Is that what they're doing in there? I was wonder what was taking so bloody long!

And, it is from the "cloisters" that the history of future generations is determined.

But for that to happen the Cloistered Ones must get out lots and have lots of sex, not restrict themselves to jack-off competitions in the monastery!

Linz

"... even for Objectivists"?

OF COURSE there are going to be schisms and divisions and disagreements. This is something Objectivists, of all people, should appreciate. Ayn Rand was right: thinking is a property of the individual mind alone. Objectivists are among the most severely critical thinkers around -- they have chucked most of the conventional ideas of our time. And we are just starting to push out from the radical insights of a bona fide genius. We are working at the frontiers of human knowledge.

QED: there are going to be serious and sincere disagreements.

We should also expect that many of these differences will have a moral dimension. Bad conclusions are often the product of evasion.

But many of these differences will also involve cases of innocent mistakes -- especially considering that we work at the frontiers of the known.

I appreciate passion and KASS and pulling no punches and CARING about ideas. It is something about which I care, get passionate and KASS, and pull no punches.

But it seems to me that THIS issue -- as the boys of South Park put it, the question of whether to vote for Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich -- is not one susceptible to the instantaneous and over-the-top denunciations of the moral character of one's opponents -- such as we have seen around here lately.

As for schism -- I embrace it.

And, it is from the "cloisters" that the history of future generations is determined.

"Seems whenever two or more folk gather together for a common cause, they'll end up fighting each other."

Sadly, it looks like this is going to be a problem even for Objectivists. As for Speicher and Mayhew, from what I have read of them over the years, they are both extremely bright and extremely well educated. Also they are both very proud of their education and learning. They have expressed this many times and in many ways on HBL and on The Forum. So, there may be a personality conflict among two alphas (so to speak) going on here as well as the Tracinski/Peikoff debate which is really the center of it all. I wish Objectivists would be above this sort of thing but we are human after all.

As for "could care less", you're right. That is an American expression and it is totally grammatically incorrect. My apologies.

Proud ARIan Warmonger

I could care less how much invective is hurled at the genuine enemies of Objectivism like Branden, Kelley, Bidinotto and Hudgins. But it is disheartening to see such divisiveness among the better Objectivists.

A trivial observation first: why do Americans insist on saying they could care less when they mean could not care less?!

I could not agree more with your statement. "Linzinskis Vs Hsiekovians" I thought and think was/is an important debate to have, and not one that should result in permanent enmity. Though in my angriest moments I might have thought of Hsiekovians as the embodiment of all evil (and they of me) in my calmer times I realised they were at least two rungs above the lowest in hell and I could/should do business with them. I'm delighted some of them are still here, however ferocious we get with each other. I think we all have a fire in our belly for Objectivism.

Mayhew Vs the Speichers? Having read the piece on Diana's blog, and even though I'm on Tracinski's side (as far as I can tell at the moment) on the "history" argument, and even though I have an allergy to snotty piss-up-themselves Objectivists like Binswanker, I think Diana's correspondent is right. We can well learn from the experts in the field of Objectivism as in any other field, without compromising our integrity or our independence of judgement to which we must always ultimately repair. A prosaic non-issue, I would have thought. I can't for the life of me figure out why such a seemingly cosmic squabble might have broken out over it.

It is a shame to see stalwarts falling out. As everyone knows I'm not a "can't we all just get along?" type, but to see good, staunch folk at such loggerheads is sad. Seems whenever two or more folk gather together for a common cause, they'll end up fighting each other. Seems to be a perverse fact of human nature that even Objectivism hasn't come to grips with.

More boycotts and shunnings? Jesus! We're engaged in a contest of ideas! We'll never win it from the cloisters!

Linz

As if this thread isn't long enough, but the Linzinskis vs Hseihkovians has expanded to include the Mayhews vs the Speichers. See Diana's latest guest post at her site for all the details. There are important philosophical points at the center of all this. That much can't be denied. I could care less how much invective is hurled at the genuine enemies of Objectivism like Branden, Kelley, Bidinotto and Hudgins. But it is disheartening to see such divisiveness among the better Objectivists.

Proud ARIan Warmonger

"Christ, I've met so many bloody hand wringing puritanical anti-booze twats in this country it's starting to drive ME to drink."

Robert, If you ever wanna grab a drink, let me know. Let the bible-banging ceiling scratchers and so-called objectivists be damned.

I'll drink to that.

What the F*** is it about Americans that makes them so f---ing concerned about how much and how often someone tips back a glass or three of liquid sunshine? Christ, I've met so many bloody hand wringing puritanical anti-booze twats in this country it's starting to drive ME to drink. And BTW, they aren't all bible banging ceiling scratchers either, some of them are objectivists like James Kilbourne.

As the object of said solicitous concern by the Brandbourne Christian Temperance Union, I have asked myself just that question many times. Let me know if you find the answer!

Linz the Lush

about how much booze Frank enjoyed?

What the F*** is it about Americans that makes them so f---ing concerned about how much and how often someone tips back a glass or three of liquid sunshine? Christ, I've met so many bloody hand wringing puritanical anti-booze twats in this country it's starting to drive ME to drink. And BTW, they aren't all bible banging ceiling scratchers either, some of them are objectivists like James Kilbourne.

Here's a radical hypothesis: Maybe Ayn, BB, NB and all the rest of the Ojectivist rogues gallery didn't drive him to drink. Maybe the old boy LIKED the taste of the stuff.

Hard to believe I know!

Phil Donahue, Oprah Winfrey, and President Bush all agree so it must be true! Booze is the Devil! Every person who allows fermented plant extracts pass his lips must be psychologically disturbed... Quick get the posse together and let's stage a lynching intervention! There is no possible way that anyone could do that for fun!

(Though I grant you, there is something funny about those people who drink Budweiser voluntarily!)

Thank you, Jon, for telling us what you are not driven by.

It would be nice however if you were driven even just a little by reason and had made even the slightest effort to grasp what we were saying.

The one and only piece of information which will forever remain axiomatic to Jon is but a single, out-of-context item from the reports of a housekeeper who now is accused by him of telling us "whoppers."

Now, THAT'S hilarious.

There could be any number of reasons he kept the bottles after drinking them. My offered speculation, supplied in order to answer one of James most recent and direct questions, is not crazy or off the wall, as their high-fiving would suggest. Some people are unproud of their drinking—it is not so improbable.

On the other hand, look at their speculations. While both sides are allowed the cover of ‘there could be any number of reasons…’ they also have suggested some specific ones, under request. One is that he maybe was going to mix oil paints in the bottles. The other is painting a still life of them. Thank you for correcting me, James, for incorrectly thinking that it was Peikoff who originated speculation one. I now understand that it was a house cleaner who came up with that whopper. Peikoff’s only sin was in repeating such a laughable idea. Think of the fair questions that follow and their disadvantageous answers: How many bottles had paint in them? (The testimony we have from her is of finding empty bottles.) Did he ever produce works that would require the volumes of paint implied by mixing in small-necked bottles? (No.) And so on. Speculation two is even more improbable for its failure to survive the most obvious and fair question: How many paintings, sketches or drawings survived which could be described as a still life of liquor bottles?

Thank you both for the exchange [High-five,] I sense we will get no farther for now. At the same time, James and I had a more productive dialogue than our usual [High-five.]

As for me driven by hatred (James), Barbara’s-boot-licking stuff from Fred, and pin-up bitch Branden (Linz)—I am not driven by hatred, I have never licked Barbara’s boot (its was an evening slipper,[High-five]) and I do not have a pin-up poster of her, because the only ones I’ve seen at EBay don’t show enough so I don’t want them.

"That's not "speculation," that's workin' and workin' the square facts you do possess into the round whole of your desired conclusion.

Don't stop now, Jon, you can do it... just a little more effort!"

So many good metaphors, so little time!

The housekeeper who got angry at very idea that O'Connor drank too much was "nagging" him about his drinking, you now "speculate"?

