Ayn Rand and the World She Made

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

After the split, Nathaniel practically made his career as an author. Rand did not have to do that. But, given her temperament, I strongly suspect that if she had not yet made her mark, even slow and old at 63, she would have found the inner resources to do so. Her fame, fortune and circle of groupies permitted her to indulge the weakest elements in her soul. In my opinion, indulge she did, too.

I agree with your judgment. And I suspect the circle of groupies was the most debilitating of the three factors.

The list you pulled from that site looks pretty accurate, though recent research suggests that Titian, who probably didn't know how old he was, was 86 to 88 when he died, not 99 as used to be believed.

We could easily add more:

Camille Saint-Saëns (1835-1921), who composed his clarinet sonata at the age of 86.

Havergal Brian (1876-1972), who produced 32 symphonies: 26 when he was over 60, and 22 of those when he was past 70, completing the last when he was 91.

Jacques Barzun (1907- ), who published From Dawn to Decadence when he was 93.

The only point I want to make is that genes that affect longevity surely have an effect here, along with good habits and sheer force of will.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Great thread.

How old would you be, if you did not know how old you were?

I accepted that about a decade ago and it "feels" really comfortable to me.

I have a process where I ask folks I speak with, "Out of curiosity, how old are you?" Try it out. You will be surprised at the reactions of others as well as how the person answers.

I also try to weave in Satchel Paige's quick rejoinder to reporters who would ask him his age and he would say that he never looks back because someone might be gaining on you.

He was one of the great baseball pitchers who spent most of his "prime years" in the Negro leagues and only came up to the majors when he was "old".

To a great degree, age is meaningless. Yes, energy levels in the same individual are different at different ages. Good genes and good health potentially enhance what you can accomplish, but it is purely a matter of your mind and your will that makes you productive at any age.

Long life to all of you. Be fruitful and be productive!

Adam

secretly hoping he spelled everything properly to avoid the dreaded dragonfly's rebuke!

Robert: Crossposted with yours - interestingly similar conclusions,

Edited December 14, 2009 by Selene

[anonrobt]

Michael,

After the split, Nathaniel practically made his career as an author. Rand did not have to do that. But, given her temperament, I strongly suspect that if she had not yet made her mark, even slow and old at 63, she would have found the inner resources to do so. Her fame, fortune and circle of groupies permitted her to indulge the weakest elements in her soul. In my opinion, indulge she did, too.

I agree with your judgment. And I suspect the circle of groupies was the most debilitating of the three factors.

The list you pulled from that site looks pretty accurate, though recent research suggests that Titian, who probably didn't know how old he was, was 86 to 88 when he died, not 99 as used to be believed.

We could easily add more:

Camille Saint-Saëns (1835-1921), who composed his clarinet sonata at the age of 86.

Havergal Brian (1876-1972), who produced 32 symphonies: 26 when he was over 60, and 22 of those when he was past 70, completing the last when he was 91.

Jacques Barzun (1907- ), who published From Dawn to Decadence when he was 93.

The only point I want to make is that genes that affect longevity surely have an effect here, along with good habits and sheer force of will.

Robert Campbell

Then there was Frank Lloyd Wright, who was still creatively going strong up to the end...

[Alfonso Jones]

(snip)

Her fame, fortune and circle of groupies permitted her to indulge the weakest elements in her soul. In my opinion, indulge she did, too.

(snip)

I am struck, reflecting on Rand's interactions. Earlier on, I remember far more of the mesmerizing Rand. The one who could make you believe you were the only one in the room (even though there might be hundreds there). The one who could pull the entire audience in. Later, I recall more of the combative attitude which pushed away. It is as if early on she was trying to pull people in. Later - to reject them if they had a flaw.

This isn't an observation based on carefully analyzing Q&A sessions, etc.. THough I suspect one could easily see the pattern by examining the Q&A sessions at the Ford Hall Forum series of speeches over the years.

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

I don't want to downplay the fact that an older person has less energy than a younger one does. That's obvious.

My original point was about the difference in Rand's and Nathaniel's reactions to the split.

Just because Rand was older and slower, that does not mean that she reacted well. I think she reacted poorly. And tragedy for tragedy, what do folks think she would have done had Frank died in a manner similar to Patrecia around the same time she passed away?

My basic problem in arguing this is trying to keep a clear vision and identify simple facts in this subcommunity so I can evaluate properly. But people constantly make stretched excuses for Rand's shortcomings or attack her unfairly and viciously.

