Robert Campbell Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Although John Allison is off the Board, he is still making a continuing commitment to the Ayn Rand Institute.Which leaves the contradictions between what he told the ARIans and what he's been telling the Cato folks unresolved.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Although John Allison is off the Board, he is still making a continuing commitment to the Ayn Rand Institute.Which leaves the contradictions between what he told the ARIans and what he's been telling the Cato folks unresolved.Robert CampbellSounds to me like ARI could be accused of sanctioning Cato, and thus libertarianism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 Sounds to me like ARI could be accused of sanctioning Cato, and thus libertarianism.I'm sure you've already seen the video, but here I go promoting it again: 5 likes and 11 dislikes. My inner Peter Keating is not happy with the results of his poll among the guests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 http://www.theameric...nks-of-society/Here’s a little detail I didn’t know till now. We all know David Kelley was excommunicated for speaking at Laissez Faire Books. I think there was more to it, but be that as it may. Turns out John Aglialoro was excommunicated for speaking at…wait for it…The Cato Institute. Does he expect John Allison to suffer the same fate?TAC: So do you expect him to be excommunicated?JA: I think there’s been a change of mentality. Yaron Brook is now executive director of ARI, and I think Leonard gave him the sanction to carry on. They’re now joining the ranks of society, philosophical society. The libertarian, the political; it’s not just up here [gestures with his hands]. [Working with libertarians] is no longer anathema. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 http://www.theameric...nks-of-society/Here’s a little detail I didn’t know till now. We all know David Kelley was excommunicated for speaking at Laissez Faire Books. I think there was more to it, but be that as it may. Turns out John Aglialoro was excommunicated for speaking at…wait for it…The Cato Institute. Does he expect John Allison to suffer the same fate?TAC: So do you expect him to be excommunicated?JA: I think there’s been a change of mentality. Yaron Brook is now executive director of ARI, and I think Leonard gave him the sanction to carry on. They’re now joining the ranks of society, philosophical society. The libertarian, the political; it’s not just up here [gestures with his hands]. [Working with libertarians] is no longer anathema.Peter Swartz? Who's he?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackhorse Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 So where does Diana Hsieh fit into this mess? Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't she Peikoff's pitbull for a while?-and I believe she is, or was, running objectivismoffline. So after her middle finger to TAS in order to secure the good graces of Peikoff, it looks as though, now, her reasoning has come full circle to show both her and Peikoff's superciliousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Will we now hear of Peter Schwartz's excommunication?That'll be the day.Robert CampbellPS. I'm surprised that after all this time John Aglialoro still refers to Leonard Peikoff as Rand's "intellectual heir." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 So where does Diana Hsieh fit into this mess? Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't she Peikoff's pitbull for a while?-and I believe she is, or was, running objectivismoffline. So after her middle finger to TAS in order to secure the good graces of Peikoff, it looks as though, now, her reasoning has come full circle to show both her and Peikoff's superciliousness.Superfluity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 So where does Diana Hsieh fit into this mess? Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't she Peikoff's pitbull for a while?-and I believe she is, or was, running objectivismoffline.I don't think that she ever ran OO. She may have been in tight with its owners or moderators at one point. It used to be that some of the moderators at OO would protect her by deleting posts which were critical of her opinions, but not so anymore, or at least no where near as much as in the past.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 If you're going to keep your position as Leonard Peikoff's pitbull, you can't contradict him on anything.Diana Hsieh was already taking issue with some of his nuttier podcasts before she questioned the expulsion of John McCaskey.Whether Dr. Peikoff has become superfluous remains to be determined.Of Dr. Hsieh's superfluity, there can be no reasonable doubt.