That's not "speculation," that's workin' and workin' the square facts you do possess into the round whole of your desired conclusion.

Don't stop now, Jon, you can do it... just a little more effort!

“You address my stuff, I address yours. Deal?”

Ok. I’ll start with something from your latest post. You have a good question: “If he had no other purpose for the bottles, why did he keep them? After all, he had a housekeeper?”

As we both know I cannot bring concrete evidence to this question, but am forced to speculate in order to answer—just as you were so forced when faced with the question: Why were there empty liquor bottles in Frank’s studio? Concrete evidence such as someone saying they saw him paint still lifes of empty liquor bottles, talk of doing it, sketches of his preliminary studies, etc. All you have is the truism that artists (including Frank) paint still lifes, and the bottles were found in his painting studio. So your speculation is possible, unsupported in any concrete evidence and, in my estimation, improbable. But it IS possible. I bring all this up because I expect the same generosity toward my speculation.

So, why keep the bottles? Perhaps the housekeeper nagged him about drinking. She obviously liked Frank and I think your earlier point, to address another of your good points, that the housekeeper was angered at the thought of her disclosure of finding the bottles being construed as her believing he was alcoholic, that point supports the conclusion that she liked him. I’ve known lots of women who set about fixing men they like, so maybe she nagged him about it and so he set his empties aside where she didn’t clean. Every couple or six months he disposed of them. He didn’t finish disposing of them or never got to it, because the end of his life came. So what she finds represents X months of consumption. It looks like a lot, but the unknown time interval makes it impossible to say if it was a lot or not a lot.

In any case, I don’t think this is a big hurdle. As you guys have been saying, we just don’t know, nobody knows. One or two of you even said there could be any number of reasons those bottles were in the studio, including ones we could never think of. Same for me. There could be any number of reasons he kept the bottles after drinking them, including some I can’t think of.

Jon, I am going to say this just one more time and then leave it at that. Either you will get it or you won't.

You are absolutely right to dismiss my speculation. But for precisely the same reason you should dismiss any other speculation as well - including the speculation that liquor bottles in his closet offers evidence that he was an alcoholic. It does not. Zero. None. Nada.

The only thing proven here - from this and other instances - is Barbara Branden's smear tactics. You should disassociate yourself from it and renounce it entirely - that is, if you claim any allegiance whatever to reason.

Fred is comfortable floating the idea that Frank didn’t drink the bottles, but obtained them empty or poured them down the drain, and was only going to use them as models to paint a still life. Fred abhors unsupported speculation, but how much support does he offer for his speculation? None.

Would a still life of empty booze bottles be characteristic of Frank? I haven’t seen all his work, but have seen some, and I don’t think he produced any Charles Bukowsky-type works.

Were any empty booze bottle paintings found? The estate has had a long time and I would think we would have been told by now. Sketches? Anything to support Fred’s speculation? No.

Yet Fred is happy to float this idea anyway. And he calls ME names on this score! All the while I have been saying it wouldn’t prove alcoholism and is not a big deal. And my position throughout is simply that we do not know, so it reasonable (and I submit, probable) that he drank them. That’s a most natural working assumption. And I think it is funny that people would jump through mental gymnastic routines to produce possibilities that preclude Frank drinking them. I think it is very funny.

“Oh, Frank, zisis magnificent! It is as though you have captured their metaphysical potential. Not just a morbid collection of empty liquor bottles [waving hand, as to dismiss] as we’ve all seen a hundred times—but empty booze bottles the way they can and ought to appear.”

Should I believe my eyes that Jon has the audacity to refer to "wholly unsupported speculation" but direct it as an accusation against James and I??

Let's get something very clear here. The only reason that "the empty bottles in the closet" is an issue at all is because *Barbara Branden chose to put it in her book* and the reason she put it in the book is to promote *the smear that Frank O'Connor was an alcoholic*. The reason it's a smear is because the bottles in the closet provide *absolutely no evidence* in support of her claim. None. Zero. That's what makes it a smear.

That a housekeeper speculated about "mixing paint" is irrelevant. That is, unless she actual saw him do it or saw bottles with paint in them. More important is her testimony of outrage (which other people who knew Frank O'Connor have also expressed) at the suggestion that he was an alcoholic. This is not a small point because it became a major factor in that abortion of a Showtime movie and has been repeated by commentators just as Barbara hoped it would.

(Frank's alcoholism, you see, "proves" that Ayn Rand was a monster, since obviously she must have been the cause of it).

James V is assailed by gentlemen like Mr Keer on the one hand, who does not read the books he buys for tax ruses ( at least beyond page 4 - although he certainly does look at the pictures), and Mr Letendre who plays dress up games as a wannabe Inspector Columbo, or rather Clouseau. The one thing they seem to have in common is that they just won't read that darn PARC, or if Mr L has, he certainly won't talk about it. Do you think he would apply his forensic skills to the Brandens? Guess not. But PARC certainly stirred these people up. Must have touched a nerve I think, even if in Mr Keer's case it was only as a picture book.

Your pain, I see, is real, Jon. Again, I am sorry for having to do that to you.

But, still sadder is that you fail to recognize that you are the one claiming this to be evidence in the first place. Hadn't YOU better get the facts about your only witness to the existence, nature and condition of these bottles straightened out yourself before you go throwing empty accusations around? Just a thought.

For example, since the O'Connors frequently entertained and regularly served alcohol, I wonder what became of all those bottles? Or did the housekeeper only dispose of the bottles representing others' drinking? If he had no other purpose for the bottles, why did he keep them? After all, he had a housekeeper?

One can imagine the scene: the poor housekeeper wanting to chuck empty bottles, but O'Connor insisting he needed them for his work.

Indeed, what we see here WAS an on-going problem in our previous discussions. I would lay waste your ill-informed assumptions, then you would refuse to answer any of what I had said by insisting that your now irrelevant question hadn't been answered.

You address my stuff, I address yours. Deal?

(Prediction: Jon will say that what I said above after, "One can imagine...," is "pure speculation" on my part -- and never once the grasp the irony of his accusation.)

It is painful to watch you, James.

I entered this thread on the subject of your disability with answering simple questions directly.

I’ll help you. My last questions were:

1) What did she say she saw him doing with them “in his work”?
Answer: She never said she saw him using them in his work.

2) Did she say she found empty bottles, or bottles with paint in them?
Answer: She said she found empty bottles.

“…the testimony that O'Connor used those in his work…”

“…and since she is the one who told us what they were used for…”

OK. So you say that it was her testimony that he in fact used them for mixing oil paints.

“Okay, first let me know if it would make the SLIGHTEST difference to you what her testimony was, in any case.”

The slightest difference is between what can legitimately be called “testimony,” such as “I saw him mix paint in them,” or “I found some with paint in them,” or “I saw him painting them,” as opposed to sheer speculation. Short of something like that, and you are short of it, it was wholly unsupported speculation on her part. You and Fred usually get upset about that sort of thing, so why do embrace her unsupported speculation in this case? So we’re back to just empty booze bottles in the studio, right? No “testimony” that he used them in his work.

Forgive me, Jon, but the lesson you provide here in how legends grow and mythology becomes "history," is too good to pass up.

We know of the existence of these bottles from the O'Connors' (Christian) housekeeper. This evidence is the rock solid proof given for O'Connor's alcoholism. So much so that Jon regards any other theories about those bottles to be no less than "hilarious."

Yet, the same housekeeper is also the source for the idea that O'Connor used them in his work. (Why on earth keep them, alcoholic or not, after all?)

Notice, too, that this same single source actually also became angry at the very idea that O'Connor drank too much.

In Jon's mind, this information has been remembered as: 1. the fact of bottles, "in a closet," and 2. the absurd theory hatched by Peikoff that they were used in his work.

When again reminded of the facts, he demands to know, not the witness's basis for thinking that there were bottles, or that they really booze bottles, or what the basis of her anger might have been.

