Category Archives: Ayn Rand

Sixty years ago, the great philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand delivered a famous lecture in which she called Americas big business as a persecuted minority. Evidently, she overlooked the situation in India, for the persecution of all businessbig and small, in services and manufacturing cutting across sectorswas infinitely more here than it was ever in the United States. Even 30 years after liberalization, which did away with some of the worst features of socialism, the captains of industry continue to be treated like second-class citizens. This is evident from the treatment meted out to the Infosys bosses, the Tata group, and the auto sector.

Not that micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) are treated any better. An Indian-American entrepreneur, Rakesh Nayak, recently exposed the governments big claims about the enhanced ease of doing business in India in a tweet: Unpopular opinion: After spending almost a month in India doing business, I have concluded one thingthe morons who gave me lectures on how India has developed digitally & become business-friendly recently are either jobless or never did any business or they are worth nothing.

It has got more than 19,700 likes and 500 replies since then. It has been retweeted over 4,200 times.

MSMEs, however, can find some solace in the fact that at least ministers, ruling party leaders, and other politicians dont badmouth them. Even communists, doctrinally and temperamentally opposed to anything private, favor support to MSMEs.

Big business, however, is a different ball game. Politicians, especially those leaning Leftwards, regularly portray corporate biggies as anti-poor, profit-obsessed monsters who ought to be kept on a tight leash. Even the incumbent ministers, supposedly representing a Rightwing government, routinely humiliate top magnates. Big businesspersons can be accused of being heartless towards the plight of their employees and fellow citizens, ruthless in the market, not nationalistic enough, and now even anti-national.

A minister slams India Inc focusing on profits rather than nation building and another one harangues the auto sector for not going electric. These verbal assaults are symptomatic of a severely statist attitude which, in turn, has real, painful consequences.

For, in policy terms, statism translates into tight controls over businesses. Not just regulatory mechanisms are made more stringent and compliances more cumbersome and agonizing; state intervention tends to enter into corporate decision making.

A few years ago, the government mandated that a certain amount of big companies profits should go towards corporate social responsibility (CSR) funding. Non-compliance could result in criminal liabilities. Thankfully, finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced in August 2019 that the liabilities would be just civil and not criminal.

But the very idea of mandatory CSR is an abomination; it is indeed the epitome of illiberal welfarism, something no lover of human freedom can condone, let alone support. The first and foremost objection to the idea is that it represents the states brazen desire to control of one of the noblest of human instinctsphilanthropy. The urge to help fellow human beings is as old as mankind. Over two-and-a-half millennia ago, Prince Siddhartha Gautam, moved by the sufferings of men and women around him, sacrificed all the pleasures and privileges that his royal status could bring to him and became Lord Buddha. He was certainly not responding to some fiat by his father to do so.

Similarly, those countless Europeans who gave up comfortable lives to serve humanity as Christian missionaries in Africa and Asia did not do so because of some government diktat. In the last century, a large number of rich youngsters in the West as well as in India became communists and socialists in the mistaken belief that their ideologies would make the world a better place. Many American tycoons have donated huge amounts to set up foundations and charities. Indian business houses have also donated for society. So, why should our government force big industry to become philanthropic?

Mandatory CSR is egregious not just because it introduces a pointless state intervention where none is needed, but also, and more so, because it attempts to control all that is personal and private to any individualinstincts, sentiments, munificence, genuine, and spontaneous altruism. It enters the sacred space of the citizen, conscience, and defiles its sanctity. It is the colonization of conscience.

But Indias deep pink statecomprising statist policy and decision makers entrenched in the systemdoes not believe that corporations have any conscience. Since the institutionalized mindset is inveterately anti-business, the policy framework remains hostile to entrepreneurs. An obvious consequence is price control. The healthcare sector is the worst affected one; price caps on drugs and medical devices are a regular occurrence. The pretexts are well-knownaffordable healthcare, helping the poor, etc.

The powers that be, however, also meddle in other sectors to regulate prices. One of the most anti-business decisions the Narendra Modi government has taken so far was the setting up of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) in 2017. The objective was to ensure that the consumer benefited from the reduction in rate of the Central goods and services tax. The exercise militated against the spirit of liberalization, for every economist, barring the lal salaam-types, agrees that prices are best determined by the market; politicians and bureaucrats should have nothing to do with them.

The NAA was supposed given a two-year term. But then, as Milton Friedman said, nothing is so permanent as a temporary government programme. The NAA got another extension, of two years, in 2019.

But what now, as the extension ends in November? Will the fiend die its natural death? Well, not if our political masters have their way, for the Goods and Service Tax Council is still pondering over the great issue of keeping the NAA alive. A proposal doing the rounds is that it may be merged with the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Evil is vanquished only in fiction, not in reality.

The moral of the story is that some things dont change in India; anti-business attitude is one of them. Unsurprisingly, India Inc remains a persecuted minority.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

Continued here:

Indias big business: A persecuted minority - The Times of India Blog

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) Lindsay Brown prepares a dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine at a drive-thru event organized by the Utah County Health Department in Spanish Fork on Friday, Sept. 10, 2021.

By Paul Gibbs | Special to The Tribune

| Sep. 21, 2021, 7:00 p.m.

| Updated: 10:24 p.m.

This is the weapon of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it.

Batman, The Dark Knight Returns, by Frank Miller

Most who know me through my advocacy know that Batman is my activist alter ego. Im inspired by how he uses the fear and pain of his own trauma as motivation to turn fear and pain against themselves, and thats what I try to do by fighting to give others the access to health care that gave me the transplanted kidney that has kept me alive.

Batman obeys one rule which he believes separates him from his adversaries: he refuses to kill. The line I wont cross is rooting for or talking pleasure in anyones illness or death, and I allow no exceptions. These things are the enemy, and I will not use their weapons.

As the pandemic rages, I see many good people reacting without compassion to the deaths of unvaccinated people. They site the ready availability of vaccines and the politically motivated refusal of many as reasons these people deserve their fate.

I certainly understand and share the anger at those who spread vile anti-vaccine propaganda and deride a safe and simple measure which could save the lives of themselves and others. I would argue that Im in a position to feel this more than most, as my status as an immunocompromised kidney transplant patient has put me in virtual house arrest for most of the past year and a half.

But despite my anger at the anti-vaxxers, I cannot share the dismissive attitude toward their passing.

No ones vaccination choice truly impacts them alone. Unvaccinated people increase the spread of COVID-19 to others, and slow our chances of reaching herd immunity. As they die, so will others with them, whether they are unvaccinated or are immunocompromised or otherwise higher risk, even if vaccinated.

Far from all of those who fail to get vaccinated are angry, politically motivated anti-vaxxers. Many simply have not been able to sort the real information from the anti-vaccine propaganda and crackpot theories. And an inordinate number of them are in the Medicaid population. These are the same people so many of us in Utah fought long and hard to protect through Medicaid expansion. To care less about them now would blur the line us and those we accused of dismissing their health and lives because they disagreed with expanding Medicaid.

During the fights I joined in to expand Medicaid and protect the Affordable Care Act, I saw an astonishing lack of compassion. Whether it was the person who said they hoped my 1-year-old son and I got run over on our way to a rally, or politicians who echoed Ayn Rand rhetoric to complain about taking money from producers to help the uninsured, I saw people who had made a moral compromise to allow for the belief that some lives are less important than others.

I promised never to make the same compromise. Whether our reason is better than theirs is not the point; Any step toward separating those who deserve life and those who dont moves our society away from compassion when we need it more than ever.

If we are to be defenders of human life, we cannot do so by devaluing lives, however ridiculous or pernicious their beliefs and choices. We dont need the weapon of the enemy, and we must refuse to use it. Our words undermine our own efforts to extend compassion to others. To paraphrase my hero again, its not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us.

Paul Gibbs is an independent filmmaker, health care activist and Batman fan. He has advocated for health care causes locally and nationally since receiving a kidney transplant, and is currently waiting out the pandemic in West Valley City with his wife and two sons, and teaching kindergarten at home to his 5-year-old.

See original here:

Paul Gibbs: Take no joy in the misery of the unvaccinated - Salt Lake Tribune

The transition from summer to fall has been a challenging one for those of us with a progressive bent. Many of us feel fed up with the pace of our battle against COVID-19. Many of us blame those who refuse to get vaccinated or take basic safety precautions.

You could watch the frustration seep through in President Joe Bidens speech last week. Commentary on Twitter was immediate: Dad was turning the car around. The commander in chief had had enough.

What makes it incredibly more frustrating is that we have the tools to combat COVID-19, and a distinct minority of Americans supported by a distinct minority of elected officials are keeping us from turning the corner, Biden said.

But he was only the most prominent example of a trend. Good-natured talk show host Jimmy Kimmel suggested that hospitals not treat people who decided against vaccination. Delta Airlines announced it would charge employees who didnt get vaccinated an extra $200 per month on their health insurance. News outlet after news outlet pumped out stories about the hospitalized unvaccinated, struggling to breathe and regretting their choices.

The frustration makes sense. I sympathize with the anger. But during this virus-riddled time, we cant allow the pandemic to melt our minds.

