STRANGELAND.NET

I’m sure it comes as a surprise to no one that I’m drawn to the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. Last week, Johann Hari posted what claimed to be a review of two biographies of Ayn Rand at Slate.com. Not surprisingly, though, it was turned into an ill-informed (or ill-presented) slam against Objectivism and the like.

Reading through the article, it was clear that Hari either was completely confused about the basis for Objectivism or simply buys into the collectivist bent of modern Liberal thought that needs to push down any sort of outright individualist philosophy. It is also very clear that Hari is unable to divorce the philosophy from the philosopher, feeling a need to point out every fault of Rand as an indictment of Objectivism.

In his discussion of Atlas Shrugged, Hari makes the comment of “Her heroes are a cocktail of extreme self-love and extreme self-pity: They insist they need no one, yet they spend all their time fuming that the masses don’t bow down before their manifest superiority.” If Hari actually read the book and got this out of it, then he needs to go back and re-read it. There is no claim the masses should be bowing down to the protagonists. Instead, there is the claim that those who are attempting to use them, either through force or fraud (looters or moochers), should stop doing so and actually offer something in trade rather than expecting it to be given to them or just taking it by force.

Hari goes on to make the inference that Rand was endorsing only the rich should be in control, when that was never said or intended. The intention was that only those who are actual producers should have control. Those who contribute nothing themselves, only taking from others, should have no say. Otherwise, you end up with what we have in the current day and age where earmarks are voted in Congress to redistribute wealth from those who have actually earned it to those who have done nothing to earn it.

Yes, Ayn Rand had her failings as a person. To be honest, the character she most resembles from her books isn’t Dagny Taggart or Dominique Francon, but rather Gail Wynard. She fostered a cult of personality around her for her own personal power and ego stroking, leaving the path she laid down in her writing.

I will, however, fully admit that Rand contributed somewhat to this viewpoint of her work in her statements of having lived out her philosophies every day of her life. This leads people who are looking for something to attack to view anything she wrote through that filter rather than on the merits of the philosophy itself.

I understand that not everyone agrees with Rand and there are many people who actively dislike her. I’m more than willing to talk on Objectivism on the basis of what is actually written, removing the filter of Rand’s less than ideal personal adherence to it. Putting out an obviously slanted attack piece under the guise of a book review? Not so appropriate.

stranger Personal Thought

So there has been a lot of talk about the Republican cries of ‘death panels’ and rationing of health care for older Americans if nationalized healthcare becomes a reality. There is an article in Newsweek by Jacob Weisberg entitled ‘Why is the GOP Gunning for Grandma.’ He puts forward several situations where the GOP are really the ones who have it in for the elderly. Reading threw it, I was amazed at just how he had to twist things to get to this point.

Point one was regarding the Estate tax, which drops to 0% next year. At the end of the year, however, it expires and goes back up to 55%. Weisberg’s claim is with the sunsetting of this, it will drive some older Americans to either commit suicide, find ways to die, or push their heirs to pull the plug before the tax cut sunsets. Since the Republicans were the ones to champion this bill, obviously they have it in for seniors. This, of course, ignores the fact this tax cut could be made permanent. Obviously with the Democrats in charge right now, this won’t happen. After all, setting up a legal way to get 55% of money that’s already been taxed in many cases is something that likely has several of them drooling. And they don’t even have to do anything to make it happen. They can simply say ‘well, this provision was in there to begin with, so it’s not our fault.’

Next Weisberg moves on to Bush’s attempt to privatize Social Security. He leaves out a rather important part, however. Bush’s plan would have let people direct the investment of a very small percentage of their Social Security contributions. Nevermind that Social Security is functionally bankrupt and is the biggest legal Ponzi scheme in the US. In Weisberg’s eyes, we can’t allow people the personal freedom to direct how they set up for their retirement, because that would lead to people being destitute and having a poor quality of life. He simply changes the facts to make his point a bigger one by casting this as Bush having tried to privatize all of Social Security.

The last thing he hits on was Bush’s curtailing of Federal funding for Stem Cell research. I will be the first person to agree that Stem Cell research is one of the best avenues for finding cures for many debilitating diseases. I could go into the discussion of what stem cell lines Bush removed from Federal funding lines and the like, but really that ignores the main point. Funding this isn’t the responsibility of the Federal Government. This is something that should be handled by private industry and not by throwing tax dollars at it. When it was originally done, I had zero issue with Bush’s actions (not touching the discussion of his reasons for his actions, however). However, Weisberg clearly wants to cast this as another way the Republicans want to kill of Grandma and Grandpa.

If one side is going to throw stones, they really should make sure their walls aren’t made of glass before doing so. Even more so, they really should make sure what they’re throwing are the stones they want them to be. Of course, politics anymore is based on the idea of the Big Lie. Tell it often enough, and people will believe it. Or at least enough people that it doesn’t matter.

stranger Personal Thought

It should come as no shock to anyone that I disagreed with the legislative agenda of Senator Edward Kennedy in many cases. Today, however, none of that matter. Regardless of how I felt about his actions as a Senator, the fact remains he had a profound impact during his time in the Senate.

There are two stories I’ve heard about Edward Kennedy, however, that remind me that at the end of the day, he was a person like the rest of us. The first of these is an anecdote given by Jamie Dupree, WSB’s Washington Correspondent. He has noted that one of his best memories of Kennedy is seeing him often at the end of the day go out to the park across the street from the Senate office building with his dog and spend time just throwing the ball with his dog.

The other involves a friend of mine and my dad’s who works in Martha’s Vineyard. He and his family attend the same church that Edward Kennedy did, and his stepson would sell papers outside of the Church on Sundays in order to make money. Every Sunday, Senator Kennedy would stop, buy a paper, and encourage the boy to keep up the good work. A few years later, Senator Kennedy offered to put forward the boy’s name as a candidate for a military academy as a reward for his willingness to work.

Both of these situations illustrate that while I did not agree with the man’s political policies in many cases or some of his past actions, he was still a person like the rest of us and generally a good person.

Rest in peace, Senator Kennedy. Your passing closes the final door on Camelot.

stranger News, Personal Thought