Posted on 04/18/2009 7:45:27 AM PDT by Publius
John Allison (former CEO) current Chairman of BB&T Bank, is not only a Rearden type, but, when BB&T gives money to a University, they have to agree to have a course on Objectivism...and Ayn Rand. He is now teaching some at Wake Forest University in Winston Salem, NC.
I found these AS downloads
word file
http://ifile.it/8umstc/rand_ayn_-_atlas_sh_rugged_v0.9.rar
or
pdf file
http://ifile.it/jqhr18b/rand__ayn_-_atlas_shrugged.pdf
I gave up on trying to figure out Rands motivation for the scenes and monologues dealing with sex. In my opinion she is off the mark but that doesn't invalidate the novel as a whole.
The book was ten years in the making and who among us have remained static in our opinions over such a span?
The latter may also help explain what Billthedrill points out here...
...a rapid-fire exchange that eschews the normal paragraph-break-per-quote form found in the rest of the novel. It is a curious departure, and I’m not sure quite what to make of it...
Postscript: Mrs. Thunkit and I agree - Sex is the manifestation of Gods wicked sense of humor.
The same goes for elected leaders and lobbyists.
And in a previous chapter, Wesley Mouch made the move between lobbying and regulating.
Rand saw all this corruption coming some 50 years ago.
I don't think I've run across those exact words, but the sentiment is there throughout the book.
Great tag line. Thanks.
You're very welcome Publius.
The threads seems to be getting shorter as the weeks drag on. I think it is a function of the way Rand keeps reiterating the same themes, and we’ve drawn the parallels to current events already. I always hope to find some insight that has been overlooked.....alas.
This morning at mass, the first reading was from Acts of the Apostles, and the disciples were exhorted to sell their belongings, come up with a communal bank account, and give “each according to need”. I gave a mental hiss. No wonder religion is held in such contempt by Rand. Then, on the way out, I promptly donated to the Little Sisters of the Poor, who take care of the elderly and disabled. I applaud their work, so I guess I wouldn’t be welcome in that spoiler-place. But I do detest the idea of “each according to need” as a general way of living....why would anyone bother getting up to go to work if you got what you needed anyway?
I digress from the chapter. I think life would be far more interesting if more people told the Congressional hearings to “stuff it”, since by participating, they are lending credibility to pure political grandstanding. I applauded Hank Rearden, but where are those heroes today?
Francisco’s speech? I agree that it works in a perfect world. And to an extent, you check out people’s spouses to see how well they did. It can be an outward manifestation of their own opinion of themselves. I don’t like Francisco’s implied monasticism if you don’t obtain your ideal.
I noticed this as well. As long as the salient points are addressed the final result will still be a benefit to any freeper who reads AS in the future.
I always hope to find some insight that has been overlooked.....alas.
Sometimes the story leads us into otherwise unexplored areas apart from the story. One example is this quote that I happened to find while doing research on philosophy -
"don't express your ideas too clearly. most people think little of what they understand, and venerate what they do not. to be valued, things must be difficult: if they can't understand you, people will think more highly of you. ...keep them guessing at your meaning, and don't give them a chance to criticize you. many praise without being able to say why. they venerate anything hidden or mysterious, and they praise it because they heard it praised."
-- balthasar gracian, the art of worldy wisdom
(trans. christopher maurer)
I find in the above a partial answer to the question that I have about the vaporous qualities of the liberal politicians answers. It always bothered me that they never answered a question concretely as I expected them to. Now I understand that this is a lack of understanding on my part. They never will give a satisfactory answer and the more that I try to extract an answer, the farther into the hole I go.
...I promptly donated to the Little Sisters of the Poor, who take care of the elderly and disabled. I applaud their work, so I guess I wouldn’t be welcome in...
Don't be at all critical of this donation. The fact is that _You_ wanted to donate the money. This is entirely compatible with Rands philosophy. If you hold a door open for someone, is it because you are told to do it or because you want to do it? I submit that you donated the money because you like the feeling it gives you, such is Rands definition of selfishness.
