Several of you have expressed interest in doing a study group over the summer, and I’ve had a few suggestions for possible books to do. I’ll post the list below, and if you’re interested in participating, you can leave a comment here and vote for which book you’d like to read. Also let me know what days and times and so forth work best for you, and I’ll announce the final choice and the plans for that in a week.

The first book—The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, by Charles Freeman—was recommended to me by Zach, who loaned it to me for the summer while he’s in Washington doing an internship. He says it’s not exactly an “Objectivist” book, but it’s full of great historical info. So I’ll be reading it anyway, but if some of you are interested in reading it also I would love to have a study group to discuss it with.

Next is The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, by Sam Harris. I read this one back when it came out in hardcover, and wrote some brief comments on the club website here. It also gives historical information concerning the causal link between faith and force, and also puts that link in perspective with current events. I would not mind reading it again if it’s something enough of you are interested in.

Next, back when we watched the “Intelligent Design” lecture, I asked how many of those attending had actually read The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. Almost none of us had, including myself (I’d just started reading it and was only about three or four chapters in). I still haven’t finished it (I’ve been reading lots of other stuff in between), but I’ve greatly enjoyed what I’ve read so far, and would love to have a study group to finish it with in order to better understand the positive case for evolution.

Fourth, and more specifically Objectivist, is Tara Smith’s Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality. At the last poker night, some of you had expressed interest in her newest book (Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist), but cost would be prohibitive on that while it’s still only in hardcover. It turned out that most of you still hadn’t read the previous one, however, which is a great study of metaethics, comparing all of the major theories with the Objectivist one. It’s been some time since I read this one, and I’d love to read it again if any of you are interested.

Finally, we have Leonard Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels. In it, he examines the rise of Naziism in Germany, compares it to today’s trends in America, and in doing so makes the case for a new philosophy of history—namely, the idea that it is philosophy that drives history. Absolutely fascinating, and another I would love to reread (as it’s been some time); and again, one that many of you have not read, but if you would like to do it for the study group, just vote here.

I’ll announce the results and final details within a week.

On April 24th, the Chronicle printed a letter entitled “Giving is reciprocal” that began with the line, “I find J.D. Bowns’ regurgitation of the pseudo-intellectual sophistry of Ayn?Rand appalling.” In response, I submitted the following letter:

Matt Miller finds “the pseudo-intellectual sophistry of Ayn Rand appalling” (4/24). What’s really appalling is that so many people continue to dismiss Ayn Rand out of hand, apparently without bothering to familiarize themselves with her arguments or even having the slightest idea what she actually advocated. Is it a mark of genuine intellectual sophistication to ascribe to an increasingly respected thinker (whose philosophy is the subject of several recent books, by professors in the highest-ranked philosophy departments, published by the most distinguished university presses) ideas exactly the opposite of what she actually held?

Miller claims, for instance, that she holds that “the highest moral good is to be a parasite” who “takes and gives nothing in return.” But if Miller had ever read anything that Ayn Rand ever wrote, he would know that she has plenty to say about parasites, condemning them in the strongest terms. Incidentally, that was the point of J.D. Bowns’ letters to which Miller was responding: the welfare system breeds parasites. What Ayn Rand holds to be a moral ideal, by contrast, is independence. But that is a concept that Miller is apparently unable to grasp.

My letter was not published in the final issues of the semester on the 27th or 28th. (The following responses were printed after I submitted mine: a response from Bowns himself, and another criticism of Bowns. The Chrony opinion page editor: evil or just plain stupid? You be the judge.)

You can now pick up your copy of the April issue of The Undercurrent at the U (usually near Chronicle newsstands).

This month’s issue focuses on foreign policy, including articles about the futility of diplomatic efforts with Iran, “domestic security,” the requirements for world peace, the fatal flaw in Bush’s “forward strategy of freedom” (“The Backward Strategy of Democracy”), and “The Roots of the Hamas Victory,” plus many more.

I’ve also included in every issue a copy of the March special edition flyer in defense of free speech, featuring the infamous Danish Mohammed cartoon. If you can’t find a copy on campus, you can also see it here.

Each issue also contains a brochure from the Ayn Rand Institute about their Atlas Shrugged essay contest for college students. Top prize is $5000 cash, and I know you students could use it, so check it out.

Poker night is coming up and I’ll be sending out the final details to those of you who’ve expressed interest soon, so if you want to come but haven’t emailed me yet let me know. Also, it looks like we’ll be doing some other club events over the summer (possibly a study group) so stay tuned for more info on that.

It looks like Tuesday, March 7th is going to be the best day to hold our upcoming club event (see below). (Wednesday the 8th would work as well, so if that’s better for a lot of you we can still change it if enough of you contact me this week.) Since the latest issue of The Undercurrent focused on religion with a couple of articles on the intelligent design controversy, we will watch and discuss Dr. Keith Lockitch’s “Creationism in Camouflage: The ‘Intelligent Design’ Deception” from the Ayn Rand Institute’s 2005 lecture series. A description of the lecture is included below.

If you are interested in attending, contact me and I will send you my address and directions. We will start at 7:00 p.m. and try to put the lecture on no later than 7:15 (since I know most of you, including myself, have work or school the following morning). We’ll provide pizza and other refreshments, but feel free to bring any drinks or snacks you want.

You can now pick up Volume 2, Issue 1 of The Undercurrent near Chronicle newsstands around the University of Utah campus.

The theme of this issue is religion, so it naturally has a lot of content that is especially relevant here in Utah. Included are articles on “Intelligent Design,” “Moral Values Without Religion,” and a piece about the new Chronicles of Narnia film entitled “Christian Sheep in Lion’s Clothing.” As an added bonus, I threw in some copies of Leonard Peikoff’s “Religion vs. America” and some other pamphlets and fliers inside many copies.

I will try to keep the issue available and stocked up at the University for at least a couple of weeks, but you never know how fast an issue with such hot topics will go, so pick yours up today!

Since the new issue of The Undercurrent (see above) focuses on religion with a couple of articles on the intelligent design controversy, I thought it would be a good activity to watch and discuss Dr. Keith Lockitch’s lecture, “Creationism in Camouflage: The ‘Intelligent Design’ Deception.” A description of the lecture is included below.

Tentatively, we could do this sometime between March 2nd and March 8th. If you’re interested and there’s a certain day of the week that works best for you, let me know (you can post a comment to this entry) and I will try to hold it on the day that works best for the most people. I’ll make an official announcement of the event within a week or two with the final date and time, as well as other details.

…the recent Palestinian elections have provided it. Western commentators, and even Palestinian officials, expressed shock at the Hamas victory—-but it could not have happened any other way, as I knew as soon as I heard that the terrorist organization was being allowed on the ballot. That’s why I was not the least bit surprised when I heard the results on NPR that morning. The incredulous NPR commentator attributed the Hamas victory to the fact that they were able to “get out the vote,” going door to door in key locations to urge people to vote and even providing transportation to the polls. No one questioned what form this “urging” took, but I think it’s pretty obvious. That’s one major reason that it had to turn out the way it did.

Steven Spielberg suggested in his recent film Munich that the Palestinian cause had some legitimacy and that there would be no peace until people (specifically Israelis) of conscience stopped the endless cycle of violence in the form of retaliation and counter-retaliation. Of course, Spielberg studiously neglected to mention the religious and anti-Semitic aspect of the Palestinian cause, and only suggested that Israel’s retaliatory use of force is morally different from Palestine’s initiation of force in the vaguest, weakest ways—-in other words, he evaded the main issues.

