Bob Kolker

Brown! Brown! Brown! 52 to 47!

47 posts in this topic

Remember Massachusetts

I like that slogan. Another thing to remember are these maps--they have always seemed to suggest to me that the reason Republicans haven't been winning elections since then is that they have not been American enough. In other words, a principled pro-capitalist candidate would have an excellent chance of being elected, if only he were:

  • able to obtain campaign financing;
  • able to counter the ferocious attacks on him by the MSM.

The Supreme Court's recent decision may help with the former, and the PJM may be able to provide an increasing amount of support on the latter front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What did you think it was versus what you think now? The Governor, the other Senator (Kerry) and every Congressman are Democrats, mostly progressives, including Barney Frank. The Kennedys have controlled Brown's Senate seat for half a century, with a consistently extreme left voting record, even through and after the murder by Kennedy at Chappaquiddick. There are something like 12 Republicans in the state senate with similar Democrat dominance in the House. 12% of registered voters are Republicans with 36% Democrats and the rest unenrolled and mostly liberals. This was the state that overwhelmingly voted for McGovern -- the only state to do so along with Washington DC -- long before Gore and Kerry came so close to winning nationally. It has had several (moderate) Republican governors until recently, who at best slowed the descent. This includes Romney's state health controls which Republicans mostly enthusiastically endorsed, in part because worse was threatened. Every piece of relative sanity against the left that does succeed has been an uphill battle in a downward slide. One instance is that there were enough independents who objected to the antics in Washington to give Brown a 5% margin this time.

But my point would be that even with such a massive state machine in place, Obama couldn't get this reliable state to allow him to ram through The Dream before the 2010 elections take him down a notch or two. Further, the dominance of this machine makes that 5% margin a landslide.

But it isn't just a "machine" in the sense of a small group of people in control. They got there because of a smug, statist philosophy that dominates the culture. Enough people balk when they see too much failure too fast; that doesn't make them pro-capitalist. This includes the large number of well-off liberal professionals who are making money hand over fist in industries like the financial sector and technology, much of which financially feeds off government policy and rewards them for what they think is the superiority of their entrenched moral philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it isn't just a "machine" in the sense of a small group of people in control. They got there because of a smug, statist philosophy that dominates the culture. Enough people balk when they see too much failure too fast; that doesn't make them pro-capitalist.

I don't think anyone has said that either the People or the few Browns that are out there are pro-capitalist; not on this thread, and probably nowhere on THE FORUM. I also don't see where anyone has represented Brown's victory, or similar victories by others, as some sort of firewall between us and the statism that will surely come unless we make serious gains on the morality front.

I think Brown's victory, in MA, for that seat, at this point in history, in the first year of the Anointed one's presidency, will delay the onslaught for a while because it shows that there's enough America left in Americans to resist the Left when it comes at them full force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it isn't just a "machine" in the sense of a small group of people in control. They got there because of a smug, statist philosophy that dominates the culture. Enough people balk when they see too much failure too fast; that doesn't make them pro-capitalist.

I don't think anyone has said that either the People or the few Browns that are out there are pro-capitalist; not on this thread, and probably nowhere on THE FORUM. I also don't see where anyone has represented Brown's victory, or similar victories by others, as some sort of firewall between us and the statism that will surely come unless we make serious gains on the morality front.

I think Brown's victory, in MA, for that seat, at this point in history, in the first year of the Anointed one's presidency, will delay the onslaught for a while because it shows that there's enough America left in Americans to resist the Left when it comes at them full force.

I was referring to the characterization of the Massachusetts Democrats as a "machine", which usually means a political machine consisting of a group of insiders running things on their own, with no meaningful support from the outside. The prominence of the Democrats in Massachusetts is due primarily to ideology, not simple corruption, although the way they operate is certainly as a corrupt machine. No one her on the Forum has said that either Massachusetts voters or Brown are principled individualists, but there have been questions here about how principled and clear Brown's appeal was. As described elsewhere, it wasn't, and that was not what voters responded to. There is no sign that Massachusetts 'pragmatic' European-mentality socialists are any less so now, only that enough of them reacted against the inevitable results, which they don't know is inevitable from their own premises. They may have rejected the left when it came at them under Obama's "full force", but they don't know the meaning of what they rejected on any but pragmatist terms, and still support much of it. Yes, 'statism ... will surely come unless we make serious gains on the morality front". It is already well under way. Furthermore, there will be further decline, with fewer and fewer people who can be counted on to react out of a proper sense of life because the sense of life will die out without explicit support that has been increasingly declining for generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore, there will be further decline, with fewer and fewer people who can be counted on to react out of a proper sense of life because the sense of life will die out without explicit support that has been increasingly declining for generations.

