Mark

9thdoctor would know better than that if he read some of the many allegations of fraud against Barney and his CEHE. The allegations have the ring of truth, especially since Barney's manner reeks of phoniness. The fact that the taxpayer would be paying for the fraud makes it worse but it would be bad even without government involvement. 9thdoctor is “Respondent A” in Response to Barney Revelations

I shouldn’t have put the “Dr” title in quotes or even mentioned the title. Hurd didn’t use any title in his comment on Biddle’s article, just “Michael Hurd.” What I was thinking is that psychotherapists shouldn't be called doctors. For one thing the course of study takes a fraction of the time and effort it takes to get an M.D. For another, "doctor" suggests physician and that type of doctor deals with the physical aspect of people not the mental. Anyway, scratch that part of my post. Hurd's comment on Biddle's article isn’t the first time he’s sung the praises of Carl Barney. In 2015 he wrote The Massively Underappreciated Virtue of Egoism in Business which quotes Barney then comments on what he says. I discovered it soon after “Who Is Carl Barney?” went online in 2017. At the time, I wrote Hurd about my article using his website’s “Contact Me” page but he never replied. The Objective Standard denies that his colleges are doing anything wrong and they’re quite self-righteous about it. (They're self-righteous about everything.) The Times Smiles and Sneers at Carl Barney, Ayn Rand, and Private Colleges defends Barney against the accusations reported at the end of Patricia Cohen’s first New York Times article on Barney. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Biddle collaborated on writing this, which gives no author: The Colorado Attorney General’s Assault on CollegeAmerica The URL seems to indicate it was uploaded in 2015 but it looks like it was 2017 because David Halperin’s review (search for “unhinged” in “Who Is Carl Barney?”), which came out in 2017, calls it “a new document that has surfaced online... .”

Since last I wrote “Dr.” Hurd – the psychotherapist who a few years back was favorably mentioned by ARI – has commented on the Biddle article. It’s more of the usual with an added twist: the fact that Barney left ARI is further evidence of Barney’s integrity. His last paragraph in full: “I respect Carl’s support for the ideas he agrees with, even if the organizations charged with advancing those ideas are not doing their job. Case in point is his recent withdrawal of support from the Ayn Rand Institute. I view that as even further evidence of integrity and character. As I said, Carl’s the real deal, and he truly wants Ayn Rand’s ideas – unfettered by petty politics or irrelevant agendas – to become part of the world.” Hurd insinuates that ARI is not doing its job and is fettered by petty politics and/or irrelevant agendas. It’s surprising Biddle allowed that remark given the renewed cooperation between ARI and TOS. It could be that the renewed cooperation has become renewed dissociation. On the other hand he might have been willing to allow it as a trade for agreeing with his "youthful transgression" argument in the previous paragraph.

Ellen, No, not one – in public anyway -- and I keep an eye on them, and not even after it was published. The whole affair is quite amazing. And telling. Thanks for catching the Biddle/Barney error, fixed now. (You might need to press your browser's refresh key, typically F5 or Ctrl-R, to see the change.) Mark

MSK, About Barney going quietly when Hubbard put his missions in receivership (meaning taken from him by court order and at least temporarily put in the custody of someone else), there is another – and I think more likely – explanation than that he was an obedient drone in thrall to the cult. According to Cheryl Sola, a clerk in the central management office of SCS at the time – see “Who Is Carl Barney?” for details – she was told that Barney’s missions had been put into receivership because: “...Carl Barney had been ... doing unlawful things such as having the non-profit corporation pay for his Lincoln Town Car, a cabin at Big Bear, and his pension, using NAC as a money pool for loans, and such.” If Hubbard “had the goods” on Barney he would have been in no position to fight. About the possibility that Barney truly believed in Co$ from the age of 19 to 40: Biddle is probably correct about Barney starting off being sincere but after he saw the leaders and began working with them and getting money for it, no, it’s not believable that he was a naive innocent. We’re in the realm of psychopathology now. Hubbard may well have sincerely believed that the souls of dead space aliens are the cause of people’s problems, and that he could cure them if only they gave him all their money. What of it? There’s not much distinction between willful self-deception and a lie.

