Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Wrath of Ayn Rand
Many have commented on the remarkable callousness fashioned by this Republican presidential field. Most prominently, Herman Cain maintained that the poor and unemployed are responsible for their own plight; Ron Paul claimed that people who refrain from buying health insurance but become debilitated should not be bailed out by government healthcare—they should just die instead, his audience helpfully suggested (or hollered, rather); and just about all the candidates have recommended ever harsher, ever more absurd measures to keep out poor immigrants on our border with Mexico: double fences, electric fences, even soldiers with ‘real guns and real bullets,’ as Herman Cain put it.
What’s driving this show of meanness? You might say it’s just what the electorate—or some loud part thereof—wants. It seems like there are some seriously angry voters out there these days, and I’m sure the recession is taking a toll on people’s patience and generosity. And yet, I suspect this is no fleeting trend, but something with deeper ideological roots. In short, I sense Ayn Rand.
Rand has always had a good following, but her popularity has surged in recent years as conservatives repeatedly invoked her to counter Obama’s “Socialist” agenda. She has an impressive roster of conservative devotees: Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ron Paul. Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul quoted Ayn Rand at length during a congressional committee meeting this past year—to argue against government mandates for energy efficient light bulbs, of all things. Congressman Paul Ryan, the rising star from Wisconsin who drafted the Republican’s celebrated plan to slash the federal budget, reportedly urges all his staffers to read her works.
This is a powerful fan-base, and many have feared the consequences of Rand’s influence. I think we are seeing it now, for there are clear strains of her venom in the excesses of the Republican candidates—and beyond. Her trademark callousness is increasingly evident throughout our political discourse regarding the poor and vulnerable of society. The congressional super-committee charged with agreeing on a trillion dollars in federal deficit reduction is reportedly contemplating cuts to food stamps, while Republicans remain steadfast that taxes not rise on the rich. This, as the recession lingers and poverty rates soar, and we witness the greatest concentration of wealth among the rich since the 1920s. The Republican stance is mind-boggling in these circumstances—but Rand would certainly approve; indeed, she might favor far worse. Consider:
In her popular novels, Rand glorifies ambitious, fiercely independent individuals who soar and succeed by virtue of their own resources and willpower alone. It’s her ode to individualism that captivates her fans. Also the simplicity of her world view, I suspect: Rand’s is a Manichean universe populated by a few great souls on one side, and the inept masses on the other; the masses would perennially muddle in their own misery if not for the exceptional creativity and bravery of a few to do great things, and it’s up to the masses to keep out of their way. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand declares “The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time.” Upon little reflection, Rand’s reasoning is obviously specious. Who on earth rises to the top without the help of someone, anyone at all? Indeed, luck plays an important role in a person’s success, too—if you evaluate it honestly, that is. Rand’s thinking is a pleasant enough fiction for those at the top of the heap, but it’s wholly improbable, naïve—and rude.
Pry a little further, however, and Rand’s thinking quickly becomes quite cruel. In a 1967 article entitled “Requiem for Man,” Rand issues a scathing rebuttal to Pope Paul VI who dared suggest that capitalists must be mindful of global wealth disparity and the sufferings of the poor, and recognize a social obligation to help the unfortunate (the Vatican has notably issued similar remarks in a recent statement on the global financial crisis). Rand slams the Pope for urging us to show brotherly love to poor 3rd world “savages." To the contrary, she declares, when civilized man “discovers entire populations rotting alive in such conditions” he should not feel pity, but “a burning stab of pride” for “the achievements of his nations and his culture…” Amazingly, Rand fails to acknowledge how much the civilized nations have prospered at the expense of the global poor thanks to imperialism. Would she have us applaud the imperialists for their opportunism and exploitation?
