Category Archives: Atlas Shrugged

Johnny Carsons Carnac the Magnificent would have responded to the title answer with this question, What are four ideas kids believe, but outgrow? We all want to believe in everlasting youth, but age and responsibility eventually catch up to most of us and we gladly leave Neverland behind in favor of the challenges and rewards that wait. Reality shelves the Easter Bunny with his endless supply of fancy, dyed eggs more quickly than the othersbut those chocolate ears begging to be bitten off are still awfully tempting.

In the day-to-day world Ayn Rand, the Objectivism philosopher, and Steve Bannon, Donald Trumps political theorist and advisor should lose their charm closely behind the first two. Unfortunately, a few take far too long to see the light. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is, against all reason, still a devotee of Rand and what may end up being at the top of the Better Late Than Never category; Donald Trump may finally be losing his infatuation with Bannon.

Ayn Rand, who famously espoused her theories in the best sellers, Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged, contends that humans are heroic beings with their own happiness as the only moral purpose. She contends that there is no consciousness without attachment to realitywhat you see is what you get. Reality is all you can think about or react to.

This fairly simplistic view of the world and self-satisfying look at people is perfect for late teen readers and thinkers just coming out of the egocentric stage of development. It makes perfect sense to a college sophomore to think that every action should be taken for ones own benefit. However, it is soon discovered that there are flaws in any theory that has to spend an inordinate amount of time contending that this is not hedonism, and not anarchy. Ms. Rand explained at length that some smattering of government is okay as long as it is true to laissez-faire capitalism and retains a social system of full individual rights. Neither work very well in practice. As those sophomores become seniors and young graduates, they begin to see the benefits of community and the pleasures of co-existence. For everyone but Speaker Ryan, Ayn Rand and her philosophically wobbly ideological movement get stuffed into the attic with the fur-ball rabbit and the flying kid.

Ayn Rands teachings are a gateway to Steve Bannons ultra right-wing politics. I dont know if Bannon still believes in Rand, but it is a certainty that he did at one time. Bannons Nationalist, America First, deconstruct the central government thought has one degree of separation from Objectivism.

This way of thinking is natural for Mr. Trumps extreme egotism and mystery non-plan for moving forward. When the right-wing base began taking Mr. Trumps campaigning about spending money on U.S. needs exclusively and being concerned with the United States to the exclusion of all others to heart, he saw their reaction and fed that beast all the way to the White House. He hired Steve Bannon to craft that singular vision and we got phrases like, I want to be/am president of the United States, not president of the world.

Mr. Trump saw a lot of himself in Steve Bannon and embraced the sameness, likely too closely, right into the Oval Office. Mr. Trump still believes his life-long mantra that what is good for him is good for everyone. Bannons insistence that persuasion to their way of thinking is sound reasoning motivates Mr. Trump to push on.

Fortunately for us, Mr. Trump seems to be moving out of his low-level developmental stage and may be ready to seal Steve Bannon, Nationalism, and all of the dark notions and fears about other people and foreign communities that are baggage that come with Bannon and his tunnel vision, deep into that dusty box of obselescense. We can only hope that people developmentally immature enough to think of Stephen K. Bannon as some sort of guru will soon have to Google his name to find out what hes up to rather than reading about him in the headlines.

Mr. Trump can rightfully be compared to a college freshman taking Political Science 101 during these first 100 days serving as president. His learning curve remains steep, but he is discovering that its a big world out there and that for the last 70 years the United States has been the leader of all those who love and desire freedom. He is finding that Steve Bannons snits over keeping his ball in his own backyard arent feasible in realityespecially when we have one of the few balls in the world that hasnt had the stitches torn and the cover shredded.

Read more:

Peter Pan, the Easter Bunny, Ayn Rand, and Stephen Bannon - Mesquite Local News

Rep. Mark Sanford waits for his introduction during a town hall meeting March 18 in Hilton Head, South Carolina.

Sean Rayford/Getty Images

BLUFFTON, South CarolinaRep. Mark Sanford is a rare sort. Hes the first politician Ive ever met to insist that a reporter speak with constituents at his events who strongly disagree with him.

Jim Newell is a Slate staff writer.

There were many of those to be found on Tuesday morning, as the conservative congressman and former governor held a series of public events in his low country coastal district that became cathartic anti-Republican therapy sessions. Oddly, Sanford seemed fine with it. He seemed to welcome it. But to what end?

At a Coffee with Your Congressman event at the Plantation Caf and Deli on Hilton Head Island, constituents who showed up conveyed to Sanford one concern after another, typically from a liberalor at least antithis-Congressperspective. Usually in these politely challenging environments, the members press people would try to distract reporters from visible dissent. Instead, after about five minutes of a conversation I would be having with one angry constituent, Sanford himself would seek me out and recommend that I talk to another person who mostly disagreed with him and everything he stands for.

You should talk to Alexisshes with Indivisible, Sanford said, referring to the anti-Trump pressure network that organizes town hall protests and other #Resistance activities. Indeed, Alexis King was a member and spokeswoman for the low country chapter of Indivisible whos lived in Hilton Head for most of her life, is frightened by Donald Trump, and disagrees with her congressman about most things.