Nope. The one set of questions involves the theory of their use. Did she find paint inside of them? Since she is the one who disposed of them, and since she is the one who told us what they were used for, then indeed she must have. If there had been no such paints inside, how could she herself have believed it to be the case? Or, again, did she ever see him use the bottles in this fashion? Notice, the fact that someone who saw O'Connor regularly is no less than angry at the idea of his drinking too much does NOT impress Jon.

In any event, observe how Jon's memory has separated the witness's combined account into the part of her testimony that suits him, while his MEMORY itself has attributed the rest to the wild speculations of others.

This stuff is simply fascinating to me.

Well, Jon, you already know that the man was a alcoholic, so why ask? Okay, first let me know if it would make the SLIGHTEST difference to you what her testimony was, in any case. Obviously, going over this a zillion times doesn't do it for you!

“…the testimony that O'Connor used those in his work…”

Did she testify to that? What did she say she saw him doing with them “in his work”?

Did she say she found empty bottles, or bottles with paint in them?

You really don't remember a word written on those threads, do you Jon? Or, are you just making shit up, now?

For example, Peikoff was not the author of any "unsupported speculation," since the testimony that O'Connor used those in his work comes from the same and ONLY witness to the existence of those bottles -- the housekeeper who actually saw the man working when he was alive -- the same housekeeper who got so hoppin' angry at the very idea that O'Coonor drank too much. And, so, Jon, where were those "booze bottles" found? In a closet now, is it? Not an artist's studio?

I trust that you, like most alcoholics, simply throw your bottles away when they're empty, so I won't ask how many have accumulated in your "closet."

Where are you getting this nonsense? From the deep wells of hatred and resentment that fuel your endless crusade on these matters?

You guys are helping me explain why those bottle threads were so funny: It’s no big deal to acknowledge that Frank probably drank them, because that doesn’t prove he was an alcoholic. Therefore, wild speculation about him not drinking them, but instead possessing them for mixing oil paint (a speculation that can be dismissed out of hand since the report would have been one of finding not empty bottles, but bottles with paint in them,) is funny. When such a wild speculation was doggedly defended by James and Casey, (presumably because Peikoff authored it), it became hilarious.

Jon, you truly are a total epistemological moron.

You are doing here precisely what you have done toward James V. but you refuse to grasp the common underlying principle.

The suggestion that they were used for mixing paints is intended solely to reveal the total arbitrariness of the allegation that Frank was an alcoholic. It's point was that - *in the absence of evidence* - it has as much credibility as any other speculation. Even by the way if he had emptied them himself because the fact that he emptied them doesn't mean he drank them. Or as Linz correctly points out, when did merely drinking liquor make one an alcoholic?

The fact remains, which you are acknowledging here, that you don't know. Neither did Barbara.

It's a smear, plain and simple.

It's also of course for that reason a gross injustice to a fine man - in this instance Frank O'Connor, in another James V. - and there are no doubt others, such as of course Ayn Rand herself. But then promoting injustice is the speciality of Barbara Branden and her boot-lickers.

... it probably was Frank who drank those bottles empty.

So, Jon, it probably was you who drank empty the bottles containing whatever wine/spirits you ever drank. So? You're an alcoholic?

Jon, your pin-up bitches Branden and Kilbourne called me an alcoholic. 1) It's not true; 2) I could, if I chose, reveal certain facts about their medical/psychological status that would be both true and embarrassing. I choose not to. That's because I'm not a scumbag, while they are scumbags. Why do you defend their ilk??

Frank was not an alcoholic. If Barbara says he was, that's all the more reason to know he wasn't.

Linz

“So what does he do in the absence of evidence? He does precisely what Barbara Branden did in PAR - unsupported speculation to promote a smear.”

There is no absence of evidence. There are empty booze bottles in the closet. It is a speculation that he and not someone else emptied them, but not an unsupported one. In the absence of some credible evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to think Frank emptied them. This doesn’t prove he was an alcoholic.

Let’s talk about unsupported speculation, Fred. Mixing honey-butter, I mean oil paints, in liquor bottles! Whose unsupported speculation was that? Peikoff’s. Who supported and argued for it like lunatics? James and Casey. Forgive me for finding it very funny that people would go to such lengths just to avoid acknowledging that it probably was Frank who drank those bottles empty.

“Still life of empty booze bottles” by Frank O’Connor

Come on, Fred.

Since Letendre chose to ignore my response to his smear of James, I will repeat it here. After that I will have something to say about the "liquor bottles in Frank's closet".

______________

"...the burden is on the questioner in this case to prove that any entries were left out!" - Jon Letendre

Umm...yeah...you got that right.

If someone tells you that all of the relevant data on a subject has been provided, the burden is in fact *on you* to prove otherwise. To ask after that whether that in fact is the case, apart from being a blatant insult and the suggestion of a smear, is to ask him to prove a negative. How is he supposed to satisfy you? It's impossible.

Even demanding access to the archives doesn't answer the question because someone could always assert that data has been hidden. Those who are hostile to Ayn Rand will only be satisfied by the discovery of dirt because it is only the dirt which interests them.

The point of all of this of course is to ignore that James V. proved conclusively that the Brandens were liars and that their account of the events leading up to the split - as well as many of their characterizations of Ayn Rand - were gross distortions. If you still choose not to believe that - disregarding *the actual facts* - you will do whatever you can to try and discredit the book and its author, just as Jon Letendre is doing here.

_______________

Now as to the "liquor bottles in Frank's closet". Letendre doesn't know why they were there anymore than he knows what data James had or didn't have access to. So what does he do in the absence of evidence? He does precisely what Barbara Branden did in PAR - unsupported speculation to promote a smear.

Prima facie, the last thing in the world I would expect an alcoholic to do is store his empty liquor bottles in the closet. What purpose would that serve? I don't think one has to speculate about his using them for mixing paint. Maybe he intended them as models for still life( he had in mind. It could be something else entirely that no one would ever think of. The point is we don't know. But if your intention is to smear, ignorance and the lack of evidence is your best ally. There is nothing there to refute your smear. So go ahead and smear with the comfort of knowing that you cannot be refuted.

That is Letendre's tactic - while at the same time he perversely tries to hold himself up as some guardian of the truth. He is of course not alone in this. His eager comrades in arms includes Robert Campbell, Robert Bidinotto, Ellen Tuttle and many others of that gang.

The threads you speak of have generated more fans for PARC than anything has -- shy of actually reading the book.

You were not the only one who found them "hilarious," but many, many others had very different reasons for laughter. (Several mentioned you.)

Those threads remain an historical record of reason and evidence triumphing over ignorance. It is no wonder that your memory fails you so badly as to what I said there, and once more you have got your facts wrong -- and about everything.

So, I can also understand your desire to do it all over and over again until you get it right.

James,

You write, “…your questions were all answered…”

I suppose that is true. You did finally admit that you did not research her diaries, presumably because what was offered to you was pretty good for your purposes, and so…why rock boat? You did so in your usual subtle way. I think you wrote something like, “Ultimately, I had to rely upon the archivists at ARI,” which I took to mean that “I had access to the entirety of the archives” really just meant that you feel you would have been shown anything you asked to see, but didn’t ask. Without you saying so, I took this to mean that you agreed it was sheer deception to use lines like, “I am unaware of any other entries citing Branden, and I had access to the entirety of the archives.”

Ted,

I wish I could help you find every thread at SOLO HQ and SOLO Passion where PARC was discussed, because most are hilarious. I can only suggest that you click the “advanced search” at Google and look for key words aimed only at SOLO or Rebirth of Reason. For example, you should track down the discussion of the booze bottles found in Frank’s studio after his death. There you will find Casey and/or James arguing vociferously that it is quite reasonable to assume that the bottles were not emptied by Frank himself, but instead were obtained empty for the purpose of mixing oil paints. Are you like me—do you ever make honey-butter by mixing the honey and butter in empty booze bottles? If so, you will not find the humor in their arguments.

