Category Archives: Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand thought that individuality, not membership in a racial or sexual group, was the real coin of the realm of achievement.

January 2022 marked the rollout of the new American Women Quarters Program, which seeks to celebrate the accomplishments and contributions made by women to the development and history of our country. Notably, the women to be featured must have made contributions in a variety of fields and be from ethnically, racially, and geographically diverse backgrounds.

There is one woman who meets all of these criteria, but who probably wont be featured. And precisely because of the nature of her accomplishments, she would likely object to the whole project.

She came from a country where she faced persecution from a brutal regime. Because of her radical ideas and her opposition to that regime, she faced the threat of prison or execution. And because she came from a bourgeois Jewish family, she was barred from work and educational opportunities.

With little money and knowing little English, she escaped to America. But within a few years she was writing Hollywood screenplays, Broadway shows, and eventually novels read and loved by millions around the world. She went on to become a pathbreaking philosopher who defined a revolutionary code of ethics and authored an epistemological treatise outlining a solution to the ancient problem of universals. The intellectual movement she launched has now spread around the world.

But when Ayn Rand escaped Soviet Russia, she did it to live in a land of freedom where anyone regardless of race or sex or national origin was supposed to be free to pursue happiness. In America, fortunes were made by the individuals own thought and effort, not endowed by the grace of aristocratic descent. Rands novels, We the Living, The Fountainhead, Anthem, and Atlas Shrugged, are hymns to the ideal of individualism she took America to stand for, however imperfectly it embodied that ideal.

This is why she would have objected to the very idea of an intellectual prize reserved only for those of a certain sex and ethnic heritage.

If we should celebrate any Americans accomplishments and contributions, we should celebrate those whove succeeded in the pursuit of happiness and in securing the rights of others to do the same, regardless of their sex or race. Some of the women whove already been selected for the quarter, like Sally Ride and Maya Angelou, have arguably achieved things that would earn accolades in any hall of fame. But by favoring a specific sexual and racial profile, the quarter program is not really honoring them for their achievements, but for accidents of their birth.

READ ALSO: Ayn Rands Unique Understanding of Racism

Some will say that men like Garrison and King have been honored for so many years that its time to recognize women from minority groups that have previously been underrepresented. Yet the doctrine that there is value in this kind of representation is deeply at odds with the value of individualism.

Ayn Rand made this clear in an essay explaining her opposition to racism:

The frequent historical spectacle of a great innovator who, in his lifetime, is jeered, denounced, obstructed, persecuted by his countrymen, and then, a few years after his death, is enshrined in a national monument and hailed as a proof of the greatness of the German (or French or Italian or Cambodian) race is as revolting a spectacle of collectivist expropriation, perpetrated by racists, as any expropriation of material wealth perpetrated by communists. Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement. There are only individual minds and individual achievements.

Because she was vocal in her opposition to the idea of sexual and racial representation, its likely that Rand wont be recognized on the new quarters. Even though she nominally fits the criteria for this quarters contest, her radical individualism is anathema to todays anti-individualistic cultural and political leadership.

The Mints call for recommendations from the public has now closed. But you can take this opportunity to ask them to revise their rules. Tell them to use the coins to celebrate great American achievers from all walks of life. While youre at it, consider nominating Ayn Rand herself as a candidate, on the grounds that she was a great American defender of individualism.

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

Read the original:

The Woman Who Won't, and Wouldn't, Appear on the Quarter - New Ideal

'Small glimmer of hope' for democracy

I was startled and delighted to read Crossing lines, Manchin endorses Murkowski by Hope Yenin FLORIDA TODAY on Feb. 7.

There appears to be a small glimmer of hope that decency and concern for the fate of our democracy can still be found in the U.S.Senate. The Founding Fathers did not include parties in the Constitution. Many of those founders hoped to avoid parties altogether. The new government was created for the benefit of the union, and it was the union, not parties, to which the members of Congresswere expected to be loyal.

Things have changed, and not for the better in that regard, which is why it was such a joy to read that these two senators put their mutual respect and their respect for the well-being of our increasingly fragile union above the pressures being placed on them by their respective political parties. Ive just become a fan of two inspiring senators whose names were unknown to me a few months ago.

Frank Merceret, Merritt Island

Im finding the gigantic fashion ads in my Sunday paper full of fancy expensive clothing andgear very demoralizing.

Our democracy depends on fairness. And in my eyes we are devolving into Singapore, with an oligarchy of the mega-richat the top, and all the rest just worker bees at the bottom.

Im personally privileged and well educated and able to enjoy a well-funded retirement but Im not blind.People around me are hurting. I feel that America is now playing with loaded dice, economically disenfranchising millions of our citizens. And then, changing the rules for voting to keep the status quo in place.

I worry that we will rue the day when real freedom was completely undermined by the upper 1% of our country, and its essential nature as an engine of ingenuity, enterprise, brilliance and success for many will be utterly compromised.

America is an idea, as much as a country. We are dangerously close to losing everything that made it a great one.

Ruth Lambert, Melbourne

Are youfrustrated?

A while ago we decided to donate to several charities to help where we could.We had no idea we were about to unleash a flood of unwanted mail upon us.

We quickly realized each charity had sold our information to many organizations who then have endlessly solicited us.Out of 10pieces of mail we receive, nine of them are solicitations.

Its apparent our USPS isnt in the business of delivering important mail, theyre in the business of delivering unwanted junk mail.Repeatedly, we get the same mail from the same organizations.

Youre likely thinking, "Whydoesnt he contact the organizations to be removed from their mailing lists? Done, and have been told they will do so immediately.We continue to get the same solicitations.Then why not write Return to Sender on it and put it back in the mailbox? Done;I was told the USPS doesnt return mail like this. Do they not realize they are spending more to send these solicitations than we have donated?

Question: With this volume of mail how can the USPS be losing so much money?

Answer: The bulk rate these organizations pay is so inexpensive that it incentivizes them to continue with these unwanted marketing programs.

Solution: Eliminate the bulk rates and have them pay what we do? It might even mean over time that our USPS can achieve a break-even operation.