I was pretty much telling him about the stuff I sit up and think about at 3 in the morning, that you wish you had a chance to say, she said. I just said it, so he can know how his constituents actually feel. She said she understood that she may not be able to move him on health care or Planned Parenthood. She was hopeful, though, that she could convince him to speak out against immigration raids. Im just feeling him out, she said. Like all of Sanfords constituents I spoke with, she could at least respect the accessibility of her Freedom Caucus congressman. It gives you the luxury of spending a face-to-face session feeling him out, knowing that youll get another opportunity later.

After my chat with King, Sanford came back and told me I should speak to Linda over here, whos lived in Hilton Head since 2013. Linda Schilder, whos somewhere between a Democrat and independent, said that she had told Sanford she wants to see more bipartisan collaboration in Congress. She also brought up gun control and how she wants more restrictions on handguns and semi-automatic weapons (even as a supporter of hunting and recreational shooting).

She said Sanford responded that a shotgun is a semi-automatic weapon. It is hard to move him on his Second Amendment convictions, and she was disappointed.

Sanford later insisted I speak with Cheri Gould, a Hilton Head resident who brought her daughter and had, in Sanfords words, a lot to say about health care. Again: When a Republican congressman is urging you to talk to someone in this manner, you suspect that hes directing you to, say, an Americans for Prosperity or Heritage Foundation official dressed in an everyday American costume.

This was not who Cheri Gould was. She had been to many of Sanfords town halls and relayed to me what she had just said to him. Health care coverage should be for everybody, she said. Gould noted that both she and her daughter have pre-existing conditions. Though theyre covered by her husbands employer insurance now, Gould is certain that deregulated, private individual insurance cant do the jobbecause it didnt work before the Affordable Care Act. She had just passed along these concerns to her congressman.

[Sanford] has had at least a half-dozen or more of these town halls that are heavily weighted to health care, and the feedback and the polling says people want what essentially looks like universal coverage, she said. Yet he and the Republicans are working to take that away. And I dont understand that disparity.

Sanford, she said, told her that health coverage needs to be sustainable, as well as bogus stories about how, with a European- or Canadian- style health care system, some procedures wouldnt be covered and there would be long wait times for specialists. She pointed out that we already have these exact problems with the American-style health care system. Its a false argument.

By this point, Sanford had just left the caf for a town hall in Sun City, a retirement community about 20 miles or so inland. A typical congressmans staff might have given me false directions to the event that stranded me somewhere in a low country marsh. (Scratch thata typical congressman wouldnt have an in-person town hall to begin with.)

Sanford had told me to be sure to leave myself 30 minutes to get there.

The first question that Sanford got at his Sun City town hall went as follows: How do I explain to my children and grandchildren that we have an adulterer, cheat, and liar as our president and congressman?

When the gentleman repeated his question much more loudly and someone from across the room screamed at him to sit down and be quiet, the gentleman flipped a middle finger across the room. Security came to escort the man out of the town hall, but Sanford came over and told everyone to cool down. No one really cooled down, though, during the roughly 90-minute event that Sanford would describe afterward as invigorating.

There are a lot of retirees in the Hilton Head area. And a lot of those retirees, judging by nearly every loud accent I heard at the town hallconducted in an outdoor pavilion, surrounded by tennis courts and various lawn gameswere from New York and New Jersey. Early on, as things were getting rowdy, Sanford joked that this isnt a New Jersey town hall, this is a South Carolina town hallas in, lets be respectful to each other. Some variation of the shout DONT PUT DOWN NEW JERSEY could be heard throughout the rest of the event.

Why does Mark Sanford put himself through this, when so many of his colleagues are running for the hills?

The rowdiness manifested itself in other ways. Sanford, for example, was asked to repudiate either Jesus Christ or atheist free-market objectivist author Ayn Rand since it was contradictory to idolize both. (Sanford acknowledged that Rand could go astray but still recommended reading Atlas Shrugged.)

Most of the questions, though, were about health care and started from the tenet that Sanfords beliefs on the subject were wrong. He had one get-out-of-jail card available to him that he pulled multiple times: that he was one of three Republicans to have voted against the American Health Care Act. (He did not point out that he voted against the AHCA in the Budget Committee because it wasnt conservative enough or that he waited to vote last, once the bills approval was assured.) Its an excuse that more endangered members, especially those who did vote for it in committee as loyal team players, wish they could have.

Should everyone in this country have health care? someone asked Sanford near the end.

I think its an individual choice, he said. Perhaps the only louder boos than the ones that followed came when he suggested that those frozen out from insurance should look to their communities, charities, and churches for assistance.

When someone asked him when he thought we will heave health care for all people in this countrya question that earned a standing ovationSanford replied that the answer is that I dont have the answer.

What he said next was odd to hear from the free-market true believer, whod endured hours of verbal abuse defending his ideology that morning: I wouldnt be surprised if we end up with a bifurcated plan, something closer to what they have in Great Britain, where you have your base level of benefits and if you want bells and whistles, you can come back and buy more. That sounds like the reluctant acknowledgement of a conservative whos seen what happens politically when free marketers even attempt to put their hands on health care.

Why does Mark Sanford put himself through this, when so many of his colleagues are running for the hills? Most congressional Republicans have either retreated to carefully choreographed tele-town halls or stopped giving town halls altogether. It may be that Sanford won his last election by 22 points in his conservative district and views the angriest of his constituentsthose who might join Indivisible and head to a town hallas a rounding error. Or maybe he just feeds on the abuse. Hes seen worse in his career but nevertheless stayed in politics for more.