In Rand’s view, the poor are better subject to our derision than compassion. What they want, what the Pope calls us to be sensitive to, are perfectly despicable needs: “The inhabitants of the world [that the Pope’s encyclical] proposes to establish are robots tuned to respond to a single stimulus: need—the lowest, grossest, physical, physicalistic need of any other robots anywhere: the minimum necessities, the barely sufficient to keep all robots in working order, eating, sleeping, eliminating, and procreating, to produce more robots to work, eat, sleep, eliminate, and procreate.” Her message to the millions starving in the world: your needs are not worth our consideration; just die why don’t you.
I’ve long wondered why—or how—Rand’s disciples conveniently, miraculously, ignored her heinous conclusions. It’s time Rand was seen for what she is—no glossing over it. Clearly, it’s not acceptable for our political leaders to be associated with her thought. Conservatives—any of her disciples indeed—have a clear choice: marginalize her work accordingly, or explain how a vision of radical individualism such as Rand’s does not lead to hate. A lot could be gained by the latter. At the very least, it might reveal the appropriate boundaries of our individualism, and make us more thoughtful to the vulnerable among us.
209 Comments so far
Show All"In the 2003 movie Lost In Translation, Charlotte, played by Scarlett Johansson, says that every girl goes through a “horse phase” and a “photography phase, where, you know, you take dumb pictures of your feet.” For a certain kind of American girl, the “Ayn Rand phase” is another rite of passage."
http://incharacter.org/archives/self-reliance/randy-girls-adolescent-females-love-ayn-rand-wonder-why/
It's just an adolescent "phase" in our political development.
sorry, reposting this at the top
Yes I agree, And the population of the planet increases at three people per second. We are running out of resources. So if you really care about your kids and society, stop having more kids.
queerplanet,
No one is starving or running out of oil because of population growth. The poorest 50% of the world's people commit 7% of humanity's greenhouse gases and similar % of most ecological and resource problems. Our problem is the profligate consumption of the richest few (including us). If you care about your kids, stop consuming so much and elect people who will bring this country back to reality. (Vote Green) (At least my advice isn't an oxymoron--if you care about your kids don't have any? Huh?) [insert smiley face here]
If you care about any kids, stop promulgating racist ideas about what the problem is and start examining yourself, your life, your willingness to throw people out of the lifeboat because they're darker than you are, or not your friends, or were born with the wrong parents. According to the Pachamama Alliance's Awakening the Dreamer Symposium available online (or see it near you) if you have a bed, a roof, food in a refrigerator and clothes in a closet you're better off than about 85% of the world's people. So my apologies if you're below that line and just posting this on the village's generator-powered 12 year old laptop.
If you care about kids start pushing for massive government assistance to solar and wind power here and abroad, and permaculture, and reforestation programs. Get corporate money out of politics; stop believing the racist, classist, projecting Randians.
I think the article gives too much credit to Rand's acolytes in politics. There is no way to explain how her vision does not lead to hate. That says a lot about those who tout her views.
The Democrats may be inept, and certainly are hypocritical, but as the writer says, what we hear from the Republicans reflects venom.
Rand Paul's given name is Randall. It got shortened to Rand. His father is an admirer of Ayn Rand, but he did not name his son after her.
To be sure, I think that Ayn Rand's novels are disgusting, and I disagree with over half of what the Paul's say. But damn it all ready, why is Ron Paul the only presidential candidate that is opposing the wars and Israel's influence on US policies.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is simple and straight forward, very attractive qualities for a political philosophy.. But she could take a lesson from nature. Along with the rise of the Ubermensch are the parasites. They evolved together. If the ubermensch are providing sustenance for the parasites, all well and good. But if the ubermenschen get cranky and start to reach for a can of RAID, I say it's time to eat our hosts! Call it proactive evolution.
As for Ron Paul, someone like Cynthia McKinney might be more palatable to vote for. Of course she most likely cannot win right now, but the electorate doesn't seem to be able to effect change either right now, at least not through voting.