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Diana Hsieh was already taking issue with some of his nuttier podcasts before she questioned the expulsion of John McCaskey.Chronologically the Ground Zero Mosque came first. She was against any legal attempt to stop it, and wouldn’t allow disagreement with that view, else down comes the already well-worn ban-hammer. Then, surprise(!), Peikoff came out stridently on the other side. I think she was blindsided, though we can only speculate whether she’d have handled the issue differently if Peikoff had said his piece first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 Today's Peikoff podcast is all about libertarianism. Maybe I need to listen again before passing this judgement, but I think he might have reached a new level of knuckleheadedness. "Liberty" simply can't be an "ism". Bet you never thought of that before! You may as well be for "justice-ism". http://www.peikoff.com/2012/10/22/a-discussion-with-yaron-brook-on-libertarianism/Or how about "liberalism"? "Conservatism"? "Socialism"? Ooh, here's my favorite: "Democratic Republicanism"? What kind of lame brain would ever use a label like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Today's Peikoff podcast is all about libertarianism. Maybe I need to listen again before passing this judgement, but I think he might have reached a new level of knuckleheadedness. "Liberty" simply can't be an "ism". Bet you never thought of that before! You may as well be for "justice-ism". http://www.peikoff.c...libertarianism/Or how about "liberalism"? "Conservatism"? "Socialism"? Ooh, here's my favorite: "Democratic Republicanism"? What kind of lame brain would ever use a label like that?How about objectivity can't be an "ism"? Therefore it's silly to call something "Objectivism"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 By the way, does anyone know the cause of Yaron Brook's speech impediment? Is it physical -- was he injured in some way, or born with the inability to fully control his tongue or something -- or is it something else?J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 If you mean his accent, he grew up in Israel and is presumably not a native English-speaker. This never struck me as an impediment; he wouldn't have had a career as a talking head if it were.Peikoff is the one who can't control his tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 If you mean his accent, he grew up in Israel and is presumably not a native English-speaker.I've known many native Israelis who are capable of saying their Rs properly. Brook is the only one I've ever heard who says Ws instead. It's not an Israeli thing.This never struck me as an impediment; he wouldn't have had a career as a talking head if it were.I think something counts as an impediment when a person is incapable of properly pronouncing letter-sounds. See, the point is that his ability to speak is impeded in some way, not that his ability to earn a living is. And I don't know that his career hasn't been hindered. I've heard a lot of people laughing at his "Elmer Fudd" delivery, and saying that it's hard to take someone seriously when they talk like that. Not only that, but the more serious and intelligent the issue being discussed, the funnier they think the accent is, since the clash between the substance and the style becomes more apparent when the subject is deeper.Peikoff is the one who can't control his tongue.Good point.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Peter,I've also known native Israelis and heard a variety of Israeli accents in English.Never heard the "w" for "r" substitution from anyone besides Yaron Brook.That's a speech impediment.It develops in early childhood. More exactly, most kids make this mispronunciation early in life and then outgrow it. (When my daughter was 2 years old, she said "wocks." Before she had turned three, they were "rocks.") But a few, for reasons we don't understand very well, never get past it, are still making the "w" for "r" substitution as adults.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Today's Peikoff podcast is all about libertarianism. Maybe I need to listen again before passing this judgement, but I think he might have reached a new level of knuckleheadedness. "Liberty" simply can't be an "ism". Bet you never thought of that before! You may as well be for "justice-ism".Or worse, Justicialism.I am afraid to listen to Uncle Kookiepants, but I will. Maybe the Doctor is wrong and the wisdom drips like pure sweet honey.Here is the leading Justicialist in the world, recieving her sash of office: Edited October 22, 2012 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 Never heard the "w" for "r" substitution from anyone besides Yaron Brook.That's a speech impediment.OTOH, Rand always had a problem with "th". Instead of faith she'd say face. Also her "ch" was usually closer to "sh". As in, "sank you wary mush". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I don't know what Brook's ancestry is, but some Germans talk this way - from around Berlin, I think. Marlene Dietrich was famous for it (see Madeleine Kahn's takeoff in ), and it didn't hurt her career either. "Brook" is not hard to imagine as an anglicization of "Bruch."(Rand also said "werry" for "very.