Skip to main content


Now that the most powerful and influential Randian of our time has somewhat repudiated his views, can we put Objectivism into the dustbin of history along with Communism? I mean, just because you thought that scene of a rebel architect ravishing a socialite on the top of a tall building was hot when you were 20, should you base your whole political belief system on it? Two Girls Fat and Thin was good, though.


John Donohue said…
In your dreams.

Just because Greenspan attempted to throw Ayn Rand under the train instead of his own sorry self, and we witness an orgy of delight by her envy club, does not mean that every human who understands the actual content of Objectivism has changed his mind one bit.

Did it ever occur to you that this titanic collapse of social democracy's financial system is because actual capitalists are Shrugging? Which would mean that our plan is engaged, big time. Which means that Rand is far more important, relevant and in control than your nightmare can ever dream.

John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
misterioso said…
...a rebel architect ravishing a socialite on the top of a tall building... ???

John, you let this hilarious description pass?
chuckbutler said…
I think it's important to bear a couple of points in mind:

1. Mr. Greenspan is not an Objectivist, nor has he been one for some time (if he ever was). For evidence one need only do two things (1) understand Objectivism and (2) read Mr. Greenspan's last book "The Age of Turbulence."

2. For those who believe that the current economic mess serves as any indictment of Objectivism, understand that Ayn Rand argued for laissez-faire capitalism--no government control or manipulation of the market. That is not what we've had--certainly not in any of our lifetimes--so it's incongruous to suggest that the failures of our highly regulated and government-manipulated market reveal anything about capitalism itself. That's like biting into an apple and complaining "I don't like how this orange tastes!" If you are genuinely interested in understanding Rand's views on the subject, I would recommend "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," which includes some good writing by Mr. Greenspan at a time when he did agree with at least some of Ayn Rand's principles.
ash966 said…
Like Anarchism, Objectivism's supporters can always say it's never really been tried. This is safe, because no one who openly espouses them will ever, ever get elected. I'm more afraid of covert and partial Objectivists obtaining influence. Anarchists mostly live in their moms' basements and dirty squats, but Objectivists could be economists and CEOs of major companies, so they might gain power through appointments or lobbying.

@Favela Cranshaw:
Thanks, I thought it was funny too. Do you think a random person on the Internet could convince a middle-aged librarian and English major that The Fountainhead is deathless prose? As opposed to my own opinion and that of every person I respect? Yeah, that'll happen. That only works on prisoners and adolescents who never crack open a book unless it's required.

Here's more mockery:

"A little delirious and definitely skewed. Can people who see this picture ever forget the sight of the silvery-blond columnist Dominique(Patricia Neal) galloping up on her black horse and slashing her riding crop across the face of the tall, mocking stranger who had looked at her impertinently while he was using a pneumatic drill in the quarry? He's the genius architect Howard Roark (Gary Cooper). When his design for a public-housing project is altered, he dynamites the building; put on trial, he justifies his action with an attack on collectivism and the parasites of the left. Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay, based on her 1943 novel, and true to her hero's principles, she wouldn't permit any changes in her (megalomaniac, comic-book) dialogue. King Vidor directed this paean to the individualism of "superior" people, made in a sleek,
hollow, Expressionist style that owes a lot to film noir. It's an extravaganza of romantic, right-wing camp, with the hyper-articulate superman Roark standing in the wind on top of a phallic skyscraper, and the fierce, passionate Dominique rising in an open elevator to join him there." --Pauline Kael

Now that's deathless prose!

Popular posts from this blog


This is real heavy metal, by the way . So, this guy whose name I swear I'd never heard but appeared to have gone to my high school tried to friend me on Facebook. His main interests were the band Stryper and Republicanism, so I didn't add him. I mean, really, Stryper ? I thought teens in the 80s only listened to them because they liked metal and their parents forbade any other band as a direct path to the worship of Satan. When you leave home, you throw away their records and listen to real metal. But then I read this article that said we are all getting trapped in a bubble of like-minded people who parrot our ideas back to us, due to social networks and rss feeds and apps only giving us the people/opinions/stories we want to hear. And I thought--maybe I was wrong. Or maybe I'm OK, because I do have a lot of weird interests that make it pretty hard to find people who are on the same page with everything. I have social network connections with people around roleplaying game


 The Advocate has suggested that the greatest (i.e. only good) reality show ever, Rupaul's Drag Race , have a drag king contestant.  That's fine, but it would be much more entertaining to have a whole drag king competition. One of the best parts of Drag Race is seeing all the different types of queens compete: beauty queens, funny queens, conceptual queens, androgynous queens, scary queens, singing and dancing queens.  I want to see punk kings, gangsta rap kings, cock-rocking metal kings, panty-dropping R & B kings, country kings, baggy-pants burlesque comic kings, and of course, Elvis. I picked out some songs that make me think of different aspects of masculinity:  swaggering men, heartbroken men, lustful men, romantic men, philosophical men, and suicidally depressed men (interesting fact: I can think of dozens of songs by men about suicide, but only one female one: "Gloomy Sunday". What's up with that?) "That's Life" - Frank Sinatra


  Chromecast CD storage Antenna Blu-ray player Apple TV Receiver Record player VHS Tape player So, I decided to spend my tax refund on home entertainment this year, as TV keeps getting better, whereas movies... not so much. My computer is old, but it still works, and replacing a computer seems less urgent when you have mobile devices. It feels like a long time ago when RAM and processor power seemed so important in order to use the latest bloated software, but now with so many webapps and sites designed for mobile, as long as your Internet is fast enough, you're OK. Lifehacker says to spend money where you spend most of your time, and I now use my tablet more than my desktop. Also, with all the streams I have access to, there was one chink in my entertainment system -- my TV was not actually big enough to appreciate high definition. Well, it seemed like a good deal in 2007, at $200 more than my new one which is almost twice as big. The main thing stopping me