Wow, That pretty much explains my outlook on "charity." Rands whole point is compulsory charity, which is no charity at all.
I am short on my replies because I am 1 1/2 chapters behind due to work. I am glad the pace is only one chapter per week. I read AS a few years ago and am following along. The situation in AS with Hank’s family not appreciating him for carrying them as “freeloaders” and many other things in the real world strike me as similar: 1. Other countries who we protect with our military seem to despise us (Europe and others). 2. Needy people who live off tax payer funds seem to blame the rich for their situations and whose taxes actually keep them alive. 3. Progressive politicians who live off the taxes of the producers blame those producers in public to get votes from the others who are also parasites. They blame the producers for the plight of all including drug addicts and crimminals.
Prosperity is not a zero sum game here on earth.
I am short on my replies because I am 1 1/2 chapters behind due to work. I am glad the pace is only one chapter per week. I read AS a few years ago and am following along. The situation in AS with Hank’s family not appreciating him for carrying them as “freeloaders” and many other things in the real world strike me as similar: 1. Other countries who we protect with our military seem to despise us (Europe and others). 2. Needy people who live off tax payer funds seem to blame the rich for their situations and whose taxes actually keep them alive. 3. Progressive politicians who live off the taxes of the producers blame those producers in public to get votes from the others who are also parasites. They blame the producers for the plight of all including drug addicts and crimminals.
Prosperity is not a zero sum game here on earth.
As my wife and I are reading this she has become somewhat irritated that nobody has come to take Dagny away. Other than the fact that she is the main character in the book and it would shorten it tremendously if she were to be taken away by “the Destroyer” :-), why wouldn’t Francisco and crew want to convince her to leave?
A couple of things came to my mind, and I wanted to throw them out and see what the folks say.
1) The fact that her brother is part of the looter crowd might make her hesitant to go even if she were otherwise ready.
2) They believe that her relationship with Hank will make either one hesitant to disappear without the other, so why not pick off the lone wolves instead?
3) I also wonder if it has to do with the railroad not really being a resource constrained business as much as a competency based business. Meaning the looters would more likely feel that they could jump in and run a coal mine, since it’s “just” pulling coal out of the ground. But running a railroad is real work! I could see how the looters might feel that plucking a mine, or an auto manufacturer with assembly lines already running, might be easier than actually running a railroad. So Galt and team figure lure the looters into the businesses they are going to be more interested in plucking for their loot.
Of course, Rand has arguably the strongest character in the book as a woman, and it might simply be that the 3 Amigos figure that she would be the hardest to convince to abandon her work.
I’d be interested if anyone had any thoughts about why the particular pecking order of people disappearing.
Twelve years earlier, he had asked her to abandon the railroad to her brother and just let it go. She couldn't.
Dagny is exceedingly stubborn.
Actually, Francisco has had at least once to restrain himself, or at least remind himself of their rules. If you note, and Eddie points out, the disappearances take place seemingly in response to an outside force being applied, in the form of a suddenly increased importance of and dependence on the "abductee". He confides to the nameless track worker that Dagny herself has noticed this, and indeed she barely misses the opportunity to interfere when Ken Danagger, whom she now perceives as the most important man left, is confronted, successfully, by the "Destroyer". She is not yet at that point, and in fact, never will be. But, "further deponent sayeth not," lest I inject a spoiler. Hard not to, since I've succumbed to temptation and am reading ahead. Sorry, but as many times as I have read AS, it is still a thriller to me.
On another note, I have wanted to comment for some time on the occasional seeming contradictions in her characters and speeches. It helps to keep two things in mind: when you see contradictions, check your premises (of course), but more importantly, Rand (and her characters) mean PRECISELY what they say, and are often responding to what their adversaries meant but didn't say.
Guess I'll go read another chapter. May 1 and the promulgation of the Directive is nearly upon us.
Kirk
Thou shalt not steal.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDE2MTMxODE5Y2YzMGNlOWExZmJjYmJhYzViMDk0NjA=
“I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading. The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.”
Read the whole thing as this is an excerpt.
Fits rather well with last week’s topic, doesn’t it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.