I agree that this is happening and will continue to happen unless serious inroads are made in education. But even a pragmatist is stalled by, if not limited by, reality. I think enough political and economic freedom has been experienced for us to avoid hitting the point of no return anytime soon.

What worries me is the possibility that, in response to Obama's blatant statism, we'll see a decade or two of a partially unleashed economy. With things "back to normal," there would far less attention paid to what the next generation of states and DC regulators would be doing, just as swelling government coffers would enable these creatures to make it that much harder to fight them after the next disaster has Americans questioning the proper role of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What worries me is the possibility that, in response to Obama's blatant statism, we'll see a decade or two of a partially unleashed economy. With things "back to normal," there would far less attention paid to what the next generation of states and DC regulators would be doing, just as swelling government coffers would enable these creatures to make it that much harder to fight them after the next disaster has Americans questioning the proper role of government.

There is the rub. Successful muddling through is often confused with success. The problem with lurching ahead is that when one comes to the precipice he is totally surprised.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore, there will be further decline, with fewer and fewer people who can be counted on to react out of a proper sense of life because the sense of life will die out without explicit support that has been increasingly declining for generations.

I disagree. The solution is to lower welfare and open borders. Then you get your source for the right sense of life. Just like in the old days. People hungry to work and be productive, and to then enjoy the fruits of their work. Wonderfully selfish and honest people. Who are risking everything.

Also forces the existing Americans to get on with some work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore, there will be further decline, with fewer and fewer people who can be counted on to react out of a proper sense of life because the sense of life will die out without explicit support that has been increasingly declining for generations.

I disagree. The solution is to lower welfare and open borders. Then you get your source for the right sense of life. Just like in the old days. People hungry to work and be productive, and to then enjoy the fruits of their work. Wonderfully selfish and honest people. Who are risking everything.

Also forces the existing Americans to get on with some work.

"Open borders" are not a substitute for philosophy. Hordes of Mexicans coming here for welfare and unskilled labor do not represent the traditional American sense of life and will not save the country as they vote, often illegally, for leftist government. The few who represent the kind of people you refer to are no match for the hordes of American intellectuals already here and entrenched destroying the culture and therefore the political system. One does not simply "turn off" welfare as an obvious source of improvement under such circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore, there will be further decline, with fewer and fewer people who can be counted on to react out of a proper sense of life because the sense of life will die out without explicit support that has been increasingly declining for generations.

I disagree. The solution is to lower welfare and open borders. Then you get your source for the right sense of life. Just like in the old days. People hungry to work and be productive, and to then enjoy the fruits of their work. Wonderfully selfish and honest people. Who are risking everything.

Also forces the existing Americans to get on with some work.

"Open borders" are not a substitute for philosophy. Hordes of Mexicans coming here for welfare and unskilled labor do not represent the traditional American sense of life and will not save the country as they vote, often illegally, for leftist government. The few who represent the kind of people you refer to are no match for the hordes of American intellectuals already here and entrenched destroying the culture and therefore the political system. One does not simply "turn off" welfare as an obvious source of improvement under such circumstances.

While I agree with your larger point -- that the intellectuals have so poisoned the culture that "turning off/lowering" welfare (a pragmatic, unprincipled 'solution' to the wider philosophic problem) begs the question -- I want to take this opportunity one more time on this board to very strongly dissuade Objectivists from swallowing this "true-conservative" line that "hordes of Mexicans" are "coming here for welfare." It simply is not true. I observed this myself while I lived in the US for a decade (Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, New Jersey, and Maryland). Yes, there may be some who utilize the "free" emergency rooms, but I want to very emphatically say that, in general, the people fleeing their much-poorer countries to make a go of it in the U.S. are very hard-working, motivated types.

