Category Archives: Atlas Shrugged

Speaker Pro Tem Elijah Haahr has been front and center this session, working hard to help push through a number of conservative policies. And having now announced his bid for the positionof Speaker, we talked to the representative about a number of issues to get his thoughts on where Missouri goes next and the things he still sees as work that needs to be done.

MT: In your first year as the Speaker Pro Tem, what has been the biggest challenge for you? In your opinion, what is the hardest part of being the Speaker Pro Tem?

EH: The difficult part of the office is also the most challenging the Pro Tem does not have a constitutionally or caucus defined role other than to assist the Speaker. As such, the office is what you make it. My goal was twofold: to maintain orderly debate from the dais and to provide our caucus with consistent messaging so that all 117 caucus members could speak with one voice when we were united. But every Pro Tem will want to carve out their own unique niche and that is both the most difficult and most challenging part of the job.

MT:The issue of human sex-trafficking has been one that you have carried the torch for some time now. Do you feel like Missouri has made significant strides in that fight, and what do you still see as areas we need to improve on?

EH: Absolutely. In the last two years, the legislature passed numerous reforms including a ban on advertising and expanding the safe at home program for trafficking victims. Our task force helped to raise awareness around the state and now many of those members are joining Attorney General [Josh] Hawley in serving on his standing task force. Work remains to be done and Rep. Cloria Brown will continue to lead that effort in the Missouri House. Her work to advocate for more resources for victims and better statutory authority on behalf of law enforcement will be vital as we work to keep Missouri at the forefront of this fight.

Rep. Elijah Haahr

MT:In a recent Twitter poll by the Missouri Times, you were the favorite candidate to win the race for Speaker of the House. What do you think qualifies you for the role, and what strengths do you believe you can bring if you win the race?

EH: The caucus has seen me as a bill sponsor and watched me shepherd legislation through the House and Senate. They witnessed my work as a committee chair handling the toughest and highest pressure issues. And they watched my work as part of the leadership team and running the House floor while presiding from the dais. Each of these positions are different and require unique skill sets. I believe the skills I demonstrated in handling each of these individual roles tells a much better story of what I would be like as Speaker of the House than any pledge or promise.

MT:If were asking about strengths, it only makes sense to ask about weaknesses. What would you describe as the one thing you wish you change during your time in the House, and why?

EH: Every freshman and every senior will invariably tell you that experience is so important to become an effective legislator. I came into office having never interned or worked in the Capitol and I still, to this day, am continuing to become better equipped to pass good legislation. Caucus members like Justin Alferman, Curtis Trent, and Phil Christofanelli all began with more experience by interning or working in the Missouri House or Congress prior to their election and it allows them to be more effective earlier in their legislative careers.

MT:One of the major promises made throughout the Missouri political realm in the last general election was that of ethics reform. The House made a point to ensure that the first bill passed by that body was an ethics bill. That being said, no ethics legislation has actually moved any further than that bill. Do you believe enough is being done in terms of ethics reform, and what would you like to see done?

EH: I continue to believe that we can do more to improve the culture of Jefferson City. However, the work that Speaker [Todd] Richardson has done to demonstrate leadership on this issue has resonated inside and outside the building. The conversation about ethics reform is one which will continue to occur and our House caucus will continue to lead the fight for openness and transparency.

MT:One of the major issues this year has been economic development and growing the states economy and workforce. With the passage of right to work and tort reform, do you feel that the state is moving forward in the right direction, and what areas do you still see needing work? What would you propose to do to further that cause?

EH: Our Republican caucus took several historic steps towards removing the government barriers to employment and creating a long-term growth strategy for Missouri. Passing right to work and allowing Uber and Lyft statewide are just the two biggest examples of how injecting freedom into the market can lead to short term and long term job growth. But we have so many other opportunities. Whether its a statewide issue like the occupational licensing reform that will open up better employment opportunities to more citizens or removing the barriers to the expansion of jobs in the old Noranda plant, the caucus has a multitude of ways it can show our state what a united Republican majority can accomplish.

MT:What made you first decide to get into politics?

EH: I was born in Iowa. My mom was a social worker and my dad had an education degree but they decided to teach my siblings and me at home. However, Iowa was one of the last three states in the country where homeschooling was illegal. You could literally be taken away from your parents by the government for truancy. That experience as a child really burned into me how an intrusive government could completely change your life. My parents dragged me to the Capitol at 10 and I started working on my first campaign at 12. I still maintain my healthy fear of a big and burdensome government.

MT:How does the House majority maintain their numbers going into the next election cycle?

EH: The same way we built our majority. Recruiting the best candidates in the state, working as a team to get them elected, and then governing the way we campaigned by keeping our promises to make government smaller, more efficient, and less burdensome on the citizens of Missouri.

MT:Whats the one piece of advice you would share with a freshman legislator?

EH: Every senior will tell you that, when you leave office, you will remember the people, not the accomplishments. Focus on building relationships. The days are long but the years are short. Spend those long days getting to know your colleagues and, when those short years pass, you will have had the richest possible experience.

MT:Looking forward to the next session, what do you believe will be the top priorities in 2018 and why?

EH: The House passed a handful of great reforms that didnt ultimately reach the Governors desk so we will obviously begin with issues like ethics reform, paycheck protection, and finding a sustainable long-term solution to the senior aid funding crisis. But we have a variety of issues that we didnt get to in 2017 that will take center stage next year. We need to find solutions to fix our transportation infrastructure crisis, craft modern answers to generate more affordable energy, and expand our successful reforms of tort and labor laws to include the bureaucracy and our outdated tax code.

We also asked the representative to take part in a rapid fire round of questioning, which he gladly obliged to.

1. Favorite color: Blue. Notice the variety of ties I have are several shades of this color.

2. Pepsi or Coke: Diet Coke.

3. Ford or Chevy: Dodge. I have driven one for 6 years and it has been great.

4. Favorite sports team: I like college football, March Madness, and the Yankees. I think you can always trust me to be honest if I admit to being a Yankees fan.

5. Favorite movie: L.A. Confidential and A Time To Kill are two of my favorites.

6. Favorite book: Atlas Shrugged. I dont believe in all of it and the speeches get long but the visceral defense of capitalism remains one of my favorites.

7. Most likely to be caught listening to ___ while driving: Currently listening to a song by Clean Bandit on Spotify. But, when I am driving, my playlist ranges from Dierks Bentley to Cold War Kids.

8. Dog or cat: Dog. That isnt really a tough decision.

9. Favorite way to spend the day off: If you have a job you love, you never need a vacation. But when I am not in the Capitol or the courtroom, I love grilling on the deck and playing with my kids in the backyard.

10. Favorite ice cream flavor: Cookies and Cream. But Talenti makes a couple really good flavors. Not sure if that counts since its gelato.

Bonus Question: As the father of four, which do you find easier: wrangling the kids to get ready, or wrangling votes in the House? Wrangling votes for sure. Luckily, I only have four kids and not 163.