We should not want people who disagree with us even if that disagreement takes the form of refusing a vaccine or mask to forgo health insurance or medical care. We should not want them to suffer, even if we feel the temptation. And we should be exceptionally cautious about translating frustration into policy. Its a short leap from making health insurance more expensive for an anti-vaxxer to making it unaffordable for someone with pre-existing conditions like high blood pressure or obesity. Its a short leap from doctors refusing to treat unvaccinated patients to doctors turning away gay, lesbian or transgender patients.

Folks on the right have a history of excluding or denigrating people of different genders, colors, religions or sexual orientations. Extreme supporters of former President Donald Trump have turned that exclusion into a white nationalist cause. This past and present has created an enduring young voter problem for conservatives. No one should be eager to replicate that strategy.

We support progressive causes for a reason: Theyre good for everybody. That means Republicans, Democrats, independents, anti-vaxxers and vaccine scientists alike. (Yes, the wealthy may pay more in taxes, but those funds will go to strengthen the country as a whole.) When we forget the motivations behind greater equality and stronger social programs, we forfeit any moral high ground and might as well hand the keys over to our ideological opponents.

Im not exonerating pro-virus leaders. The political figures I dubbed the disinformation caucus a couple of weeks ago bear heavy responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in. Im not forgiving viral news media outlets that spread science fiction posing as science fact. We should all demand accountability from public figures. But we should not wish harm on anyone.

Kansas desperately needs an expanded Medicaid program. But we are a red state, which means that many of those covered under the program would presumably be conservative. Perhaps theyre socialists or libertarians or luddites. Thats OK! No one in their right mind would propose that only progressives qualify.

Expanding Medicaid helps Kansas precisely because it helps a broad swath of our population. It will help those in rural and urban areas. It will help men and women. It will help our families and friends, hospitals and communities. That help, in turn, strengthens our entire society even the folks who dont use the program.

Remember Ayn Rand.

The objectivist philosopher and author of unreadable doorstops was outspoken in her disdain of government benefits. Yet she used Social Security and Medicare. While its easy to make fun of her for that, the programs were and are meant to help everyone of retirement age. (To make herself feel better, Rand seems to have regarded the benefits as restitution for prior tax payments.)

We do face a truly tough choice. Hospital capacity. If COVID-19 positive patients take up every ICU bed in a facility, what kind of harm does that do to other people including vaccinated people who arent able to access care? An Alabama cardiac patient, for example, was turned away from 43 facilities because they didnt have space. Ray DeMonia later died in a Mississippi hospital more than 200 miles away from his home.

There are no simple answers here. Those running hospitals are making difficult decisions daily. Those refusing vaccines will have to decide if their conscience can handle the burden. But I cant accept that excluding our fellow human beings, regardless of their short-sightedness, is a workable solution. We shouldnt even wish to do so.

The long-term solutions remain the same. Vaccines, masks, testing, distancing and following basic public health advice. Did I mention vaccines already? They are the way out, for progressives and conservatives alike. Because while we shouldnt ration care based on beliefs, the virus wont discriminate either.

Perhaps government-issued mandates will end the pandemic more quickly. I hope so. But in the meantime, we cant allow our frustration to overwhelm our humanity.

See the rest here:

Progressives beware: Don't let values become casualties of the pandemic - Kansas Reflector

What happened and why

This year marked the 50th anniversary of President Nixons decision to unilaterally close thegold window. The impact of this move can hardly be overstated. It triggered a tectonic shift of momentous consequences and it changed not just the global economy and the monetary realities, but it also shaped modern politics and severely affected our society at large.

In July 1944, representatives from 44 nations convened in the resort town of Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to figure out how the global monetary system should be structured after the end of the war. The US took the clear lead during these talks, exploiting the considerable leverage it had over other countries devastated by WWII or even still occupied by Germany. After all, at that point, Americans were the creditors of the world and had accumulated tons of gold throughout the 1930s and during the war, as the US was widely seen as a safe haven amid the conflict and uncertainty that prevailed at the time.

Thus, theBretton WoodsAgreement was born, under which the U.S. pledged to convert into gold any dollars brought by other countriescentral banks at a rate of $35/oz, while the currencies of the other participating countries were to be convertible into USD at a fixed rate. What this meant in practice, was that the USD became the dominantreserve currency and the fundament of entire financial system of the West, while the gold peg was reduced to amanaged version, through artificial price controls, that was always doomed to fail.

Indeed, the Bretton Woods system didnt last long. It wasnt fully implemented until 1958 and by the mid 60s it was already obvious that its days were numbered. The US gold stockpiles were dwindling as European central banks soon began redeeming their dollar claims, and there were real fears that US gold holdings might eventually be exhausted. Also, the Bretton Woods system, even though it wasmanaged and much weaker form of the classical gold standard, did still at least partially keep government spending and deficits in check, something that Nixon resented, especially with a view to the next election.

And so, on August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon announced his decision close thegold window, and end the convertibility of USD to gold. He thereby severed the final link between the US currency and any real asset that backed it and gave rise to the new era of totally unrestrained fiat money, that could be manipulated, printed and distributed on the whim of state central planners. In one fell swoop, money lost whatever integrity and reliability it had left and it was turned into a purely political tool, if not a weapon.

In his televised address to the nation and to the world, President Nixon justified his decision by claiming thatprosperity without war requires action on three fronts. We must create more and better jobs; we must stop the rise in the cost of living; we must protect the dollar from the attacks of international money speculators.

As we all know by now, none of these goals were meat. In fact, the result of this unilateral move to extinguish the last vestiges of the gold standard achieved the exact opposite, on all fronts. It unleashed decades of inflationary policies, turbulence in currency markets, and it laid the foundations for an economic and financial system that is dangerously unstable, fragile and fundamentally unjust. All these implications are plain to see today, but the Presidents actions were celebrated by the US establishment of the time. The Dow Jones Average rose the day after the address, while the New York Times unreservedly expressed its support, by writingwe unhesitatingly applaud the boldness with which the President has moved on all economic fronts.

And yet, there were a few voices that spoke out, for common sense and Reason. As the Cato Institute outlined,Milton Friedman wrote in his Newsweek column that the price controlswill end as all previous attempts to freeze prices and wages have ended, from the time of the Roman emperor Diocletian to the present, in utter failure. Ayn Rand gave alecture about the program titledThe Moratorium on Brains and denounced it in her newsletter. Alan Reynolds, now aCato senior fellow, wrote in National Review that wage and price controls weretyranny necessarily selective and discriminatory and unworkable. Murray Rothbard declared in the New York Times that on August 15fascism came to America and that the promise to control prices wasa fraud and ahoax given that it was accompanied by atariff increase.

At the time, many opponents of the truly free market tried to shut down and stifle any and all dissenting views, dismissing all these concerns as hysterical overreactions and alarmist nonsense. That reaction is not unfamiliar to us today. It is lifted from the same playbook that is still in use, and the same strategy is being deployed against anyone who criticizes the grand designs of central planners or warns against the obvious consequences of their reckless policies and short-sighted fixes to long-term economic and monetary problems.

Read the original post:

50 Years Since The Closure Of The 'Gold Window' (Part I) - OpEd - Eurasia Review

We love a bit of self-care and the last year at home has given us an excuse to look after ourselves inside and out. Each week, we ask the celeb lot to share their self-care Sunday routines, because taking care of yourself is more important than ever.

This week it's all about Selling Sunset's Mary Fitzgerald, the glam LA real estate agent who makes selling million pound houses seem like a doddle. She's hilarious, sassy and extremely loyal to the other girls at The Oppenheim Group.

She tied the knot with French husband Romain Bonnet during the season two finale and even managed to sell a house on the same day. Get a girl who can do both, tbh.

Mary caught up with heat to talk about filming secrets, make-up favourites and the book that changed her life...

We can all agree that Selling Sunset is explosive, glamourous and downright addictive, but what's the tea we don't get to see at home?

Mary laughs, "What happens behind the scenes is probably juicer than what you see on screen because they have to tone it down!"

"There's also a lot of properties, sales and buyers that I'm working with that isn't on the show. You guys see about 10% of what I do, because they want to see the biggest, most glamorous home. So if it's like a $3 million cute home, it's like, 'we have this one over $10,000,000 one here, so we're gonna focus on that one'."

"So, I could close maybe 10 or 15 deals this year, and they'll show one. They just pick what they want and then also, they edit down a lot," she explains. "We film so much, and we have no idea what they're going to actually edit it down to. So there's a lot that goes on that just people don't see."

Ugh, we'd do anything to watch the outtakes. ANYTHING.

Do the Selling Sunset cast have a viewing party? The answer is YES.

"They normally let us watch it a couple of days before it airs because we don't know what happens in scenes when we're not there. They kind of give us a little warning about what's going to come out. Sometimes it's good sometimes it's bad and you're like, 'Oh my god, no, that happened? I'm so mad!' But for the most part, it's just kind of a warning."

"We'll typically throw a party like a little viewing party for all of our friends and family. Then I don't really watch it back other than that, but other than my wedding, I've occasionally gone back and rewatched my wedding. It's a little better than pulling out a wedding album! It's just an emotional moment, so I'd do that twice a year or something."

Who needs a wedding tape when you have Netflix, eh?

"I love a massage or facial. I turn off my phone and watch TV and just kind of try to go brain dead, as my brain just goes and goes and goes all the time. It's really nice just to turn everything off and just chill or just watch a movie. I also get in my infrared hot sauna and I try to use my Babble app and learn French while I'm in there."