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 OTOH, Rand always had a problem with "th". Instead of faith she'd say face. Also her "ch" was usually closer to "sh". As in, "sank you wary mush".I don't know what Brook's ancestry is, but some Germans talk this way - from around Berlin, I think. Marlene Dietrich was famous for it (see Madeleine Kahn's takeoff in ), and it didn't hurt her career either. "Brook" is not hard to imagine as an anglicization of "Bruch."(Rand also said "werry" for "very.")Rand and Dietrich also had very obvious foreign accents in multiple respects, where Brook does not. Several of their letter pronunciations were off, as is typical of foreigners. Brook, on the other hand, sounds like an American in all respects except for the W-for-R substitution. It's clearly not an accent issue deriving from a different language.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) I don't know what Brook's ancestry is, but some Germans talk this way - from around Berlin, I think. According the Wikipedia article on Yaron Brook, "Yaron Brook was born and raised in Israel. His parents were Jewish socialists who were originally from South Africa." I assume his first language was modern Hebrew, not Berlinish**.It is usually not nice to make fun of or point out a speech impediment. In this case, more fun can be made of doing somersaults to imagine Brook's troubles with R are an accent.It doesn't matter to viewers/listeners, I would wager. The fact that he speaks funny will be put to 'accent' alone. Many Americans have 'odd' accents, and it is not a bad thing. I am always amazed at the strikingly-convincing American accents put on (or adopted for good) by Kiwi and Aussie and UK performers: Russel Crowe, Heath Ledger, Hugh Laurie, Nicole Kidman ... they are professionals who have programmed their mouth parts to do this. Brook has no need to programme his mouth parts, since he is Objectivist, and is mostly perfect anyhow.This is from a guy who loathes Brook's policies in re targetting civilians for US wrath (when 'necessary'). This insanity has nothing to do with Objectivism and much to do with his attachment to dead-end military fascism. It could have been him looking like Doctor Strangelove on Bill O'Reilly, but the craziness would have been in his words and convictions, not in an Elmer Fudd presentation.After all, the dulcet tones of Peikoff's particular voice are not what make him odious, but his cruelty and stupidity.________________** Here's Marlene singing Where have all the flowers gone. For the life of me I cannot discern a Bwook-level Fuddishness with the phoneme R.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKxaMAxC3GoWhere have all the gwaveyawds gone? Edited October 22, 2012 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I have only listened to a few clips of Brook, I noticed the w's but mainly I thought he had a New York accent - it did not sound Israeli to me at all. I thought he was a native English speaker with the impediment.CarolESL teacher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Brook's problem is relatively slight. Imagine trying to make yourself understood in English if you are a Korean who cannot distinguish between P and B or pronounce either one, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I don't know what Brook's ancestry is, but some Germans talk this way - from around Berlin, I think. According the Wikipedia article on Yaron Brook, "Yaron Brook was born and raised in Israel. His parents were Jewish socialists who were originally from South Africa." I assume his first language was modern Hebrew, not Berlinish**.It is usually not nice to make fun of or point out a speech impediment. In this case, more fun can be made of doing somersaults to imagine Brook's troubles with R are an accent.It doesn't matter to viewers/listeners, I would wager. The fact that he speaks funny will be put to 'accent' alone. Many Americans have 'odd' accents, and it is not a bad thing. I am always amazed at the strikingly-convincing American accents put on (or adopted for good) by Kiwi and Aussie and UK performers: Russel Crowe, Heath Ledger, Hugh Laurie, Nicole Kidman ... they are professionals who have programmed their mouth parts to do this. Brook has no need to programme his mouth parts, since he is Objectivist, and is mostly perfect anyhow.This is from a guy who loathes Brook's policies in re targetting civilians for US wrath (when 'necessary'). This insanity has nothing to do with Objectivism and much to do with his attachment to dead-end military fascism. It could have been him looking like Doctor Strangelove on Bill O'Reilly, but the craziness would have been in his words and convictions, not in an Elmer Fudd presentation.After all, the dulcet tones of Peikoff's particular voice are not what make him odious, but his cruelty and stupidity.________________** Here's Marlene singing Where have all the flowers gone. For the life of me I cannot discern a Bwook-level Fuddishness with the phoneme R.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKxaMAxC3GoWhere have all the gwaveyawds gone?Oh! Its twue, its twue ---- Madelene von Stupp in Blazing Saddles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now