spaceplayer

Thales: "They can't hold your interest that long." Again, please speak for yourself. "We have a note of agreement." I'll also grant you that "classical" composers are technically more proficient. If it were a contest of that sort, I'd say no contest. But that's not really the issue, is it? Mozart? Where's the funk? Where's the groove that makes my booty move? Rach? He's alright, but he's lacking in spaceships.

Thales: "Come the hell on! First, analysis isn't telling you "what to think" No, but this is: "For a pure musician of the highest caliber you have to think Beethoven, Mozart, Rachmaninoff..." But that's why I put the smily, I don't think you caught your own implication. Thales: "2nd, what you say is pure insanity." I'd say that I'm insane then, but that's bullshit. And if all you can do is paste youtube clips, then your analysis is shit. I'd invite you to my site, Orpheus Remembered, to compare notes. (That said, I do agree with you about the lyrics versus music aspect, an argument I've made on this site and elsewhere.) I like some of Steely Dan, but ... they sound flat by comparison. Says you.

The painting was probably an arbitrary choice, or at least picked for its instant visibility (lends itself well to the Simpson's animation style); STARRY NIGHT is not so offensive a choice, anyway, compared to, say, THE SCREAM or something like Francis Bacon. Rand even liked Dali, despite not being so rational. (Yes, I like STARRY NIGHT.)

"Dying is easy, it's living that scares me." -Annie Lennox

Are you referring only to the movie, or is your opinion based on more research? Apparently, what we know of it was a propaganda opportunity, and not quite the massacre it was painted to be. As for the verdict, I believe it was dealt with in court to the satisfaction of both sides, and the consensus was that the soldiers did overreact, but that they were egged on at the same time.

Presty, regarding Art Deco, it's important to remember that it wasn't so much a unified style as it was a philosophical movement, so their could be variations on the type of ornamentation, as long as it conformed to the principle of modernity, cleanliness of design, elegance, etc.. An example like the Chrysler building and its ornamentation, well, the sunburst had a function: to distinguish its philosophy as one of possibility, to suggest rising in its form; a skyscraper is not humble, so there's a bit of a Promethean element there. But the style was determined by Art Deco principles: clean, geometric, modern. They could have put an Art Noveau sunrise and it wouldn't have been the same...so the form and function become intertwined.

Wow, this should be a facebook app. Anyway.... Definitely Francisco. Smart, witty, extremely capable, rich, revolutionary, and personality. Hardly a "wooden" character, as Galt is accused of being. Ragnar, because he's not afraid to do what needs to be done. Stephen Mallory, 'cause I can relate. Breakman/Richard Halley's student: a fellow musician working in the rock quarry, whistlin' mysterious tunes, like the Pied Piper of Atlantis. Gail Wynand (movie version). He has a strange playfulness, despite his tragic flaw, you want him to fight and succeed. A man who could have been...

Rush's song "Anthem" and album 2112. But that's old hat. Less know is the Simon and Garfunkle line "I've been branded and Ayn Randed a communist because I'm left handed." (Or something like that.)

America Reverses Direction, or, A Republic to Keep It hasn't been written yet, but I submit that it needs to be written. Leonard Peikoff addressed the philosophical errors, via Kant, that led to Weimar Germany and consequently, Hitler and the Nazis. He then identified philosophical trends in America that revealed The Ominous Parallels. While an important work (and one that certainly is bearing strange fruit), it is incomplete. Chapter 14, "America Reverses Direction" "America, as conceived by the Founding Fathers, lasted about a century. There were contradictions-government controls of various kinds-from the beginning; but for a century the controls were a marginal element. The dominant policy, endorsed by most of the country's thinkers, was individualism and economic laissez-faire. The turning point was the massive importation of German philosophy in the period after the Civil War." Peikoff goes on to describe the influence of outside ideas that began to undermine the work of the Founding Fathers, like the German economists, Hegelians, Henry George, Edward Bellamy, Mill, Comte, Dewey, and, of course, our good friend Kant. Now, this is all well and good, but what's incomplete is the presentation of those "contradictions" from the founding. My theory is that a more in-depth look at those "contradictions" from the beginning were NOT merely a marginal element, but were, in microcosm, a portent of the "shapes of things to come." For example, the financial situation of post-Revolution America drove the colonies to impose taxes, which led to rebellions, which led to the government to get involved with printing money...all these factors are just as important as the ideals espoused by the Founding Fathers in the creation of the Constitution, and these matters are having repercussions today. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a systematic study of this from an Objectivist, but it's a project who's time has come... ...if it's not too late.