Continued here:

Up Close and Personal with Speaker Pro Tem Elijah Haahr - The Missouri Times

5/17/2017

In the May 11, 2017, issue, Tom Wards column Reject business-crushing paid sick leave proposals shows us the harm that will be done by the Fair Shot Agenda that is now working its way through the Statehouse. I agree with Mr. Ward that socialism fails. Every. Single. Time. Yet, the 21 state representatives keep pushing this immoral Fair Shot Agenda that promises us free stuff.

Last year, presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders promised lots of free stuff to be paid for by the one-percenters. The Venezuelans were ahead of Bernie. They happily voted for Hugo Chavez in 1999. Chavez, too, promised free stuff. As a result, every useful idiot and NPR intellectual told us how lucky the Venezuelans where to have such a wise and great leader. It took Venezuela only 18 years from being a prosperous nation to starvation. Yet, can I expect the NPR intellectuals or 21 state reps and R.I. voters to learn from this example? Of course not.

In the May 1, 2000, issue of National Review was a column on Cuba by John Derbyshire titled: Still Useful, and Idiotic. I still remember the line: Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy.

The monstrous immorality of altruism, of sacrificing prosperity to starvation, of sacrificing life to death, preached by the useful idiots, is beyond comprehension. Maybe Tom Ward should do what the heroes in Atlas Shrugged did. Go on strike. Adri Kalisvaart

Lincoln

Continue reading here:

Venezuela starvation serves as example of failed giveaways - Valley Breeze

A Nevis High School junior, he was one of only 80 students selected statewide to serve as a page in a week-long immersion program.

For over 40 years, the Minnesota House of Representatives High School Page Program has provided students "with hands-on access to state government in action." Modeled after the U.S. Congress Page Program, Minnesota's equivalent was established in 1975.

Participants were told numerous times, Edwins said, that competition was stiff.

The page program is open to all Minnesota high school students in their junior year. A formal application process occurs each fall.

Edwins' social studies teacher, Rich Johnson, told him about the opportunity.

"He was one of about four students Superintendent Parks and I took to see Sen. Amy Klobuchar and several others speak in Park Rapids last fall about rural development," Johnson recalled.

Edwins applied last November, submitting the required paperwork and a 500-word essay.

Impressed with Edwins' aptitude and interest in social studies, Johnson wrote a letter of recommendation.

"He has an excellent historical knowledge base, an excellent understanding of political science and shows a deep interest in history and politics, so I thought it was a perfect fit," Johnson said.

"Few students, much less teenagers, focus on these issues and are largely apathetic towards the gargantuan topic that is politics until this rather contentious and controversial election," Edwins wrote in his essay. "My wish is to attend this program to gain a new perspective and the learning process that comes with it, to continue to pursue my interest in government and the rest of the world, and finally to work towards any goal I set in my career and personal life."

In December, he learned that he was accepted.

"It seems he really enjoyed it," Johnson said.

During the first week of April, Edwins experienced the legislative process firsthand by assisting members in the House Chamber.

"The majority of our time was spent on the House floor during sessions," he said. "Our week was the busiest. We spent 30 hours on the House floor."

Pages deliver copies of bill and other legislative material for instance, vote counts on amendments or letters from other House members to representatives.

"It was pretty complex. We had a lot of rules we had to follow. But our main job was just to accommodate the representatives, so that meant handing out papers, delivering messages from constituents as well as whatever else they needed," Edwins explained.

A lot of controversial bills were discussed during his week at the Capitol.

One bill that stood out in particular was entitled HF390. It's the bill that imposed restrictions on protesters by increasing penalties for obstruction of trunk highways or airports.

"It was pretty controversial. That was on the first day. That session lasted around 13 hours."

Some sessions have lasted until 7 a.m. the next day, Edwins noted, adding that could be due to filibusters, extensive debate or the need to discuss numerous details.

Pages, however, strictly worked from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to noon on Friday.

"We actually couldn't spend much time paying attention to the debate because we were always moving," he said.

The pages also attended a committee session, then held a mock one. They choose to debate the merits of HF390.

Prior to the mock committee session, Edwin and his cohorts spent two hours in the House research library, studying the issue and preparing their arguments.

The decision was split 4-4 among pages, but the state Legislature passed the bill.

Working on the House floor held some surprises.

"I was pretty surprised when I saw a lot of representatives on their phones or tablets or laptops playing games. By the end of the week, I realized it was justified. Through every bill, depending on how many committees it went through and what was discussed, they've probably heard all those debates five or six times," Edwins said. "By the time they walk in there, they already know how they are voting. To be fair, the sessions are mainly for TV and the formality of actually conducting the vote."

Throughout the course of his week at the Capitol, Edwins had a scheduled, one-on-one interview with his district representatives, including District 2B Rep. Steve Green.

He also met a state senator, the Speaker of the House, the Minnesota Secretary of State and Gov. Dayton.

The pages gathered in the Governor's personal office.

"That was pretty interesting," Edwins said. "None of the other pages would get the opportunity to do that. It was a very, very lucky break like, he had 10 free minutes."

Edwins previously encountered the Governor at the 2013 Fishing Opener in Park Rapids

"I already had a positive opinion of the Governor and meeting him just kind of elevated that," he said. "He is pretty pragmatic."

He was unimpressed by his fellow pages, which he describes as "lazy." The majority of them lived within 30 minutes of the Capitol building, while Edwins stayed at a hotel two blocks away.

Edwins was the sole page from northern Minnesota that week.

Although recognizing flaws in the legislative system, Edwins says the Capitol experience has heightened his interest in politics.

In his free time, the political aficionado researches both past and current ideologies.

"I spend a lot of my time studying politics, economics and the history of other nations. I do plan on going into politics, or at the very least, majoring in political science," he said. "I picked up this interest about a year ago. I've always had an interest in large, societal issues, like history, but that really boosted once I read some political books my dad had."

He has read Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto," Charles Dickens and Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged," among others.

With his keen interest in diplomacy, Edwins regularly reads newspapers and tracks international events the Middle East, Russia and Syria, in particular.

He attempted to learn the Russian language, but it proved too challenging.

During the 2016 general election, he served as an election official.

Edwin describes his political leanings as "a combination of socially authoritarian views, not necessarily conservative, as well as holding left economic views. So it's very comparable to social democracy or democratic socialism, kind of in that range."

"His teachers and I are very proud of him," says mom Carmen Arellano.

Read more here:

Mr. Edwins goes to St. Paul - Park Rapids Enterprise

On May 15, 2007, Congressman Ron Paul stood on a Republican presidential debate stage ideologically alone in his party due to his opposition to the Iraq War and constant criticisms of George W. Bush.

At the time, few people had ever heard of Ron Paul. He was an asterisk at best.

The man of the moment back then was former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the presidential frontrunner whose national popularity had exploded post-911, and who was also Republican hawks favored candidate to continue the war on terror narrative that defined the Bush-Cheney era GOP.

That night, Paul challenged that narrative.