But the Ubermensch ARE the parasites. Productivity is always RELATIVE. If everyone were highly productive, no individual would stand out, or gain influence/prestige. Only relative to the average do the Ubermensch stand out, and gain influence/prestige. And so the Ubermensch critically NEED the people, like a pedestal to stand on. Thuggish scenario, ehh? True of all elites. They need a sea of people to stand on, regardless of whether the elite is highly productive or highly passive.
And nothing anywhere implies that the people NEED the highly productive Ubermensch. In fact, we don't. Our progress may be slower but you show me why we NEED the radical/extreme "progress" in the hyper-consumptive West (Merka) where 75% of resources are squandered.
The people don't need the Ubermensch, but rather the Ubermensch need the people. The lie is exposed. The Ubermensch are the real parasites.
The implications of this truth are key to the philosophy of the far left, where we practice LOCALISM - the average joe does an average job, serving the local community. Everyone is fulfilled, everyone wins. Ayn Randd is lost, catastrophically.
"But the Ubermensch ARE the parasites. Productivity is always RELATIVE. If everyone were highly productive, no individual would stand out, or gain influence/prestige. Only relative to the average do the Ubermensch stand out, and gain influence/prestige. And so the Ubermensch critically NEED the people, like a pedestal to stand on. Thuggish scenario, ehh? True of all elites. They need a sea of people to stand on, regardless of whether the elite is highly productive or highly passive."
Yeah, but no one can seriously believe that the "Übermensch" are in fact more productive than the average person (or rather, that high productivity is what bestows them their Übermensch status). If you look at history of science and technology, the people whose contributions increased productivity the most (ie. scientists and inventors) only very rarely gain material advantages comparable to their productivity increasing effect. Which is of course the point: the really great ones want to research and engineer because they like researching and engineering, not because they want more money. That's the main source of the highest forms of individual achievement, as long as their basic material needs are met.
"But damn it all ready, why is Ron Paul the only presidential candidate that is opposing the wars and Israel's influence on US policies"
Because he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning.
Inh
Because Dennis Kucinich has been worn down by the intransigent oopposition [sic] of his own party leadership? Is this a trick question?
Do you seriously not know there are other parties whose candidates are not in the race yet because they can't get coverage and don't have a billion dollars (what the Obama campaign expects to collect this time)?
(Why are you named after a medicine?)
I think Rand is just a prophet of laissez-faire capitalism, drawing all the radical conclusions that have to be drawn from its basic tenets. What she said follows clearly from the Spirit of Capitalism, but it's not her invention or whatever. She just accepted it totally and evangelised it. I mean, her mental capacity was probably the upper limit, anyone smarter would in time have seen through the bullshit, and that's why most of her philosophy is so bad. Her complete lack of talent at writing is amazing too.
I read Rand's books "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" around the time they came out, and enjoyed them very much. I even hunted down a copy of Atlas Shrugged several years ago after learning that it was the conservative bible, and Rand their goddess. I re-read it, still enjoyed the story and some of the scenery, but for the life of me I couldn't find a thing in it to show me what would drive all these fruit cake conservatives so ding bat crazy.
Not even that chapter consisting of John Gault's long rambling speech?
You should understand that propaganda is usually only effective when the recipient of the propaganda is not aware they are being propagandized, and instead think they are being entertained. Look up "Edward Bernays", and see my comment below (or above) depending on your settings).
I suspect that if i quizzed you, I would fine that you have probably subtly internalized at least some Ayn-Randian values.
Quiz me, please!
pjd42 is right: when you don't realize you are being manipulated while reading then the author has succeeded - regardless of the topic.
Like you, I read both both books: The Fountainhead when I was fourteen, Atlas Shrugged at eighteen. The former is passably well-written and an exciting fantasy for an adventure-struck teen; the latter is turgid prose by which Rand drip-fed her socio-economic philosopy to impressionable young adults. At eighteen, I realized that.
Time for you and all Conservatives like Paul Rand, Rick Perry etc to grow up.
mayapan - your assessment reminds me of the brainless followers of extreme fundamentalism who've decreed that life begins at conception, and because they say it's so we should all be judged accordingly.