Why aren't simple facts good enough to state clearly? For me they are. (And many people here on OL. I might add, including people posting in this thread.)

After the split, Nathaniel practically made his career as an author. Rand did not have to do that. But, given her temperament, I strongly suspect that if she had not yet made her mark, even slow and old at 63, she would have found the inner resources to do so. Her fame, fortune and circle of groupies permitted her to indulge the weakest elements in her soul. In my opinion, indulge she did, too.

Let's nuance this out a bit regarding Nathaniel: After the split he published The Psychology of Self Esteem which was mostly based on articles he had published in the 1960s on psychology, 1969. He was also establishing his psychotherapeutic practice and once a month from 1969-1973--48 consecutive months--published a vinyl record (33rpm) interview of him, I think mostly by students who came by his home once a month, via Academic Associates. (He had given all his copies away and had none or few until I sent him my own complete set 19 months ago which will eventually find their way onto his Web site.) His extemporaneous answers tended to be quite extensive and wide ranging. In 1970 or 71 he published Breaking Free which was a description of his psychotherapeutic work in which you can see the sentence completion technique being born. He became known as "Mr. Sentence Completion," the one technique he found most valuable. A year or two later he published The Disowned Self which brought the public up to date with him on current work and ideas--including matured sentence completion. This last was essentially an extensive appendix to The Psychology of Self Esteem. Then nothing for seven years. His explanation for the hiatus was he was learning so much so fast writing about it wouldn't keep up with that. Mine was, additionally, that he was greatly in love with his actress wife Patrecia and happy to be with her instead of writing a book, but I never asked him if it were true. I didn't and don't have the kind of close relationship with him that would tolerate such questioning. Regardless, The Psychology of Romantic Love had much to do with dealing with her loss and that opened the floodgates for his subsequent great productivity writing books--that and the fact that his next wife Devers was of much more of an intellectual bent than Patrecia and they fed off each other than way. How she got up to speed with him in psychotherapy was a phenomenon. By 1981 or 82 she was his peer in using sentence completion. I used to watch Nathaniel use it on someone then turn it over to her and she continued in a more productive way because she had her own special sensitivities and insights. I think I also saw the converse, but don't remember for sure. I only saw then at work in his Intensives in NYC. I did go to his very first Intensive in Washington, DC in January or February 1977 when he still had Patrecia who died a month or two later in late March. I also went to one in Los Angeles in March 1979, which I think had to do with romantic love. He had two or three different Intensives. The very first were 3 1/2 days' long which he shortened and tightened up to 2 1/2 days.

Regarding the sentence completion technique: Nathaniel did not invent sentence completion. S.c. had been used already in different contexts as a form of unstructured free association. Nathaniel structured the hell out of it and refined it to the nines. I give him credit for the technique. On this point he has been surprisingly modest, but it's the equivalent not to inventing the wheel (sentence completion), but putting the wheel on an axle and the axle on a cart.

--Brant

Edited December 15, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Chris Grieb]

I just completed Ayn Rand and the World She Made. It's a very good and important work. The picture of Rand as a totally rational person must be revised.

One small note is Heller has two page afterward about Peikoff and the Branden's. At the beginning she refers to them as being at large. "At large" is phase I associate with criminals who the police are looking for. Even the worst view of Peikoff or the Branden's would not think that of them.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[Robert Campbell]

I sent Anne Heller a number of questions by email two to three weeks ago. In response to question about interviews (including the now-notorious item that appeared on the Bloomberg site), she said that her favorite interview was this one in Inc. magazine:

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20091101/the-real-ayn-rand.html

More to follow, I hope.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

I just completed Ayn Rand and the World She Made. It's a very good and important work. The picture of Rand as a totally rational person must be revised.

One small note is Heller has two page afterward about Peikoff and the Branden's. At the beginning she refers to them as being at large. "At large" is phase I associate with criminals who the police are looking for. Even the worst view of Peikoff or the Branden's would not think that of them.

Chris:

Could be a bit of satire in that statement.

The phrase at large may refer to:

• the condition that defines a person as a fugitive
• At Large, a 1959 album by The Kingston Trio
• At-large, a political term for electing an entire body, rather than a subset
• At-large bid, a sports term for a bid or berth granted by invitation
• Editor-at-large, a journalism job title

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

Air Armstrong, who previously reviewed the introduction to Jennifer Burns' book, is now starting on a slow-motion review of Anne Heller's:

http://www.ariarmstrong.com/2010/01/reading-anne-heller-on-ayn-rand.html

Like many in the ARIan orbit, Mr. Armstrong appears to be rather clueless about recent American history:

xii. Heller writes that Rand "became the guiding spirit of libertarianism and of White House economic policy in the 1970s and 1980s." I will be interested to see how Heller will treat Rand's frequent and pointed protestations that she was no libertarian, though obviously many libertarians loved her works and continue to value them.

Heller's claim about the "1970s and 1980s" is, at best, imprecise. Nixon served as president until August of 1974, and his policies were the opposite of what Rand endorsed. Gerald Ford was more on board with Rand's agenda. Carter served from 1977 through 1981. What about Reagan, who defined the politics of the 1980s? Rand wrote, "I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan." Of course Reagan did nominate Greenspan, Rand's "disciple," to the Fed, and institution which Rand opposed. George H. W. Bush, who rounded out the '80s, was an even worse disaster by Rand's standards.

Over at the Rewrite Squad, we've discussed Rand's repeated apologetics for Richard Nixon, and her antipathy to a president of whom latter-day Randians tend to think better, Ronald Reagan.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

I just completed Ayn Rand and the World She Made. It's a very good and important work. The picture of Rand as a totally rational person must be revised.

One small note is Heller has two page afterward about Peikoff and the Branden's. At the beginning she refers to them as being at large. "At large" is phase I associate with criminals who the police are looking for. Even the worst view of Peikoff or the Branden's would not think that of them.

Chris:

Could be a bit of satire in that statement.

The phrase at large may refer to:

• the condition that defines a person as a fugitive
• At Large, a 1959 album by The Kingston Trio
• At-large, a political term for electing an entire body, rather than a subset
• At-large bid, a sports term for a bid or berth granted by invitation
• Editor-at-large, a journalism job title

Adam

Adam; I tried to get an answer from Ann Heller about the use of the phrase but she hasn't responded.

I thought she could haved used the phrase still with us but she also includes Patraica.

On Robert's post about the review the best comment about Rand's denying she was a libertarian was David Boaz's quoting of Bette Davis "but Blanche that's what you are."

[Robert Campbell]

Harry Binswanger finally made a public comment about the new Rand biographies, specifically in response to a brief review of Anne Heller's book at Volokh Conspiracy:

http://volokh.com/2009/12/30/anne-hellers-ayn-rand-biography/#comment-718679

I was one of Ayn Rand’s closest friends in her last years. I visited her in her apartment about once a week during the last year or so of her life, and spoke to her on the phone daily. This being a blog, I can only make assertions.

1. Rand had no problem with Dexedrine. She took a tiny amount daily (they even continued to give it to her when she was in the hospital).

2. Both the Heller and the Burns view of her character and personality is wrong: she was a fully rational person, as well as a gracious and charming one. The breaks she made with people were well deserved by them (I knew all the details in most of the cases.) I only wish she had broken with Greenspan.

3. She was very well versed in the history of philosophy, although more through secondary sources for the philosophers she disagreed with. Her knowledge of the history of philosophy is amply displayed in the title essay of her book For the New Intellectual. I’m a professional philosopher (not currently in academia, but I have taught graduate philosophy at U Texas/Austin), and I’m awestruck by the incisiveness of her presentation of the history of philosophy (presented in a highly condensed, masterfully essentialized form) in that essay. Oh, here’s another data point. A couple of years ago, the Ayn Rand Society of the American Philosophical Association had a meeting on her view of Aquinas, and one of the world’s leading authorities on Aquinas (not at all an Objectivist) stated that he was surprised to learn that she got Aquinas’ theory of universals right, as opposed to the claim of a lesser paper-presenter at the session arguing that she got it wrong.

You probably won’t be (and shouldn’t be) convinced by my mere assertions, but I wanted to go on record as giving a diametrically opposite view. You can pretty much judge for yourself by reading what she wrote, and as to her personality, read Letters of Ayn Rand–a fascinating look at her whole life through her letters. Also, highly recommended is the very short book by another of her close friends (Mary Ann Sures, who typed the manuscript of Atlas Shrugged in Rand’s apartment): Facets of Ayn Rand.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

An interesting brief interview with Anne Heller (from late November of last year) can be heard here:

http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=2347

She explicates her notion of a "social contract" a little more fully than in the other interviews I've heard or read.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Anne Heller answers one of Ellen Stuttle's questions:

http://doubleday.knopfdoubleday.com/2009/10/05/ask-anne-c-heller-a-question/comment-page-1/#comment-36568

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Harry Binswanger finally made a public comment about the new Rand biographies, specifically in response to a brief review of Anne Heller's book at Volokh Conspiracy:

http://volokh.com/20...#comment-718679

I was one of Ayn Rand's closest friends in her last years. I visited her in her apartment about once a week during the last year or so of her life, and spoke to her on the phone daily. This being a blog, I can only make assertions.

1. Rand had no problem with Dexedrine. She took a tiny amount daily (they even continued to give it to her when she was in the hospital).

2. Both the Heller and the Burns view of her character and personality is wrong: she was a fully rational person, as well as a gracious and charming one. The breaks she made with people were well deserved by them (I knew all the details in most of the cases.) I only wish she had broken with Greenspan.

3. She was very well versed in the history of philosophy, although more through secondary sources for the philosophers she disagreed with. Her knowledge of the history of philosophy is amply displayed in the title essay of her book For the New Intellectual. I'm a professional philosopher (not currently in academia, but I have taught graduate philosophy at U Texas/Austin), and I'm awestruck by the incisiveness of her presentation of the history of philosophy (presented in a highly condensed, masterfully essentialized form) in that essay. Oh, here's another data point. A couple of years ago, the Ayn Rand Society of the American Philosophical Association had a meeting on her view of Aquinas, and one of the world's leading authorities on Aquinas (not at all an Objectivist) stated that he was surprised to learn that she got Aquinas' theory of universals right, as opposed to the claim of a lesser paper-presenter at the session arguing that she got it wrong.

You probably won't be (and shouldn't be) convinced by my mere assertions, but I wanted to go on record as giving a diametrically opposite view. You can pretty much judge for yourself by reading what she wrote, and as to her personality, read Letters of Ayn Rand–a fascinating look at her whole life through her letters. Also, highly recommended is the very short book by another of her close friends (Mary Ann Sures, who typed the manuscript of Atlas Shrugged in Rand's apartment): Facets of Ayn Rand.

Robert Campbell

1) What is a "tiny amount" of Dexedrine by prescription? Is his information first or second-hand? What was the overall consumption over time? Did it figure in her weight fluctuations?

2) Problematic and probable bias.

3) For the New Intellectual is a great polemic. This is not a disputation of what HB said.

4) Presumably HB is dismayed AH didn't get access to the ARI archives so she could have gotten her bio right.

I understand he played Scrabble with her. I used to play it. My step-Mother always won, my Father always came in second and me, last. The conversations were not very scintillating. (Did John Hospers play her Scrabble?) He had a whole week to think of interesting things to talk to her about. If she was up to studying algebra . . .

--Brant

bounded contempt

Edited January 8, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Chris Grieb]

Harry Binswanger finally made a public comment about the new Rand biographies, specifically in response to a brief review of Anne Heller's book at Volokh Conspiracy:

http://volokh.com/20...#comment-718679

I was one of Ayn Rand's closest friends in her last years. I visited her in her apartment about once a week during the last year or so of her life, and spoke to her on the phone daily. This being a blog, I can only make assertions.

1. Rand had no problem with Dexedrine. She took a tiny amount daily (they even continued to give it to her when she was in the hospital).

2. Both the Heller and the Burns view of her character and personality is wrong: she was a fully rational person, as well as a gracious and charming one. The breaks she made with people were well deserved by them (I knew all the details in most of the cases.) I only wish she had broken with Greenspan.

3. She was very well versed in the history of philosophy, although more through secondary sources for the philosophers she disagreed with. Her knowledge of the history of philosophy is amply displayed in the title essay of her book For the New Intellectual. I'm a professional philosopher (not currently in academia, but I have taught graduate philosophy at U Texas/Austin), and I'm awestruck by the incisiveness of her presentation of the history of philosophy (presented in a highly condensed, masterfully essentialized form) in that essay. Oh, here's another data point. A couple of years ago, the Ayn Rand Society of the American Philosophical Association had a meeting on her view of Aquinas, and one of the world's leading authorities on Aquinas (not at all an Objectivist) stated that he was surprised to learn that she got Aquinas' theory of universals right, as opposed to the claim of a lesser paper-presenter at the session arguing that she got it wrong.