In fact, as history shows, Israeli cease-fires and truces and concessions to Palestine will not end the violence (and will in fact only exacerbate it)—-and as the recent election shows, the real prerequisite for peace is not democracy, but a constitutional republic that protects individual rights. Whether that takes the form of a new Palestinian leadership committed to those ideals (in which case they might have some legitimate claim to a separate Palestinian state) or the Palestinians accepting Israeli government (which has some room for improvement in these regards as well) doesn’t matter. But the prerequisite for that is a complete cultural revolution that would require education and faith giving way to reason. The only other option is the military annihilation by Israel of all violent elements among the Palestinians. Neither option is terribly likely to happen anytime soon, but the latter is probably what will ultimately be necessary.

Yesterday morning, the world suffered a great loss, and only a handful of people knew it. Penelope died.

The Daily Utah Chronicle suffered a massive, coordinated theft of their Thursday, November 10th issue at the hands of Frat boys in retaliation for printing a letter to the editor the previous day describing the Fraternity’s vicious hazing tactics. Of course, the theft only proved the letter’s point about the Frat’s tactics, and The Chronicle rightly denounced the theft.

Unfortunately, similar problems that I have had distributing The Undercurrent (see here and here) on campus have gone unnoticed by The Chronicle (not to mention campus police, who made The Chronicle theft “a top priority”). In an effort to correct this, I submitted the following letter to The Chronicle:

“Paper theft not limited to The Chronicle”

Editor:

I read about the theft of your November 10th issue with great sympathy. However, given your failure to mention it (even tangentially in your article about the theft of your own paper), I wonder if you are aware that you are not the only victims of this type of crime.

The same fate has befallen a new monthly paper called The Undercurrent, distributed on campus near Chronicle newsstands. Just like in last Thursday’s theft of The Chronicle, entire stacks have wound up in nearby recycling bins the day they were issued. Granted, it hasn’t been a coordinated effort on the scale of the theft of Thursday’s Chronicle, but the basic principle remains the same: is this a free speech campus or isn’t it?

In your Friday editorial you stated, “The fact is that stealing—even free newspapers—is a violation of both criminal and civil law.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. I would just like to remind you and your readers that The Chronicle is not the only such newspaper on this campus.

Andrew Vidrine
Philosophy, senior

Now, I have no idea whether the stolen copies of The Undercurrent are being thrown out by Chronicle distributors afraid of non-existent competition (or bearing a personal grudge against me), isolated students who don’t like the content, or simply over-zealous janitors (though they’re clearly not trash, and are not left in the middle of the floor in the way of students and others). But that’s beside the point. I was told when I inquired last year about distributing a student newspaper on campus that the University was a “free speech zone” (whatever that means) and there would be absolutely no problem with it. And yet, I have been having something of a problem. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve it soon. It might help if The Chronicle prints my letter. I will post an update here if they do.

A brand new Ayn Rand book has just come out: Ayn Rand Answers - The Best of her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew. It’s a great compilation of the best of Ayn Rand’s question and answer periods following her lectures.

Robert Mayhew’s excellent editing organizes the questions and answers into chapters drawn around broad themes (e.g., politics, ethics, metaphysics and epistemology, and art), then into smaller sub-sections. This keeps the reading flowing, instead of jumping around from topic to topic almost at random as would occur in a live Q&A session.

While some of Ayn Rand’s answers will be obvious to long-time students of Objectivism, many of them shed new light on her philosophy, and almost all of them give the reader a better picture of Ayn Rand as a person, whether it is her quick wit, her warm benevolence in giving the benefit of the doubt to most questioners and patiently explaining her philosophical principles to them, or her righteous indignation at genuinely dishonest, hostile, or insulting questions. Even her answers to questions on narrow, concrete issues at the time of the session (such as the Vietnam war) are applicable to events today (such as the current Iraq war) because her answers address the deeper abstract principles involved (such as proper foreign policy).

On my first reading, I noticed only two drawbacks. First, a few of her answers leave you wanting more, and you wish that she were still alive and in the room with you so that you could ask her follow-up questions. That’s not to say that she doesn’t give a full enough answer to the question as asked, given the context of a live public Q&A session, but rather that her intriguing answers leave you feeling sad that you are merely reading a book and not actually in the room during one of those Q&A sessions. Second, if you’ve ever heard a recording of one of her Q&A’s (or were lucky enough to have attended one), you are aware of how much you are missing from the live setting—for example, from the audience reactions, as they audibly gasp in shock or indignation at some remark Ayn Rand makes, but by the end of her answer after she explains the comment, they are cheering. That’s an added bonus of the live setting that the book format unfortunately can’t reproduce, but if you’re a student like me and can’t yet afford to spend a few hundred dollars on recordings of all her lectures, this book is the next best thing.

You can now purchase Ayn Rand Answers (along with The Capitalist Manifesto) through our bookstore, or come pick it up at the Ft. Union location of Barnes & Noble in Midvale, where I currently stock it.

Instead of going to church this Sunday, join us for a pagan celebration!

You can now pick up the September issue of The Undercurrent near Chronicle newsstands around the University of Utah campus. As an added bonus, I threw in some extra copies I still had of the previous (August) issue (#3) in each stack, so if you missed that one, you’ve got a chance to get it now too if you hurry.

Issue 4 centers on “Campus Survival, Undercurrent Style,” as the staff editorial puts it, featuring articles about campus clubs, the value and appeal of Harry Potter, proper study habits, how our teachers have helped us forget 9/11 by implicitly or explicitly teaching an anti-principle epistemology, and how faith is the antithesis of science and freedom.

Pick one up now! Trust me, it’s much better reading than the Chroni.

Another new work of what I called in the previous post “applied philosophy” is Andrew Bernstein’s The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire. However, this is an even more important and truly great work that isn’t marred by the kinds of inconsistencies as Harris’ The End of Faith.

In The Capitalist Manifesto, Dr. Bernstein not only provides an abundance of factual information demonstrating the economic and moral superiority of capitalism, he also lays out the introductory framework of the philosophical theory that explains it. He begins by putting the advent of capitalism in its proper historical perspective, and includes chapters explaining the economic theory behind its enormous practical success as well as refuting common (yet clearly silly, after Dr. Bernstein is through with them) charges against capitalism (such as that it causes war, imperialism, and slavery).

But by far the most interesting and valuable chapters are those at the heart of the book, in which he provides a *moral* defense of capitalism, based on Ayn Rand’s ethical theory of rational egoism. Dr. Bernstein understands that the system that promotes individual success and happiness on this earth (and who else’s success and happiness is there to promote?) cannot be logically defended on altruistic grounds, and more: that it doesn’t need to be, because egoism, as the system that does just that, is the only proper morality for mankind.

Many of you will remember Dr. Bernstein as our guest lecturer this spring (“Religion vs. Morality). Now you can support him and the Objectivist Club at the University of Utah by buying The Capitalist Manifesto from our bookstore. Or, if you don’t want to wait that long for it to be delivered, you can find it at the Barnes & Noble store where I work, the Ft. Union location in Midvale. Or, if you’re a poor student who can’t afford to buy the book right now but really want to read it, I might be willing to loan it to you.

