Category Archives: Atlas Shrugged

Stefanik deserves to lose donationsBravo to the Dake family and Stewarts Shops for suspending funding to Elise Stefanik.I admire the support the Dakes and Stewarts gives our communities.But continuing to fund Stefanik would be a stain on all the good the Dakes have done.Her role in perpetuating Trumps lies and the incitement of violence is beyond disgraceful.Stefaniks actions destroy our communities and country.Kris OBrienBallston Spa

Nisky vote shouldnt be held in winterYour Jan. 16 editorial (Get Nisky absentee ballots now) criticizing the decision by the Niskayuna School District Board of Education to conduct a special election this February was spot on as they say these days.Please include a copy of your editorial in each Your Niskayuna weekly sent via USPS and the Friday Daily Gazette edition until the election.As you may be unable or unwilling to do, let me include the following from your editorial: Special elections disenfranchise many voters, especially those most likely to vote against whatever is on the ballot, unfairly skewing results.Were especially not fans of special elections held during the middle of winterwhen many people, particularly older, are reluctant to venture out in the cold, ice and snow to vote. The covid crisis has made people even less likely to show up to vote in person.I just submitted my application for an absentee ballot. Hopefully Ill get my absentee ballot, complete it and return it in time to be counted.I dont understand why this all could not have waited until May when covid should be less of an issue due to increased vaccine distribution.We would also have a better understanding of the 2021-2022 school year operation then. Almost makes you want to vote NO out of principle in February.Terry KoskowskiNiskayuna

Look at Chinas approach to winningI know how China wins a war without invading a country. They manufacture the enemies medicine, computers and military parts. Sounds familiar doesnt it America?Beverly BorgeestClifton Park

Chart would counter false election claimsI would like to encourage the Daily Gazette to publish a one page table format examination that addresses the specific arguments that are presented by the people who believe the election was stolen.I think that the people who went to the Capitol on Jan. 6 and the millions who support Trumps false accusations, that the election was stolen really believe those lies.They dont get the factual information that would counter each of their beliefs. Printing a full page table that outlines each false claim and then the factual proven details that refute that claim may be helpful.We cannot heal as a nation until people are made aware of the truth and then have the data and information to change their false beliefs. I think we need to address these misconceptions head on and bring people to the facts instead of the misinformation they have been fed.Jean M. Taylor, Ph.D.Alplaus

Trump shows hes morally unfit to serveTrumps thugs, those who stormed and attacked the Capitol Building on Jan. 6, are criminals and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They should be arrested and punished. So should President Trump and those who support him in our government for inciting, fomenting and encouraging treasonous, unethical and unpatriotic acts.Ive been an American voter for over 35 years, and a former veteran with 35 years of military service in the U.S. Air Force and New York Air Guard combined. Im not a Democrat; Im an independent. Im a person with some level of decency and morality who detests cheaters, liars, criminals and racist people like President Trump.Im not interested in political affiliations, but only in honesty, truth, the common good, a sense of duty and respect for people, respect for laws and order, our democratic institutions and the Constitution, and for compassion toward all people and Gods creation.Its very clear that this U.S. president has never had any respect for anyone. Not for people, not the Constitution, nor our democratic institutions, nor creation, nor God.No, President Trump is unworthy of his office. Hes a clear and present danger to America and the whole world. He is totally, morally and mentally, unfit, unsuitable, to guide this nation.Ottavio LoPiccoloSchenectady

Some wise words in a tumultuous timeIn light of all the events presently occurring in our nation, Im reminded of James Russell Lowells words written in 1845. Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide, In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side; Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight, And the choice goes by forever, twixt that darkness and that light.William McCollSchenectady

Stefanik should quit over her false claimsCongresswoman Stefanik, you failed to show moral leadership as a member of the House of Representatives.You perpetuated President Trumps lie about the 2020 election being fraudulent, unfair and stolen. In your Jan. 6 speech in House chambers, you faulted the election protocols in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin, all of which made changes to election procedures last year to make it easier for people to vote by mail.You said, Tens of millions of Americans are concerned that the 2020 election featured unconstitutional overreach by elected state officials and judges ignoring state laws.I ask the congresswoman: Where is your proof? The election was certified by all 50 states and upheld as claims of fraud and irregularities were dismissed by more than 50 legal challenges in state and federal courts. Why did you not object to the elections of Texas and your state of New York? Why are you concerned about the election processes and laws of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin? The oversight of elections is the purview of the individual states per the Tenth Amendment (U.S. Constitution). Is your loyalty to President Trump stronger than your loyalty for and execution of your oath of office? Had the president won the 2020 election, were you promised a position in his second administration?It is my opinion that you should resign from your House seat and that the New York Republican Party not endorse you for re-election in 2022.Ken DoddGlenville

Be more careful in reviewing lettersWhile I agree that The Daily Gazette should publish letters that include a wide range of opinions, you should not publish letters that contain demonstrable false facts, unless they are corrected with an editors comment.In her Jan. 16 letter (Why doesnt Cuomo release covid report,) Betty Pieper includes at least two false assertions: Even drug manufacturers and CDC do not say the vaccine prevents covid and They also admit ignorance on transmission.The CDC website,https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/index.html, contains a wealth of factually-correct information about COVID-19, including statements such as: All COVID-19 vaccines currently available in the United States have been shown to be highly effective at preventing COVID-19, and Infections occur mainly through exposure to respiratory droplets when a person is in close contact with someone who has COVID-19.The CDC website has far more information about COVID-19 than I have room to discuss here. I encourage people to visit the site.Both the Pfizer and Moderna websites,https://www.pfizer.com/andhttps://www.modernatx.com/contain clinical data on the effectiveness of their COVID-19 vaccines.You can choose to believe or reject this information, but it is a lie to say it does not exist.Victor RobertsBurnt Hills

Suggested titles for Trumps new bookAfter a president leaves office and resettles elsewhere, he usually writes a memoir. Donald Trump will surely hire a ghostwriter to tell his side of the story. Of course, the final draft will need a catchy title. Here are a few suggestions:The Old Man and the Sea (of Rioters)Mein Kampf (to Understand Democracy)How to Win Friends and Influence People (by Extortion)To Kill a Mockingbird (Is a Noble Thing)A Farewell to Arms (Makes Me Sad)The Godfather (Was My Role Model)The Sun Also Rises (Because of Me).This Present Darkness (Was Not My Fault)Atlas Shrugged (and So Did I)Crime and Punishment (Are My Specialties)An American Tragedy (Was How I Lost)Their Eyes Were Watching God (and Me)The Right Stuff (Was What I Had)The Long Goodbye (Will Never End)James GondaSchenectady

