THE PAVILION ANNEX

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:42 am

cynic wrote:
Mark Tiedemann wrote: The only problem I have with Rand---and it's a big one---is that she only cared about the freedom of individuals who she thought "deserved" it. If you weren't a polymath, hypercreative, singularly autonomous, you then probably needed other people's help and so didn't count. She completely failed to recognize that the Americans she thought so highly of couldn't have done any of what they did without the community upon which they depended (whether they acknowledged it or not). For her, such men (and a few women) sprang fully actualized and complete from the head of some bizarre Zeus.
.

these fantasies and bizzare rhetorical condemnations are not uncommon .
after hearing these horror stories myself, and coming to use the information available, it became clear that they are often warped, paranoid fabrications .

charity is fine . when it is voluntary. everyone is entitled to the same rights and protections, none more, none less.

don't believe me (as if that is at all likely :lol: ).

beside reading the work, you can see mike wallace and phil donahue tear into this sick evil waste of protoplasm on video'.
they address most of the same disgusting vicious attitudes that concern you.
go to google video and witness for yourself the venomspitting heartless slavedriving harpie spread her wicked words.


Thank you no. I spent a good part of my adolescence reading everything she wrote and spent the better part of the next five years getting over it. At best, it is a skewed view of reality. Her contention that capitalism is the only "natural" economic system is sufficient to make the rest suspect. Economic systems are none of them natural, they always favor those most adept at their inner workings, and it presumes homo sapien sapiens is made for little other than to build mechanisms designed to promote some at the expense of others. Granted, history would lend credence to that view, but I think it would also suggest it is worth finding a way to get past zero-sum games.

Rand doesn't disgust me, she simply failed, ultimately, to make a convincing argument. Some of her followers, however...yeah, they disgust me. In some ways they remind me of third or fourth generation christians, the ones who hunted pagans down in the streets after enacting laws to banish their beliefs.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:45 pm

"Rand doesn't disgust me"
Mark Tiedemann wrote:
The only problem I have with Rand---and it's a big one---is that she only cared about the freedom of individuals who she thought "deserved" it. If you weren't a polymath, hypercreative, singularly autonomous, you then probably needed other people's help and so didn't count. She completely failed to recognize that the Americans she thought so highly of couldn't have done any of what they did without the community upon which they depended (whether they acknowledged it or not). For her, such men (and a few women) sprang fully actualized and complete from the head of some bizarre Zeus.

how would you not characterize someone with this attitude as disgusting?
what word would you use?
oh, right..."unconvincing".
pardon me, but that concept does not, in my opinion, fit your description of her concerns.

but fine,
"Some of her followers, however...yeah, they disgust me. In some ways they remind me of third or fourth generation christians, the ones who hunted pagans down in the streets after enacting laws to banish their beliefs."

point them out, maybe we can address their warped logic and expose their hate filled witch hunt for what it is.
follow your bliss,mike

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:15 pm

cynic wrote:
how would you not characterize someone with this attitude as disgusting?
what word would you use?
oh, right..."unconvincing".
pardon me, but that concept does not, in my opinion, fit your description of her concerns.


I was thinking misguided, profoundly mistaken. Pitiable, maybe, but she was too smart for that to be valid.

but fine,
"Some of her followers, however...yeah, they disgust me. In some ways they remind me of third or fourth generation christians, the ones who hunted pagans down in the streets after enacting laws to banish their beliefs."

point them out, maybe we can address their warped logic and expose their hate filled witch hunt for what it is.


Oh, heavens. Half the Tea Party? Depending on the day of the week, both Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Newt Gingrich dips his pen in her ink when he's playing up to the hardline neocons. Ann Coulter is an instinctive one of the type I describe, who flinches and genuflects with derision and spleen every time she utters the word "Liberal." All these folks who see nothing wrong with corporate pillage but if anyone suggests relief to the poor as more than---how did you put it?---voluntary charity they rise up with condemnations that it's socialism or, worse, communism, and never mind how the disenfranchised got that way.

Please. Do we really want to open that grave?

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:17 pm

Phil Donahue certainly didn't 'rip into' Rand. He pretty much played patty cake with her. He really let Milton Friedman get away with murder.

There are no free markets. Markets exist because of government policy. Without government there would be a third world economy.

-------

Ezra, you remind me of the libs who hid out during the Red Scare, not willing to put skin in the game.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Ezra Lb. » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:41 pm

One interesting thing about Ayn Rand was that in her private life she was a controlling manipulative fascist who insisted on radical individualism for herself and despised it in anyone else.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_ ... f+ayn+rand

And her disciples (no other word will do) are indeed worse as disciples often are. Of course anyone who tries to make contempt for the weak into a virtue is probably not going to be a fun date.