UPDATE 11.04: Apparently, the publisher has already sold out of the first printing of The Capitalist Manifesto. They plan to do a smaller second printing soon, after which it will be a “print-on-demand” title, at which point they are going to raise the price from $19.95 to $34.95. I repeat, the price will soon be raised from $19.95 to $34.95. So if you want a copy of this book, I strongly suggest that you pick up a copy now, while it’s relatively cheap.

Speaking of the popular media making the connection between faith and force, that is precisely the theme of Sam Harris’ book, The End of Faith. Recently released in paperback, the book is intriguingly subtitled Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. While it doesn’t live up to what one might hope for from it based on its full title, it does have much of value to offer.

If you only see one movie this year, make it Joss Whedon’s Serenity. Bear in mind, this is coming from someone who previously thought very little of Joss Whedon. I had never seen Firefly, the series upon which Serenity is based, but from what I had seen of his other work (particularly Buffy, the Vampire Slayer), let’s just say that I was not a fan. But Serenity has given me new respect for Joss Whedon. Of those I have seen, it is the best film of the year thus far.

It may take you a while to get into it, as it did me. This is a genre film that mixes sci-fi and western elements, neither of which I am necessarily a fan. But, as Ned Chalmers at The Undercurrent put it, “Serenity follows the pattern of Harry Potter…and some others of the better genre pieces, in that genre is used to enhance its drama and realism, not substitute for it.” At first, thanks to several false openings that are interesting initially but get tiresome after a while (on my first viewing, I started wondering, “When is this going to go somewhere?”), I thought that this was going to be one of those sci-fi flicks that attempts to substitute style and special effects for substance—i.e., plot and characterization.

I couldn’t have been more wrong.

In their Thursday, October 20th issue, the Daily Utah Chronicle printed this truly despicable article: Ayn-d I Says To Rand I Says This Fountainhead Spews Crap. (Thanks to Erik for bringing this to my attention.)

In response, I submitted the following reply:

You can now pick up your copy of The Undercurrent at the University of Utah!

The Undercurrent is a news analysis and commentary paper published by students of Objectivism from around the country. (For more information about The Undercurrent, click on the title of this post to link to their website.) I contributed an article to their third issue, which was published at the end of June, but due to a typo in the shipping address have just barely received it (along with issue #4, September). You can now pick up your copy of issue #3 at over a dozen different locations around the University of Utah campus, near Chronicle newsstands. I will distribute issue #4 within the next week or two as well.

Issue #3 provides rational and inspiring commentary on the needs of man’s mind, including differentiating his spiritual side from religion’s mystical notions of it, the role of coffee in intellectual culture, and a piece of film criticism (my piece) comparing two summer blockbusters’ treatment of the role of values in man’s life. Pick yours up today!

I apologize for not posting any updates in so long. As many of you are probably aware, I finished my course requirements last fall and have not been attending the U for the last couple of semesters. Therefore, I could no longer serve as the club president with official ASUU membership (which is what allows us to use school resources and facilities for our club events). Unfortunately, there was no one else with both the interest and the time to take my place.

However, I have been considering having a more informal club, meeting occasionally at my apartment for socializing, watching Objectivism-related videos, etc. Although we would not be able to host any more guest lectures at the university, the club would otherwise continue to function much as it did before. If anyone has any interest in such club meetings, please let me know. (If you don’t have a phone number or email address for me already, you can email me at AshRyan20@yahoo.com.)

I look forward to hearing from and hopefully seeing you all soon again. In the meantime, I’ll be making a couple more announcements shortly, so stay tuned.

There have been several mentions in the media about the obvious influence of Objectivism on Pixar’s latest animated film, The Incredibles. The New York Times review included the following paragraph:

Given this, it seemed like it might be a fun club activity to see and discuss the film.

Imagine my surprise when I was reading the editorial section of the Deseret News yesterday and came across a letter to the editor apparently invoking Ayn Rand—especially since the letter was by Boyd Petrie, one of the most liberal letter writers regularly published by the paper. Unfortunately—though unsurprisingly, given its source—the letter was pretty bad. So today, I submitted the following response:

If they publish it, I will post an update here.

Local Objectivist artist Damon Denys’ painting “An Awakening Mind” (see below) appears on the cover of the November issue of Catalyst, a local magazine devoted to Salt Lake culture. You can pick up a free copy, which includes a spotlight with a nice picture of the artist, at your local Barnes & Noble. Or check out the artist spotlight online, and be sure to post a comment in support of Damon Denys.

Despite the last minute changes in speaker and topic, the Daily Utah Chronicle, who had sent a reporter to cover the original topic, still decided to run a front page story yesterday on Wednesday night’s lecture. You can read the story here.

Other media mentions of the event included an announcement the day of the lecture in the Salt Lake Tribune’s “Happening Today” column (although they somehow managed to get the location wrong and misspell “Objectivist”), which helped bring in a few people.

Unfortunately, Dr. Bernstein’s flight to Utah was cancelled earlier today, and there were no other available flights that could get him here on time to give his lecture this evening. However, another speaker from the Ayn Rand Institute will be able to make it instead. His lecture will be on foreign policy instead of religion vs. morality, but Objectivism has a unique perspective to offer on that issue as well. The speaker will be Richard Ralston, and he will be delivering his lecture “Foreign Policy: Fighting For America.”

The purpose of Foreign Policy and the principles upon which it should be based are traced as they developed in the first 40 years of U.S. History. How Foreign Policy is actually formulated today is discussed—and how it should be formulated to fight the War on Terrorism. The purpose of such a policy is not Peace. Security, freedom, and individual rights are presented as the valid objectives of Foreign Policy.

After serving seven years in the U.S. Army, Richard Ralston completed an M.A. in International Relations at the University of Southern California in 1977. He then began a career in newspaper publishing and direct marketing. He has been the circulation director and publishing director of The Christian Science Monitor, a radio producer, a national television news business manager, and a book publisher. His publications include two books, Communism: Its Rise and Fall in the 20th Century (1991) and Why Businessmen Need Philosophy (1999). He is the former Director of Development and Managing Director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

He will be happy to answer questions on the subject of religion vs. morality during the question and answer period following the lecture, and we will try to reschedule Dr. Bernstein to give his lecture here later in the school year.

I apologize for the change of plans, and the short notice about it. But I hope to still see you at tonight’s event, which should be an interesting one despite these last minute changes.

Who: Dr. Andrew Bernstein, Adjunct Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pace University

What: A lecture exploring how religion, rather than providing an objective basis for ethics, is actually opposed to genuine morality, followed by audience Q & A. The public and media are invited. Admission is free, with a suggested donation of $5 for non-students.

When: Wednesday, November 10th, 2004, 7:00 p.m.

Where: University of Utah, Henry Eyring Building room #2004 (map)

Conventionally, most people believe that morality can only be based in religious faith—that in a world without God no principles of right and wrong could exist. Related to this, philosophers have long held that no objective, fact-based, rational code of values is possible.

Regarding both points, this talk shows that the exact opposite is true.

The purpose of morality is to guide human life on earth—and religion is utterly incapable of it. Flourishing life requires a code of secularism, rationality, egoism and freedom. Religious faith clashes with every principle of a proper moral code, and, as such, has led, and can only lead to, hell on earth.

As one attendee of this lecture when it was recently given at another university put it, “This isn’t a generic pro-atheism talk. Instead it addresses the major reason that most honest people adhere to religion: the idea that only religion provides a basis for morality. This talk argues that a rational morality is possible, and in fact that religion makes genuine morality impossible.

