2009.11.02
Pity Ayn Rand
There's a fascinating piece up at Slate.com about Ayn Rand. It superficially is about two recent biographies of the author of "The Fountainhead," "Atlas Shrugged" and other works. In reality, it's about the writer herself, how she came to her beliefs and the people who subscribe to them.
Most people who get suckered into her me-first theories outgrow them. Too many do not, including, I'd wager, a fair number of readers of this blog.
Like her writing or not, the fact is that Rand has had a profound influence on a lot of Americans. It's worth your time to find out a little about her and where her worldview came from.
Or, if you have a few hours to kill, go play Bioshock and you'll get the gist of it and probably have more fun.
Ayn Rand person who invent objectivism. If you not know what it is, is basically philosophy of Dark Side from Star Wars only somehow it also about money. (The Barbarian, from his review of Bioshock.)
RSS feed 
Christian... why the need to take a shot at those participating in the Roundtable?
Comment by BUD — November 2, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
Why pity Ayn Rand? Most college students have heard of her.
Save your pity for obscure writers, like Christian, who write about politics for a living but do not understand her philosophy ('me first'?) and will never be held in the esteem Rand enjoys.
Comment by Mike — November 2, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
#1
Good question. To chase off what remaining readers are left prior to the fallout from election endorsements?
Just a guess....
Comment by Bob H — November 2, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
why the need to take a shot at those participating in the Roundtable?
I believe it's called "returning fire."
Conservative fundamentalists often conveniently overlook Rand's atheism.
Comment by Art Hill — November 2, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
ART.... come on... no mention of atheism... it was "me first theories" and that a fair number here hadn't outgrown them. Returning fire means somebody else took the first shot. Christian's "hating" right from the get go.
Comment by BUD — November 2, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
BUD,
The two sentences are not related. As to the second, conservatives who hold Rand's ideas in such high esteem often conveniently overlook her atheism. Principals can't be cherry-picked, you either have them or you don't.
Comment by Art Hill — November 2, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
I love Bioshock and all the Art Deco and steampunk stylings. The Roanoke Higher Education Center reminds me of the beginning of Bioshock... the building style is beautiful. Good reference!
Comment by scott — November 2, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
Sad...Christian...sad.
We are living parts of "Atlas Shrugged" as we speak...
Comment by T Witten — November 2, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
"You slaves need to quit worrying so much about your freedom and spend that time working for the good of the plantation"
Comment by Henry — November 2, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
"Most people who get suckered into her me-first theories outgrow them. Too many do not, including, I'd wager, a fair number of readers of this blog.
It's the other way around.
Why leftwingers can't get this, I don't know but there is ample evidence showing conservatives are more altruistic than liberals are. The left, like Rand, practices ethical egoism, just without the ethics.
Comment by Suzie — November 2, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
Susie wrote "Why leftwingers can't get this, I don't know but there is ample evidence showing conservatives are more altruistic than liberals are. The left, like Rand, practices ethical egoism, just without the ethics"
How odd, since during our last discussion of this You failed to produce evidence of the "altruistic" ways of Conservatives, yet here you are spouting it again.
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, a 2006 book by Arthur Brooks, is the source for your statement, touted by Rush, O'Rielly, and friends, Yet Brooks himself states that if religious giving (tithes) is taken out of the equation, Then Liberals have the edge.
Further, int the book "Bowling Alone" , written by Robert Putnam, the polling numbers indicates that religious liberals actually tend to be more generous than religious conservatives.
"Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals."
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 2, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
Susie Wrote" The left, like Rand, practices ethical egoism, just without the ethics"
Unlike the right, which twists, distorts and lies in an effort to sway opinion.
The right has ethics it appears - The kind one would find that inspired the old adage about honor among thieves.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 2, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
Joe #11
"Yet Brooks himself states that if religious giving (tithes) is taken out of the equation, Then Liberals have the edge.
Brooks said no such thing. Here is what Brooks said:
"And even when religious giving is excluded from the numbers, Mr. Brooks found, religious people still give $88 more per year to nonreligious charities."
Why do you make things up, Joe?
Comment by Suzie — November 2, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
Suzie wrote : "Joe #11"Yet Brooks himself states that if religious giving (tithes) is taken out of the equation, Then Liberals have the edge.