You might be interested in Peikoff's latest podast (4/27/09) and his latest comment on music.

NIGHTFALL by Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverburg. It was my gateway drug to ATLAS SHRUGGED.

Hi there. You're asking questions that many have grapple with already, music being the most problematic area. There's been a lot of ink spilled (and friendships torn asunder!) over music; if you're looking for an archive, check out my site: orpheusremembered.blogspot.com. And, of course, if you haven't already, start with The Romantic Manifesto to get at Rand's theory and answer to your questions (not THE answers, but HER answers.)

Thanks, SP. It's a flash website, popup blocker may have detected that. Otherwise, just Flash and Dreamweaver.

There is a more recent book by the Tofflers called REVOLUTIONARY WEALTH, using their thesis and applying it to today's economy (today being a couple years ago, but more recent than the time of FUTURE SHOCK.)

I missed the event on April 15th, but made it out today for the one in the historic area, by the Liberty Bell. There was maybe 400 people in my estimation, but I'm bad at head counts. No media coverage, except for Pajamas TV. The camerawomen informed me that CBS, NBC, and ABC all refused to cover this event. Fox has an affiliate across the street from where we were, but there were not there, either. And I think the guides for the tourists purposely kept the crowds away from us. The event itself? A lot of "God Bless America." A LOT. Philadelphia is a "neighborhood" city with a lot of Catholics, so we heard a lot of "the Founding Fathers were Christian, etc." You might think that a city such as Philadelphia would be a hotspot for this, but sadly, it just highlights the truth in Rand's words about the contradictions of the founder's ideas, and what they've led to. There was a Republican candidate presenting a speech, again, justifying the event on religious grounds. (How the people can protest the government, yet put their hope in a Republican candidate, well, just goes to show that there's a lot to be done.) I can honestly say that I was the only one there with anything Objectivist.* The second person holding my Atlas sign is a member of a local Objectivist meetup, and as far as I know, the only one who showed up. I didn't get any negative comments from the crowd, and I did get a handful of smiles and nods for it (as well as a couple who wanted their picture taken with the sign.) I did ask to speak, but I did so late in the game, and they were already booked up with time running out. I did, however, manage to get a few of the ARC fliers out directing people to the significance of Atlas Shrugged to the tea parties. At any rate, my sign had a dual purpose: olive branch and sword, and hopefully sent a message to the "religious" protesters that Atlas will not tolerate their "faith"; they, too, will be shrugged. All in all, not a lot for an Objectivist to get hopeful about. The lack of media coverage, while sad, was not surprising. So, damn the media; today, I WAS the media. I made it my purpose to not let this event go unnoticed. I walked from the event to Rittenhouse Square with my sign, and sat in the park (it was a beautiful day) with my copy of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. There were a ton of people out (even a group with signs giving out "Free Hugs." I walked by with my "Shrugged" sign. I found a bench, propped up my sign, and read (to myself, but openly). Rand's warnings about the conservatives being a greater hindrance than the liberals, and her observations on Socialism and Fascism brought today's events into perspective. Her words, written in the 60's, described everything today to a "t." Anyway, many people walked by, from all walks of life; some pointed out the sign to their husbands, some snickered, some smugly smiled in their Marxist U assurance that Capitalism has failed. But they know something went on today, and I think I sent the message that this is not just a tax revolt, but something larger, and something different than their "God Bless America." Was there a lot to celebrate today? If the best they can offer is "God Bless America," then no. Philadelphia is home to the Declaration of Independence, and all the contradictions that came with the theistic side of the Founding Fathers. Philadelphia is, at best, a restrospective, a museum of the past, and will NOT be at the vanguard of the next phase. Rand's essays in CTUI ring the truth louder than that cracked Liberty Bell. The best I could hope for today was to plant some "seeds" of a real revolution. (* For a view of the Tax Day tea party in Philly, check out this blog:http://aynrandteaparty.blogspot.com/2009/04/philadelphias-love-park-today.html. At least there were some O'ists representing that day.)

JJJJ: "I actually "love" Peikoff, and reading and listening to him has been the biggest key in me understanding Objectivism. I havent read his book, and its on my reading list, but i'd still appreciate it if you would give a short breakdown of the parallels he identifies. It shouldnt be that hard, if you claim to support his view." It's not a matter of being "hard" or "easy" but a matter of how I spend my time. If you seriously are interested in the breakdown, you can do a google search. And though I am not surprised that you haven't the book, and appreciate your honesty about that, I am disappointed that you'd say that the thesis is "absurd" without having read it, so I hope you can understand my hesitance to discuss it with you. But here is a link to a site dedicated to the book, http://www.leonardpeikoff.com/op/interview.htm, where Peikoff himself states the thesis and claims of the book. I'd rather you explore it on your own, directly from the source, rather than engage in arguments. If the book (and the author himself) doesn't convince you, I doubt I'll do much better.

Real-life experience tells me otherwise, sad to say. And, with no disrespect, I will not break down those parallels for you. They are well-presented in Leonard Peikoff's Ominous Parallels. If you haven't read it, I'd highly recommend it; and you'd be better going to the source than dealing with my paraphrasing. This is not directed at you per se, but I am also tired of defending this book with people who have a knee-jerk reaction simply because it is Peikoff, and I have yet to see a rebuttal to his thesis which has convinced me otherwise. (Nor have I seen a rebuttal that does not attack it without the critic's disgust of Peikoff showing through.) In any event, world events are, to my eyes, showing that book to be prophetic, so I'm not so concerned about proving it. Indeed, if this book had NOT been ignored/trashed for so long, today's events wouldn't be so shocking. A is A, and the parallels are as clear as the sky on a sunny day. And I'll leave it to those who can't see it to prove Peikoff wrong.

"It is absurd to make this connection between pre-nazi Germany and the US/Europe." I know it's not popular to say this, but I think Peikoff's thesis was on the right track. I don't expect it to play out down to the detail, but in its essence. Absurd? We're already heading for the hyper-inflation. Absurd? I think it is a failure of imagination NOT to see the possibility (again, in principle, not in exact details.) Absurd? It's absurd to stick your head in the sand as the "ominous parallels" grow more apparent every day.

Why exaggerate? It may be "over-the-top" to paint Obama specifically as a Hitler or Stalin, but then, that didn't stop the left from doing so with George W. and his cronies. (Ever see the video for Incubus's "Megalomaniac?" which paints him as Hitler? Or Rage Against the Machine with their EVIL EMPIRE?). But if Obama is not the one, their is still a danger there that is NOT an exaggeration. If you look at the situation in Germany before Hitler, you had socialists, Communists, progressive Democrat types, etc. I see America as in the same position; the "progressives" promised "peaceful change" like the "Social Democrats" we have now, who claim to disavow violence. But when their methods failed, or didn't go far enough, the people wanted something more. Hence, the fear is that Obama is going to fail SO bad, that the people HERE will start to clamor for more "drastic" measures. Exaggeration, you say? What's that, "It Can't Happen Here?" The parallels are ominous.

I second Isaac Asimov. Nightfall was the book that paved the way, for me, for Atlas Shrugged. He didn't answer my questions, but he got me to thinking about those questions that led me to Rand.

Colbert, Stewart, et. al, are the Tooheys of our day, or at least, students of Toohey, using sharp words to cut at Rand. Colbert's word segment, however, is typical of so many Rand bashers lately, it reveals they haven't read, or if they have, don't understand, the point of ATLAS. He started off talking about Santelli before the skit, and harped on the idea that ATLAS was about the rich versus the poor. FAIL, Mr. Colbert. EPIC F*CKING FAIL.

