Rands quote and Casey Anthony

[Jonathan13]

When I read your posts I'm constantly reminded of this quote from David Harriman:

"A favorite pastime among academics today is to find “feet of clay” in great men."

When I read his posts I'm reminded of Rand's invitation/command that we "judge and prepare to be judged." The Objectivist Ethics does not hold the position that we should not judge Rand, or that to judge her is an act of "finding feet of clay in great men." Rand was very critical of many great men, so why should her errors not be discussed and rejected with the same enthusiasm as she brought to criticizing the geniuses that came before her?

J

Edited February 5, 2013 by Jonathan13

[tadmjones]

Rand was very critical of many great men, so why should her errors not be discussed and rejected with the same enthusiasm as she brought to criticizing the geniuses that came before her?

J

Did she critcise the men or their ideas?

[intellectualammo]

When they expressed outrage at Hickman's crimes, how did Rand determine that they weren't really outraged about the crime, but about the criminal's heroic and individualistic demeanor?

J, I'd like to cite a source I have that says it was because of the crime, not the man commiting the crime.

　

　

“the tragic death of Marion Parker generated banner headlines in newspapers across the country because of the brutal nature of how she died. The entire crime and investigation lasted a little over a week”

(http://murderpedia.o...man-william.htm)

So, where then, does Rand get that this mass hatred of Hickman had to do primarily

'because of the man who committed the crime and not because of the crime he committed.' That source cites otherwise. She may have even read some of the articles cited on that site. Some do mention him and society, etc.

Let’s look at the brutal nature in which Marion had died.

Hickman himself describes what he did to Marion:

"It was while I was fixing the blindfold that the urge to murder came upon me," he continued, "and I just couldn't help myself. I got a towel and stepped up behind Marion. Then before she could move, I put it around her neck and twisted it tightly. I held on and she made no outcry except to gurgle. I held on for about two minutes, I guess, and then I let go. When I cut loose the fastenings, she fell to the floor. I knew she was dead. Well, after she was dead I carried her body into the bathroom and undressed her, all but the underwear, and cut a hole in her throat with a pocket knife to let the blood out."

And another source describes the rest:

Then he took a pocket knife and cut a hole in her throat. Then he cut off each arm to the elbow. Then he cut her legs off at the knees. He put the limbs in a cabinet. He cut up the body in his room at the Bellevue Arms Apartments. Then he removed the clothing and cut the body through at the waist. He put it on a shelf in the dressing room. He placed a towel in the body to drain the blood. He wrapped up the exposed ends of the arms and waist with paper. He combed back her hair, powdered her face and then with a needle fixed her eyelids. He did this because he realized that he would lose the reward if he did not have the body to produce to her father.

Hickman packed her body, limbs and entrails into a car, and drove to the drop-off point to pick up his ransom; along his way he tossed out wrapped-up limbs and innards scattering them around Los Angeles. When he arrived at the meeting point, Hickman pulled Miriam's [sic] head and torso out of a suitcase and propped her up, her torso wrapped tightly, to look like she was alive--he sewed wires into her eyelids to keep them open, so that she'd appear to be awake and alive. When Miriam's father arrived, Hickman pointed a sawed-off shotgun at him, showed Miriam's head with the eyes sewn open (it would have been hard to see for certain that she was dead), and then took the ransom money and sped away. As he sped away, he threw Miriam's head and torso out of the car, and that's when the father ran up and saw his daughter--and screamed.

So, what does that say about the mass hatred of Casey, who was not convicted on anything remotely near what Hickman was convicted on?

How can Rand talk about a jury this way, in regards to Hickman’s jury?

"Average, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, 'dignified' housewives. How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone's fate?"

Gosh, though I found Casey's prosecutor, Jeff ashton to be insulting of the jury at Casey's trial (http://forum.objecti...843#entry305221), it was at least not based primarily upon the way they dressed and looked or anything remotely like Rand on Hickman's.

Wonder what she thinks of jury's to begin with.

Edited February 5, 2013 by intellectualammo

[sgsryker]

When I read his posts I'm reminded of Rand's invitation/command that we "judge and prepare to be judged." The Objectivist Ethics does not hold the position that we should not judge Rand, or that to judge her is an act of "finding feet of clay in great men." Rand was very critical of many great men, so why should her errors not be discussed and rejected with the same enthusiasm as she brought to criticizing the geniuses that came before her?

J

She didn't have any errors, and you're failing to represent her ideology.