Jon, Biddle is mistaken. It’s true Barney was ARI’s largest donor from it’s very first year. Biddle is mistaken about when he was put on the board of directors. During OCON 2015 Brook said that Barney “has been a board member for 20 years now.” Assuming Brook spoke precisely and didn’t mean about 20 years, you get 1995 for the starting year. I tried the Internet Wayback Machine – archive.org – for aynrand.org. It goes back to 1996. ARI’s website for that year doesn’t have a staff or board of directors page, ditto for 1998. The archive for the year 1999 doesn’t work. The one for 2000 has such a page and Barney is listed on the board with this blurb: “Carl Barney is a businessman who, among other business activities, owns and manages several private business colleges.” I only have access to ARI’s 990 tax form back to 2002 so that’s no help either. For now I changed “In 1995” to “In 1995 or thereabouts” in case Brook was imprecise.

The editor of The Objective Standard, a magazine affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute, has finally responded to the revelations in ARI Watch’s exposé “Who is Carl Barney?" about ARI’s largest donor. ARI Watch reviews that response in a new article Barney Tells His Story. You can understand it by itself because it quotes the TOS article.

Back on August 22, 2015 Ed Powell and Stuart X were interviewed on Amy Peikoff’s BlogTalkRadio show “Don’t Let it Go” where they discussed a recently published article by Ed Mazlish concerning immigration. On Amy P's website the title of the show is “A Response to Ed Mazlish’s Call for Ideological Screening of Immigrants” and on her BlogTalkRadoi page “A Discussion of Immigration Policy.” Ed Mazlish's article is “Yearning to Breathe Free: The Foundations of a Rational Immigration Policy” which he put on someone else's blog. Later Ed Powell created a website called Objective Dissent. Here is Amy P's webpage for the immigration show, started a few days before the show itself. There are many posted comments including some by Ed Mazlish. Since then she hasn’t given opponents of open immigration any time on her show. At one point Lindsay Perigo was scheduled to debate Yaron Brook but then Brook insisted on some debating rules that Perigo found unreasonable and it never happened. (I agree with Ed Mazlish’s – and Ed Powell’s – criticisms of Yaron Brook / ARI but disagree with their alternative. Our immigration disaster cannot be fixed merely by ideological screening, which is impractical anyway.)

Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo

MSK, Peter isn’t telling you who to ban or moderate. All, the following links to a number of articles about corruption in Child Protective Services, then to several articles about the Franklin “scandal.” www.ARIwatch.com/Links.htm#CPS

It’s a mystery to me as well. I don’t see how any of the three things you mentioned could have affected the program. Compatibility mode: The program should run without this setting and if it were required, restarting your PC wouldn’t affect the setting. Administrator mode: Ditto. Protection setting: I don’t know much about this but judging from what I read on various Internet references the only such setting called protection has to do with turning on or off the Windows “restore points” feature. This wouldn’t affect how any program runs. Anyway, glad you got it working.

Max, On your Windows 10 Pro machine, what exactly happens when you double-click the exe file? It just doesn’t do anything, OK, but what exactly do you see? Pretend I’m from Mars.

Max, Probably your browser just copied it to your “Downloads” folder. To run it open Windows Explorer. On the left pane of that window very near the top you see “Desktop” and underneath it “Downloads.” Click on “Downloads.” Then on the right panel you see a list of files. Double-click the exe at the top (if the list is sorted by Date most recent first). Then you see a scary message saying “Unknown Publisher-,” then click “Run.”

Just what did you experience? It has run perfectly under Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 (32 bit), and Windows 10 (64 bit). I haven't had a chance to try it on a Windows 8 computer.

Any axis, but since the ropes can be attached anywhere we need -- "without loss of generality" as they say -- only show that it can be done for some one axis.

Glad you liked it, Darrell. Jon, Yes, it can spin forever without twisting the ropes to the breaking point. The ropes must stretch and twist but only by a finite amount. Since the webpage gives a rather abbreviated account of what the program does here’s a more leisurely description. Imagine a ball in the middle of the room suspended in the air by six elastic cords. I’ve gotten used to calling them ropes. Each rope is glued to the ball at one rope-end and to a wall, ceiling, or floor at the other rope-end. The ropes are all straight and untwisted. The following schematic diagram gives some indication of what I mean: ......................................................... | / ...................................................... —O— ....................................................... / | Then the ball starts turning around on its vertical axis. The rope-ends attached to the ball’s surface go around with it while the rope-ends attached to the room remain stationary. The ropes become tangled and twisted. The ball turns around exactly once and pauses. During this pause you can try to untangle the ropes but you won’t succeed. Then the ball continues turning around, in the same direction, and stops after a second turn. Surprise, now you can untangle the ropes so they are all straight and untwisted, as they were at the beginning. The manipulation can be done while the ball turns, then the ball can spin without pause while the ropes never tangle and twist beyond a certain amount. You can do this with any number of ropes, I said six just to be definite.