RELATED:Libertarians are flexing their political muscle

Paul argued that constant U.S. intervention in the Middle East had created more terrorists than it killed, and emboldened extremists like those who carried out 9/11.

Giuliani replied to Paul, Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir?

Paul had not said that. The congressman had simply described how U.S. foreign policy actions can have unintended negative consequences, or what the CIA calls blowback, a term Paul also mentioned.

Giuliani dug at Paul, Thats an extraordinary statement, as somebody who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq.

I dont think Ive ever heard that before, and Ive heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11, Giuliani said.

The audience erupted in applause. Giuliani demanded Paul apologize, I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us he didnt really mean that.

Paul didnt flinch. He continued to explain to a wholly resistant audience how American foreign policy had made the country less safe, enraging his party but also, as would be discovered later, intriguing and inspiring many.

It was a watershed moment.

The American Conservatives Jim Antle observed in his 2012 essay Who Killed Rudy Giuliani?, The optics were poor: a little-known congressman was standing against the GOP frontrunner on an issue where 90 percent of the party likely disagreed with him. Predictably, there came calls from prominent Republicans over the next few days to exclude Paul from future debates and even throw him out of the party.

But then something surprising happened: the encounter helped galvanize a movement behind Paul while Giulianis campaign died a slow, painful death, Antle wrote.

Ron Paul ended up beating Giuliani in almost every 2008 primary and caucus, and the congressman ended his presidential campaign with more than one million votes. Paul would double that number to two million when he ran for president again in 2012. Giuliani received less than 600,000 votes in 2008, dropped out after the Florida primary and did not run in 2012.

It is not hard to make the case that the only significant thing the 2008 Republican primaries produced was Ron Pauls enduring political imprint.

Born from Pauls presidential runs was a not-so-small army of activists, organizations, politicians and fellow travelers who branded themselves the liberty movement. There had always been a libertarian movement in the U.S., but this new and less marginal force would now flex political muscle and its adherents would continue to help popularize the philosophy more than ever (Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged sold more copies in the years Ron Paul ran for president than it ever had before in its nearly six decade run).

Today, instead of just Ron Paul against the world, there is a libertarian faction within the Republican Party led by Pauls own son, Senator Rand Paul. The increasingly influential House Freedom Caucus features the most libertarian Republicans in Congress. Young Americans for Libertyformerly Students for Ron Paultoday is the largest center-right youth activist organization in the country, dwarfing College Republicans.

Most importantly, debates over core liberty issues like limited government (particularly the effort to audit the Federal Reserve), civil liberties, criminal justice reformand yes, foreign policyhave widened significantly to include the libertarian perspective at a mainstream level, particularly within the Republican Party.

Including, ironically, at the top of the Republican Party.

Throughout 2016, Donald Trump blasted the Iraq War and President George W. Bush more angrily than anything Ron Paul ever exhibited; including saying U.S. foreign policy was directly responsible for creating ISIS.

Was Trump, too, blaming America for radical Islamic terrorism? Rudy Giuliani never asked his friend Donald for an apology. Instead Rudy endorsed him.

RELATED:Who are we? | The liberty movement in the Trump era

Unfortunately, President Trumps foreign policy has not matched his rhetoric, but the mere fact that he was elected exposing the same flawsofAmericas way of war that Ron Paul once tried to get Republicans to see does show how much our politics has shifted in the last decade.

Rudy Giuliani unknowingly helped create an important moment ten years ago.

But Ron Paul sparked a movement.

Disclosure: I co-authored Senator Rand Pauls 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington and workedfor Ron Pauls 2012 presidential campaign.

Read this article:

Happy 10-year birthday to the liberty movement | Rare - Rare.us

Jack Lessenberry for Monday, May 15.

Tommy Brann, a freshman state representative from Wyoming, a West Michigan town near Grand Rapids, isnt someone who puts on airs. Hes passionate about public service and proud to be part of the legislature, but still thinks of himself as Tommy the Restaurant Guy.

In fact, he spent Mothers Day working at Branns Steakhouse and Grill, the restaurant he started when he was 19, not long after he graduated from East Grand Rapids High School. That was in 1971, and hes been at it since, building a business.

Three years ago he filed to run for a state senate seat, but pulled out almost immediately when he decided it was over his head. He told a reporter he couldnt even pronounce the name of one of the towns in the district.

But last fall, he decided he was ready for the state house, and won an open seat by a landslide. He told me he wanted to get into politics because he didnt think many lawmakers in either party understood how difficult it was to run a small business.

Some of his ideas, including a college course on free enterprise that would use Atlas Shrugged as a textbook, are a bit outside the mainstream.

But he introduced a bill last week that may resonate with both conservatives and liberals. Brann wants much harsher penalties for those who are convicted of torturing or killing a pet, or companion animal.

If passed, his bills, HB 4332 and 4333, would mean you could get up to ten years in jail for killing someones pet dog. Frankly, as someone owned by a dog, my first reaction was that this is great, but these penalties arent nearly harsh enough.

That doesnt mean Brann likes punishing people. He is, as far as I can tell, sort of a quintessential nice guy, who is quietly giving away half his legislative salary to help people in his district, and whose voice still catches when he talks about Howie, the Labrador Retriever mix he lost to old age a short time ago.

He was a member of our family, he told me. I knew what he meant.

Brann wants this mainly to serve as a deterrent.

He told me that about twenty years ago, some young women came into his restaurant and sat in a booth. And I heard one of them say, if you want to get revenge on somebody, kill their dog, he said. That shook Brann up. Later, he heard of a divorce case where an angry man slit the throat of his wifes horse, and ended up with a slap on the wrist and a small fine. Its not right, he said.

Whether his bill gets any traction is hard to say. Its before the Law and Justice committee now, and he has both Republican and Democratic co-sponsors. He told me hes gotten support from the Humane Society and the Wayne County Prosecutors office.

But he told me that some of his colleagues were having a hard time seeing just what was so special about a dog or a cat. Well, there are about fifty million Americans that could tell them.

As for me, next time Im in the area, I think Ill go to Tommy Branns for dinner.

Jack Lessenberry is Michigan Radio's senior news analyst. Views expressed in his essays are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Michigan Radio, its management or the station licensee, The University of Michigan.

Read the original post:

Looking out for our animals - Michigan Radio

There has been a surge of interest in the writings of Ayn Rand in the last decade, including from Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, President Donald Trump and several members of his cabinet.

Some may fancy themselves in the heroic image of the self-sufficient and morally superior characters of Rand's two most popular novels, The Fountain Head and Atlas Shrugged,without truly embracing or understanding her extreme philosophy. Rand makes it sound pretty good on the surface:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Below the surface it goes like this: Government has a minimal role in our lives. We don't take handouts, nor do we pay taxes to the federal government. Our responsibility is to ourselves and to maintain the abilities that will bring us success and wealth of riches. It is in our self interest to hold the highest standards and ethics. We rise and fall on our own. No Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no government regulations. On the flip side, reproductive and marriage rights for all, no racism, open borders, legal marijuana.

