RoR: Forum

Bill,

When wishing to set the record straight about inaccuracies in historical-biographical accounts, a historian typically goes about his business of checking and providing relevant facts, and of adding his corrections to the historical record, without bravado or broader agendas.

That clearly is not what has been done in this case. The historical revisionists have not been content simply to correct the factual record, as they see it. Their emphasis hasn't been, "This is the actual truth about Ayn Rand." Their emphasis hasn't even been limited to the one they've proclaimed: to make "the case against the Brandens."

No, their emphasis, now obsession, is to make a case that anyone who does not support or show interest in their claims is a betrayer of Objectivism.

In short, this is not really about the long-dead Ayn Rand. It's about the movement. In the ugly tradition of the previous episodes I mentioned in post 126, this one is an attempt to use factual and interpretive disagreements as fodder for witch hunts and purges, in order to control the Objectivist movement.

If this were not true, then the targets of their venom would be anti-Objectivists -- and not those individuals and organizations whom they regard as competitors for the Objectivist audience.

Post 141

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 10:50am

Bob POST 126
Bill POST 139

Good Stuff!!!!!!

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 6/12, 11:05am)

Post 142

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 1:45pm

Bill, you wrote (post 139):

"I don't think that to defend [Rand's] reputation from baseless personal attacks is to affirm that her personal life is important to the validation of her philosophy. If one values the author of Objectivism as a human being rather than simply as a disembodied oracle or lifeless conveyer of philosophical truth, then it is natural to want to defend her from unjustified personal attacks."

Bill, I agree with your remarks in the abstract. But, as Bob Bidinotto discusses in his post 140, the problem is that this isn't what's happening. Instead, PARC is being used, as Robert Campbell has often described, as a "litmus test" to separate those with the "correct" attitude toward Rand from those among Rand's admirers forthwith classified (because of not swallowing PARC whole) as "enemies of Objectivism." It's being used exactly the same way Rand's "To Whom It May Concern" was used in the years following that document's publication. I think you probably know what I'm talking about from those years, that you witnessed plenty of the invalid loyalty-testing yourself.

I'd like to ask you the question persons impressed by Valliant's case are fond of asking: Have you read PARC? I would be surprised, were you to read the book, if you didn't share the assessment of a number of us who have: that the reasoning is most often transparently poor.

Ellen

___

Post 143

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 5:15pm

Robert: I thought your post #126 was stunningly good. You said pretty much everything there is to be said about the current Objectivist movement and the most recent cultist "book." I thought your remarks about the "litmus tests" of 1968, 1986, 1989, 1989, and 2005 were especially spot-on. And as for your point that

I, for one, cannot for the life of me imagine a Howard Roark submitting to such abject, ritualistic genuflection and professions of unending and undying agreement.

Truer words were never spoken.

For me, the memoirs of Barbara and Nathaniel -- which reignited this perennial Objectivist conflict -- offer vivid and animated recollections and viewpoints which are simply priceless. Their detailed and well-fleshed-out portraits bring Ayn alive like nowhere else in print.

This doesn't mean that their characterizations of what Rand did and why she did it should be accepted whole-cloth or on faith. And it doesn't mean that someone some day shouldn't eventually write a carefully critical book looking at the various memories and claims with insight and honesty. Personally, I hope someone does do this.

Isaac Asimov repeatedly observed that human history is replete with "self-serving lies." I think this is true for two separate and powerful reasons. First, people naturally tend to remember the good about themselves and the bad about others -- especially those they were in conflict with. Second, people have a natural tendency to self-promote and put forth their best face to the world, both for the current day and posterity.

In the case of Barbara and Nathaniel, I think there's another (secret) factor involved here: vengeance. Based on all the evidence known to me, I think Ayn treated Barbara and Nathaniel with remarkable coldness and hostility after their ugly and horrific split of 1968. In her exorcism, I think Ayn tried to hurt these two personally, and blacken their reputations professionally, to an extent which was extraordinary, injust, and flat-out evil. Maybe hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but a woman scorned hath no fury like Ayn scorned. So she really directly and indirectly punished them -- and gave them motivation.

But in their memoirs, Barbara and Nathaniel had a golden and nearly irresistible opportunity to get her back. This phenomenon probably operated all the stronger since current Objectivist theory seem almost wholly ignorant of the moral propriety and absolute duty of revenge. I think this phenomenon exists and acts outside the conscious awareness of virtually all Objectivists (with their various "rational" motivations and "logical" reasons for different things).

