounds stylistically wrong to me, not a jibe with her "type."

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's some food for thought.

.@DailyCaller: GOP Establishment Money Funding Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Erick Erickson To Attack Trump https://t.co/hj5fPtd951

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 8, 2016

Granted, the article is by Roger Stone, but he traces the money. Levin, Beck and Erickson are making out pretty good with anti-Trump Super PAC funds. 

They're buying massive amounts of Levin's books. About a cool million in royalties for Levin so far. Also, Levin's son in law works for Cruz, but Levin never says that in public.

Beck has David Barton and millions available from a pro-Cruz super PAC that Barton controls.

Erickson got a cool $3 million so far.

That's a lot of money for attacking Trump and it's not really advertising fees. At least they're not doing it for free, bless their little hearts.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The idea of her having the hots for him sounds stylistically wrong to me, not a jibe with her "type."

Ellen,

Frankly, he's not my type, either.

Michael

[Selene]

10 hours ago, dldelancey said:

What would the right change agent look like?  What characteristics would he or she have?  Which things do you think will be worse and how much worse?

Personally, I haven't chosen someone to support yet, but on the topic of Trump and change agents, I suspect that he does indeed have what is needed to express the pathos.  I think it is going to take someone like him, if not him in particular.  Mostly because there is no time for an Overton Window.  The pendulum seems to be set to swing very far and very fast. 

Good stuff D!

Thanks.

Quote

 

Overton Window of Political Possibility

Examples: Education Energy Weapons Welfare

You can conceptualize changes in public opinion and political acceptability with this interactive gadget. Move the window by clicking inside the blue box; resize the window by clicking on the edge of the blue box.

Least government intervention
Most freedom

Up

 

1. No government schools
2. Parents pay for only the education they choose
3. Private and home schools monitored, not regulated
4. Tuition tax credits
5. Tuition vouchers
6. Private and home schooling moderately regulated
7. Charter schools
8. Public‐school choice
9. State‐mandated curricula
10. Private and home schooling highly regulated;
    parents pay twice
11. Home schooling illegal
12. Private schools illegal
13. Compulsory indoctrination in government schools

Down

Most government intervention
Least freedom

You can conceptualize changes in public opinion and political acceptability with this interactive gadget. Move the window by clicking inside the blue box; resize the window by clicking on the edge of the blue box.

Least government intervention
Most freedom

Up

 

1. No government ownership, control
   or monitoring of energy markets
2. Government monitors open competition in energy markets
3. Energy firms somewhat regulated; no subsidies
4. Energy firms highly regulated; “alternative energy” subsidized
5. Government allows only a few market competitors, approves rates
6. Government protects monopoly energy suppliers, sets rates
7. Government-protected energy monopolies highly regulated;
   alternative energy mandated and subsidized
8. Government controls “private” energy firms; consumption rationed
9. All energy provided by government;
   “over-consumption” criminalized

Most government intervention

Least freedom

You can conceptualize changes in public opinion and political acceptability with this interactive gadget. Move the window by clicking inside the blue box; resize the window by clicking on the edge of the blue box.

Least government intervention
Most freedom

The migration from mere ideas to the law of the land can be described by a model called the Overton Window. This is the term my colleagues and I gave to a theory of change developed by the Mackinac Center's late vice president, Joseph Overton. After Joe died in 2003, I built a presentation around his idea, and I still use it to show how think tanks can shift public policy.

Joe shared his abstract concept with me in the mid-1990s. He observed that any collection of public policies within a policy area, such as education, can be arranged in order from more free to less free (or from less government intervention to more). To avoid comparison with the left-right political spectrum, he arranged the policies from bottom (less free) to top (more free).

At any one time, some group of adjacent policies along the freedom spectrum fall into a "window of political possibility." Policies inside the window are politically acceptable, meaning officeholders believe they can support the policies and survive the next election. Policies outside the window, either higher or lower, are politically unacceptable at the moment. If you shift the position or size of the window, you change what is politically possible.

http://www.mackinac.org/12887#overton_window_container

[Selene]

It is getting to the point where the over used term "Establishment" is becoming meaningless.

Are we talking The Power Elite?

Quote

We study history, it has been said, to rid ourselves of it, and the history of the power elite is a clear case for which this maxim is correct. Like the tempo of American life in general, the long term trends of the power structure have been greatly speeded up since World War II, and certain newer trends within and between the dominant institutions have also set the shape of the power elite and given historically specific meaning to its fifth epoch:

I. In so far as the structural clue to the power elite today lies in the political order, that clue is the decline of politics as genuine and public debate of alternative decisions — with nationally responsible and policy-coherent parties and with autonomous organizations connecting the lower and middle levels of power with the top levels of decision. America is now in considerable part more a formal political democracy than a democratic social structure, and even the formal political mechanics are weak.

The long-time tendency of business and government to become more intricately and deeply involved with each either has, in the fifth epoch, reached a new point of explicitness. The two cannot now be seen clearly as two distinct worlds. It is in terms of the executive agencies of the state that the rapprochement has proceeded most decisively. The growth of the executive branch of the government, with its agencies that patrol the complex economy, does not mean merely the ‘enlargement of government’ as some sort of autonomous bureaucracy: it has meant the ascendancy of the corporation’s man as a political eminence.

During the New Deal the corporate chieftains joined the political directorate; as of World War II they have come to dominate it. Long interlocked with government, now they have moved into quite full direction of the economy of the war effort and of the postwar era. This shift of the corporation executives into the political directorate has accelerated the long-term relegation of the professional politicians in the Congress to the middle levels of power.

II. In so far as the structural clue to the power elite today lies in the enlarged and military state, that clue becomes evident in the military ascendancy. The warlords have gained decisive Political relevance, and the military structure of America is now in considerable part a political structure. The seemingly permanent military threat places a premium on the military and upon their control of men, materiel, money, and power; virtually all political and economic actions are now judged in terms of military definitions of reality: the higher warlords have ascended to a firm position within the power elite of the fifth epoch.

In part at least this has resulted from one simple historical fact, pivotal for the years since 1939: the focus of elite attention has been shifted from domestic problems, centered in the ‘thirties around slump, to international problems, centered in the ‘forties and ‘fifties around war. Since the governing apparatus of the United States has by long historic usage been adapted to and shaped by domestic clash and balance, it has not, from any angle, had suitable agencies and traditions for the handling of international problems. Such formal democratic mechanics as had arisen in the century and a half of national development prior to 1941, had not been extended to the American handling of international affairs. It is, in considerable part, in this vacuum that the power elite has grown.

https://www.marxists.org/subject/humanism/mills-c-wright/power-elite.htm

[9thdoctor]

14 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Phil's last post, dated January 31, 2012 - link - ends simply with "Sayonara."

If what you're thinking of is the photoshopped image of Phil in front of a blackboard, the addition of "you cunts" in the "quoted" farewell is a contribution from Ninth's doctoring.

Ellen

Indeed it was.  Phil never actually wrote the line "Sayonara all you cunts". 

The painful history: the first Atlas Shrugged movie came out, and Phil wrote a piece for another site about how to use the movie to spread the word.  We all expressed our opinions of the movie over the following couple weeks, but Phil stayed mum.  Before long he acknowledged that he hadn't gone to see it.  Ellen wrote (I'm doing this from memory, so it may not be perfect): C'mon Phil, money where your mouth is.  To which Phil replied: Up yours, cunt.  This provoked a reaction from the moderating department; whether the post was deleted or merely brought about a stern rebuke, I don’t recall.  But it was a key event leading Phil to shake the dust of OL from his feet.  And it just hasn't been the same around here since!

In a good way.

14 hours ago, Selene said:

Folks, could we not let this thread be talking about Phil.

Ok, I think we're done.  I felt I should counter the suggestion that I'm a practicing Quote Doctor.  I leave that to the truly Valliant.

[Selene]

1 hour ago, 9thdoctor said:

Indeed it was.  Phil never actually wrote the line "Sayonara all you cunts". 

The painful history: the first Atlas Shrugged movie came out, and Phil wrote a piece for another site about how to use the movie to spread the word.  We all expressed our opinions of the movie over the following couple weeks, but Phil stayed mum.  Before long he acknowledged that he hadn't gone to see it.  Ellen wrote (I'm doing this from memory, so it may not be perfect): C'mon Phil, money where your mouth is.  To which Phil replied: Up yours, cunt.  This provoked a reaction from the moderating department; whether the post was deleted or merely brought about a stern rebuke, I don’t recall.  But it was a key event leading Phil to shake the dust of OL from his feet.  And it just hasn't been the same around here since!

In a good way.

Ok, I think we're done.

Thanks.

I detest empowering victims who remind you with their alleged "passive aggressive" behavior.

I think Trump would behave very much like Hank Rearden as he carried the Wet Nurse up from the slag heap.

I thought it was one of the most moving scenes she ever wrote, to me. 

Hank's ultimate sadness and rage for an educational system that sent this splendid young mind into the world with zero foundations for survival.

Quote

It's fitting that we only learn the Wet Nurse's name at the moment of his death. In a lot of ways, he is the male Cherryl Brooks. As Hank Rearden's Washington advisor, the Wet Nurse is the victim of a terrible educational system and another tragic representative of the costs of that system and the strike:

He uttered nothing but uncertain opinions about physical nature – and nothing but categorical imperatives about men. (2.1.3.17)

Hank pities the Wet Nurse and is often angry on his behalf for the bad education he received. The Wet Nurse, like Cherryl, is basically doomed from the start; he was never given a chance to survive in the looters' world, and he dies in the effort to break free.

His other nickname from Hank is "Non-absolute," a reference to his type of education and value system. We see the Wet Nurse gradually start to question and then act against Washington. In the end he is killed in an effort to aid Hank, and at the moment of his tragic death we finally learn his name: Tony. Hank uses his first name almost as a blessing and a salute to the type of person the Wet Nurse gradually became. In a sense, he earned his name at the moment of his death by finally becoming an actual human being with good life values.

http://www.shmoop.com/atlas-shrugged/the-wet-nurse.html

 

[Selene]

Quote

"He thought of all the living species that train their young in the art of survival, the cats who teach their kittens to hunt, the birds who spend such strident effort on teaching their fledglings to fly—yet man, whose tool of survival is the mind, does not merely fail to teach a child to think, but devotes the child's education to the purpose of destroying his brain, of convincing him that thought is futile and evil, before he has started to think. ...

"Men would shudder, he thought, if they saw a mother bird plucking the feathers from the wings of her young, then pushing him out of the nest to struggle for survival—yet that was what they did to their children.

"Armed with nothing but meaningless phrases, this boy had been thrown to fight for existence, he had hobbled and groped through a brief, doomed effort, he had screamed his indignant, bewildered protest—and had perished in his first attempt to soar on his mangled wings."

—Death of the Wet Nurse in Rearden's arms, Atlas Shrugged

I have used that highlighted story;line for about five (5) decades and it has never failed.

A...

[Selene]

Well I'll be damned!

I had thought their was only one mention of motherhood in Atlas. 

It took place in Gali's Gulch.

Forgot about this one:

Quote

Somewhere, he thought, there was the boy's mother, who had trembled with protective concern over his groping steps, while teaching him to walk, who had measured his baby formulas with a jeweler's caution, who had obeyed with a zealot's fervor the latest words of science on his diet and hygiene, protecting his unhardened body from germs--then had sent him to be turned into a tortured neurotic by the men who taught him that he had no mind and must never attempt to think. Had she fed him tainted refuse, he thought, had she mixed poison into his food, it would have been more kind and less fatal.