Gary Doyle, Indialantic

House Bill 747,Protections of Medical Conscience, iscosponsored by local Representative Thad Altman. This bill allows health care providers and payers to refuse to treat or pay for services based on their "conscience" an obvious ploy to garner votes.

If passed this will cause citizens, hospitals, and health care providers problems. How will we know what procedures a health care provider will not participate? Do hospitals create lists detailing what services they will provide? What if a health care employee does not agree? Can a nurse or doctor can decide their conscience yay or nay the day of a procedure or do they need to provide some sort of itemized list prior? Can they be hired or not hired based on their list? Do I pay for the office visit after I find out the doctor wont treat me due to a conflict with their beliefs?

I suspect, if this nonsense gets through the Florida Legislature, there will be lawsuits. People will be denied coverage. It is a slippery slope. Dangerous to our society and costly to us taxpayers.

Jere Smith, Melbourne

I am happy letter writer IleneDavis has read a book from the last century that has had such a profound effect on her life. As she often does, she references "Atlas Shrugged"and from it she promotes "Galts Gulch," where the red states join together in what she describes as "citizens that believe in traditional values that made America so great."

I am wondering if this philosophy was the basis of the Tea Party and the now out-of-touch right wingof the Republican Party. As writer Charles Blow stated, "One does not have to operate with great malice to do great harm. The absence of empathy and understanding are sufficient."

In Galts Gulch, I imagine a world of selfishness and a small minority thinking that they know what is best. Nope, Ilene, youre not getting Florida. I suggest you head to the Dakotas, Mississippior Texas and perhaps you can start your vision of Utopia there.

Alane Cunningham, Melbourne

$4 billion dollars: That is the latest forecast of Floridas budget surplus as outlined by the Legislature.

News came at the same time I was lucky enough to sit down with Rep. Michelle Salzman as a volunteer with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network during the Florida Cancer Action Week.We discussed priorities for the surplus and policies that address the impacts of the pandemic.I stressed that at the top of the list should be increasing funding for our Mary Brogan Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and how important it is to be able to continue our states fight against cancer.

By providing underserved women with the lifesaving screenings they need, the critical program breaks through the most significant barriers of access and affordability which have caused a large portion of the screening delays during the pandemic. Additional funds will allow the program to reach more eligible individuals and help build the long-term viability of the program.

An estimated 20,920 Floridian women will receive a breast cancer diagnosis in 2022.When cancer is discovered early, treatment is more successful.With so many in need of such a program and as breast cancer remains one of the leading cancers in Florida, its due time we adequately fund such critical services.

Jackie Hoskins, Viera

Jan.6, 2021, according to the Republican National Committee, was a "legitimate political discourse."I guess the RNC would qualify Sept.11, 2001, as an appropriate method for responding to philosophical political ideologies.

Adding to the delusional declaration of the RNC, some high-level Republican representatives are not only failing to refute this critique, but attempting to sugarcoat a violent insurrection, thereby giving credence to this outrageous commentary. The RNC is undoubtedly living in a fictional universe.

Even Sen.Mitch McConnell, staunch believer in Republican Party dogma, asserted the Jan. 6 event was an insurrection. McConnell further rebuked the RNC for their censure of Sen. Cheney and Rep.Kinzinger, putting principle ahead of reprisal.

Gregory W. Hewitt, Melbourne

Original post:

Letters and feedback: Feb. 13, 2021 - Florida Today

Today marks the birthdate of one Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum, best known to the world as Ayn Rand.

Rand was born in St. Petersburg, Russia in 1905, witnessing the tremendous upheaval caused by war and communist revolution firsthand,

In 1926, she immigrated to the United States and pursued the classic American dream of becoming a screenwriter in Hollywood. Though she had limited success on the film and theatrical scene, she found her calling as a novelist.

In her early novels like We The Living, Anthem and The Fountainhead, she explored themes that would come to define her: the tyranny of the state against the individual, the menace of collectivistic philosophies and the will of individuals to triumph over oppression.

Her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957. The more than 1,000-page book tells the story of heroic, productive individuals and entrepreneurs suppressed by meddling bureaucrats. It was through this novel that Rand extensively spelled out her core philosophy celebrating rational self-interest, reason and individualism.

Its an approach perhaps best summarized by a key line in the novel, I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Atlas Shrugged would go on to become an international success and a major influence on free market-minded conservatives and libertarians.

Until her death in 1982, Rand continued to write and appear on television programs valiantly defending individualism and capitalism, which she understood was essential to freeing individuals to put their creative energies to use.

Capitalism was the only system in history where wealth was not acquired by looting, but by production, not by force, but by trade, the only system that stood for mans right to his own mind, to his work, to his life, to his happiness, to himself, she wrote in Capitalism: The New Ideal.

While Rand is certainly a polarizing figure, with collectivistic progressives who usually havent read a single page of her work seemingly the most bothered by her, Rands personal story and extensive intellectual contributions to the cause of liberty are worthy of respect and critical engagement.

View original post here:

Happy birthday to the great Ayn Rand - Press-Enterprise

The first season of the Manning Cast is now in the books. The innovative alternateMonday Night Footballbroadcast on ESPN2, hosted by former NFL quarterbacks Peyton Manning and Eli Manning, finished its inaugural run with the first-ever Monday night Wild Card game. Now, well look back at the season that was and rank the 10 best Manning Cast guests from the shows maiden voyage.

When Peyton Mannings production company, Omaha Productions, announced its partnership with ESPN for a new type of football broadcast, no one knew what to expect. What followed was an exciting, hilarious, awkward, fascinating, and sometimes profane new football-watching experience.

Peyton and Elis brotherly relationship was at the shows core. However, the people who truly made the venture special were the guests. Some guests were good, some guests were, lets say, less than good, and a few were simply superb.

Here are all the guests who appeared on the Manning Cast this season:

It was an illustrious group of guests in season one of the Manning Cast, a virtual whos who of NFL players, ex-players, and celebrity fans. Some stood out above the rest, though, so here are the 10 best Manning Cast guests on the 2021 season.