You probably won't be (and shouldn't be) convinced by my mere assertions, but I wanted to go on record as giving a diametrically opposite view. You can pretty much judge for yourself by reading what she wrote, and as to her personality, read Letters of Ayn Rand–a fascinating look at her whole life through her letters. Also, highly recommended is the very short book by another of her close friends (Mary Ann Sures, who typed the manuscript of Atlas Shrugged in Rand's apartment): Facets of Ayn Rand.

Robert Campbell

1) What is a "tiny amount" of Dexedrine by prescription? Is his information first or second-hand? What was the overall consumption over time? Did it figure in her weight fluctuations?

2) Problematic and probable bias.

3) For the New Intellectual is a great polemic. This is not a disputation of what HB said.

4) Presumably HB is dismayed AH didn't get access to the ARI archives so she could have gotten her bio right.

I understand he played Scrabble with her. I used to play it. My step-Mother always won, my Father always came in second and me, last. The conversations were not very scintillating. (Did John Hospers play her Scrabble?) He had a whole week to think of interesting things to talk to her about. If she was up to studying algebra . . .

--Brant

bounded contempt

Why doesn't Binswanger name the two Aquinas scholar who made the comments at the ARS. The rest of Binswanger's piece are just the comments of a true believer.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Chris Grieb

[Reidy]

The claim Rand's biographers make is that she gave up dexies in 1975 when she was diagnosed with lung cancer. Binswanger's observation that she wasn't taking them in the last year of her life does not contradict this.

According to the ARS/APA's website, the non-Objectivist Aquinas authority at the 2004 session was Robert Pasnau of U. Colorado. The "lesser" presenter was Douglas Rasmussen of St. John's, a non-ARI Objectivist. Rasmussen was the presenter and Pasnau the commentator.

Rand was legendary for her quick grasp of things, but this does not make her an academic expert. For the New Intellectual shows just how far from this she was, and Binswanger's citation of it as evidence to the contrary is bizarre.

[Robert Campbell]

Peter R,

Yeah, I thought Harry Binswanger was making a reference to Robert Pasnau and Doug Rasmussen.

Doug Rasmussen's talk at ARS was the same one at which Diana Hsieh asked him how he dared to use Leonard Peikoff's doctoral dissertation as a source. The original plan was for Rasmussen and Pasnau to publish an article and a commentary in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. But Ms. Hsieh persuaded Dr. Pasnau (then the Department Chair at Colorado) not to submit his commentary. She also ripped Dr. Rasmussen on NoodleFood for an "incompetant" presentation of Rand's theory of concepts.

I'm a long way from being an Aquinas expert, but Doug Rasmussen has studied Aquinas for many years and published in Thomistic journals. If Pasnau, in fact, was in a position to vindicate Rand on this issue and discredit Rasmussen, wouldn't she have encouraged him to publish to that effect, even in a forbidden venue?

Binswanger's praise for the lead chapter in For the New Intellectual is indeed bizarre, because it will only serve to discredit him outside of Rand-land, and will only feed doubts within Rand-land about his standing as a philosopher.

Robert C

Oops: I should have made it clear that Doug Rasmussen was the philosopher labeled "incompetant" by the inimitable Ms. (now Dr.) Hsieh.

[Chris Grieb]

Peter & Robert; Thanks for filling me in on who Binswanger was referring to.

I agree the reference to essay about FNI does almost remove Binswanger from serious philosophy.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Chris Grieb

[Brant Gaede]

Anne Heller answers one of Ellen Stuttle's questions:

http://doubleday.kno.../#comment-36568

Robert Campbell

It seems then that Frank was drinking in the 1960s. If the 60s then probably the 50s albeit that is a speculation absent evidence.

--Brant

buy the man a drink

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anne Heller answers one of Ellen Stuttle's questions:

http://doubleday.kno.../#comment-36568

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Here is Anne's reply to the whole litany of questions about Frank's drinking:

I interviewed Joan and Allan Blumenthal (friends of Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor from the early 1950s until the late 1970s, ) a number of times, on a broad range of subjects touching on Ayn Rand. I sometimes asked Dr. Blumenthal for his medical opinion, including about Dupruytren's syndrome.

In general, if I don't cite an obvious source for a particular fact or observation, it is because there are multiple sources and the cited one(s) are the most definitive or specific.

Stuttle called this "avoidance of the questions" and Perigo on SLOP is singing victory against Barbara.

I wonder if these folks have lost their ability to read. Anne answered in broad terms (but she did answer) because she is simply refusing to engage in bickering.