You may rightly doubt my experience as anecdotal, so I am posting here an excerpt of a Radley Balko article posted on the Wall Street Journal site last year. Balko wrote:

By conventional wisdom, El Paso, Texas, should be one of the scariest cities in America. In 2007, the city's poverty rate was a shade over 27 percent, more than twice the national average. Median household income was $35,600, well below the national average of $48,000. El Paso is three-quarters Hispanic, and more than a quarter of its residents are foreign-born. Given that it's nearly impossible for low-skilled immigrants to work in the United States legitimately, it's safe to say that a significant percentage of El Paso's foreign-born population is living here illegally.

El Paso also has some of the laxer gun control policies of any non-Texan big city in the country, mostly due to gun-friendly state law. And famously, El Paso sits just over the Rio Grande from one of the most violent cities in the western hemisphere, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, home to a staggering 2,500 homicides in the last 18 months alone. A city of illegal immigrants with easy access to guns, just across the river from a metropolis ripped apart by brutal drug war violence. Should be a bloodbath, right?

Here's the surprise . . . El Paso is among the safest big cities in America. For the better part of the last decade, only Honolulu has had a lower violent crime rate (El Paso slipped to third last year, behind New York). Men's Health magazine recently ranked El Paso the second "happiest" city in America, right after Laredo, Texas -- another border town, where the Hispanic population is approaching 95 percent.

So how has this city of poor immigrants become such an anomaly? Actually, it may not be an anomaly at all. Many criminologists say El Paso isn't safe despite its high proportion of immigrants, it's safe because of them.

"If you want to find a safe city, first determine the size of the immigrant population," says Jack Levin, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Massachusetts. "If the immigrant community represents a large proportion of the population, you're likely in one of the country's safer cities. San Diego, Laredo, El Paso -- these cities are teeming with immigrants, and they're some of the safest places in the country."

I hired, and at one time in my own immigration struggles, lived close to some of these people. It is untrue and unjust what the Limbaughs, Levins, Savages, etc., say about them, much of which is anti-human and constitutes an embarrassment to the American Right. To anyone who says, "let's shut them out for now," I ask you this. Had Ayn Rand not yet written all she did, and had she been one of the Mexicans trying to "jump the fence," knowing even a little of what you do now, would you rather the fence be closed to her until welfare were abolished (which possibly would mean never), or would you rather she enter and live? Would you sacrifice one Ayn Rand in order that ten million "illegal" immigrants be barred?

I have tried over the past 5 years to make the nature of immigration clearer to people on THE FORUM, but it sometimes seems as if all it takes is for (some) people to listen to some radio or TV show host they admire who is fighting for them on some personal level, and the immigrant-as-threat spectre rears its head. This phenomenon is not limited to US-born citizens; many legal and/or educated immigrants also feel this way. I think it is the consequence of the regulatory state playing groups against each other. (The H1-Bs tend to despise the "illegals" because the Left favors the latter while the H-1B is increasingly bashed in Congress. Many H-1s look down their noses at the "uneducated" illegals who are "not as valuable" since not educated - as if an uneducated person will remain so forever.)

It is easy to fall for the fear that, somehow, the Left will indoctrinate all the "illegal aliens" coming to the U.S., so that they vote Democrat and entrench the Left. While I think this reasoning is flawed (it is "educated" Americans who tend to vote Left), it is a plausible fear.

Here is Ayn Rand herself on the borders issue.

What is your attitude toward immigration? Doesn't open immigration have a negative effect on a country's standard of living?

You don't know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you're suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living - which isn't true, though if it were true, you'd still have no right to close the borders. You're not entitled to any "self-interest" that injures others, especially when you can't prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. But above all, aren't you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn't be alive today if our borders had been closed? [FHF 73]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The larger point was originally, and still is, the significance of intellectuals in destroying the country, but it had to be followed by my subsequent response pointing out that "immigrants" don't change that and are not a way around it. Immigrants today are coming into a much different culture than the ones who came in Ayn Rand's day. That doesn't mean that an Ayn Rand, then or now, should not be allowed in, only that "immigrants" do not solve the fundamental problem we have.

As for the character of today's illegal immigrants most of them are making it worse: their idea of a "better" life includes working, but also routinely presumes government handouts and enough ignorance to vote for leftists more often than not, while contributing nothing to improve the culture. They come from statist cultures and arrive in a somewhat less statist culture, being educated on the original American system in neither and doing nothing to improve that. There are exceptions and I have encountered a few, but not many.