The Manning Cast is, at its core, two ex-athletes talking football in a more entertaining way than has ever been done before. While the concept of the Manning Cast specifically is novel, the idea an ex-player can revolutionize a television format by sheer force of personality, and talking about the game in a way fans have never heard isnt new.

Sir Charles Barkley did that for NBA pregame shows. So, who better to start the first-ever Manning Cast?

The Round Mound of Rebound didnt disappoint either. Rocking aCarl Nassib Raiders jersey,Barkley was the perfect choice to kick off a bold new format.

Barkley came in hot, talking about his NFL gambling, crushing his high schools football coaches, and calling out modern-day NBA players for complaining about fouls. And with that, the Manning Cast was up and running.

What makes someone one of the best Manning Cast guests? Two things that many of the best guests had in common this season are A) they have a previous relationship with Peyton and/or Eli or, B) they have television/broadcast experience.

Michael Strahan delivers on both of those qualifications.

Strahan was an NFL superstar in the same era as Peyton Manning and was teammates (and won a Super Bowl with) Eli Manning. Listening to the three of them talk was truly like sitting with three of the most fun, knowledgeable buddies you could ask for, watching football at a bar.

The running highlight of the segment was Strahan and Eli venting their frustration about how far their beloved New York Giants have fallen.

Aaron Rodgers delivered everything weve come to expect from Aaron Rodgers in the last year during his Manning Cast appearance.

The controversial QB told a lovely story about howhe and Pat McAfee became friends, talked football with the Mannings on a level that no mortal human can understand, andsent the internet into a frenzyby shouting out Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged on his bookshelf.

Love Rodgers or hate him, when hes talking on TV, its hard to look away. The Mannings did a good job harnessing that vibe.

Phil Mickelson, as Pat McAfeetweetedduring the golfers appearance, understands the assignment of appearing on the Manning Cast. During the broadcast, it seemed like his sole goal was to roast Peyton and Eli, and he accomplished that goal.

Whether it was telling the two QBs that the Manning Cast Curse is absolutely a real thing or breaking down Elis cute little golf swing, Mickelson showed off his goofy, hilarious, trash-talking person that hes cultivated in recent years on social media and duringThe Match.

While the Manning Cast overall makes you want to watch football with Peyton and Eli, Mickelsons appearance demonstrated there is likely no person on earth who would be more fun to play 18 with than the six-time Major winner.

Dwayne The Rock Johnson is quite simply the most pleasant, positive, and enjoyable person in all of sports entertainment.

The wrestler/actor/businessman/likely future President of the United States was just a fantastic guest to spend a half-an-hour with. He told great stories about his football days at the University of Miami and gave an incredible motivational speech to the floundering Arizona Cardinals (who definitely didnt listen).

One of the most uplifting parts of his appearance was Johnson explaining how he bought the XFL to give more football players a chance to achieve the (seemingly) one and only dream that didnt come true in his life: making the NFL.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers tight end Rob Gronkowski has no filter, making him the perfect person for a live TV broadcast and one of the best Manning Cast guests.

Gronkbragged about not practicingon Fridays because he Red Zone Robby G, baby and doesnt need to practice catching touchdowns. He also told the notoriously studious Peyton and Eli that he doesnt really watch film. He simply asks his longtime QB Tom Brady who to run by, then runs by them.

Gronkowski eventually walked back his film comments after getting a talking-to from head coach Bruce Arians. However, Manning Cast viewers now know the truth. Gronk runs. Gronk catches. Gronk scores. Gronk spikes. Thats all there is to it, and its fantastic.

As much as youd love to share a beer or a cocktail with many of the stars on this list, Snoop Dogg once again cemented his longtime, well-earned reputation as the one person in the world who would be the most fun to share a wellsomething elsewith.

Snoop D-O-Double G was cool, funny, and both passionate and knowledgeable about the game of football. His connection to the game goes way back. He even runs a youth football league in the LA area that has produced NFL players, like Juju Smith-Schuster.

Also, Snoop gifting the buttoned-up Eli Manning a Death Row Records chain for being so hip hop for his birthday and the producers photoshopping the rapper into a Manning Family photo as the fourth Manning brother were two of the highlights of the entire season.

Former NFL running back Marshawn Lynch was one of the best Manning Cast guests because he was the perfect example of a former player who decided to just get loose and hang out with the Mannings on a Monday night.

The Beast Quake runner told the Mannings he took three shots of Hennessy before his appearance. I took one for me, I took one for big bruh, and I got one for little bruh, Lynch said. That may explain why he dropped three s**** and one f*** during his live TV appearance.

It. Was. Awesome.

One of the only things that could make the Manning Cast better (and slightly less awkward) is if the broadcast had a host to play traffic cop and make the show flow a little more smoothly. The problem is, where can you find an ex-NFL player who knows Peyton and Eli and has bona fide hosting credentials?

Enter Pat McAfee.

The sports talk host would be a perfect addition to the broadcast next season if the Mannings want to enhance the show. In his appearance, McAfee led the conversation when needed but still let the brothers shine. He also told hisamazing Red 18 story, which added to the broadcast.

Heres hoping the 2022 Manning Cast cast is Peyton, Eli, and Pat.

The Manning Cast is all about NFL fans getting to spend time with two legendary QBs talking about life and football. Whats the only thing better than that?

Three legendary QBs.

Listening in on a conversation between, arguably, the two best signal-callers in NFL history and the one QB to get the best of the GOAT twice was quite a treat. Watching Brady on the Manning Cast was truly a football fans dream.

The three quarterbacks with 11 Super Bowls between them talked football, busted each others chops, and had what certainly looked like a great time together. It was a true joy for fans and the pinnacle of what the Manning Cast can be, which is why Brady was the best Manning Cast guest this season.

If Pat McAfee doesnt join the Manning bros next season, maybe they will add Brady to the broadcast when he finally retires, just in time for the 20th anniversary of the Manning Cast in 2041.