“This is like nothing anyone has ever heard from anybody else, and so it’s incredibly provocative. The main audience [for] this talk is actually religious people. Even though Dr. Bernstein condemns religion in no uncertain terms, he also makes it perfectly clear that he is not necessarily attacking religious individuals. He explains why there are so many good but religious people, and argues that if they want to be even better, they need to abandon religion.”

As those of you who’ve heard one of Dr. Bernstein’s lectures before already know, he is an incredibly entertaining, engaging, and thorough speaker. The scope of his lectures are amazing, as he integrates the concrete data into the broadest abstractions. This is a rare opportunity to see him give a recent lecture here in Utah.

Please join us for this special event. It’s one you won’t want to miss.

President Bush has said some good things, particularly about foreign policy. Some of his important speeches have named important principles, and the Bush Doctrine is a great response to the threat our nation faces today—or at least, it would be if Bush had come even close to following through with it. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

I recently wrote a letter to the editor about another recent case of Bush saying something good, but betraying his words with disastrous policies. In other words, we might say (as Bush often has about his opponent John Kerry) that his record doesn’t match his rhetoric. And given the importance of these issues, it is quite disappointing indeed for this to be what we get from the candidate who supposedly represents strength and national sovereignty. Here is my letter:

I submitted the letter to the Deseret Morning News, the Salt Lake Tribune, and the Daily Utah Chronicle. The Deseret News printed a shortened version of it (just the first paragraph) in their October 26th edition (available online here). I will post updates here if either of the other papers publish it.

UPDATE 10.31: The Salt Lake Tribune has published my letter substantially unedited today, in their Sunday edition. You can view it online here.

The Objectivist Club will be seeing Pioneer Theatre Company’s production of Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians this Wednesday, October 27th. We will meet at the theatre at 7:00 p.m., half an hour before the show starts, to purchase student rush tickets. If you would like to join us, please leave a comment on this post to let as know as soon as possible so we can figure out how many student rush tickets we will need to get (and whether we will be able to get them).

On the other hand, the Chronicle printed this excellent letter demonstrating in one field (the oil industry) how the mind is the source of value—refuting Marxist materialism.

I submitted the following letter to the Chronicle in response:

Last week the Daily Utah Chronicle printed an editorial piece by columnist Jeff Fullmer urging is to “give Marx a break.” In response, I wrote the following letter to the editor:

Pioneer Theatre Company will be producing Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians from October 20th to November 6th. Since Agatha Christie was one of Ayn Rand’s favorite writers, we thought it would be fun and relevant to go to a show as a club activity. (We did this last year when they did Cyrano de Bergerac and had a great time.) If you are interested in joining us, please leave a comment here (click on the “Comments” link at the bottom of the entry) within the next week or so and let us know what date(s) you would be able to attend (we are looking at October 25th through the 27th or November 1st through the 4th) and whether you are a student and where (so we can figure out how many student discount tickets we will be able to get). If our group is big enough (20 or more) we can get a good discount even if we can’t get enough student tickets, so please do leave a comment and let us know if you’d like to come with us even if you aren’t a student.

In a week or two I will post our definite arrangements based on the feedback you leave here. Thanks.

Martha Stewart reported to prison a few hours ago to begin her five-month sentence, stemming from her erroneous conviction, which (as far as I can tell) was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, for actions which should not be criminal anyway.

This is the first time in a long while that I’ve almost felt tempted to pray for someone. Let’s hope that Martha’s prison term will go as smoothly and quickly as possible so that she can return to doing the good work she does.

Since I recently posted a critique of Michael Moore’s anti-Bush film Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought that now would be a good time to state my own position in regard to the upcoming election. I am also anti-Bush. But for far different reasons.

Even though this is far from a popular position among Objectivists (check out the debates at the forum), I am basically in agreement with the position stated by Dr. Leonard Peikoff at the end of his recent course on his DIM hypothesis. (His statement of his view of the election can be heard at his website or at the Ayn Rand Institute.)

Dr. John Lewis has recently put out an excellent new op-ed fleshing out the anti-Bush argument. (Some of you may remember Dr. Lewis from his appearance at the University of Utah this spring to lecture on Homeland Defense.) In it, he concludes that:

At this point, I am in full agreement with Dr. Lewis. For my current position on the upcoming election, please read his full article here.

UPDATE 10.31: I think I should clarify that, while I urge you not to vote for Bush, I am not necessarily endorsing John Kerry. I was leaning toward doing so myself when I originally wrote this post, but the more I learn about him as the campaign progresses, the more I think that neither candidate is worth voting for, even as the lesser of two evils—because both of them are overwhelmingly evil. Perhaps we should take a cue from Thomas Friedman and write in Bill Cosby.

There has been a big fuss recently over Michael Moore’s invitation to speak at Utah Valley State College. Much of it has focused on the fact that Moore is “too liberal,” and so, in order to provide “balance,” an ultra-conservative speaker should also be invited (Sean Hannity has offered to fill that role for free).

The deeper point that has been missed by too many people on both sides of the debate is that Moore is a dishonest propagandist, and therefore cannot possibly help to “inform” voters (at least not of the truth) and shouldn’t be paid a single penny to speak at an educational institution—much less the $40,000, plus over $10,000 in transportation fees(!?) he’s getting. (Incidentally, I’m no fan of Hannity either, so in my view having him speak as well amounts to hoping that two wrongs will make a right.)

Anyone who’s paid even the most superficial attention to Moore’s career is well aware of the distortions he employed in his Oscar-winning “documentary” Bowling For Columbine. What you may not know is that those methods are even more prevalent in his recent anti-Bush film, Fahrenheit 9/11. Here is a good analysis of that film, by fellow leftist Christopher Hitchens. In it, he outlines Moore’s mess of unsupported assertions, contradictions, and outright falsifications:

And that’s just a couple of points. Read the full story—it’s well worth the time. (Thanks to Steven Brockerman for the link.)

I submitted the following letter to the editor to the Daily Utah Chronicle in response to Wednesday’s animal rights march on campus:

I have also submitted shorter versions (about half the length) of this letter to the Deseret Morning News and the Salt Lake Tribune. I’ll post an update here if it gets published in any of the papers.

UPDATE 10.12: The short version of my letter was printed, essentially unedited, in today’s Deseret Morning News, online here.

UPDATE 10.13: The Chronicle printed my letter today, editing out the end of the third and the entire fourth paragraph. But the majority of this letter has now seen print. You can read the Chronicle’s version here.

Ayn Rand formally named her philosophy Objectivism, but informally, she called it “a philosophy for living on earth.” This semester, the Objectivist Club at the University of Utah will discuss and apply this theme, in an endeavor to help its members understand how studying Ayn Rand’s unique philosophy can improve and benefit their own lives.

We will begin the semester by discussing why man needs philosophy, and why Objectivism is the one best designed to guide his life on this earth, drawing on examples from Ayn Rand’s novels, the world around us, and our own lives and experiences. Then we will watch a video providing a brief overview of the philosophy, explaining how it is the solution to the intellectual crisis of our times.

The deadline for the Atlas Shrugged essay contest for college students is September 16th—just one more month away. If you are planning to enter, you’d better get to work!

Also, we will hopefully be announcing plans for the club for this fall soon, so check back here for more info. Or we will send out announcements to those of you who are on the email list. If you aren’t on the list, and would like to receive announcements and reminders of club activities via email, just let me know.