Robert: One small dispute I have with your marvelously lengthy and generally outstanding analysis concerns the term "tribalism." David Kelley labelled the ARIans thus in 1989, and you seem to agree. But I think this is just an instance of him acting like a rare gentlemen and being exceptionally polite. Probably this is also done in some (vain) hopes of future reconciliation.

But a more accurate and helpful characterization of ARIans, and their hagiographic and intellectually-fraudulent books, is the terms collectivist and cultist. The term "tribalism" misses the sense of blind devotion, mindless worship, and religious dogmatism which is crucial to understanding the nature of Rand's "contested legacy" and the current split in the Objectivist movement.

And this dreadful, dreary collectivism and cultism -- perhaps we should finally admit -- began with Rand herself. This most unfortunate phenomenon was seemingly helped along considerably by Barbara and Nathaniel themselves, who eventually received a rather mammoth comeuppance and act of nemesis ("divine retribution").

But the ultimate reality of today's Objectivist movement remains the same as it has been for a long time now: People such as yourself, Kelley, Sciabarra, Barbara, Nathaniel, and many others of significantly high intellectual quality are genuinely good people and true Objectivists. But our ARIan rivals remain forever collectivist, cultist, malicious, and bizarre. I see little hope and value in these quintessential "social metaphysicians " and "second handers."

All they can really do for us is function as our effective mind-slaves as they go about their absurdist Talibani lucubrations over the Sacred Scriptures. This strange and dullard work will allow them to occasionally produce some mechanical and faith-based works of dubious value -- but which are written with an attitude and spirit entirely contrary to Objectivism.

When these ridiculous lost souls are not busy reminding me of Nazis and Night of the Living Dead zombies, they remind me of Mr. Spock from Star Trek in that episode where the pretty girls with the silly helmets stole his brain. These odd and embarrassing ARIan creatures are basically disembodied cult-things whose mind is now hopelessly trapped and whose life is now essentially out of their control.

(Edited by Andre Zantonavitch on 6/12, 5:29pm)

Post 144

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 5:33pm

Hi Andre,

I appreciate your kind words about my post 126. I also agree with you that memories tend to be self-justifying after a time, and that the "reality" they represent is often a filtered one.

But I can't join you in some of your conclusions. I found little if anything of a vengeful nature in Barbara's book, especially. And while the differences between Kelley's "tribalism," and your "collectivism" and "cultism" may be real, or just semantic, I was not present in NYC during the NBI days, and can't say to what degree, if any, Rand herself contributed to this atmosphere. I certainly think your "zombie" analogies are very extreme and far-fetched.

We could debate this all to death, or simply acknowledge what we do agree about: that what we are witnessing has nothing to do with the rational individualism defined and defended in Rand's works.

Post 145

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 5:41pm

Robert: You should be well-apprised: my words are never "extreme." ;-)

Post 146

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 6:48pm

Robert,

My earlier post crossed with your Post 126, then Kat joined me for a few days of heaven as a birthday present, so was I absent from posting on forums for a while. Congratulations on a wonderful post.

The only thing I disagree with is your wholesale condemnation of the film, PAR, which you see as bad (even softcore porn) and I see simply as mediocre. (I see the sex sequence, for example, as a great idea that was poorly written, poorly prepared, poorly executed and poorly edited - but using Rand's words from the Galt speech in VO over a steamy Branden-Rand sequence is a powerful idea). The director was completely at odds with Rand's ideas and it shows, from the screenplay to the editing. I believe this was one film where the actors did what they could despite the director. Notice that prizes were awarded for Helen Mirren and Peter Fonda - i.e., the actors only.

Think of some of the films that have been made of historical figures like Tchaikovsky, Van Gogh, any of the ancient Greek or Roman politicians, George Washington, etc., even Jesus Christ, and you see similar superficial treatment with oodles of false information.

I tried to look for any damage or whatnot that the film allegedly did for the Objectivist movement and saw nothing. As I stated earlier, Rand's books still sell marvelously well and sales continue to grow (despite Objectivists, not because of them, I might add).