LikeSportscastingon Facebook. Follow us on Twitter@sportscasting19

RELATED:Peyton Manning Attacks Barstool Sports Personality PFT Commenter on Monday Night Football Broadcast: Is There a Way to Block This Guy as a Viewer?

Go here to read the rest:

Ranking the 10 Best Manning Cast Guests During Eli and Peyton Manning's First Season - Sportscasting

Novak Djokovic, at least for the time being, has won his case against Australian authorities attempting to revoke the visa that would allow him to compete in the Australia Open, which begins Monday morning in Melbourne -- Sunday evening for U.S. viewers. The moment Djokovic takes the court at Rod Laver Arena, he will be the overwhelming favorite to win his 21st major title, finally, at long last, surpassing both Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal in their exhaustive, historic major title race. He has won the past three Australian Open titles and nine overall.

The start of the tennis season in Australia and New Zealand is usually full of optimism and anticipation. The Australian Open is even nicknamed the "Happy Slam" because of the festive energy on the grounds. But in the arena of his greatest dominance, Djokovic now faces heightened distrust and hard feelings, nationally and internationally, in addition to his potential deportation. How Djokovic emerges over the coming weeks and months will have come at the heavy cost of current events: Djokovic detained by Australian border authorities; his admission that he appeared at several events in December apparently having tested positive for COVID-19 days earlier; his continued decision to be indirect about his vaccination status; appearing to receive special treatment the Australian people are denied. Even if the Australian government removes him from the country, the questions of his behavior during a pandemic nevertheless remain. At the moment, Djokovic has lost by winning, the crowning achievement that could await him already tarnished before he hits his first ball of the fortnight.

MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE

On its face, the story is Djokovic. He has cemented his membership within the pandemic's most infamous group -- the anti-vax multimillionaire athlete who behaves as if his fame, wealth and enormous platform to disseminate misinformation place him above the rest of us. Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers and Brooklyn Nets guard Kyrie Irving are also members of the club -- and even Los Angeles Lakers forward LeBron James, long held as politically conscientious antithesis to his frightened, apolitical generational predecessors, posted Spider-Man memes conflating COVID-19 with the flu. In his own way, Irving has emerged as something of the most principled of the group, unable to play home games at the Barclays Center because of New York City's vaccine mandate. He first responded to the pandemic with disdain, confidently repeating his conspiracy theories as if he possessed knowledge beyond that of mere lifetime health professionals before quietly choosing to not play -- and dealing with the consequences that accompanied his decision.

2 Related

Rodgers purposely misled the public with an insulting word dance, calling himself "immunized" when asked whether he was vaccinated. In another appearance, Rodgers then trolled his critics, brandishing a copy of Ayn Rand's dystopian 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" as some form of harbinger that we live in a time of persecuting society's winners, or as the bible of his invaluable individualism -- or both -- and that as one of those winners, he is the prime victim of a looming nefariousness. Rodgers is nowhere near as clever or interesting as he thinks he is.

While the past 10 years will be remembered for the return of the political athlete, the COVID-19 era has produced a less heroic professional citizen-athlete. Athletes lauded for using their voices to benefit the conditions of others have been replaced by the pandemic-era player beholden completely unto himself -- unburdened by community or responsibility to others, using vaunted platforms to disseminate pseudoscience, to elevate and separate themselves.

These superathlete voices now send a different message -- that they owe nothing because they create so much: revenue and legacy for the suits; pleasure for the watchers; security for their families. They are the value. They are why we watch. In turn, they carry themselves as though they are exempt from our common struggle. While Australians and citizens around the world sacrifice to resume their lifestyles by suffering through the difficult steps of vaccine mandates ostensibly for the long-term greater good, several high-profile athletes have decided the only name that matters is the one on the back of their jerseys.

The Atlases have shrugged. Everyone is on their own.

The easy reflex is to focus on only Djokovic, and scrutiny of him is appropriate. His recklessness has run counter to the leadership example he claims to want beyond possessing the greatest backhand in the world. He is, after all, not a first-time offender when it comes to poor pandemic decision-making. It was Djokovic, after all, who was behind the disastrous maskless charity exhibition tournament in the summer of 2020 held in defiance of medical opinion that turned into a superspreader event. And now, he has apparently broken the isolation protocols of his own country by traveling to Spain and entered Australia with false documents. He has blamed human error, his handlers, but treats each infraction as an unfortunate clerical error and not a pattern of broken trust during a deadly time.

Djokovic will receive the attention now -- there certainly will be vitriol to accompany his wide support. But it is the entire industry of sports -- the leagues and their teams, governing bodies, the players and their unions, and fans -- that has collectively been one of the least responsible entities during the pandemic. Perhaps COVID-19 has merely exposed the selfishness that comes with individualism as orthodoxy, but it has been the game's leadership that has enabled the players' behavior, not the other way around.

The United States must always carry its negligent and deadly initial response to the pandemic, denigrating mask use as a tool for the weak, and worse, a symbol of fascism, positioning the pandemic as a hoax, even as the health care system overloaded and Central Park served as a portable morgue.

So, too, must sports carry its burden. Two years ago, the industry saw the apocalypse -- the games shut down but more importantly, of life moving on. In the weeks and months between the initial shutdown in March 2020 and the slow resumption of the Major League Baseball regular season and the NBA/WNBA bubbles, America seemed hungry for sports because it provided a pathway to give people hope that normalcy was possible. But Americans also were quickly adjusting to life without the games. When people couldn't find hand sanitizer or toilet paper, hitting a ball with a stick wasn't that important, after all.

UNESSENTIAL

The games responded by assuming their historical position, ready to assist their nation in times of crisis, to provide diversion as healer -- and then used that position to do whatever it took to survive. Sports have been needed for the nation's morale, just as the World Series was not canceled during either World War -- and during the first year of the pandemic, the public was told it needed the games. In the cultural lexicon, alongside the doctors, nurses, EMTs, supermarket employees and delivery people, athletes were being called essential workers. While borders were being locked down and citizens were being asked -- and told -- to take on increased safety measures to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, the business of sports was given a special exemption. Sports was positioned as an ally to getting the world back to normal. Borders opened -- not for you, but for sports. Tennis players still traveled the world when few others could. When COVID-19 tests were first rolled out, athletes often had first access to them.