Top Comment

I met with his chief of staff shortly after the election on behalf of our local chapter of Indivisible. Not only did Sanford agree that we needed a live town hall, he actually asked Indivisible to host it. More...

I always did these open-door office hours in front of, like, a Walmart, he said after the town hall. He was eating a cheeseburger at his next event, a constituent roundtable at Five Guys, with more constituents who had more opinions about how he was wrong on health care and taxes.

It helped you, he said of these Walmart events. Not any one conversation, but by the time youd have 50, youd pick up certain currents, where people are coming from. By that 50-person standard, he certainly picked up a current on Tuesday. Will it make a difference when he returns to Washington? Or is it abuse for abuses sake?

See the rest here:

How Mark Sanford is handling wrathful voters at his town halls. - Slate - Slate Magazine

This letter is in response to Ed Rosenbacks letter of April 13, responding to a letter of mine. Had Mr. Rosenback ended his letter with the first paragraph with the agreement to disagree, no further response would have felt necessary. However, to characterize my political views as Marxist and then go on to defend the crackpot philosophy of Any Rand is going too far.

First of all, as I am sure Mr. Rosenback is aware, I place myself more in the camp of Bernie Sanders i.e. a Democratic socialist, who believes in democracy, freedom and civil rights, but also believes there is a role for government in protecting those rights, as well as helping provide for the health and welfare of its citizens.

I would prefer our tax money goes toward providing health care, education, infrastructure etc. rather that starting and continuing unjust wars, prosecuting people for victimless crimes, spying on the populace at large, etc. As for Tolstoy, who became a Christian Anarchist in later life and didnt believe in the private ownership of property or the institution of marriage, I find this a puzzling choice for Mr. Rosenbacks philosopher of choice, given his other views.

I had mentioned in a previous letter Ayn Rands pernicious Social Darwinism ( and thats putting it lightly) as I had thought I caught a whiff of this in some of Mr. Rosenbacks previous correspondence. I myself went through a phase in, I believe junior high school, in Florida, where I also thought Rand was the cats meow. Of, course I also thought at the time that blacks were inferior and racism OK. I did spend time (too much time!) in the South. Thankfully, that was over 50 years ago and by the time I graduated from high school, all of this nonsense was a distant memory.

It is fairly common knowledge that Rand is the darling of the far right. Two strong adherents are Paul Ryan, who has indicated a wish to turn Social Security over to the Wall Street casino, (and who lately had no qualms about depriving 24 million people of health care) and Ted Cruz, about whom the less said the better. Exalting selfishness, greed and lack of empathy for other people to some kind of virtue is something I find repugnant.

One of Rands most famous quotes is from Atlas Shrugged a seemingly unending novel that I plowed through in early adolescence. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you ... Another quote from The Virtue of Selfishness is If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject. And this is what we should be following? A love of money, rejecting good works that dont promise some kind of payoff? I certainly hope not. I also find it ironic that Mr. Rosenback, obviously a man of faith who refers to ... gift ... of our Maker goes to such lengths to defend Rand, an outspoken atheist who had nothing but contempt for religion.

As for Thoreau, who lived in a very different time, he didnt deny a role for government, but believed in a just government. He went to jail for refusing to pay poll taxes to support the Mexican-American War and was also against slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act, the law of the land at the time. To somehow imply that he was a philosopher largely concerned with the size of government is inaccurate.

As for Mr. Rosenbacks last paragraph, if he is to pine for the days of uninspected food and medicine, no penalties for poisoning the air and water and the good old days of the Robber Barons, hes welcome to do that. Im not going along for that kind of ride.

Advertisement

I am fully content to leave this little colloquy as is and have us agree to disagree and end this tennis match if Mr. Rosenback agrees, but wont sit idly by if he continues to misunderstand my views and otherwise wishes to continue this. People must think by now that Ed and I hate each other. Not true. We both have and share a good sense of humor and both serve on a board dedicated to promoting good music in the area. I had previously even thought he was maybe apolitical. Guess I was wrong and we certainly should not discuss politics face to face.

Kevin M. Ingraham/Vallejo

Continued here:

Kevin M. Ingraham: Political differences - Vallejo Times Herald

If she could actually fix the fabric of reality ... But when you have

When Rachel Whetstone left Google two years ago to replace David Plouffe, a former Barack Obama official, as policy and communications vice-president at Uber, it seemed like a promising Silicon Valley role.

The taxi-hailing app had a reputation for aggressive and even underhand tactics, and a CEO, in Travis Kalanick, with a reputation as a gaffe-prone tech bro, but it was one of the fastest growing startups in the world, achieving a $50bn valuation (now almost $70bn) within just six years.

However Whetstone departed the company this week amid a stunning array of scandals and controversies, including allegations of sexual harassment, a video of Kalanick berating an Uber driver, a legal battle with Google over the alleged theft of driverless car technology, the revelation that Uber used secret Greyball software to deceive city regulators, and allegations that the company had another program called Hell designed to spy on its arch-rival Lyft.

For Whetstone its been a hell of a ride. Public relations veteran Ed Zitron described Whetstones job as the equivalent of having two fists permanently punching you in the head.

And thats only in the last four months.