Also, make sure to search for “Emerson.” You will find a thread where James and Casey explain in exasperation to someone who just doesn’t understand what ad-hominem really is—that it is not just a personal cut, but one in absence of argument. Then someone points out Rand’s “a very small mind…Emerson,” from Philosophy, Who Needs It. Of course, there was no argument, just that personal cut. You will delight in their responses to this.

A look at the cover of NB's Judgment Day shows a neutral portrayal that is much more in line with intellectual transparency. That is what you actually said Mr Keer, which to me means you like it "so much".
You have also said that James is a liar (simply a lie, I shall venture, that you have ever answered my other two questions), you have called him a coward and an insincere mediocrity. To me this means that you don't like James "so much".
Now for a man who confesses that he only bought James's book for some income tax fluke and that anyway he never reads books he buys beyond page 4, I think you have a lot to say for yourself.
So to go back to the "intellectual transparancy" of the Branden book cover (a book which you may have actually read beyond page 4 perhaps), my estimation is that this carefully cropped montage of 2 different photos has the clear intent of making Branden look like a good guy. Now when you plough past page 4 of PARC you will see how outrageous a distortion and fraud that is. Your view of what is "intellectually transparent" may well change. Give it a go.

"Is poetic licence inapplicable to book covers? Would it have been OK if the cover had been a composite of two photos, or would only drawn caricatures or cartoons be acceptable?"

Poetic license in portraying a man as doing something creepy that he was obviously not doing is acceptable for Dan Rather or an office of propaganda, but not in a scholarly work. Rather used a forged document to smear Bush, then insisted that even if the document was false, what it said was true. There is no difference here.

Again, Jmaes can't even define objectivist or say whether Peikoff read Branden's books. He was deliberately vague in sayin what Peikoff's beliefs were based upon.

The photo as it was would have been fine, or any obvious composite like the NB covers would be fine. To ask about drawn characters and cartoons is to demonstrate that you do not understand that by making two separate conversations at a party appear to be one intimate act of evasion a falsehood, whether intentional or not, was being perpetrated. Look at the real picture and look at the cover seen by the majority of people who will ever come in contact with the book and tell me that the cover does not cast NB in a prejudicial light that was not present in the actual evidence.

I can start a thread on this, I just need to get the Whitcock picture uploaded.

Ted

Thank you, sir.

Fine Casey, where? I don't have the time, and you are just making the assertion that it is there. If there is even a way to search rationally by some key word, tell me how.

As for James' honesty, well just let him answer the questions. He is a big boy. No one called him a KGB assassin, and I have gone from the benefit of the doubt to doubting his sincerity due to the names he has called me. Reread the posts, and see just who it is that is reacting hysterically.

Finally, while I don't see that Rand needed defending, I don't hold to the fallacy that a poor judgment on the cover (which I assumed might have been cropped - but did not guess had been rearranged - as it has) refutes his arguments. I never did say this. I took pains to make it clear I did not believe so. But the overly wrought reactions are sure making me wonder. I am slime, a smear slinger, a drug user, etc...

Please reread all my posts and the responses and tell me who has been restrained and who not.

The fact stands. I thought the cover showed a true depiction (even if cleaned up) of Branden listening to Rand and evading or rationalizing in his mind. But the actual picture shows he was not, he was in a separate conversation at a party. This shocked me, as I expected a serious work of scholarship that I was inclined to take at face value was literally false on its face. Why would I have been so quick to post this otherwise? I was literally flabbergasted.

Answer my three simple questions, and you will get a full and honest response from me, an objective evaluation, and a mea culpa if applicable, just as in the RUSH case. (Does anyone contest my good faith there?) If that is too much to ask, then stop insisting that I am the dishonest one.

Ted Keer, 31 January, 2007, NYC

I know James Valliant. He is neither a coward nor insincere nor a mediocrity. He is a brave, genuine, highly intelligent and extraordinarily knowledgable fellow who doggedly salvaged Rand's reputation in matters where the world had come to accept self-serving distortions. He doesn't deserve this dissing from you or anyone. You discredit only yourself. I can't speak for James but I suspect that your chances of having him engage you would have been immeasurably improved had you not called him a forgery-perpetrator, KGB emulator and the like almost from the get-go. All over nothing! The cover is a complete non-issue as far as I can see. When I first saw it I thought it was a composite of two photos. When I saw the original photo inside I realised what had been done. So freaking what? It doesn't purport to be the original, whose inclusion inside makes it quite clear that it isn't the original. Sheesh! Is poetic licence inapplicable to book covers? Would it have been OK if the cover had been a composite of two photos, or would only drawn caricatures or cartoons be acceptable?

Much ado about nothing!

Linz

Umpteen times on several threads. It's a matter of public record. They are available right here in the archives.

James, you may have answered whether or not Peikoff actually read the Branden's books somewhere, but would repeating yes or no be too difficult? Why do you send me to search for a needle in a straw man?

And it is simply a lie, I shall venture, that you have ever answered my other two questions, how you define an objectivist, and whether or not the cover of PARC would be considered prejudicial in a court of law. You haven't even acknowledged these questions, you have proven Jon Letendre correct

You thus show yourself as a coward and an insincere mediocrity. Am I to spend years looking through who knows where to answer questions that you could answer in three minutes? Is there any question you have ever asked me that I have not answered? There is no good faith here on your part. Just posturing and evasion.

This might have been a tempest in a teapot, one could answer, "Oh, I see what you mean." But instead we have the usual modus operandi, moral indignancy, smearing of the one who dares question, and then withdrawal when one cannot answer honestly or concede. No one accused anyone of being a KGB agent, only of using a propaganda method which the KGB was famous for, which fact still stands.

It is very instructive to have this all in the public record.

Ted Keer, 31 January, 2007, NYC

Where did I ever say that I liked the cover of Judgment Day "so much?" I said it was an example of an unbiased cover. I never praised Rand's greyness. This is simply absurd. Neither of the covers I have seen for Judgment Day or that for the Passion of Ayn Rand made Rand look bad in any way. (Although I found the movie bizarre and disturbing, for all involved.) PARC's cover is apparently a fraud that was intended to put Branden in as bad a light as possible.

Once I have read the book, I shall indeed comment on it. What has disturbed me for the last week is the fact that I took PARC's cover at face value, only to dicover it was a manipulation, whether intentionally so or not. Every post below, even those posts which are sympathetic to James Valliant, bear witness to the fact that the cover was a journalistic trick that made Branden loolk creepy, and that certain people feel that making someone look creepy (i.e., using appearances to create an emotion) is valid, when trying to make an objective argument of fact.

Emotions are not tools of cognition. Or does that only apply when it is convenient? As for the page four nonsense, I am neither omniscient nor in a hurry. The truth will not evaporate.

Ted Keer

Thanks, but Mr. Keer, if sincere, can find all of his answers on old threads, and this "KGB forger" won't waste any more of his time.

Mr Keer you are very sensitive about cover art. Why do you like your Judgement Day cover so much with its bold Branden against the "eminence grise" in the background? Seems to me that this montage you like has a very specific and dubious intent.
Also since you only read books that you buy to page 4 (by your own admission) why do you even care? Like I suggested before, capitalise on your investment, read PARC and then have a sensible conversation with those who already did this. You are of course very lucky to have the author here to speak with directly.

Thanks for making the distinction. And again, I understand that there are strong anti-Branden emotions here, which people feel justified in having.

Do these emotions demand that we falsify reality in order to further demonize a perceived enemy?

Would admitting that the cover might have been a misjudgment disprove the book's contents?

Is it "tar and feather him!" even at the cost of our intellectual integrity?

I must ask of anyone who has the book, is the cover a fair representation of the actual situation portrayed in the photograph from which it was constructed? Does the original photgraph show Branden talking to somone off-frame, oblivious to Rand's converstaion at a table some feet from where he was having his own private conversation? Or was Branden actually alone and standing listening to Rand with gaze averted as the cover shows? And if the impression conveyed by the cover is not accurate based upon the original photo, then does it, or does it not, amount to an unfairly prejudicial and false representation of the reality of the moment?