The problem is we don't live in a free-market economy where everyone has the same opportunities and reason trumps emotion (or politics). Are we willing to live in a Randian society?

GUESTS:

You can join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter.

Colin McEnroe and Chion Wolf contributed to this show, which originally aired on January 26, 2017.

See the rest here:

The Enduring Legacy Of Ayn Rand - WNPR News

INTRODUCTION

Ayn Rand held that art is a re-creation of reality according to an artists metaphysical value judgments. By its nature, therefore, a novel (like a statue or a symphony) does not require or tolerate an explanatory preface; it is a self-contained universe, aloof from commentary, beckoning the reader to enter, perceive, respond.

Ayn Rand would never have approved of a didactic (or laudatory) introduction to her book, and I have no intention of flouting her wishes. Instead, I am going to give her the floor. I am going to let you in on some of the thinking she did as she was preparing to write Atlas Shrugged.

Before starting a novel, Ayn Rand wrote voluminously in her journals about its theme, plot, and characters. She wrote not for any audience, but strictly for herselfthat is, for the clarity of her own understanding. The journals dealing withAtlas Shruggedare powerful examples of her mind in action, confident even when groping, purposeful even when stymied, luminously eloquent even though wholly unedited. These journals are also a fascinating record of the step-by-step birth of an immortal work of art.

In due course, all of Ayn Rands writings will be published. For this 35th anniversary edition ofAtlas Shrugged,however, I have selected, as a kind of advance bonus for her fans, four typical journal entries. Let me warn new readers that the passages reveal the plot and will spoil the book for anyone who reads them before knowing the story.

As I recall, Atlas Shrugged did not become the novels title until Miss Rands husband made the suggestion in 1956. The working title throughout the writing was The Strike.

The earliest of Miss Rands notes for The Strike are dated January 1, 1945, about a year after the publication ofThe Fountainhead.Naturally enough, the subject on her mind was how to differentiate the present novel from its predecessor.

Theme. What happens to the world when the Prime Movers go on strike.

This meansa picture of the world with its motor cut off. Show: what, how, why. The specific steps and incidentsin terms of persons, their spirits, motives, psychology and actionsand, secondarily, proceeding from persons, in terms of history, society and the world.

The theme requires: to show who are the prime movers and why, how they function. Who are their enemies and why, what are the motives behind the hatred for and the enslavement of the prime movers; the nature of the obstacles placed in their way, and the reasons for it.

This last paragraph is contained entirely inThe Fountainhead.Roark and Toohey are the complete statement of it. Therefore, this is not the direct theme ofThe Strikebut it is part of the theme and must be kept in mind, stated again (though briefly) to have the theme clear and complete.

First question to decide is on whom the emphasis must be placedon the prime movers, the parasites or the world. The answer is:The world.The story must be primarily a picture of the whole.

In this sense,The Strikeis to be much more a social novel thanThe Fountainhead. The Fountainheadwas about individualism and collectivism within mans soul; it showed the nature and function of the creator and the second-hander. The primary concern there was with Roark and Tooheyshowing what they are. The rest of the characters were variations of the theme of the relation of the ego to othersmixtures of the two extremes, the two poles: Roark and Toohey. The primary concern of the story was the characters, the people as suchtheirnatures. Their relations to each otherwhich is society, men in relation to menwere secondary, an unavoidable, direct consequence of Roark set against Toohey. But it was not the theme.

Now, it is thisrelationthat must be the theme. Therefore, the personal becomes secondary. That is, the personal is necessary only to the extent needed to make the relationships clear. InThe FountainheadI showed that Roark moves the worldthat the Keatings feed upon him and hate him for it, while the Tooheys are out consciously to destroy him. But the theme was Roarknot Roarks relation to the world. Now it will be the relation.

In other words, I must show in what concrete, specific way the world is moved by the creators. Exactlyhowdo the second-handers live on the creators. Both inspiritualmattersand (most particularly) in concrete, physical events. (Concentrate on the concrete, physical eventsbut dont forget to keep in mind at all times how the physical proceeds from the spiritual.) . . .

However, for the purpose of this story, I do not start by showinghowthe second-handers live on the prime movers in actual, everyday realitynor do I start by showing a normal world. (That comes in only in necessary retrospect, or flashback, or by implication in the events themselves.) I start with the fantastic premise of the prime movers going on strike.This is the actual heart and center of the novel. A distinction carefully to be observed here: I do not set out to glorify the prime mover (that was The Fountainhead). I set out to show how desperately the world needs prime movers, and how viciously it treats them. And I show it on a hypothetical casewhat happens to the world without them.

InThe FountainheadI did not show how desperately the world needed Roarkexcept by implication. I did show how viciously the world treated him, and why. I showedmainly what he is.It was Roarks story. This must be the worlds storyin relation to its prime movers. (Almostthe story of a body in relation to its hearta body dying of anemia.)

I dont show directly what the prime movers dothats shown only by implication. Ishow what happens when they dont do it.(Through that, you see the picture of what they do, their place and their role.) (This is an important guide for the construction of the story.)

In order to work out the story, Ayn Rand had to understand fully why the prime moversallowedthe second-handers to live on themwhy the creators had not gone on strike throughout historywhat errors even the best of them made that kept them in thrall to the worst. Part of the answer is dramatized in the character of Dagny Taggart, the railroad heiress who declares war on the strikers. Here is a note on her psychology, dated April 18, 1946:

Her errorand the cause of her refusal to join the strikeis over-optimism and over-confidence (particularly this last). Over-optimismin that she thinks men are better than they are, she doesnt really understand them and is generous about it.

Over-confidencein that she thinks she can do more than an individual actually can. She thinks she can run a railroad (or the world) single-handed, she can make people do what she wants or needs, what is right, by the sheer force of her own talent; not byforcingthem, of course, not by enslaving them and giving ordersbut by the sheer over-abundance of her own energy; she will show them how, she can teach them and persuade them, she is so able that theyll catch it from her. (This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.)

On these two points, Dagny is committing an important (but excusable and understandable) error in thinking, the kind of error individualists and creators often make. It is an error proceeding from the best in their nature and from a proper principle, but this principle is misapplied. . . .

The error is this: it is proper for a creator to be optimistic, in the deepest, most basic sense, since the creator believes in a benevolent universe and functions on that premise. But it is an error to extend that optimism to otherspecificmen. First, its not necessary, the creators life and the nature of the universe do not require it, his life does not depend on others. Second, man is a being with free will; therefore, each man is potentially good or evil, and its up to him and only to him (through his reasoning mind) to decide which he wants to be. The decision will affect only him; it is not (and cannot and should not be) the primary concern of any other human being.

Therefore, while a creator does and must worshipMan(which means his own highest potentiality; which is his natural self-reverence), he must not make the mistake of thinking that this means the necessity to worshipMankind(as a collective). These are two entirely different conceptions, with entirely(immensely and diametrically opposed)different consequences.

