Posts
Atlas Shrugs Blog: Where Sociopathy Gets Confused With Zionism
By Daniel Koffler / May 20, 2008
When Jeffrey Goldberg, an American Jewish Zionist, reached his twenties, he decided he couldn't justify calling himself a Zionist unless he shared in the struggles of Israelis. Thus, making a move virtually unheard of among American Jews, he took Israeli citizenship to join the IDF during the first Intifada, and gave several of the most productive years of his life in service to the Jewish state. (He even wrote a book about it.)
So when he writes an op-ed for the Times arguing that Israeli settlements weaken Israeli security, and hence the organized fronts of American Zionism pushing the Israeli government to coddle the settler movement are hurting Israel and need to rethink what they're doing, it's a fair bet that he's sounding an alarm because of his love for the country, and giving warning true friends of Israel will heed.
False friends of Israel, on the other hand, go into a petit mal seizure at the slightest hint of deviation from a platform of dispatching all the Palestinians with extreme prejudice, and grand mal when that deviationism comes from a fellow Jew. So it only stands to reason that this crazy, inexplicably popular blogger would try to fulfill her service to Israel by smearing a better and truer Zionist than she could ever be, exclaiming: "JEWICIDAL JIHADI BENDS OVER, SUBMITS DEMANDS [sic] ISRAEL." And there's more! "Atlas" — as she preposterously calls herself out of some deeply confused homage to a failed novelist-cum-failed philosopher who actually was a Jew who loathed Judaism — wants to let us know that in addition to all his jihadi faggotry, Goldberg is also a "self-loathing" "jihadi" (she has six separate variations on "Jihad Jeffro," "Jihad Jeff," etc.) complicit in "jewicide," which is later helpfully defined as "dismantling of settlements" in English, and "annihilat[ion of] the Jews" in hyperthyroidic-Kach-speak. Worse still, she notes, Golberg dared to use the name "Jerusalem," which again, in glandularly-disordered-Kachist is "And the use of the word sanctity.Jerusalem is sacred, you asshat." (It's really a different grammar entirely.)
But Goldberg's deepest betrayal of his people, for which "Atlas" would call him a Kapo if she actually knew anything about Jewish history, is — you guessed it — explaining to the goyim that "Mr. Obama is actually more pro-Israel than either Ehud Olmert or Ehud Barak…[t]o say nothing of John McCain and President George W. Bush…." To which "Atlas" responds, staying classy, "Obama is more pro-Israel than Hitler maybe…."
Indeed, it was Goldberg's recent interview with Obama that first tipped "Atlas" off to the fact that Goldberg might in fact be a jihadi faggot, or as her slightly more house-trained pal Caroline Glick puts it, "a disillusioned Zionist who abandoned Israel and moved back to America." Because what better description could there be of one of the most authentically and unequivocally Zionist voices — with all the baggage that entails — in American journalism?
Here's the thing though. People like "Atlas" and Glick have no standing to pronounce on anybody else's Zionist credentials, because they don't have the slightest clue what the concept of Zionism is in the first place. Hence any sentence coming out of their mouths with the word "Zionism" or "Zionist" in it may sound like articulate speech, but is in fact strictly and literally meaningless. The difference between "Atlas," Glick, and the other Daddy's-Amex-fascisti on the one hand, and sociopaths like Apollo Braun on the other, is that he at least makes 250 bucks a sweatshirt. In any case, people with no moral sense can't be morally persuaded, but they can be effectively shunned.
POST A COMMENT
Does anybody else think that our Jeffie looks an awful lot like Craig from "Malcom in the Middle"?!
it's you jeffrey weaver!
I've noticed this about your argumentative style, that you turn words into numbers, basically, and then deal with the relationships between those numbers. Of course, if one has a style of looking for the essence of words and examining the relationship of the essences within the context of history–phenomenology, in other words, that's a long bridge to cross before those styles can actually converse.
But I can't help but be impressed regarding the symbols you can get out of these keyboards. Â Â
I must say, I've enjoyed this farcical little fan-dance by young Jeffery, but what actually got me to respond was this contention by Jon that somehow snuck under the radar in all the wild excitement:
 "Iran poses a greater threat to me than the Soviet Union did. I live in Washington DC*. There is no way the SU would hit DC because they knew we would respond with massive retailation."
