What is the appeal of Glenn Beck to Objectivists?

[ValueChaser]

What sickened me is when I saw Harry Binswanger appear on Glenn Beck and state, "The right stands for the dignity of the individual." It sickens me because I admire his lectures "Psycho-Epistemology" and "Psycho-epistemology 2" and "Free Will and Values." Is Harry Binswanger endorsing the religious right? If the religious right stood for the dignity of the individual, its leaders would not accept the money from faith-based initiatives; they would pay for programs/expenses that are associated with their houses of worship with their own money. Oh that's right--he meant the fiscal right. But wait a minute. . .the fiscal right does not consistently stand for the dignity of the individual. They only argue for less interventionism, while keeping other forms of taxation in place--the ones they want to keep. You cannot stand for the dignity of the individual Mr. Binswanger if you one is punching him in the face and occasionally giving him a breather to recouperate. When I heard Binswanger say that, my admiration for him as a wholistic intellectual went down a notch. But then again I knew he supported Bush in the 2004 election. I didn't, but I respected his reasoning. But to equate individual liberty with the right?

[Greybird]

What makes you think that Harry Binswanger is an "Objectivist," whatever that now-fuzzy term may mean?

He has his own mini-cult with a loyalty oath (for entrance to his mailing list), and keeps trading on his having been Rand's opponent at Scrabble for the last years of her life, but that doesn't mean he has anything to do with the essence of her outlook. Rand despised the putative "Right."

He's sucking up to fellow manipulator Glenn Beck, using the nonsense (as you accurately characterize it) of the vague Right being the source of all political good. What else is new? Binswanger — and Peikoff, and the now somewhat vanished Schwartz — have been doing just this kind of whoring, for decades, toward anyone who will give them a platform.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What's wrong with presenting good ideas like small government, focus on the individual and low taxes to the mainstream public?

Should only bad ideas be presented to the mainstream public?

I, personally, think Beck is doing a brilliant job of getting some of these ideas out in the open. His intellectual strategy of "when in doubt, check the Founding Fathers" is one of the best I have seen in the mainstream in ages. It's working, too.

Beck is even getting Binswanger to look and sound halfway decent on TV.

Does anyone imagine you can do that without a hell of a lot of talent?

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Speaking as one Objectivist ,me, I find it impossible for me to watch Glenn Beck. So the appeal Glenn Beck has to me is none.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Chris Grieb

[syrakusos]

I have seen Glenn Beck at least once, perhaps twice.

Falling in with the "right" on the Founding Fathers is as dangerous as falling in with the "left" on organic food.

Talent is nice, but what you do with it is more important than how much of it you have, nice as talent may be.

This summer I worked the Ann Arbor Art Fair for the local Libertarian Party (pics here). We shared a double booth with Ron Paul's "Audit the Federal Reserve" group. I found it deeply ironic to see our local anti-capitalist treehuggers nodding in agreement with the patriots. The conservatives thought that they were making points, gaining traction, getting along with, convincing, converting, persuading or communicating with their audiences, who were feeling equally and oppositely successful.

Glenn Beck appeals to people who watch Glenn Beck. Nancy Pelosi rocks with people who like Nancy Pelosi. Still other people are into NASCAR or scrapbooking, and some still follow Paris Hilton.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Peter]

I have not looked up a list of Glenn's recent topics, but here are a few of Rush's. I do not recommend 'gettiing in bed with' the religious right, but some, like Rush, do not wear their religion for all to see, all the time. Subtract the miniscule religious content, and you have an ally.

I will read some comments and respond again.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Rush's recent topics.

• Middle-Income People Are Better Off Than Ever Before, So Why Don't People "Feel" It? -10.18.06

• Raising Minimum Wage Causes Job Loss, Wal-Mart Will Now Just Surround Chicago –07.27.06

• Review Your Laffer Curve -07.11.06

• Ars Technica: Tax Repealed! US Gov't hangs up on Spanish-American War -05.26.06

• Dick Durbin: Profit is a Dirty Word -05.01.06

• It's Time for The Greatest Generation 2.0 -04.27.06

• The Federal Government's Three-Month Take from ExxonMobil Sales: Nearly $17,000,000,000 (Plus They Took a Chunk of the Company's $8.4B Profits) -04.27.06

• Want Tax Reform? Stop Paying Taxes -03.27.06

• Why Is It So Hard To Teach Economics? -11.04.05

• There Is No Gouging -11.03.05

• Wage & Price Controls -11.03.05

• The Entitlement Mentality: Thank You, FDR -01.17.05

• Great Tax Lesson of Oprah's "Free" Cars -09.22.04

• SPECIAL: Only the Rich Pay Taxes: Top 20% Pay 80% of Taxes -08.13.04

• States Warned to Spend or Lose -06.29.04

• The Deficit & National Debt -03.12.04

• Nixon In Bush Comes To Full Blossom;