Glenn Beck, et al, do not advocate 'temporary' restrictions; they oppose illegal immigration. The hidden battle is over what a legal immigrant would be, because it isn't being openly discussed. What does come up is the question of welfare for immigrants, which isn't going to be solved in a society in which welfare statism is already entrenched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn Beck, et al, do not advocate 'temporary' restrictions; they oppose illegal immigration. The hidden battle is over what a legal immigrant would be, because it isn't being openly discussed.

Actually, Bill O'Reilly has actually made some anti-legal immigration comments, so I don't think it's simply a matter of illegality.

Furthermore, Beck and the others do not advocate easing the pathway for legal immigration (wait times even where you have a legal path can exceed a decade), so their opposition to illegal immigration is very convenient indeed. If the only way into a room is through an almost-shut window and no-one in the room is trying to open the main door, what motive can those inside have in trying to completely shut the window? (I grant that for some, their opposition might also owe to an ignorance of the nature of the immigration laws. Sadly, many people do not consider too closely items which do not directly affect them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn Beck, et al, do not advocate 'temporary' restrictions; they oppose illegal immigration. The hidden battle is over what a legal immigrant would be, because it isn't being openly discussed.

Actually, Bill O'Reilly has actually made some anti-legal immigration comments, so I don't think it's simply a matter of illegality.

Furthermore, Beck and the others do not advocate easing the pathway for legal immigration (wait times even where you have a legal path can exceed a decade), so their opposition to illegal immigration is very convenient indeed. If the only way into a room is through an almost-shut window and no-one in the room is trying to open the main door, what motive can those inside have in trying to completely shut the window? (I grant that for some, their opposition might also owe to an ignorance of the nature of the immigration laws. Sadly, many people do not consider too closely items which do not directly affect them.)

Actually, there are too many "actuallys" in my previous post. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just welfare, turn off minimum wage as well. And social protection laws :)

I agree with the above point made regarding immigrants. Additionally, they will change your culture. If you look at who graduates from the best universities like Cambridge in the UK (and even very good ones like Imperial College, where this is even more pronounced), the kids are 2nd generation immigrants, from India, China, Vietnam (so much for the "communists"), Korea, Thailand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.

These kids are now well educated, driven and ambitious, and are putting serious pressure on white old boys clubs where necessary (e.g. I see an ENORMOUS number of Indian hedge fund partners in the US - because the hedge fund industry is only concerned with talent and returns, and doesn't care whether the trader wears flip flops to work or has a 7 syllables name). I do think that within a couple of generations, the power structures as we understand them will have shifted significantly - at least in places like the UK, which has a lot more immigrants - towards 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants. There are already many Indian (UK-born) politicians in the UK. And what about men like Lord Bilimoria?

Who gets the future? The white kid who joined Amnesty International, walked in front of the town centre to protest hikes in tuition fees, drank himself stupid 3 times a week, or the Indian kid whose parents started off in a dirt-poor village, who worked hard all night and finally got a first - having gotten offers from top investment banks, hospitals or engineering companies and startups?

Immigrants do change the cultural undercurrent.

Re: crime, I thought that was obvious. I would venture to say, based on my experiences here in France (in fact just today I have witnessed another example of this), that the criminals are almost all from the welfare class - those 2nd or 3rd generation welfare kids whose life ambition is to have many kids to collect many cheques, who sometimes don't bother to learn to read or write, and who kill or deal drugs for extra spending money. The immigrants - whether from Bangladesh or Afghanistan - keep quiet, work hard, pay their taxes, and raise their kids to believe in success through hard work and the value of knowledge.

I would know - my great-grandfather landed in France a while ago, and his son left school aged 15 to found a company now 3rd largest in Europe; his granddaughter became a member of the upper middle class, and his great-grandson got a shot at the 2nd best university in the world (and fingers crossed a place amongst the Forbes 100 within the next few decades :D ). I'd do the same in the US but you guys aren't letting me :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn Beck, et al, do not advocate 'temporary' restrictions; they oppose illegal immigration. The hidden battle is over what a legal immigrant would be, because it isn't being openly discussed.