Earlier in her tenure at Uber, Whetstone, who has a formidable reputation in both Silicon Valley and Westminster, dealt with a major class action suit over Uber drivers employment status and a dustup over autonomous vehicle permits in San Francisco, where the company refused to take its self-driving vehicles off the roads, even after they were caught running red lights.

Zitron, the founder of a PR firm specializing in tech, said that Whetstones successes and failures in managing Ubers reputation were really beside the point, because she could not change the brutal reality of the companys fundamental problems.

If she was a Time Lord, maybe. If she could actually fix the fabric of reality, maybe, he said. But when you have a video of your CEO in a car doing a live stage play of Atlas Shrugged, what are you meant to do there?

Its an open secret that Travis doesnt listen to anyone, said a senior communications advisor in the Bay Area familiar with the matter. The speculation is that its so male heavy and toxic at management levels that even someone like [Whetstone] ... is exhausted by the machismo.

Whetstones exit is just the latest in a string of several senior departures from the embattled company in recent weeks which include Ubers second in command Jeff Jones, who left the company over what he described as disagreements with leadership.

Its an open secret that Travis doesnt listen to anyone

But Whetstones job was arguably the most challenging of them all: public relations and policy for one of the most scandal-hit companies in America.

I think basically you have a Donald Trump-like situation at Uber, said crisis management specialist Jonathan Bernstein. It doesnt matter what his communicators say, ultimately its about what Travis Kalanick says. Its like the problem Sean Spicer has no matter how much he tries to spin, his boss is going to say something on Twitter he doesnt know about and he ends up looking like an idiot.

Whetstones departure this week was quickly eclipsed by yet another controversy: the revelations about its secret program known internally as Hell, which was allegedly used to spy on its main rival Lyft.

According to tech website The Information, Uber created fake Lyft customer accounts to surveil its drivers, tracking their behavior, identifying them, and figuring out which were driving for both apps. Then, tweaks in the Ubers algorithm would reportedly send more fares to drivers using both platforms.

Hell is just one of the tricks Uber allegedly used to defeat its rivals: it was previously reported that the company had engaged in concerted efforts to request and cancel thousands of Lyft rides. Uber called the allegations baseless and simply untrue and instead accused Lyft of engaging in the behavior.

Uber declined to provide the Guardian a comment about the allegations. However in a comment to the Information, a company spokesman denied that the app gave preference to drivers using both Uber and Lyft.

Robin Feldman, the director of the UC Hastings Institute for Innovation Law, said the program raises questions over whether Uber was engaging in anti-competitive behavior, but bringing an antitrust case would be very difficult.

Still, she added: Even if it is legal, at the end of the day, it may just be bad karma.

If Uber was engaged in the systematic, long-term tracking of Lyft drivers, this raises serious privacy concerns, said Jamie Lee Williams, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Information about your physical location over time is highly sensitive. This doesnt change just because you may be working.

The fallout over Hell is likely to be less consequential, however, than the high stakes court battle with Google. Ubers current director of self-driving vehicles, Anthony Levandowski, is invoking his right not to self-incriminate after his former employer, Google, accused him of stealing 14,000 secret documents about Lidar technology and taking them with him to Uber.

On 3 May, Uber will attempt to persuade a federal judge not to grant a request from Googles self-driving offshoot, Waymo, for an injunction against Ubers self-driving program. For a company that operates at a loss, and whose future is staked on eliminating the cost of taxi drivers with autonomous vehicles, the court case poses a potentially existential threat.

Its enough to make even the most seasoned PR professional want to spend some more time with their family.

Uber replaced Whetstone with an internal candidate, her deputy Jill Hazelbaker. Recruiting externally is likely to be more challenging for Uber at this time, said Silicon Valley recruiter Mark Dinan .

Candidates dont want to be perceived as working for an unethical company ... especially at the executive level, he said.

Whetstone put a some valiant spin on her departure this week. I joined Uber because I love the product, she said in a statement, and that love is as strong today as it was when I booked my very first ride six years ago.

But Whetstones declaration of love did little to diminish the impression she has fled a company with the kind of reputation that no public relations executive can rescue.

Uber has cultivated this reputation as the Death Star, added Jeremy Robinson-Leon, principal at crisis PR firm Group Gordon. Until they can really think about the root cause of the issues they are going to have a difficult time changing the narrative.

Originally posted here:

Hell of a ride: even a PR powerhouse couldn't get Uber on track - The Guardian

Objectivism is the name of Ayn Rand's personal philosophy, and Atlas Shrugged is basically one gigantic Objectivist manifesto. The book is all about demonstrating how Objectivist ideas can be used in daily life, and why those ideas are so important. If a lot of the novel's 800 characters (OK, it's not that many, but it's definitely a large number) seem like they are just spouting off philosophy and Big Ideas a lot of the time, it's because they are. In fact, some characters in this novel are arguably little more than mouthpieces of certain philosophies. We're just going to cover Objectivism itself here and what it means in the book itself. If you want to read more about Ayn Rand and Objectivism, check out the "In a Nutshell" section.

Let's start with the basics. The word "Objectivism" is never mentioned in all of Atlas Shrugged, but its ideas are present from the start. Characters who are down with Objectivism (John Galt, Dagny, Hank, and Francisco especially) have something to say about everything. All the time. If we were creating a dating profile for it, we'd say that Objectivism likes: life (living is super), money (especially making money, which is seen as a moral act), individuality, the pursuit of happiness (for the individual), capitalism, hard work, high self-esteem, free will (choices are good), reason, rationality, long walks on the beach, and bubble baths (preferably with a romantic partner, since sex and love are seen as expressions of Objectivist values). In a nutshell, Objectivism says that people should live only for themselves and should use the powers of Reason to work hard and make a happy life for themselves.