And what did sports do with that special exemption? It did everything it could to not set the example, to not be essential, but to stay in business on its terms. The industry refused to act on its responsibility in fighting a global health crisis. Sports adopted the divisive political rhetoric of vaccine efficacy over health, of the personal over the collective, guided by the specter of the existential moment -- any possibility of a second mass shutdown. The NBA players, led by LeBron James, refused a second bubble. Players' associations across each sport rejected the suggestion of vaccine mandates. That was a nonstarter. Desperate to win, Kyrie Irving was back on the court. Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach Bruce Arians put Antonio Brown back on the roster after the receiver's three-game suspension for using a fake vaccine card. Colleges exempted athletes from rules that applied to student bodies. Instead of leading, several highly prominent players, as well as their counterparts in the celebrity class, immediately questioned the value of vaccines. Sports was in it for itself. Atlas shrugged.

It did not become an example but instead an accelerant of the divisions, a reflection of the anti-science, the cynicism, the pandemic as politics. At its core -- a point that can never be forgotten -- is the issue of public health and the trust that, as a public figure, an athlete will not expose other people to an airborne illness. But many of its highest-profile players gave the loudest voice to the anti-vax rhetoric that has stifled recovery -- using their platforms to shout conspiracy from the rooftops. The leaders have acted as poorly as the players, fearing bad news from their accountants and resistance from the athletes. The games rejected -- as they often do during stadium and relocation battles with local municipalities -- the partnership with the public they espouse in theory but rarely in practice. Some of the healthiest, most visible people in the country are actively using their positions to undermine confidence in the public health. The dispensation that sports leagues and their teams receive -- the tax breaks on stadiums, the public money for their private enterprise as schools and roads crumble -- exists under the premise that, at its core, sports serves the public. During a pandemic when breathing air can be a deadly exercise, the private business has horribly failed the public. The same criticisms could be leveled at politicians, media, celebrities, but those entities don't routinely rely on in-person audiences to perform at peak efficiency while selling their product as vital to the health and fitness of the nation, its performers role models to the youth. Restaurants in New York City have made harder choices than the NBA, NFL, ATP Tour and all the rest.

Some athletes understand the deal, like three-time tennis major winner Andy Murray. "Ultimately I guess the reason why all of us are getting vaccinated is to look out for the wider public," Murray told The New York Times in September. "We have a responsibility as players that are traveling across the world, yeah, to look out for everyone else as well. I'm happy that I'm vaccinated. I'm hoping that more players choose to have it in the coming months."

As an industry, sports pulled a bait-and-switch, deciding collective health was now an individual choice -- and the reason Rodgers and Djokovic and others like them receive outsized attention when most players are vaccinated isn't because the world prefers to focus on the negative but because these players are actively using their positions to serve only themselves. Sports has failed us, and the resultant failure of its leadership has insulted the people who have shouldered the real-life costs of the pandemic -- more than 61 million cases in the United States, and, to date, nearly 840,000 deaths.

League leadership has relied on the personal responsibility of its members to avoid its own. Whether it's MLB, tennis or the NHL, leagues have touted the high percentages of vaccinated players but avoided implementing a mandate, which paved the way for specious exemptions to coexist with the legitimate ones. Instead of protecting the public, sports have devolved into the minutiae of sleuthing the individual whereabouts of players trying to skirt flimsy policies.

Tennis, in particular, could have made the choice of decisive collective action. The tournaments that constitute the coveted Grand Slam -- the Australian and US Opens, Wimbledon and Roland Garros -- are the most powerful events in the sport. Each could have individually or collectively made the choice that players must be vaccinated to participate -- virtually without exception. Each did not hesitate to act in concert when Naomi Osaka refused to agree to postmatch media sessions during the French Open, which eventually led to her withdrawal from the tournament. When organizers at Roland Garros threatened Osaka to submit to do media sessions or be removed from the tournament, organizers at the other three Slams all issued statements that if Osaka did not agree to media interviews in Paris, she would not be welcomed to participate in New York, London or Melbourne. The four most important tennis tournaments in the world could immediately agree to make Osaka sit for an interview -- or else -- but chose to consider vaccinations during a pandemic that has claimed the lives of millions a personal choice.

THE POPULIST ILLUSION

Now it is Djokovic who stands as a symbol, both as a system-fighter and as a system-fighter for the wrong reasons. While Americans John Isner and Venus Williams embarrassingly cheered his victory over the Australian government, Djokovic is not trying to make a point beyond wanting to play tennis on his individual terms, not an ally to the improvement of public health, nor a contributor to the eradication of a virus that has ruined people's lives worldwide. Neither is his sport. When Australian authorities detained Djokovic, organizers of Roland Garros continued the pattern of sports undermining the public health by immediately capitalizing on the situation, releasing a self-serving cynically timed statement that Djokovic would be allowed to play the French Open in June.

Djokovic's appeal can be seen as simple. He is arguably the greatest tennis player in history. In this era of counting major titles, he likely will surpass Federer and Nadal -- the game's standard-bearers of this era -- and possibly shatter their totals. Djokovic is the perfect player for this era, with impeccable balance, backhand, forehand, constricting defense and a champion's will. When Djokovic improved his serve in 2011, he became unstoppable -- 19 majors in the ensuing 10 years. Like Federer at Wimbledon and Nadal at Roland Garros, he has dominated Melbourne like no other male player. In an era when many top world players would not travel to Melbourne because of the distance, Margaret Court nevertheless won 11. Like Federer and Nadal, Djokovic is one of the greatest players of all time on every surface.

He is human, given to fits of temper and occasional loss of control. He is to some a sharp, relatable contrast to the regal and gentlemanly artifice so carefully crafted around Federer and Nadal. To others, he is an unbecoming ambassador despite his titles. Djokovic being defaulted from the 2020 US Open for hitting a lineswoman with a ball, and his tremendous 2021 season where he was a US Open victory away from winning the calendar Grand Slam, appeared to heal that wound and bring Djokovic closer to the unqualified adoration great champions receive.