Man, at his highest potentiality, is realized and fulfilled within each creator himself. . . .Whether the creator is alone, or finds only a handful of others like him, or is among the majority of mankind, is of no importance or consequence whatever; numbers have nothing to do with it. He alone or he and a few others like himaremankind, in the proper sense of being the proof of what man actually is, man at his best, the essential man, man at his highest possibility. (Therationalbeing, who acts according to his nature.)

It should not matter to a creator whether anyone or a million orallthe men around him fall short of the ideal of Man; let him live up to that ideal himself; this is all the optimism about Man that he needs. But this is a hard and subtle thing to realizeand it would be natural for Dagny always to make the mistake of believing others are better than they really are (or will become better, or she will teach them to become better or, actually, she so desperatelywantsthem to be better)and to be tied to the world by that hope.

It is proper for a creator to have an unlimited confidence in himself and his ability, to feel certain that he can get anything he wishes out of life, that he can accomplish anything he decides to accomplish, and that its up to him to do it. (He feels it because he is a man of reason . . .) [But] here is what he must keep clearly in mind: it is true that a creator can accomplish anything he wishesif he functions according to the nature of man, the universe and his own proper morality, that is, if he does not place his wish primarily within others and does not attempt or desire anything that is of a collective nature, anything that concerns othersprimarilyor requires primarily the exercise of the will of others. (This would be an immoraldesire or attempt, contrary to his nature as a creator.) If he attempts that, he is out of a creators province and in that of the collectivist and the second-hander.

Therefore, he must never feel confident that he can do anything whatever to, by or through others. (He cantand he shouldnt even wish to try itand the mere attempt is improper.) He must not think that he can . . . somehow transfer his energy and his intelligence to them and make them fit for his purposes in that way. He must face other men as they are, recognizing them as essentially independent entities, by nature, and beyond hisprimaryinfluence; [he must] deal with them only on his own, independent terms, deal with such as he judges can fit his purpose or live up to his standards (by themselves and of their own will, independently of him) and expect nothing from the others. . . .

Now, in Dagnys case, her desperate desire is to run Taggart Transcontinental. She sees that there are no men suited to her purpose around her, no men of ability, independence and competence. She thinks she can run it with others, with the incompetent and the parasites, either by training them or merely by treating them as robots who will take her orders and function without personal initiative or responsibility;with herself, in effect, being the spark of initiative, the bearer of responsibility for a whole collective.This cant be done. This is her crucial error.

This is where she fails.

Ayn Rands basic purpose as a novelist was to present not villains or even heroes with errors, but the ideal manthe consistent, the fully integrated, the perfect. InAtlas Shrugged,this is John Galt, the towering figure who moves the world and the novel, yet does not appear onstage until Part III. By his nature (and that of the story) Galt is necessarily central to the lives of all the characters. In one note, Galts relation to the others, dated June 27, 1946, Miss Rand defines succinctly what Galt represents to each of them:

For Dagnythe ideal. The answer to her two quests: the man of genius and the man she loves. The first quest is expressed in her search for the inventor of the engine. The secondher growing conviction that she will never be in love . . .

For Reardenthe friend. The kind of understanding and appreciation he has always wanted and did not know he wanted (or he thought he had ithe tried to find it in those around him, to get it from his wife, his mother, brother and sister).

For Francisco dAnconiathe aristocrat. The only man who represents a challenge and a stimulantalmost the proper kind of audience, worthy of stunning for the sheer joy and color of life.

For Danneskjldthe anchor. The only man who represents land and roots to a restless, reckless wanderer, like the goal of a struggle, the port at the end of a fierce sea-voyagethe only man he can respect.

For the Composerthe inspiration and the perfect audience.

For the Philosopherthe embodiment of his abstractions.

For Father Amadeusthe source of his conflict. The uneasy realization that Galt is the endofhis endeavors, the man of virtue, the perfect manand that his means do not fit this end (and that he is destroying this, his ideal, for the sake of those who are evil).

To James Taggartthe eternal threat. The secret dread. The reproach. The guilt (his own guilt). He has no specific tie-in with Galtbut he has that constant, causeless, unnamed, hysterical fear. And he recognizes it when he hears Galts broadcast and when he sees Galt in person for the first time.

To the Professorhis conscience. The reproach and reminder. The ghost that haunts him through everything he does, without a moments peace. The thing that says:Noto his whole life.

Some notes on the above: Reardens sister, Stacy, was a minor character later cut from the novel.

Francisco was spelled Francesco in these early years, while Danneskjlds first name at this point was Ivar, presumably after Ivar Kreuger, the Swedish match king, who was the real-life model of Bjorn Faulkner inNight of January 16th.

Father Amadeus was Taggarts priest, to whom he confessed his sins. The priest was supposed to be a positive character, honestly devoted to the good but practicing consistently the morality of mercy. Miss Rand dropped him, she told me, when she found that it was impossible to make such a character convincing.

The Professor is Robert Stadler.

This brings me to a final excerpt. Because of her passion for ideas, Miss Rand was often asked whether she was primarily a philosopher or a novelist. In later years, she was impatient with this question, but she gave her own answer, to and for herself, in a note dated May 4, 1946. The broader context was a discussion of the nature of creativity.

I seem to be both a theoretical philosopher and a fiction writer. But it is the last that interests me most; the first is only the means to the last; the absolutely necessary means, but only the means; the fiction story is the end. Without an understanding and statement of the right philosophical principle, I cannot create the right story; but the discovery of the principle interests me only as the discovery of the proper knowledge to be used for my life purpose; and my life purpose is the creation of the kind of world (people and events) that I likethat is, that represents human perfection.

Philosophical knowledge is necessary in order to define human perfection. But I do not care to stop at the definition. I want touseit, to apply itin my work (in my personal life, toobut the core, center and purpose of my personal life, of mywholelife, is my work).

This is why, I think, the idea of writing a philosophical nonfiction book bored me. In such a book, the purpose would actually be to teach others, to present my idea tothem.In a book of fiction the purpose is to create, for myself, the kind of world I want and to live in it while I am creating it; then, as a secondary consequence, to let others enjoy this world, if, and to the extent that they can.

It may be said that the first purpose of a philosophical book is the clarification or statement of your new knowledge to and for yourself; and then, as a secondary step, the offering of your knowledge to others. But here is the difference, as far as I am concerned: I have to acquire and state to myself the new philosophical knowledge or principle I used in order to write a fiction story as its embodiment and illustration; I do not care to write a story on a theme or thesis of old knowledge, knowledge stated or discovered by someone else, that is, someone elses philosophy (because those philosophies are wrong). To this extent, I am an abstract philosopher (I want to present the perfect man and his perfect lifeand I must also discover my own philosophical statement and definition of this perfection).

But when and if I have discovered such new knowledge, I am not interested in stating it in its abstract, general form, that is, as knowledge. I am interested in using it, in applying itthat is, in stating it in the concrete form of men and events, in the form of a fiction story.This lastis my final purpose, my end; the philosophical knowledge or discovery is only the means to it. For my purpose, the non-fiction form of abstract knowledge doesnt interest me; the final, applied form of fiction, of story, does. (I state the knowledge to myself, anyway; but I choose the final form of it, the expression, in the completed cycle that leads back to man.)