As for the rest of your Post 126, I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Andre, you wrote:

For me, the memoirs of Barbara and Nathaniel -- which reignited this perennial Objectivist conflict -- offer vivid and animated recollections and viewpoints which are simply priceless. Their detailed and well-fleshed-out portraits bring Ayn alive like nowhere else in print.

Thank you VERY MUCH for saying that. Coming from Objectivist quarters, that was refreshing. I feel exactly that way, too, and so does the general non-Objectivist public.

Michael

Post 147

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 9:01pm

For some is tough watching Ayn Rand being ravished like that by Nathaniel Branden :-). If they would only know that that's how women want it. :-))

She had a good life, God bless her!!

Post 148

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 11:17pm

Ellen, you wrote,

I'd like to ask you the question persons impressed by Valliant's case are fond of asking: Have you read PARC? I would be surprised, were you to read the book, if you didn't share the assessment of a number of us who have: that the reasoning is most often transparently poor.

I must confess that I have not read PARC, although I fully intend to at some point. Nor was I defending those who are using the book as a litmus test for one's loyalty to Objectivism. How people use the book is another issue. I was referring only to the book itself. I thought it was a legitimate undertaking, regardless of any disagreements its readers may have with the author.

But don't assume that I will find the reasoning "transparently poor." I may not. I may find it strong and convincing. I don't want to read PARC with any preconceived notions about the kind of conclusions I'm expected to come to. I already sense that people who disagree with the author are as zealous in their criticism of Valliant as those who agree with PARC are in defending him. I don't want to read Valliant's book with the intention of buttressing anyone's case, pro or con. I prefer to approach the book with an open mind, to give it a fair and neutral hearing, and to let the chips fall where they may, which is probably a pretty rare attitude among its readers.

I suspect that most of the people who read it did not do so with an open mind. Why do I say that? Well, those who were sympathetic to the Branden's before reading PARC, were highly critical of the book. And those who were critical of the Branden's before reading PARC were highly sympathetic to it. So much for objectivity! ;-)

I don't fall into either camp, so it will be interesting to see what conclusions I come to.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 6/12, 11:21pm)

Post 149

Monday, June 12, 2006 - 11:47pm

This last exchange between Andre and Robert (Posts 143-144) highlight one of the real practical problems that the Objectivist movement faces - but it is a human problem that has nothing to do with any specific philosophical principles.

When there is a serious disagreement between two or more parties, people have a tendency to adopt a polarizing view of one another where the flaws and failings of their adversary become amplified while their virtues and strengths are minimized or completely lost to view. No where is this more evident than in the treatment of the Brandens by the ARI/PARC crowd. By casting these two as evil incarnate, they then actually find it acceptable to airbrush them from the historical record rather than having to acknowledge even their smallest contributions. This is truly a remarkable act of intellectual hari-kari and it should be a warning to us all.

When I read Andre's account above, I am concerned that there is a bit of the same tactic being applied. He points out a number of actions taken by ARI folk with which I agree are serious problems, but then extends his assessment of these individuals far beyond what I think the facts warrant and ends up comparing them to Nazis, zombies and brainless collectivists! Well, it is a very natural human tendency to be hyperbolic and amplify the distance between oneself and your antagonist. I know because I am just as susceptible to this as anyone else. It can give you a great sense of satisfaction to see yourself on a moral plane so much higher than the enemy. However, as practitioners of a philosophy that is dedicated to correspondence with reality, we really owe it to ourselves to not step over the line, and instead make every effort to adhere to the actual facts.

I'm reminded of something that Frank Lloyd Wright once wrote:

An artist's limitations are his best friends.

Here he was observing that when engaged in a design problem, instead floundering about without direction, it is the limitations placed upon you by the nature of the site, the budget, the functional program, etc. which can help you shape a creative solution and produce something truly original and great. In the intellectual realm, I see facts performing the same function. Instead of irresponsible flights of fancy, maintaining an adherence to the facts keeps us grounded and insures that our observations and arguments are solid and reasonable. When either Ayn Rand or the people at ARI go to such extreme lengths to discredit the Brandens, many of us see that they actually do great harm to themselves and the reputation of Objectivism. In the same way, we harm our own cause when we resort to a similar strategy. The truth can be powerful if we let it shine brightly and do not tarnish it with misrepresentation or inflate it beyond recognition by way of gratuitous embellishment.