But he is complex in what he represents to his people. His presence is populist, a symbol of the uninvited, condescended-to Eastern European whose winning has forced a hostile, Western elite to recognize him -- which explains why supporters in Melbourne endured pepper spray in clashes with police. Despite the cheers and the championships, Djokovic has never been able to stray far from the persistent narrative that tennis audiences love him less than a champion of his stature should be loved. For Serbs and millions of others worldwide who have felt the First World looking down its privileged noses at their people, the great Djokovic is their avenger.

In a certain sense, Djokovic represents to his Serbian followers a similar symbolization to how Black American fans view Serena and Venus Williams -- the interloper to the elite, white, First World game, tolerated but never wanted by the great establishment, whose overwhelming success and dominance made them impossible to ignore. Finally, they have a champion who can avenge all of their endured slights, who is great enough to beat them in their own house, and by their own rules. Djokovic can exact revenge for every humiliation. For a century, tennis has been the game of the white West, created and owned by England, Australia, France and the United States -- and the exclusive country clubs and prestigious tournaments that come with it. It has been primarily a First World game in culture and geography, and the twin powerhouse of Federer and Nadal added new flags to the mantel. But Switzerland was already part of the European in-crowd, Spain an original colonist that had already enjoyed a comfortable (if not dominant) place in the history of tennis, men's and women's.

Djokovic's representing of the spurned classes -- primarily as a national figure of a long-spurned, battered country -- has protected him. While Djokovic was detained, his father said his son being in federal custody was a direct insult to the Serbian people, and his release set off clashes between Djokovic supporters and law enforcement, who used pepper spray against the crowds that blocked traffic.

As a symbol of Western aggressions against his people, Djokovic has taken his position as outsider and used it to become a reformer. He is the public face and co-founder of the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA), the fledgling rival to the long-established ATP, and speaks of being an advocate for lower-ranked players who can barely eke out a living outside of the top 50. But despite being the greatest player in the game, he is not universally trusted as a leader.

This latest episode, regardless of its resolution, only further weakens that trust -- even as Djokovic will draw additional support from the anti-vax, anti-mandate crowd that feels aggrieved. Djokovic is merely today's Atlas. Tomorrow, there will be another. And while he, Rodgers and many of sports' most prominent performers shrug along, masters of their universe, the behavior is theirs, but it should not be forgotten that reckless populism is largely responsible for creating the global disaster from which we cannot emerge.

Read the rest here:

Novak Djokovic is a profile in selfishness, and sports leaders are failing us all - ESPN

2012 film by John Putch

Atlas Shrugged: Part II (or Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike[3]) is a drama film based on the 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged by the philosopher Ayn Rand. It is the second installment in the Atlas Shrugged film series and the first sequel to the 2011 film Atlas Shrugged: Part I, continuing the story where its predecessor left off.[4] Directed by John Putch, the film stars Samantha Mathis, Jason Beghe, Esai Morales, Patrick Fabian, Kim Rhodes, Richard T. Jones, and D.B. Sweeney. The film was released on October 12, 2012.

Dagny Taggart pilots an airplane in pursuit of another plane. Dagny asks herself, "Who is John Galt?" before apparently crashing into a mountainside.

Nine months earlier, Dagny is trying to understand the abandoned prototype of an advanced motor she and her lover Hank Rearden have found. Scientists across the country have been disappearing under mysterious circumstances, but Dagny is able to locate Quentin Daniels, who agrees to help from an abandoned laboratory in Utah.

Dagny's brother James Taggart, president of the family railroad company, meets store clerk Cherryl Brooks and brings her to see a renowned pianist, who disappears during his performance, leaving a note asking, "Who is John Galt?" Later, at James and Cherryl's wedding, Dagny's friend Francisco d'Anconia argues with other guests about whether money is evil, and secretly informs Rearden about devastating explosions at his copper minethe next day. Rearden spends the night with Dagny. Later, he is confronted about the affair by his wife Lillian, but when he offers a divorce she declines, in order to maintain her position in society.

Rearden sells his advanced Rearden Metal to Ken Danagger's coal mining company, but refuses to sell it to the federal government, in defiance of the newly enacted "Fair Share" law that forces businesses to sell to all buyers. The two are charged under the law. Dagny barges into Danagger's office, realizes that he too is about to disappear, and understands that she is close to understanding the force behind the disappearances. At trial, Rearden defends individual freedom and the pursuit of profit, and is given only a token penalty by the court, which fears turning him into a martyr. The government announces "Directive 10-289", which freezes employment and production and requires that all patents be gifted to the government. Rearden defies this decree as well, but relents when he is blackmailed with photos of himself and Dagny that would damage Dagny's reputation.

When Dagny hears about Rearden's "gift" and her brother's complicity, she quits the railroad. During her absence, a Taggart Transcontinental train collides with a military train in a tunnel, due largely to political pressure by a passenger and human error by Dagny's poorly trained replacement. This impels Dagny back to her job. D'Anconia tries to dissuade her from returning, as he had earlier tried to talk Rearden into leaving his business, but she returns anyway.

Dagny takes a train to Colorado to show her faith in the railway, but its engine fails. The repair technician used to work for 20th Century Motor Company, which produced the motor Dagny found. He tells Dagny how the need-based reward system in his company failed, and his coworker John Galt left the company vowing to "stop the motor of the world." Dagny calls Daniels, who tells her that he is quitting. Dagny buys a small airplane and flies to Utah to try to dissuade him, but as she is landing, she sees him get into a plane on the airstrip.

After a pursuit in the airthe opening scene of the filmDagny's plane crashes in a valley hidden by stealth technology. A wounded Dagny Taggart crawls to the edge of her crashed plane, where she is greeted by John Galt.