We see all these ideas either supported or lived by our main characters, the good ones at least. Hank and Dagny, for instance, are successful, hard-working businesspeople who don't put up with idiots, are often described as "selfish" (which in Objectivist terms means individual and cool), are super rational, and don't see sex as evil, which is another Objectivist principle. OK, Hank is late joining the party on that last one, but you get the idea.

One tricky thing about Objectivism in Atlas Shrugged is that it's never referred to outright by any character. Sure, lots of characters speechify about aspects of it, such as Francisco's spiel about money, Hank's various spiels about business, and Dagny's spiels about her railroad, hard-work, and love. But we don't get a definitive statement of Objectivism until Galt's radio address. And even calling that a definitive statement is a bit of a stretch.

Galt's speech is like information overload: it's rambling, it's long, and in a lot of places it's more a statement of personal views than a philosophical doctrine. Galt isn't so much coming down from Mt. Sinai to issue some new Ten Commandments as he is telling his life story in terms of his personal philosophy and explaining his strike. He's basically saying, "Here's what I think and what I'm doing. Feel free not to join in, but if you don't join you'll probably die a miserable death."

That's another tricky thing about Objectivism: it's highly concerned with morality and doing the right thing, so a lot of the philosophical themes of the book appear less in what people say or think and more in what they do.

The last tricky thing about Objectivism is that it has to be translated all the time. See, when people call Hank selfish they are using the looters' terms. In Objectivist terms, Hank's "selfishness" is a good thing. It's like permanent opposite day: if "looters" think it's bad, then Objectivism thinks it's good, and vice versa. So sex, money, selfishness, egoism, logic, reason, etc. are all good things to Objectivists. The things "looters" love, like charity and sacrifice, are bad to our Objectivists. It takes some mental gymnastics to keep up with Objectivist ideas, which often go against what is commonly seen as "moral" and good.

So here is a rundown of the basic tenets, or beliefs, of Objectivism, as outlined by John Galt in his radio address. He outlines seven major ideas, which may be a sly reference to the Seven Deadly Sins, many of which Objectivism takes as virtues.

Our seven guiding principles are Rationality, Independence, Integrity, Honesty, Justice, Productiveness, and Pride. All of these principles are united against a common enemy: the practice of "blanking-out." "Blanking-out" for Galt refers to ignoring reality, people's true characters, your own happiness and desires, fairness, personal responsibility, etc. Galt wants people to face life and other people head-on in order to lead a moral life. Ignoring and pretending are immoral.

Doing things against the individual is also immoral for Galt. This is why he condemns both "Mystics" or people who rely on superstition, religion, and the idea that people are inherently "sinful" and "Materialists" or people who prize society over the individual. Objectivism here opposes doctrines of Christianity, and especially the idea of Original Sin, which says that since Adam and Eve ate an apple and got tossed out of Eden, all people are born with sin. Little babies aren't blank, cute, slates; they've inherited a sin already from Adam and Eve. Objectivism dislikes this idea since it goes against the Objectivist notion that people are "heroic." Communism is also opposed here, since it's a system of government that favors society over the individual. This is why Galt praises American democracy and capitalism in his speech; these are systems that favor individuals.

What are some of the other things Objectivism opposes, as expressed by Galt? People who separate their minds from their bodies; the two should be united in harmony. Objectivism also opposes sacrifice and charity, or doing things for people based on their "need." According to Galt, people should trade for what they need, not take it. In the book we see consequences of sacrifice and need running totally amuck. Galt removed his fellow Objectivists, and their positive values, from the world so that the world would see how misguided it is.

Try on an opinion or two, start a debate, or play the devils advocate.

Go here to see the original:

Atlas Shrugged Theme of Philosophical Viewpoints: Objectivism

Forbes

The Importance Of Aligning Your Values With Your Relationships Forbes In the words of Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, love is our response to our highest values and can be nothing else. Our love of ourselves is reflected in everything we do and everyone we choose to have in our life. And the most intimate of our ...

Read more:

The Importance Of Aligning Your Values With Your Relationships - Forbes

Hollywood's a tricky beast, and getting a movie made involves millions of people and bajillions of dollars. Or even pounds, occasionally. But it's still depressing when some of the coolest projects announced just don't seem to quite happen.

Especially when top bods are ploughing money into something like Ben Hur, which we totally could have told them wasn't a very good idea.

There are thousands of movies in development. Right now, there are in fact 28,413 movies listed on IMDb as "in development", and a lot of them are never going to see the light of day.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

But these are the ones we really, really hope might get shuffled to the top of the pile again, simply because they clearly would've been awesome.

20th Century Fox Neill Blomkamp/Instagram

District 9 was exceptional, Chappie was cute and funny, and okay, Elysium wasn't very good. But Blomkamp is a director with flair and edge and his Alien movie just sounded really interesting.

There was talk of Newt and Hicks possibly making a return, Sigourney Weaver was well up for it, and the concept art just blew us away but Alien: Covenant held things up, with Sir Ridley wanting his Prometheus sequel to come out first.