Brooks said no such thing. Here is what Brooks said:
"And even when religious giving is excluded from the numbers, Mr. Brooks found, religious people still give $88 more per year to nonreligious charities."
Why do you make things up, Joe?
--------------------------------
So, Now, without reading the book, Suzie, YOU call me a liar?
Seems like you resort to thaa when you can't refute what is posted.
According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do.
The statement you attribute says religious people, Not consevatives.
Read the book, Then come back with a reply,
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 3, 2009 @ 7:42 am
Read a book - are you nuts?
Everything I need to know, I learned from FOX.
Comment by Blue John — November 3, 2009 @ 7:58 am
"According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. " -Joe
Well, because saving whales, polar bears, or ring-tailed lemurs is far more important than your fellow man coming to the Salvation Army for help.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — November 3, 2009 @ 8:38 am
@ Joe #14:
"According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. "
That's data rigging, and it should be plain to anyone that conclusions drawn from a data set that deliberately excludes a primary source of volume from a comparitive group would be suspect.
Lets use your logic on a couple other suppositions:
If we exclude wins against NFL teams, the Salem Spartans have more wins than the Indianapolis Colts. Therefore, the Spartans are a better football team than the Colts.
If votes from Republicans are excluded, Virginia voters flocked to Deeds by an 80-20 margin. Therefore, Deeds won the election by a 60 point landslide.
Just plain silly.
Comment by Mike — November 3, 2009 @ 9:00 am
#10 What you say a lot of times makes me think you do not read books or just o for the headlines kind of things. Being left is bad, being right is good, religious folks good, people that do not believe what you believe-bad. Very black and white and would it not be nice IF life was so simple but it is not.
Do your homework and stop listening to fixed network it will rot your brain.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 3, 2009 @ 10:46 am
Rand had the thinking of a cancer. Too bad she didn't read Lewis Thomas. Might have saved some heartache.
Comment by deborah conner — November 3, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Mike@#17,
The topic is CHARITABLE GIVING.
Giving tithes, and other monies for building funds is giving, but has little to do with charity.
Sending missionaries to preach and convert is not charity.
The idea of excluding religious giving, when discussing charity, and generosity to one's fellow man is akin to the idea that using money to purchase Wal-Mart nic-nacs is the same as buying medicines.
Just because you give to your church, does not make it charitable giving.
And much of the monies given to churches are used as operating funds to pay utilities, to pay salaries, to pay for religious paraphernalia or in the case of Tammy Faye and Jim Baker, an air conditioned dog mansion.
Now, if you can separate the funds, what part goes to charity, versus the monies used for other venues, the further separate that money into who gave to what purpose, and how much, then declare "religious" giving as charity, then you might have a leg to stand on.
Your examples are truly data rigging, as you are separating two identical actions and discarding one in favor of the other.
The separation of religious fund raising, versus true charitable giving, where the giver is not obligated by doctrine (as in tithes) to give, is a valid exercise.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 3, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
Marked Man (mark) @#16 wrote " Well, because saving whales, polar bears, or ring-tailed lemurs is far more important than your fellow man coming to the Salvation Army for help."
And your figures, or source for this is?
To what charities does Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros contribute?
Bet the majority isn't to save the Wales, Polar Bears and ring tailed Lemurs isn't in the Majority, but then, they ain't Sarah Palin out in a helicopter trying to slaughter them on sight either.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 3, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
20 Joe.
"Just because you give to your church, does not make it charitable giving.
You've already been busted on this in my post #13. Conservatives give more to non-religious causes. I don't know why you persist.
Comment by Suzie — November 3, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
#22 Wrong again, and oh by the way we are not atheistic.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 3, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
What figures or source do you want Joe Mostowey to prove that we as a society are better helping our fellow man than animals?
I will gladly dig oh so hard to find that info for you if thats what you are asking.
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — November 3, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
Szie wrote "You've already been busted on this in my post #13. Conservatives give more to non-religious causes. I don't know why you persist."
And I busted your chops on it in posts #11,& #14. posting sources, and refuted you, because all you did was an "it's true because I say so" routine - as usual.
You have yet to post anything to back up your statements.
Maybe you and Marked Man can collaborate on it.
As to #24, Marked Man, when you decimate a species, eradicate and drive one to extinction, You have harmed all man kind.