Mary always looks imaculate on screen, so we need to know, does she do her own make-up?

"Yeah, pretty much unless we do interviews and then and then they provide hair and makeup for us. But a lot of the girls have their hair makeup done every day. I just don't have time for that."

As for her go-to products?

"My favourite foundation is the Lancme Teint Idole Ultra Wear Long-Lasting Foundation (27.60). It literally stays on forever. It looks so good and it just stays on. If I go get a facial, they're like, 'what do you have on your face? It's really hard to get it off!' which is amazing as we're always running around and it's so warm here and it just does not move. It doesn't look super thick or anything either."

"I like Buxom Lip Gloss (4.99), it's so nice and plumping and Too Faced Better Than Sex (19.20) for mascara!"

"Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read that years and years ago and it just made a huge impact on me. It's a long book and you have to be very dedicated to read it, but it's a classic and I think it was just very inspirational. It just changed my way of thinking."

"If negativity is coming your way, unless you really did something to deserve it, most of the time it's a projection from the other person because they feel insecure in themselves. It's not about you personally. I try and always remember that and it always helps me to process things better without getting hurt or mad about people doing or saying things."

AMEN.

Show youre currently binging? I watched StartUp on Nextflix recently and loved it.

Go-to cuppa? I love dirty matcha lattes, which is like matcha hot matcha latte with a shot of espresso.

Go-to loungewear brand? Queen's Park Sleepwear.

Favourite candle? My older sister actually makes candles, the brand is called Vintage Road.

Saffron Barker talks bronzer hacks, marathon training and her go-to 4 foam cleanser

Abbie Holborn talks great advice, ice chambers and the 3.49 treatment she swears by for healthy hair

WhatEmWore talks styling tricks, career advice and the 3 moisturiser she swears by

Mary recently opened up about Chrishell and Jason's new romance and admitted, "I never saw it coming!"

Selling Sunset's Chrishell Stause and Jason Oppenheim confirmed their relationship in an Instagram photo dump captioned "The JLo effect" and we've been obsessed ever since.

"I never saw it coming because obviously she was married and so happy and he's always been a commitment-phobe. She's very serious in relationships, so I didn't even think about that and we're all just good friends," Mary told heat.

Follow this link:

Selling Sunset's Mary Fitzgerald talks filming secrets and the long-lasting foundation she swears by - Heat

Ilona Royce Smithkin, who as an orange-haired nonagenarian with matching two-inch eyelashes caught fire in the world of fashion, starring in a documentary film and joining fashion campaigns for brands like Coach, while flinging embers into many other fields as a muse for photographers, filmmakers and entertainers a joyous persona that took a lifetime to build after a grim childhood died on Aug. 1 at her home in Provincetown, Mass. She was 101.

The death was confirmed by Melinda Levy, a longtime friend and a trustee of her estate.

Ms. Smithkins rise to fame began with a rumor.

In 2010, the photographer Ari Seth Cohen, who created Advanced Style a blog devoted to the style of women over 60 that later became a book series and a movie on the same topic heard from a friend about a magical woman with fiery red hair and the longest eyelashes anyone had ever seen. He staked out a store she was said to visit.

Not long after, he spotted a woman on the street in the West Village of Manhattan who was about 4 feet 9 inches tall and wore hand-painted sneakers, matching baby blue clothes and diamond-studded sunglasses, with eyelashes poking out. It was her.

Mr. Cohen asked to take Ms. Smithkins photograph. She exclaimed, Of course, and kicked a leg in the air.

I instantly fell in love, Mr. Cohen said in a phone interview.

He began visiting Ms. Smithkins fourth-floor West Village walk-up, a tiny studio so crammed with fabrics, handbags, paintings, magazines and hats that the door could not fully open. Ms. Smithkin served coffee or vodka the only two things I know how to make, she explained and described how she fabricated her own caftans and turned objects like letter organizers and typewriter springs into jewelry.

Without any intent to make a movie, Mr. Cohen and a friend, Lina Plioplyte, began filming their conversations with Ms. Smithkin. That became, in 2014, a documentary, Advanced Style, focused on some of the blogs principal recurring characters.

In the movie, Ms. Smithkin, a painter by profession, combined arresting personal disclosures with slapstick comedy. I came into my own about maybe 10, 12, 13 years ago, she said, although she was 94 when it was released. She joined a nonagenarian friend, whom she said suffered from memory loss, to sing as a duet You Make Me Feel So Young.

I dont think Advanced Style would have been a fraction of what it is without Ilona, Mr. Cohen said. She brought it a depth. She was the star.

Ms. Smithkin started modeling, appearing in campaigns for eyewear by Karen Walker and clothes by Mara Hoffman. She was labeled a 92-year-old style legend by The New York Posts Page Six, which described her dancing at the Jane Hotel in the West Village without noticing that her scarf had caught fire from a nearby candle. Another partygoer doused the flames with champagne.

To those boogieing at the Jane Hotel, Ms. Smithkin might have seemed a figure from vaudeville, her flamboyant get-up amusing enough for a turn in the spotlight. But she had a stable of mentees, consisting largely of artists, who knew better, said one of them, the actor Erik Liberman.

She noticed who was pulled in by the color and light, and who wanted to understand the source of the color and light, Mr. Liberman said. For those who sought deeper conversation, off came the hats, the fabulous scarves and eventually even the eyelashes.

Mr. Liberman often showed up at Ms. Smithkins studio at a moments notice to take naps between Broadway performances. When, as an aspiring actor in his late 20s, he began spending time with Ms. Smithkin, he brought along notebooks to record what she said. She instructed him to take his own creative powers seriously, rather than view acting as a form of subservience to someone elses vision.

That altered the entire course particularly of my young career, Mr. Liberman said.

Ms. Smithkin was born Ilona Rosenkranz on March 27, 1920. Her father, Mordko, was an engineer; her mother, Frida (Lubinski) Rosenkranz, was a homemaker.

That information comes from immigration documents. In April 1938, the family moved from Berlin, where Ilona had grown up, to New York. They listed their race as Hebrew.

As an adult, Ms. Smithkin avoided discussing her background, saying when prompted that she had few recollections. But in a 2004 documentary about her, Ilona, Upstairs, she attributed the way her head shook sometimes involuntarily to experiences she had as an 11-year-old when the Nazis began their rise to power.

Its not Alzheimers, its not Parkinsons, she said of her shaking. That is that terrible, repressed fear.

In the United States, her parents Anglicized their names to Max and Frieda, and the family surname became Royce.

According to Ilonas early-1940s petition for naturalization as a citizen, she was born in Berlin, but she later said that she had been born in Poland. She began making art when she was about 5, and she studied at the Reimann School of Art and Design in Berlin, the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerp, Belgium, and the Art Students League in New York.

A year after immigrating, when she was 19, Ilona married Irving Smithkin, a linotype operator. He died fighting in World War II and was buried in Italy.

Ms. Smithkin painted and made a living as a milliner, a factory worker, a painter of glass lantern shades and a movie theater usher. She moved into her West Village studio in 1947.

In the 1960s and 70s, she began teaching art classes in Kentucky and South Carolina, traveling to small towns and using church basements and funeral parlors as classrooms. In 1975, she began holding painting classes on the South Carolina Educational Television Network.

When she was not on the road, Ms. Smithkin split her time between the West Village and Provincetown. She met and made portraits of writers like Tennessee Williams, Eugene ONeill and Ayn Rand.

In interviews, Ms. Smithkin referred to having a revelation and finally becoming her authentic self around the age of 80, roughly the same time she started performing songs by Marlene Dietrich and dith Piaf in Provincetown and at New York venues like Joes Pub. She would wear stilettos, stockings and a revealing dress, and until she had hip surgery in her mid-80s, she finished every show by doing a split.

By her own admission, she did not have much of a voice but neither, she said, did Dietrich.

Ms. Smithkin leaves no immediate survivors, but she did develop a ritual for marking someone as part of her inner circle.

You entered her studio and sat on a chair next to her bed. She studied your face. She selected a pencil. Then, for about 20 minutes, you held still while she drew a portrait of one of your eyes.

You talk; I want to hear about you, she would say while drawing, according to Insomniac City, a memoir by the photographer Bill Hayes in which he described sitting for an eye portrait. At this moment, you are the most important person in the world.

It was, Mr. Liberman said, a spiritual experience.

She grew preternaturally still, and her observance plumbed the depths of who you were, he added. She could evoke the entire cosmos of someones being through the microcosm of their eye.

Alain Delaqurire contributed research.

Read more:

Ilona Royce Smithkin, Improbable Muse in Fashion and Art, Dies at 101 - The New York Times

Amid the thunderous praise for Kate Clanchys 2019 book Some Kids I Taught and What They Taught Me, there were also growing concerns about racist, fatphobic, and ableist descriptions of her past students. The award-winning memoir documents Clanchys thirty years as a (white) educator, emphasizing the need to support multicultural classrooms.

On that premise alone, this book should have been more critically examined. It already has a faint whiff of white saviorism and imperial gaze, and that is before getting into the word choice that started the discourse on it.