Now Blomkamp says the chances of it getting made at all are slim. Ah well, you never know, these things have a habit of reappearing.

It's ironic that arguably the most literate, grand and movie-like video game of all time has not made it to the big screen, while disposable tosh like House of the Dead and Doom gets farted out with glee by Uwe Boll and their ilk. The reason, as ever, is money and audience.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Pirates of the Caribbean's Gore Verbinski, who signed on as director and who we reckon would have nailed the atmosphere of the underwater city of Rapture reckoned the project was just eight weeks from shooting before it was canned.

"It was devastating," he told IGN. "Everyone wants to protect their IP it started to smell a little funky. I think at the time there had been some expensive R-rated movies that hadn't worked out."

Based on right-wing pin-up Ayn Rand's weighty tome on the art of selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, BioShock is an unapologetically adult, cerebral take on a supposed utopia that goes very wrong when all restrictions on scientific progress are removed, reducing the population to thieves, murderers and drug addicts, so a PG-13 was never quite going to cut it.

And with the game's developer Irrational closing since, this one may now be swimming with the fishes forever.

Rex Shutterstock

We're a bit torn about this one. Beetlejuice is an absolute classic, one of our favourites of the '80s when Tim Burton was at his peak. It was greenlit in 2016, with a script by Seth Grahame-Smith, and Winona Ryder and Michael Keaton potentially attached. But it's all gone a bit quiet since last year.

Thing is (arguably), Burton hasn't made an actually good live-action movie since Sleepy Hollow, or maybe Sweeney Todd if we're being generous. And the last thing we want is Beetlejuice ruined. So: "Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice," (but only if it's good) "Beetlejuice!"

See the article here:

Movies stuck in development hell - DigitalSpy.com

Ayn Rand Photo Credit: YouTube Screengrab

As they plough through their GCSE revision, UK students planning to take politics A-level in the autumn can comfort themselves with this thought: come September, they will be studying one thinker who does not belong in the dusty archives of ancient political theory but is achingly on trend. For thecurriculumincludes a new addition: the work ofAyn Rand.

It is a timely decision because Rand, who died in 1982 and was alternately ridiculed and revered throughout her lifetime, is having a moment. Long the poster girl of a particularly hardcore brand of free-market fundamentalism the advocate of a philosophy she called the virtue of selfishness Rand has always had acolytes in the conservative political classes. The Republican speaker of the US House ofRepresentatives, Paul Ryan, is so committed a Randian, he was famous forgiving every new member of his staffa copy of Rands gargantuan novel,Atlas Shrugged(along with Freidrich HayeksRoad to Serfdom). The story, oft-repeated, that his colleague in the US Senate,Rand Paul, owes his first name to his father Rons adulation of Ayn (it rhymes with mine) turns out to be apocryphal, butPaul describes himself as a fan allthe same.

Not to be left out, Britains small-staters have devised their own ways ofworshipping at the shrine of Ayn. Communities secretary Sajid Javid reads the courtroom scene in RandsThe Fountainheadtwice a year and has done so throughout his adult life. As a student, he read that bit aloud to the woman who is now his wife, though the exercise proved to be a one-off. AsJavidrecently confessed to the Spectator, she told him that if he tried that again, he would get dumped. Meanwhile, Daniel Hannan, the Tory MEP many see as the intellectual architect of Brexit,keeps a photograph of Rand on his Brussels desk.

So the devotion of Toryboys, in boththeir UK and US incarnations, is not new. But Rands philosophy of rugged, uncompromising individualism of contempt for both the state and the lazy, conformist world of the corporate boardroom now has a follower in the White House. What is more, there is a new legion of devotees, one whose influence over our daily lives dwarfs that of most politicians. They are the titans of tech.

So who is this new entrant on the A-level syllabus, the woman hailed byone biographer as the goddess of the market? Born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum in 1905 in St Petersburg, Russia, she saw her father impoverished and her family driven to the brink of starvation by the Soviet revolution, an experience that forged her contempt for all notions of the collective good and, especially, for the state as a mechanism for ensuring equality.

An obsessive cinemagoer, she fled tothe US in 1926, swiftly making her way to Hollywood. She paid her way through a series of odd jobs, including a stint in the costume department of RKO Pictures, and landed a role as an extra in Cecil B DeMilles The King of Kings. But writing was her passion. Broadway plays and movie scripts followed, until the breakthrough came with a novel: The Fountainhead.

Published in 1943, it tells the storyof Howard Roark, an architect dedicated to the pursuit of his own vision a man who would rather seehis buildings dynamited than compromise on the perfection of his designs. All around him are mediocrities, representing either the dead hand of the state, bureaucrats serving some notional collective good, orsecond handers corporate parasites who profit from the work and vision of others.

Then, in 1957, came Atlas Shrugged, whosePenguin Classic editionstretches to1,184 pages. Here Roark gives way toJohn Galt, another capitalist genius, who leads a strike by the men of talent and drive, thereby depriving society ofthe motor of the world.

In those novels, and in the essays and lectures she turned to afterwards, Rand expounded at great and repetitive length her philosophy, soon to be taught to A-level students alongside Hobbes and Burke. Objectivism, she called it, distilled by her as the belief that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself. She had lots to say about everything else too an avowed atheist, she was dismissive of any knowledge that was not rooted in what you could see in front of your eyes. She had no patience for instinct or intuition or any form of just knowing.