The mechanism is deceptively symmetrical. At first glance it looks the same left and right (minus X and X) as top and bottom (Y and minus Y), but on closer examination these two aspects are different. Let L = length of the full rod, from pin 1 to crayon. Let M = length of the part of the rod between pin 1 and pin 2. Let x, y = the coordinates of the crayon using the grooves as axes as in the picture. Let x0 = the length of the projection of the “M” part of the rod onto the X axis. Two relations of these quantities can be seen by considering certain right triangles. The first follows from the Pythagorean theorem with rod as hypotenuse, the second from similar triangles: (1) The square of x + x0 plus the square of y equals the square of L. (2) x + x0 equals x0 times L / M. First solve (2) for x0 in terms of x then substitute it into (1) to get an equation involving only x, y and the constants L and M. Doing this and simplifying, you get an equation for an ellipse: A squared times x squared + B squared times y squared = C squared where A = L B = L – M C = the product of A and B Since A > B the ellipse is stretching along the Y axis.

Judging from the recent thread “Where are you?” some people here are interested in spherical geometry, so you might be interested in a curious fact about space discovered by the English theoretical physicist P.A.M. Dirac (1902-1984) – specifically the “space” of rotations in three dimensional space. At the bottom of the following webpage you’ll find a link to a computer program (Windows) that generates movies illustrating his discovery in various ways: How a Spinning Object Can Remain Connected to a Stationary One It can also show a movie that illustrates the principle behind the spinning jenny used to twist fiber into thread.

Michael, Thanks for taking the trouble to run your CD. About the operating system business, an acquaintance recently got a computer with Windows 10 -- don't know which edition -- and like MerJet's her CD no longer works. what's going on is a puzzle. Could be hardware, could be the edition.

MerJet, About the Q&A, I’d forgotten about Google Books (I own Ayn Rand Answers but it’s in storage). Thanks for the link. About the CD not working in Windows 10 – that is, the search program on the CD not working – it might be possible to get it to work with a little trouble: run XP inside a “virtual machine” and then run the program in XP. You’ll need a licensed copy of the XP operating system. Every edition of Windows 10 besides “Home” comes with the virtual machine “Hyper-V” already installed. To change the subject, you have a very interesting blog: Correspondence and Coherence.

To anyone who has the Objectivism Research CD-ROM: Would you search for Agnew as in Spiro Agnew, President Nixon’s first vice president, and copy-paste here what you find, if anything? Agnew gave a famous speech November 1969 excoriating newspapers and political commentators. Rand might have praised him for it at the time. (If it was only during a Q&A though it won’t be on the CD.)

Ron Paul is right about Bush, Sr. and his involvement in drug smuggling. The late Rodney Stich, a former Federal Aviation Administration investigator, in his book Defrauding America provides evidence that Bush Sr. helped smuggle cocaine from Mexico when he was in the CIA.

Binswanger recently published yet another essay promoting open borders, ... HBletter.com/what-is-national-sovereignty ARI Watch analyzes it in ... Harry Binswanger on National Sovereignty

I’m glad you found it informative, Ellen. Especially since sometimes I wonder if ARI Watch is worth the effort.

“Birds of a Feather” grew by accretion. I forget the date of the first edition except that it was when the Iraq War was still “a thing” and Brook and the rest were pretending to denounce neoconservatives, even as ... but it’s in the article. I add to it whenever I come across something new that’s relevant. It’s more a reference/resource than an article. Thanks for reading part of it. It’s good Glick fights the absurd claims of Trump’s detractors about the synagogue massacre but I’d rather hear the arguments from a reputable source. I’ve read enough of Glick to know she frequently argues in bad faith and cannot be trusted. Even in this instance I’m suspicious. Indeed, why does she bring up Israel, her adopted country? Most of her article is about Israel, or Iran in relation to it. It sounds like she would turn on Trump and argue the opposite way if he were to stop supporting that country.