As the book got into more hands, reviews on websites such as Twitter, Goodreads, The Storygraph, and more began to point out the problematic to outright offensive ways of talking about the students. Clanchy not only denied the quotes that came from her book but asked Twitter users to flag the Goodreads reviews as false.

Piecing together the story through screenshots of now-deleted tweets, she at first claimed that people were lying. When that became harder to do, she pivoted to the oh well, now that is just taken out of context and if you read the book, then you would understand. That caused the already terrible situation to escalate.

In a move that at this point should surprise no one, she activated her white women fragility trap card. This prompted high-profile authors like Philip Pullman and Amanda Craig to fly to her defense.

Like Central Park Karen, Mary Beard, and infinite white women before them, Clanchy weaponized her tears to shield herself against mounting criticism. In doing that, she put targets on the backs of high-profile authors of color like Chimene Suleyman, Monisha Rajesh, and Sunny Singh.

In Ruby Hamads book White Tears/Brown Scars: How White Feminism Betrays Women of Color, she writes,

White womens racial privilege is predicated on their acceptance of their role of virtue and goodness, which is, ultimately, powerlessness. It is in this powerlessnessor, I would argue, this appearance of powerlessness that governs the nature of White Womanhood.

When Clanchy realized that enough people werent agreeing with her, she expressed this powerlessness. Many of her defenders made the bad faith argument that they, too, were powerless if they couldnt talk about race as offensively as Clanchyagain, making it about themselves rather than the people who were the focus of the descriptions, as if describing Black people (in this case children) as chocolate were appropriate. Just when you think the describing brown skin as food discussion is done, this happens.

All of this while Clanchy wrote to position herself as the white savior figure and bringer of culture to those with African voice, slanted eyes, and Jewish noseall words she used in her book to describe children.

Not only did His Dark Materials author Philip Pullman run to her defense, but he also did so by defending racism with more racism. Pullman compared the criticism of Clanchy by these women to ISIS and the Talibans censorship.

While he did give an actual apology for defending Clanchy and Ayn Rand, he did not apologize for the racism and Islamophobic remarks he made. In the thread with the apology, he continues to extend racist conversations.

Since then, Clanchy offered a non-apology in which she centered herself and outright said, many of the responses to the extracts from my books, especially those taken out of context, have been difficult to hear.

Since posting the apology, Clanchy has indicated that shell be editing the text for future editions. The sensitivity readers (plural) that should be hired for this process better be well compensated for the trauma they will be taking on.

Last place in the apology tour goes to Amanda Craig. Instead of an apology or even a non-apology statement for defening Clanchys book, Craig decided that locking her Twitter account was the best course of action.

In speaking with The Guardian,Suleyman said she is thankful for Picadors (the publisher) response and asked why content of this nature even reached bookshelves, schools, and was celebrated by prestigious awards.

This should surprise no one, but between 1950-2018, 95% of books from major publishers (Penguin Random House, Simon and Schuster, etc.) were from white authors. The 2018 numbers rested, still, at 89%.

If publishing (from acquisitions to marketing) and those who fortify canons like academics and award judges had a more diverse staffing in every respect, rather than reactionary inclusion training, this would not happen as much. It wouldnt be perfect because we internalize these violent words as okay when it really is anything but.

(featured image: from Pixabay, and Twitter)

The Mary Sue may have advertising partnerships with some of the publishers and titles on this list.

Want more stories like this?Become a subscriber and support the site!

The Mary Sue has a strict comment policythat forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults towardanyone, hate speech, and trolling.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Visit link:

Readers Rush to Defend Kate Clanchy's Racist Book at the Expense of People of Color - The Mary Sue

American writer and philosopher (19051982)

Alice O'Connor (born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum;[a] February 2,[O.S. January 20]1905 March 6, 1982), better known by her pen name Ayn Rand (), was an American writer and philosopher. She is known for her fiction and for developing a philosophical system she named Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, she moved to the United States in 1926. She had a play that opened on Broadway in 1935. After two early novels that were initially unsuccessful, she achieved fame with her 1943 novel, The Fountainhead. In 1957, Rand published her best-known work, the novel Atlas Shrugged. Afterward, she turned to non-fiction to promote her philosophy, publishing her own periodicals and releasing several collections of essays until her death in 1982.

Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism and rejected altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed collectivism, statism, and anarchism. Instead she supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system based on recognizing individual rights, including property rights. Although she was opposed to libertarianism, which she viewed as anarchism, she is often associated with the modern libertarian movement. In art, Rand promoted romantic realism. She was sharply critical of most philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her, except for Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and classical liberals.

Literary critics received Rand's fiction with mixed reviews. Although academic interest in her ideas has grown since her death, academic philosophers have generally ignored or rejected her philosophy due to her polemical approach and lack of methodological rigor. Her writings have had political influence among libertarians and some conservatives. The Objectivist movement attempts to spread her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings.

Rand was born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum on February 2, 1905, to a Russian-Jewish bourgeois family living in Saint Petersburg. She was the eldest of three daughters of Zinovy Zakharovich Rosenbaum, a pharmacist, and Anna Borisovna (ne Kaplan). Rand later said she found school unchallenging and began writing screenplays at the age of eight and novels at the age of ten. At the prestigious Stoiunina Gymnasium[ru], her closest friend was Vladimir Nabokov's younger sister, Olga; the two girls shared an intense interest in politics.

She was twelve at the time of the February Revolution of 1917, during which she favored Alexander Kerensky over Tsar Nicholas II. The subsequent October Revolution and the rule of the Bolsheviks under Vladimir Lenin disrupted the life the family had previously enjoyed. Her father's business was confiscated, and the family fled to the Crimean Peninsula, which was initially under control of the White Army during the Russian Civil War. While in high school there, she concluded that she was an atheist and valued reason above any other virtue. After graduating in June 1921, she returned with her family to Petrograd (as Saint Petersburg was renamed at that time), where they faced desperate conditions, on occasion nearly starving.[22]

After the Russian Revolution, universities were opened to women, allowing her to be in the first group of women to enroll at Petrograd State University. At the age of 16, she began her studies in the department of social pedagogy, majoring in history. At the university she was introduced to the writings of Aristotle and Plato; she came to see their differing views on reality and knowledge as the primary conflict within philosophy.[27] She also studied the philosophical works of Friedrich Nietzsche.

Along with many other bourgeois students, she was purged from the university shortly before graduating. After complaints from a group of visiting foreign scientists, many of the purged students were allowed to complete their work and graduate, which she did in October 1924. She then studied for a year at the State Technicum for Screen Arts in Leningrad. For an assignment, she wrote an essay about the Polish actress Pola Negri, which became her first published work.

By this time, she had decided her professional surname for writing would be Rand, possibly because it is graphically similar to a vowelless excerpt of her birth surname in Cyrillic handwriting, and she adopted the first name Ayn.[b]

In late 1925, Rand was granted a visa to visit relatives in Chicago. She departed on January 17, 1926. When she arrived in New York City on February 19, 1926, she was so impressed with the skyline of Manhattan that she cried what she later called "tears of splendor". Intent on staying in the United States to become a screenwriter, she lived for a few months with her relatives, one of whom owned a movie theater and allowed her to watch dozens of films free of charge. She then left for Hollywood, California.

In Hollywood, a chance meeting with famed director Cecil B. DeMille led to work as an extra in his film The King of Kings and a subsequent job as a junior screenwriter. While working on The King of Kings, she met an aspiring young actor, Frank O'Connor; the two were married on April 15, 1929. She became a permanent American resident in July 1929 and an American citizen on March 3, 1931.[c] She made several attempts to bring her parents and sisters to the United States, but they were unable to acquire permission to emigrate.

During these early years of her career, Rand wrote a number of screenplays, plays, and short stories that were not produced or published during her lifetime, some of which were later published in The Early Ayn Rand.

Rand's first literary success came with the sale of her screenplay Red Pawn to Universal Studios in 1932, although it was never produced. This was followed by the courtroom drama Night of January 16th, first produced by E. E. Clive in Hollywood in 1934 and then successfully reopened on Broadway in 1935. Each night a jury was selected from members of the audience; based on the jury's vote, one of two different endings would be performed.[d]

Rand's first published novel, the semi-autobiographical We the Living, was published in 1936. Set in Soviet Russia, it focused on the struggle between the individual and the state. Initial sales were slow and the American publisher let it go out of print, although European editions continued to sell.[56] She adapted the story as a stage play, but producer George Abbott's Broadway production was a failure that closed in less than a week.[57][e] After the success of her later novels, Rand was able to release a revised version in 1959 that has since sold over three million copies.[59] In a foreword to the 1959 edition, Rand stated that We the Living "is as near to an autobiography as I will ever write. ... The plot is invented, the background is not ..."[60]

Her novella Anthem was written during a break from the writing of her next major novel, The Fountainhead. It presents a vision of a dystopian future world in which totalitarian collectivism has triumphed to such an extent that even the word 'I' has been forgotten and replaced with 'we'. It was published in England in 1938, but Rand initially could not find an American publisher. As with We the Living, Rand's later success allowed her to get a revised version published in 1946, which has sold more than 3.5million copies.[63]

During the 1940s, Rand became politically active. She and her husband worked as full-time volunteers for the 1940 presidential campaign of Republican Wendell Willkie. This work led to Rand's first public speaking experiences; she enjoyed fielding sometimes hostile questions from New York City audiences who had viewed pro-Willkie newsreels. This activity brought her into contact with other intellectuals sympathetic to free-market capitalism. She became friends with journalist Henry Hazlitt, who introduced her to the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Despite her philosophical differences with them, Rand strongly endorsed the writings of both men throughout her career, and both of them expressed admiration for her. Mises once referred to Rand as "the most courageous man in America", a compliment that particularly pleased her because he said "man" instead of "woman". Rand also became friends with libertarian writer Isabel Paterson. Rand questioned Paterson about American history and politics long into the night during their many meetings and gave Paterson ideas for her only non-fiction book, The God of the Machine.