 I suspect that Jon is a bit younger than me – I'm 50. In my distant youth, and in my parents' middle age, that level of confidence was simply unheard of. MAD might have been a military philosopher's crutch, but it presupposes rational behavior by your opponent. Not only that, but it assumes complete knowledge and calm, reflective response to glitches and surprises by both sides. I suspect that to Jon, Stanley Kubrick's _Dr. Strangelove_ is simply a dated comedy. There is a real reason it was so memorable though; it presented our common nightmare as black humor and made it easier to live with. 'Now' is not 'always was, always will be', despite what we would like to believe. His contention might be mostly correct 'now', but Mr. Obama was clearly referring to the Soviet Union of 'then'.
Fine, Daniel–if you'll accept 39 lashes, and let the congregation walk over your back on the way out, you're back in the club. Also, renounce Obama (you'll need to submit to a blood/Kool-Aid test (breath, blood or urine–your choice!)). Oh, and kiss The Fountainhead.
Sensible people are capable of making the real-world distinction
between (i) deciding that it is a poor use of limited resources to
prosecute low-level drug offenders and (ii) nakedly attempting to
commandeer the apparatus of law enforcement to prosecute political
enemies and suppress voter turnout.
Since we don't yet have an actual argument, there's no specific argumentative fallacy to highlight. The idiom would be "apples to oranges," I guess, though this is more like apples to elephants.
Let me see if I can cook up an argument through. (Restricting the domain of things to executive acts.)
(i) Bush did things without Congressional approval.
(ii) The things Bush did without Congressional approval were illegitimate.
Lemma: Anything without Congressional approval is illegitimate.
(In symbols: ?x (¬Cx & Ix) ? ?x (¬Cx ? Ix))
(iii) Obama proposes doing things without Congressional approval.
Conclusion (from (iii) and Lemma): What Obama proposes doing without Congressional approval is illegitimate.
(In symbols: ?x (¬Cx ? Ix); ?a (¬Ca) ? Ia.)
See the fallacy? It's from (ii) to the Lemma. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. It doesn't follow that because something has two properties, anything with one property will have the other. In particular, it doesn't follow that any presidential act without Congressional approval is illegitimate just because some are. Presidents can do many things without Congressional approval yet perfectly legitimately.
Memento, right, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, how no true
Scotsmanlibertarian could support Obama. I pointed out how drug war policy provides clear grounds for a libertarian to support Obama. The response was threefold: (a) "yeah, well why didn't he do anything about it while a Senator," which is a red herring fallacy, (b) "yeah, well how convenient; yet you accuse Bush of arrogating power illegitimately," which we've just discussed, (c) Obama Kool-Aid Ayn Rand Not A Real Jew I Love Atlas Shrugs BlogIt's like dealing with the guy from Memento. You don't even remember what happened five minutes ago. Perhaps we can tattoo this somewhere you'll notice when your memory resets:Â
No, Daniel did not say anything remotely resembling your "by any means necessary" characterization. His statement had one of those newfangled interweb-linky-things to an article from Reason, which had the following quote from Obama:
I don't think you could get a clearer statement than that indicating that any change in policy would be based on … wait for it …
….wait….
…wait…
…don't let that memory fade yet, Jeffrey…
… yes, prosecutorial discretion. See, there's even a reference to the allocation of law-enforcement resources and everything.
blindly pick up Daniel's line. He simply said that Obama could not get his plans passed through Congress, so he would use the powers of the Presidency Those powers would not be limited to prosecutorial discretion, again that was his fall back to cover what he was really referring to, an imperial Presidency, much like GWB's. Now I do not like GWB but I do not believe for one minute any of you will mind Obama using those powers to implement his policies. So, yes I do believe Daniel was being more sweeping than he now claims. And I believe you are being willfully obtuse to not see that.
First, let’s be honest about something, Jeffrey. You didn’t even know what prosecutorial discretion was until earlier today. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have said that an executive order is required to change federal law-enforcement priorities. Nor would you have said that a unilateral change in law-enforcement priorities constitutes “monarchy.”