I understand that some people believe that what is portrayed on the cover "represents" what was in Branden's soul. But does it represent the reality of the moment at which the photo was taken? Even just a cropped picture only of Branden's head at that moment would have been more fair, although still biased. But the dropped context and altered spatial relationships make all the difference. As it stands, the cover is in effect a forgery. I have given my reasons for this claim, and await the answers to my previous questions of the author.

Ted Keer

"Actually, it's not. It doesn't "prejudge." It lays out a case. Nor does the cover "prejudge." In fact, the cover openly states what it is, right in the title: "The Case Against the Brandens." That's no more (or less) prejudicial than the photo. When you see the photo, and you also see that the book's title says it's making a case against him, what's the problem?"

I agree. This was actually my point. I shouldn't have used the word prejudicial. That was a mistake.

Proud ARIan Warmonger

I would have no objection to the photo, as presented on page 187 of PARC having been the cover. I would have no objection to any relevant and unretouched context-dropping image of the protagonists on the cover. Just no picture of him yawning or on the commode, or one that portrays him out of context. In fact, the picture on p. 187 it would have been much more honest, and I fail to see how it anywhere puts anyone in a bad light. Where this "apeshit" hysteria coming from all you folks gets its origins, well please quote my ad hominem invective back too me, since I don't see it. I have not concluded a priori that NB is innocent of the charges, given that there is a text offered in evidence, I will probably read it, assuming James by his actions here doesn't prove himself a fraudulent purveyor of the arbitrary, whose books should be dismissed out of hand. At this point, he is evading direct and relevant questions which he can answer quite easily.

As for the cover simply being cropped, this is not the whole truth. The photo was cropped and Branden was moved in closer to Rand, changing the context of his gaze directed away from Rand from that of an innocent independent conversation at a party, where NB's attention was not on Rand at all, to one where it seems that NB is in Rand's body space, listening to her, not someone else, but is apparently gazing off as if he is internally rationalizing or evading. "Creepy," someone said. This is unfairly, and hopefully unintentionally done. But James has not answered whether it would be appropriate to artificially make someone look bad on the cover of a book which purports to offer objective reasons to believe him a malefactor.

As it stands, the cover is a misrepresentation of reality, which drops the context of the original photo, which puts Branden in a prejudicially bad and false light (at least for that image) and which, given its effect, amounts to a forgery. It is not good scholarship, it is not objective, it is a journalistic trick.

I am awaiting your responses to my direct questions, James. I have always answered yours, including the initial RUSH brouhaha that coincided with my debut here. I am not afraid of criticism, direct questions, retracting my errors, or admitting them. Are you?

Is the cover not prejudicial, at least in the standards of a court of law?

Did Peikoff read the book( which he dismissed out of hand as arbitrary?

Since you question whether I am an Objectivist, how do you define the term?

Ted Keer

Thanks Chris, for at least understanding the difference between and argument and a prejudicial assertion or "evidence" even if you don't agree with me, you understand the issue involved.

Ted

Mr Keer evidently likes the picture on the front of his edition of Judgement Day. He thinks it's neutral and much more in line with intellectual transparency. Now me, I think that montage gives a good indication of how the author wishes himself to be seen. I see a clean cut, earnest Mr Branden (oh stop laughing at the back), well defined and stark in black and white, with - looming over him in a kindly and benevolent way - a rather grey and washed out looking woman who is, yes, Ayn Rand. True she is bigger than him but, I don't know, oh dear those eyes. She is looming over the poor soul. And if you believe that, Mr Keer, you would believe anything. Now please do yourself a favour - capitalise on that tax break of yours and read the book. Then talk to James.

"...the burden is on the questioner in this case to prove that any entries were left out!" - Jon Letendre

Umm...yeah...you got that right.

If someone tells you that all of the relevant data on a subject has been provided, the burden is in fact *on you* to prove otherwise. To ask after that whether that in fact is the case, apart from being a blatant insult and the suggestion of a smear, is to ask him to prove a negative. How is he supposed to satisfy you? It's impossible.

Even demanding access to the archives doesn't answer the question because someone could always assert that data has been hidden. Those who are hostile to Ayn Rand will only be satisfied by the discovery of dirt because it is only the dirt which interests them.

The point of all of this of course is to ignore that James V. proved conclusively that the Brandens were liars and that their account of the events leading up to the split - as well as many of their characterizations of Ayn Rand - were gross distortions. If you still choose not to believe that - disregarding *the actual facts* - you will do whatever you can to try and discredit the book and its author, just as Jon Letendre is doing here.

You wish Ted "good luck" in getting a question answered when, of course, 1. your questions were all answered -- and the actual link for the poor man might have been helpful -- and 2. Ted is asking no question -- about the cover --- that hasn't been answered. Ted uses the photo I provide inside the book to say that there is "KGB forgery" on the cover. Maybe your confusions have other causes...

Man, I only wish it was the photo of Branden on p. 187 of PARC that was used, if just to see how apeshit Ted would go over it.

Even better would have been some startled, wide-eyed, slack-jawed "Who me?" kind of look.

(And it'd be no more or less "prejudicial" than any other photo, of course.)

Ted asks:

"Is this composite cover not prejudicial against Branden?"

Bill replies:

But Ted, the entire book is prejudicial against Branden!

Actually, it's not. It doesn't "prejudge." It lays out a case. Nor does the cover "prejudge." In fact, the cover openly states what it is, right in the title: "The Case Against the Brandens." That's no more (or less) prejudicial than the photo. When you see the photo, and you also see that the book's title says it's making a case against him, what's the problem?

Obviously that picture is a fitting one of Branden given the theme of the book. It's really most irrelevant what he may be engaged in -- a conversation, personal thought (possibly about how he's going to successfully get through his obstacle course of deception and exploitation; after all, how could his double-life not weigh in his mind constantly?), evasion . . .

You seem to be of this view that somehow a photo can be edited, via cropping, out of some relevant context, a pretty silly notion when the concept of context doesn't even apply to this sort of thing. The only thing edited out was some guy's head in front of Branden's chest, an irrelevancy for a book cover depiction, and the space between him and Rand, again an irrelevancy. And obviously the image of him was not just made up. So what's left?

Ted, you're grasping at straws. It may be the most petty thing blown up into something of alleged significance that I've seen from the book's critics.

I mean, jeez, you charge a photo with being "prejudicial" on a book cover that openly states what it is. How did this stupid, stupid issue even become something for supposed debate?

Gee, an entire post that didn't inquire about my drug usage, call me an idiot or a moron, whiny twit, loony, a smear artist, say that I said there were ARI secret police...

I feel loved

Thanks.

Ted

Good luck trying to get straight answers to simple questions put to James, Ted. On this site a few months ago I tried to get him to clarify what appeared to be an assertion by him that PARC contained the entirety of Rand’s diary entries about Nathaniel. He’ll put it this way: “I am unaware of any other entries regarding Branden, and I was given access to the entirety of the archives.”

But when you ask him if this means that he read most or all of her diary entries and found them bereft of Branden-related entries or if it means that he is unaware of any others because he loved what he was handed and did not look at any more, he answers like this: “I saw love letters to Frank, rocks from Colorado, you name it.”

Then, if you point out that he hasn’t answered the question—that you still don’t know if “I had access” means that he looked or means that he’s sure he would have been allowed to had he asked—he decides he shouldn’t answer you because it’s a zany question and the burden is on the questioner in this case to prove that any entries were left out!

Again, good luck.

The cover is prejudicial, since it portrays an image that draws one to a false conclusion about his actions at the moment of the actual photo.

Whatever evidence is provided within the book is not prejudice, (I hope) but actual evidence and argument.

I am simply shocked by the actual and implied aruments here that NB is a "scumbag" so doctoring an image to make him look bad on the cover of a book (by an Objectivist, who should know better!) is fair game. Not only is it negligently dishonest, it actually weakens the book as a work of scholarship, and it is exactly the sort of thing that invites calls of cultism from critics of Objectivists.

Ted

You say:

"Is this composite cover not prejudicial against Branden?"