Rand's first major success as a writer came in 1943 with The Fountainhead, a romantic and philosophical novel that she wrote over a period of seven years. The novel centers on an uncompromising young architect named Howard Roark and his struggle against what Rand described as "second-handers"those who attempt to live through others, placing others above themselves. It was rejected by twelve publishers before finally being accepted by the Bobbs-Merrill Company on the insistence of editor Archibald Ogden, who threatened to quit if his employer did not publish it. While completing the novel, Rand was prescribed the amphetamine Benzedrine to fight fatigue. The drug helped her to work long hours to meet her deadline for delivering the novel, but afterwards she was so exhausted that her doctor ordered two weeks' rest. Her use of the drug for approximately three decades may have contributed to what some of her later associates described as volatile mood swings.

The Fountainhead became a worldwide success, bringing Rand fame and financial security. In 1943, Rand sold the film rights to Warner Bros. and she returned to Hollywood to write the screenplay. Afterwards she was hired by producer Hal B. Wallis as a screenwriter and script-doctor. Her work for Wallis included the screenplays for the Oscar-nominated Love Letters and You Came Along. Rand also worked on other projects, including a never-completed nonfiction treatment of her philosophy to be called The Moral Basis of Individualism.[f]

Rand extended her involvement with free-market and anti-communist activism while working in Hollywood. She became involved with the anti-Communist Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals and wrote articles on the group's behalf. She also joined the anti-Communist American Writers Association. A visit by Paterson to meet with Rand's California associates led to a falling out between the two when Paterson made comments, which Rand considered rude, to valued political allies. In 1947, during the Second Red Scare, Rand testified as a "friendly witness" before the United States House Un-American Activities Committee. Rand testified that the 1944 film Song of Russia grossly misrepresented conditions in the Soviet Union, portraying life there as much better and happier than it was. She wanted to also criticize the lauded 1946 film The Best Years of Our Lives for what she interpreted as its negative presentation of the business world, but she was not allowed to testify about it. When asked after the hearings about her feelings on the effectiveness of the investigations, Rand described the process as "futile".

After several delays, the film version of The Fountainhead was released in 1949. Although it used Rand's screenplay with minimal alterations, she "disliked the movie from beginning to end", and complained about its editing, acting, and other elements.

Following the publication of The Fountainhead, Rand received numerous letters from readers, some of whom the book profoundly influenced.[85] In 1951, Rand moved from Los Angeles to New York City, where she gathered a group of these admirers around her. This group (jokingly designated "The Collective") included future Chair of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, a young psychology student named Nathan Blumenthal (later Nathaniel Branden) and his wife Barbara, and Barbara's cousin Leonard Peikoff. Initially the group was an informal gathering of friends who met with Rand on weekends at her apartment to discuss philosophy. She later began allowing them to read the drafts of her new novel, Atlas Shrugged, as the manuscript was written. In 1954, Rand's close relationship with Nathaniel Branden turned into a romantic affair, with the knowledge of their spouses.

Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, was considered Rand's magnum opus. Rand described the theme of the novel as "the role of the mind in man's existenceand, as a corollary, the demonstration of a new moral philosophy: the morality of rational self-interest".[90] It advocates the core tenets of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and expresses her concept of human achievement. The plot involves a dystopian United States in which the most creative industrialists, scientists, and artists respond to a welfare state government by going on strike and retreating to a hidden valley where they build an independent free economy. The novel's hero and leader of the strike, John Galt, describes the strike as "stopping the motor of the world" by withdrawing the minds of the individuals most contributing to the nation's wealth and achievement. With this fictional strike, Rand intended to illustrate that without the efforts of the rational and productive, the economy would collapse and society would fall apart. The novel includes elements of mystery, romance, and science fiction, and it contains an extended exposition of Objectivism in a lengthy monologue delivered by Galt.[93]

Despite many negative reviews, Atlas Shrugged became an international bestseller. However, Rand was discouraged and depressed by the reaction of intellectuals to the novel. Atlas Shrugged was Rand's last completed work of fiction; it marked the end of her career as a novelist and the beginning of her role as a popular philosopher.

In 1958, Nathaniel Branden established Nathaniel Branden Lectures, later incorporated as the Nathaniel Branden Institute (NBI), to promote Rand's philosophy. Collective members gave lectures for NBI and wrote articles for Objectivist periodicals that Rand edited. She later published some of these articles in book form. Rand was unimpressed with many of the NBI students and held them to strict standards, sometimes reacting coldly or angrily to those who disagreed with her. Critics, including some former NBI students and Branden himself, later described the culture of NBI as one of intellectual conformity and excessive reverence for Rand. Some described NBI or the Objectivist movement generally as a cult or religion. Rand expressed opinions on a wide range of topics, from literature and music to sexuality and facial hair, and some of her followers mimicked her preferences, wearing clothes to match characters from her novels and buying furniture like hers. However, some former NBI students believed the extent of these behaviors was exaggerated, and the problem was concentrated among Rand's closest followers in New York.

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Rand developed and promoted her Objectivist philosophy through her nonfiction works and by giving talks to students at institutions such as Yale, Princeton, Columbia,[105] Harvard, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She also began delivering annual lectures at the Ford Hall Forum, responding afterwards to questions from the audience. During these appearances, she often took controversial stances on political and social issues of the day. These included supporting abortion rights, opposing the Vietnam War and the military draft (but condemning many draft dodgers as "bums"), supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 against a coalition of Arab nations as "civilized men fighting savages",[111] saying white colonists had the right to invade and take land inhabited by American Indians,[113] and calling homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting", while also advocating the repeal of all laws about it. She also endorsed several Republican candidates for President of the United States, most strongly Barry Goldwater in 1964, whose candidacy she promoted in several articles for The Objectivist Newsletter.

In 1964, Nathaniel Branden began an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. Nathaniel and Barbara Branden kept the affair hidden from Rand. When she learned of it in 1968, though her romantic relationship with Branden had already ended, Rand terminated her relationship with both Brandens, and NBI was closed. Rand published an article in The Objectivist repudiating Nathaniel Branden for dishonesty and other "irrational behavior in his private life". In subsequent years, Rand and several more of her closest associates parted company.[120]

Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking. In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, after her initial objections, she allowed an employee of her attorney to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare. During the late 1970s her activities within the Objectivist movement declined, especially after the death of her husband on November 9, 1979.[124] One of her final projects was work on a never-completed television adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.

Rand died of heart failure on March 6, 1982, at her home in New York City, and was interred in the Kensico Cemetery, Valhalla, New York. At her funeral, a 6-foot (1.8m) floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign was placed near her casket. In her will, Rand named Peikoff to inherit her estate.

Rand described her approach to literature as "romantic realism". She wanted her fiction to present the world "as it could be and should be", rather than as it was.[131] This approach led her to create highly stylized situations and characters. Her fiction typically has protagonists who are heroic individualists and depicted as fit and attractive. The villains in her stories support duty and collectivist moral ideals. They are often described as unattractive and sometimes have names that suggest negative traits, such as Wesley Mouch in Atlas Shrugged.

Rand considered plot a critical element for literature, and her stories typically have what biographer Anne Heller described as "tight, elaborate, fast-paced plotting". Romantic triangles are a common plot element in Rand's fiction; in most of her novels and plays, the main female character is romantically involved with at least two different men.[137]

In school Rand read works by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Victor Hugo, Edmond Rostand, and Friedrich Schiller, who became her favorites. She considered them to be among the "top rank" of Romantic writers because of their focus on moral themes and their skill at constructing plots. Hugo in particular was an important influence on her writing, especially her approach to plotting. She called him "the greatest novelist in world literature" in the introduction she wrote for an English-language edition of his novel Ninety-Three.

Although Rand disliked most Russian literature, her deptictions of her heroes show the influence of the Russian Symbolists and other nineteenth-century Russian writing, most notably the 1863 novel What Is to Be Done? by Nikolay Chernyshevsky. Rand's experience of the Russian Revolution and early Communist Russia influenced the portrayal of her villains. This is most apparent in We the Living, which is set in Russia, but it is also reflected in the ideas and rhetoric of Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead and the destruction of the economy by the looters in Atlas Shrugged.

Rand's descriptive style reflects her early career writing scenarios and scripts for movies; her novels have many narrative descriptions that resemble early Hollywood movie scenarios. They often follow common film editing conventions, such as having a broad establishing shot description of a scene followed by close-up details, and her descriptions of women characters often take a "male gaze" perspective.[147]

Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism", describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".[148] She considered Objectivism a systematic philosophy and laid out positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics.