The Fountainhead was serially rejected and published to ambivalent reviews, but it became a word-of-mouth hit. Over the coming years, a cult following arose around Rand (as well as something very close to an actual cult among her inner circle, known, no doubt ironically, as the Collective). Her works struck a chord with a particular kind of reader: adolescent, male and thirsting for an ideology brimming with moral certainty. Asthe New Yorker said in 2009: Most readers make their first and last trip to Galts Gulch the hidden-valley paradise of born-again capitalists featured in Atlas Shrugged, its solid-gold dollar sign standing like a maypole sometime between leaving Middle-earth and packing for college.

But for some, objectivism stuck. Perhaps her most significant early follower wasAlan Greenspan, later to serve as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for 19 years. In the 1950s, Greenspan was one of the Collective, and he would beamong the mourners at her funeral in 1982, where one floral wreath was fashioned into that same 6ft dollar sign, now understood to be the logo of Randism.

Greenspan is the link between the original Rand cult and what we might think of as the second age of Rand: theThatcher-Reagan years, when the laissez-faire, free-market philosophy went from the crankish obsession of rightwing economists to the governing credo of Anglo-American capitalism. Greenspan, appointed as the USs central banker by Ronald Reagan in 1987, firmly believed that market forces, unimpeded, were the best mechanism for the management and distribution of a societys resources. That view which Greenspan wouldrethink after the crash of 2008-9 rested on the assumption that economic actors behave rationally, always acting in their own self-interest. The primacy of self-interest, rather than altruism or any other nonmaterial motive, was, of course, a central tenet of Randian thought.

Put more baldly, the reason why Republicans and British Conservatives started giving each other copies of Atlas Shrugged in the 80s was that Rand seemed to grant intellectual heft to theprevailing ethos of the time. Her insistence on the morality of rational self-interest and the virtue of selfishness sounded like an upmarket version of the slogan, derived from Oliver Stones Wall Street, that defined the era:greed is good. Rand was Gordon Gekko with A-levels.

The third age of Rand came with the financial crash and the presidency of Barack Obama that followed. Spooked by the fear that Obama was bent on expanding the state, the Tea Party and others returned to the old-time religion of rolling back government. AsRand biographer Jennifer Burns told Quartz: In moments of liberal dominance, people turn to her because they see Atlas Shrugged as a prophecy as to whats going to happen if the government is given too much power.

In that context, it seemed only natural that one of the success stories of the 2012 presidential campaign was a bid for the Republican nomination bythe ultra-libertarian and Rand-admiring Texas congressmanRon Paul, father ofSenator Rand Paul, whose insurgent movement was a forerunner for much of what would unfold in 2016. Paul offered a radical downsizing of the federal government. Like Ayn Rand, he believed the states role should be limited to providing an army,a police force, a court system and not much else.

But Rand presented a problem for US Republicans otherwise keen to embrace her legacy. She was a devout atheist, withering in her disdain for the nonobjectivist mysticism of religion. Yet, inside the Republican party, those with libertarian leanings have only been able to make headway by riding pillion with social conservatives and, specifically, white evangelical Christians. The dilemma wasembodied by Paul Ryan, named as Mitt Romneys running mate in the 2012 contest. Ryan moved fast toplay down the Rand influence, preferring to say his philosophy was inspired by St Thomas Aquinas.

What of the current moment, shaping up to be the fourth age of Rand? The Randian politicians are still in place: Ryan is now boosted by acabinet crammed with objectivists. Secretary of state Rex Tillerson named Atlas Shrugged as his favourite book, while Donald Trumps first choice (later dropped) as labor secretary, Andy Puzder, is the CEO of a restaurant chainowned by Roark Capital Group a private equity fund named after the hero of The Fountainhead. CIA director Mike Pompeo is another conservative who says Atlas Shrugged really had animpact on me.

Of course, this merely makes these men like their boss. Trump is notoriously no reader of books: he has only ever spoken about liking three works of fiction. But, inevitably, one of them was The Fountainhead. It relates to business, beauty, life and inner emotions. That book relates to ... everything,hesaid last year.

Rand scholars find this affinity of Trumps puzzling. Not least because Trumps offer to the electorate in 2016 was not a promise of an unfettered free market. It was a pledge to make the US government an active meddler in the market, negotiating trade deals, bringing back jobs. His public bullying of big companies pressing Ford or the air-conditioner manufacturer Carrier to keep their factories in the US was precisely the kind of big government intrusion upon the natural rhythms of capitalism that appalled Rand.

Which brings us to the new wave ofRandians, outside both politics and conventional conservatism. They are the princes of Silicon Valley, the masters of the start-up, a cadre of young Roarksand Galts, driven by their own genius to remake the world and damn the consequences.

So it should be no surprise that when Vanity Fairsurveyed these tycoons of the digital age, many of them pointed to a single guiding star. Rand, the magazine suggested, might just be the most influential figure in the industry. When the CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick, had to choose an avatar for his Twitter account in 2015, he opted for the cover of The Fountainhead. Peter Thiel, Facebooks first major investor and a rare example of a man who straddles both Silicon Valley and Trumpworld, isa Randian. Meanwhile, Steve Jobs issaid by his Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak, to have regarded Atlas Shrugged as one of his guides in life.