Actually, Bill O'Reilly has actually made some anti-legal immigration comments, so I don't think it's simply a matter of illegality.

I don't watch O'Reilly the Pompous Populist much. He doesn't embody any discernible principle other than perhaps "Me dominate".

Furthermore, Beck and the others do not advocate easing the pathway for legal immigration (wait times even where you have a legal path can exceed a decade), so their opposition to illegal immigration is very convenient indeed. If the only way into a room is through an almost-shut window and no-one in the room is trying to open the main door, what motive can those inside have in trying to completely shut the window? (I grant that for some, their opposition might also owe to an ignorance of the nature of the immigration laws. Sadly, many people do not consider too closely items which do not directly affect them.)

Convenient for what based on whose speculation? Watching Glenn Beck a week or so ago (it may have been an old tape) I noticed that during an interview with a guest who runs some organization opposing illegal immigration he emphasized that he was opposing illegal immigration and strongly favors immigration. His guest said he, too, opposes only illegal immigration, but thinks that legal immigration should be more restricted. Beck immediately countered that he disagrees with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These debates on immigration usually seem to miss an important distinction: the one between the law's treatment of immigrants and the culture's treatment of immigrants. The only things the law can demand from an immigrant is that he not carry any diseases and respect the rights of Americans, but there can, and ought to, be a lot more in terms of cultural expectations placed on them. Like everyone else, a prospective immigrant should merely be prevented from using force by the law, but he should be evaluated and judged with regard to the entirety of his character by those he wishes to associate with. If the judgment is positive, he should be welcomed, but if it's negative, he should be shunned and told to go elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn Beck, et al, do not advocate 'temporary' restrictions; they oppose illegal immigration. The hidden battle is over what a legal immigrant would be, because it isn't being openly discussed.

Actually, Bill O'Reilly has actually made some anti-legal immigration comments, so I don't think it's simply a matter of illegality.

I don't watch O'Reilly the Pompous Populist much. He doesn't embody any discernible principle other than perhaps "Me dominate".

I haven't watched much of O'Reilly myself for over four years now. But, I happened to catch an exchange a few years ago, and wrote about it on THE FORUM at the time, and even posted the particular show's transcription. (I just tried searching for it but no luck.)

Furthermore, Beck and the others do not advocate easing the pathway for legal immigration (wait times even where you have a legal path can exceed a decade), so their opposition to illegal immigration is very convenient indeed. If the only way into a room is through an almost-shut window and no-one in the room is trying to open the main door, what motive can those inside have in trying to completely shut the window? (I grant that for some, their opposition might also owe to an ignorance of the nature of the immigration laws. Sadly, many people do not consider too closely items which do not directly affect them.)

Convenient for what based on whose speculation? Watching Glenn Beck a week or so ago (it may have been an old tape) I noticed that during an interview with a guest who runs some organization opposing illegal immigration he emphasized that he was opposing illegal immigration and strongly favors immigration. His guest said he, too, opposes only illegal immigration, but thinks that legal immigration should be more restricted. Beck immediately countered that he disagrees with that.

Well, to not be for further restrictions to legal immigration today is not the equivalent of advocating the relaxation of current restrictions, which are onerous. (Compare, for instance, Bill Gates' [his altruistic flaws aside] repeated appeals for increases in, and strengthening of, H-1B visa allocations.) Having said that, given Beck's views on gay marriage, he may be better than the regular conservative "pundit" on other issues conservatives insist on employing to sink the boat of freedom.

Still, owing to the anti-immigrant fever on the Right*, the onus is on Beck, and any right-winger who truly believes in a just immigration policy, to phrase his position in a way as to make clear that what matters is not so much how the immigrant gets here but rather what financial and moral burden the immigrant may become to the citizen. The enemy is entitlement, not immigration.

*See Rep. Joe Wilson's passionate "You lie!" outburst in Congress which, while accurate, was, very revealingly, triggered by, not the citizen-moochers Obama had been throwing meat to throughout his speech, but the all-powerful, super-evil "illegal aliens."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was posted elsewhere. As others have said, the clip most likely misrepresents Brown. What I find positive about it is that a deciding percentage of MAers were moved by it. ("deciding percentage" = massive dodge on my part.)

I'm pretty sure that here in NY Metro, such an ad would never even make it past whatever first-level processes are used to structure campaigns down here.

Keep in mind that this link was recently posted to the 800. There's a good chance, therefore, that anything unusually good in Comments that's recent was penned by a battle-hardened Objectivist. (FYI: The 800 are more than 800-strong nowadays. Further, their numbers seem to swell with every passing month. "Long live Lady Liberty!")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the judgment is positive, he should be welcomed, but if it's negative, he should be shunned and told to go elsewhere.

Hopefully the "market" can do that without the State needing to make any value judgements...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the judgment is positive, he should be welcomed, but if it's negative, he should be shunned and told to go elsewhere.

Hopefully the "market" can do that without the State needing to make any value judgements...

The market is ALL ABOUT making value judgments. People produce what they think is valuable, buy what they think is valuable, and hire the people they think are valuable. The only time the State "needs" to make value judgments for the market is when the people with political power decide they don't like the culture's prevailing hierarchy of values and seek to impose their own values by force.

In a free system, the people who get to immigrate are those who are generally tought to be good people to have as employees (tenants, spouses, etc.). If everybody in the culture sees it as obvious that people who share American ideals are good to associate with, while people with an un-American outlook should be avoided, then the market WILL act as an effective and reliable immigrant filter. If, however, the culture is under the sway of multiculturalist ideas that prevent people from making such value-judgments, then it will not be able to protect itself from being diluted by foreign influences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a free system, the people who get to immigrate are those who are generally tought to be good people to have as employees (tenants, spouses, etc.). If everybody in the culture sees it as obvious that people who share American ideals are good to associate with, while people with an un-American outlook should be avoided, then the market WILL act as an effective and reliable immigrant filter. If, however, the culture is under the sway of multiculturalist ideas that prevent people from making such value-judgments, then it will not be able to protect itself from being diluted by foreign influences.

However, with no or little welfare and no labour regulation, it becomes hard for the undesirables to stay. And unattractive for them to come. The Chinese that make it to Hong Kong don't go there for the welfare cheques. Here we are not dealing with an elusive "cultural" market but the hard reality of the labour market: if you want to work hard for not very much money, then you can do it. If not, you stay on the streets (although my HK friends tell me there is now welfare, even if it is not too costly).

I just think letting the State decide anything like this is a bad idea. For the same reason you quote - if there's a prevailing culture of "multiculturalism" being an excuse for anything that moves being considered worth "preserving" and "defending" (Avatar, anyone?) then the State, run by the worst of the intellectually corrupted, will amplify this. Especially if you allow them to do the selection outright vs. the current hidden decision making system (via visa requirements etc.).

Removing interventionism goes a long way towards going back to the right culture. And of course, what Obama just did goes right against that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
was posted elsewhere. As others have said, the clip most likely misrepresents Brown. What I find positive about it is that a deciding percentage of MAers were moved by it. ("deciding percentage" = massive dodge on my part.)

I'm pretty sure that here in NY Metro, such an ad would never even make it past whatever first-level processes are used to structure campaigns down here.

Keep in mind that this link was recently posted to the 800. There's a good chance, therefore, that anything unusually good in Comments that's recent was penned by a battle-hardened Objectivist. (FYI: The 800 are more than 800-strong nowadays. Further, their numbers seem to swell with every passing month. "Long live Lady Liberty!")

Wow, I had not seen that ad - incredibly good. I wonder who was responsible for creating it. My favorite part was the photograph of the traffic sign that said 'Choice' with two arrows pointing in opposite directions, and beneath, the words, 'Exit Now.' I also loved that painting of George Washington (I think?) kneeling in the snow next to his horse. A beautiful work of art. If anyone is familiar with it, I'd love to know the names of the artist and/or painting.

I was so curious about this 800 group, only to discover that I'm one of them. I got a laugh out of my own curiosity and its resolution. And I love (and had not heard) the phrase "battle-hardened Objectivists," as well as the intellectual 'soldiers' who fit that description. Fortunately, one can support Objectivist intellectuals with funding, since some people do well in the front lines, and others do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also loved that painting of George Washington (I think?) kneeling in the snow next to his horse. A beautiful work of art. If anyone is familiar with it, I'd love to know the names of the artist and/or painting.

"The Prayer at Valley Forge" by Arnold Friberg. It was created for the nation's bicentennial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites