Bidinotto

With the continued generous support of our members, subscribers, and contributors, Jim, we'll move to much greater levels of influence and cultural impact. Thanks for you own loyal support.

I've posted elsewhere that this attack on ARI, which was circulated without attribution by another writer, was grossly unfair and unjust. I thought that the other writer was the person who wrote it, but this may not be the case. Regardless, it is a smear against an organization that does many good things -- and I say this as one who has been strongly critical of aspects of ARI. I don't believe for a second that this semi-literate screed was penned by Robert Tracinski's associate, a man who in his writing has shown himself to be a much clearer, more subtle thinker than this, and much more honorable. I appreciate Michael's efforts to clarify who may have been the purveyor of this nonsense.

All, Let me single out Ed Hudgins as the spark plug and guiding light for this event. He was tireless in pursuing speakers, arranging panels, getting the hotel, and overseeing the logistics. Ed was the contact person for virtually everything related to the event. The outcome speaks for itself. I think the Atlas 50th Celebration will go down as one of his foremost life achievements. He deserves all our thanks and congratulations. --Robert

The Atlas 50th Celebration vastly exceeded not only my personal expectations, but my wildest fantasies. An amazing group of prominent and talented people attended -- from business, the media, universities, the arts, the sciences, you name it. The speakers were all knowledgeable, energetic, insightful, funny, and impressive, paying due respect to every aspect of the enormous achievements of Atlas Shrugged. The headliners -- John Stossel, Charles Murray, Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden, and the Atlas movie production people (especially Michael Burns, the Rand-fan vice president of Lionsgate, and director Vadim Perelman) -- more than lived up to their advance billing. Add to that the fact that the Marriott Renaissance Hotel was a terrific venue, the food excellent, the staff and service utterly impeccable. The staff of The Atlas Society (and I mean all the others on staff, not me, because I was engaged in magazine efforts and could do very little to help out) deserve enormous credit for their tireless work to make this happen, and at such a high level of quality. I can tell you right now that the taping by C-SPAN 2, to air on October 13 ("Book TV"), can't begin to capture the excitement, scope, and quality of the occasion. For one thing, I don't think they filmed several of the key events -- for example, the reception at Cato, or the evening banquet gala with John Stossel and the movie panel. (WE filmed EVERYTHING, however...and you can be sure we'll be making it all available.) THIS was the tribute Ayn Rand so richly deserved for her incomparable literary and philosophical achievement. I was privileged to be there as a participant, and it has left indelible memories for a lifetime.

Besides the remarks of the producers, Lionsgate's Michael Burns, and director Vadim Perelman at the conference, some of us had the privilege of a lengthy late-night conversation with Perelman, picking his brain about his view of the story and characters, his attitude toward the novel and Rand's ideas, his sense of artistic integrity, and his ideas for tweaking Wallace's screenplay. I have to tell you, before the Atlas 50th Celebration, I was skeptical about this guy's ability to create a wonderful film that captures the essentials of Rand's novel. I'm no longer skeptical. If it can be done, I think this guy just may have what it takes to pull it off.

It was a complete triumph of an event. I'll blog about it shortly, with photos. Right now, sleep and then a workday call, however.

Chris, you are correct. All questions about everything are answered in any given issue of The New Individualist. We pack more information in our ADS than certain publications do in their...in their...um...in their publication qua publication.

Brant, good catch! I noticed the same thing: This is obviously a half-size scale model of the Titanic, maybe only 400+ feet long and not more than 40' wide. Of course, everyone KNOWS the real ship was 882' long and 92' wide; and its massive weight -- 46,328 tons -- would have cracked the street and sidewalks. Now, I ask you: WHERE ARE THE CRACKS? The photo has clearly been doctored by having a half-size Titanic, which is to say, a contradiction-in-terms, wheeled into position. Jonathan, just what kind of faking of reality are you into, you cognitive comprachico, you! Meanwhile: Barbara, I'm delighted you finally feel at home here. Yes, indeed. This is life as it might and ought to be -- just as Aristotle once said about OL -- in a previous post, I think.

ALL RIGHT, MICHAEL. WHY THE HELL DID YOU MOVE THIS NEWS STORY TO "HUMOR"? As many people have said in the past, it's clear that you do not take ideas SERIOUSLY. Consider yourself REPUDIATED, you epistemological savage. Or moral barbarian. Whatever.

Michael, I've tried to take the "cons" out of "conspiracy," too. Without the cons and the piracy, we don't have much left, now, do we?

Yes, I see that now.

Incidentally, Jonathan, that photo is of historic importance. I'm curious: Did you retrieve it from the ARI archives or from Area 51?