Frank I'm not willing to "put skin" in your blinkered game nosireebob.
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Moderator » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:43 pm

FrankChurch wrote:There are no free markets. .


Just so happens that just this morning I retreated from the point where I was genuinely going to bust someone's balls over this very issue. On Facebook, Duane Waite reposted a Pro-Teacher apology from a Conservative that I, myself, got from Tony Isabella. (You can read it here: http://www.cleveland.com/schultz/index.ssf/2011/03/apology_to_a_cleveland_teacher.html#cmpid=v2mode_be_smoref_face )

Apparently Duane's relatives serve "Tea" at their residences, and we immediately got blasted for supporting the scorge-of-the-earth unions. The supposition being, apparently, that Eden awaits us all if only Management had free reign over employees. I took exception to it, noting that under a Free Market economy, unions are to be expected as a matter of practice. That lit the fuse and off we went until I withdraw to avoid directly calling some of Duane's relatives neanderthals -- thereby forcing them to use a dictionary for the first time in years. (Actually, that's unfair. Two of the three were decent and direct, though still quite misguided about the nature and role of unions in our economy. The fact that legislating them out of existence is more than absurd -- it's a contravention of both democracy as well as a free market economy -- escaped them entirely.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:25 pm

Ezra, I'm talking about general activism. Lighten up.

-------

Barber, Adam Smith believed in Markets, but only under 'perfect liberty.' People had to be economically secure before markets could work. Social democracies come close.

You cannot have a boot on your neck and be free--oxymoron.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:44 pm

Mark Tiedemann wrote: Please. Do we really want to open that grave?
no, absolutely not.
I thought primarily to brush off a bit of bullshit from an often exhumed corpse.

and you nearly did that yourself... sorta.
Mark Tiedemann wrote:I was thinking misguided, profoundly mistaken. Pitiable, maybe, but she was too smart for that to be valid.
"she was too smart for that to be valid."?
then why offer it as an objection?

i could only object to what the "theory" can be said to lack; sufficient attention to man's emotional nature.
Unfortunately i doubt that can be codified.

by "followers" i thought you might have been concerned with the more serious, reasonable libertarians. Look up the libertarian platform; I've only given occasional, casual glances to the main Objectivist movement website, and i recall no overblown rhetoric there.

as to those radical pundits; I don't pay any attention to either wing unless they are jammed in my face.
More often than not i find the objections as emotionaly warped as the emotionaly motivating, warped, illogical crap that prompted the objections.
I have limited patience for that warped, sick shit. But i imagine it will continue.
Lucky Us.

"Half the Tea Party?"
Yes, those four you named have certainly not singlehandedly kept the flames of impenetrable logic and boundless unconditional motherly love blazing.
I haven't seen the numbers; but there may be more than eight.
But even as this may be the case, perhaps you would agree that they are all racist, mysogenistic homophobes?
(just kidding)
That is a popular meme for some.
follow your bliss,mike

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:59 pm

cynic wrote:i could only object to what the "theory" can be said to lack; sufficient attention to man's emotional nature.
Unfortunately i doubt that can be codified.


Well, that's a pretty big "lack"---and it will do for a concise summation of my primary lack of respect for her theory. It's a hermit's philosophy at best. And a rich one at that. Most of modern psychology and a significant amount of anthropology undermines its utility.

The motto she claimed to live by and which she held up as the banner for her ideas is: "I will never live for the sake of another, nor ask another to live for my sake." Something like that. Sounds bold, strident, almost, in its way, fair. But it begs the question---who says we have any choice about that in the first place?

Hermits, maybe.

Oh well. Thank you for putting the spade aside.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:18 pm

Ezra Lb. wrote: One interesting thing about Ayn Rand was that in her private life she was a controlling manipulative fascist who insisted on radical individualism for herself and despised it in anyone else.
harsh but i suppose near accurate
Ezra Lb. wrote: And her disciples (no other word will do) are indeed worse as disciples often are.
some, yes.
often? I don't know, but i haven't seen it
Ezra Lb. wrote: Of course anyone who tries to make contempt for the weak into a virtue is probably not going to be a fun date.
You seem fond of this.
"make contempt for the weak into a virtue "
i have purposely looked for this .
i don't think it exists.
you may have read between the lines and found a mirage?
i have seen some of her responses to the accusations such as your insistant "contempt for the weak ". (those useless videos)
you apparently have not.
i have offered some general sources which you have not noted, and that's fine.
offer evidence,if you will, of her"contempt for the weak ".
she was quite the gal for contempt , but not purely because, or if one was weak through physical or situational cause.
contempt on moral grounds yes. violence, force, undue reward of any kind.
but a flat, undefined "contempt for the weak " just doesn't fit reality.
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby robochrist » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:25 pm

Mark: "Limited government these days is code for allowing plutocrats to do what they want"

This has always really been the case, but now, with the conservative power-grip on mainstream media, the Supreme Court, the Chamber of Commerce, the Washington Lobby, and Congress pretty much, the need for "coding" is becoming less imperative: the arrogance balanced with naive American voters who suckle on sound bytes virtually allows the sovereignty to declare outright "WE'RE getting all the breaks and taking them away from you middle class leeches"!