(p. 910) Signet 50th Anniversary Edition [908-910]

A...

[Selene]

And then there is the effete sneering approach...

Quote

It’s Rearden Steel’s government overseer, the Wet Nurse – his actual name is Tony, as the text finally sees fit to tell us – and as Hank discovers when he kneels over him, he’s suffered a deadly wound and is clinging to life.

He felt the boy’s hand clutching his with the abnormal strength of agony, while he was noticing the tortured lines of the face, the drained lips, the glazing eyes and the thin, dark trickle from a small, black hole in too wrong, too close a spot on the left side of the boy’s chest.

Obligatory editorial note: Is there a right spot for a hole in your chest?

The answer is, of course, yes.

One that gets angled off the pecks that does not collapse the lung, or, hit a major artery/organ.

Continuing the sneering, ...

Quote

In true Hollywood style, he managed to remain alive until Hank found him so he could explain everything. And in true Randian style, despite a sucking chest wound, he’s still able to gasp out a long, agonized philosophical monologue:

“They… they’ve got a Steel Unification Plan ready… and they need an excuse for it… because they know that the country won’t take it… and you won’t stand for it… They’re afraid this one’s going to be too much for everybody… it’s just a plan to skin you alive, that’s all… So they want to make it look like you’re starving your workers… and the workers are running amuck and you’re unable to control them… and the government’s got to step in for your own protection and for public safety… That’s going to be their pitch, Mr. Rearden…”

His eyes wandered over the vast darkness, then rose to Rearden’s face; the eyes were helpless, longing, childishly bewildered. “I know… it’s crap, all those things they taught us… all of it, everything they said… about living or… or dying… Dying… it wouldn’t make any difference to chemicals, but—” he stopped, and all of his desperate protest was only in the intensity of his voice dropping lower to say, “—but it does, to me… And… and, I guess, it makes a difference to an animal, too… But they said there are no values… only social customs… No values!” His hand clutched blindly at the hole in his chest, as if trying to hold that which he was losing. “No… values…”

Hank picks the boy up and carries him toward the plant, hoping to get help, but it’s too late. With his final breath, Tony fulfills his purpose in life – to offer up his worship to the superior humans who are better at capitalism than he is (“Mr. Rearden… I… I liked you very much”) – and dies in Hank’s arms. Like Cherryl Taggart before him, he turned out to be a decent person but not an implausible super-genius, so there’s no place for him in Ayn Rand’s utopia, and he has to be shuffled off the stage.

And one more in the article...

Quote

Not to be pedantic, but there’s an obvious problem here. However much Hank despises teachers, they weren’t the cause of Tony’s death. He was killed because he shook off their teachings and started thinking for himself! If he’d continued to be a pawn of the looters and had gone along with their scheme, this wouldn’t have happened to him. This monologue would only make sense if he’d died because, I don’t know, he’d jumped into a vat of molten metal because he’d been taught that fire isn’t hot.

This section is another exhibit in something Ayn Rand never could seem to make up her mind about, namely whether education can shape or change a person’s basic character, or whether people are predestined to be capitalism-loving heroes or death-worshipping villains from birth. This passage suggests the former, but given the seesawing views expressed at various points in the book, the only thing you can really say is that Rand is consistently inconsistent about it.

Atlas Shrugged: Fanfare for the Common Man

December 24, 2015 by Adam Lee 151 Comments

Atlas Shrugged, part III, chapter VI

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2015/12/atlas-shrugged-fanfare-for-the-common-man/

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Selene said:

I think Trump would behave very much like Hank Rearden as he carried the Wet Nurse up from the slag heap.

Adam,

Not only would Trump behave that way, he does. It's his default way of being.

There are countless stories of people Trump has helped when they got in a bad place and he never talks about what he did.

He could easily set up a website of something to give these stories out and it would be a big one. But he aims at the best in people. He likes to celebrate achievement and human excellence. I think he doesn't want to embarrass the folks he helped by showcasing them when they were down.

Michael