[sgsryker]

J, I'd like to cite a source I have that says it was because of the crime, not the man commiting the crime.

　

　

(http://murderpedia.o...man-william.htm)

So, where then, does Rand get that this mass hatred of Hickman had to do primarily

'because of the man who committed the crime and not because of the crime he committed.' That source cites otherwise. She may have even read some of the articles cited on that site. Some do mention him and society, etc.

Let’s look at the brutal nature in which Marion had died.

Hickman himself describes what he did to Marion:

And another source describes the rest:

So, what does that say about the mass hatred of Casey, who was not convicted on anything remotely near what Hickman was convicted on?

How can Rand talk about a jury this way, in regards to Hickman’s jury?

"Average, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, 'dignified' housewives. How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone's fate?"

Gosh, though I found Casey's prosecutor, Jeff ashton to be insulting of the jury at Casey's trial (http://forum.objecti...843#entry305221), it was at least not based primarily upon the way they dressed and looked or anything remotely like Rand on Hickman's.

Wonder what she thinks of jury's to begin with.

Why are you even on here? Is it because your thinly-veiled hatred of Ayn Rand is acceptable here? Is it because you want to spread erroneous views of her? You're a rotten son of a bitch.

[intellectualammo]

I have absolutely no hatred of her. I even have her name tattooed across my left fist in reverence, and AisA on my other fist. I should report the language you are using with me, but I want it to stay up.

[ruveyn1]

f her? You're a rotten son of a bitch.

Whoa! Whoa! This is supposed to be a polite forum. Easy on that language.

ruveyn1

[Jonathan13]

Did she critcise the men or their ideas?

She criticized their ideas, just as intellectualammo is doing, and just as I have done. We've been critical of Rand's idea that the people who expressed outrage at Hickman's kidnapping, murdering and mutilating a little girl had committed worse sins and crimes, by which she seems to have meant that they committed the crime of being average or the crime of resenting people who had dared to stand alone and didn't care what society thought of them.

J

[Jonathan13]

She didn't have any errors, and you're failing to represent her ideology.

You don't think that it was an error for Rand to claim that everyone who expressed outrage at Hickman's kidnapping, murdering and mutilating a little girl had worse sins and crimes in their own lives? Look, Rand was very new to the country at the time of her statement. She didn't know our people and our culture. She had recently escaped a tyrannical nation. She was working on a novel and was in a creative mindset in which she apparently confused herself by romanticizing and isolating the heroic characteristics of a killer, and demonizing the villainy of society. In her creative "trance" or "zone," she blurred the line between fiction and reality, and made one unfortunate judgment.

Just one. If you read the rest of her comments on Hickman and the story that she was writing, it's all quite rational. She actually judges Hickman to be a monster, and she clearly identifies the fact that she is not really writing about him, but only about what some of his outward characteristics suggest to her. It's too bad that she didn't say the same about the society that she was judging -- that in reality, society didn't have worse sins and crimes that Hickman's, but that aspects of its behavior inspired her to imagine a fictional society that did.

J

Edited February 5, 2013 by Jonathan13

[intellectualammo]

This recent information should unfortunately reinforce and secure with Casey's haters, her reign as the most hated woman in America:

Needless to say, the public wasn’t too pleased with the outcome. Many felt the justice system had failed in spectacular fashion. Now a year later, Anthony is still making headlines. Her life is like a car crash we can’t turn away from. I personally can’t stop myself from clicking on an article with her name in the headline, even if it’s only about how she got a new dog.

When I heard she was getting yet another clean slate, I was just a bit annoyed. Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection involves being discharged from existing debts — basically a chance to start over financially.

Her debts include $500,000 in attorney fees, $145,660 to the Orange County Sheriff’s office for investigative fees, $68,450 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for taxes, interest and penalties and $61,505 to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, according to The Huffington Post.

She listed about 80 creditors in the filing. Her claims mostly cover fees for legal, medical, psychiatric and forensic services. However, there’s one claim for scuba diving services.

I just want to make sure I understand this right. Casey Anthony isn’t going to pay her taxes or her legal fees — essentially stiffing her attorney and the federal government — but is getting free scuba lessons? In addition, she has no job and no recent income.

http://www.thestylus.net/campus-talk/casey-anthony-remerges-declaring-bankruptcy-1.2983036#.URG8YzAo4eM

Edited February 6, 2013 by intellectualammo

[intellectualammo]

Over on OL, George Smith had a post which nicely summed up Rand's taking creative inspiration from Hickman's demeanor after he had been caught:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8330&p=94754

And the rest of that thread is interesting as well. Lots of good observations.