Many reasons to stop Champlain lineIn his Jan. 14 news article (Cuomo lays out massive green energy plan in State of State) about Gov. Andrew Cuomos latest energy extravaganza, John Cropley noted Transmission lines can take forever to build.An example cited is the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE), proposed in 2010, approved in 2013 by the state Public Service Commission (PSC), with construction not yet begun.CHPE would run on land through Clinton, Washington, Saratoga, Schenectady, Albany, Greene and Rockland counties. CHPE cables would also be buried in trenches under long stretches of Lake Champlain and the Hudson River and placed atop 11 miles of Hudson River bedrock.CHPE is a nebulous project. The PSC often quickly approved route changes last year despite incomplete maps, CHPE seeks fast PSC approval to be treated as a lightly regulated entity to hide investors names and other information normally made public, and CHPE wants to increase capacity 25% above the approved 1 billion watts.Last year the federal government allowed CHPE to become a Limited Liability Corporation.Cuomo pretends CHPE would grow the states economy, even though CHPE would create only 26 permanent jobs in New York, and hundreds of millions of dollars of state wealth will annually be exported to Canada to pay for imported electricity.CHPE faces major concerns and/or opposition from First Nations of Canada, the Tugboat and Harbor Carriers Association of NY/NJ, Sierra Club, Stoney Point Action Committee for the Environment, Center for Biological Diversity, Hudson Riverkeeper, Hudson River Drinking Water Intermunicipal Council, and climate justice organizations in New York City.Tom EllisAlbany

Politicians look to protect themselvesThe people involved in causing trouble during D.C.s planned political events need to step back and realize that they are being baited by the media and government officials.They want you to come out when they have the most police and National Guard forces available. Why not wait a few weeks, then voice your displeasure at your elected officials?The real reason our elected officials are giving speeches like they are William Wallace in the movie Braveheart is because they are actually scared. They realize they are going to have to go home to face their constituents at local town halls and eateries. They will most likely try the old hide behind the COVID-19 scare Zoom call nonsense to avoid interacting with people in general.Most officials make many bold statements when they have 24-hour police protection. Compare how they will act when the security is minimal.How come ultra-destructive white people are insurrectionists but ultra-destructive minority people are social justice warriors?I listened to the speech before the Washington mayhem started, and it seemed the same type of crap speech given before the election at Mt. Rushmore, same tone, same jargon. The Jan. 6 speech didnt cause the mayhem.Government officials more concerned about their own agendas and personal egos than serving the general good did.Scott DavisSchenectady

Stefanik was only defending AmericaI cannot believe there are so many absolutely stupid people out there insulting Rep. Elise Stefanik in this column and believe everything the very liberal media says about her.Are they really so stupid that they cant think for themselves and treat her as if she were some monster from Mars, when all she is doing is not backing down from all the lies about her and our great president that the media says about them?Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and the rest of the leftist deplorables claim that Trump encouraged the so-called violent mob that stormed the capital on Jan. 6. In fact, they were waving American flags, not burning them as Pelosis supporters do. When Trump tweeted them to stay peaceful, Twitter shut him down.Where was Pelosi et. al. when her leftist BLM criminals, who I believe were encouraged and backed by their Antifa sponsors, were destroying, burning and looting cities and forcefully taking over public buildings and police stations because of the death of an eight-time convicted criminal who they glorify as an All-American hero?We need more representatives like Elise Stefanik.Neil NusbaumSchenectady

Things have changed, and not for the betterThe free speech cliche I grew up with was You cant holler FIRE in a crowded theater. But that was a long time ago, and what seemed a piece of logical wisdom has fallen victim to a series of fine-toothed legal combs.So, like quite a few other ideas/sayings/basic truths I grew up with, it remains only as an example of how simple-minded we were in the old days. Maybe its part of the price we pay for growing up.Even so, I believe it is not a good idea to holler fire in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire.In that case, when the matter winds up in court (as happens with so much of what used to be common sense), youll have to explain how you knew it was a fire, how you knew it was in fact in the building, what training you have to recognize a fire, which alternative actions you could have taken to deal with the situation, and which commercial or political entities (assuming they are different) stand to gain or lose from your actions.Do not assume that common sense will be an acceptable answer.So, what about social media?Consider what our world would be like today with no Facebook or Twitter. Had they not been invented, not even imagined (with the possible exception of TikTok), would we be worse off?Phil SheehanScotia

Online lettersCommenters to online letters who fail to follow rules against name-calling, profanity, threats, libel or other inappropriate language will have their comments removed and their commenting privileges withdrawn.

To report inappropriate online comments, email Editorial Page Editor Mark Mahoney at[emailprotected]

Categories: Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Read more:

Letters to the Editor Saturday, Jan. 23 - The Daily Gazette

If youre going to be a criminal, its wise to maintain a low profile. Alas, playing it safe isnt in most lawbreakers DNA, and that was certainly the case with Geraldine Elizabeth Liz Carmichael, who in 1974 took the world by storm by taking on Detroits Big Three auto manufacturers with the Twentieth Century Motor Car Corporation and its flagship product: the Dale, a three-wheeled car that promised to deliver 70 miles per gallon, thus making it the ideal vehicle for an oil crisis-wracked America. By the time Liz launched this dodgy creation, she had already begun transitioning into a woman, which added even more fuel to the media-frenzy fire that would soon engulf her.

Directed by Nick Cammilleri and Zackary Drucker, and executive produced by Jay and Mark Duplass (Wild Wild Country), HBOs four-part docuseries The Lady and the Dale (debuting Jan. 31) begins with the rollicking early years of Lizs life, when prior to transitioning she married and abandoned two wivesand the multiple kids she had with thembefore shacking up with third spouse Vivian. They had five children together, and as Vivians brother Charles remembers, Liz (then known as Jerry) was always a gregarious sort of grifter, adept at creating fake identities and swindling suckers (especially businesses) out of their hard-earned cash. Given Lizs fondness for con-artist schemes, it wasnt long before the Michael clan was fleeing from federal agents thanks to an elaborate counterfeiting ruse. Present-day recollections from daughter Candi paint a picture of an itinerant life on the run, such that she and her siblings birth certificates boast phony namesa situation that still causes them headaches.

The Lady and the Dale spends almost its entire first installment on Lizs wild backstory, which is enlivened by pop-up book-esque animated reenactment sequences created with old photos of the players in question. Its a novel stylistic twist that further conveys the craziness of the Michaels early years, in which family gatherings were organized through coded newspaper messages, and everyone had to be ready, at a moments notice, to take flight in the middle of the night to a new town and home. In short, Liz was an inveterate charlatan. She was also a trans woman, and while evading authorities, she slowly began the process of transitioninga development that was readily accepted by her children and, after some minor initial hesitation, her wife Vivian.