Â
Second, how the US Attorney scandal differs from what Obama would do is only “unclear” to you, my friend. Sensible people are capable of making the real-world distinction between (i) deciding that it is a poor use of limited resources to prosecute low-level drug offenders and (ii) nakedly attempting to commandeer the apparatus of law enforcement to prosecute political enemies and suppress voter turnout. It's kind of Daniel's shtick to supply the technical philosophical term for the colossal fallacy of logic you’ve committed, so I won’t try to steal his thunder.
discretion. I just would like the other side to believe in it as well. The firings, while not illegal stemmed from the US Attorneys NOT following the stated wishes of the President for his justice Department, how this differs from what you want Lord Obama to do is unclear, except you have a belief that when your side does something it is good, but when GWB or the GOP does it, it is illegal. I believe in strict standards that both sides should uphold.
Oh lordy Jeffrey, I was trying to give you a graceful exit. Look, I'm sorry if you're incapable of making the distinction between (i) the ordinary exercise of prosecturial discretion and (ii) the recent US Attorney scandal, which involved the systematic use of law enforcement to prosecute political enemies and supress voter turnout. But, really, those cognitive limitations are nobody's problem but your own.
I gather that you think any exercise of prosecutorial discretion is improper. Do you suppose that any law enforcement entity could actually function without that discretion? If so, we're not just having a disagreement, we're at an impasse created by your own inability comprehend reality.
Any, if I can spare you the time and energy, I think I've already anticipated your response: "Whatever! Lord Obama worshippers! Kool-Aid drinkers who are less successful than Ayn Rand! Post-Judaic jihadi tools!" I hope I haven't left anything out.
powers to control Justice department. is that not why you lefties want Rove and Myers brought before Congress?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90QRR300&show_article=1
These actions you believe Lord Obama will take have been complained about by you when GWB has used them, now I know that one cannot expect consistency from the left, but really now.Â
As for my de-pantsing, as some Knave has said, I don't think so. Koffler quotes CBO numbers, ignores anything that is anti-Obama (like the truth) and you lot pass the kool-aid….
 "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"
Iran poses a greater threat to me than the Soviet Union did. I live in Washington DC*. There is no way the SU would hit DC because they knew we would respond with massive retailation. Â On the other hand, there is a fair possibility that Iran would allow a third party to get a nuke that would be used against Washington DC (or NYC, etc). We might not retaliate against Iran because we may not know that they were responsible. Or, they might not care if we retaliate because their current leader seems unbalanced. Neither issue was true of the Soviets.
That said, I would not object to a President Obama speaking with the Iranians as long as he started his conversation with a statement that if Iran developed nuclear weapons technology, the US would automtically treat any nuclear attack on US or allied soil as an attack by Iran and that we were retargeting a small portion (say 10%) of our ICBM/SLBM force for Iranian targets. With that precondition, I think most Americans would accept a direct dialogue with  Iran.
Don't pile on, Daniel. You should know that Jeffrey's "Whatever" is pissy neocon-speak for "please don't hurt me anymore." And, anyway, can you really blame the guy for cowering after the ignominious de-pantsing he's been given in this thread?
Let's try to get one factual point right in this thread, eh?
There is now way that Obama can lay claim to libertarian votes. The Obama cult is pathetic. The man is losing in 2 to 1 margins in states after the media made it clear that Hillary cannot win. In states he manages to win, they are very close. Obama does horribly with Jews (except those that work for Jewcy it would seem). Does not change the fact that Ayn Rand is MORE successful than Koffler will ever be and we need people like Pamela from Atlas more than the post-Judaic Jews that haunt this forum. Call yourselves whatever you wish…
No, Petraues. He did not say that. Here is the real quote:Â
 "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"
If you disagree — and instead think that Iran poses a greater threat than USSR did during the Cold War — please go ahead and say so. Otherwise, stop misrepresenting the facts.
For sticking out this ridiculous argument with Jeffrey but I think you can retire now; it doesn't look like you are going to get more than crap flung in your face…
Obama just said Iran is a "tiny threat". Good, I feel so relieved. Our servicemen who are under attack from Iranian manufactured IEDs and EFPs can get some relief too.