A couple of days ago I dashed off a letter to the editor defending the principle of separation of church and state, in response to a letter mocking that principle and calling for more religious influence over our political leaders that appeared in a recent edition of the Deseret Morning News. Here is the complete version of my response:

My letter, excluding the middle paragraph, was published in today’s paper. You can read the printed version here.

The Ayn Rand Institute has launched their newly re-designed website this week. It features an entirely new look, and a lecture by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, “Why Should One Act on Principle?” that is newly available for free streaming download. To listen to Dr. Peikoff’s lecture, you must register for the website, then you will be taken to a Registered User page from which you can access the lecture. Check it out, as well as the rest of the new site!

I’ve added a link to the right-side menu to RationalArt.com, the website of Bryan Larsen and Damon Denys, two local Objectivist artists. I have posted images of some of their work here before, so you may already be familiar with them. But I encourage you to head over to their site and check out everything they’ve got to offer.

Here’s another sample—Denys’ “An Awakening Mind” and Larsen’s “How Far We’ve Come”:

Damon Denys and Bryan Larsen are represented by the Quent Cordair Fine Art gallery.

Hello from Pittsburgh! I hope everyone is having a great summer.

I just thought I’d post a reminder that the deadline for this year’s Atlas Shrugged essay contest is now just three months away—September 16th. The contest is open to all students enrolled in a full-time college degree program at the time of entry. There are $13,000 in cash awards—first prize is $5000!

So now would be a good time to start reading or re-reading Atlas Shrugged and begin working on your essay. Summer is the best time to do it, because if you wait until fall semester starts you won’t have enough time.

Click here for this year’s essay topics and other contest details.

I just received the following press release from Linda at Quent Cordair Fine Art:

For more, click here.

I thought I would share a couple of letters to the editor that I have recently sent to the Deseret Morning News, the first on Thursday, the second just this morning. Here is the first:

And the second (in response to this):

I will post an update if either of these letters is published.

UPDATE 5.16: The first of the above letters appears, cut in a way that has removed all criticism of the media and focuses only on my criticism of Bush, in today’s Deseret Morning News, online here.

(I know I just said that I wouldn’t be posting again for a while, but this was just too good to pass up! For my commentary on a more serious, national issue, see my recent post at the ObjectivismOnline.net meta-blog.)

Important announcement from a story in today’s Deseret Morning News:

As I will be going out of state to study for two months this summer, it is probable that I will not update the blog at all during that time. If something of significant local relevance or directly relevant to the club comes up, I will let you know here. But otherwise, if I do any blogging during the summer it will probably be at the ObjectivismOnline.net meta-blog—and if not, there should be plenty of other good stuff to read there. So head on over there, and just check back here once a month or so until August. Then we will be back in business. ;)

Starting and running the Objectivist Club this school year has been a great experience for me. It has given me, and other participants, access to excellent resources for learning about Objectivism, such as ARI’s video lectures. It has made possible several memorable events—the opening meeting when the tape wouldn’t work and I had to give a lecture introducing the philosophy of Objectivism unprepared, watching a great taped lecture by the entertaining and enlightening Andrew Bernstein, Dr. John Lewis’ excellent lecture on homeland defense delivered at the U a few weeks ago (and eating sushi with him afterward). And it has enabled me to meet interesting new people and make new friends (and in some cases, to learn who was not truly my friend).

Next year, we will hopefully be able to bring you even more valuable events and services. If you would like to know what we have planned at the beginning of fall semester this August, please contact me and I can put you on our club email list, or if you are already on our email list you will receive more information from me at that time.

Until then, thanks to everybody who participated in the Objectivist Club this year and helped make it a success, and have a great summer!

Andrew “Ash” Vidrine

As I did not manage to prepare much for the final meeting of the semester last Tuesday due to the end-of-the-semester crunch, most of the meeting was pretty open discussion. But much of that discussion did focus on issues relating to the topics of the chapters on the schedule, “Collectivized Ethics” and “Racism”—for instance, we talked a good deal about the issue of personal moral responsibility, especially in connection with Christianity in general and Mormonism in particular.

In relating my personal experiences with the Mormon church and the thoughts that led me to eventually dismiss it, I was reminded of and mentioned a poem I had written on the topic when I was sorting out all of these issues a few years ago. I thought I would post that poem here in case anyone involved in that discussion wanted to read it.

You may have noticed that the website is looking better than ever, thanks to some updates and improvements being made by the designer, David Veksler.

Thanks, David!

When I read the Deseret Morning News’ editorial “Buckle up, bumpy road looms” last week, I immediately wrote the following letter in response:

Cox & Forkum’s recent post about environmentalist scaremongering in the schools—

—is not an exaggeration (from Marjorie Cortez’ column in today’s Deseret News):

These paintings, “Heroes” by Bryan Larsen and “The Weight of the World: Atlas in a New Age” by Damon-A. H. Denys, are featured at the Quent Cordair Fine Art Gallery.

Larsen and Denys are local artists, and until recently they held monthly gallery strolls so that the public could see their latest work. I had hoped to go to one of these gallery strolls with the club as our end of the year activity, but unfortunately they no longer hold them (at least for the time being). But I still wanted to share some of their art with those of you who may not already be familiar with them.

To see more, click on the link to the Cordair gallery in the “Art” section of the right-side menu, or here. (And if you think these are magnificent and moving just as images on your computer screen, you really should see them in person sometime.) Be sure to take advantage of some of the great customer service features Cordair offers, such as the wish list—which, as Linda at Cordair explained to me today, is great for college students who would love to receive some fine art for their graduation gift!

The story of Deanna Laney, the devout Christian mother who killed two of her young children and injured a third by beating them with a rock because “God told her to,” is no longer news—and I offered no comment on it when it was, because it hardly requires any.

But the typical reaction to it by other religious people is more interesting. Take, for example, this commentary which appeared in yesterday’s Deseret Morning News.

David Veksler has arranged on online chat with Objectivist intellectuals Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate on April 23rd. Here is the announcement that ARI recently sent out for the event:

The Objectivist Academic Center at the Ayn Rand Institute is currently accepting applications for admission into its undergraduate program for the fall of 2004. The application deadline is April 26th. For more information, click here.

This Thursday, April 1st, at 7:00 p.m. in OSH 174, we will be viewing a video of the lecture “Bridging the ‘Is’-‘Ought’ Gap: How to Derive Morality from Facts,” by Harry Binswanger.

This lecture was recorded at Harvard and features a lengthy Q&A session with Dr. Binswanger.

For more information, please contact me.

A couple of changes have been made to the club schedule. The next VoS study group session (which was scheduled for April 13th) has been cancelled. So now there is only one session left, a month from today on April 27th. One of the chapters that we were supposed to discuss next time has been added to the agenda for the meeting of the 27th, and the other has been removed from the schedule (since it got more into politics and our main focus for study this semester is ethics). See the schedule page or contact me for more nformation.

Also, there is now a location for this Thursday’s meeting (see above announcement).

Local Objectivist Steven Brockerman recently had the following letter to the editor published in the Salt Lake Tribune:

On Wednesday evening, Dr. John Lewis presented his lecture “The Failure of the Homeland Defense: Lessons from History” (and followed it with a Q&A period). Drawing on many relevant (and mostly well-known) historical examples, he made a powerful case for establishing a policy of projecting our military strength beyond our borders to defeat hostile nations in their own homeland, coming to the following conclusions:

For those of you who missed this excellent lecture, it was taped and will shortly be available in the club library.