Following a surgical procedure in Tijuana, Liz began living publicly as a woman, and in 1973, while working at a marketing company, she discovered an invention that was as brash and unconventional as she was: the Dale, a three-wheeled car (created by Dale Clifft) that she immediately decided would be her revolutionary ticket to world domination. After overhauling Cliffts original designs to make the Dale more attractive (replete with a canary yellow paint job), Liz got a prototype into the Los Angeles Auto Show. Then, she went on a press blitz to announce her intentions to take on Americas auto bigwigsincluding by getting the Dale featured on The Price is Right. Before long, Liz was a front-page sensation, with the uniqueness of her product matched only by the boldness of her claims.

Considering Lizs criminal pastand her ongoing status as a federal fugitiveit will come as no surprise to learn that she soon began enlisting the assistance of mob figures for the Twentieth Century Motor Car Corporation, whose name came from Atlas Shrugged, written by libertarian Lizs favorite author, Ayn Rand. She also began taking customer deposits for the in-production car, which she was supposed to hold in an escrow account, but which she instead used to finance her upstart venture. This was a clear case of fraud, especially since the makeshift Dalebeing constructed by a few random engineers in hodgepodge fashion with borrowed partswas doomed to fail. A series of investigative stories by KABC reporter Dick Carlson soon exposed the sham, leading to criminal prosecution and, after Liz was convicted, yet another flight from justice and her shady, quasi-illegal business operation.

Carlson is a significant player in Lizs tale, and not only because he helped bring her (and her wonder-car) down. As The Lady and the Dale conveys through TV clips and candid new chats with the reporter, Carlson became fixated on Liz, doing 20+ pieces on her during which he not only uncovered her business shadiness, but went out of his way to condescendingly refer to her with male pronouns, and to suggest that she was a guy pretending to be the opposite gender in order to disguise her fugitive identity and to garner publicity. Lizs brother Charles still appears rightly disgusted by this, and to further underline Carlsons anti-trans noxiousness, Cammilleri and Druckers series touches upon the reporters notorious 1976 outing of trans tennis player Rene Richards, which thrust her into the media spotlight and complicated her efforts to turn pro. Even today, Carlson seems unrepentant, going so far as to say that if Lizs behavior is normal, then so too is Jeffrey Dahmers.

The Lady and the Dale thrives when it remains focused on Lizs audacious scam, bolstered by first-hand accounts from relatives and colleagues who describe her as both a wily crook and loving wife and mother. For the majority of its first three episodes, it proves an entertainingly gonzo portrait of rebellious self-definition, as Liz strives to buck legal and social norms to make something of herself. Unfortunately, though, by the time its final installment rolls around, Cammilleri and Druckers series leans a bit too heavily into eliciting sympathy for its subject as a victim of intolerant anti-trans discrimination, largely because the medias attitude toward Lizled by Carlson, whose son Tucker carries on his ugly legacy on Fox Newswas to repugnantly ridicule and demean her as a man posing as a woman in order to elude law enforcement.

the medias attitude toward Lizled by Carlson, whose son Tucker carries on his ugly legacy on Fox Newswas to ridicule and demean her as a man posing as a woman in order to elude law enforcement.

That Liz was treated unfairly (and sometimes horribly) by journalists is undeniable from the archival footage on display. Yet via talking-head commentary and a score that makes its celebratory attitude clear, The Lady and the Dale attempts to depict Liz as an unjustly persecuted trans outlaw hero, which simply doesnt jibe with her considerable rap sheet. To do this, it downplays and/or rationalizes her criminality, which only further mires it in messy and dubious logic. Most confounding of all, the series argues that Lizs trans identity was not a deception and thus not related to her criminality (which makes sense), only to then turn around and contend that, had she grown up in a different, more tolerant era, she might have led a very different, law-abiding lifea contradictory stance which winds up suggesting that there is a link between her trans-ness and chronic charlatanism.

Consequently, The Lady and the Dale eventually loses the thread, culminating with a history lesson about maligned trans men and women that, by its very inclusion, casts Liz as a likeminded oppressed trailblazer rather than as the outlandish grifter she was until her dying day. Its ultimately so consumed with imbuing its material with hagiographic importwith making Lizs saga meaningfulthat it forgets what made it compelling in the first place.

Read more:

'The Lady and the Dale' Reveals Tucker Carlson's Dad Led Anti-Trans Bullying of Grifter Elizabeth Carmichael - The Daily Beast

Long ago, I worked for a fellow devoted to the writings of Ayn Rand. He did not take part in this fraternity by himself.

The Russian-born Rand authored a couple of best-selling books, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, in addition to numerous articles and essays, that gave birth to a philosophy known as Objectivism.

This movement championed the individual above all else, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, she wrote.

Rand, who died in 1982, became a significant influence in the American conservative movement.

Ronald Reagan had called himself an admirer of her thinking, though that praise did not bounce back his way. They shared a hate for the Soviet Union, but the author criticized the future president for kowtowing to organized religion, for which she had little use.

During his campaign in 2016, Donald Trump called The Fountainhead his favorite book, its protagonist a builder named Howard Roark whose individualism puts him at odds with the community of collective-thinking architects.

In The Fountainhead, Rand wrote of basing self-respect on personal standards of achievements, noting that any person can fake virtue for an audience while finding it impossible to fake it in your own eyes.

Its simple to seek substitutes for competence such easy substitutes: love, charm, kindness, charity, she wrote. But there is no substitute for competence.

Competence can have a tricky semantic bearing, an agreeable word but closer in line with adeptness and proficiency than, say, mastery.

A B student might be said to have competence. Those pressing for an A grade would tend toward the exceptional.

I understand that the term American exceptionalism does not refer to a letter grade for acts carried out in this nation. Rather, the phrase points out a historical, moral and freedom-endowed superiority, this great land a harbor of democracy in a global tempest.

Of course, it didnt hurt that the United States did some things right. It parlayed vast resources into industrial might. It took the fight to oppressors in World War II. It promised that Americans would walk on another world and did just that in less than a decade.

Need a can-do country? America can.

Or could.

Maintaining your mojo in a pandemic can not be easy. The United States, though, should be built for challenges ... hence the exceptionalism.

If you look at the highly industrialized nation of the G7, the U.S. ranked fourth on Monday for the most COVID-19 deaths by population, 434 for every 1 million residents.

Japan had just eight deaths per 1 million population, with Germany at 109 deaths and Canada at 235 deaths in this accounting. (France, Italy and the United Kingdom stood at worse rates.)

Back in March, many states put individualism to work in finding personal protective equipment for health-care workers, largely because centralized supplies seemed unreliable. Four months later, shortages once more arise, only the locations having changed.

School administrators, charged with safety of the nations young, have gotten into the business of translating mixed messages coming from everywhere. Youre on your own, Washington says, but if you dont open, were cutting off some money.

Times demand the best of America. Scientists cant even coax citizens into the simplest act of civic good, the wearing of masks.

The Ayn Rand Institute, enemy of the collective and advocate of free enterprise, accepted the federal governments Payroll Protection Program money. A can-do country can do irony.