For fug's sake, Jeffrey, have you never heard of Art. II, sec. 3 of the US Constitution or — in a pinch — the term "prosecutorial discretion"? Daniel is absolutely right: the President has the prerogative to set the priorities for federal law enforcement (generally through his pick of an AG to head the Justice Department). It doesn't require an executive order or the arrogation of monarch-like powers. This is really basic civics.
The current Republican administration claims that the President is in effect an elected monarch whose power in matters of war is absolute and unreviewable, and upon whose shoulders it falls exclusively to determine which matters are matters of war, meaning that — there is no limitation on executive power whatsoever. On the basis of that claim to unlimited power, this administration has asserted the right to arrest, imprison, torture, and indefinitely detain anyone on earth at any time without giving any reason of any sort or provide them token legal representation.
But sure, Obama directing his Justice Department to pursue other priorities than conducting a war on people who like one particular kind of pain medicine is downright tyrannical.
You mean all the sentences you are writing? Please since I missed it explain the libertarian Utopia that your Lord Obama will grant us. Please explain how you prefer Obama to use executive orders to do what cannot be done democratically in the Congress because their is no support for his plans, as you stated in "nstead he's pledged to roll back parts of it as president, which he can do unilaterally." You seem to want a monarchy, I do not. You fault Bush for this, but welcome it being done by Obama?
You shove it to McCain by endorsing the biggest STATIST to run in a
generation? The Democrats are campaigning on increased spending and
increased taxes. They are constant in using government to enforce their
social policies on us environment, smoking, speech laws – the left has
severely damaged our freedoms and you support the man most to the left
and claim it is because you support limited government…
Here's a thought. How about, instead of regurgitating some slogans from College Republican pamphlets c. 1988 (tax and spend! oh noes, what's next, Drugachusetts and Feminazis? no, it's smoking? smoking! smoking? smoking! you think smoking is a presidential issue?), you respond to a single substantive point. McCain's platform calls for the government to confiscate far more private income than Obama's platform; maybe the rapture will come before the credit card bills are due, but that doesn't make McCain a friend of economic freedom. And in every single other respect, it's not even close. Obama will dampen the internal war against American citizens who use disfavored classes of pharmaceuticals, McCain will expand it. Obama will restore ancient liberties like habeas corpus and the Constitutional provisions the Bush administration has attempted to nullify, McCain hedges. Obama will end torture, McCain just voted for it. Obama's government reform platform — possibly the most exciting component of his candidacy — promises to significantly curtail the state's effective coercive power by making government transparent and accountable to citizens. McCain's signature government reform, of course, was an assault on the first amendment (but "the left" promotes "speech laws" of course; of course!).
Jeffrey –
Just as a barometer of your sanity, I'd like to know if Pam Atlas is also correct that Rachel Ray is a jihadi tool because of the scarf she wore in a Dunkin Donuts ad.
You shove it to McCain by endorsing the biggest STATIST to run in a generation? The Democrats are campaigning on increased spending and increased taxes. They are constant in using government to enforce their social policies on us environment, smoking, speech laws – the left has severely damaged our freedoms and you support the man most to the left and claim it is because you support limited government…
Moloch: I support Pamela because she is 1 correct and 2 a friend. I agree with her that there are too many "Jews" willing to destroy Judaism to be loved by a world that hates Jews. Remember this – you will never be goy enough to escape your Jewishness.
Moloch is a good name for you, because it represents the child sacrifice for stupid causes that is the antithesis of Judaism. We closed the "illegal" settlements in Gaza and gave the Palestinians our houses and got Qassams in return. Sorry Moloch, we are not going to take your prescription with the likelihood that the Palestinains will launch Qassams from E Jerusalem. We already tried to make assist the Palestinians to make a viable state. It didnt work. Its time, let your friends the Saudis and Iranians assist a viable state. Go ahead and put your children into Gaza among terrorists so you can achieve your dreams of child sacrifice
Neither you nor Jeff Goldberg has a good answer to what Israel should do when the Palestinians launch Qassam missiles from E Jerusalem all over Israel.