The producers intended to finance Part II using profits from Atlas Shrugged: Part I. When that film failed to generate a profit, a private debt sale in early 2012 raised $16 million of the $25 million the producers sought,[6] enabling a budget larger than that of the first film. There is some confusion about the relative size of the budget for the first two movies. The part 2 production budget was around $10 million and the marketing budget around $10 million, between 2010 and 2012. During the first movie a total of less than $20 million were spent over the course of the preceding 18 years. Hence, more was spent directly on producing the 2nd movie. The production company announced that Part 2 would be released to coincide with the U.S. general election season in fall 2012.[4]

Duncan Scott, who in 1986 was responsible for creating a new, re-edited version of the 1942 Italian film adaptation of Ayn Rand's novel We the Living with English subtitles, joined the production team.[7]

The name of the production company for the second film, Either Or Productions, LLC, is taken from the title Rand gave to the middle section of her novel. An April press release stated the name of the film as Atlas Shrugged, Part 2: Either Or.[8]

Principal photography began on April 2, 2012 with an all-new cast, including Samantha Mathis as the heroine Dagny Taggart, Jason Beghe as the industrialist Henry Rearden, and Esai Morales as the playboy Francisco d'Anconia.[8] Producer John Aglialoro has implied that hiring the cast of Part I for the sequel exceeded the movie's budget, saying "it's hard to lock people down", and also noting that Taylor Schilling, the actress who played Dagny in Part I, is "a bona fide movie star now".[9] According to a report before the film was released, the film was to be on a 31-day shooting schedule, four days more than that of the first movie, and to undergo two months of post-production.[10]

Atlas Shrugged: Part II was not screened for critics before its release, with producer John Aglialoro questioning "the integrity of the critics".[11] The film was screened for the conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation and the libertarian Cato Institute.[1]

Atlas Shrugged: Part II opened on 1,012 screens and earned $692,000 on its premiere[12] and $1.7 million its opening weekend, debuting at #11. Despite opening on more than three times the screens of Part I, it did not significantly improve on Part I's opening weekend.[13][14][15]

The box office take totaled $3,286,255 through November 4, 2012, the last date for which the producers released numbers. When adjusted for inflation, the film had one of the two hundred least profitable wide openings of the past thirty years, followed by one of the two hundred largest week-over-week drops recorded for the same period. By the third week of release it was down to under 150 screens, taking in under $100,000 on its third weekend.[2]

Review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 4% based on reviews from 23 professional critics, with an average score of 3/10, and the site's consensus is: "Poorly written, clumsily filmed and edited, and hampered by amateurish acting, Atlas Shrugged: Part II does no favors to the ideology it so fervently champions".[16] Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, gives the film a score of 26 based on 11 reviews, which is interpreted as "Generally unfavorable" by Metacritic.[17]

Film critics were not impressed with the film based on several reviews: reviewer Danny Baldwin gave the film a "D" rating;[18] while the New York Post's Kyle Smith gave the film a "1" rating (of 4), saying "...even if you overlooked the production values from a 1986 porno and special effects like something your nephew cooked up on his Mac, the movie's 'Yay, money!' zingers are just a big bag of sad."[19] Scott Tobias of The A.V. Club gave the film a grade of "F", citing lack of story progression and poor character designs,[20] and named it the second-worst film of 2012, claiming, "The irony of Part II's mere existence is rich enough: The free market is a religion for Rand acolytes, and it emphatically rejected Part I."[21] Jim Lane of the Sacramento News & Review gave it a mixed review, calling it "a respectable effort hampered less by its limited budget than by the dogmatic contrivances of Rand's plot and the straw-man polemics of her wooden, declamatory dialogue."[22]

Economics columnist John Tamny of Forbes.com gave the film a positive review and argued that it is "a must see because it in a very handsome way describes the world in which we live today whereby the achievers are being shackled by the moochers."[23]

The film was nominated for two Golden Raspberry Awards including Worst Director for John Putch and Worst Screenplay.[24]

The sequel and the third part in the trilogy, Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt?, was released on September 12, 2014.[25]

Read more:

Atlas Shrugged: Part II - Wikipedia

Nick Centera ... camera intern Brian Christie ... best boy grip Houman Forough ... additional camera operator / camera operator Miles Gutkin ... grip Paul Hamacher ... dolly grip Ryan Hartford ... camera production assistant Kaoru Ishizuka ... additional second assistant camera: "a" camera Kevin Ivey ... key second assistant camera Dan Kerns ... gaffer Lorna Leslie ... second assistant camera: additional photography Robert McFall ... grip Thomas McGough ... best boy electric (2010) Brittany Meadows ... camera production assistant Michael Mull ... grip Brian Murray ... lighting technician Ian Myron ... electrician Jimmie R. Owens ... grip Rich Pereksta ... first assistant camera Jens Piotrowski ... camera operator: additional "a" camera and steadicam Brennan Price ... lighting technician (as Brennan L. Price) Geoff Regan ... video playback technician Robert Reid ... key grip James Rydings ... additional first assistant camera: "a" camera Todd SanSone ... digital imaging technician Paul Saunders ... additional digital imaging technician Philip Shanahan ... key first assistant camera Alex J. Sherman ... second unit assistant camera Ian Sherrington ... additional second assistant camera: "b" camera / second assistant camera Von Thomas ... digital imaging technician Matt Trub ... aerial cinematographer Stefan von Bjrn ... a camera steadicam (as Stefan von Bjorn) Howard Wexler ... director of photography: second unit Bradley Everett Wilson ... camera supporter Nick Zeigler ... electrician

Read the original:

Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011) - Full Cast & Crew - IMDb

It wouldnt be an Aaron Rodgers media appearance without at least some ilk of controversy. The NFL quarterback stepped in it again by promoting Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged on national television Monday night.

During ESPNs alternate broadcast of Monday Night Football hosted by Peyton Manning and Eli Manning, Rodgers joined the show as a guest and was promptly complimented on his backdrop of books. The first book Rodgers made sure to call out was Atlas Shrugged.

Although the novel is fiction, many find it to be controversial for promoting selfishness as a virtue. The odious ideology developed somewhat of a cult following which tends to attract young men in college who lack the worldview to care for others.

