Randian Christmas

[BAMF]

http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?id=1222

BAH! :devil:

[Reidy]

Heavy-handed if you ask me.

[Chris Grieb]

Funny in spots but heavy handed. The writer is not a real fan haveing Milton Friedman as a guest.

[BAMF]

I just think the picture is hilarious really (her face actually looks good with that sweater ) . The dialogue is retarded.

[gary williams]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

I thought it was HILARIOUS!!!

Baby Jesus jokes get me everytime.

Heavy handed? Naw!

Now if you will excuse me, there is a Special Olympics going on nearby and I do so love to laugh at the sprinters!

gw

[Kat]

cute picture, crappy story.

Kat

[Judith]

cute picture, crappy story.

I also liked the picture. There was only one part of the story (which was also in the picture) that I liked -- and that was the yule log that looked like an effigy of Franklin Roosevelt!

Judith

[Michael Russell]

Rand's *real* thoughts on Christmas:

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z:

Christmas. [in answer to the question of whether it is appropriate

for an atheist to celebrate Christmas:]

Yes, of course. A national holiday, in this country, cannot have an

exclusively religious meaning. The secular meaning of the Christmas

holiday is wider than the tenets of any particular religion: it is good will

toward men--a frame of mind which is not the exclusive property

(though it is supposed to be part, but is a largely unobserved part)

of the Christian religion.

The charming aspect of Christmas is the fact that it expresses good

will in a cheerful, happy, benevolent, non-sacrificial way. One says:

"Merry Christmas"--not "Weep and Repent." And the good will is ex-

pressed in a material, earthly form--by giving presents to one's friends,

or by sending them cards in a token of remembrance....

The best aspect of Christmas is the aspect usually decried by the

mystics: the fact that Christmas has been commercialized. The gift-buying

...stimulates an enormous outpouring of ingenuity in the creation of

products devoted to a single purpose: to give men pleasure. And the

street decorations put up by department stores and other institutions--

the Christmas trees, the winking lights, the glittering colors--provide

the city with a spectacular display, which only "commercial greed" could

afford to give us. One would have to be terribly depressed to resist the

wonderful gaiety of that spectacle.

[The Objectivist Calendar, Dec. 1976.]

Edited November 12, 2006 by Michael Russell

[Kat]

That was a wonderful quote, Mick. Thank you.

I can't wait till Christmas this year, and once again, the Statue of Liberty is the angel at the top of my tree.

Kat

[BAMF]

That's a good idea, Kat! Unfortunately, in this house, we have an angel on the top of ours. Actually, if I remember right, the top of our tree is too weak to hold anything.

[Peri]

That was a wonderful quote, Mick. Thank you.

I can't wait till Christmas this year, and once again, the Statue of Liberty is the angel at the top of my tree.

Kat

I like that idea. Michael honey, you listening?

Where did you find a Statue of Liberty to put on your tree, Kat?

[mweiss]

http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?id=1222

BAH! :devil:

Disgusting. Must have been written by a Liberal.

Even the picture was a terrible PhotoShop chop job. I was NOT amused.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

You found it disgusting? I only found it mediocre.

I don't mind a good lampoon done with talent, even of Rand. But I don't like poorly conceived and executed things like this. Here is a lampoon done with talent by Michael Prescott: Reversalism: A Philosophy for Living It Up

Warning. Don't read it if you get angry over jokes about Objectivism or Rand. It is extremely well done and some people I know and respect are really turned off by it (they consider it heavy-handed mocking and disgusting). If you approach it as horsing around, somewhat like Kilgore Trout in Kurt Vonnegut's work, it is very charming and funny. The more you know about the Objectivist movement, the funnier it is.

Michael is a NYT best-selling author of suspense novels. I have read most of them and they are very good. He used to be an Objectivist and gave it up. I tease him about it sometimes. I think he is not as anti-Objectivist as he wants to seem, albeit the kind of Objectivism he gave up is the kind that I did too. Where I differ from him is that he is very critical of Rand psychologically (and critical of the alienation of many Objectivists--and I agree with him on this point). He has done some excellent scholarship on Hickman, a real-life killer Rand used as inspiration for the hero of an early work that she never completed.

There are issues that seem to bother Michael since he comes back to discussing Objectivism and Rand online over and over. This is why I think he is not as opposed to it as he wants to be.

Michael

[mweiss]

I read the first few paragraphs and skimmed the rest. Yes, somewhat funny, but I didn't feel like wasting my time reading the whole article.

I can see it's a really BAD parody of Miss Rand's life, and even makes a juvenile stab at Frank's abilities as an artist.

(I guess you can tell that I held Miss Rand in pretty high esteem. Even after all these years, I still have the highest respect for her work, despite what the Brandens have said about her, true or not.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

I, too, have the highest respect for Rand and her achievements, both as an artist and as a philosopher.

From my knowledge of the Brandens (reading their works and knowing them personally, albeit I am much closer to Barbara), they also have the highest respect for Rand and her achievements, both as an artist and as a philosopher. I don't speak for them, of course, but I have no doubt of this.

When people have hurt each other the way they all did back then, things are complicated. Frankly, the wonder to me is not how poorly either side reacted to each other during and after the break, but how well. For instance, nobody got shot.

Rand, as the rejected party, went through an initial phase of reprisals (just like any rejected person does). Then at the end of her life, she received Barbara and offered her blessing, and even received NB's wife for a friendly visit. Out of respect, the Brandens kept silent about the affair until Rand she passed away. Then when they disclosed it and their criticisms of Rand as they knew her and the rest of their side of the story, they made no bones about stating openly how much they valued Rand and her work and why.

In the case of satire (and humor in general), I disagree with the scope of Rand's theory, and the fundamental premise ("humor is destructive"). I hold that satire and reverence are not polar opposites like evil and good, but are different in nature. I also hold you can make a light-hearted poke in the ribs at the good and still be good.

I am an enemy of mocking the good, though (in agreement with Rand), and gross mocking in general, even of evil. To be frank, I try to avoid mocking as I find it to be too low level. It brings out the worst in both mocker and mocked.

Michael

[BAMF]

Good post, Michael.

I just want to say that I definitely have a great respect for Rand. The picture was cute, in my opinion, and such a colorful sweater suits her personality.