Barbara Branden sank the Titanic? Well, they've blamed you for everything else.

Chris, Thanks so much! Hey, as Objectivists, we have to submit to EMPIRICAL REALITY, right? And the online experiment is scientifically duplicable. Or duplicatable. Whatever. I put ice cubes in a bowl, and a half-dozen spoons in another, and THE SPOONS DIDN'T MELT. ONLY THE ICE DID. I mean, that PROVES SOMETHING ABOUT THE RELATIVE STRENGTH AND DURABILITY OF ICE AND STEEL, RIGHT? So the "iceberg theory" about the sinking of the Titanic can now be safely dismissed. And that leaves ONLY: sabotage. And just who would have had the RESOURCES to sink the biggest ship in the world? Only Uncle Sam, that's who. Okay. Yes, maybe space aliens. Sure, they might have had the motive, the means, and the opportunity. And I'm not ENTIRELY ruling that OUT, mind you, but I don't think it's all that likely. I mean, if it had been space aliens, you would've thought that James Cameron would have captured the whole thing on film. But no. So, there it is.

Remember when I wrote that screed against conspiratorialists? First, here. Then later, here? Okay. I admit it. I was CONNED. I was TAKEN IN by sinister agents of the U.S. government. And now, I recant my anti-conspiratorialism. What caused this astonishing about-face? INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE CONSPIRACY!!! That's what. It begins with a single incident in the early 1900s. But once the PATTERN is established, you can see EXACTLY that it leads right to 9/11. So, where is the proof of the existence of the conspiracy? It exists within easy reach. YouTube videos. Documents. Charts. Graphs. Right here online, where anyone can see it for himself. Just do yourself a favor before passing judgment. READ THE WHOLE THING. CHECK OUT ALL THE VIDEOS AND DOCUMENTS. And ONLY THEN, return here to deny these facts. If you dare!

Chris, I understand. Also, I want to take the opportunity to tell the world: The rumors about Angelina and me are NOT true. And I demand that all the papparazzi stop invading our privacy. Have they no SHAME?

Well, Chris, I have to wait for their news, too! It's not as if I have planted a bug in Angelina's boudoir, you know....

We've just received confirmation that the director and producers of the Atlas Shrugged movie project will be joining us at The Atlas Society's gala 50th anniversary celebration of the publication of Ayn Rand's epic novel, on October 6. They will include Michael Burns, the vice chairman of Lionsgate studio, which is producing the film. With him will be producers Howard and Karen Baldwin, the team that gave us the Oscar-winning film Ray, as well as executive producer John Aglialoro, a trustee of The Atlas Society. Also expected is Vadim Perelman, director of House of Sand and Fog, who recently was tapped to direct the film of Rand's masterpiece. They will provide up-to-the-minute news about the status of the project and its progress. Details about the "Atlas 50th" event and registration information are posted on The Atlas Society's website. At the celebration, a host of leading scholars, authors, and achievers will discuss the literary, philosophical, moral, economic, and political aspects of Atlas Shrugged and its impact on our world -- past, present, and future. The keynote speakers are John Stossel of ABC's "20/20" show and noted scholar Charles Murray. Panel moderators will include Nigel Ashford of the Institute for Humane Studies; philosopher Douglas Rasmussen of St. John's University; John Fund of the Wall Street Journal; and Yours Truly. There will also be an afternoon reception nearby at the Cato Institute, featuring Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden, who will speak on their recollections of the writing and publication of the novel. If your life and thinking were changed by Atlas Shrugged -- as mine was -- this is a day you won't want to miss. When: Saturday, October 6, 2007, 8:00 am to 9:00 pm. Conference and banquet location: Marriott Renaissance Hotel, 999 Ninth Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20001. Afternoon reception featuring Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden: The Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. For the full program and registration information, visit the TAS website. I hope to see you all there.

Jonathan, You are entirely correct about the hypocrisy here. Gee, I thought the person raising this insinuation was outraged about hearsay reports about the private conduct of individuals. Outraged, that is, when the hearsay concerned alleged conduct by Ayn Rand. And I seem to recall a great brouhaha on that website regarding wholly unsupported claims about its owner's alleged drinking problem. But I guess it's okay to smear people if you can dismiss them as subhumans.

Great news, Chris! Let's hope all these challenges are now behind you. See you on Oct. 6th, my friend.

Chris, Roger, Michael, Ed, Judith...thank you all. As I said on my blog entry about the award, this is no doubt the first mainstream national journalism award that has gone to an article that concludes by advocating Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. That, to me, may be the most personally satisfying aspect of this recognition. And now that The New Individualist has truly "arrived," there's no longer ANY excuse for those among you who have not yet subscribed to the magazine.

Thanks so much. By the way, the link to the article on the TAS website has been changed to this one. In the photo below, that's me in the middle, with the two award presenters, Tony Silber, editor and publisher of Folio:Magazine (right), and Kerry Smith, the president of Red 7 Media: As I've said elsewhere, that's one small step for an individualist, one giant leap for The New Individualist. Again, thanks to all who have been sending congratulatory messages. They mean a lot. --Robert

In the minds of many Objectivists, I think there's an unfortunate, tacit equation of "social metaphysics" (being a "social climber" or "second-hander") with being effective in social situations -- including situations involving communication and persuasion. Some Objectivists who have not been socially successful even seem to mask a hostile envy of those who have been, by always accusing the latter of "selling out." I think the source of this equation stems from a clumsy reading of The Fountainhead, which has them equating "independence" with "indifference" -- or even "isolation." But that's a misreading. In her dramatization of independence in the character of Howard Roark, Rand chose to stress that this particular individual was so independent that he didn't even notice most people around him. But this was not a prescription to social blindness, alienation, and indifference. Roark's trait of aloof social indifference does not characterize many of Rand's other heroes, including Galt, Francisco, and, in The Fountainhead, Kent Lansing and Austin Heller. They noticed everything about others, and they were effective leaders in social situations. Their "paying attention to others" and effective communication was not some failure of independence; it was a tribute to their rationality. Does anyone seriously wish to maintain that the desire to communicate with and persuade others to be more rational, for example, is a failure of independence? If so, then Galt's Speech is a three-hour illustration of a second-hander's psychology; and Francisco's years of efforts to persuade and recruit others to the Strike is likewise an example of "social metaphysics." Indeed, everyone posting here could be similarly declared a "second-hander," merely for trying to persuade others. Communication presupposes an interest in imparting information to others, or attempting to move them in some way. If we did NOT "care what anyone else thinks," why even bother to learn to speak or write? "Psychological independence" does not mean become a mute hermit, living off in some cave. It does not mean, in the words of Simon and Garfunkel, becoming the equivalent of a rock or an island. Likewise, social metaphysics does not mean having no desire to communicate with or persuade others, or having no desire to succeed in social relationships (which include one's career). After all, in the marketplaces of products, services, friendship, or love, we must demonstrate our value to others through effective communication if we are to gain what they have to offer us. Social metaphysics, or second-hander behavior, means something different and much narrower: It means subordinating or sacrificing one's judgment and actions to the wishes or expectations of others. A person may authentically want certain people to like him; he may wish to succeed in his career field; he may enjoy recognition, visibility, and social success; he may feel anguished and hurt when he fails in these social arenas; yet, he can STILL be completely independent, morally and psychologically. It's only when he subordinates "I know" to "they say," for the sake of popularity and social success, that he violates the principle of independence and becomes a "second-hander" or "social metaphysician." Morality -- including the principle of independence -- is about one's actions, not his feelings. Regarding this subject: I have no way to get inside Alan Greenspan's skull to know exactly where he comes down on any of this. Clearly, he wished to succeed socially and he enjoys the recognition and rewards of other people's good opinion of him. But that does not necessarily make him a "second-hander." Only if he has sacrificed his own knowledge and best judgment of the truth in order to gain and keep those social rewards would he deserve that epithet. And only HE knows, deep down, if that is the case. A question: Why is Greenspan's moral and psychological character, or philosophical status, the concern of anyone here? Just wondering.

I haven't yet gotten Greenspan's book. To those who have: I'd like to see posted some extended excerpts of passages that shed light on his CURRENT view of Rand and Objectivism. Not your paraphrases or interpretations, mind you -- only complete, uninterrupted sentences, between quotation marks, and in full context. Thanks.

Oh, there was a "set-up," all right. Read the detailed police report (click on the "next" tab for subsequent pages): It proves that OJ and ex-con Riccio "set up" Fromong and Beardsley, the memorabilia sellers -- not the other way around. And besides, what kind of "set up" would permit someone to invade a hotel room with a pack of goons waving guns, rough up people, then grab a whole lot of stuff at gunpoint -- including many items of memorabilia that demonstrably were NOT the chief goon's property? You're reaching, Michael. OJ is a sociopathic thug, and -- after years of beating his wife, then murdering her and a friend -- this was just his latest crime. The bastard deserves a noose; even in this case, he won't get a fraction of the time he deserves, if any.