How about shutting down the illegal settlements, assisting the Palestinians build a viable state (nb. "assisting" does not equal "telling them what to do and using threats and violence to try to get them to do it") and avoid killing Palestinian children ("we didn't know there were children in the house when we bulldozed it" is not an excuse, nor is "the bad guy was hiding amongst civilians when we blew him up, oops") for starters.
Jeffery W- No matter how vigorously you argue your points,  Pammy Atlas is never going to sleep with you.
In a revealing article linked from this thread, note how Obama responds. Anyone who is pro-Israel cannot vote for this guy, rich in double talk and quick to blame Israel first. "No, NO, NO BUT…" he says. This inversion of the truth is so common on the left they really believe that Israel is to blame for giving the jihadists an excuse to attack. You see, what they want is to offer to those who are so prone to violence no excuse to be violent. This makes the argument that "settlements" are a real source of concern and a problem simply because this is what the enemies of peace say. But why is a town populated by peaceful Jews a problem?–this is the question. The "sore" is highlighted merely because the pro-Arab propaganda says it is. But what of the objective reality? Are settlements really a problem?
As for the status quo–things are clearly turning because of our fine efforts in Iraq. Now, more Arab Palestinians are much quicker to distance themselves with Bin Laden and these new polls are clearly cause for celebration. American efforts in Iraq are actually changing public opinion among the Arabs.
A willingness to blame Israel for the lack of peace is a clear hallmark of a politician not interested in peace. Israelis do not like this guy because his policies will bring more violence and less peace and if you want to characterize this thought as "right-wing" or whatever–go ahead. The fact remains that he is gravely mistrusted and this passage in the interview paraded by the author of the blog entry is only one demonstration of why people interested in peace should not elect this man.Â
JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?
BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound,
that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The
lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for
anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and
so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also
believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I
believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced
of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some
of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United
States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to
whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest
ground politically.
I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to
Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if
Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that
this has on the peace process, then we’re going to be stuck in the same
status quo that we’ve been stuck in for decades now,…
Oh Jesus, no Jeffrey, I don't worship the state; however, I dwell in the real world where the libertarian revolution isn't happening tomorrow, where a government that deliberately makes itself insolvent and goes bankrupt doesn't protect its people's freedom, but the opposite, and where there are tradeoffs. E.g., habeas corpus or symbolic bans on AK-47s. Tough call, right?
If McCain were proposing to cut spending meaningfully to match the tax cuts, I'd be interested. What he is proposing is to continue confiscating private individuals' income and spending it as if it's state property, only he'll confiscate the income of future generations — because trying to bribe people by giving away free shit and paying for it with their grandchildren's credit card is just what tough straight-talking mavericks do. In addition to which, he insults my intelligence (and yours?) by claiming he'll offset the tax cut by selling off bridges in Alaska. All that, who knows what ingenious new restrictions on free speech he'll cook up, finding out just how healthy the state can be given that war is the health of the state, and a proto-fascistic call to put aside petty, private, individual concerns and find the greater glory available only to those who give themselves up completely to the service of the nation? Oh, and a gas tax holiday. You're right, no true libertarian could possibly resist.
You mean the teen idol with her pop philosophy and stolen ideas from Nietzsche?
The mention of Kant, Nozick and Camus means you are most likely talking to an ass…
The mention of Ayn Rand is almost as sure a sign that you're talking to a nutcase as the mention of the Templars or the Freemasons.
where exactly? You worship intrusive government. You believe that the government owns your earnings and any tax cut is "government spending" I think you confuse libertine with libertarian…
CBO = Congressional Budget Office. Link. A "spending cut" that is actually a national subprime mortgage is not a spending cut.Â
The National taxpayers Union – a non-partisan group has a handy list
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141
it seems Obama is the King of spending, not McCain. Sometimes you need to look a little deeper than Obama's press releases for the truth.Â
You have used these web pages as a conduit for Obama's Jewish outreach. You belittle Zionists, trash right-wing Jews and do not allow for anyone that just might have a rational belief that Jews need not be leftist. You are Elitist and smug, but that will wash away as you age. For any criticism you lay on Obama, it is tempered by outright lies about McCain supporters like Hagee.