From the beginning, Christians have been exhorting us to “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” In yesterday’s Deseret Morning News, Jerry Johnston put a whole new (and even worse) twist on it: “Admire traits — not the person.” Of course, this is only the logical extension of the same policy of separating a person from their actions, thus relieving them of responsibility for them. But this is the first time I’ve heard a Christian state this side of it so openly. Of course, he doesn’t actually say to hate people who embody virtues we admire—he just says a lot of stuff about how no matter how virtuous someone may seem, they’re still “only human,” the implication being that they’re dirty sinners like the rest of us.

Well, speak for yourself, Johnston. Not all of us are sinners. Some of us are human in the full sense of the term: we live the life proper to a rational being—and are therefore morally perfect.

Even after the securities fraud charges were dropped, Martha Stewart has been found guilty on all four of the remaining counts, which involved obstruction of justice, lying to investigators, and perjury. What I want to know is, how could she be found guilty of lying when she said she was innocent of the alleged “crimes,” when the charges for those crimes were dismissed or never even made?

This is the biggest legal fiasco since the “not guilty” verdict in the OJ Simpson case, and the worst news for the future of this country since 9/11. Of course, Martha will appeal, and hopefully this insanity will be corrected. But for a person like her to spend a single day in jail, particularly for the reasons she is, is a tragedy.

Sadly, one of the jurors has called the conviction a “victory for the little guy.” The grim irony is, people like Martha Stewart are not the enemies of “the little guy,” but rather their greatest benefactors—and in harming someone like her, they are also harming themselves.

From Spencer Ricks, of the ASUU’s United Leadership Council:

The ASUU controls a ridiculous amount of the money that we pay to attend the U, so I encourage you to actually research the parties, and if you can find one that appears to want to spend your money more responsibly (i.e., on your actual education) to vote.

Who: Dr. John Lewis, assistant professor of history at Ashland University

What: A talk on why accepting a permanent state of terrorist siege in America can be deadly, followed by audience Q & A. The public and media are invited. Admission is free, with a suggested donation of $5 for non-students.

Where: University of Utah, Behavioral Science Building room #112 (map)

When: Wednesday, March 10, 2004, 7:00 p.m.

With the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Defense, America has accepted a permanent, institutionalized state of siege on its own soil. But is this the correct strategy? In this lecture, Dr. John Lewis examines several cases from history—Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, the American Civil War, and the decades between World Wars I and II—asking what has happened when great nations, facing attack, have turned to defense rather than offense. In strategic terms, the results are unequivocal: the only defense is a good offense. If history is any guide, America should project her military beyond her borders and into the foreign homeland of her enemies. She should leave her cities free and open: as demonstrations of the power and success of freedom.

But this strategic lesson is dependent upon deeper factors. History demonstrates the need to remain focused on one’s self-interest when facing an enemy; to be diverted by extraneous matters can be deadly. The goals of a military response must be clearly differentiated from the means used to attain them; once the goals are established, the military must be allowed to win. A nation under attack must not shield those who start a war from its consequences; the enemy’s ability to equip and supply its army must be the focus of a response. Ultimately, the lessons of history illustrate the deep connection between intellectual clarity, moral certainty, and the offensive strategy needed to defeat a ruthless enemy. Only Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism provides the foundations needed for a successful military response to the threats we face today.

Please join us for this special event. This is a rare opportunity to hear an Objectivist intellectual lecture here in Utah on current events. Dr. Lewis is an excellent lecturer (I attended his course on Aristotle’s Rhetoric at last summer’s Objectivist Conference), and this lecture is sure to be a good one.

In this week’s study group session, the topic of dying for someone you love came up. Here is the relevent section from the text, from chapter 5, “Isn’t Everyone Selfish?” by Nathaniel Branden (pp. 67-68):

I bring this up because a good friend of mine often objects to the Objectivist ethical principle that one should act in one’s own selfish interest by bringing up just such a case. He feels that it would be right to “sacrifice” one’s own life to save someone one loves, but thinks that selfishness would demand that you don’t.

The error here is obvious when you look at the principles underlying the issue. The point is that selfishness requires the achievement of one’s values…and the achievement of values requires risk. The higher the value, the higher the risk one should be willing to take to gain and/or keep it. Thus, in this case, it becomes clear that it is entirely rational and selfish to be willing to risk your life to save someone whom you passionately love.

What would actually constitute selfless sacrifice would be if you risked your life to save the life of someone for whom you didn’t care at all, or even despised—or if you opted to save that other person at the expense of the life of the woman you love (see Ayn Rand’s example of the man who can spend his fortune either to save his wife from a dangerous illness, or ten other women who mean nothing to him, from “The Ethics of Emergencies” which also deals quite a bit with this topic). Of course, in the case of strangers some risk can be rational, based on the benevolence a rational man naturally has toward his fellow men. However, if there’s a great probability of losing one’s own life in the process, that would be a sacrifice—and what kind of twisted philosophy would one have to hold to have such low self-esteem as to value any random stranger’s life more than his own? (Yes, that’s a rhetorical question—for the answer, see my previous post.)

I saw a poster today for the movie The Passion of The Christ with the following tag-line on it:

“Dying was his reason for living.”

In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Ayn Rand described altruism as “the ethical theory which regards man as a sacrificial animal, which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification for his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, value and virtue…Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value.”

It is often objected that Ayn Rand presents an “extreme” version, which no one really advocates, of the views she opposes in order to set up a straw man that she then easily demolishes. Well, she does easily demolish them…but this is just one recent, stark example—straight from their own mouths—that her presentation of their views is not a straw man, but rather one done in terms of essentials.

Incidentally, in Jeff Vice’s review of the film in today’s Deseret News, he states, “As for Mel Gibson’s directorial effort…he and cinematographer Caleb Deschanel almost seem to be relishing the violence and gore.” How much more evidence does anyone need that altruism is a cult of death and suffering?

UPDATE 2.29: Dr. John Lewis brought to my attention an article on the film that examines its sado-masochistic nature, and highlighted a few sample quotes: “It is a repulsive masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film, and it leaves you with the feeling that the man who made it hates life.” Also: “The Passion of the Christ is intoxicated by blood, by its beauty and its sanctity … Gibson’s subject is torture, and he treats his subject lovingly … Children must be protected from it … is the sanctification of murder really what this country needs now?” (Note: this is not an Objectivist review, and it should be read with that in mind—for example, there are indications that the author is a subjectivist, at least concerning history.)

Also, Sean Green recently reported on HBL a phenomenon even more disturbing than the anti-Semitism some reviewers fear the film may incite:

Apparently, wholesale hatred of people for the sins of their ancestors is okay as long as it is indiscriminate hatred targeting Jew and Gentile alike—as long as one hates not only those who are allegedly “different” from oneself, but includes oneself among the objects of one’s hatred. This is apparently widely considered an acceptable, reasonable position. But neither any of today’s Jews nor any of today’s Gentiles perpetrated the brutality portrayed in the film. Neither you nor I are responsible for the actions of people nearly two millennia ago. A rational person rejects both racism and original sin and evaluates people based on their individual merit, for that is what the virtue of justice demands.