(originally published at Superhero Babylon) Today for show-and-tell I brought in my Rorschach figure, just released as a tie-in to the WATCHMEN movie. I bought this figure as a meditative tool, for when I write about heroes as they are in our culture. Like the inkblot test that adorns his mask, Rorschach reveals to us our own attitudes about heroism. Originally, I wanted to buy this to rub it in Alan Moore's face while I appropriate Rorschach for my own purposes; it's no secret that WATCHMEN is his takedown of superheroes in the real world, claiming that they would be "nutcases." He's also said some pretty nasty things about Ayn Rand and Steve Ditko, claiming that they stand for a type of fascism. It should also be noted that he's for anarchy himself, as he claims in an interview about V for Vendetta: "Anarchy is, and always has been, a romance. It is clearly the best way, and the only morally sensible way, to run the world. That everybody should be the master of their own destiny, that everybody should be their own leader." Well, I AGREE with the last sentence, although I sometimes sympathize with him on the first, when I see the shenanigans in our government. But Rand is no fascist, nor Ditko, who Moore attacks for his "black and white/no shades of gray" stand via the Mr. A character, on who Rorschach is based. But if Moore believes what he does about anarchy, it's strange that he would come down so hard on vigilantes AND Ayn Rand, when she wrote that anarchy WOULD lead to vigilante "justice"...I do sympathize with Moore's warning about vigilantes and superheroes being about power-lust (not the idealized superhero, but superheroes as they have been presented so far). Hrmmm... I'll leave Moore to work out his own contradictions. But back to Rorschach: Moore's made a joke about Steve Ditko, upon hearing Ditko's reaction to Rorschach. Supposedly Ditko said, "Oh, yes, Rorschach, he's like Mr. A, only he's insane," to which Moore responds with a "knowing laugh," as if to say "Steve, you missed the joke, and you're the punchline." And yet, Rorschach did get away from Moore enough to steal the story; even if Moore thinks he's "mad," he does admit to his popularity being based on his "ferocious moral integrity." Moore does have some praise for Ditko, despite his misgivings, noting the "tormented elegance" of his work, his nine-panel layout, and his incorporation of the landscape into the story itself. But it seems that Moore's "love of Ditko" centered on the more disturbing aspects of Ditko's work, the paranoia of the characters, the way that they "always looked highly strung...on the edge of some kind of revelation or breakdown." But Moore is not (totally) wrong; these things are all there, and from the stories about him, were probably there in Ditko himself. A highly secretive and private man who has broken (most, if not all) ties with friends, his Marvel work, and society. (Note: Bob Palin, for one, has testified elsewhere that this is not quite the case, in contradiction to Blake Bell and Stan Lee, among others. But because Ditko refuses to speak or defend himself beyond his work, for most of us, this is all second-hand.) He has taken Rand at her word and, for all intents and purposes, has went "on strike." (Whether or not this is "martyrdom" or "self-sacrificial" is for Ditko to decide for himself.) Hrmmm.... Now, as far as I know(!), Ditko has never killed anyone or broken fingers while eating sugar cubes. But his characters in his post-Marvel work have no compunction about extreme justice. But I don't know that his characters ever went so far as Rorschach! It is Moore's interpretation that for someone to be that morally certain, one must be a traumatized child wearing a mask, like the psychotic versions of Batman, reliving the past over and over and over...and yet, Moore DOES believe in morality, based on the quote above about anarchy. So one has to ask, how far would Moore go in defending HIS morality? Hrmmm.... But at the same time, I do sympathize with the notion of accountability; who watches the watchmen, indeed! (I stress accountability, not to society in general, but to the principles that make society possible, meaning OBJECTIVE rules for society.) I, like Ditko, am an Objectivist. I do believe in self-defense, and heroes as protectors of "what is right." But without an objective basis for liberty, "right" becomes "because I said so," or "because God said so," or "because the State said so," and so on. And even if it can OBJECTIVELY proven that one is right and the other wrong, freedom does require that we leave others to make their own mistakes, as long as others aren't infringed upon. Earlier, I said that Moore was attracted to the "creepier" elements of Ditko's work. But, to be fair, and because this is a good segue for what's next, I should add another quote from Moore: "I at least felt that, though Steve Ditko's political agenda was very different to mine...I would basically disagree with all of Ditko's ideas, but he has to be given credit for expressing these political ideas." Moore has stated that he doesn't want people to mindlessly agree with him, but simply "to think" about these things. To that, I say, great. And that's what makes Rorschach a great character; not the actual Rorschach, the tragic figure, abused as a child into psychotic vigilance, but the "question" of Rorschach himself, the "questions" asked of him that make you think. The character of Rorschach, through the lens of Moore's take on Rand and capitalism, is just another fascist, imposing his will. He is what Moore sees when an inkblot of Ditko/Rand is presented to him, and what Moore sees is a psychopath. But that is not the only possibility. When I see an inkblot of Rand, I see achievement, purpose, productivity, creativity, defended by moral certainty that one's life is one's own, no apologies for living. But one isn't immune just because one calls themselves an Objectivist. It is the question of Kira in Rand's WE THE LIVING, that makes her say to her Communist foil: "I loathe your goals. I admire your methods. If one believes one's right, one shouldn't wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them. Except that I don't know, however, that I'd include blood in my methods." It is the question of Rand herself, who, in a revised edition, removed this section entirely, except to say "I loathe your goals." Rorschach, like the inkblot, is a test for what we want and choose to see: do we want to protect what we value, or destroy what we hate? Do we fight because it's necessary, or because we take delight in breaking our enemy's fingers and spirit? Do we regret the battle, or relish the death of our enemies? So, in the end, I didn't buy this figure to "rub it in" Moore's face, but to serve as a reminder that heroism is a choice, one that brings great power and responsibility...to one's self. The responsibility to NOT become the very thing that we set out to fight. To not lose sight of the purpose of heroism: not the fight, but the defense of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What do you see in Rorschach's face? That's for your own "show-and-tell" to reveal.

Wow, this is most surreal. I would have expected that answer re Reagan from a snotty leftist, but here? Ah, to be young again...