I wonder to what extent I represent a peculiar phenomenon in this respect. I think I represent the proper integration of a complete human being. Anyway,thisshould be my lead for the character of John Galt.He, too, is a combination of an abstract philosopher and a practical inventor; the thinker and the man of action together . . .

In learning, we draw an abstraction from concrete objects and events. In creating, we make our own concrete objects and events out of the abstraction; we bring the abstraction down and back to its specific meaning, to the concrete; but the abstraction has helped us to make thekind of concrete we want the concrete to be.It has helped us to createto reshape the world as we wish it to be for our purposes.

I cannot resist quoting one further paragraph. It comes a few pages later in the same discussion.

Incidentally, as a sideline observation: if creative fiction writing is a process of translating an abstraction into the concrete, there are three possible grades of such writing: translating an old (known) abstraction (theme or thesis) through the medium of old fiction means (that is, characters, events or situations used before for that same purpose, that same translation)this is most of the popular trash; translating an old abstraction through new, original fiction meansthis is most of the good literature; creating a new, original abstraction and translating it through new, original means. This, as far as I know, is onlyme my kind of fiction writing. May God forgive me (Metaphor!) if this is mistaken conceit! As near as I can now see it, it isnt. (A fourth possibilitytranslating a new abstraction through old meansis impossible, by definition: if the abstraction is new, there can be no means used by anybody else before to translate it.)

Isher conclusion mistaken conceit? It is now forty-five years since she wrote this note, and you are holding Ayn Rands master-work in your hands.

You decide.

Leonard Peikoff

September 1991

PART ONE

NON-CONTRADICTION

Chapter I

THE THEME

Who is John Galt?

The light was ebbing, and Eddie Willers could not distinguish the bums face. The bum had said it simply, without expression. But from the sunset far at the end of the street, yellow glints caught his eyes, and the eyes looked straight at Eddie Willers, mocking and stillas if the question had been addressed to the causeless uneasiness within him.

Why did you say that? asked Eddie Willers, his voice tense.

The bum leaned against the side of the doorway; a wedge of broken glass behind him reflected the metal yellow of the sky.

Why does it bother you? he asked.

It doesnt, snapped Eddie Willers.

He reached hastily into his pocket. The bum had stopped him and asked for a dime, then had gone on talking, as if to kill that moment and postpone the problem of the next. Pleas for dimes were so frequent in the streets these days that it was not necessary to listen to explanations and he had no desire to hear the details of this bums particular despair.

Go get your cup of coffee, he said, handing the dime to the shadow that had no face.

Thank you, sir, said the voice, without interest, and the face leaned forward for a moment. The face was wind-browned, cut by lines of weariness and cynical resignation; the eyes were intelligent.

Eddie Willers walked on, wondering why he always felt it at this time of day, this sense of dread without reason. No, he thought, not dread, theres nothing to fear: just an immense, diffused apprehension, with no source or object. He had become accustomed to the feeling, but he could find no explanation for it; yet the bum had spoken as if he knew that Eddie felt it, as if he thought that one should feel it, and more: as if he knew the reason.

Eddie Willers pulled his shoulders straight, in conscientious self-discipline. He had to stop this, he thought; he was beginning to imagine things. Had he always felt it? He was thirty-two years old. He tried to think back. No, he hadnt; but he could not remember when it had started. The feeling came to him suddenly, at random intervals, and now it was coming more often than ever. Its the twilight, he thought; I hate the twilight.

The clouds and the shafts of skyscrapers against them were turning brown, like an old painting in oil, the color of a fading masterpiece. Long streaks of grime ran from under the pinnacles down the slender, soot-eaten walls. High on the side of a tower there was a crack in the shape of a motionless lightning, the length of ten stories. A jagged object cut the sky above the roofs; it was half a spire, still holding the glow of the sunset; the gold leaf had long since peeled off the other half. The glow was red and still, like the reflection of a fire: not an active fire, but a dying one which it is too late to stop.

No, thought Eddie Willers, there was nothing disturbing in the sight of the city. It looked as it had always looked.

He walked on, reminding himself that he was late in returning to the office. He did not like the task which he had to perform on his return, but it had to be done. So he did not attempt to delay it, but made himself walk faster.

He turned a corner. In the narrow space between the dark silhouettes of two buildings, as in the crack of a door, he saw the page of a gigantic calendar suspended in the sky.

It was the calendar that the mayor of New York had erected last year on the top of a building, so that citizens might tell the day of the month as they told the hours of the day, by glancing up at a public tower. A white rectangle hung over the city, imparting the date to the men in the streets below. In the rusty light of this evenings sunset, the rectangle said: September 2.

Eddie Willers looked away. He had never liked the sight of that calendar. It disturbed him, in a manner he could not explain or define. The feeling seemed to blend with his sense of uneasiness; it had the same quality.

He thought suddenly that there was some phrase, a kind of quotation, that expressed what the calendar seemed to suggest. But he could not recall it. He walked, groping for a sentence that hung in his mind as an empty shape. He could neither fill it nor dismiss it. He glanced back. The white rectangle stood above the roofs, saying in immovable finality: September 2.

Eddie Willers shifted his glance down to the street, to a vegetable pushcart at the stoop of a brownstone house. He saw a pile of bright gold carrots and the fresh green of onions. He saw a clean white curtain blowing at an open window. He saw a bus turning a corner, expertly steered. He wondered why he felt reassuredand then, why he felt the sudden, inexplicable wish that these things were not left in the open, unprotected against the empty space above.

When he came to Fifth Avenue, he kept his eyes on the windows of the stores he passed. There was nothing he needed or wished to buy; but he liked to see the display of goods, any goods, objects made by men, to be used by men. He enjoyed the sight of a prosperous street; not more than every fourth one of the stores was out of business, its windows dark and empty.

He did not know why he suddenly thought of the oak tree. Nothing had recalled it. But he thought of itand of his childhood summers on the Taggart estate. He had spent most of his childhood with the Taggart children, and now he worked for them, as his father and grandfather had worked for their father and grandfather.

The great oak tree had stood on a hill over the Hudson, in a lonely spot on the Taggart estate. Eddie Willers, aged seven, liked to come and look at that tree. It had stood there for hundreds of years, and he thought it would always stand there. Its roots clutched the hill like a fist with fingers sunk into the soil, and he thought that if a giant were to seize it by the top, he would not be able to uproot it, but would swing the hill and the whole of the earth with it, like a ball at the end of a string. He felt safe in the oak trees presence; it was a thing that nothing could change or threaten; it was his greatest symbol of strength.

One night, lightning struck the oak tree. Eddie saw it the next morning. It lay broken in half, and he looked into its trunk as into the mouth of a black tunnel. The trunk was only an empty shell; its heart had rotted away long ago; there was nothing insidejust a thin gray dust that was being dispersed by the whim of the faintest wind. The living power had gone, and the shape it left had not been able to stand without it.

Years later, he heard it said that children should be protected from shock, from their first knowledge of death, pain or fear. But these had never scarred him; his shock came when he stood very quietly, looking into the black hole of the trunk. It was an immense betrayalthe more terrible because he could not grasp what it was that had been betrayed. It was not himself, he knew, nor his trust; it was something else. He stood there for a while, making no sound, then he walked back to the house. He never spoke about it to anyone, then or since.

Eddie Willers shook his head, as the screech of a rusty mechanism changing a traffic light stopped him on the edge of a curb. He felt anger at himself. There was no reason that he had to remember the oak tree tonight. It meant nothing to him any longer, only a faint tinge of sadnessand somewhere within him, a drop of pain moving briefly and vanishing, like a raindrop on the glass of a window, its course in the shape of a question mark.

He wanted no sadness attached to his childhood; he loved its memories: any day of it he remembered now seemed flooded by a still, brilliant sunlight. It seemed to him as if a few rays from it reached into his present: not rays, more like pinpoint spotlights that gave an occasional moments glitter to his job, to his lonely apartment, to the quiet, scrupulous progression of his existence.

He thought of a summer day when he was ten years old. That day, in a clearing of the woods, the one precious companion of his childhood told him what they would do when they grew up. The words were harsh and glowing, like the sunlight. He listened in admiration and in wonder. When he was asked what he would want to do, he answered at once, Whatever is right, and added, You ought to do something great . . . I mean, the two of us together. What? she asked. He said, I dont know. Thats what we ought to find out. Not just what you said. Not just business and earning a living. Things like winning battles, or saving people out of fires, or climbing mountains. What for? she asked. He said, The minister said last Sunday that we must always reach for the best within us. What do you suppose is the best within us? I dont know. Well have to find out. She did not answer; she was looking away, up the railroad track.

Eddie Willers smiled. He had said, Whatever is right, twenty-two years ago. He had kept that statement unchallenged ever since; the other questions had faded in his mind; he had been too busy to ask them. But he still thought it self-evident that one had to do what was right; he had never learned how people could want to do otherwise; he had learned only that they did. It still seemed simple and incomprehensible to him: simple that things should be right, and incomprehensible that they werent. He knew that they werent. He thought of that, as he turned a corner and came to the great building of Taggart Transcontinental.

The building stood over the street as its tallest and proudest structure. Eddie Willers always smiled at his first sight of it. Its long bands of windows were unbroken, in contrast to those of its neighbors. Its rising lines cut the sky, with no crumbling corners or worn edges. It seemed to stand above the years, untouched. It would always stand there, thought Eddie Willers.

Whenever he entered the Taggart Building, he felt relief and a sense of security. This was a place of competence and power. The floors of its hallways were mirrors made of marble. The frosted rectangles of its electric fixtures were chips of solid light. Behind sheets of glass, rows of girls sat at typewriters, the clicking of their keys like the sound of speeding train wheels. And like an answering echo, a faint shudder went through the walls at times, rising from under the building, from the tunnels of the great terminal where trains started out to cross a continent and stopped after crossing it again, as they had started and stopped for generation after generation. Taggart Transcontinental, thought Eddie Willers, From Ocean to Oceanthe proud slogan of his childhood, so much more shining and holy than any commandment of the Bible. From Ocean to Ocean, foreverthought Eddie Willers, in the manner of a rededication, as he walked through the spotless halls into the heart of the building, into the office of James Taggart, President of Taggart Transcontinental.

James Taggart sat at his desk. He looked like a man approaching fifty, who had crossed into age from adolescence, without the intermediate stage of youth. He had a small, petulant mouth, and thin hair clinging to a bald forehead. His posture had a limp, decentralized sloppiness, as if in defiance of his tall, slender body, a body with an elegance of line intended for the confident poise of an aristocrat, but transformed into the gawkiness of a lout. The flesh of his face was pale and soft. His eyes were pale and veiled, with a glance that moved slowly, never quite stopping, gliding off and past things in eternal resentment of their existence. He looked obstinate and drained. He was thirty-nine years old.

He lifted his head with irritation, at the sound of the opening door.

See more here:

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff |, Paperback ...

As ObamaCare predictably collapses and the Senate decides how to vote on the House repeal, here is a column I wrote in March, 2010:

Obama says we have been debating the Obamacare bill for a year, and now its time to ram it through in a down or up yours vote. Democrats view this bill as a cure-all elixir, Republicans view it as a suppository.

In the first tough interview of his presidency, he told Fox News that we would know what is in the bill 72 hours before the House tries to pass it. Obama seemed frustrated that the vast majority of the country is against his bill. It turns out that president-ing is harder than community organizing.

Well worth reading, the Obama Administration was foretold in Atlas Shrugged, which is 1,300 pages long. It took me two weeks to read and it was well-written. This health care reform bill runs 2,000-plus pages and is written in cryptic Washington-speak. No one understands it. It feels like we are getting the last-minute hard sell, like the one from a car salesman when he gets you in that little room with the closing guy, starts shoving documents at you to sign, and tells you not to worry your pretty little head over it.

What we saw in the past year was the Democrats having to bribe, using our tax dollars, their own supermajority party to pass this massive takeover of one-sixth of our economy. President Obama said all aspects of the bill are agreed upon except, of course, minor details like how to pay for it, whether it covers illegal immigrants, and how to cover more than 30 million more people who currently do not have health insurance, all without adding doctors and/or rationing care. Other than that, Pelosi and Reid seem to have it done.

Since our representatives have not read the bill, I will not read the bill for you and tell you what it says.

1. On the issue of how we are going to cover the predicted 30 million-plus new ObamaCare enrollees, Dr. Ahmed Patel of Manhattan, Kansas has agreed to see these patients. While he readily admits Manhattan was not quite the place he saw in the pictures before he moved to our country three years ago, he thinks the additional 30 million patients will be good for his business. He says hes centrally located in Kansas, making him convenient to all Americans, and is willing to expand his waiting room.

2. There is a provision in the bill to hire all Democrats booted out of office because they voted for this bill. Where? In the government monstrosity they just created. As Representative Billy Tauzin of the politically honest state of Louisiana found out when he championed the Bush Medicare prescription drug entitlement disaster, there are $2 million-a-year jobs with pharmaceutical companies waiting for you once you leave Congress (a.k.a. the scene of the crime).

3. Obama has promised not to stump for Democrats who vote for this bill. Political pundits and the Congressional Budget Office score this as being worth 12 points for any Democrat who can keep Obama out of his district.

4. One of the more egregious deceits of ObamaCare is that it front-loads the goodies: Adults up to age 26 and preexisting conditions would be immediately covered. Costs and regulations were pushed to the back end, 2017, when Obama is gone. Simple economics tells us that you cannot get something for free. Premiums and deductibles will rise as insurance companies price in all the government mandates. ObamaCare seems like a flimsy hospital gown; you seem to be covered up front, but youre very exposed from the rear.

5. Obamas Julius Caesar haircut should serve as fair warning of his ultimate goal; making sure this idea blows up and forcing us to single payer. As you know, Julius Caesar overthrew the Roman Republic in a series of bold power grabs and set in motion the end of the once-proud Roman Empire. Consider yourself notified. Entitlements, once given, are hard to take away.

6. The South will not buy into Obamacare. Since we Southerners value our self-reliance, southern governors will continue to fight this law. Keep in mind, we still do Civil War re-enactments and thats for a war we lost.

Read the rest here:

HART: ObamaCare Bill: A game of hide and seek - Odessa American

Southern Charm Savannah? This is how we represent Savannah? How embarrassing.

After the testimony of Sally Yates, the Tweeter in Chief replied saying, Nothing but old news and when will this taxpayer charade end? The educated voters in this country already know when it will end when he resigns or is impeached because the country cannot survive a full term of this lunatic.

After watching Southern Charm Savannah on Bravo, Im grateful my children werent raised with a silver spoon in their mouths!

The only two sure-fire ways to end the Obamacare mess is 1) let anyone keep it that wants to keep it, along with those exorbitant premiums/deductibles and 2) force all of Congress and their families to go onto Obamacare.

Unless you run the risk of being kidnapped, shot or otherwise disappearing, you should not get to call yourself resistance.

Yes, coyotes would take care of the cats, but what do we put out there to take care of people like you?

The health insurance industry is the only one I know where the goal is to do absolutely as little as possible for your customers. If you actually have happy customers, youre doing something wrong.

While the airport is relocating the wood storks, are there any plans for the eagles that are in the area?

Great Tuesday commentary in SMN by Robert Ringer. Health care/impossible dream says what our nation is up against and some helpful advice.

Because of government inefficiency, all high schools should have Ayn Rand plus George Orwells books as part of their curriculum. I had to read Atlas Shrugged and 1984 myself. Remember them today as a warning we should have taken more seriously.

Please can the columns by Robert Ringer. You have plenty of very right-wing columnists and dont need to go full nut job.

Read more here:

Vox Populi: 'All high schools should have Ayn Rand plus George Orwell's books as part of their curriculum.' - Savannah Morning News

The Fountainhead, part 1, chapter 7

Howard Roark has begun his new job at the source of all evil, Francon & Heyer. As a condition of taking the job, he asked to do structural rather than ornamental work, and Keating kept his end of the bargain. Even so, it gnaws at him:

The lines he drew were to be the clean lines of steel beams, and he tried not to think of what these beams would carry. It was difficult, at times. Between him and the plan of the building on which he was working stood the plan of that building as it should have been. He saw what he could make of it, how to change the lines he drew, where to lead them in order to achieve a thing of splendor. He had to choke the knowledge. He had to kill the vision.

Like any good Randian protagonist, hes tormented by the burden of having to be so much better than everyone else. While he bends over his desk, he inwardly cries out to know why all his colleagues are incompetent subhuman slugs who refuse to bow to his unsurpassable genius:

But the pain remained and a helpless wonder. The thing he saw was so much more real than the reality of paper, office and commission. He could not understand what made others blind to it, and what made their indifference possible. He looked at the paper before him. He wondered why ineptitude should exist and have its say. He had never known that.

Ayn Rand believed herself the supreme devotee of reason above all. Yet it comes through here, possibly even more clearly than in Atlas Shrugged, that her characters dont act like rationalists at all. Roark is a case in point.

Even though it bothers him that other people dont recognize his talent, it never occurs to him that he might be doing anything wrong, or that there might be other means of selling himself and his ideas that would work more effectively. He never tries to learn about human psychology, interpersonal relationship skills, or marketing tactics. He never even considers departing from his usual approach of plopping a set of blueprints down in front of someone and staring unblinkingly at them until they give in and acknowledge his greatness.

A true rationalist wouldnt act like this. If your beliefs fail to align with reality, the proper course of action is to adjust your beliefs, rather than crossing your arms and waiting for the world to change so that your initial hypothesis becomes correct. Being a rational person means considering your own fallibility before all other possibilities; but as in Atlas Shrugged, the only lesson Roark needs to learn in this novel is that everyone else is even more evil and worthless than he had thought.

Meanwhile, Peter Keating, who does understand the concept of asking for advice, keeps calling Roark into his office to help with his designs:

Keating produced sketches from a drawer and said: I know its perfectly right, just as it is, but what do you think of it, generally speaking? Roark looked at the sketches, and even though he wanted to throw them at Keatings face and resign, one thought stopped him: the thought that it was a building and that he had to save it, as others could not pass a drowning man without leaping in to the rescue.

Its hinted that this was Keatings real motive for getting Roark the job, so that he could exploit Roarks architectural genius. But even if thats true, so what?

Were meant to view this as a villainous act. But thats because Rand believes all creation is inherently individual, so asking someone else for help amounts to parasitizing their genius. In reality, the lone genius is the exception, not the rule.

Its absolutely normal for people working in a creative field to collaborate. When Roark wasnt working there, it was different, but now he and Keating are employees of the same company. As long as Roark is paid fairly for his work, he has no cause for complaint. Hes not being exploited; hes just doing what he was hired for.

The logical step would be for Keating and Roark to go into business together. Their skills really do complement each other. Keating, who has a knack for compromise but is too eager to go along with the crowd, would have his spine stiffened by Roarks stubbornness and nonconformist spirit. Conversely, Roark badly needs someone with people skills, like Keating, to sell clients on the virtue of his designs. Of course, if you expected this book to propose or even consider this patently obvious solution, it wouldnt be an Ayn Rand novel.

Then he worked for hours, sometimes all night, while Keating sat and watched. He forgot Keatings presence. He saw only a building and his chance to shape it. He knew that the shape would be changed, torn, distorted. Still, some order and reason would remain in its plan. It would be a better building than it would have been if he refused.

Now hold on just a minute!

On the surface, this seems like a reasonable way for Roark to think. He can console himself that hes making a contribution. Even if his designs are mangled in committee, he can still improve the final product relative to what it would have been otherwise.

But this is precisely the way Roark doesnt think in any other situation in the novel. In every case where hes not helping Peter Keating with his homework, he refuses to make the tiniest concession, even when that means he loses all influence over the outcome. Whenever a client so much as asks him to put a bunch-of-grapes design over a door, he storms out in a huff, even though that means hell lose the commission and the building will be designed by someone else wholl festoon it with urns and cherubs from top to bottom.

The reason for this inconsistency is that Roark isnt a character, hes a philosophical principle, and yet his author cant decide which principle she wants him to be. Is he Artistic Integrity, who refuses to compromise his vision no matter the cost? Or is he Prometheus Chained, who gives freely of himself to sustain the world but is only punished for it? The solution Rand hits on is that he switches back and forth from one scene to another, depending on the needs of the plot.

Other posts in this series:

Go here to read the rest:

The Fountainhead: Selling the Dream - Patheos (blog)