GOP Spits On Reagan's Domestic Legacy -11.25.03

• Limited Government Is Dead – For Now -11.21.03

• Top 1% Paying 34% of All Income Taxes! -10.11.03

• Why Is the Fruit Better in the Big Apple -09.26.03

• SPECIAL: We Spend More on Education Than Anything -09.18.03

• Big Spenders Steal Our Liberty -09.02.03

• Not Government's Intended Role -09.02.03

• Don't Shelter Us From Capitalism -09.02.03

• Let's Give Everyone a Car Rebate -07.23.03

• How About Teaching History, America -07.03.03

• The Biggest Social Spending Plan In 40 Years Still Not Enough -06.26.03

• Let's Be "Fair," Give Child Tax Credit To the Childless -06.09.03

• SPECIAL: Maha, Where Do Deficits Come From? -05.23.03

• What Happened To Limited Government? -05.21.03

• Liberal Core Belief System Harms Economy -05.13.03

• EIB Excerpt: ABC's George Will on Yacht Tax's Failure -01.12.03

• Rush Has Been Unemployed Eight Times -12.17.02

• SPECIAL: When Did Democrats Pass Tax Cuts for Anybody? -12.09.02

• An EIB Primer on American Liberty -12.06.02

• Limbaugh Election Doctrine: Don't Gloat, Govern –11.06.02

• SPECIAL: Only the Rich Pay Taxes -10.23.02

• Rich & Poor Both Getting Richer -08.15.02

• 9 of 12 Richest Senators are Democrats -07.17.02

• Capitalism Doesn't Lead to Corruption -07.09.02

• Why a Liberal is a Liberal -06.26.02

• Tax Hike Alert! -06.10.02

• Feds Misplace $17.3 Bil of Your $$ -05.28.02

• Scheme - You to Pay Union Workers -05.23.02

• SPECIAL: Prof Limbaugh Debunks Price Caps -05.20.02

• Farm Bill is Robin Hood in Reverse -05.15.02

• Econ Ignorant -04.24.02

• Russians Prove Flat Taxsky Works -04.15.02

• The Rich Get Soaked Big Time -04.09.02

• SPECIAL: Every Tax Cut Helps Always -04.02.02

• Living Tax Break Movement -03.20.02

• The Washington Times: Virginia Happy to Oblige Generosity -02.19.02

• Drink Adult Beverages, Pay Fat Tax -01.25.02

• Huckabee Bags $260 From Liberals -12.10.01

• 1.4T - $313b Does NOT = Deficit -12.06.01

• The Tennessean: Crowd Hurls Rocks, Rhetoric to Protest Tax -07.13.01

• Who Pays? Income Tax Breakdown -04.16.01

• SPECIAL: Supply-Side JFK -03.12.01

• EIB & JFK A-OK -03.09.01

• Very Rich Pay Growing Tax Share -03.15.01

• Cut Taxes for People Who Pay -03.15.01

• EIB Ad Splash -03.14.01

• Kennedys Decry GOP Tax Cut Pitch -03.12.01

[Robert Campbell]

I don't watch Glenn Beck's show a lot, but I've liked some of the things I've seen.

Beck has a weird manner of presentation, alternately preachy and clownish. Hardly anyone's neutral about it. Heidi can't stand him; he reminds her too much of a TV evangelist.

Frankly, I'd ask why Glenn Beck is giving Harry Binswanger a platform long before I'd ask why Harry Binswanger is accepting one from Glenn Beck.

Robert Campbell

[Peter]

ValueChaser wrote:

Is Harry Binswanger endorsing the religious right?

End quote

Of course not. Don’t accept labels without delving deeper. Use any variation of Rand’s sliding scale of political value, with the totalitarians on the far left, and the individual rights constitutionalists, laissez faire capitalists, freedom fighters on the right. Now that sliding scale idea would make a good OL article, ValueChaser. That would be a noble value to chase.

It is much clearer using this gauge to determine who is your friend. Harry is. Leonard is. Ayn is. Rush is. Glenn is. I am, and you are my ally.

For me Mike Huckabee is 14 on the line, because of his infamous statement that he would change The Constitution to more correctly reflect the bible. I would put Bill O’Reilly at 12.

I will make a few PERSONAL exceptions as who is our foe on the Religious Right: Cal Thomas, Pat Robertson (to a degree, watch his show The 700 Club once, and you might agree with me), and after I saw the name of her book, “Godless,” Ann Coulter. I capitalized personal because I just don’t like them. Well, Ann Coulter can be a hoot.

Did you know that Glenn Beck is a Mormon, as is Mitt Romney, though Glenn has nothing good to say about Mitt because of MittCare in Massachusetts? Their religion is significant, because I think there is a MUCH LESSER chance that a politically right and ‘rights’ leaning Mormon will inject their Christian values into government.

The Mormons have been a persecuted minority too long to be indiscrete about their religion, if they become famous or run for office. I don’t anticipate hearing the words Latter Day Saint, Joseph Smith, or The Angel Moroni from Glenn Beck or more especially, Mitt Romney.

Michael wrote:

I, personally, think Beck is doing a brilliant job of getting some of these ideas out in the open. His intellectual strategy of "when in doubt, check the Founding Fathers" is one of the best I have seen in the mainstream in ages. It's working, too.

End quote

I agree, Michael. Glenn Beck was immediately with the Tea Party Movement. I think he is an opportunist and an entertainer, but I think some of us who write to OL fall into that category. On a sliding scale, if zero is a totalitarian, and Randian Constitutional Government is a twenty, I would place Beck around nineteen.

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

Falling in with the "right" on the Founding Fathers is as dangerous as falling in with the "left" on organic food.

That is not correct, Mr Marotta. Just what positions of the “right” are you talking about?

Anti-abortion? Obstetrician Ron Paul, who’s followers you shared a booth with, is anti-abortion, and will not perform a late term abortion, ever. I posted his congressional comments somewhere else on OL. Read Roger Bissell’s Reason Magazine article on this issue. There is more to it than the ARI version. I can’t find the quote but Ayn Rand, when backed into a corner, agreed that an aborting mother DOES NOT have a right to a dead baby.

Prayer in school? Small potatoes, and it will never become prevalent except as a personal, not a school board, or principal’s choice.

Two things that disturb me the most about The Religious Right?

One. The Religious Right cedes the mantle of Reason to their opponents if they argue for individual rights for religious reasons. They therefore lose the non church going secular, moderate vote, which is growing yearly in America. And they get a groan of dispair from me.

Two. The Religious Right is bigoted towards Atheists. A portion of them insist that a ‘good person’ must have, if not Christian beliefs, then some other irrational belief to be worthy of association. They would rather associate with a Muslim or a Scientologist, than an Atheist. For them, nothing has changed since the time the founding father’s called themselves Deists instead of Atheists.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Michael M. and Greybird:

Yes, let's stay isolated and let's find fault with everyone except a "REAL" Objectivist or a "REAL" Libertarian.

Let us purify everyone in our furnace of freedom. Only those who are completely honed in the fires of our small narrow truth shall be permitted to even have a booth next to us.

Jesus Christ guys. We need to enroll folks by working with them.

Michael K. has said it quite clearly. An interim default position being limiting government, lowering Federal and statist coercion and basing our decisions in conjunction with the principles that the Founders set down is the on ramp path to freedom which eventually will get us on a libertarian objectivist super highway.

Alliances are needed.

Adam

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

Michael K. has said it quite clearly. An interim default position being limiting government, lowering Federal and statist coercion and basing our decisions in conjunction with the principles that the Founders set down is the on ramp path to freedom which eventually will get us on a libertarian objectivist super highway.

End quote

Amen, brother. I hope everyone will start thinking about Objective reasons for allying oneself to any mainstream group.

Any ideas about an Objective, criteria driven, sliding scale of Political value, with Totalitarian a zero on the left and, say, one hundred for a Randian Government on the right?

If you use a scale that we can agree on it will catch fire and be used by everyone who identifies themselves as libertarian, strict constructionist, Objectivist or whatever. But we need to see something that is at least agreeable to the few people reading this thread. It is time for us to be using the same measurement scale.

Do something for Objectivism and for yourselves and develop a rational scale of political values. Perhaps it could become a ‘pinned’ item under “Politics” on OL? Pinned, but contextual. (personally, I think that is the way Wikipedia will become.) It can be unpinned and changed as a rational argument can be found for a change. I am new here but it looks like Kat does that on the OL site.

One other criteria I neglected on a previous post on this thread was amending the drug laws. I would not make that a major platform rung but it is a necessary rung in a platform for Rational Political Value Perhaps begin with doing away with laws like: you cannot carry a prescription in any container other than the one it came in, and using someone else’s prescription. I do believe both of those are dumbly illegal. Then Pot. Maybe not. For those of us who do not use any illegal substances, it just doesn’t resonate as a priority.

I will see if I can CC this to Kat.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Greybird]

Yes, let's stay isolated and let's find fault with everyone except a "REAL" Objectivist or a "REAL" Libertarian. Let us purify everyone in our furnace of freedom. Only those who are completely honed in the fires of our small narrow truth shall be permitted to even have a booth next to us. [...]

You really don't need to lecture the rest of us, even obliquely, about the need for alliances on particular issues. (Wherein Michael is too cynical about that matter of mutual persuasion.) Some of us have been saying they're needed for many years.

My point is that Beck is no friend of genuine liberty, and Binswanger is no genuine partisan of the viewpoints of Rand.

Especially, for both, when discussion goes into matters of Empire. Beck the neocon (when talking about matters beyond the borders, anyway) adores it. Binswanger, like his buddies in Irvine, forgets that Rand detested it. (At least before Nixon wielded that broadsword.)

With "allies" like this, ... et cetera.

[John Day]

A large degree of it has to do with the times we're living in. The election of Barack Obama in addition to the TARP bail-out under George W. Bush has brought about more unity between conservatives and libertarians than has been seen in the last thirty years. Both camps see Barack Obama as a threat to the values they hold dear and the state of the economy has largely pushed social issues and foreign policy under the rug. If a Republican is elected President in 2012, the sniping between conservatives and libertarians will start up again. Until then, they're united under a common enemy.

To his credit, Glenn Beck is not a Republican hack and was very critical of George W. Bush going back to his Headline News program. If a Republican President who pushes a big-government agenda like Bush is elected, I would hope Beck would stay consistent.

[Selene]

A large degree of it has to do with the times we're living in. The election of Barack Obama in addition to the TARP bail-out under George W. Bush has brought about more unity between conservatives and libertarians than has been seen in the last thirty years. Both camps see Barack Obama as a threat to the values they hold dear and the state of the economy has largely pushed social issues and foreign policy under the rug. If a Republican is elected President in 2012, the sniping between conservatives and libertarians will start up again. Until then, they're united under a common enemy.

To his credit, Glenn Beck is not a Republican hack and was very critical of George W. Bush going back to his Headline News program. If a Republican President who pushes a big-government agenda like Bush is elected, I would hope Beck would stay consistent.

Excellent.

You are correct John. Moreover, he has pushed Ayn and Atlas Shrugged and her ideas more than any major voice in media ever.

Shall we not look a really great gift horse in the mouth. I would walk with the Devil himself on the same path to move our agenda forward.

Adam

[anonrobt]

A large degree of it has to do with the times we're living in. The election of Barack Obama in addition to the TARP bail-out under George W. Bush has brought about more unity between conservatives and libertarians than has been seen in the last thirty years. Both camps see Barack Obama as a threat to the values they hold dear and the state of the economy has largely pushed social issues and foreign policy under the rug. If a Republican is elected President in 2012, the sniping between conservatives and libertarians will start up again. Until then, they're united under a common enemy.

To his credit, Glenn Beck is not a Republican hack and was very critical of George W. Bush going back to his Headline News program. If a Republican President who pushes a big-government agenda like Bush is elected, I would hope Beck would stay consistent.

Excellent.

You are correct John. Moreover, he has pushed Ayn and Atlas Shrugged and her ideas more than any major voice in media ever.

Shall we not look a really great gift horse in the mouth. I would walk with the Devil himself on the same path to move our agenda forward.

Adam

True - after all, walking with Lucifer is like walking with the 'bringer of light'...

[ValueChaser]

What's wrong with presenting good ideas like small government, focus on the individual and low taxes to the mainstream public?

Should only bad ideas be presented to the mainstream public?

I, personally, think Beck is doing a brilliant job of getting some of these ideas out in the open. His intellectual strategy of "when in doubt, check the Founding Fathers" is one of the best I have seen in the mainstream in ages. It's working, too.

Beck is even getting Binswanger to look and sound halfway decent on TV.

Does anyone imagine you can do that without a hell of a lot of talent?

Michael

There is nothing wrong with presenting those ideas, Mike. And I'm glad you responded rhetorically to the Glenn Beck criticism, since it implies that those ideas must be presented in some way. I never sufficiently proved to myself formally Objectivist politics, in the way I have its ethics. But the message of the Right, when delimited to the ideological platforms you mentioned, is good.

Here is an illustration of a collusion of two of your points: the application of a small government in order to focus on the individual's freedom in his pursuit of a productive goal. The non-religious right, composed of those who are trying to fight for freedom, such as Beck, the "teabagger" spokesmen, Reagan, Goldwater (I include him by hearsay), Limbaugh (judging by the list of shows presented by Mr. Taylor), aim to liberate the individual. But the essential question is what is their view of the kind of individual they would like to liberate? It's all in the quality of each one's theoretical arguments and professed goals. Rand and the other professional Objectivists aim at the same goals.

Basically, the latter differs in that they explicitly include in their view of individual liberation, a consistent moral certitude that the Dagny Taggart's, Howard Roark's, and John Galt's (and more modest type of impassioned producers) are not just producing to line to their pockets: their very reason for producing is because it is an impassioned expression of their own self-esteem.

Production earns them wealth in the market and they do require a job to maintain their physical needs (the Right's approach to liberty). But the spiritual motivation of their work is on manifesting productive ideals for the sheer passion for it, which is their moral right. I listen to contemporary right-wing speakers thinking, they stolidly present their facts, figures, projected consequences of statism, etc. for the common-sense goal of making money to meet one's survivalist needs. Their emphasis is on the financial assets that meet our desires and needs. Where is the emphasis on the liberation of a producer's soul, the recognition that it is not merely his business bank accounts but his joy in producing that would soar?

Perhaps a good, informal way to test the degree to which any secular rightist or libertarian defends liberty is to ask him (or oneself) the following question: What type of productive individual do you aim to liberate?

As to the spreading of ideas, I agree with Peter Taylor's idea as presented in this thread: the idea of assessing how certain fighters for liberty measure up, thereby allowing one to see which given speaker may be accordingly viewed as an ally to laissez-faire capitalism. The scale he presented is a great way to become an ally with high-profile rightist speakers, and thereby to try to employ them and their audiences (through persuasion) in spreading a more comprehensive view of liberty. But the methodology and manner of Glenn Beck's expressed ideas are highly questionable. I'll try to define his methodology and manner in a later post.

--John

Edited January 13, 2010 by ValueChaser

[Selene]

"...the "teabagger" spokesmen..." why do you insist on mislabeling the movement with the two testicle innuendo...

I am Italian, my genetics come from the North. "Guido's", "guineas", "wops" and other irrational intended slurs work in a joke, but I see no reason to play into the left's attempt to link the Tea party movement to homophobia or a heterosexual sex action.

You diminish yourself my friend by playing into their semantics.

As to your last point, just have the state get the fuck out of the way and we will handle the liberation of our own souls and anything else that we choose to pursue.

Adam

[Jerry Biggers]

The liberals in the media have often used a tactic that has worked to their great advantage. And their opponents (whether conservative, libertarian, Republican, or Objectivist) have often walked right into it. I am talking about a trap, a "Honeypot."

This happens time and again. We watch who the liberals are attacking, and somehow think that that makes their target (e.g., Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, Dan Quayle, O'Reilly, - you fill-in the blank:________), our ally. Even someone we should support. In my mind, it goes like this: conservatives (etc.) watch as Palin is chosen for the Veep position on the GOP ticket. She makes a first good impression, gives a rousing speech, utters a few things that we believe in, - and then they notice that Palin is being attacked and ridiculed by the MSM. So along with the libs' exaggerations and distortions of her views, conservatives tend to ignore other criticisms and accept that she is a champion of individual freedom and other things we hold dear. They jump on the Palin bandwagon (and into the honeypot).

Which is exactly what the libs were hoping for. They often choose for their target someone who has "feet of clay." They hold him/her up as a "champion" of the Right, while digging up as much dirt as they can. Unfortunately, the "champion" has a number of real "skeletons in the closet," along with some really stupid and appalling statements, some of which the libs hold back until the opportune moment. You know the rest, all the rest of the gossip and especially those dumb statements get repeatedly publicized. Conservatives end up getting tarred with the same brush, looking stupid, ignorant, foolish, or at best, very naive.

All of these people "on the right" may have some admirable qualities that we can all applaud, but I think it is not a coincidence that some of these same people get the most notice in the MSM. The libs are not fools - they know that their vocal opposition to certain people is going to be noticed by their enemies. I am not talking here about a "conspiracy." That's not needed. Simply being sly, crafty, and manipulative will do quite nicely.

Beck and Limbaugh are good examples which could end up as being honeypots. They have a huge audience. They are articulate. They bring up (some) of the right issues. And we tend to ignore issues where they either have some glaring personal failings (yes, I know we all do, but most of us aren't standing in the media spotlight) or some logical or philosophical gaps that you could drive a Mack truck through. And Keith Olbermann, or his compatriots, are behind the wheel.

It is not always true that "the enemy of mine enemy is my friend." Rather than being a friend, they may be a "Honeypot." In other words, it may be wise to temper our enthusiasm, and keep them at arm's length.

In reading this over, I am concerned that my comments may lead some to think that I am advocating that Objectivists stay isolated and not make common cause with conservatives on issues where we agree. That would be suicidal, given what we are facing. but I am saying we should be very careful who we embrace as allies.

- Please consider this as not trying to "lecture," but as my personal opinion, or "rant," if you will. (Michael, maybe it belongs in the "Rant" section.)

Edited January 13, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You know, I think the issue is a question of talent.

Beck has talent. Hannity has talent. Limbaugh has talent. Etc.

May an Objectivist public commentator one day appear with as much talent as they do. One who can speak to the viewer instead of down to him. One a normal viewer (which is the mainstream audience) can identify with.

Until then, between these guys and the Obama folks, and the fringe folks on both ends, give me these guys.

Michael

[Selene]

Exactly Michael:

I laugh when I hear a person comment about Rush when they pontificate that "all he does is talk on the radio", or words to that effect.

Nothing about the desire that he had since he was 8 to do what he does today. Nothing about inventing a successful business model that revolutionized a partially dead medium. Nothing about the integrity that he has demonstrated.

And, of course, nothing about the talent to be able to speak cogently for approximately 38 minutes per hour, five days a week and make it intelligent, informative and entertaining.

People, glass houses and stones.

Great point about not being condescending also Michael, which in my 49-50 years of knowing "O"bjectivists, is a real issue.

Adam

Yes and I know I succumb to it also at times

[ValueChaser]

"...the "teabagger" spokesmen..." why do you insist on mislabeling the movement with the two testicle innuendo...

I am Italian, my genetics come from the North. "Guido's", "guineas", "wops" and other irrational intended slurs work in a joke, but I see no reason to play into the left's attempt to link the Tea party movement to homophobia or a heterosexual sex action.

Adam, I insisted on no such thing. I heard that they themselves used the term to label their own movement. That is why I myself used the term. I did not mean "to play into the left's attempt to link the Tea party movement to homophobia or a heterosexual sex action."

If they did not use the term to label their own movement, could you have imagined that I might have used the term as a point of reference? Could you not then have asked me if I just got the word wrong? Adam, you are being presumptious.

You address this to me:

You diminish yourself my friend by playing into their semantics.

On the contrary, your negative view of me says more about you than it says about me.

I did not diminish myself. You did, "my friend," by jumping to a conclusion about me that is false and awful.

Edited January 13, 2010 by ValueChaser

[Peter]

John mentioned my list of Rush's shows. I actually had two more pages of them, some more up to date, but felt it would be redundant. Rush is one of the good guys.

Peter

[Selene]

"...the "teabagger" spokesmen..." why do you insist on mislabeling the movement with the two testicle innuendo...

I am Italian, my genetics come from the North. "Guido's", "guineas", "wops" and other irrational intended slurs work in a joke, but I see no reason to play into the left's attempt to link the Tea party movement to homophobia or a heterosexual sex action.

Adam, I insisted on no such thing. I heard that they themselves used the term to label their own movement. That is why I myself used the term. I did not mean "to play into the left's attempt to link the Tea party movement to homophobia or a heterosexual sex action."

If they did not use the term to label their own movement, could you have imagined that I might have used the term as a point of reference? Could you not then have asked me if I just got the word wrong? Adam, you are being presumptious.

You address this to me:

You diminish yourself my friend by playing into their semantics.

On the contrary, your negative view of me says more about you than it says about me.

I did not diminish myself. You did, "my friend," by jumping to a conclusion about me that is false and awful.

Fair enough. I apologize.

However, I am surprised since this exact discussion has been had ad infinitim on in the media for months. Thought you were aware of the snarky slur that the left placed on it. I for one have never heard a single person in the Tea Party movement ever refer to it as the "tea-bagger" movement.

Since I am part of it and have organized some of it, I am surprised that someone "from the movement" would identify it as such.

I hope you accept my apology.

Adam

[syrakusos]

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

Falling in with the "right" on the Founding Fathers is as dangerous as falling in with the "left" on organic food.

That is not correct, Mr Marotta. Just what positions of the “right” are you talking about?

Anti-abortion? Obstetrician Ron Paul, who’s followers you shared a booth with, is anti-abortion...

The "Founding Fathers" is the position of the "right" that I find dangerous. They were not of one mind. You can find at least two totally different collections of essays both called The Anti-Federalist Papers. Then consider what relationship Madison had to Jay and Hamilton among the "Federalists." Over on RoR some conservative wants people to help impeach President Obama for treason for not engaging the War Powers Act. But such conservatives quote only the parts of the Constitution they like. Ayn Rand has her character Judge Narraganset amending it on his own because it contains "contradictions." Those "contradictions" allow conservatives to have their states rights without eating the income tax, too. One wonders how the vote for women would survive an attempt to roll back direct election of senators. I assure you flat out that the colonial and early Federal period is one into or upon which everyone, left, right, whatever, can project themselves. Ever read CITIZEN TOM PAINE by the communist Howard Fast? It is not arbitrary political correctness to insist that these were not founding fathers, but persons. Abigail Adams sent John Adams out into the world, but he carried their ideas, not his. This is not new. I learned it 40 years ago. Glenn Beck just perpetuates a mythic past.

I did not invite the Ron Paul people and I did not support their rants against the Federal Reserve Bank, an institution which troubles me less than the NCAA and the Big Ten Conference (of 11 teams).

I think that many conservatives, libertarians and Objectivists are ignorant about money and their lack of understanding begins with the mythic history of trade shared by Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises.

[Peter]

ValueChaser wrote about right wing pundits and heroes:

But the essential question is what is their view of the kind of individual they would like to liberate? It's all in the quality of each one's theoretical arguments and professed goals.

Jerry Biggers wrote:

They jump on the Palin bandwagon (and into the honeypot) . . . It is not always true that "the enemy of mine enemy is my friend." Rather than being a friend, they may be a "Honeypot." In other words, it may be wise to temper our enthusiasm, and keep them at arm's length.

Michael Stuart Kelly wrote:

May an Objectivist public commentator one day appear with as much talent as they do. One who can speak to the viewer instead of down to him. One a normal viewer (which is the mainstream audience) can identify with.

End quotes

I wrote Sarah Palin, who is going to be a commentator on Fox, to read or re-read “Atlas Shrugged,” and to come out and support some key issues from a rational rather than a religious point of view.

Part of my letter went like this:

This is probably a position that will keep you on the right side of a future Supreme Court decision. I support equal rights and protection under the law. Whether that equal protection is called “marriage” is not legally important, though it matters tremendously to the couple. One of those percents of that three percent of the voting gay population could swing an election.

Hospital Rights dramatizes this issue in a way that a person who opposes “gay marriage” for moral reasons can empathize. Who can make decisions for you if you are incapacitated? Who can come into your recovery room after an operation when visitors are limited?

If an ill person wants the caregiver to be the person with whom they are in a committed relationship, then their partner should be the one first allowed in. This can even affect people who are straight. A woman may be in the hospital and she wants her boyfriend to come into her recovery room after her operation. However, her family only allows “family” in, not the person who takes care of her.

I hope, Sarah, that you will take the Constitutionally correct stance that “Equal Protection Under the Law” is necessary, but legally a gay union could be called a “civil union” or anything else that differentiates it from the traditional definition of “marriage.”

Issue Two: Abortion. (I gave Sarah, a sketchy Roger Bissell-ian defense.)

Again, I argue from reason. You should take the reasoned, moral, and legal high ground. Base your arguments on reason, not religion. It may not satisfy the religious, or the idea that “a person” is there at conception, but your stance will not later be overturned by the Supreme Court. Certainly these points would be great for a debate or an interview.

I am personally against abortion, as are you. A human embryo or fetus should always be treated with the respect due to a potential person WHO WILL ONE DAY HAVE RIGHTS. However, a fertilized egg or group of cells should not have rights, in a reasoned, legal sense. So when is a human organism at a certain level of development “a person?” What is a rational basis for granting Human Rights?

Around the 26th to 28th week of gestation a normal human fetus begins to have the brain wave patterns of a “born” human. At that point it legally becomes a person with rights. At that point there is a mother with rights and a person inside of her with rights. Human brain wave patterns prove when “a person” is there. The baby is thinking.

To reiterate, following medical guidelines and ethics, THE FETUS IS A PERSON WHEN IT HAS THE BRAIN WAVE PATTERNS OF A PERSON. In the event of an emergency the mother’s rights trump the rights of “the person” she is carrying, but only if it is an either/or situation. Then, her life must be saved first. Yet, the fetus is a person when it has the brain wave patterns of a person. Viability is another consideration but saying a human is “a person” when it thinks like “a person” is more important from a reasoned, legal point of view.

Viability is a key issue: To those people who insist that a woman has full reproductive rights over her body, and over the baby she is carrying, even if the baby is viable, I would like them to consider one question. Does a woman who aborts a fetus have the right to a dead baby? No, not if the baby is viable - because someone must now kill it. And certainly the mother has no rights to a dead baby when it has the brain wave patterns of “a person” with rights.

Governor Palin, I hope you will take the reasoned and Constitutionally correct stance that a human becomes “a person” when he or she has the brain wave patterns of “a person.”

“End of Life” and brain wave patterns are a separate issue.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Here are a couple more that I have not sent out. Maybe I better not send them out 8-) Yet.

Dear Governor Palin.

Sarah, you can win this election. You have the ability to galvanize a crowd. You need to work in some free-market ideology, and a Minuteman urgency into your too blasé campaign. Look at President Reagan’s great speeches. Try out several catch-phrases and find one that resonates.

If you can create a revival type atmosphere, the press will need to cover you. FOX sure will. Bigger crowds will show up, ready to be a part of Your History. People want and crave to be a part of something bigger than themselves. Become a movement.

I have seen several nicknames for you: The Naughty Librarian, which is stunning in its imagery. I think every man likes that one – We are shallow, don’cha know?.

Caribou Barbie which is derogatory and heard coming from a few feminists who cannot understand how you could have done all you did, and not be a left winger like themselves.

And the nickname that resonates with my idea of a revival atmosphere: Evita Palin. Evita was a populist loved by her people. She could outdo that tinhorn, empty suit Obama, with his Nazi rallies in a stadiums.

You can win over a core following, that will show up at your rallies and lead chants, and everyone there will follow. Scare the heck out of the Liberals. Become a bigger pop star than you already are and give the campaign a bounce that never comes down.

2012 is your year, Governor.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

And now I need to add another nickname, "Honey Pot." umm delicious!

Good evening Governor Palin.

The 2012 election is 10 days. If there were but world enough and time. . .

Don’t be distracted by the polls and press. Don’t expect fairness from them. Listen to NOTHING they say. Catch Glenn Beck, Rush, Sean and the crew at FOX only if you must, for some inspirational drumbeating, but even that can be counterproductive.

There are people who are just starting to tune in. Focus on those voters. Stay optimistic in spirit. Visualize a win like an athlete.

Trust in America, Mrs. President.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Right Wing Paladins

I have been pondering that old television western, Have Gun, Will Travel starring Richard Boone as the honorable gunfighter, Paladin. Does he compare favorably to Rostand’s Cyrano de Bergerac, 007, or Jessica Fletcher on Murder She Wrote? He might even be compared, in a modern light, to the man who put an ad in Soldier of Fortune magazine stating he will fight for Any cause but Red. But Paladin would also stipulate, I will only fight for a cause that is just.

The Spencer For Hire, series by Robert B. Parker is another example of an honorable person who will go to great lengths to accomplish a mission, while never doing a dishonorable deed. Spencer would instantly hand back a retaining fee to the person hiring him and switch allegiances to the other warring camp, if he discovers he has been lied to. If the other faction has Right on its side then that is where our hero will be. His morality is absolute.

High School girls and ladies of all ages know of instances where they were being hassled in the hallways, the classroom, in a bar, or on the job by some sinister Lothario. You ask them to stop repeatedly but they sneer in your face, or pat you on the butt. Yet just one word in a certain person’s ear and the Lothario is next seen limping in the hallways and turning his bruised face away from you, or he is being escorted out of the building by your Human Resources Representative. The bastard got what he deserved.

Don’t we sometimes wish we had an Uncle Vinny who could fix something for us? Or friends in high places. Or the mentor who is part of the Old Boys Network? All of us want to be autonomous individuals but occasionally a helping hand is greatly appreciated.

One of the best scenes in all of literature is of Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged, fighting a philosophical and Romantic battle for Hank Reardon at a cocktail party and winning:

This? Lillian was saying, extending her arm with the metal bracelet for the inspection of two smartly groomed women. Why no, it is not from a hardware store, it’s a very special gift from my husband. Oh yes, of course it is hideous. But don’t you see? It’s supposed to be priceless. Of course, I would exchange it for a common diamond bracelet any time, but somehow nobody will offer me one for it, even though it is so very, very valuable. Why? My dear, it’s the first thing ever made of Rearden Metal.

Dagny did not see the room. She did not hear the music. She felt the pressure of dead stillness against her eardrums. She did not know the moment that preceded, or the moments that were to follow. She did not know those involved, neither herself, nor Lillian, nor Rearden, nor the meaning of her own action. It was a single instant, blasted out of context. She had heard. She was looking at the bracelet of green-blue metal.

She felt the movement of something being torn off her wrist, and she heard her own voice saying in the great stillness, very calmly, a voice cold as a skeleton, naked of emotion, If you are not the coward that I think you are, you will exchange it.

On the palm of her hand, she was extending her diamond bracelet to Lillian.

You’re not serious, Mrs. Taggart? said a woman’s voice.

It was not Lillian’s voice. Lillian’s eyes were looking straight at her. She saw them. Lillian knew that she was serious.

Give me that bracelet, said Dagny, lifting her palm higher, the diamond band glittering across it.

This is horrible! cried some woman. It was strange that the cry stood out so sharply. Then Dagny realized that there were people standing around them and that they all stood in silence. She was hearing sounds now, even the music; it was Halley’s mangled Concerto, somewhere far away.

She saw Rearden’s face. It looked as if something within him were mangled, like the music; she did not know by what. He was watching them.

Lillian’s mouth moved into an upturned crescent. It resembled a smile. She snapped the metal bracelet open, dropped it on Dagny’s palm, and took the diamond band.

Thank you, Mrs. Taggart, she said.

Dagny’s fingers closed about the metal. She felt that; she felt nothing else.

Lillian turned, because Rearden had approached her. He took the diamond bracelet from her hand. He clasped it on her wrist, raised her hand to his lips and kissed it.

He did not look at Dagny.

Lillian laughed, gaily, easily, attractively, bringing the room back to its normal mood.

You may have it back Mrs. Taggart, when you change your mind, she said.

Dagny had turned away. She felt calm and free. The pressure was gone. The need to get out had vanished.

She clasped the metal bracelet on her wrist. She liked the feel of the weight against her skin. Inexplicably, she felt a touch of feminine vanity, the kind she had never experienced before: the desire to be seen wearing this particular ornament.

From pages 149-150 of Atlas Shrugged.

Publicly, Hank’s battles were now her battles. She knew Hank Reardon was acknowledging her spirit and was really kissing her. Her reward for fighting ‘his battle’ was a green-blue bracelet made from the first pouring of Reardon metal . . . and Hank Reardon himself.

An intellectual Paladin might be a thinker and writer who debates in public forums or fights printed battles in freedom loving publications. Or they might write letters to the editor, or to Owl or Atlantis. The fact that they are paid for services rendered, is not an issue if the Paladins are fighting for the right causes and never compromise their principles. They may work for nothing or you might pay them with gold coins. You might even pay them with your soul.

Have Gun, Will Travel, reads the card of a man.

A knight without armor in a savage land.

His fast gun for hire, reads the calling wind.

A soldier of fortune is the man called Paladin.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Live long and prosper,

Peter Taylor