Atlas Shrugged is also often joked about being on brand for someone who touts doing their own research. Rodgers infamously did his own research on getting vaccinated and then lied about being immunized against Covid when in reality, he refused the jab. In addition to doing his own research, Rodgers also controversially sought Covid advice from polarizing podcaster Joe Rogan.

Rodgers seemingly portrays himself as being otherworldly and an eccentric thinker, but Rands book is often mocked as being a red flag when people tout it as one of their favorite works. Twitter was both outraged and not surprised when they learned of Rodgers affinity for Atlas Shrugged Monday night.

It should be noted that Rodgers also called out his Chuck Norris action figure, which sat on one of the bookshelves behind him not far from Atlas Shrugged.

Watch above via ESPN

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Go here to read the rest:

Twitter Freaks After Aaron Rodgers Touts 'Atlas Shrugged'

Aaron Rodgers superstar quarterback of the Green Bay Packers continues to cause fits among leftists far and wide.

From the moment he called out hypocrite politicians who don't obey their own COVID-19 mandates a year ago to his more recent takedowns of the "woke mob" and "cancel culture" particularly with regard to vaccines and his revelation that he consulted with podcaster Joe Rogan for COVID-19 treatment after contracting the virus a few months ago, the free-thinking Rodgers has been rising fast on the left's most-hated list.

And on Monday night, he gave them another reason to froth at the mouth.

Rodgers was a guest on Monday Night Football's "ManningCast" during which brothers and ex-NFL quarterbacks Peyton and Eli Manning discuss the game at hand and the subject of what Rodgers reads came up.

The quarterback, who led the Packers to the top NFC playoff position with their Sunday win over the Minnesota Vikings, told the Manning brothers he reads "a lot of French poetry" and then pointed at a bookshelf behind him and said he's "got 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand over here."

Rand and particularly "Atlas Shrugged" increasingly over the last decade or so have become favorite targets of the militant left, who say the author and her famous book espouse a me-first ideology. But fans counter that Rand's writings inspire and uphold individual freedom.

And just like clockwork, leftists jumped all over Rodgers for what's on his reading list.

Philadelphia Inquirer sports columnist Marcus Hayes appeared to lead the charge as he mocked the QB:

The Palmer Report offered the following brutal take:

Others followed suit in bashing the quarterback:

But not every observer agreed with the left-wing talking points.

See the article here:

Leftists completely lose it after Aaron Rodgers says Ayn ...

Being without cable and internet for several days gave me the opportunity to dust off some of my old DVDs and watch them. Three were parts I, II and III of Atlas Shrugged, based on Ayn Rands seminal 1957 novel. Rand was born Alissa Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia on Feb. 2, 1905, a mere 11 days after the infamous Bloody Sunday massacre of Jan. 22, 1905. Her father was a pharmacist and she grew up in a middle-class Jewish family. After the Communists came to power in November 1917, they confiscated her fathers business and the family fled to the Crimea, many miles to the south.

She emigrated to the United States in 1926 when she was 21 years old, changed her name to Ayn Rand and set out for Hollywood. Her most well-known works are We the Living (1936), The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). So-called professional literary critics did not like her books, but they were popular with the public, sold thousands of copies and remain in print today. Ayn Rand was both a novelist (a writer of fiction) and a political and economic theorist; she has been aptly called a philosophical novelist.

Having seen her family and society destroyed by Communist collectivism and terror, it is not surprising that she strenuously opposed them and advocated individualism and its economic manifestation, capitalism. Neither is it surprising that she thought the best place to find these virtues was the United States. And, likewise, it is not surprising that, when she saw those virtues under attack in the United States, she defended them with her powerful pen.

Marx and Lenin divided the world into two groups: (1) the bourgeoisie were the industrial and commercial owners and managers, few in number but great in power; and (2) the proletariat were the workers and farmers, great in number but weak in power. The solution was for the proletariat to rise up in a great revolution, overthrow and destroy the bourgeoisie and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat that governed by the motto, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Rand anticipated and then recognized the disastrous consequences of the poverty, tyranny and social disintegration the communist ideology created where it was implemented and was very alarmed by the collectivism she saw progressivism creating in America. She saw two groups one small, one large. The first was the people who provide the motor of the world, ... those who produce the goods and ideas that keep the society going, be they industrialists, engineers, artists, scientists, or philosophers that is, the creative individualists. The second was everyone else.

The latter permit, and even demand, the suppression of freedom because they do not value it because they hate the fact that liberty allows some to achieve things others cannot, thereby violating the collectivist ethos of equity. It is not the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about but the alliance between the industrial, academic, entertainment, mass media and political institutions which endlessly attack like stinger bees those who provide the motor of the world with so many rules, regulations, taxes and fees in the name of first one and then another silly cause that the movers and shakers simply quit and disappear, thereby depriving society of the benefits of their work.

The rest are unable or unwilling to engage in creative and productive labor, so the economy collapses, money becomes worthless because there is nothing to buy with it and society degenerates into roving gangs of lawless thugs.

If Ayn Rand could write like this in the 1950s, we can only imagine what she would think of our society, our economy and our politics today. If she, by a miracle, were alive today, she would have seen the Soviet Union collapse, she would have seen China discard the failure of rigid communism in favor of authoritarian mercantilism, she would have seen the failure of the clown regime in North Korea and she would have seen Fidel Castro destroy Cuba and Hugo Chavez destroy Venezuela all examples of collectivism.

Then she would say, Have you Americans completely lost your minds? Have you gone crazy? Why do you want to go down this awful road?

If you want to know who John Galt is, read the 1,168-page book or watch the movies on DVD or by streaming them from YouTube or Prime Video. Itll be time well spent.

Winfield H. Rose taught political science at Murray State University for 39 years and is now retired. He is active in the Calloway County GOP, but speaks here as an individual and not as a representative of either of these organizations. He can be reached at winfieldrose@gmail.com.

Editors Note: Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of the Murray Ledger & Times.

Read more:

Who is John Galt ? | Opinion | murrayledger.com - Murray Ledger and Times