Ken Newton's column runs on Tuesday and Sunday. Follow him on Twitter: @SJNPNewton.

See more here:

Making it on your own in pandemic | Opinion - News-Press Now

Inaccurate, misrepresented, and even willfully distorted reporting on Ayn Rands ideas has been common in the media since she first gained public prominence. That fact came up in a conversation she had with the editor of The Ayn Rand Lexicon, a kind of mini encyclopedia of her philosophy, Objectivism. The editor, Harry Binswanger, relates that Rand became increasingly enthusiastic about the Lexicon project, in part because it could serve as a corrective and eliminate any excuse for the continual misrepresentation of her philosophy. Rand quipped to him, People will be able to look up BREAKFAST and see that I did not advocate eating babies for breakfast.

But articles that misrepresent, or outright distort, Rands ideas continually find their way into print. Rarely are they worth a response. Two recent articles about Rand one in Salon, the other in the New Republic are different. Its not because of what these articles say about her, but in how they say it.

Both articles raise worthwhile questions at least, nominally. One asks about the appeal of Rands ideas among young people; the other is on the relation between Rands moral ideal of selfishness and President Trump. Both articles, moreover, cite sources, name facts, and even include some actual reporting all in support of their highly unfavorable conclusions. Which is putting it mildly.

These essays are apt case studies of a tribalist mindset.

Whats remarkable about these essays is not that theyre sloppy, error-filled, slanted, or smears. They are. (And Ill indicate a few, though by no means all, of their errors and misrepresentations.) Rather: what marks these essays out is that they exemplify a pernicious mindset, a mindset thats wreaking havoc on our cultural-political life. Its a phenomenon wider than how people engage with Ayn Rand but when shes the subject, that mindset is often starkly apparent.

These essays are apt case studies of a tribalist mindset.

Before we go on, let me acknowledge a concern that some of you might have. Yes, I work for the Ayn Rand Institute; Im writing in a journal published by that Institute; and Im analyzing articles that portray Rand unfavorably. But my main point is not to vindicate Rand, nor to change your mind about her, nor to convince you that these critics are wrong in their assessment (though I believe thats the case).

What I want to show you regardless of what you may already think of Rand, if you have a view at all is that theres a fundamental problem with these articles, a problem that negates their credibility. Theyre not seeking to engage with facts, reach the truth, let alone convince any active-minded readers. Instead, they manipulate seemingly factual information for the sake of affirming and reinforcing a set of prejudices.

The Last of the Ayn Rand Acolytes, by Alexander Sammon, appeared in the New Republic, and it seemingly asks a worthwhile question. The piece contends that The romance of the [Objectivist] movement has lost a good deal of its cachet in an unequal, austerity-battered America particularly when it comes to pulling in the young recruits who were once the backbone of the Rand insurgency. All the kids these days are becoming socialists and communists. Citing a poll about young Americans who are fond of socialism, the writer then wonders if Rands hyper-capitalist philosophy is running out of juice?

There is a really interesting question here about Rands appeal, because it has far outlasted her lifetime and has gone global, reaching well beyond the United States. And its true that her writings resonate powerfully with young people. Why? What explains it? How much, if any, of it relates to her political views? Or her powerful dramatization in fiction of a new moral ideal? Does it vary by individual reader? These are among the questions my colleagues and I at ARI think a lot about. One observation Ive drawn is that these questions are deceptively simple. Answering them takes a lot of data and a serious engagement with the variety of ways that Rands work resonates with particular individuals.

READ ALSO: A Philosopher Looks at Education

But the article is remarkable for its lack of curiosity about its nominal question. The reporter logged a few days at the conference and interviewed a number of people. That on-the-ground reporting, however, was just an opportunity to gather some anecdotes and quotations to reinforce a preexisting view. Notice what the reporter takes as a sign that Objectivism has a serious youth problem, and the conferences organizers were quite aware of it. ARI, which runs the conference, offered a discount rate for those under 30, a talent show, and extracurricular activities like late night jams.

It would be exceedingly odd for an intellectual or political movement to be uninterested in connecting with young people.

What are these evidence of? Take the talent show. It might be probative, if it had been uniquely geared to young people. (No reason is given in the article to believe that.) Or, if it had been added to the program in a panicked reaction to some plummeting interest. (No again). The late-night jam session is an extracurricular event, meaning that attendees, not ARI, spontaneously organized it. That fact doesnt support the point the reporter is trying to establish and arguably, it might be counterevidence.

Finally, what conclusion can be drawn from the fact that people under 30 can register at a discount? One conclusion is that ARI is interested in attracting young people and making it easier, more affordable, for them to attend. But is that unique to the Objectivist movement? No. Student and youth discounts are everywhere (think: movie theaters, transportation). Moreover, it would be exceedingly odd for an intellectual or political movement to be uninterested in connecting with young people.

Thats why, for example, you find the same kind of discount offered by Netroots Nation, which, for more than a decade, has hosted the largest annual conference for progressives, drawing nearly 3,000 attendees from around the country and beyond. In 2019, if you were 18 or younger, you would have paid only $110 (discounted from the full rate of $375) to attend the conference. And thats quite apart from the hundreds of scholarships, covering full or partial costs, that Netroots offered. Is that proof, then, that the progressive movement in the U.S. has a serious youth problem?

Theres no way to reach a reasonable conclusion neither about ARIs conference, nor the Netroots event when this is what is offered as evidence.

What, then, is the actual purpose of the New Republics article? Some of the shoddy reporting provides a lead, because its not mere sloppiness. Its purposeful. Lets unpack just one paragraph, for which the relevant facts are publicly verifiable.

Sammon quotes ARIs chairman, Yaron Brook, saying that the Institutes first program focused on young people, and then writes:

True to that aim, ARI began donating 400,000 copies of Rands novels to advanced-placement high school programs each year. It also awarded big cash prizes for Rand-themed essay contests (in 2018 alone, ardent young Objectivists raked in a cool $130,000 for such broadsides).

In just these 44 words, there are four factual errors, which slant toward a purpose.

(1) The article implies that ARIs first program was giving away copies of Rands novels. In fact, the Institutes first major project, in 1985, was an essay contest on Rands novels. It was in 2002 fully seventeen years after ARI was founded that we piloted an initiative to supply teachers with free classroom sets of Rands novels. That project was born in response to requests from teachers themselves. So far, weve given away more than four million books. Teachers continue to ask for the books, and then tell us about how intellectually energized their students are after reading Rands novels.

READ ALSO: In a Tribal Age, a Voice for the Individual

(3) Students who take part in our essay contests may agree or disagree with Rands view. Theres never been a requirement that they be ardent young Objectivists (meaning that they embrace Rands philosophy), either to take part or to win a prize. Which bring us to the next tendentious error.