But Ted, the entire book is prejudicial against Branden! The book shows Branden to be a god-damned scum-bag, so why shouldn't the jacket photo suggest this?! Ted, Objectivists are not Christians who believe "judge not lest ye be judged." Oh wait I forgot, you are now going to lecture me that not every Christian sect believes in that and that this is yet another example of Objectivist's ignorance of religion, yada, yada, yada.

Ted, you are a very intelligent and well read man, but I must say that in my opinion, your anti-Peikoff, anti-institutional Objectivism stance renders you irrational on certain subjects. PARC and Branden being one.

Proud ARIan Warmonger

"It's a common journalistic trick. Hardly KGB worthy." -Landon

Sounds good. A common journalistic trick is exactly what one would expect from an Objectivist motivated only by the truth, right? I only compared the smear method to the KGB's use of the same method. I am sorry if some people took this to mean that I think ARI agents are poisoning people with ricin pellets. My bad.

"As for me, when I saw the picture without the omission of the innocents it was 100% as creepy as with the innocent bystanders. Guess that's me." -Casey

This is the crux of the matter. When I saw the COVER it seemed like a man with a guilty conscience. This is what people who don't invest the time and money to read the book see. This "photo" is worth a million words. As I thumbed through the book on the subway, I saw the original photo inside, where it was obvious that Branden was not avoiding Rand, or thinking to himself, but was standing further off and listening pensively to someone off frame. Creepy there is in the mind of the beholder. Of course, anyone who wishes to shut me up could simply post the Whit Hancock picture. I have not been able to find it myself on-line.

James,

I have asked you many direct questions, none of which you have answered. Is this composite cover not prejudicial against Branden? Did Peikoff read the Branden's accounts before he dismissed them? How do you define Objectivist, since you question whether I am one?

As for the rest who are so upset by my shock to discover that an innocuos photo of NB & AR at a party had been doctored to make NB appear creepy on the cover of a book that attacks him, has anyone here ever heard of something called objectivity and integrity? A look at the cover of NB's Judgment Day shows a neutral portrayal that is much more in line with intellectual transparency.

For those calling me a whiny twit, "?"

For those telling me to read the book, well, I got to page four on the subway. I usually don't read past page four in any of the books I buy. I had only bought it to show as a business expense on my income taxes, I didn't actually intend to read it. But now that you suggest it, perhaps I shall.

Awaiting the prosecutors' response to the questions asked,

Ted

Ted writes: "This is not good scholarship, but it is good propaganda."

Huh? What kind of drugs are you on, man? You're fucking nuts. Perhaps you should actually read the book and make conclusions based on its content. As they say, don't judge a book by the cover.

But then, you often take false shadows for true substances. So, perhaps that is too much to ask.

The artist, as credited inside the book, is the eminent computer animator and artist Michael Limber, formerly of Angel Studios -- who has created work we all have enjoyed without knowing it for many years -- and another unfortunate victim of Ted's looney smears.

The image shown above is from the book "The Death of WCW" by R.D. Reynolds and Bryan Alvarez. It chronicles the details of the World Championship Wrestling company from it's creation to it's demise.

The people on the Cover are(clockwise) Vince Russo, Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, Eric Bischoff, and Terry "Hulk Hogan" Bollea.

All of these people play important roles in this company. Eric Bischoff was the man who made the company turn a profit for the first time in it's history with one or two good ideas (which he continued to milk until all of them had run completely out of steam).

Kevin Nash and Scott Hall had been wrestlers which WCW's main competition the WWF had built much of their marketing around before the two defected. Their arrival in the company lead to the lucrative New World Order (NWO for short) angle (or story for those not familiar with the term). After their arrival the two continued to call way too many of the shots backstage and create storylines that promoted themselves at the continued expense of the company itself. Nash became a "booker" (determining who is in feuds and who is getting wins) and "booked" all of his friends into lucrative positions at the expense of talented younger wrestlers. Meanwhile Scott Hall developed a huge drinking problem and routinely began showing up drunk. As punishment his alcoholism was written into the storyline and he continued collecting his huge paychecks without actually having to show up for much of the time he was with the company.

Hulk Hogan had basically done everything Nash did but far worse. He had been the top draw for the WWF during it's initial boom period in the 80's and he tended to be at the center of most major WCW actions. And he did a lot of bullying and backstabbing to keep it that way.

Vince Russo was a story writer who had been responsible for many of the attention grabbing WWf storylines of the late 90's (shortly before the WWF overtook them in ratings after coming back from near bankruptcy). He was supposed to be the man who turned the tide for the company. He wound up cracking under pressure, writing stupid, incomprehensible storylines which drew no money. He wrote himself as a non-wrestler as the main villain in the company (including a world title run for himself). And he wrote a world title run for b-list actor David Arquette (not a very phsyically imposing man) thus destroying the last of the credibility of the WCW world title. This is important because a world title in a company is supposed to be the cornerstone of it's marketing. The man you put it on is supposed to be THE thing which sells tickets and merchandise and the thought of it going on the line is the biggest motivator when selling a match.

Keep that information in mind when looking at that cover up above.

The photos were chosen and assembled by one of the author's wife. Pretty commonly available photos. The photo of Nash and Hall was likely just a shot of them "plotting some nasty trick against the other tag team they were fighting" but with all the knowledge I just gave you it creates a whole new context doesn't it.

Papparazzi do this all the time. They get photos of celebrities in every state of dress, in every emotional state, with every friend they have just everything. This is so when a tabloid says "XXXX out of control" they can sell the picture of XXXX angry. Or "XXXX suffers terrible loss" they can sell the shot of that person crying.

It's a common journalistic trick. Hardly KGB worthy.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Er... now that's what an empty attack on someone's "good faith" and intellectual "honesty" looks like, folks.

This is the same old junk Whittaker Chambers shoveled about ATLAS being comparable to the Nazism. Unsurprisingly, it's the same old Rothbard-Branden lies Ted also endorses. It's clear that Ted wouldn't know real Stalinism if it committed him to a psychiatric hospital.

Don't expect any more responses from this "KGB forger," Ted, and your presence at the thread I have proposed will terminate my own presence there. (Can't you already hear Ted's cries of "Stalinism" about that?!)

Cards on the table, Linz... and faster than you can say "Randroid."

Ted—I agree with Robert. In this instance, you're nuts. KGB?! Forgery?! Get real!

Why not address the substantive matters raised inside the cover?

Linz

You're mad. I looked at that 'photo' and immediately knew it was a composite designed to showcase two of the protagonists in the book.

It's obvious to me that the cover photo is a composite. I'm assuming that James V. et al. make no reference to the cover photo being a single unaltered image? I assume that James is not using this cover photo as evidence of anything other than it is a true likeness of AR and NB. And if that is the case it isn't a forgery.

In any case there has been no attempt to deceive. Until I read Casey's reply I thought the photo collage of two different photographs - that's how bad a 'forgery' it is.

IMHO you are being foolish.

Are you the unnamed friend of James' who designed the cover?

Ted

A Forgery, not a Photo

If I take a real photo, remove more than two thirds of the people in it, add in (admittedly minor) details to imply consistency that weren't there in the original photo, and change the spatial relationship of the parties depicted, so that two independent conversations at a party appear to be one case of private evasion "caught on film" then I have created a forgery. The KGB developed this method, and now, with Photoshop, you can do it too!

Anyone who goes on Amazon can see the forgery, as if it were fact. To see the reality, you have to buy the book. Something I was reluctant to do, but which I did at the urging of PARC supporters. The fact that the forgery happens to make Nathaniel Branden look bad on the cover of a book which purports to prove his dishonesty is, shall we say, interesting. The fact that the reality, which doesn't fit with what's on the cover, happens to be available inside is not "honesty" its an accident made by someone who either didn't consciously mean to mislead, or didn't realize he'd get caught. I chose to assume the first, which implies mere negligent evasion, rather than the second, outright dishonesty.