As for calling you a hack, it is a compliment. Like your personal definition of success, I have a personal definition for hack…Â
"what Israel should do when the Palestinians launch Qassam missiles from E Jerusalem all over Israel. Im still waiting"
That's a good question. Perhaps Israel would be in a better position then under internation law for retaliation. (e.g., if there was an independent state of Palestine with borders recognized by Israel, the US and most UN states)Â
I can't spare much more time to this, however:
According to the CBO, McCain's slate of proposals would add $5.8 T to the national debt; Obama's would add $1.9T, or approximately one third.
"Judicial activism" is a contentless term. O'Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas ruled on the side of liberty in Kelo. Scalia flipped to the authoritarian side in Raich. Now let's separate libertarians from glibertarians. In Hamdan, a case whose subject matter was even closer to the fundaments of liberty than Kelo or Raich, the majority upholding ancient rights was Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy. The authoritarians were Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, with Roberts recusing himself because he'd ruled for the government in the case when he was a circuit judge. All these considerations make Obama vastly preferable to McCain or Clinton on judicial appointment grounds.
Since Obama is in the Senate, can he not introduce a bill to curtail the war on drugs?
He can. It wouldn't get anywhere. Instead he's pledged to roll back parts of it as president, which he can do unilaterally. Maybe he'll break the pledge, and that would be a huge betrayal. On the other hand, no president has done anything but escalate the internal war against American citizens using a disfavored class of pharmaceuticals since it began. I've written a more thorough and substantive criticism of Obama than any of your strings of ad hominems, but because you steadfastly refuse to credit him with anything, ever — at the cost of dwelling in fantasyland — I'm a hack. Whatever.
You are insane, Obama has already said he favors activist Judges. Enslaving one man to pay for the abuse of another is not libertarianism, and Obama has called for over one trillion dollars in new programs. You drink his kool-aid, but the rest of us do not have to.
Judges that gave us Kelo, a reduction in property rights, a loss of freedom of association, speech and money is a high price to pay simply because you despise the military and police. Who, pray tell do you think the government uses when it evicts citizens from their land? Since Obama is in the Senate, can he not introduce a bill to curtail the war on drugs? What about a bill to limit the "militarization" of the police? Hack.
And you should know who Nozick is if you are his follower. Even he had second thoughts as he aged, something you will no doubt experience yourself. Yet being a leftist, you can hide behind libertarianism- you are still a lefty.
Neither you nor Jeff Goldberg has a good answer to what Israel should do when the Palestinians launch Qassam missiles from E Jerusalem all over Israel. Im still waiting
Dan,
I think you'll find Ms. Atlas's fabled finery on display here, in a post entitled "RACHEL RAY, DUNKIN DONUTS JIHAD TOOL."Â
Ismail, there's nothing objectionable about your construction — in fact it's obviously a standard usage — but it is, importantly, a weak claim; to weak, for example, to rule out Rand's failure at being a novelist, which on my terms, also standard, is equivalent to trying and failing to write good novels (on some aesthetic conception of "good"). So your precisification of Mateo's claim is fine, and he's welcome to it, but his point was to undermine my claim that Rand was a failed novelist, and there is no conflict between her having been successful on your understanding of Mateo's lights, and her having been a failure on my lights.
Jeffrey, I'm fascinated: What part of "Atlas" calling Jeffrey Goldberg a jihadist buggery-bottom exemplifies finery to you? Also, I view voting as a collective action problem; I don't cast protest votes that would hurt my preferred choice between the two people with a chance to win; the libertarian case for Obama is straightforward, and, I promise, shared by a large swathe of libertarians (do a poll of Reasonoids, if you don't believe me) — some of us think ending wars, ending torture, restoring civil liberties, curbing the drug war, curbing the militarization of police, filling the federal bench with civil libertarians, protecting women's reproductive freedoms, adding a third of John McCain's proposed increase in the national debt, loosening restrictions on immigration, dustbinning the conventional wisdom that you have to be a reflexive hawk to be credible on national security, sparing us the presidency of somebody who thinks private lives and private choices should be subsumed to "national greatness", and on and on, is more important than lowering corporate tax rates and taking a symbolic stand on gun rights, which are the only libertarian grounds for supporting John McCain, as far as I can tell. Â
But please, tell me more about Nozick.