This very revealing letter to the editor was published in yesterday’s Deseret News:

There you have it. A consistent Christian acknowledging that America is one of the most unchristian nations in the history of the world. America is free, productive, proud, and happy—and we therefore deserved the 9/11 attacks?! Notice that this is the same rationalization used by our Islamic fundamentalist attackers.

The battle line has been clearly drawn. It’s Christianity versus America (as part of the wider war between America—a country based on the rational pursuit of one’s self-interest—and mysticism—the creed that says reason is impotent, you must simply obey a jealous God who demands human sacrifices). You can’t consistently value both.

You must pick a side.

UPDATE 2.29: Yesterday they published a letter expressing agreement with the letter posted above, saying that the earlier one “says it all.” In response, I submitted the following letter to the paper (although since it is a Christian-owned paper, I doubt they will print it):

I must agree with Carolyn Klopfer (Feb. 28th) that Judith Skousen’s letter “America is on the skids” (Feb. 19th) says it all.

Specifically, it says that America deserves to be attacked by terrorists because some of her people don’t live exactly the way Skousen thinks they should. Notice that this is the same rationalization that our terrorist attackers use. Apparently, Skousen and Klopfer think that the terrorists are morally superior to the United States of America, and are doing God’s work in humbling the “Great Satan.” And their statements that America should not be blessed imply that they hope to see our great nation fail in her efforts to defend herself.

So yes, I agree that that says it all. It is an open admission by consistent Christians that America, as a nation dedicated to the ideals of personal freedom, is a profoundly unchristian one. And in the battle between that nation and the murderous fanatics who want to destroy her, now we know which side those Christians are on.

UPDATE 3.4: My letter was printed in today’s Deseret News Readers’ Forum.

The Objectivist Club will be hosting Dr. Lewis’ lecture after all. Not only can our enemies not stop us, but they are going to have to try a lot harder just to set us back or even slow us down.

The lecture will take place on March 10th, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. The club schedule will be updated and I will make another post officially announcing the event within the next few days, so check back soon.

The Deseret News recently carried an item titled “Citizenship 101“—a quiz about some things that a person should know about American history, institutions, and values in order to become a citizen. The final question was: “What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens?” The answer given was: “the right to vote.”

The source of this quiz was: the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

To me, that answer was a stunning demonstration of just how out of touch with American history, institutions, and values that Department is.

Any two-bit dictatorship can allow its citizens the right to vote, so long as it controls the outcome by suppressing serious opposition candidates and controlling public opinion through censorship of the media. We’ve seen this in the past in Iraq, Soviet Russia, Mexico, and many, many other countries; and it continues today in still others (including Putin’s Russia). If the right to vote were the fundamental right, then why haven’t any of those other nations managed to achieve the levels of liberty and prosperity that the United States has?

In fact, the real fundamental, most important right is an individual’s right to life—along with its corollaries, the rights to liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and property. Any other rights that we enjoy, such as the right to vote and freedom of speech, are properly only derivative consequences of those foundational rights, and are clearly meaningless without that base. It is of crucial importance that Americans remember this—because once we buy into the idea that the right to vote is our most important right, we will soon have none at all.

UPDATE 2.21: See Cox and Forkum’s latest cartoon and blog entry for yet another example of this principle: Iran’s recent election farce.

The Utah symphony will be performing Rachmoninoff’s second concerto this weekend, Friday evening at 8:00, and Saturday afternoon at 2:00. This is one of the greatest pieces of music ever written, and this promises to be an excellent performance of it. I read an interview with the pianist, and he seems to really understand Rachmoninoff.

So if you can attend, get your tickets now! You don’t want to miss this.

As I mentioned might be the case in the previous post, it is no longer possible to obtain funding in time for the guest lecture I had hoped to host next month. Therefore, it has been cancelled. I sincerely apologize. However, next year as a returning club we will be able to obtain funding up front for these kinds of things, and won’t have to go through the ASUU’s legislative process that we have had to this year as a new club. So we should be able to bypass these kinds of snags.

So again, I’m sorry that this semester’s lecture has been cancelled, but we can look forward to some of that type of event next school year.

Stephanie Stoddard and Hilary Drew are no longer the club vice-president and secretary/treasurer, respectively. Stephanie no longer has the time nor the interest to serve in that capacity, and Hilary is unfit to do so.

I will need two new club officers from among the student body at the U to re-apply for University recognition of the club for next school year. So anyone who is interested in filling those positions (at least nominally—they don’t necessarily entail much work on your part), please let me know.

For those of you who are curious as to why Hilary is no longer part of the club, the main reason is that she decided not to apply for funding for the guest speaker we were hoping to host next month after promising to do so, apparently just as a way to spite me because of a personal grudge she holds. Because of the dishonest way in which she handled the situation, it may now be too late to obtain the funding in time, and I may have to cancel the lecture. So be sure to thank Hilary the next time you see her.

Apparently our government thinks so. Actually, that could apply in a lot of different ways to this story, on so many levels, as wrongs are piled on top of more wrongs.

(It could also apply to the whole anti-immigration movement that’s so popular these days.)

It seems like at least once every semester, U of U philosophy professor Deen Chatterjee writes an article for The Daily Utah Chronicle about the possibility of the existence of a god. In his article this week, he basically argued that while a supernatural being could not possibly exist (about which I agree with him), it can still be reasonable to believe in one. In response to this skeptical/subjectivist position, the Chronicle always prints several letters to the editor that week representing the mystic position, such as this one by Adam Coon, printed the following day. So I responded with the following letter, which they printed on Friday (here), in order to offer an alternative, objectivist position. (For more examples of the fallacious positions on this issue, check out the opinion sections in this week’s Chronicle archives.)

The version of my letter that they printed was somewhat edited, including the omission of the phrase “Objectivist Club president” from my identification at the end of the letter. Half the reason I submit letters like that to the Chronicle is to advertise the existence of the club (and they have included that on previous letters of mine that they’ve published). Otherwise, I would probably pick other battles than a limited, reactive forum for debating the grounds for religious belief on a college campus.

Still, I think it is important to offer a rational alternative on the issue of god just so that people will be aware that there is an other position to take besides the mystic or the skeptical/subjectivist ones. And on a college campus it is more likely that some people may read it that haven’t already made up their minds on the issue. So having the letter published at all is certainly better than nothing.

But if you would like to read the unedited version of my letter as I submitted it, I am including it here below.

Since both major Salt Lake City newspapers have thrown in their support for so-called “hate crimes” legislation within the past couple of weeks (here and here), as well as our University’s newspaper (here), I thought I should post a rational perspective on the topic.

First, from Rob Tracinski’s most recent article on the subject (from Nov. 2003):

And from a recent letter to the editor by a Mr. Rodger Pitts of Orem:

I think that about sums it up, but read the full articles for more complete arguments.

This really has nothing to do with Objectivism or the club, but I’m so excited to be going to the Victor Wooten concert tomorrow night at the Suede in Park City, that I just had to post about it. If you want to see a highly skilled musician play some great music, come check it out, and maybe I’ll see you there! Tickets will still be available at the door.

UPDATE 2.3: Wow. Just…wow.

The first study group session for The Virtue of Selfishness was held last Tuesday, and the next session will be February 10th, a week from this Tuesday. I just want to extend an open invitation to everyone to join us even if you missed the first week. Our main discussion each session will be focused on the chapters indicated on the schedule, but if you have questions or things you’d like to talk about on previous chapters for which you missed the session, of course we’ll be happy to talk about those as well—especially next time, if anyone joins us and would still like to discuss chapter 1.