I was in my 30s when I read those two books, and I think I'd know if I shared any of that pathetic woman's views, and I know I don't share the views of any of her idiotic conservative followers, or even normal conservative views. I also know when someone is trying to play me.
To lump me in with all conservatives like those mentioned and say its time for us to grow up shows how judgemental and closed minded you are. And because I'll be turning 74 on Sunday, and have been through one hell of a lot in my life, I think I'm grown up enough, thank you.
I think there are loads of quotes that reinforce "individualism" and deny the fact that any individual achievement rest overwhelmingly on a social basis. I mean, no offense to "industrialists" (well, fuck them, but whatever), but even Newton knew that "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants", and he is probably the person with the most important and largest individual contribution to Western civilisation.
Just a few quotes (taken from a random site with Atlas Shrugged quotes):
- “...man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.” (good luck eating the wheat you grow in your mind),
- “...when men live by trade... it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability...” (a very pure expression of social darwinism)
- “...the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.”
- “When one acts on pity against justice, it is the good whom one punishes for the sake of the evil; when one saves the guilty from suffering, it is the innocent whom one forces to suffer.” (justice is always cruel and lack of forgiveness is true justice)
- “You do not have to depend on any material possessions, they depend on you, you create them, you own the one and only tool of production.” (Again - good luck generating electricity from your one and only tool of production. It's interesting that "objectivism" which pretends to "see the world as it is" completely denies the importance of the material world - which shows it's nothing more just an even more retarded version of subjective idealism)
- “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (She had no children, obviously. Probably better that way: "It was a responsibility that she was not interested in assuming. When she was writing Atlas [Shrugged], she would sometimes say that she was "with book." The only children she wanted were her books")
- “Whether it's a symphony or a coal mine, all work is an act of creating and comes from the same source: from an inviolate capacity to see through one's own eyes–which means: the capacity to perform a rational identification–which means: the capacity to see, to connect and to make what had not been seen, connected and made before.” (Exactly...the work of children working in coal mines (which is not something that the wealth creators Rayn admires so much had a particular issue with) is exactly the same type of work as that of Beethoven.)
- “No one's happiness but my own is in my power to achieve or to destroy.”
I mean, there's just way too much obvious idiocy and psychopathy in her crap. Way too much. Could go on all day.
Thank you for posting these quotes. Let's face it, selfishness is always looking for a literary or moral fig leaf to utilize as cover!
When Charles Dickens penned the novel, "A Christmas Carol" he examined, in fine detail, the psyche of today's uber: capitalist in the form of Ebeneezer Scrooge. I don't have the exact quote in range, but its essential rationale ran along the lines of allowing the poor to suffer for their own lack of enterprise.
This, too, might as well be the mantra of the right wing libertarians.
Yet even before Ayn Rand or Dickens, the Calvinistic premise was etched deeply into the Prostetant religion and WASP ethic. It essentially reasons that those who demonstrate ostensible signs of business success clearly reflect God's blessing. This leads to the false conclusion that these individuals' work/efforts are deemed worthy by God. In contrast, according to this logic, those who are struggling have earned that fate, and thus deserve their suffering.
This is precisely the sort of reasoning heard by the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the other kings of Hate Radio. By reinforcing these false memes, many listeners internalize their lack of success and presume it's based either on character flaws or some punishment from the Deity. And it doesn't help when their churches reinforce the parallel message that they are sinners...
Blame the victim memes are pervasive within the MSM. Keep in mind that a few years ago a serious campaign was in place to blame ACORN and low income home owners for the burst in the housing bubble that was deliberately engineered by Wall Street's whiz kids and their felonious bankster enablers. Then, too, aggressive nations like the U.S. and Israel blame those they attack for "provoking" this "necessary' response. That used to be the favored excuse of rapists, too.
Except the sex scenes... the sex scenes make one want to join a monastery or convent.