If there is no difference, Casey, post the pictures here for us to compare. If not, I'll eventually get them scanned, and in the fair use doctrine I will show what is being done.

Or, you could simply admit that there was no intent to deceive, but that the composite on the cover is misleading, now that you consider the matter.

Again, the real photo shows two people at a party engaged in separate conversations, and neither looks "creepy." The, shall we say, manufactured and contextless composite on the cover shows two people, apparently alone and in each others' body-space with one smiling happily while the other looks "creepily" away for some unknowable reason. The creepiness factor is entirely manufactured by parties with an interest in making the portrayed man look creepy.

This is not good scholarship, but it is good propaganda. It may not be provable libel, but is most certainly not the use of the objective truth.

Ted Keer, 27 January, 2007

Robert, I sympathize with your raising the dilemma posed by gov't run schools in regard to this debate and others.

But the fact is that they are gov't run and there will be no changing that any time soon. So, in the meantime I think we are obliged to ensure that at least reason prevails in the schools vs. blatant mysticism. Yes, all the socialism taught is bad enough, but once reason goes everything goes and we can all fold up our tents and head for the hills.

The issue is similar with stem-cell research. Yes, the gov't shouldn't fund medical research. But since it does, its criterion for funding should not be based on religious/mystical considerations. (A reasonable counter argument is that stem-cell research might proceed faster and with greater liklihood of success without the gov't involved - and that there is enough private interest that it will.)

As for a new political movement, as I have said before, if by that you mean "Objectivist", I am emphatically opposed - now and forever. Look at the disagreements we have here on a whole host of issues, including some with political implications. I can assure you any "Objectivist" political party, within 6 months, would be split into three or more rival parties each of which will spend more time attacking the other than our purported "common enemies". Incidentally, as I have also said before and contra the "let's all get along and play nice" school, I have no problem whatever with these disagreements and I think they are both a good thing and inevitable.

However, don't take this as an indication of my being the least bit discouraged about the future influence of Objectivism on politics. But it will be and should be confined to *influence*, not direct philosophical involvment by name.

Objectivism is a philosophy - albeit, granted, with political implications - but not a political party.

The cover of the book is a photo minus the innocent, which photo is shown in full WITHIN THE FRIGGIN' BOOK's own pages for comparison.

Stop being such a whiney little twit.

The photo is what it is. Whether other people who do not deserve to be on the cover of a book about the Brandens' misrepresentations are on the cover or not, the photo stands for exactly what it is -- you decide. And look at the full photo for a comparison within the pages of the same damn book if you're having a hard time deciding what it means. And then change your mind, for all I care. The fact is, he really did look that way when Rand looked that way, and you can draw from it your own damn conclusions based on what's in the actual book.

As for me, when I saw the picture without the omission of the innocents it was 100% as creepy as with the innocent bystanders. Guess that's me.

Casey

While James is recuperating, would you like to address the content of my actual comments, or will this bring on another bout of your Tourette's? Until Fred posts an avatar, let us all imagine.

"Does that include town, county, and state boards demanding that evolution be taught only as "a theory" and that ID be taught as another legitimate theory side by side with it?"

The problem with this Fred is that you are talking about a state education system...

Are you suggesting that christians should shut the foxtrot-up about what is taught in state schools? Even though they are forced to pay for them and are forced to send their children to them so that they may be taught things that christians might find abhorrent?

The root of the problem wrt Intelligent design isn't religion, it's socialism. In particular the belief that the state can and should educate children and teenagers.

Seperate the State from Education and religion will not be able to infiltrate the curriculums of secular private schools.

The ID/anti-evolution campaign is a direct consequence of the government being in charge of schools. And seeing as neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are willing to address that, need I ask again whether it is time to start a new - objectivism-based - political movement?

Actually, there is no book pictured, I mistook Rand's lapel and the unidentifiable blown-up top of a woman's head for the pages of a book. (Rand may still be glancing at a book, or something before her on a table.) The original picture, credit Whit Hancock, 1966, p 188 of my copy of PARC shows Rand's head below NB's waistline, him with tie obscured by someone else's head. A person whom I suppose to be LP is in the upper right.

The cover, however, shows the top of Rand's head above NB's waisteline, his tie miraculously restored to unity, (All five other people in the original having been cropped out) the context of a party with many different discussions taking place having been deliberately dropped, with the changed waist-line perspective of NB placing him twice as close to Rand on the cover as in reality.

In its real context, any reasonable observer would assume from the original picture that NB was listening to the words of a person to his right, his hand to his chin in polite concentration. He was not close to or listening to Rand. The manufactured cover, with all others absent, makes it appear as if Branden and Rand are alone, that he is within her body-space but turned away looking at no one, as if in evasion.

I will gladly give you the benefit of the doubt as a layout editor, James, but would this doctored photo be admissable as evidence in court? Would it not, even if admitted to be a composite, be reasonably described as prejudicial against NB? I was an editor for my college newspaper and did advertisement layout work for a few years for a now defunct minor publishing company. I know what I see on that cover as an editor. What would an officer of the court see?

As for secret trials, and so forth, the third party evidence from Rothbard to Reisman is clear. I have met and corresponded with (but cannot claim to be intimate with) many who either knew Rand or people now or recently affiliated with ARI. I have heard stories on line and read them in print from people in no way affiliated with the Brandens which speak of such things as I have mentioned. I am not about to go out and buy every book documenting the behavior of the inner circle at whatever time in order to pursue a sordid vendetta here that is not my own. You are quite right in the introduction (which is all I have read, given I am finishing two other books at the moment) to say that the truth of Rand's philosophy does not depend upon her own individual actions as a person. I shall try to withold comment on PARC until I have read it. As for Rand, she reminds me of my half-Jewish Russian Grandmother in looks, and of the best of all teachers I have ever had in spirit. My opinion of her has never diminished.

Until then, please define for me what is an Objectivist. Please advise me whether "Peikoff's wholesale dismissal of the [Brandens'] books" [PARC, p 4] was based on his having read them, and please advise me whether the Whit Hancock picture and the cover of PARC can be found on-line, or whether you yourself can post these images in the name of objectivity. I would like all interested parties involved to see these images side by side.

Ted Keer, 26 January, 2006

Hell hath no fury, indeed.

But, if I may ask something: let's try to have a civil debate on the topic. I'll be starting another thread on this in a couple of days, maybe sooner. If we could put aside the rancor, Linz may come to see that his accusations of group think are misplaced -- when we show him the actual thinking going on about this. I'm not asking anyone to retract anything, just to give the personal stuff a hiatus.

Ted the Genius doesn't need evidence for his smears. He can directly intuit the truth. That's what makes him a genius.

Linz the Angry is operating on a similar methodology.

Ted is simply a moron so there's no point in investigating further in his case. With Linz however the surprise is that he was the victim of a similar unjustified attack based on a similar lack of evidence. You would think therefore that he would be particularly sensitive to what is wrong with that epistemology, having been subjected to its consequences.

But clearly hell hath no fury like a Linz who has been scorned. All else is cast aside while he exacts his vengance, reason especially.

"...the state should have no authority to determine what is or is not fit for discussion as science"

Does that include town, county, and state boards demanding that evolution be taught only as "a theory" and that ID be taught as another legitimate theory side by side with it?

The cover was done with my approval by a friend of mine.

Jeepers, Ted, since the actual photo is inside, I wonder how I could be accused of dishonesty?

In any case, the expression on NB's face is just as inexplicable in the original as it is on the cover -- and none of that was altered. What misimpression did you get -- and how on earth did you get it? For example, how does the book's being "unidentified" (which can't be determined in the original, either, btw) make any difference? Or, the presence of others?

Ted, none of your posts have provided any example of secret trials or secret police or any of the other defamation you sling like so much hash.

" Funny, isn't it, that the intellectual, if not the physical methods of the inquisition and the KGB should be the ones so typical of a philosophy that prides itself on its stand against religion and tyranny."

This appears to be the quote, actually from the "Intellectual Honesty" thread, which James took exception to below.

On further thought, my repsponse toward Objectivists who speak on religion has been to get them to differentiate between faith and religiosity (a belief the the term sacred has an objective meaning) and to differentiate between such different phenomena as atheistic Buddhism, Scolastic Catholicism, primitive animism and murderous isl*m.

Too many so-called Objectivists hear "religion" and start humming "it's evil!" with their fingers stuck in their ears, or their lips on the arses of Democrats. It is as if when one mentioned disease they refused to distinguish between a minor cold, color-blindness, lung-cancer and anthrax, and ran screaming off in a panic.

There are religious beliefs which hurt only the believer if he is wrong, and religious beliefs such as isl*m which exist in no form tolerable to human existence of which I am aware. Refusing to draw such distinctions, or even the lesser distinctions between Catholicism and tub-thumping literalist Christian fundamentalism is neither virtuous nor benign. It almost makes Objectivists sound like Scientologists to the skeptical public at large. Do we need to look like Tom Cruise jumping off couches and frothing at the mouth when voting Republican is mentioned, as if doing so were as bad as taking anti-depressants?

Because I insist on making these distinctions, am I a friend of disease?

Ted

I did request to know how you define Objectivist, as you did ask me whether or not I was one. I would still enjoy a definition.

The post immediately after yours: "quality control" answers all your questions. The secret papers to which I referred were not the Ayn Rand *archives, but writs of excommunication and secret trials held within the collective and afterward whenever someone is expelled.

I have not been active in the Tracinski controversy, and it is not I but both the orthodox and the heterodox who refer to his "heresies." I wonder if the posts here on Solo don't count as posts by Objectivists?

If the analogy with inquisitorial practices (it is you who are hysterical, when speaking of torture, my post made the distinction between the physical and the intellectual habits of these groups) makes you uncomfortable, let's use Mormons and Sephardic Jews instead. The sectarian parallels are still ominous.

Ted

*I understand that the only people these papers are not made available is to Objectivists who do not accept Peikoff's authority. I.e., such evil men as Kelley and TAS who have made their "lack of understanding" of Objectivism quite clear.

PS I am reading PARC, which came in the mail today. I find the cover itself to be a bit of legerdemain worthy of the KGB. We go from a picture in the plates with multiple people present, including, I think a young LP, all at a book signing perhaps, NB's head turned in thoughtful conversation, to contrived cover - a cropped, rearranged and photoshopped UNREALITY with Rand smiling over some now unidentifiable book while a recostituted and looming NB looks off as if in shame. I wonder, did you approve the cover yourself, or was this falsification of reality just the editor's responsibility?

Well, James, I gotta be honest. I just don't feel the love.

Regards, Bill

Is it really that hard for so-called Objectivists to get their minds around the proposition that the state should have no authority to determine what is or is not fit for discussion as science?

Regards, Bill

"...no judge properly has the authority to dictate what can or cannot be discussed as a matter of science..." - Bill

Does a town board?

Does the majority? Should it be put to the vote?

When they put Scopes on trial for teaching evolution whose authority was properly being enforced?

I am a "hater" now? Dear me!

Since you're not a lawyer, you may be forgiven this little foible, but we attorneys, since the days of Madison, have referred to this as the "Establishment Clause" and to the other as the "Free Exercise Clause." This is not terminology I invented but is venerable in the field.

In any event, the extra words about there being no "establishment" add something over and above the bit about "free exercise," else why include them? Madison, the author of that amendment, understood that something else was being protected by those extra words -- and as with ALL the Bill of Rights -- that it provided a protection against the oppression of democratic majorities -- in this case, from shoving their religion down the throats of ANY minority, including, as he so specifically did -- those who do not believe at all.

The "public square" is loaded with religion -- drive-through churches, religious t.v. programming, radio programming, even religious amusement parks -- no, it's just the government which must be secular, according to the Constitution.

Hi, Ted.

You inform your interlocutors: "And please, stop deluding yourself if you think I am some sort of champion of religion, as in faith or mysticism."

No, you aren't. But you vex folks like Bill V and James because you aren't a hater. You don't share their fear of Christian boogeymen, and by refusing to do in your even-tempered, reasonable way, you expose their fears as irrational. As they are more wedded to their fears than they are to reason, if you aren't part of the gang then you must be one of the enemy.

Regards, Bill

P.S. Hmm, I see that I did a fine bit of psychologizing here. I'm right about it, but it is also clear that in doing so I've come to the end of any useful discourse with guys. Oh well.

You wrote, "Well, I never did say that those two phrases in the First Amendment are not related. But, I would say that each and every word of the Constitution is to be given meaning. The Establishment Clause does indeed limit the State -- from shoving religion down anyone's throat."

What you said is that they are two separate clauses. They are not. They are one clause, the meaning of which is confounded when broken into two pieces so that the prohibition against establishment can be used to constrain the free exercise of religion. I note that you have no response to my emphatic statement about this: The prohibition against establishment outlaws any activity of the state that impedes free exercise. If it doesn't, then the government has no restraint in suppressing free exercise as it expands the welfare state into more and more areas of our lives.

In any event, what you and other extreme secularists describe as "establishment" is lunacy. Establishment had a definite meaning in the 18th century, and it still has that meaning. It doesn't mean religious speech and activity in the public square -- let alone discourse about or assuming philosophical theism. It means a state church and the coercion entailed in mandating support of that church.

Regards, Bill

WSS,

You say, "I'd be happy to read any carefully reasoned argument against Kitzmiller that actually envinces familiarity with it, and not with the talking points of the ID movement."

Now why on Earth would I want to do this? You engaged me in bad faith, you made baseless accusations, and you've shown no capability of making fine but critical distinctions. Yet, you want me to engage in a "carefully reasoned argument" over Jones's long, tedious, and cloddish final opinion in the Kitzmiller case.

If you can't get it around your head that no judge properly has the authority to dictate what can or cannot be discussed as a matter of science, then my critique of Jones's opinion would be pointless. Moreover, you have demonstrated your unwillingness to engage in any fruitful discussion by evading or misrepresenting the substance of every argument I have made.

So, no, WSS, I don't think I'll bother.

Regards, Bill

Intellectual movements need quality control. Especially for those that are involved in promoting the movement (ie the philosophy). If I were in charge, I would make Peikoff look like a bleeding heart tolerationist by comparison. I'd "excommunicate" KASSless sons-of-bitches left and right. Tracinski would have been booted long ago. You build from a strong foundation, even if it takes longer, IMO.

Proud ARIan Warmonger

I do not use words like "heresy" and "excommunication" lightly -- and you will find that it is Objectivism's critics who do that.

What the hell are you talking about when you mention "secret documents"? The Ayn Rand Archives are just as open to scholars critical of Rand as they were to me. The Estate, in accord with common practice, does have the right to first publish valuable Rand material, doesn't it?! And as for the "secret trials" -- or "secret police"?! -- could you provide a single example?

Your empty hysteria makes big assertions -- the worst and ugliest one can make -- a comparison to totalitarianism -- so can you back up your slime with some examples or evidence? Or, are such verbal excesses merely the measure of your rhetorical desperation?

No, the "Stalinism" of Stalin -- and the many tortures, burnings, and other oppressions of the Catholic Church -- have no parallel in Objectivism -- except in the minds of its whackiest critics.

And just how much hatred do you have for the Easter Bunny, Bill? Or for a philosophy with its high priest (LP) who makes announcements of authority (fatwas, pontifications, what have you) which uses the terms heresy and excommunication as if they were playground phrases, which maintains secret documents, secret policies, holds secret trials, and behaves all in all worse than the papacy since the days of the Borgia popes?

Does your hatred for "religion" bring you joy? Or just a sense of superiority to fill the hole in your soul where the joy should be?

And please, stop deluding yourself if you think I am some sort of champion of religion, as in faith or mysticism. I simply agree with Rand that the concepts sacred and divine have a meaning which we should not surrender to the mystics. I am a champion of joy, not belief, and certainly not hatred.