I agree with Andre that some serious errors of judgement have been made by various people associated with ARI, but I don't see these people as stupid or profoundly evil. Let's start with our own behavior and be honest in our assessment and treatment of the folks at ARI, SOLO and elsewhere. Don't be afraid to be critical when others go astray, but let's do so in a benevolent and friendly manner while continuing to recognize and applaud their strengths and achievements. I'm not sure that others in those organizations are yet ready to reciprocate, but someone has to make the first move and it might as well be each of us. As I've tried to point out above, this is really the only way to operate intellectually while being consistent with Objectivist principles and who can predict what influence a change in behavior of this type might have and what added benefits might follow as a result. If nothing else, isn't that the sort of intellectual environment in which you would like to participate? If so, then we are obliged to create it for ourselves, so let's start here.

On a practical note I can suggest one technique that has worked for me when I make the effort to practice it. When I am prepared to make negative comments about the character, actions or work of another, I try to stop and first articulate all of the good things I can think of about that person. Having done that, I then allow myself the freedom to be critical in a way that I now believe is fair. Just think what a different book PARC could have been if the author had approached it in this fashion. There are certainly many positive things that can be said about Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. I believe that had that been done, many points in the book could have then still been made, but the overall tone of the presentation would have necessarily been different and most certainly better. A book of that sort might actually generate some unification and healing rather than becoming just another force for polarization.

--
Jeff

Post 150

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 1:49am

Bill, you wrote,

"I thought [PARC] was a legitimate undertaking, regardless of any disagreements its readers may have with the author."

I agree that the purported purpose of the book is a legitimate undertaking. I would even find that undertaking -- well done -- interesting. However, I think that Valliant bungled the job badly. Not to give you any preconceptions or anything, Bill. ;-) And I don't "assume" that you'll find the reasoning "transparently poor." What I said, precisely, is that "I would be surprised" if you don't find it "most often" thus. I have been surprised before, every now and then. Could happen this time.

You're factually wrong in presenting the picture of a neat breakdown of reactions on the basis of prior opinions of the Brandens. Several people who were formerly sympathetic to the Brandens became unsympathetic. Also there are those who weren't especially sympathetic to, or who were even unsympathetic to the Brandens who nevertheless thought the book was badly done.

Ellen

___

Post 151

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 10:04am

You're factually wrong in presenting the picture of a neat breakdown of reactions on the basis of prior opinions of the Brandens. Several people who were formerly sympathetic to the Brandens became unsympathetic. Also there are those who weren't especially sympathetic to, or who were even unsympathetic to the Brandens who nevertheless thought the book was badly done.

Yeah, you're right. I over generalized.

- Bill

Post 152

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 3:57pm

Jeffery: Believe it or not -- and you soon won't -- I hugely appreciate your eminently reasonable tone and patient approach where others might just give up utterly. I don't doubt for a moment that you're a thoughtful, intelligent, first-rate, quality person. But I disagree with virtually every single word you wrote. This includes the spaces between the words. ;-) My apologies, and you better brace yourself as much as you humanly can:

This last exchange between Andre and Robert (Posts 143-144) highlight one of the real practical problems that the Objectivist movement faces - but it is a human problem that has nothing to do with any specific philosophical principles.
.

On the one hand, it's all about philosophy. Their religiosity and unwillingness to debate repudiates the last 2600 years of human intellectual progress. On the other hand, those people lack a great deal in the way of humanity. This isn't a small thing which can or should be swept under the rug.

When there is a serious disagreement between two or more parties, people have a tendency to adopt a polarizing view of one another where the flaws and failings of their adversary become amplified while their virtues and strengths are minimized or completely lost to view. No where is this more evident than in the treatment of the Brandens by the ARI/PARC crowd. By casting these two as evil incarnate, they then actually find it acceptable to airbrush them from the historical record rather than having to acknowledge even their smallest contributions. This is truly a remarkable act of intellectual hari-kari and it should be a warning to us all.

It is suicidal. And as such, it couldn't happen to a nicer group of guys. But that's not the point. Mainly it's an attack on all of us and everything good. Christian charity and forgiveness isn't the answer here.

When I read Andre's account above, I am concerned that there is a bit of the same tactic being applied. He points out a number of actions taken by ARI folk with which I agree are serious problems, but then extends his assessment of these individuals far beyond what I think the facts warrant and ends up comparing them to Nazis, zombies and brainless collectivists! Well, it is a very natural human tendency to be hyperbolic and amplify the distance between oneself and your antagonist. I know because I am just as susceptible to this as anyone else. It can give you a great sense of satisfaction to see yourself on a moral plane so much higher than the enemy.

I'm not looking for satisfaction here. I'm looking to tell the truth about, and render justice to, them and everyone else. I get the same satisfaction from being morally superior to them as I do to the Muslims and the homeless.

However, as practitioners of a philosophy that is dedicated to correspondence with reality, we really owe it to ourselves to not step over the line, and instead make every effort to adhere to the actual facts.

Absolutely correct. But if someone is a monster, he needs to be identified as such for at least ten different reasons. Rodney King once said (very inappropriately): "Can't we all just get along?" Not with monsters. They need to be destroyed. At the very least, they need to be correctly identified and properly hated.

When either Ayn Rand or the people at ARI go to such extreme lengths to discredit the Brandens, many of us see that they actually do great harm to themselves and the reputation of Objectivism. In the same way, we harm our own cause when we resort to a similar strategy.

Appeasement isn't the answer. Christian love and toleration isn't the answer. Amoral unprincipled compromise isn't the answer. Mindlessly splitting the differences isn't the answer. Cultural relativism isn't the answer. Moral equivalency isn't the answer. If you extend a helping hand in friendship, they'll slap it down or cut it off. Don't make me say you deserve this.

The truth can be powerful if we let it shine brightly and do not tarnish it with misrepresentation or inflate it beyond recognition by way of gratuitous embellishment.

If I ever exaggerate or hyperbolize the slightest iota let it be identified as such without a hint or mercy or kindness to me. But If I render the facts the way they really are, and tell the actual truth, even if rather unpleasant, maybe I should get a bit of credit.

I agree with Andre that some serious errors of judgement have been made by various people associated with ARI, but I don't see these people as stupid or profoundly evil.

But you don't know them. You don't know the Muslims or homeless either. You've never spoken to them seriously or even truly looked at them. I have. Repeatedly. I know them. Far better than at least 90% of the people on Rebirth of Rebirth I know all three. Morally, I have a cast iron stomach. No one should even pretend that they can match me in this.

And if I walk on egg shells around them and cut out all of my free spirit, open mind, energy, individualism, etc. and these guys still ban me repeatedly from all their forums and treat me like hell in person without even a hint of decency, how should I treat them? Trust me: This is just the beginning. I can do a lot worse.

Let's start with our own behavior and be honest in our assessment and treatment of the folks at ARI, SOLO and elsewhere. Don't be afraid to be critical when others go astray, but let's do so in a benevolent and friendly manner while continuing to recognize and applaud their strengths and achievements. I'm not sure that others in those organizations are yet ready to reciprocate, but someone has to make the first move and it might as well be each of us.

Boy, you'd have to move to The Twilight Zone to make a statement I disagree with more than this. One should never be benevolent and friendly to raw evil. Certainly not in certain contexts. I'm ultra-friendly to them in person. This is enough. But the above sounds to me like a demonstration of pure weakness and appeasement. Their contempt and disdain for you will almost certainly run to infinity. Anyone who believes the above behavior is reasonable, moral, or practical can look forward to summary rejection for the next 10,000 years. After this, and if you're very lucky, they'll concede a bit and be minutely nice for a few days. Then they'll up their demands. Then it's time to start all over.

As I've tried to point out above, this is really the only way to operate intellectually while being consistent with Objectivist principles and who can predict what influence a change in behavior of this type might have and what added benefits might follow as a result. If nothing else, isn't that the sort of intellectual environment in which you would like to participate? If so, then we are obliged to create it for ourselves, so let's start here.

ARIans know they're vermin. Muslims know they're vermin. The homeless know they're vermin. But they don't really know it. Not deep down and not enough to help. What they most desperately need and deserve is objective and rational confirmation. What they want and need above all else is moral condemnation. What they want and need most of all is SEARING HATRED.

As far as I can tell, it's the only thing which will let them escape their self-created psychological hell. It's the only thing which will let us escape them. Every other answer isn't just foolish, vapid, wrongheaded, or some such. Nor is it merely counterproductive. It's sado-masochistic omni-destruction.

Post 153

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 4:42pm

Hi Andre:

I really liked your first two sentences! :-)
--
Jeff

Post 154

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 6:00pm

O.K., all you experts on the history of ideas and ideological movements (and if you are not experts, you owe it to yourselves to review the errors that past ideologies made that resulted in their demise) - those that step out into the mine fields of the ad hominem - risk more than Ayn Rand's or the Brandens' reputations. If you insist upon tying the value of their intellectual writings to their personalities - it will come back to haunt you.

It does not matter in the field of scholarly debate if it was generally accepted that Ayn Rand was the living paragon of her own philosophy, and always practiced it with 100% consistency. Non-Objectivist scholars and journalists will still question the validity of Objectivism, just as they did with great enthusiasm and venom (look up all the reviews of Rand's books published up to 1968, if you need graphic proof), pre- the Rand-Branden break, when this personality-and-practice issue was not in question.

When Ayn Rand wrote about political and social issues in her non-fiction essays, she concentrated on examining the ideas and policies proposed by collectivists. She did not write about intimate issues in their personal lives, and then use that material as a basis for discounting their writings. When she attacked Marx, she did not deal with whether he cheated on Jenny. To my knowledge, she was also remarkably disinterested in the personal and sex lives of Kant and Hegel (if they had any. But there I go again! Engaging in a cheap shot. It's so easy to do - and so much more fun than actually reading Kant or Hegel. It's quick and dirty - and proves nothing).

However, this sort of ad hominem attack does attract and convince a certain type of reader. The same type that reads the National Enquirer. They don't want to read about ideas, they want to read about sexual affairs and related gossip. But, guess what? These type of people do not matter in the long run (or the short, for that matter). Ask Howard Roark.

(Edited by Gerald M Biggers on 6/14, 7:31am)

Post 155

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:04am

Rereading my long post #126, I neglected to mention that I had also read (very closely) the Journals of Ayn Rand and Letters of Ayn Rand. So I had acquired the additional perspective of Rand herself on many matters personal and professional, which fleshed out the details of her life and career. I also was familiar with obscure material about Rand's early intellectual life discovered by Chris Sciabarra and published in his Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical.

This information fleshed out what I learned from the detailed portraits and chronicles appearing in two "official" biographies (Who Is Ayn Rand? and Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life), plus two "unofficial" ones (Barbara Branden's Passion of Ayn Rand book, and Nathaniel Branden's Judgment Day memoir).

When this abundant and overlapping biographical material is added to my reading (closely, and in most cases, repeatedly) all of Ayn Rand's own books and posthumously published anthologies -- plus the entirety of The Objectivist, The Objectivist Newsletter, most of The Ayn Rand Letter, and listening to many of her recorded public lectures and media appearances -- I believe I acquired more than sufficient information to draw fair, objective conclusions about the life and character of this remarkable woman.

Certainly, sufficient information to know when to say: "Enough!"

Post 156

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 4:11pm

Robert, et al. -- Also see the deleted scenes from "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life," which are on the Directors Cut disc. Very interesting material and a very fine movie.

Also a point that's probably been made many times on this discussion board. One can have legitimate questions about what the Brandens say in their books; indeed, Nathaniel offered his own corrections when his was reissued. But neither book was meant as a prosecutor's closing remarks indicting and damning Ayn Rand. Barbara's, with its historical focus, showed Rand's incredible struggles and triumphs. Because Valiant's book uses the prosecutorial approach, the reader must sift through non-objective hyperbola and exaggerations to find the legitimate points. (Rand's diaries are the most useful part of the book.) But I'm not doing the sifting in he-said-she-said personality debates; future, hopefully objective, historians will need to take up that task.

Post 157

Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 12:59pm

Mr. Hudgins,

It is gratifying to see that you are reading PARC. It is also highly gratifying to see that you agree with the basic conclusion of PARC: that the Brandens' works are flawed, and that "future, hopefully objective, historians [still] need to take up that task" of Rand biography. And, thank you, that PARC has "legitimate points." But, it is little wonder that you lost Mr. Perry if you believe that "prosecutorial style" involves "non-objective hyperbola and exaggerations." That is an insult to prosecutors -- who fight crime, and who carry a real-world logical burden of proof as part of their job description -- everywhere.

Post 158

Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 1:41pm

That is an insult to prosecutors -- who fight crime, and who carry a real-world logical burden of proof as part of their job description -- everywhere.

That may be true in your dreamland, but sure not the case in real life here in Florida...

Post 159

Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 2:14pm