Shadre, you are one of very few people who actually went to the books and reread them carefully. I do not believe the author of this piece did.
Such phrases as the "clear strains of her venom" don't seem to describe the Rand characters I have met. If the wealthy were industrialists like Rand's Hank Rearden, the issues would be entirely different because they would create real jobs and real wealth. But they are not industrialists as the paths of so many like Rick Scott (FL gov.) to their sham riches show us.
Workers are not looters and moochers. We bolt together the girders of the social fabric.
Viewers of the new movie need a lesson in trying to map a story first published more than 50 years ago onto present day personalities, events, economics, and beliefs. They are committing a grave error in interpretation. For instance, the point in bracelet episode is not the reverse snobbery of the "progressives" in not wanting Rearden's name on a $100k check donated to them. The point is that the late-working Rearden comes home with an excellent anniversary present for his wholly undeserving wife who expects him to have forgotten the date as well as imposes onto the very valuable bracelet a ball-and-chain metaphor which works only in the opposite direction from her scornful sneer--she and the other guests present are a ball and chain attached to Hank's leg holding him back.
He is magnificent in his self-control.
Ayn Rand's novels have some very good things in them. The movie, too, has some very fine points. Just because she is "used" by the enemy does not excuse us from the job of close reading.
"Ayn Rand's novels have some very good things in them. The movie, too, has some very fine points. Just because she is "used" by the enemy does not excuse us from the job of close reading."
Oh my fucking god. No. Of course she is not misinterpreted and used by the "enemy". She is, like a well-known series of pseudo-philosophers before her (who are mostly only admired because they could at least write to some extent), an apologist for egoistical cruelty, an ideologist for capitalism, nothing else. She's just a reflection, not the source of course, but while she lived, she explicitly was on the "enemy" side. And while her personal problems can explain her "philosophy" from a psychological point of view, her work in itself is an explicit expression of her conscious values and principles and their meaning is mostly obvious. She would be the last, I think, to accept the psychological explanation (and especially the pity that comes with it).
Although of course she can be misunderstood and misinterpreted: I personally did completely misunderstand the Objectivist principle that "what is, is" as some sort of objective materialism - which it isn't, it's actually the complete opposite. Thing is, this happened when I was 18 or something like that, and it was pretty easy to grow out of this and understand the actual meaning :-) The name "objectivism" is completely misleading, the opposite of what it actually is.
"For instance, the point in bracelet episode is not the reverse snobbery of the "progressives" in not wanting Rearden's name on a $100k check donated to them. The point is that the late-working Rearden comes home with an excellent anniversary present for his wholly undeserving wife who expects him to have forgotten the date as well as imposes onto the very valuable bracelet a ball-and-chain metaphor which works only in the opposite direction from her scornful sneer--she and the other guests present are a ball and chain attached to Hank's leg holding him back."
I think this kind of interpretation is exactly what people mean when they talk about her sick phantasies that are totally divorced from reality. To me this seems way more offensive and even more untrue than the other one you mentioned. A mediocre community and family holding the individual wealth creating superman back - this is both way too fucking offensive (just one random thing: I guess all those Acknowledgements in books thanking the author's family for their support is just unserious bullshit, as creativity can only flourish alone, without a reliable, safe, trustworthy social background of family and friends...as if anyone could really believe this total idiotic crap) and completely opposite to reality (where success of the self-appointed supermen does in fact rely heavily on participation in a small, tight knit community that can bestow positional advantages regardless of talent or diligence or whatever, and "networking" is in fact the straightest and widest road to material wealth).
Did you know that Ayn Rand spoke admiringly of a serial killer, because he didn't care in the least what others thought, and she thought that wonderful? Her values are precisely the opposite of another figure popular among conservatives--Jesus Christ. How could you possibly admire both? (Ayn Rand herself had no use for religion).
They love to sound off the name of Jesus, but "admire" him? They admire the old stuff his dad did, not the kid.
Most every religion has flaws, I get thru the day much easier by just leaving the sheep tp belive (whatever) The main differance between Jesus and Ayn Rand is that I know Ayn Rand existed..... Jesus didn't leave so much as a cleaning recipt! and supposedly he was an educated man, a rabbi! go figure! >^^<
My favorite part of the bible is when Jesus gives to the rich, tells the poor to suck it up, and demands to see Pilot's birth certificate.
The ghoulish spectre of Ayn Rand is constantly popping up in articles and comments on CD. And whether Ron Paul named his asinine, pig-ignorant son after Ayn Rand is a detail. Her spirit certainly was reborn in what has to be the biggest fool ever to gain election to the Senate. And he's got plenty of competition for that honor.
One powerful figure DeBrabander left out, who was not only influenced by Rand's disgusting books, but was a close acolyte and member of her "Objectivist" salon back in the Fifties, was Alan Greenspan. All US fiscal policy, and especially the guiding philosophy of the Federal Reserve, has been fashioned to accord with the brilliant teachings of Ayn Rand for about 60 years now. Geithner and Bernanke are just as love-smitten by Rand as Greenspan ever was, as he proceeded to make financial policy for more than two decades that brought this country to its present miserable state.
Ayn Rand has probably done as much to destroy this country as any single individual. And her deranged followers have more power now than ever before.
Satan wears many disguises, I've heard.
RE: Ayn Rand has probably done as much to destroy this country as any single individual. And her deranged followers have more power now than ever before.
I respectively disagree. Do you think that the evils of capitalism - either denied or celebrated by Rand - started with her books? What about the 1880's, the 1920's or the 1930's?
No, Ayn Rand is put on a pedestal by the capitalist class (the 1%) because her writings provide ideological cover and justification for a system that, if looked at honestly, holds no benefits for the 99%.
The capitalist class would not act any differently had Rand never existed. At every age the ruling class produces apologists (like Rand, Milton Friedman, etc.) that defend what should be indefensible. In the 18th century Ayn Rand's role was filled by Thomas Malthus who blamed the poor for their poverty (instead of the rich who made them poor).
Focusing on Rand instead of the SYSTEM that needs to produce Ayn Rands, is a form of witting or unwitting misdirection; it is not seeing the forest for the trees.
IMO: Guys like 'Famed' 'Economists' 'Gurus'- Mr Disaster Capitalist / Free-marketeer Guru Milton Friedman [a winner of the Nobel Prize for Econ] & ex-FED Chairman Guru Alan Greenspan, & Slick Willie's & Obama's Econ deregulation Gurus- Rob Rubin, Larry Summers & Tim Geithner are far more significant [IE: Friedman's influence on Reagonimics should NOT be under-estimated] to the economic calamity thats been unfolding over the past 3 decades than some Novelist [IE: Writer of FICTION Stories] named Ayn Rand! People say Ayn Rand was an inspiration to both Ron Paul & Alan Greenspan [who, unlike Paul, actually was a personal friend of Rand's]- YET Paul calls for Ending the Federal Reserve which Greenspan was the Head of for over 2 decades!
And it's false that Ron Paul named his son Rand after Ayn Rand- from Wikipedia: > Randal Howard "Rand" Paul (born January 7, 1963) is the junior United States Senator for Kentucky. He is a member of the Republican Party... He describes himself as a "constitutional conservative" and a libertarian. He is the son of Republican Congressman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas... The novelist Ayn Rand was NOT the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.His wife shortened his name to "Rand"... <
Ron Paul is the ONLY Presidential Candidate THUS Far [Dim or Repug]- who has a well established track-record of being Anti US-Imperialist Wars & calling for the closure of ALL US' Imperialist Over-seas Military Bases; Calling for the Roll-back of Police-State type measures [IE: the {un}Patriot Act, TSA Naked Body Scanners, etc]; & for Ending the FED- which is tied in Directly to the Wall St Banksters! So he gets attacked [or even smeared IE: The 'He named his son after Ayn Rand' LIE] by Both his 'fellow' Repugs & Also by so-called 'Liberals' [IE this author]. It's enough to make one wonder- WHY?
This author uses Ayn Rand to go after Ron Paul & other Repugs while giving Dims like Ole Slick Willie, Obama, Rubin, Summers, Geithner, etc a pass in their part in this long unfolding Economic & Social Disastrous NightMare! He points out that those Repugs he named are in effect Economic & Social Darwinists. But what about critiquing that notorious Eugenicist [also = Social Darwinism] & Ayn Rand contemporary- YET 'Liberal' / Feminist Icon & Heroine- Margaret Sanger! And Sanger did a helluva lot more than write Fiction stories- Like opening her Birth Control League Clinics [the fore-runners to nation-wide & world-wide so-called 'Family Planning' Clinics] in Brooklyn & Harlem w Rockefeller Funding as she rolled-out her so-called 'Negro Project'!
It seems you are responding to someone else's post.
The writings of Ayn Rand have symbolized the ideology of the neo-liberal phase of capitalism - the ruling idea of (global) capitalism since the 1970's. They represent an ideological defense of a preexisting material reality: an economic system that - by its nature - produces vast inequality.
Karl Marx said that the ruling ideas of any society are simply the ideas of the ruling class.
At a recent lecture given by David Barsamian he said the following:
"We need to name the system! Forget this "free enterprise". It is capitalism. All they care about is this (holding up a dollar bill). Capitalism is all about profit, not at all about human need. Marx deserves re-reading. He describes a system of profit over people."
I think David was a bit generous when he said "re-reading Marx." Most on the left have not read any Marx at all.
That filthy freakazoid libertarian douchebag, Rand Paul, was not named for Ayn Rand. Rand is short for Randal, his actual first name. Do all these conservative jerks realize that Ayn Rand was an atheist and she considered religion and capitalism to be incompatible and antithetical? The drug addicted Ayn Rand enrolled in Social Security and Medicare in her declining years. In a sane rational world, Ayn Rand and libertarianism would just be laughed off of the stage of life. But we live in insane times when this hideous philosophy of greed is actually taken seriously. Libertarianism and Ayn Randism are great if you are a billionaire but toxic for the working class and the poor. The GOPer (Ron Johnson?) who defeated Russ Feingold is an Ayn Rand acolyte and he loves her books and encourages all his staff to read her books as if they were the bible.
Thanks, JerzyJoe. Seconded below.
Well put JerzyJoe.
" Rand Paul was not named for Ayn Rand ". True, but Ron Paul is an acolyte of Ayn Rand.
Ron Paul could have just masculiized the name (Robert/Roberta for example or Ronald and Veronica; both nick name Ronnie) even if it is her last name.
Randal could be Ronald Paul's masculine interpretation of Ayn Rand. Has Ron Paul ever addressed this close nomenclature?
Not only did she use SS and Medicare she was educated in Russian public schools and universities. She lived in New York City and walked on public sidewalks and drove on public streets and made use of public transportation. She was protected by public law enforcement officers and protected from fire by public firer prevention and fire fighters. The list of public assistance that she and all Americans take for granted could go on and on. Taking it for granted does not make it any less important in one's success. She was a hypocrite who took much from society but had little appreciation for all she was given
Interesting though that Ron Paul is so infatuated with her but, rather than give her Medicare, he would just have let her die.
Ayn Rand's vision is a dystopian triumph of selfishness and misplaced admirations. On the other hand, light bulbs that emit more EMF pollution and require the response of a hazmat unit in the event of breakage are hardly "efficient". Short-sightedness is a universal affliction these days.
The mercury hazard from the bulbs are way, way overblown - its detractors are cynically using a strict interpretation of OSHA regulations (regulations that they would like to abolish if they could) which do not apply to household settings. Under these same regulations, the are probably several products under you kitchen sink, or in your basement or garage that would also require a haz-mat team if spilled - or aren't allowed to be used at all in an occupational setting without elaborate protective equipment. All fluorescent lighting contains a small amount of mercury - far, far less than thermometers in most homes. The total quantity of this mercury is less than the mercury that would be emitted by coal-burning power plants if they were not used.