WAS a time when Paddy Chayefsky's NETWORK was metaphor and satire: now it's the REAL story! Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Palin...all right out of Chayefsky!

**Dwain's relatives:

I talk once in a while to people with that mindset. They RELIGOUSLY believe the unions are "the trouble"! One neighbor I spoke to refused to even acknowledge the aim in conservative policies to lower wages across the country for the middle class, while reserving the huge tax breaks (and everything else the system has), which WE have to pay for - for the wealthiest top 1%! They close their ears to the long history demonstrating what happens when regulation and workers rights are curbed or eliminated. What was it like before unions were able to form? How did the wealthy oligarchs and robber barons of the 19th century behave toward the working class - hording profits, putting out deceptive advertising, creating dangerous products, providing lethal working conditions for employees, and keeping wages at poverty level.

Half this country is blind to these facts; the greater the ignorance the greater the arrogance: I've learned that you really can't talk to people. Whole populations have to meet their doom outright before they understand how it is. That's why I hate religiosity of ANY kind. Blind faith in anything precludes incentive to research the issues. Of course, some factions doing reasonably well income-wise simply don't care what happens to others at a disadvantage. My contempt for THOSE apes is intense...because I don't think America is going to rebound; I think industries will continue the outsourcing, wages all over the country will keep dropping, environmental issues will be ignored until the worst happens, and the banks will continue manipulating the markets.

These hopelessly ossified jackasses are aplenty and they're taking us all down with them!

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby robochrist » Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:25 pm

Mark: "Limited government these days is code for allowing plutocrats to do what they want"

This has always really been the case, but now, with the conservative power-grip on mainstream media, the Supreme Court, the Chamber of Commerce, the Washington Lobby, and Congress pretty much, the need for "coding" is becoming less imperative: the arrogance balanced with naive American voters who suckle on sound bytes virtually allows the sovereignty to declare outright "WE'RE getting all the breaks and taking them away from you middle class leeches"!

WAS a time when Paddy Chayefsky's NETWORK was metaphor and satire: now it's the REAL story! Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Palin...all right out of Chayefsky!

**Dwain's relatives:

I talk once in a while to people with that mindset. They RELIGOUSLY believe the unions are "the trouble"! One neighbor I spoke to refused to even acknowledge the aim in conservative policies to lower wages across the country for the middle class, while reserving the huge tax breaks (and everything else the system has), which WE have to pay for - for the wealthiest top 1%! They close their ears to the long history demonstrating what happens when regulation and workers rights are curbed or eliminated. What was it like before unions were able to form? How did the wealthy oligarchs and robber barons of the 19th century behave toward the working class - hording profits, putting out deceptive advertising, creating dangerous products, providing lethal working conditions for employees, and keeping wages at poverty level.

Half this country is blind to these facts; the greater the ignorance the greater the arrogance: I've learned that you really can't talk to people. Whole populations have to meet their doom outright before they understand how it is. That's why I hate religiosity of ANY kind. Blind faith in anything precludes incentive to research the issues. Of course, some factions doing reasonably well income-wise simply don't care what happens to others at a disadvantage. My contempt for THOSE apes is intense...because I don't think America is going to rebound; I think industries will continue the outsourcing, wages all over the country will keep dropping, environmental issues will be ignored until the worst happens, and the banks will continue manipulating the markets.

These hopelessly ossified jackasses are aplenty and they're taking us all down with them!

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:00 pm

Anna Vinzenzo's out of business, but CiCi did lose weight, now she has to quit applying mounds of makeup--an italian oddity, to be sure.

Lido is still hopping in Manhattan Beach. Barber, buy me a house there? lol

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:25 pm

Bill Maher said that if you have a jewish mother then you are jewish. Is this true?

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:15 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Bill Maher said that if you have a jewish mother then you are jewish. Is this true?

i don't know. :|
did you see/hear him say this?
or did someone else say that he said this (heresay)?
do you believe he did not say this?
what do you care what he said?

or do i misunderstand what your question is?

are you asking if a religious belief is true? :?

if that's what's bugging you (and it is a great question); i suggest you go to the source, don't rely on a middleman (middleperson?).
i think you have to ask god.

good luck with that , and let us know what you find. :D
follow your bliss,mike


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests