Bidinotto

I've further updated my blog post on the CPAC conference to include my conclusions about the presidential candidates who showed up -- and also to take a parting shot at the insufferable Ann Coulter. Also, you just HAVE to see the cover of the latest issue of The New Individualist, which I've added to that post. You can just imagine how that magazine went over at a conference of 5,000+ conservatives.

I've posted an update about my "Air America" appearance -- and The Atlas Society's hugely successful presence at the CPAC conference -- right here on my blog. For the moment, here is a photo of me sparring with host Thom Hartmann: And here is me as emcee of a panel discussion on global warming: Other photos, including a shot of Ed Hudgins also debating the Air America host, are on my blog.

Well, that was fun. I think I scored some points and provoked the host to think a bit. Hartmann is at least courteous and intelligent -- more than I can say of that chubby buffoon, Al Franken, whom he replaced.

That's right, friends. Yours Truly will be interviewed on the leftist radio network Air America's "The Thom Hartmann Show" on Friday, March 2, at 1:34 p.m. Eastern. Why? How can this be? What will I say? Read all the details here. And stay tuned. Literally.

Chris, your news about your health is very encouraging. You hang in there, fella.

Hey Bob, I agree entirely with you about women and putting on body mass through weightlifting. Without gargling steroids, women just can't look like men. Still, as far as the debate, we'd better cut our losses here. If we try to debate women about their perceived body images, we're destined to LOSE, man! BTW, why is it that all the best-looking women are the MOST hypercritical of their own appearance? Nah, I withdraw the question, or else we'll hijack this thread!

Kori, you might try lighter weights or resistance, and higher numbers of repetitions. To get a cardio benefit, try to do enough reps to get your heart and breathing up, then move right away to the next exercise, with very little rest in between. The resistance will give you tone; the lighter weights won't bulk you up; and moving quickly from one exercise to the next will keep up your heart rate and give you cardio benefit. Another thing: If weight is a concern, also try drinking lots of cold water during the day. Don't ask me why. Just try it.

Hi Bob, Well, different strokes. I'm certainly not a bodybuilder, competitive or otherwise. I started working out far too late in life. My experience has been during those periods over the past decade when I chose to get serious about strength gains and weight loss. I found that high-intensity single sets using slow, controlled reps -- coupled with progressivity (adding weight and/or reps to each workout) -- worked very well for me for rapid improvements. I couldn't say, a priori, that such a system will work for everyone. Hypothetically, one form of workout (multiple sets vs. single, high-intensity sets) might be better suited for people with fast- or slow-twitch muscles, for example, or for people at certain ages, or for men vs. women, etc. But the theory makes a lot of sense, and it has worked for me when I've stuck with it. I do know that the Darden program has been very successful for people wishing to lose weight without recourse to aerobics, for example. The problem with all the examples you cite, or that I could cite, are that none of these individuals represent "controlled experiments." Yes, guys like Mentzer were really wacky, and I don't think much of his theory-heavy approach, which strikes me as extremely rationalistic rather than grounded in empirical scientific evidence. Steroid use is epidemic in the bodybuilding field, as you know. Then there are the inherent problems of meaningfully comparing the efficacy of different approaches to exercise. Even among "natural" bodybuilders, people rarely do fixed routines: precisely the same routine each workout, with the same time-under-tension per each rep, etc. Could a given individual have cranked out "one more rep" if he really tried hard enough? Or done one more exercise? How are we to know? Thus, it's hard for any given person to chart precise progress from workout to workout. For that reason, it becomes virtually impossible to compare the results for two people doing the SAME routine, let alone the efficacy of different kinds of workout routines. However, "superslow" routines, usually done with a stopwatch or timer, adds a level of precision to charting progress that severely limits "cheating." In sum, I'm comfortable with people doing whatever kind of exercise that they enjoy, and that gives them results. It beats the alternative.

Errr...and the initial topic of this thread was....?

Victor -- you're THAT pressed for time, man, you got weird priorities. Angie -- Darden's books generally carry diet info as well as exercise.

Okay, I may not be "girlie," but I highly recommend for women OR men the books by Dr. Ellington Darden. University-trained in exercise science, he was the Nautilus fitness consultant for about 17 years, and also consults for Bowflex. Darden's is one of the most scientifically-based exercise and diet programs I've encountered. No fads, just good empirically-grounded knowledge, whether for hardcore body builders or people just wanting to lose weight and gain muscle most efficiently. Darden, like the late Objectivist bodybuilding champ Mike Mentzer, learned at the feet of fitness guru Arthur Jones, the quirky genius who founded Nautilus. They all base their routines on brief, intense workouts that focus on very slow, controlled resistance exercise. Workouts are only a half hour or less, three times per week -- but they are plenty intense, and provide aerobic as well as anabolic benefits. The validity of their high-intensity, "super-slow" principles has been affirmed again and again in controlled tests. Exercising that way (combined with a good diet...my personal weakness!) gives you the fastest, most efficient results possible. Darden's written a gadzillion excellent books on these topics. You can find a whole bunch of them here. Specifically for women, I especially recommend his book Body Defining. For younger guys interested in serious muscle gains and body building, try The New High Intensity Training. For older fellas like me -- 40 and up (although the principles are just a valid for younger men) -- who are looking to get in shape and stay there, I wholeheartedly recommend Living Longer Stronger, which is simply outstanding. Probably the best exercise and diet book, all around, I've ever read. Hope that helps!

Chris and Judith, Will is definitely NOT lounging idly on his backside. He has many complicated responsibilities, including production and distribution of the Summer Seminar brochure and making arrangements for the whole event. And he HAS posted detailed information about the Seminar. In fact, a whole site devoted to the Seminar can be found here. Click here for a day-by-day schedule of events (each entry is a link). And for those of you with the excellent taste and intellectual refinement to wish to attend MY talk, the information about it can be found here. So there! Satisfied?

Judith, You jolly well better not cut class during MY lecture!!!! Robert

Stephen, Well, in the mid-90s I published a book on crime premised upon a Randian-based theory of retributive justice: Criminal Justice? The Legal System vs. Individual Responsibility. For those not wanting the whole book, a long essay sketching my view on this specific subject can be found online under the title "Crime and Moral Retribution." As for whether Objectivism could really be categorized under the "genus" of "libertarianism," that would depend on whether there is such an animal. Despite the number of trees that have fallen to produce books about that "ism," I find no essential agreement on its definition (other than vague, undefined, floating abstractions about "individual liberty"), and certainly none on its component principles. Nominal endorsement of an undefined, ungrounded "freedom" or "liberty" is something that has been made by virtually everyone across the political spectrum. The devil is in the details, and on those details libertarians seem forever at odds. If they can't agree on what they believe, it seems to me problematic that Objectivists (or anyone else) could be reliably described as "species" of "libertarians." --Robert Bidinotto

Chris, you NAILED it. Hahahahahaha.

It's good to hear that you're making progress, Chris. One day at a time, fella. You'll bounce back. All best to you. -- Robert

Charles, Your posts are invariably filled with wisdom -- reason applied to life-long experience -- and very valuable. And I usually agree with you. Please never take my silence as indicating boredom or indifference. I am so busy that I usually post something only when it hits a particular hot bottom of mine, or some subject closely allied to things I'm currently working on. But your words certainly aren't falling into a black hole.

There's a lot of wisdom packed into Jim's post #101. I had the benefit of discovering Rand during my teens and devouring her work in relative isolation, during the late 1960s. For the most part, my first few years of study of Objectivism was, like Jim's, conducted pretty much on my own in college. In retrospect, it was fortunate for me that I wasn't around NBI or any organized Objectivist presentations. This meant that I had to try to make sense of it all on my own. Specifically, the great advantage of this go-it-alone process is that it honed my ability to think in principles and to painstakingly "check premises" all along the way, rather than simply ingest various ideas in clumps, as part of canned presentations by some authority figure. I had to think it all through, link by link, without the dubious advantage of some "expert" (which today too often means: "spin doctor") injecting his own interpretations, emphases, and slants. Instead, I had to progress, step by difficult step, from intellectual positions I'd previously held (especially regarding religion) to a systematic understanding of Rand's ideas. Along the way, I did bounce her ideas off a lot of very smart non- or even anti-Objectivists, as well as a few Objectivists, in stimulating, after-hours college bull sessions. Those critics challenged various Objectivist premises, compelling me to think through tacit assumptions and key linkages. Today, at least to some extent, "bull sessions" of this sort have migrated online, where global invitees now participate and challenge each other. Like most bull sessions, online discussion forums are often chaotic and filled with interruptions and side tracks. At their best -- assuming they attract some high-quality intellects -- you can learn a lot, and be exposed to perspectives you never thought of. But the signal-to-noise ratio is seldom very good online. In your dorm room, you could at least shut the door selectively, and keep the noise-makers from interrupting or diverting a fruitful debate. I also agree with Jim about the dubious importance (at least, in the life contexts of many individuals) of a rigorous, formal study of the history of philosophy. I do not mean at all to diminish the value, to some intellectuals in certain fields, of studying and learning about the historic progression of philosophical influences. But, for me and the purposes of my life, I was always far more interested in learning whether ideas were true or false rather than memorizing their pedigrees. Learning how to "think on my feet" -- how to think through ideas as they were presented to me -- was, I think, a much more valuable skill than knowing whether a given idea had emerged from the ruminations of Thales, Kant, or Rorty. Put another way, my preferred form of argument is not: "Oh, you're just repeating Hegelian nonsense!" -- but rather: "That idea is nonsense, and here's why..." Turning this back to the subject of this thread: The thing that has impressed me about Mr. Tracinski is that he seems to be guided by a similar set of cognitive priorities. He has proved himself willing to challenge hand-me-down assumptions about (for example) the Objectivist philosophy of history -- at least as it has been widely promoted and understood. He is not just swallowing and regurgitating some party line; he is looking at the world first-hand, applying reason, and going to where evidence and logic take him -- not primarily to square his conclusions with previously established Objectivist doctrine. I am emphatically not saying that he is ignorant of or indifferent to Objectivism -- far from it. It's just that he has his priorities straight. That speaks volumes for his character. It also speaks volumes about the characters of those attacking him, and the merits of their criticisms. The overwhelming thrust of those attacks has been to the effect that Mr. Tracinski is departing from "Objectivism" in this way or that -- "Objectivism" as defined by the critics, who, incidentally, refer mostly to their own writings and speeches, and not to Ayn Rand's. Their criticisms drip with "arguments from authority," which amount to: "How dare he challenge the expertise of this or that well-known 'Objectivist intellectual'!" Their criticisms also reek of ad hominems, psychologizing about his alleged intellectual processes and moralizing about his supposed motives. I'd highly recommend that people show their support of Mr. Tracinski in a practical way: by subscribing to his publication, as I am doing now. I have no doubt that, in the jihad against him, a number of ARI types have cancelled their subscriptions to The Intellectual Activist. Nothing would be more encouraging to him, I would imagine, than replacing that lost income with new subscriptions. And nothing would be more just.

Combined, posts #85, 86, and 87 above could be easily construed by readers to infer that there was an employment or "official" staff status. I'm just clarifying: that wasn't the case.

There's some misinformation in this thread about the status of certain people as "spokespersons" for TAS (previously TOC.) Over the past 17 years, hundreds and hundreds of people have attended and/or spoken at our seminars and conferences. None of them, except for a handful of staff members, were ever "spokespersons" or "representatives" for the organization. And even presentations by staff members often dealt with new and sometimes speculative ideas and theories, and thus did not necessarily represent any "official position" of the organization. Let's clarify this matter of "spokespersons" and "representatives." TAS seminars are forums to which we invite qualified individuals to speak about Objectivism and related topics -- and, we hope, to provide new insights and innovative, thought-provoking extensions. Consistent with a philosophy of reason and individualism, and consistent with this "forum" format, we encourage fresh thinking and spirited debate at these events. Unlike some groups, TAS does not demand of speakers lockstep agreement with us on all points of philosophy. Nor do invited speakers represent or speak for the organization: they represent only their own views. Therefore, the appearance of someone as a lecturer at our events should only be assumed to imply that we found that person's lecture proposal to be interesting and potentially stimulating to seminar attendees. Anyone who has ever attended our events knows that speakers frequently disagree with us, with each other, and with their audiences. But (again, unlike some groups) we treat our attendees as mature adults capable of making up their own minds about the merits of a presentation. We believe that this approach encourages valuable intellectual cross-fertilization, creative thinking, and a constant "check your premises" attitude that can only strengthen Objectivism. However, it's obviously not an approach that all people find comfortable. Those who seek intellectual security rather than enlightenment -- who are looking to close intellectual doors rather than open them -- usually gravitate to groups more suited to their intellectual ambitions.

Yes, the ARI wars continue to escalate -- again, predictably (follow this thread). If these people want to refute past criticisms by me and by others, why don't they stop supplying us with more footnotes?