We do need more vigorous recycling programs for fluorescent lighting. Right now, households have no way of responsibly disposing, nor a law that requires them to, properly dispose of fluorescent tubes, only the voluntary CF programs by the big-box stores.
And hopefully, with the development of order-of magnitude more efficient LED lighting, even this minor problem will go away.
"he mercury hazard from the bulbs are way, way overblown - its detractors are cynically using a strict interpretation of OSHA regulations (regulations that they would like to abolish if they could) which do not apply to household settings. "
No the detractors are actively lying, not simply overstating the case. They adopt the approach of throwing a whole bunch of shit lies at the wall, knowing that most people will not bother to actually check everyone of them.
". All fluorescent lighting contains a small amount of mercury - far, far less than thermometers in most homes. The total quantity of this mercury is less than the mercury that would be emitted by coal-burning power plants if they were not used. "
Anyone who is worried about the mercury in a CFL, needs to stop eating fish first.
"And hopefully, with the development of order-of magnitude more efficient LED lighting, even this minor problem will go away."
The LED lighting is already available.
Thanks for the clarification. The Haz-mat team stuff is over the top, but the actual, still over-cautious recommendation to open the windows and air out a room where a CFL is broken still unfortunately spooks a lot of people.
I see a lot of high intensity LED street lighting being used by local governments like my own borough, but for household use, LED light bulbs are still too expensive. For example to replace six 4 ft fluorescent tubes used in my basement and garage with LED versions would cost about $420. Shorter tubes don't seem to be available at any price. And a 60-watt equivalent LED bulb costs $25.00. Nothing higher than 60 watt equivalent intensity seems to be available at any price.
Re LEDs, try looking on ebay. You will be able to get a 4-5W LED for around 5 dollars, including shipping.
If that's true, how useful will this be to light a room? How much "watt equivalent" do you get from a 4-5W of LEDs?
Eg, it takes the equivalent of about 400W incandescent (ie, 4 29W compact fluorescents = 116W) to light the largest room in my house.
It depends on the LED, but generally, a 5W LED should be able to produce about the same amount of lighting as a 40-50W incandescent. Note, there are more powerful LEDs, ones that easily meet your needs. I mentioned 5W ones because they are what I use, and generally, the 5W ones are the most efficient.
LEDs are the future. And, they are even the present (given how much less electricity they use, and how long they last)
You get more mercury eating a can of tuna.
You get much less if you take the tuna out of the can, before eating it... >^^<
"On the other hand, light bulbs that emit more EMF pollution and require the response of a hazmat unit in the event of breakage are hardly "efficient". Short-sightedness is a universal affliction these days."
Actually they are more efficient than incadescents . And no they do not require the response of a hazmat unit. That is yet another lie. (I'm assuming that you are referring to CFLs here )
Sounds like the typical scientificly illiterate american. Think their microwave puts out particle radition, as opposed to EMF (electro-magnetic-frequency) and probably shouldn't be allowed to vote or have children! (Heavy-Sarcasm) >^^<
"....light bulbs that emit more EMF pollution....."
I'm not sure what EMF -?-Electro- Magnetic- Field-(Force?-)-?- pollution your are referring to? EMI? ElectoMagnetic Interference maybe? Could you elaborate?
I can see that 60 Hz flicker. It was especially bad when the floresent lights first came out and were widely used in the 60's. Manufacturers have minimized it over the years but I still hear and see it. Gives me a headache with too much exposure.
I used to find it funny that Ayn Rand was supposed to have said “Individuals of the world, Unite!”
But it’s not funny any more – seems like rich individuals have managed to do just that with the Citizens-United decision that enabled them to buy legislation and legislators.