J

I will start to take a look at that thread. What I read so far, some of it I didn't know Rand said before, like society being the cause, and her character, Danny, being a shooter.

As far as I can tell, Rand's fascination with Hickman had nothing to do with his "horrible crime" per se. Rather she was interested (1) in how Hickman, a boy with great potential, became the "purposeless monster" that he did; and (2) in the psychological implications of Hickman's thumbing his nose at society after his crime.

(1) It is rather strange, given Rand's later views, that the young Rand blamed society for transforming Hickman into a monster, but that was basically her point. She writes (38-9):

"Yes, he is a monster—now. But the worse he is, the worst must be the cause that drove him to this. Isn't it significant that society was not able to fill the life of an exceptional, intelligent boy, to give him anything to outbalance crime in his eyes? If society is horrified at his crime, it should be horrified at the crime's ultimate cause: itself. The worse the crime—the greater its guilt. What could society answer, if that boy were to say: "Yes, I'm a monstrous criminal, but what are you?""

Rand continues with an important comment (39), part of which I quoted in a previous post:

"This is what I think of the case. I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn't. But it does not make any difference. If he isn't, he could be, and that's enough. The reaction of society would be the same, if not worse, toward the Hickman I have in mind. This case showed me how society can wreck an exceptional being, and then murder him for being the wreck that it itself has created. This will be the story of the boy in my book."

(2) Rand's exp<b></b>ressi&#111;ns of admiration for Hickman are confined to his behavior after he had committed his crime -- something I characterized above as thumbing his nose at society. The following excerpt is typical:

"There is a lot that is purposelessly, senselessly horrible about him. But that does not interest me. I want to remember his actions and characteristics that will be useful for the boy in my story. His limitless daring and his frightful sense of humor, e.g., when he was playing the Victrola while policemen searched his apartment and he offered to help, asking if he could do anything for them. His calm, defiant attitude at the trial. His deliberate smiling when posing for photographs after the sentence. His hard, cynical attitude toward everything, as shown in the little detail that he expressed his feelings after the sentence by saying one obscene word."

Rand was clearly abstracting specific features of Hickman's psychology that might prove useful in developing her fictional character, Danny. And Danny, we should keep in mind, was also going to be portrayed as someone who had savagely murdered an innocent person (his pastor)in cold blood. Here is how Rand (47) sketched the murder:

"When Danny kills the pastor, he shoots him straight in the face, mad with loathing and the desire to destroy him. He then shoots the rest of the bullets into the body, in his hatred and fury to kill. After that—no regrets, no remorse whatsoever. A clever and calm scheme to escape. He is found and arrested only through the betrayal of a friend."

Given this depiction, I think it is clear that Danny was not going to be portrayed as a heroic character. Rather, in her extraordinarily dark account of "The Little Street" -- a metaphor for society at large -- Rand was going to indict the mediocrities who would not tolerate the independent spirit that Danny displayed from an early age. Danny, like Hickman, was destined to be either very great or very evil, and the society he grew up in left him no realistic choice except the latter.

It seems to me that Rand's analysis is more sociological than moral (though there is obviously a moral component). Indeed, at one point, she says something to the effect that she wants to view "The Little Street" from the outside, as a dispassionate observer. In other words, Rand was primarily interested in the sociological factors that can turn a young person with great potential into a "purposeless monster."

Such is my take on the infamous Rand/Hickman connection

Looking at Hickmans motive which he claims was for money for Bible College, could also be perhaps as revenge against Parker for having turned him in for forging and did time for it, and/or for notoriety, as such, like a fame motive. Also, wasn't Danny going to be a hero in her story?

To bring this back around to Casey, was it her behavior during the 31days what got to people the most when they speculated on what happened to Caylee? Isn't Casey largely being villianized for people's own speculations about what they feel or think happened? Her tarot, her new life, her INDEPENDENCE? Rand mentioned independence in regards to Hickman. Couldn't that be applied to Casey?

Also they sought the death penalty, and she's had death threats, people wanting to murder something they created in their own minds of what they think she did? Rand said "murder [her] for being the wreck that it itself has created." They would be doing that in one sense. Rand meant it in another though.

Edited February 6, 2013 by intellectualammo