In metaphysics, Rand supported philosophical realism, and opposed anything she regarded as mysticism or supernaturalism, including all forms of religion.[150]

In epistemology, she considered all knowledge to be based on sense perception, the validity of which she considered axiomatic, and reason, which she described as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses".[153] She rejected all claims of non-perceptual or a priori knowledge, including "'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing'".[154] In her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Rand presented a theory of concept formation and rejected the analyticsynthetic dichotomy.

In ethics, Rand argued for rational and ethical egoism (rational self-interest), as the guiding moral principle. She said the individual should "exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself".[157] She referred to egoism as "the virtue of selfishness" in her book of that title, in which she presented her solution to the is-ought problem by describing a meta-ethical theory that based morality in the needs of "man's survival qua man".[158] She condemned ethical altruism as incompatible with the requirements of human life and happiness, and held that the initiation of force was evil and irrational, writing in Atlas Shrugged that "Force and mind are opposites."[159]

Rand's political philosophy emphasized individual rights (including property rights), and she considered laissez-faire capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights. She opposed statism, which she understood to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship. Rand believed that natural rights should be protected by a constitutionally limited government. Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, she preferred the term "radical for capitalism". She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics. She denounced libertarianism, which she associated with anarchism. She rejected anarchism as a nave theory based in subjectivism that could only lead to collectivism in practice.

In aesthetics, Rand defined art as a "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments". According to her, art allows philosophical concepts to be presented in a concrete form that can be easily grasped, thereby fulfilling a need of human consciousness. As a writer, the art form Rand focused on most closely was literature, where she considered romanticism to be the approach that most accurately reflected the existence of human free will.

Rand said her most important contributions to philosophy were her "theory of concepts, ethics, and discovery in politics that evilthe violation of rightsconsists of the initiation of force".[169] She believed epistemology was a foundational branch of philosophy and considered the advocacy of reason to be the single most significant aspect of her philosophy,[170] stating: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."[171]

Rand's ethics and politics are the most criticized areas of her philosophy. Multiple authors, including Robert Nozick and William F. O'Neill in some of the earliest academic critiques of her ideas, said she failed in her attempt to solve the isought problem. Her definitions of egoism and altruism have been called biased and inconsistent with normal usage. Critics from religious traditions oppose her rejection of altruism in addition to her atheism.

Multiple critics, including Nozick, have said her attempt to justify individual rights on the basis of egoism fails.[177] Others, such as Michael Huemer, have gone further, saying that her support of egoism and her support of individual rights are fundamentally inconsistent positions.[178] Other critics, such as Roy Childs, have said that her opposition to the initiation of force should lead to support of anarchism, rather than limited government.

Rand's focus on the importance of reason has been criticized by commentators including Hazel Barnes, Albert Ellis, and Nathaniel Branden, who said this emphasis led her to denigrate emotions and created unrealistic expectations about how consistently rational human beings should be.

Rand was sharply critical of most philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her, except for Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and classical liberals. She acknowledged Aristotle as her greatest influence and remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend "three A's"Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand. In a 1959 interview with Mike Wallace, when asked where her philosophy came from she responded: "Out of my own mind, with the sole acknowledgement of a debt to Aristotle, the only philosopher who ever influenced me. I devised the rest of my philosophy myself."

In an article for the Claremont Review of Books, political scientist Charles Murray criticized her claim that her only "philosophical debt" was to Aristotle, instead asserting that her ideas were derivative of previous thinkers such as John Locke and Friedrich Nietzsche. Rand did find early inspiration from Nietzsche, and scholars have found indications of this in Rand's private journals. In 1928, she alluded to Nietzsche's idea of the "superman" in notes for an unwritten novel whose protagonist was inspired by the murderer William Edward Hickman. There are other indications of Nietzsche's influence in passages from the first edition of We the Living (which Rand later revised),[192] and in her overall writing style.[193] By the time she wrote The Fountainhead, Rand had turned against Nietzsche's ideas, and the extent of his influence on her even during her early years is disputed.[197]

Rand considered her philosophical opposite to be Immanuel Kant, whom she referred to as "the most evil man in mankind's history";[198] she believed his epistemology undermined reason and his ethics opposed self-interest.[199] Philosophers George Walsh and Fred Seddon have argued that she misinterpreted Kant and exaggerated their differences.

The first reviews Rand received were for Night of January 16th. Reviews of the Broadway production were largely positive, but Rand considered even positive reviews to be embarrassing because of significant changes made to her script by the producer.[202] Rand believed that her novel We the Living was not widely reviewed, but it received approximately 125 different reviews published in more than 200 publications. Overall these reviews were more positive than those she received for her later work.[203] Her 1938 novella Anthem received little attention from reviewers, both for its first publication in England and for subsequent re-issues.[204]

Rand's first bestseller, The Fountainhead, received far fewer reviews than We the Living, and reviewers' opinions were mixed.[205] Lorine Pruette's positive review in The New York Times was one that Rand greatly appreciated. Pruette called Rand "a writer of great power" who wrote "brilliantly, beautifully and bitterly", and stated that "you will not be able to read this masterful book without thinking through some of the basic concepts of our time". There were other positive reviews, but Rand dismissed most of them as either not understanding her message or as being from unimportant publications.[205] Some negative reviews focused on the length of the novel, such as one that called it "a whale of a book" and another that said "anyone who is taken in by it deserves a stern lecture on paper-rationing". Other negative reviews called the characters unsympathetic and Rand's style "offensively pedestrian".[205]

Atlas Shrugged was widely reviewed and many of the reviews were strongly negative.[208] In National Review, conservative author Whittaker Chambers called the book "sophomoric" and "remarkably silly". He described the tone of the book as "shrillness without reprieve" and accused Rand of supporting a godless system (which he related to that of the Soviets), claiming "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chambergo!'". Atlas Shrugged received positive reviews from a few publications, including praise from the noted book reviewer John Chamberlain,[208] but Rand scholar Mimi Reisel Gladstein later wrote that "reviewers seemed to vie with each other in a contest to devise the cleverest put-downs", saying it was "execrable claptrap", "written out of hate", and showed "remorseless hectoring and prolixity".

Rand's nonfiction received far fewer reviews than her novels. The tenor of the criticism for her first nonfiction book, For the New Intellectual, was similar to that for Atlas Shrugged. Philosopher Sidney Hook likened her certainty to "the way philosophy is written in the Soviet Union", and author Gore Vidal called her viewpoint "nearly perfect in its immorality". Her subsequent books got progressively less attention from reviewers.

In 2005, on the 100th anniversary of Rand's birth, Edward Rothstein, writing for The New York Times, referred to her fictional writing as quaint utopian "retro fantasy" and programmatic neo-Romanticism of the misunderstood artist while criticizing her characters' "isolated rejection of democratic society".

Rand's books continue to be widely sold and read, with over 30million copies sold as of 2015[update].[g] In 1991, a survey conducted for the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club asked club members what the most influential book in the respondent's life was. Rand's Atlas Shrugged was the second most popular choice, after the Bible. Although Rand's influence has been greatest in the United States, there has been international interest in her work.

Rand's contemporary admirers included fellow novelists, such as Ira Levin, Kay Nolte Smith and L. Neil Smith; and later writers such as Erika Holzer and Terry Goodkind have been influenced by her. Other artists who have cited Rand as an important influence on their lives and thought include comic book artist Steve Ditko and musician Neil Peart of Rush, although he later distanced himself. Rand provided a positive view of business and subsequently many business executives and entrepreneurs have admired and promoted her work. John Allison of BB&T and Ed Snider of Comcast Spectacor have funded the promotion of Rand's ideas, while Mark Cuban (owner of the Dallas Mavericks) as well as John P. Mackey (CEO of Whole Foods) among others have said they consider Rand crucial to their success.

Rand and her works have been referred to in a variety of media: on television shows including animated sitcoms, live-action comedies, dramas, and game shows, as well as in movies and video games. Throughout her life she was the subject of many articles in popular magazines, as well as book-length critiques from authors such as the psychologist Albert Ellis and Trinity Foundation president John W. Robbins. Rand or characters based on her figure prominently (in positive and negative lights) in literary and science fiction novels by prominent American authors. Nick Gillespie, former editor in chief of Reason, remarked that "Rand's is a tortured immortality, one in which she's as likely to be a punch line as a protagonist. Jibes at Rand as cold and inhuman run through the popular culture." Two movies have been made about Rand's life. A 1997 documentary film, Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. The Passion of Ayn Rand, a 1999 television adaptation of the book of the same name, won several awards. Rand's image also appears on a 1999 U.S. postage stamp illustrated by artist Nick Gaetano.

Rand's works have also found a foothold in classrooms. Since 2002, the Ayn Rand Institute has provided free copies of Rand's novels to high school teachers who promise to include the books in their curriculums.[239] They had distributed 4.5million copies in the US and Canada by the end of 2020.[218] In 2017, Rand was added to the required reading list for the A Level Politics exam in the United Kingdom.[240]

Although she rejected the labels "conservative" and "libertarian", Rand has had continuing influence on right-wing politics and libertarianism. Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, considers Rand one of the three most important women (along with Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson) of modern American libertarianism, and David Nolan, one of the founders of the Libertarian Party, stated that "without Ayn Rand, the libertarian movement would not exist".[244] In his history of the libertarian movement, journalist Brian Doherty described her as "the most influential libertarian of the twentieth century to the public at large" and historian Jennifer Burns referred to her as "the ultimate gateway drug to life on the right".