Much of the medical advances, many of the genetic finds that make possible medical advances, comes from animals and plants.
When such is destroyed, so too are the opportunities that are part and parcel of all life.
I want you to post facts and figures that show extinction of a species is good for this old globe.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 3, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Yeah, My soure was his own book; yours was Wiki. No difference there, is it, Joe?
Comment by Suzie — November 3, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
Suzie Wrote" Yeah, My soure was his own book; yours was Wiki. No difference there, is it, Joe?"
My source is also Brooks book, which I have read, and I quote:
'Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives,and secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals."
Now YOUR quote states that: "And even when religious giving is excluded from the numbers, Mr. Brooks found, religious people still give $88 more per year to nonreligious charities."
Note YOUR quote doesn't say Conservatives, It says "religious people".
And feel free to prove wrong ANYTHING I posted, from any source.
How ever Your "it's true because I say so" does not cut the mustard as proof.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 3, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
Joe 27,
But you attributed your quote to Brooks, which was an outright lie you didn't and couldn't attribute. That's where you got busted
Comment by Suzie — November 3, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
Suzie wrote: Joe 27,But you attributed your quote to Brooks, which was an outright lie you didn't and couldn't attribute. That's where you got busted"
Still calling me a liar, eh,
Still waiting for you to prove Brooks didn't state that with religion removed from the equation, Liberals give more.
You might try reading the book, and offering a few quotes as I've done - Rather than calling names.
pages 47 and 50:
religious conservatives and religious liberals give to charity at the same rate--91%-- although religious conservatives give 10% more than religious liberals. Religious liberals are slightly more likely to volunteer, however, and although among all liberal and conservative households, liberal households earn 6% more than conservative households (p.22)this is the case because conservatives are more likely to be religious than liberals and the religious are more charitable and more likely to volunteer than the non-religious.
Wow- That statement alone says - both give at the same rate - 91 percent. -and that Religion is the KEY.
Then one looks at Brooks statement:
"Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives,and secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals."
Which clearly states that when religion is not there, IE "secular conservatives" then neither is da MONEY. It also states they are "LESS" generous than liberals when religion is not there.
Now below is my post from #13:
"Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, a 2006 book by Arthur Brooks, is the source for your statement, touted by Rush, O'Rielly, and friends, Yet Brooks himself states that if religious giving (tithes) is taken out of the equation, Then Liberals have the edge."
Now please prove that my statement is not proven by Brooks own words in the quotes from his book.
Note the word statement because I did not quote Brooks in my original post.
However here is Arthur Brooks:
"But the point in the book was to show that charity differences are actually due to attitudes and behaviors (such as religiosity and attitudes about the government) that go deeper than political affiliations. In the book, I actually point out the fact that when we correct for the deep attitudes, politics don't predict giving very well. In other words, politics are correlated with giving at the group level and contradict the stereotypes about charity -- and that's important to know. But if we want to know exactly why this is, we have to go into much deeper than politics. Perhaps not surprisingly, that second story isn't the "top-line" one that's showing up in the press a lot."
http://philanthropy.com/live/2006/11/brooks/
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 3, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
Brooks never said it. I provided a link where he said the opposite.
Comment by Suzie — November 3, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
"I want you to post facts and figures that show extinction of a species is good for this old globe." - Joe
Umm should i first ask for you to post where i ever said that in the first place or are you just trying to avoid answering the question?
Is pumping money toward the survival of some obscure animal better than helping your fellow man?
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — November 4, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
#31 You know, helping some obscure animal could very well help man here on earth The most dangerous animal I think is man, he is doing a fine job destroying this earth but there is hope yet I believe.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 4, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
#31 Marked Man,
If you answer the question I asked you, you will find you have answered your own question.
When one helps the endangered animals, one helps all mankind.
Just because some people see no immediate result for something doesn't mean the benefit is not there - It just means they have too little foresight to see.
Just ask Mr. Seward, or Mr. Jefferson about land purchases.
Just ask Mr. Edison about Jazz, Ask Decca Records about Rock and Roll.
Just ask BP what they missed in Brazil.
Some things, once gone, can never be recovered.
So, in my opinion,helping to save animals IS helping my fellow man.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 4, 2009 @ 6:09 pm