Dragonfly -- you nailed it. Many moons ago, I predicted that exactly what you are now describing would come to pass in the movement, and, of course, it has. It took no special gift of prophecy -- only an understanding of the nature of these people. To them, repudiation = moral judgment = Objectivism. To be an Objectivist, then, one must engage in constant repudiations. They can't feel "moral" unless they are "passing judgment," i.e., repudiating somebody. The only thing that can ever unite full-time repudiators like these is a common enemy to denounce. But when that enemy disappears, or simply stops directly engaging them, they can only turn against each other. It always happens, because it has to, given the equation of "morality" with moral denunciation. This conduct is not Objectivism. And it's important to make that point publicly and repeatedly, so that newbies to Objectivism -- or people merely weighing its merits -- don't equate a philosophy of reason with that sort of fanaticism.

Ellen, I hope you're wrong. Sometimes it takes a 2X4 upside the head to wake people up. Then, it takes a few years for their ears to stop ringing and their eyes to focus on reality. It doesn't always happen, of course. Many people who experience such disillusionment with their old heroes become angry and bitter, and part ways from Objectivism entirely. But some try to discriminate the good from the bad, and eventually come around. We'll see if these people will.

On January 21 on my blog (see Update #8), I wrote: "Veteran ARI-affiliated Objectivist Steve Speicher [who runs a popular Objectivist discussion list, "Forum for Ayn Rand Fans"] is once again publicly defending Tracinski against unfair attacks from ARI muckamucks, such as [Robert] Mayhew</a>. History suggests that Mr. Speicher is thus skating on thin ice himself...especially for saying here that defenders of Peikoff have been 'moralizing, psychologizing, or epistemologizing....' (I confess: the last offense category is a new one on me.)" Given decades of experience with that crowd, this was a safe prophecy. Now, for criticizing Peikoff's inane views on the election, and for mounting even qualified defenses of Tracinski, Speicher, his wife Betsy, and others on his forum are coming under increasing venomous assault from ARI pack animals. Tempting as it is to want to rush to these people's defense, this is an instance of chickens coming home to roost. In the past, Tracinski and the Speichers have been snarling members of that pack of attack dogs themselves, launching vicious attacks against those of us who don't swallow whole the ARI-Peikoff party line. Well, I suppose that there's nothing more educational than being on the receiving end of such a feeding frenzy. I hope it opens their eyes to wider issues about the interpretation of Objectivism, and the true nature of its self-appointed "official" interpreters. Those interested in a deeper, comprehensive discussion of such issues should go here.

Michael, Phil, Charles -- thanks all, for your kind comments. Phil raises an interesting and absolutely valid point about the necessity of carving out a distinctive market niche. I happen to be a slavish acolyte of the outstanding marketing gurus Jack Trout and Al Ries, authors of such seminal books as Positioning, Marketing Warfare, and Focus. These authors stress the vital importance of "branding" your product by distinguishing it from all competitors, and "owning" a market niche that is unassailable even by potential competitors. I've drawn on their wisdom in some of my TAS seminar lectures, including "Marketing Objectivism" and "Guerilla Activism." I've also applied their wisdom in developing the magazine's thematic focus, its style, its content, and its unique "voice." The New Individualist is unlike any other magazine on "the right," including not just conservative but also Objectivist and libertarian publications. No conservative or libertarian journal would or does take the philosophical positions we take, particularly on issues related to cultural values. And no other Objectivist publication is designed for outreach to non-Objectivists; is willing to publish non-Objectivists (as long as their positions within a given article do not contradict Objectivism); or -- to be blunt -- is capable of addressing non-Objectivists without self-righteously haranguing and boring them to tears with stale Objectivist catch-phrases, eye-glazing rationalism, and condescending pontification. You know which publications I mean. Frankly, I don't think that the people involved with those journals are constitutionally capable of producing anything like TNI; in fact, given their outlooks, agendas, and psychologies, I know that they wouldn't even want to try. Which is fine by me. Their inability and unwillingness to produce an accessible, attractive Objectivist outreach publication surrenders to TNI, by default, sole proprietorship of a distinctive market niche: the market for those millions who still accept, implicitly or explicitly, the core values of American Enlightenment individualism. Phil is exactly right: Objectivists have been terrible "salesmen" of their point of view, and this failure is tied closely to most of them living, thinking, and arguing within the movement bubble, where tedious debates about ever-more-attenuated chains of abstractions go floating off into the wild blue yonder, detached from the earthly values and concerns of actual humanoids. I've tried with every new issue of TNI to move farther and farther from that sort of navel-gazing insularity. I hope that those of you who subscribe have taken notice, understood, and liked what you've seen.