thejohngaltline

That explains it. Thanks!

I was riding the bus today and saw a man sitting a few rows away. On his wrist was a pretty typical looking bracelet like the ones that were popular a while back--the simple woven band with the letters WWJD ("what would Jesus do?") written across it. I went back to my book and only got a few words read before I did a double take. Instead of WWJD, this man's bracelet said WWJGD. I immediately racked my brain for any surnames of Jesus that could begin with a G, thought of none, and wondered if the bracelet was a takeoff meant to refer to John Galt. By the time I decided to ask him about it he was getting off the bus at a stop that wasn't mine, so I never solved the mystery. Has anyone heard of a bracelet like this?

J. Edgar Hoover liked to fire FBI agents whose palms were sweaty when shaking hands.

That's good! Maybe we should try it on here, I'm sure our hits would skyrocket!

Hah! Good answer! The point isn't to "advertise" or anything like that... Only to possess things that one enjoys because they're symbolic of what one values. If I loved horseback riding, I would probably have a poster of horses on my wall, and if Ayn Rand's novels are my favorite, I will own multiple copies and other things relating to them. Perhaps "flair" is the wrong term for it, but what this thread refers to are things that are of value to their owner because of what they represent. My neighbor might not care about or even understand a John Galt bumper sticker, but because I've read and loved Atlas Shrugged, it is of great value to me. I own it not for him, or for anyone else, but for me, and because of that it is really impossible to call it advertising.

solitaire, anyone? (edit: forgot my smiley face)

Hmm... I'll be in town the 2-16th. Might see about attending that meeting on the 8th. Thanks for the info!

I have not seen cases of classes adapting to ensure students passing, either. It's illogical, at least in college, and I can't see why a school would do it. You have paid to take the class regardless, and failing or passing does not change the fact that the school has your money. You might say they do want students to pass because it makes them look better. Yes, they do, but they want to do that by accepting the sort of students who are motivated and want to pass, not the ones who require the bar to be lowered so that they might slither under. The former are the students who will go on to make big bucks, do big things, and claim that school as their alma mater. I do think that college is a job. It is an aspect of the process of honing your mind for the tasks you seek to spend your life doing, and if you find The Paper worth having, it is well worth working to get it. If you really find it so ineffective and useless, you may question your need for The Paper in the first place. I see nothing disgusting in approaching schoolwork as a job, and in working hard at it. In fact, I can think of no better way of viewing it, if school will function well as the means to your end.

Awesome! Have a great time, take some pictures if you check out The Fountainhead Cafe!

Ah, I could have told you that! I've lived here for 6 years now, I knew the old Epcot.

Wow, I've never heard of anything like it! Thanks for the laugh! We really need to work on getting a head-shake emoticon... And, Kevin, nice response.

hey, thanks! that was the best 200 bucks i've made in a while.

I'm currently enrolled in a summer school class that focuses a great deal on Environmentalism. There have been several issues presented thus far in the class that I disagree with, but there is one question that the class has provoked that I would like to raise here. The Environmentalists heavily emphasize preserving land, water, and other resources for future generations. Their reasoning is that this should be done out of some sort of moral obligation to the Earth, but I'm wondering if there might be an Objectivist motivation for doing the same. Do we stand to gain anything from watching water consumption or planning development in a way that preserves space? And, more specifically, should we take these measures even if any possible benefits will not occur until after our lifetime? Thanks!

What of a poem written in another language than your own? For instance, here are a few lines composed in Afrikaans: Ek is 'n boom, Ek is nie 'n oom. This translates to: I am a tree/I am not an uncle. Now, this rhymes in the original Afrikaans, but not in English. Is it a poem (albeit a very poor one) then, in Afrikaans but not in English? If rhyme is the determining factor in poetry, this should be the case, no?

Steven, you described your encounter with the holy spirit like this: "I was in my bed, curled in the fetal position in a moment of brokenness. I shrank myself down to be like an infant in consciousness for a moment before God, humbling myself. I felt then a spirit descend upon me and into me from behind, as if superimposed in my mind and body." Now that you mention it, I think I have felt something similar. Only, I was standing up, straight as one does when he or she is proud of the usefulness of their own body, and I was not broken, humble, or anything else. I was proud. Instead of shrinking away from something bigger than me, as an infant, I stood tall as my own measure of greatness, as an adult. And I lost my breath, too. I lost my breath when I thought of all of the potential, within me, the potential to create, to find beauty, to live. Maybe this is not the sort of experience you speak of, but I wouldn't trade that sensation of one's own worth for any number of your gods, who choose to "stoop" to our level, out of pity or anything else as unattractive.

I go to Rollins College, recently ranked number one among regional universities in the south, and was really excited to take some philosophy courses, having heard great things about the department. When I finally got the chance to speak with the department head (who has published numerous academic writings, and is, I later discovered, a very big fan of Rawls) I asked his opinion of Ayn Rand. His response was a shrug and a comment that was slightly demeaning and, even more appalling, indicating an ignorance on the subject of Objectivism! That is the closest I've come to having a teacher or professor familiar with her work.

Scrabble is fun, if you like word games. Also doing puzzles or crosswords together, although they aren't very board game-y.

I have a 'Who is John Galt?' tattoo. When the tattoo artist was doing it he asked, "Who's this John guy? He your boyfriend?" I just smiled and said, "kind of." =)

In the movie "Office Space" there is a comment about the 'flair' restaurants require workers to show (ie tacky pins on their apron.) Well, I was just curious as to how everyone displays their Objectivist 'flair'. Do you have Ayn Rand inspired bumper stickers? A 'Who is John Galt?' t-shirt? Tattoos? Pins? Coffee mugs?

lol, good point, ggdwill!

I usually just pretend I'm not alone, and curl up against a pillow.

Third try's a charm?

I think everyone's done a great job identifying some key flaws of the article that are not easily discernible to someone less informed about Rand and Objectivism. I wonder, would anyone be interested in compiling some of these ideas into an article that may be posted on the web in response to Prescott's article?

Hm, interesting article. I've read it in its entirety, and have also done some research of my own--although I wasn't able to find much else on the topic, as far as it included Ayn Rand, and I do not have access to her journals. I will, firstly, give some (minimal) credit to Prescott for admitting his bias toward Rand, and also for at least attempting to include a few journal passages that show that she was not kidding herself about the severity of Hickman's crime. Personally, I think her fascination with Hickman is justifiable, albeit a bit morose. Rand's early writing does show some interest in the idea of crimes committed "against humanity." Clearly, her fascination with this idea does not involve a brutal murder but an act of selfishness that a pandering public can not understand. Ultimately, I think Rand's fascination with Hickman is justified in her journal entries. Even from the selections Prescott included (which I suspect are highly tailored to suit his purpose) it is evident that Rand admired Hickman for voicing an idea that was admirable ("What is good for me is right") although she greatly disapproved of his actions. I think Prescott would have done well to remember that this is the woman who wrote in Galt's speech, "Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive.... the use of physical force against others."

Wow, those all sound great, I can't wait to get my hands on them. Thank you.