First Jewcy claims to be a place for all Jews, but the constant attack on Zionists is shows this to be a fraud. Attacking a fine woman like the blogger at Atlas Shrugs might make you feel like a big important boy, but it shows you to be an ass. It is fine for you to suckle Obama daily and try to fool Jews into believing he is the next Super-Jew – more Jewish than Lieberman. It is fine for you to CLAIM to be a libertarian while you embrace politicians that are anything but libertarian. It is ok for you to then defend yourself by being more concerned with construct than ideas, but it is not OK to constantly trash a huge segment of the Jewish people simply because you are a spoiled little brat.
You and your Ivy league friends will trash Rand, but you will never be a tenth as influential as she was and is. Your simply stupid a random rules for what you deem successful are only shared by bitter writers and artists that feel the world does not embrace you because they are stupid and lowbrow, but the truth most likely lies in that your work is just not very good and only eggheads will appreciate it. Does not mean that writers like Dan Brown and John Grisham are not successful and talented.
Nozickian libertarian my ass…
The Village People are successful musicians.
Vanilla Ice is a successful rapper.
Which of course they are, right?
Ismail – It's a fine proposition inasmuch as Rand's success as a novelist can't sincerely be disputed (her work was/is popular and influential to a wide audience, etc.); but her success as a philosopher can (she's never been embraced by philosophy departments, etc.). That said, the Randians out there would quibble with the idea that Ste. Ayn wasn't even a philosopher! Who gets to decide? Â
Daniel, Mateo-
How about just saying that Rand was a successful writer? This construction has the advantage of allowing us to use "successful" in the sense it's used by the average linguistically competent person; someone who makes a good living at her chosen profession. It also avoids the aesthetic judgments and appeals to one theory of literature or another that "successful novelist" would require.
The question of her success as a philosopher is far less thorny. To be a successful philosopher, one must first be a philosopher. Like Eric Hoffer and similar gasbags of that vintage, she was no such thing. Â Â
Dan Brown is extraordinarily successful. His work may not be of
interest to you, but that is utterly immaterial to his success. He writes popular fiction that's proven – shocker – popular. That's success, not failure.
I simply asked: What makes Ayn Rand a "failed" novelist? And the best answer you've offered is essentially: "I don't like her work." So, if your claim is that she's "failed" to impress you, fine – no one can argue with that, but it's a totally meaningless definition of failure.
The claim was: high book sales demonstrate success as a writer. That is clearly false, cf. Dan Brown. Hence the shifting of goal posts:
selling books that plenty of smart people reread, enjoy, recommend to friends
Really? So now we can bring judgments about the sorts of people reading certain authors to bear and restrict the "sales = successful writing" claim to just the right sort? Should we use my precisification of 'smart' or yours? Or should we come up with standards for judging literature on its merits?
Rand's place in the history of this concept
Right, she does have one. About the same place that Square One had in the history of mathematics.
Success at making money, nothing else (in particular, not at writing
good novels).Â
Why so cynical? Rand has certainly taken lumps for being a clumsy
wordsmith and a rigor-less pop philosopher, but it's puerile to call her
"failed" just because you don't think her stuff is any good. Plenty of smart people disagree with you.
Btw, thanks for your condescending note re: rational self-interest.Â
It's pretty clear where you stand – Nozick doesn't like Rand, you don't
like Rand, she's not a legitimate thinker, she's a failure, she's not worthy of
anyone's time, yadda yadda. But in point of fact, Rand's success in promoting rational self-interest as an ethical concept (as opposed to an economic concept) across a very wide readership is not debatable, and your refusal to acknowledge that plain fact is odd, to say the least.
Neither you nor Jeff Goldberg has a good answer to what Israel should do when the Palestinians launch Qassam missiles from E Jerusalem all over Israel. As your beef with "Atlas" -did she turn you down for a date
Criterion, not criteria. "Criteria" is plural. I know I'm being insufferable but this is my second most-hated solecism.