Among these new masters of the universe, the Rand influence is manifest less in party political libertarianism than in a single-minded determination to follow a personal vision, regardless of the impact. No wonder the tech companies dont mind destroying, say, the taxi business or the traditional news media. Such concerns are beneath the young, powerful men at the top: even to listen to such concerns would be to betray the singularity of their own pure vision. It would be to break Rands golden rule, by which the visionary must never sacrifice himself to others.

So Rand, dead 35 years, lives again, her hand guiding the rulers of our age in both Washington and San Francisco. Hers is an ideology that denounces altruism, elevates individualism into afaith and gives a spurious moral licence to raw selfishness. That it is having a moment now is no shock. Such an ideology will find a ready audience for as long as there are human beings who feel the rush of greed and the lure of unchecked power, longing to succumb to both without guilt. Which is to say: for ever.

Jonathan Freedland writes a weekly column for the Guardian. He is also a regular contributor to the New York Times and the New York Review of Books, and presents BBC Radio 4's contemporary history series, The Long View. He was named columnist of the year in the 2002 What the Papers Say awards and in 2008 was awarded the David Watt prize for journalism. He has also published seven books, including five bestselling thrillers under the name Sam Bourne. He tweets as@freedland.

Read the rest here:

Ayn Rand Rules the World: How She Conquered Silicon Valleyand Donald Trump - AlterNet

In libraries across America, readers are clamoring for a copy of Margaret Atwoods dystopian classic, presumably to stay ahead of the new Hulu series that debuts April 27. In New York City alone, more than 500 people are patiently waiting their turn, and libraries in Houston, San Francisco, Chicago, and other major cities are likewise reporting a queuethat could end up being hundreds deep. While the NYPL declines to speculate on the impetus thatsdriving people to reserve the book in such great numbers, HuffPo feels comfortable ascribing it to the current political climate, which even the most zen among us might describe as dire.

Meanwhile The New Yorker takes even more careful aim, sketching a profile of Atwood as a Prophet of Dystopia. Amid the expected reel of career highlights and more recent revelations from the bestselling author on the subject of American politics (If the election of Donald Trump were fiction, Atwood maintains, it would be too implausible to satisfy readers), this profile contains a lovely anecdote about Atwoods penchant for palmistry. Can you imagine letting someone this keenly observant anywhere near your lifeline and are you strong enough to handle hearing whatever she sees there?

Stephen King has pissed off the clowns, and he knows it. The author acknowledged in a tweet this week that good clowns everywhere are likely to be fuming about the resurgence of anti-clown sentiment thats sure to come along with the new adaptation of It. King tried to excuse the effects of his masterpiece on societysmost maligned class ofentertainers:Sorry, most are great, he wrote, BUT kids have always been scared of clowns. Dont kill the messengers for the message. That may sound like hes nervous about retaliation, but really its a sort of ethical test for all clownfolk what good clown would ever think of doing him harm?

Its Ayn Rands world; were all just stuck living in it. Read along as The Guardian explores the objectivist authors clout in twenty-first-century power games, from the White House(President Trump claims to love The Fountainhead, despite the persistence of urban legends claiming he cant read) to Silicon Valley, where Randians run rampant. When the CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick, had to choose an avatar for his Twitter account in 2015, he opted for the cover of The Fountainhead, their article claims. Peter Thiel, Facebooks first major investor and a rare example of a man who straddles both Silicon Valley and Trumpworld, isa Randian. Meanwhile, Steve Jobs issaid by his Apple co-founder, Steve Wozniak, to have regarded Atlas Shrugged as one of his guides in life.' If you want to understand ourtimes, just pay Ayn a visit at your local library it will give you something to freak out over until The Handmaids Tale is back in circulation.

Follow this link:

Libraries Report Staggering Waitlists for 'The Handmaid's Tale ... - Signature Reads

This article originally appeared on The Conversation.

Donald Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, hassaidAyn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA,citedRand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder,revealedthat he devotes much free time to reading Rand.

Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famouslymadehis staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said thathes a fan of Randand identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.

As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.

Recently, historian and Rand expertJennifer Burnswrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party isdiminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.

That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget thatgreatly slashesnonmilitary government spendingand before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised tostrip health coveragefrom 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.

These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.

Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon:Centralto the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.

Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewartputit, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.

Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.

How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Randelitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?

Ayn Rand, Russian-born American novelist, is shown in Manhattan with the Grand Central Terminal building in background in 1962 AP

Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select fewa real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.

Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.

Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Randsayswe must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.

Mitt RomneycapturedRands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.

In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, shesays,

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.

Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclicalProgressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.

Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, shesays

When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of prideor pride and gratitudethe achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?

Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyonelike Trumpidentifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.

Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?

The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, waslaudedas someone you could have a beer with.

Trump has succeeded even better in this respecthe famously tells it like it is, his supporters like tosay. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudlyif at all.

This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.

The principal virtue of a free market, Randexplains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements

But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, shesays: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.

Like Rand, her followerswho populate the Trump administrationare largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why shecomplainsabout our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,

The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.

So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitistdespite their allegiance to Randwhile Democrats are stuck with this title? I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are moreoptimisticabout human naturethey are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony. Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make peoplefeel badfor harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.

Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. Sheheaps scornon the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help. The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery. To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.

Firmin DeBrabander is Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art.

Visit link:

Trump Administration Embraces Ayn Rand's Disdain for the Masses - Newsweek