If you look at the thread where I posted a link to Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo's misguided victory prattle and do a search for "Dupuytren," you will see an ungodly amount of nitpicking, accusations of Anne making up facts, innuendo, insults, foul language, etc., with Stuttle right in the middle of it, yacking up a storm.

I don't blame Anne for not wanting all that crap on her blog.

Anne did not recant any of her writing. Here is one of her phrases quoted and bashed all over the place on SLOP, starting with the opening post on the thread in question:

In the fall of 1967, Frank was seventy. Two or three years earlier, he had been diagnosed with a chronic condition whose symptoms included painful contractions in the tendons of his hands, making it difficult to hold a paintbrush. The source of the problem seems to have been Dupuytren's syndrome, a disorder often associated with alcoholism and cirrhosis of the liver, as well as with arteriosclerosis. O'Connor suffered from two of these three conditions: he drank heavily, and he had incipient arteriosclerosis, or a hardening of the arteries, which gradually reduces blood flow to the brain and body. [His father had also had arteriosclerosis.] Neither condition was apparent at the time, when hints of his failing health were limited to thinness, pallor, silence, and the problem with his hands.

Note: The phrase in brackets is omitted without comment in the quotes on SLOP, see here by Stuttle and here by Moeller. (Valliant's quoting methodology sure is taking root in those parts... )

It's obvious Anne stands by what she wrote, including her observations about Dupuytren and Frank's heavy drinking. So within this context, phrases in her blog comment like "broad range of subjects touching on Ayn Rand" and "obvious source" and "fact or observation" and "multiple sources" and "cited one(s)" are very clear to me. What part of these terms are difficult to understand to a person with a high-school education?

But who know? My epistemology is to identify, then judge. These folks do the opposite. They judge, then try to twist identifications to fit their opinions.

I speculate, but if I were the Blumenthals, I would ask Anne to not involve them in this petty bickering. That's exactly what I would do. The last thing they need in the sunset of their lives is to deal with a bunch of nasty telephone calls or emails calling their observations into question over something only a handful of zealots care about. In other words, I believe they have a life.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

In the fall of 1967, Frank was seventy. Two or three years earlier, he had been diagnosed with a chronic condition whose symptoms included painful contractions in the tendons of his hands, making it difficult to hold a paintbrush. The source of the problem seems to have been Dupuytren's syndrome, a disorder often associated with alcoholism and cirrhosis of the liver, as well as with arteriosclerosis. O'Connor suffered from two of these three conditions: he drank heavily, and he had incipient arteriosclerosis, or a hardening of the arteries, which gradually reduces blood flow to the brain and body. [His father had also had arteriosclerosis.] Neither condition was apparent at the time, when hints of his failing health were limited to thinness, pallor, silence, and the problem with his hands.

Note: The phrase in brackets is omitted without comment in the quotes on SLOP, see here by Stuttle and here by Moeller. (Valliant's quoting methodology sure is taking root in those parts... )

Michael,

Ellen Stuttle didn't cut out the sentence about Frank's father suffering from arteriosclerosis. The Valliantquoating, well, now Moellerquoating, was strictly Michael Moeller's.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Brant,

You write:

It seems then that Frank was drinking in the 1960s. If the 60s then probably the 50s albeit that is a speculation absent evidence.

It's also possible that Frank told Ventura that he had been drinking heavily since the 50s.

-Neil Parille

[Jonathan]

If Heller had responded that the Blumenthals had confirmed that Frank drank to excess, and that they thought his doing so was unhealthy, that would have only meant that the Blumenthal's reliability would need to be reconsidered, that perhaps they had been fooling everyone who respected them, and now they should be thought of as untrustworthy.

We'd probably need to learn the details about how they came to the conclusion that Frank drank to excess: Did they precisely and scientifically track his alcohol intake, counting ounces consumed per hour over a period of years, and noting the strength of the various types of alcohol? If so, where is their documentation? Did they test Frank's blood-alcohol levels and regularly give him field sobriety tests (follow my finger with your eyes, count backward from 100...)? If they based their opinions on anything less, then that would make them vicious liars, Rand-diminishers and smear-mongers!

J

Edited January 9, 2010 by Jonathan

[BaalChatzaf]

May I ask a silly question? What does the amount or seriousness of Frank O'connor's drinking have to do with the correctness or importance of Ayn Rand's philosophy?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

May I ask a silly question? What does the amount or seriousness of Frank O'connor's drinking have to do with the correctness or importance of Ayn Rand's philosophy?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Absolutely no point to it.