The political figures who cite Rand as an influence are usually conservatives (often members of the Republican Party), despite Rand taking some positions that are atypical for conservatives, such as being pro-choice and an atheist. She faced intense opposition from William F. Buckley Jr. and other contributors for the conservative National Review magazine, which published numerous criticisms of her writings and ideas. Nevertheless, a 1987 article in The New York Times referred to her as the Reagan administration's "novelist laureate". Republican Congressmen and conservative pundits have acknowledged her influence on their lives and have recommended her novels. She has also influenced some conservative politicians outside the US, such as Sajid Javid in the United Kingdom, Siv Jensen in Norway, and Ayelet Shaked in Israel.

The financial crisis of 20072008 spurred renewed interest in her works, especially Atlas Shrugged, which some saw as foreshadowing the crisis. Opinion articles compared real-world events with the plot of the novel. Signs mentioning Rand and her fictional hero John Galt appeared at Tea Party protests. There was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left, with critics blaming the economic crisis on her support of selfishness and free markets, particularly through her influence on Alan Greenspan. In 2015, Adam Weiner said that through Greenspan, "Rand had effectively chucked a ticking time bomb into the boiler room of the US economy". Lisa Duggan said that Rand's novels had "incalculable impact" in encouraging the spread of neoliberal political ideas. In 2021, Cass Sunstein said Rand's ideas could be seen in the tax and regulatory policies of the Trump administration, which he attributed to "Rand's enduring influence ... from her fiction".

During Rand's lifetime, her work received little attention from academic scholars. Since Rand's death, interest in her work has gradually increased. In 2009, historian Jennifer Burns identified "three overlapping waves" of scholarly interest in Rand, including "an explosion of scholarship" since the year 2000. However, as of that same year, few universities included Rand or Objectivism as a philosophical specialty or research area, with many literature and philosophy departments dismissing her as a pop culture phenomenon rather than a subject for serious study. From 2002 to 2012, more than 60 colleges and universities accepted grants from the charitable foundation of BB&T Corporation that required teaching Rand's ideas or works; in some cases the grants were controversial or even rejected because of the requirement to teach about Rand. In 2020, media critic Eric Burns said that "Rand is surely the most engaging philosopher of my lifetime", but "nobody in the academe pays any attention to her, neither as an author nor a philosopher". That same year, the editor of a collection of critical essays about Rand said academics who disapproved of her ideas had long held "a stubborn resolve to ignore or ridicule" her work, but he believed more academic critics were engaging with her work in recent years.

In 1967, John Hospers discussed Rand's ethical ideas in the second edition of his textbook An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. That same year, Hazel Barnes included a chapter critiquing Objectivism in her book An Existentialist Ethics. When the first full-length academic book about Rand's philosophy appeared in 1971, its author declared writing about Rand "a treacherous undertaking" that could lead to "guilt by association" for taking her seriously. A few articles about Rand's ideas appeared in academic journals before her death in 1982, many of them in The Personalist. One of these was "On the Randian Argument" by libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, who criticized her meta-ethical arguments. Other philosophers, writing in the same publication, argued that Nozick misstated Rand's case. In an article responding to Nozick, Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas B. Rasmussen defended her positions, but described her style as "literary, hyperbolic and emotional".

The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, a 1984 collection of essays about Objectivism edited by Den Uyl and Rasmussen, was the first academic book about Rand's ideas published after her death. In one of the essays, political writer Jack Wheeler wrote that despite "the incessant bombast and continuous venting of Randian rage", Rand's ethics are "a most immense achievement, the study of which is vastly more fruitful than any other in contemporary thought".[276] In 1987 Allan Gotthelf, George Walsh, and David Kelley co-founded the Ayn Rand Society, a group affiliated with the American Philosophical Association.

In a 1995 entry about Rand in Contemporary Women Philosophers, Jenny A. Heyl described a divergence in how Rand was viewed in different academic specialties. She said that Rand's philosophy "is regularly omitted from academic philosophy. Yet, throughout literary academia, Ayn Rand is considered a philosopher." Writing in the 1998 edition of the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, political theorist Chandran Kukathas summarized the mainstream philosophical reception of her work in two parts. He said her ethical argument is viewed by most commentators as an unconvincing variant of Aristotle's ethics, and her political theory "is of little interest" because it is marred by an "ill-thought out and unsystematic" effort to reconcile her hostility to the state with her rejection of anarchism. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, a multidisciplinary, peer-reviewed academic journal devoted to the study of Rand and her ideas, was established in 1999. R. W. Bradford, Stephen D. Cox, and Chris Matthew Sciabarra were its founding co-editors.

In a 2010 essay for the Cato Institute, libertarian philosopher Michael Huemer argued that very few people find Rand's ideas convincing, especially her ethics. He attributed the attention she receives to her being a "compelling writer", especially as a novelist, noting that Atlas Shrugged outsells Rand's non-fiction works as well as the works of other philosophers of classical liberalism. In 2012, the Pennsylvania State University Press agreed to take over publication of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, and the University of Pittsburgh Press launched an "Ayn Rand Society Philosophical Studies" series based on the proceedings of the Society. That same year, political scientist Alan Wolfe dismissed Rand as a "nonperson" among academics. The Fall 2020 update to the entry about Rand in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy said that "only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously".

Academic consideration of Rand as a literary figure during her life was even more limited than the discussion of her philosophy. Mimi Reisel Gladstein was unable to find any scholarly articles about Rand's novels when she began researching her in 1973, and only three such articles appeared during the rest of the 1970s. Since her death, scholars of English and American literature have continued to largely ignore her work, although attention to her literary work has increased since the 1990s. Rand and her works are covered in several academic book series about important authors, including Twayne's United States Authors (Ayn Rand by James T. Baker), Twayne's Masterwork Studies (The Fountainhead: An American Novel by Den Uyl and Atlas Shrugged: Manifesto of the Mind by Gladstein), and Re-reading the Canon (Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, edited by Gladstein and Sciabarra), as well as in popular study guides such as CliffsNotes and SparkNotes. In the Literary Encyclopedia entry for Rand written in 2001, John David Lewis declared that "Rand wrote the most intellectually challenging fiction of her generation". In 2019, Lisa Duggan described Rand's fiction as popular and influential on many readers, despite being easy to criticize for "her cartoonish characters and melodramatic plots, her rigid moralizing, her middle- to lowbrow aesthetic preferences ... and philosophical strivings".

After the closure of the Nathaniel Branden Institute, the Objectivist movement continued in other forms. In the 1970s, Leonard Peikoff began delivering courses on Objectivism. In 1979, Objectivist writer Peter Schwartz started a newsletter called The Intellectual Activist, which Rand endorsed. She also endorsed The Objectivist Forum, a bimonthly magazine founded by Objectivist philosopher Harry Binswanger, which ran from 1980 to 1987.

In 1985, Peikoff worked with businessman Ed Snider to establish the Ayn Rand Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas and works. In 1990, after an ideological disagreement with Peikoff, philosopher David Kelley founded the Institute for Objectivist Studies, now known as The Atlas Society. In 2001, historian John McCaskey organized the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship, which provides grants for scholarly work on Objectivism in academia.

Continue reading here:

Ayn Rand - Wikipedia

Sajid Javid has apologised for accusing the British people of cowering from Covid-19. But this was no slip of the thumb. The Health Secretary is a lifelong devotee of Ayn Rand, whose philosophy glorifies the selfish brutality of capitalism.

His twice-yearly ritual is to read a defiant speech from Rands The Fountainhead. You will get the drift of it from just one passage: The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand... The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism...

In the lexicon of Rands philosophy, cowering before nature is what primitive peoples do (she classified Arabs and Native Americans among others as primitive). But in the 1960s, as the New Left challenged American conservatism, she extended the charge of primitivism to feminists, ecologists and multiculturalists. By fighting to protect nature, and against the US's white, militarist monoculture, she said, they too were akin to savages: irrational, fearful, reliant on group identities instead of on tough, self-centred amoralism.

Not all hedge-fund cowboys are Rand obsessives, but it helps. The mindset Rand advocates rely on no one, follow no morals but self-fulfilment, recognise no social obligations is perfect for the kind of person who will sit in New York, engaging in financial speculation that underminesMexico's economy, as Javid did at Chase Manhattan.

As soon as he got the chance to bring his world-view to the task of managing Englands health service, Javid did so with gusto. Learning to live with Covid, not to cower before it, is Javid-speak for unleashing the virus on a semi-vaccinated population, inviting further mutations, while declaring that the end of lockdown is irreversible.

It is not just that Javid is prepared to ignore the science. It is that he believes, philosophically to the core of his being, that the survival of the fittest is the surest route to human progress. The result is that we are all now part of a public health experiment that has left the worlds scientific community aghast. But the political experiment has only just begun.

On 24 Julya group of anti-vaxxers, Covid-deniers and far-right activists in London took part in a global day of action against both vaccines and lockdowns. From Sydney to Paris and Milan, protesters defied rules on public gatherings, clashed with policeand shared crazed, irrationaltheories from David Ickes lizard theory of global governance to the allegation that 5G telecoms spread the virus.