First? "Begging the question" when used to mean "asking the question". Boy, I really can't bear that one.Â
Perhaps Craig can generate some algorithm that will detect and correct misuses of this helpful phrase. Or better yet, one that will soundly beat the offender about the head and shoulders until he PROMISES TO Â NEVER COMMIT THIS AWFUL CRIME AGAIN !!! Â Â
popularity (measured by sales) is a legitimate standard
by which measure a writer's success.
Success at making money, nothing else (in particular, not at writing good novels). Dan Brown is wildly popular. Rand has sold more books than any philosopher except possibly Plato or Nietzsche. So, Top 3 all time or what?
We still talk about "rational self-interest" as a viable
ethical force.
Rational self-interest is an important concept in several disciplines at the intersection of philosophy and economics. Suggesting Rand had anything to do with that is about on a par with suggesting that geometers operate under the influence of an episode of Sesame Street that discussed triangles.
Anon: I assure you it isn't Rand's fame that keeps her out of philosophy curricula. I'm a Nozickian libertarian, have I mentioned that before?
I think that the idea of Rand as a failed novelist and philosopher has to do with the lack of respect that she has experience in the academic world. After all, most lit and philosophy departments do not teach her work. Â I suspect that has to do as much with her fame as it does with her ideas. Â But acceptance in the academic community cannot be the only measuring stick by which we decide if someone is successful. I think that book sales and overall influence is a pretty good criteria to judge if someone is successful or not. Â It is not a good criteria to judge if someone is correct. Â Only successful. Â Â Â
That Facebook group you link to at the end is wild.
"OBAMA would want Israel to retreat to indefensible borders, those of pre-1967 green-line Israel"
The pre-1967 borders were indefensible? Who knew?
As it happens, popularity (measured by sales) is a legitimate standard
by which measure a writer's success. So is critical acclaim. So is
influence and endurance in the popular culture. Ayn Rand enjoyed all
of these things, whereas "failed novelists" do not. By what honest
standard was Ayn Rand a "failed novelist"?Â
As to whether or not she was a "failed philosopher," again it's pretty
reasonable for a philosopher's success to be measured by the number of
thinking people she's influenced, and her pervasiveness in the
culture. We still talk about "rational self-interest" as a viable
ethical force. Sure, Objectivism has met its fair share of criticsm,
but throughout the history of philosophy, what school of thought
hasn't? By what honest standard was Ayn Rand a "failed philosopher"?
As to Glick, as a writer and thinker, she's in a different class than
the Atlas blogger. Generally, her arguments
are more rational than Atlas's, and depend less on emotional invective,
whining, name-calling, etc. (One example of "name-calling" is using
the word "sociopath" to describe people who are not sociopathic.)
Mateo, I see you equate book sales and popularity with success as a novelist, and indeed, as a philosopher, so I'm not terribly swayed by your assessment of the relative elevations of voices. My advice is to always keep a fainting couch on hand, lest vulgarity strike you unawares. Anyway, if Glick's disparagement of Goldberg's Zionism seemed to you to come from on high, I can only imagine how lofty her follow-up, in which she accuses Goldberg of "taking another cue from the radical leftist, anti-Zionist playbook," will strike you.
Not sure on what grounds Ayn Rand is a "failed" anything. You apply the adjective (twice!) as an aside and present it as if it were prima facie true. But quite the opposite is the case – she was extremely successful and influential, and her popularity persists to this day. Go ahead and read the Wikipedia piece you linked to. Agree with her or not, her enduring popularity is undeniable.
Also, Daniel – lumping Caroline Glick in with Atlas – and calling Ms. Glick "slightly more house-trained" – is wrong (not to mention vulgar). I suppose they share some ideology, and neither of them shares your love for BHO, but Glick's authorial voice is substantially more elevated, and less hysteric, than Atlas's – and, I might add, your own.
Neither you nor Jeff Goldberg has a good answer to what Israel should do when the Palestinians launch Qassam missiles from E Jerusalem all over Israel. As your beef with "Atlas" -did she turn you down for a date?
Good post. Â But why put down Ayn Rand, just because this nut-case identifies with her? Â Surely, if we judge by the number of books sold (over 30 million) and by influence in culture (e.g. Alan Greenspan, Ron Paul), Rand is not a failed novelist (philosopher is another story). Â You may not agree with her, but failed? Â Â Â
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!