(4) To imply that ARI awards prizes for Rand-themed broadsides is factually wrong. The questions we set for the essay contests are designed to prompt students to engage deeply with Rands novels, the plot, the motivations of characters, the books philosophic theme. Whats more, our judging criteria (published online) state that: Essays will be judged on whether the student is able to argue for and justify his or her view not on whether the Institute agrees with the view the student expresses. Take a look at the questions for 2020, and some of the winning essays, to form your own view.

Its a trivialization of Rands philosophy to take her appeal as exclusively about her advocacy of capitalism.

The thread running through these errors, and the article as a whole, is to push a distorted picture of Rand (and by extension, the Objectivist movement). There are three elements in that picture none of them true to the facts.

First, its a trivialization of Rands philosophy, so that her appeal is taken to be exclusively about her advocacy of capitalism and (in Sammons phrase) personal pocket-stuffing. Thats the subtext behind the errors Ive just noted, and many others. Its also evident in Sammons downplaying of the salient fact that the theme of our 2019 Objectivist conference was Rands theory of art.

Second, the movement around Rands ideas is portrayed as something of a quasi-religious, or cult-like, phenomenon of unthinking followers. Third, and this goes to a major purpose of the article, Rand is assumed to be the motive force behind the conservative or right-wing tribe.

This false picture comes out in numerous small touches throughout, but its the opening of the article thats particularly revealing. Sammon claims that the original Ayn Rand clubs in the 1960s were governed by eight rules, only two of which could be mentioned publicly: that Rand was the greatest human being ever, and Atlas Shrugged, the greatest human achievement ever. Then Sammon observes that at last summers Objectivist conference, everyone seemed to be in compliance. For evidence of that, he quotes a 26-year-old attendee. Sammon reports that she was once an avowed environmentalist, but after reading Atlas Shrugged, she has come to believe that the solution is to encourage development.

Put aside those eight rules for the moment (well come back to them), and consider his example of the former environmentalist. Lets assume that shes quoted accurately in the article. Whatever you think of environmental issues, or of Ayn Rand, this is nothing like a coherent argument. Ive met fans of Atlas Shrugged who believe environmental issues call for regulatory controls on development. You can hate Atlas Shrugged, or simply disagree with it, and still think that environmental problems call for more, not less, development and innovation. Thats basically the view Steven Pinker expresses in his book Enlightenment Now, and, whether hes read Rands novels or not, his views on key philosophic, moral and political issues are fundamentally at odds with Objectivism. We could keep going on and on with counterexamples.

Sammons claim cannot convince any active-minded reader. The non sequitur is pretty flagrant. What, then, is the articles opening trying to do? If you already hold a certain prejudice about Rand and about fans of her work, the article will trigger an emotional reaction. It will affirm and reinforce your prejudice. Put into words (politely), its something like: I always knew it theyre a bunch of unthinking worshipers of the dollar and rapacious industry.

READ ALSO: In the Covid-19 Pandemic, Are We All in This Together?

Since that personal and professional rupture between them, Branden had an ongoing, publicly stated animus toward Rand and her ideas, and a vested interest in smearing her and vindicating himself. Theres a further problem, because his own memoir shows him to be a prolific liar, thus casting wholesale doubt over the books credibility. But if you did take it as credible, theres the fact that Sammon even manages to misreport that (dubious) source, regarding those rules in the source article. Brandens quoted words are implicit premises which his organization, the Nathaniel Branden Institute, transmitted to our students. Sammon takes this weird allegation from the grudge-bearing Branden and slants it further.

Sammons article is uninterested in convincing through facts and logic. Its advancing a particular slant, for the purpose of affirming certain prejudices.

But theres an even more significant problem here. Journalists are supposed to be not only critical of what they see, hear, and read, but also concerned with primary sources and first-hand evidence. A good place to look, then, is Rand herself, her published writing, her media appearances, her speeches. Though she was proud of Atlas Shrugged and possessed self-esteem, she would have strenuously repudiated those eight rules precisely because of their injunction to submit to authority. The through line of her writing and speaking is the supreme importance of thinking independently, putting nothing no authority above the judgment of your individual mind. To disregard this counterevidence, and pretend it doesnt exist, is malpractice.

Again: my point here is not to change your mind about Rand or her ideas, but to show that Sammons article is uninterested in convincing through facts and logic. Its advancing a particular slant, for the purpose of affirming certain prejudices.

Which bring us to the third element of the distorted picture of Rand and the movement around her ideas: the notion that Rand is the behind-the-scenes power of our cultures other major tribe, the conservative/right-leaning movement. This trope has been knocking around for years and surfaces in various articles. For those in the grips of this quasi-conspiracist trope, imagine how soothing it would be to hear that the Rand phenomenon is waning.

Has Rand influenced activists, intellectuals, politicians and others who define themselves as libertarian or Republican or conservative? Of course. But that influence is far from straightforward or uniform. For a start, Rand excoriated the conservative and libertarian movements of her own time; she saw those movements, in different ways, as intellectually bankrupt and subversive of freedom. Nor does Rand belong in the vague categories right wing or conservative, given her views. For instance, Objectivism rejects all forms of the supernatural, emphatically including religion; or consider her principled view on a womans moral right to abortion.

One more counterpoint to the trope is that Rands novels have been cited by Hollywood figures who view themselves as sympathetic, if not wholly supportive, of progressive causes. For instance, Angelina Jolie, Mayim Bialik, Emma Watson, among others, have said that Rands fiction had a strong impact on them. The point, then, is that Rands influence is multifaceted, it goes well beyond political issues, and it is unbounded by the conventional left-right framing.

READ ALSO: Discussing Marc Andreessens Rallying Cry to Build

Without appreciating these facts, its impossible to form a view of Rands cultural influence. To imagine that her philosophy underpins the mainline conservative movement is risible. Coming from opponents of her views, that notion is a prejudice.

The writer fashioned a narrative that will be emotionally soothing to the tribalist progressive reader and unconvincing to a critical reader.

Sammon seems dimly aware that the Rand-powers-the-right trope is problematic. But he is uncurious about why that is so. Instead, he mentions several politicians who claim to like Rand, but whose policies deviate from her ideal of laissez-faire capitalism. This is a fascinating phenomenon, and it should trigger dozens of questions for a journalist trying to understand Rands impact and appeal.

For example, if a professed admirer of Rands ideas enters politics but enacts policies at odds with Objectivism, does that mean hes betraying those ideas? Or, could it be evidence that his understanding of them was shallow or incomplete or non-existent? or that what resonated was not at all her political ideas, but perhaps the moral confidence of her heroes? or her depiction of productive achievement as heroic? More broadly, what does it look like for a radical, convention-challenging philosophy to influence an individual? Is it an overnight, all-or-nothing effect or is it subject to gradations, across what kind of time frame?

None of these threads (or many others I could name) is pursued in Sammons article. Theres no attempt to grapple with the actual nature and scale of Rands cultural impact. For Sammon, intent on portraying Rand and Objectivism in quasi-religious terms, there are just pilgrims and Quislings. By the close of Sammons article, theres no answer to the question that supposedly motivated it: Is Rands appeal with the young waning? At most, that question serves as a hook to make the article seem topical. Rather than address that issue, the writer fashioned a narrative that will be emotionally soothing to the tribalist progressive reader and unconvincing to a critical reader. Its message: Stop worrying, the Rand phenomenon and the hated conservative tribe it nourishes is done for.

End of Part 1.

SUPPORT ARI: If you value the ideas presented here, please become an ARI Member today.

Share this article:

View original post here:

When Tribal Journalists Try to 'Cancel' Ayn Rand (Part 1) - New Ideal

I am convinced the end game for pure capitalism is pure socialism. Unchecked, it is inevitable. It turns out the final chapter for Atlas Shrugged was never written. Who knew? Galts Gulch was destined to become a commune for short-haired hippies in penny loafers.

I was thinking of something to write and whether there still might be a Major League Baseball season while a vacuum cleaner robot kept bumping into the legs of my chair and generally driving me nuts. It used to be interesting. Now its annoying, but it does take care of the light cleaning.

This got me thinking. In a headfirst dive into a rabbit hole so wide I didnt bump the walls on my way down, came a thought that someday there wont be anything that artificially intellectualized machines wont be able to do better than humans. I am not talking only manual labor. Im saying trained professional service jobs, too.

After all the databases in the world are connected, can you imagine the legal argument an e-attorney could put together? Your smartphone presents its case to a judgment computer along with your opponents and the completely unbiased verdict from an accumulation of historically perfect knowledge of justice, analysis of all precedence, and application of pure logic is rendered within milliseconds. Theres no sense appealing because the inarguable answer would be the same.

Support Local JournalismDonate

The same for digital doctors. Your watch provides your vitals and body chemistry analysis for a machine to compare to billions of snippets of everyday lives and it knows what you have and how best to cure it before you can pick up a magazine in the waiting room. Surgery? No problem. Perfect diagnosis, precise incisions, and X-ray vision make for great results.

How about fighting fires with drones and bots and transporting patients to the hospital in driverless ambulances with mechanical EMTs on board and computerized lawyers chasing them?

I thought about this on a bike ride that took way longer because of it, and the only job I came up with that might not eventually be done better by a machine is an artist. And, I am not totally convinced of that. Show a computer enough great art and it will figure out what makes it great and then might produce stunningly moving pieces on its own.

At the bottom of the rabbit hole was a package from Amazon. Thats when it clicked. This company went from selling books on the Internet to making it nearly impossible to live our lives without them in it in some shape or fashion almost every day. They did this in less than twenty years. Is it out of the realm of possibility to find them producing and providing every single good or service the world demands with machines and computers before this century is out? I bet yes. Eventually nobody will be left to compete with their gazillion dollar monopoly.

But, thats not even what Im arguing. The interesting thing is that, if Amazon does everything and does it all with machines, what the heck are the rest of us going to do to make our livings? And, even more importantly, if we dont have any ways to make our livings, how are we going to buy all the stuff they produce? Checkmate! We all got nothing.

The only way this ultimate capitalist dream plays out is for Amazon, as its own computerized government, to tax the crap out of itself so that it can give every non-working citizen (i.e. everyone) a monthly stimulus check for doing nothing so that we can continue to buy all it produces (i.e. everything), so its sole owner can continually get richer even after paying income taxes at a rate of around 99.999%.

In this perfectly artificial intelligent capitalistic society, nobody works and everyone lives off government welfare. Since nobody produces anything, everybody gets the same stipend. At this stage, nobody can take down The Company. On the plus side, we get up when we like, recreate every day, eat well, and maintain consumerism since paying us enough to do that is what keeps the worlds solitary business model viable.

Now, I know what you are thinking, because I was thinking the same thing as I cleared the dog hair from the side brushes of my robotic vacuum cleaner this could not possibly be how capitalism plays out. I dont know what to tell you. Like I said, when Atlas passes gas, itll stink.

Roger Marolt is looking for new opportunities as a robot. Email at roger@maroltllp.com.

View post:

Roger Marolt: The road to socialism is paved by capitalists - Aspen Times

From the October 2018 issue: Yuval Noah Harari on why technology favors tyranny

Also in April, Google and Apple announced that they would suspend their rivalry to work with nations of the world to create a new alert system. They would reconfigure their mobile operating systems, incompatible by design, to notify users if they have stepped within the radius of a device held by a COVID19 patient.

The companies have failed to impress some public-health officials with their initial efforts, but their hastily designed program will likely improve with subsequent iterations. It could evolve to function like the official papers that Europeans are always fumbling to present to the authorities in grainy war movies. By documenting your history of social contact, your phone could be used to help demonstrate your fitness to return to the office or board a flight.

The shock of the virus has overwhelmed government at every level. In states facing an unmanageable deluge of unemployment claims, Amazon and Google have stepped in to revamp antique systems so that money can flow with less bureaucratic friction. When Nadella invoked the possibilities of a new alliance, he was alluding to the abrupt shift to telemedicine and virtual learning. Public health and education may be traditional functions of government, but Nadella suggested that his industry should share the burden: We at Microsoft view ourselves as digital first responders.

The blessings bestowed by the online economy in this strange time are indisputable, and we should be grateful for them. But thats not a reason to suspend skepticism of the tech industry as it attempts to make the most of the moment. In the years before the virus, critics began to prophesy that a handful of tech companies would soon grow more powerful than the government. Their scale and influence, and their ability to manipulate public opinion and shape markets, would permit them to reign unimpeded.

That warning, however dark, didnt quite capture the emerging strategy of these firmsa strategy that was in fact taking shape before the pandemic beganor the graver threat they pose. Rather than supplanting government, they have, in essence, sought to merge with it.

Tech executives didnt always yearn to work in league with government. During their years of wild growth and political immaturity, the tech companies sounded like teenagers encountering Ayn Rand for the first time. Like John Galt, the protagonist of Atlas Shrugged, they muttered about the evils of government and how it kept down great innovators. This view of the world smacked of self-interest. Companies such as Amazon, Google, and Facebook wanted to avoid the sorts of regulatory controls that constrained their older, more established competitors.

But if self-interest neatly aligned with idealism, the idealism was real. Googles cofounder Sergey Brin, a refugee from the former Soviet Union, warned about the moral costs of the companys foray into China. He styled himself a purist, and the companys experience in the country ultimately illustrated the logic of his stance: Despite abiding by the dictates of the regime, Google was breached by Chinese hackers, who attempted to steal its intellectual property and peer into the Gmail accounts of human-rights activists. In 2010, after four years of operating on the mainland, Google decamped to Hong Kong.

Excerpt from:

What Big Tech Wants Out of the Pandemic - The Atlantic

The Pitch

When I was in high school, Bioshock felt just about as good as AAA gaming could get.

A polished pinnacle of design and aesthetics, the first Bioshock went all-in on an instantly-iconic setting and embraced themes, ideas and imagery that went slightly beyond what other AAA of its time offered. It had fun gunplay that emphasized exploration and experimentation. It was a shooter that encouraged you to make interesting decisions and find ways to take advantage of your abilities, your opponents weaknesses and the environment around you.

While all of the above are pretty compelling on their own, it was the ways in which Bioshock weaved all these different threads together - a feat often credited to so-called gaming auteur Ken Levine - thats stuck with me. At the time, Bioshock managed to feel cohesive and cinematic without coming across as overly-shallow or scripted.

In 2020, my perspectives on all the above - especially Levine - have changed, but Bioshock - now available on the Nintendo Switch - hasnt.

If you were too young to remember it, Bioshock was a science-fiction first-person shooter released in 2007. The game saw you venture below the surface of the sea to the underwater dystopia of Rapture, a city built atop the flawed objectivism of Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged and powered by Adam and Eve. These addictive substances gave you the power to alter your own genetics and bestow yourself with fantastical mutations like the ability to throw lightning bolts (or bees!) at your enemies.

Without veering too close to the games iconic story moments, the broad-strokes premise of Bioshock involves trying to topple Raptures despotic ruler, Andrew Ryan, and escape from the half-flooded metropolis with your life. Its a blend of survivor horror, imm-sim and first-person shooter. If you like any of those things youll probably enjoy what Bioshock has to offer. That was the case with the original game and its much the same case with the new Switch version of it.

One of the more interesting details worth touching on here is that, while other Switch ports like The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt or Overwatch have had to make severe or significant compromises in order to run on Nintendos handheld, Bioshock doesnt. It first released on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. The Switch honestly feels like its more than capable for what 2K have thrown at it.

As visually-rich and crisply-detailed as your memories of the first time you played Bioshock might be, the reality is that it hasnt aged all that well when it comes to graphics. Textures look blurry and blocky. Of course, the upshot of this is that squeezing them onto the Switchs smaller LCD display doesnt feel like that much of a downgrade.

The Nintendo Switch version of Bioshock doesnt look like a bad version of Bioshock, it just looks like Bioshock. Whats more, while standards for fidelity have changed since the first came out, the sound and environment design here go a long way to helping keep the games rich sense of atmosphere and tension intact.

If youre wondering whether Bioshock runs well on Switch, fret not.

Irrational Games submersive shooter just might not look as you remember but, otherwise, this is a perfect port. If youre ready to return to Rapture and dont mind sacrificing a little bit of immersion for portability, the Nintendo Switch version of Bioshock: Definitive Edition is easy to endorse.

These days, many modern AAA games commit the crime of being too big. Even smaller releases nowadays are loaded with long-tail challenges and post-launch content designed to keep you coming back. Bioshock predates this trend and, upon revisitation, theres something refreshing about that sense of finality.

Sure, Bioshock 2 and Bioshock: Infinite exist but the story here stands on its own. Levine and co. know when to let the curtains fall and the credits roll.

At the time it was released, Bioshock felt like the pinnacle of what gameplay, art, writing and sound design could achieve by working in unison. And while gaming has moved beyond what Bioshock offered on all these fronts (as have I), the fact that the Switch can recapture that appeal feels so much more like the future of gaming to me than any amount of teraflops promised by the Playstation 5 and Xbox Series X.

Bioshock: Definitive Edition is available on the Nintendo Switch now as part of Bioshock: The Collection, which also includes remastered versions of Bioshock 2 and Bioshock Infinite. You can grab it via Amazon here.

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags Nintendo SwitchBioshock: Definitive Edition

Read more:

Bioshock: Definitive Edition (Nintendo Switch) review: Returning to the circus of value - PC World

I enjoy well said, meaningful sayings. Thoughts that are well-spoken, especially during a time of confusion, desperation and perhaps, situations that seem impossible, are often priceless.

I find it interesting that many of these offerings that are hundreds of years old are still sensible today. For example, as we contemplate the opening of our economic engine, stores, businesses, schools and churches the question of risk is put into the forefront of these decisions. Albert Einstein once said, A ship is always safe at shore but that is not what is was built for.

Think about it. Dont the majority of us have the common sense to make these decisions ourselves? Lets leave the dock with all of our safety equipment at hand and get down to business.

Abraham Lincoln proclaimed, We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who would pervert the Constitution. Does this sound a little bit familiar as we learn more about the women and men that are working diligently to empower themselves?

Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged penned, When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from those that produce nothing When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws dont protect them against you When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice You may know that your society is doomed. Is this beginning to open ones eyes a tiny bit?

D.H. Lawrence stated, Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves. Have we instilled the virtues of this country, our freedoms, our well-written Constitution to our children in our home and in their schools?

And lastly, lets not forget Thomas Jefferson, who wrote, The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

These quotations were true the day they were said and are vastly true today. Just think about it.

G. Kevin Savord is currently a professional pilot and former small business owner. He can be reached at gksavord@gmail.com.

Link:

Meaningful thoughts pass test of time - Bouldercityreview

They called it the Crisis of 2020 an unspecified calamity that could rival the gravest trials our ancestors have known and serve as the next great hinge of history. It could be an environmental catastrophe, they wrote, a nuclear threat or some catastrophic failure in the world economy.

That was in 1991.

The scholars responsible were William Strauss and Neil Howe, whose book Generations introduced a provocative theory that American history unfolds in boom-to-bust cycles of roughly 80 years. Their conclusions about the way each generation develops its own characteristics and leadership qualities influenced a wide range of political leaders, from liberals like Bill Clinton and Al Gore to pro-Trump conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Stephen K. Bannon.

Seems as if they were on to something. So now what?

Mr. Strauss died in 2007, before anyone could know how eerily correct The Crisis of 2020 would be. But Mr. Howe, who now hosts a podcast and analyzes demographic trends for an investment advisory firm, is still very much in the insight business. And what he sees on the other end of the coronavirus pandemic a generational realignment in American politics hastened by the failure of the baby boomer generation to lead the nation out of its quagmire does not bode well for President Trump or the Republicans.

For most of the past 75 years, the Republican attitude about government has been rooted in a deep skepticism of authority that says, in essence: Success doesnt take a village; it takes a determined individual whose government isnt standing in the way. But that belief, Mr. Howe said, is uniquely ill-suited to the current crisis.

Nearly 30 years ago, when he first predicted an event like the coronavirus, Mr. Howe said the year 2020 was not a mark-your-calendar prognostication of doomsday but a round number that fit the cyclical nature of their theory: It is roughly 80 years after the last great crises of World War II and the Great Depression.

More insightful than the date itself was the assertion that historical patterns pointed toward the arrival of a generation-defining crisis that would force millennials into the fire early in their adulthood. (Mr. Strauss and Mr. Howe were the first to apply that term to those born in the early 1980s because they would come of age around the year 2000.)

More than just a novelty, their theory helps explain why some of the most prominent voices calling for political reform from left, center and right have been young Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 30; Pete Buttigieg, 38; Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, 40.

And as baby boomers continue to age out of public service, the theory says, fixing the problems created by the pandemic will fall to this younger, civically oriented generation. Mr. Howe, who at 68 is a member of the cohort he is critical of, said in an interview that it was no coincidence that the boomer president and many people in his generation especially the more conservative ones have generally taken a more lax attitude toward the coronavirus than younger people.

Polls have found that younger Americans overwhelmingly favor a cautious approach to getting back to normal and are more worried about the virus. This includes many young Republicans, ages 18 to 49, who were far more likely than Republicans 50 and older to say the worst of the outbreak is yet to come, according to a Pew Research Center poll last month.

This is really the problem with Gen X and baby boomers, Mr. Howe said. Theyve championed this kind of individualism. Theyve championed thinking less about the community.

On the one hand, conservatives might argue that they are the best equipped to confront a moment that feels at times as if the apocalypse is at hand. Cable news, talk radio and right-wing websites have long been full of ads for products intended to sustain people through catastrophe: investments in precious metals, home generators and supplies to can your own food.

But the peace of mind those products offer is ultimately about looking out for oneself the kind of me first conservatism that developed out of Americas post-World War II boom.

Mr. Howes critique of todays conservatives is shared by a growing number of younger Republicans. Rachel Bovard, the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute, said that many in her generation wanted to see an interventionist government in areas of policy like trade and finance.

I think thats gone unquestioned for so long, and its become this national theology: Private enterprise is good. Full stop, Ms. Bovard, 36, said. I prize my liberty, whether its liberty from a tyrannical government or a tyrannical corporation.

Mr. Howe and Mr. Strauss followed Generations with The Fourth Turning, which elaborated on looming calamity. But beyond disaster prediction, the foundation of their work is that Americans tend to develop certain traits that are fairly consistent across their generation.

In the preface to Generations nearly 30 years ago, they nodded to the despair that boomers sometimes felt about the character of their peers. You may feel some disappointment, they said, in the Dan Quayles and Donald Trumps who have been among the first of your agemates to climb lifes pyramid.

Mr. Howe will admit to some disappointment himself on where Mr. Trump is on lifes pyramid: I think thus far, he said, its fair to say that Trump has not grown into the role.

One upside to the crises at the heart of these theories is the innovation they tend to produce an economic and social program like the New Deal, or a public health discovery like the vaccine for polio. But so far the Trump administration has been incapable or unwilling to think big about the problems at hand, critics say.

The really bad news is we are in the grip of an administration that sees everything as marketing, spin, branding, said David Kaiser, a former professor at the Naval War College and a historian who is a fan of the Strauss and Howe theories. And I dont think is really capable of thinking through a problem and acting on it.

This skepticism that big, bold solutions will come from the Trump administration is shared even by Mr. Bannon, a fairly reliable defender of the presidents since he was pushed out of his role as White House chief strategist in August 2017. In an interview, Mr. Bannon said that the administration never took seriously the possibility that a catastrophe like the coronavirus could strike, which has led to a failure of imagination in dealing with the problem.

You had a called shot in the beginning of this administration, and nobody paid attention to it, he said. Mr. Bannon was a promoter of the crisis theories in The Fourth Turning when he was still at the White House.

I got mocked and ridiculed by so many people. They said: You cant believe in this stuff. It makes you look like a kook, he said. The doubters included the president, who told Mr. Bannon that the theory was too dark for him. He said, Im an optimist. I said: Im a realist. And this is reality, Mr. Bannon recalled.

Mr. Bannon said that instead of coming up with new programs to deal with the millions of people who may never get their old jobs back, the White House and its conservative allies were falling back on the kind of stimulus policies they purport to loathe.

Where were all the conservative businessmen who have insisted that the government get out of their way, Mr. Bannon asked? I saw them all, once again, run to the government for bailouts, he said.

Writing in 1997 in The Fourth Turning, Mr. Howe and Mr. Strauss warned that after the 2020 crisis, the party in power at the time could find itself out of power for a generation akin to the 1860 Democrats and 1929 Republicans.

Not everyone sees a grim ending in this crisis for Mr. Trump and the Republicans. Dick Morris, a former Clinton aide who has since become a conservative critic of the Democrats, said he believed the Strauss and Howe theory helped explain how Mr. Trump won in 2016, and how he could do so again this year.

If Mr. Trumps victory was a rebellion of working-class voters who felt the countrys leaders had failed them, Mr. Morris said, his re-election will hinge on who is going to rebuild the economy once this is all over, which is also Trumps strength.

Mr. Morris, a fan of Strauss and Howe, recalled that when he worked for Mr. Clinton during the 1992 presidential campaign, the former president told him that reading Generations influenced him to pick Mr. Gore as his running mate because of their closeness in age and political temperament. Three of the last four presidents are boomers Mr. Clinton, George W. Bush and Mr. Trump, all of whom were born in 1946. The likely Democratic nominee this year, Joseph R. Biden Jr., is 77 and part of the older Silent Generation.

If the pandemic doesnt break the boomer generations grip on American government, some see hope that it will end the brand of conservatism that has thrived during their time in power.

Wheres my copy of Atlas Shrugged? Mr. Bannon asked, referring to the Ayn Rand novel that conservatives often cite for its heroic portrayal of individualism and self-determination. Its in the shredder.

Link:

They Predicted The Crisis of 2020 in 1991. So How Does This End? - The New York Times

Edit Storyline

It was great to be alive, once, but the world was perishing. Factories were shutting down, transportation was grinding to a halt, granaries were empty--and key people who had once kept it running were disappearing all over the country. As the lights winked out and the cities went cold, nothing was left to anyone but misery. No one knew how to stop it, no one understood why it was happening - except one woman, the operating executive of a once mighty transcontinental railroad, who suspects the answer may rest with a remarkable invention and the man who created it - a man who once said he would stop the motor of the world. Everything now depends on finding him and discovering the answer to the question on the lips of everyone as they whisper it in fear: Who *is* John Galt? Written byRobb

Taglines:Who is John Galt?

Budget:$20,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend USA: $1,677,000,17 April 2011

Gross USA: $4,627,375

Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $4,627,375

Runtime: 97 min

Aspect Ratio: 2.35 : 1

The rest is here:

Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011) - IMDb