In Glogow, Poland, the crowd chanted: Every Pole can see today that behind the plandemic are the Jews.In both London and Paris, some protesters reportedly wore yellow stars, recalling the ones Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany.

On their ownsuch protests overthe past 18 months have been a dangerous irritant at worst. They have acted as a magnet, drawing people from diverse conspiracy theories and cults towards the generalised far-right ideology of QAnon. And they have knowingly spread the disease itself.

But from this summer onwards they have the potential to grow and merge with the much wider discontent among people who have borne the financial and social brunt of the lockdowns. Many young people, it turns out, are sceptical of vaccines: they dont want to risk three days off sick in a season when many of them have to work; or they believe any Covid-19 symptoms they suffer will be mild.

The Tory leadership, in response, is said to be livid and considering compulsory vaccine passports for students returning to lectures and halls of residence, and indeed vaccine passports for major events and venues.The logic is clear. Having decided to stake everything on herd immunity and having yet again abandoned the test, trace and isolate regime, the government needs mass uptake of the vaccine before it can declare any kind of decisive victory over the virus. It needs victory because, lurking within the Javid/Sunak wing of the cabinet is the deep desire to start slashing public spending and raising taxes.

What were left with are the competing philosophies within modern conservatism: libertarianism, which demands outright opposition to vaccine passports; authoritarianism, which demands passports for all; science scepticism, which has encouraged far-right conspiracists; and the Randian doctrine of self-preservation, which tells people to stop cowering and get out there. In the middle of it all, bobbing around ideologically like a cork, is Boris Johnson,staging inconsequential speeches and vapid policy announcements.

This is government by incoherence, but I doubt it can last. Keir Starmer has rightly understood that, while people will tolerate much harder lockdown restrictions than the Tories suspected, they will not put up with a permanent ID system based on epidemiological status. While venues may want the right to run their own temporary passport systems, any attempt to make this statutory and permanent outside conditions of lockdown would swell the ranks of the protesters way beyond cranks and fascists.

At worst, it could push the mood of complacency and fatalism among the 16- to 24-year-olds to breaking point. You can only return to normality if you have the virus under control. At present, Covid-19 is most definitely not under control even if deaths and hospitalisations have become detached from the case rate. And that is without any further variants emerging.

This autumn we will approach a crunch point. The right of the Tory party will demand spending cuts, the end of the furlough scheme, the reversal of the increase in Universal Credit and a return to the evict-at-will culture of the private rented sector. For a Labour Party still ideologically committed to fiscal expansion, that should be easy to oppose.

But fighting Johnson and Javids let-it-rip Covid policy will be more challenging. If the Tories were not so terminally reactionaryand culturally hostile to the values of young people, they might find ready allies among 16- to 21-year-oldsdesperate to go on clubbing, holidaymaking, dating and working in the face of Covid.

Rand is legendarily popular with teenagers because she promotes a world-view in which everything is possible, ambition limitless and social obligations irrelevant. Live for now, ignore the rules, revel in your own glory and forget the collapsing ecosystem is the message and its a tempting oneif we're faced with yet another winter of chaos, mutant strains and the reimposition of lockdown.

Throughout the pandemic, libertarian conservatism, right-wing populism and youthful anti-authoritarianism have never quite managed to be on the same page. We should be thankful for that, but it may not last.

The ultimate fight, during this pandemic, has been for social solidarity the recognition of mutual obligations between people and the practice of the very thing that Javid, through his ritual Rand readings, gets to sneer at twice a year: altruism.

See the article here:

The ghost of Ayn Rand lives on in the Conservatives' Covid-19 policy Sajid Javid has - New Statesman

As she was getting ready to pour, the young barista with the pink hair and the nose ring looked over at me and asked, Room for cream?

Just the coffee, please, I told her. And let me get a scone.

Stone Tower Brew in Buckhannon didnt have a whole lot in the baked goods case. They had a couple of muffins and a peanut butter and banana scone. It was the very last one, so I took it.

I love a coffee shop. I love a good scone.

Coffee doesnt need much of an explanation, but a scone is a crumbly quickbread, similar to a biscuit.

I buy most of mine at Charleston Bread.

You can get a sweet or savory scone. Sweet scones are made with raisins, berries and/or nuts. Savory scones can be made with cheese, spinach and/or bacon.

Over the summer, I have been to a lot of coffee houses and eaten a fair number of scones.

Many times, Ive started my day in a coffee shop or else taken a break in the middle of the afternoon just to get off the road.

Occasionally, Ive stood outside coffee shop doors after dinner, wishing they were still open, that they could sell me one more cup of coffee and let me use the Wi-Fi to check my messages.

One of the marks of a nice place to live, maybe, is that it can support at least one independent coffee house the kind of place where the daily specials get written on a chalkboard. If the handwriting is good enough, they can almost sell you a white chocolate pumpkin spice latte offered in the dead of summer.

Coffee shops are creative and social hubs.

Whenever I go into a coffee house, I look around for that space by the door or next to the restroom thats dedicated to flyers for the Tuesday night poetry slam, the show with the angsty teen singer/songwriter doing his/her originals or the nude figure drawing class.

Bring $20 cash and your own materials. Tips welcome.

It might be something about a vegan potluck, a local meeting for atheists, wiccans, or an Ayn Rand book club.

These are always for people looking to find others, for people trying to make friends or to share.

That these messages hang on the walls or windows here send a message: Youre not weird. You just havent found your people yet.

To me, a good coffee shop isnt too sunny, but is well-lit enough to read a newspaper, a book, or the cracked screen of a laptop. Most of them have music playing somewhere in the background. That can be anything from jazz and indie bands to bluegrass or classic rock.

You seldom hear top 40 country in a coffee shop. Most of that stuff is already loaded with sugar and caffeine, anyway.

I always order a black coffee a dark or medium roast, no sugar. In a pinch, if they only do espresso drinks, Ill take an Americano with an extra shot.

Over the summer, Ive gone into over 20 different coffee houses, doughnut shops or bakeries that also sell coffee.

A general (and not particularly surprising) rule of thumb is that the coffee is better in the coffee house and the baked goods are better in the bakeries or the doughnut shops.

There are always exceptions.

So far, my favorite cup of coffee was at Queens Point Coffee in Keyser. They serve Black Dog Coffee, a roaster based in Jefferson County. I got a large cup of the dark roast, which was rich, flavorful, and made me feel like I could wrestle a Buick.

The morning I went to Queens Point Coffee, they didnt have scones, just cupcakes left over from a beer and cupcake pairing event from the night before, and oats.

After some deliberation, I had the oats, which were loaded with berries. It was probably the most sensible breakfast Ive eaten while traveling around West Virginia.

My favorite blueberry scone came from The River House in Capon Bridge in Hampshire County. I bought it after lunch, intending to have it for breakfast in the morning after I spent the night tent camping at Cacapon Resort State Park.

I wound up making it part of dinner when my dinner plans fell through.

Also, I used a paper cup from The River House to start my campfire. It worked like a charm and was sort of like recycling.

The best tasting blueberry scone came from Fairfax Coffee House in Berkeley Springs. It had just the right crumbly texture, an ample number of blueberries and wasnt overly sweet.

I got it just after it had come out of the oven.

Not every coffee house or bakery serves scones or they dont always have them for sale. Occasionally, Ive made do with something else.

In Bridgeport, at Almost Heaven Desserts, I bought a pistachio cannoli to take with me on the drive to Grafton. It didnt make it out of the parking lot.

For those of you who havent had one, a cannoli is an Italian pastry made with fried pastry dough thats shaped into a tube and usually filled with some kind of cream.

In Charleston, I usually get them at Sarahs Bakery on Bridge Road or at Rock City Cake Company on Capitol Street.

That pistachio cannoli was probably the best cannoli Id ever eaten and regret eating in the front seat of my car. It deserved to be eaten at a table on a plate.

Thats how much I loved that cannoli.

At Crossings Coffee Bar in Elkins, they had cookies and brownies, but no scones, so I wound up taking my coffee and going a few blocks over to Byrds House of Donuts.

They didnt have scones either, but they did have an amazing banana split donut, which was maybe the best filled donut Ive ever eaten.

I love walking into a new coffee house. I love taking the place in and seeing what the room is about.

Some coffee houses are all business. Tables and chairs are uniform. Everything is very shiny, with plenty of plug-ins for computers.

The Wi-Fi password gets changed every day.

These places remind me of Starbucks, which isnt a bad thing. Ive been to Starbucks more times than I can count, though not once since I started traveling throughout the state, even when I couldnt find any other coffee shop.

On my trips, Ive tried very hard to eat at small, locally owned places. So far, Ive done pretty well. The only chain restaurant Ive had anything from was at a Dairy Queen in Keyser, but circumstances demanded that I get an M&M blizzard for dinner.

My favorite coffee shops this summer have looked like something in between a yard sale and a wizards living room.

The tables maybe wobble precariously. The chairs dont all match and the baristas are all writers, students, musicians, and aspiring tattoo artists.

Theyre unfailingly friendly to groggy strangers who may not entirely know where they are or where theyre going. They dont seem to mind answering a few questions, though when I say, Whats the one place I shouldnt miss while Im in town, they always tell me the same thing.

Youre already here.

Here is the original post:

55 in 55: Black coffee and blueberry scones on the road - Charleston Gazette-Mail