The book can either be ordered through our bookstore or probably purchased at any major bookstore.

Earlier this week, the Deseret News published an editorial on economic freedom entitled “What leads to prosperity?” Overall, it was not a bad editorial. But while it is easy to support freedom as an abstract principle, it is difficult to consistently and properly apply it to real life, and the News has not always done so in its positions on various particular issues.

Continue reading for my response to the editorial.

We had a smaller turn-out than usual at this week’s meeting, but Peter Schwartz’s lecture was a good introduction to the Objectivist ethics, and those in attendance had a good time.

For those of you who would like to look more deeply into the Objectivist ethics this semester, remember that we will begin study group sessions this Tuesday to discuss Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness. See the schedule for more details.

I have added several new items to the club lending library. First, I have created a new section of fiction books by Objectivist authors other than Ayn Rand. Included are Andrew Bernstein’s Heart of a Pagan and the first two books of Edward Cline’s Sparrowhawk series. I thoroughly enjoyed all these books, and highly recommend them.

Also, the Ayn Rand Institute has kindly loaned the club two books for club members to use to study Objectivism and research particular topics within it: Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, and The Ayn Rand Lexicon (edited by Harry Binswanger). Both of these books are great resources, and I encourage you to take advantage of them.

Also added: Letters of Ayn Rand, and Thomas Bowden’s The Enemies of Christopher Columbus (about which we watched a lecture by the author for its release last Columbus Day, which is also available in our library).

The new semester schedule is now available.

Please note that the first club meeting for this semester will now be held on Thursday, January 22nd, at 7:00 p.m. We will be watching a video-taped lecture on “The Virtue of Selfishness: Ayn Rand’s Radical Code of Morality,” by Peter Schwartz:

“Ayn Rand originated a revolutionary theory of ethics, one in which human life is the standard of value and the practice of rational self-interest is the supreme virtue. In this talk, Mr. Schwartz offers an introductory overview of the Objectivist ethics.

“He discusses how Ayn Rand validates her theory and how she answers the fundamental question of what in reality gives rise to the phenomenon of values. He contrasts the ethics of self-interest with its opposite: the ethics of altruism. He also demonstrates why, under a rational code, the moral is the practical. Finally, he explains the link between self-sacrifice and dictatorship, showing why individual rights and freedom can be values only if selfishness is a virtue.”

Please join us next Thursday to watch and discuss this lecture.

UPDATE 1.17: The first meeting next Thursday will be held in Orson Spencer Hall room #174. (OSH is the building just south of the Union building where meetings were held last semester.) Subsequent meetings (specifically the VoS study group sessions) will be held in OSH 230 unless otherwise noted.

I have finally completed some designs for club merchandise, which are currently available on some t-shirts, sweatshirts, etc. Take a look, and if you like what you see, support the club by ordering something! (The club gets a few dollars for each item sold.) Also, if you have any suggestions for improving these designs, or for new ones, please let me know. I would like to add a new t-shirt design every semester.

There are currently two designs, each on a few different items. The first is a “Who is John Galt?” design:
(front)

(back)

The second is a “got money?” design, using the font made famous by the “got milk?” ads:
(front)

(back)

If you would like one of the designs on a different item than it is currently on, let me know and we can probably arrange something.

Visit the club store today!

The weekend before last, I wrote a couple of letters to the editor to the Deseret Morning News in response to a couple of other letters they published on New Year’s Day. My letters weren’t printed this time, but I thought I’d put them here for anyone interested to read. My letters are below (along with links to the letters to which I was responding).

I highly recommend writing letters to the editor. It is one of the best forms of activism open to most students, and if you’re a decent writer, you have a good chance of getting them printed (my own record is pretty good in that regard). And if they are printed, your audience may be wider and more sympathetic than you might think. But even if they aren’t, most newspapers keep track of their readership’s views on current issues, regardless of whether they print their letters—so if enough people speak out, it may influence a paper’s policy. There are a lot of other reasons to write letters (to practice your own writing skills, for instance), and more advice on writing them can be found here.

Now, on to my recent letters.

If you’re reading this, then you already know that the website is back up (after having been down for a little over a week—we were apparently the victim of a hacker). What you may not know, if you are not on the club email list, is that the first meeting for The Virtue of Selfishness study group a couple of days ago was cancelled. But I will be updating the schedule later today, and will post a new entry when the new schedule is ready.

Also coming later today is an announcement about club merchandise. So if you read this before then, check back later for some important updates!

As the New Year approaches, I would recommend to everybody setting and taking seriously a few New Year’s resolutions. Goal setting is an important step toward living a rational life with a long-term focus. Remember to set goals that are Specific, Measurable, Action-oriented, Realistic, and Timely. This is known as the S.M.A.R.T. formula for setting goals (I got it from Luke Setzer at the UCF Objectivist Club.)

These goals may be more particular, short-term steps toward fulfilling broader long-term goals. For instance, if you have a life-long goal to continue learning more about Objectivism, you might resolve to read certain books by Ayn Rand this year, or to regularly attend your local Objectivist Club meetings (nudge, wink). One of my resolutions this year will be to find and read as much good fiction as I can, including reading at least three novels outside of school next semester (rather than letting my personal reading lag while I’m in school), and to consciously identify what I like about good novels I read, as part of my continuing preparations to write novels myself.

Feel free to comment on this entry and share your own New Year’s resolutions, and keep us updated on your progress throughout the coming year.

Have a happy New Year!

I hope everyone has had a nice holiday break so far. Merry X-mas and happy New Year!

Read Leonard Peikoff’s op-ed on why Christmas should be more commercial. (And don’t forget to check out ARI’s MediaLink page for more great op-eds on current issues, such as Harry Binswanger’s latest on why it is immoral to ban human cloning.)

A tentative schedule for next semester is now available. We will be studying the Objectivist ethics, by reading Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness and discussing it in bi-monthly (usually every other week) study groups. That is tentatively scheduled to take place on Tuesdays, as a few club members have expressed to me that that will be the best day of the week for them to meet next semester. However, please let me know if you would like to attend, but a different day would work better for you. I can still change the schedule (the rooms haven’t even been reserved yet) if some other day works better for more people than Tuesday does.

If you do not have a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness and would like to participate in the study group, you will need to purchase one. Please consider doing so through our Amazon.com Associates bookstore. You will pay regular Amazon.com prices, and a portion of the profits will go to help fund the Objectivist Club. If several people do this for the study group, it can really add up. (I may make use of some other, supplementary material for group discussions—other works by Ayn Rand, Tara Smith’s Viable Values, and/or Harry Binswanger’s The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts—but it will not be necessary for those participating to purchase copies of those.)

We will also try to continue holding other monthly meetings, such as a couple of videotaped lectures, and hopefully a guest speaker on campus sometime in February.

If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know.

Several new items have been added to the club lending library, including two new audio lectures. Each is on a prominent 19th-century figure who helped shape the world that we live in today, one for the better, the other for the worse—Cornelius Vanderbilt and Friedrich Nietzsche. The latter lecture, “Nietzche and the Nihilism of Our Times” by Dr. John Ridpath, is highly recommended for philosophy students. The former is for anyone who likes to be inspired.

I’ve also added a section of books by non-Objectivist writers that might be of interest to an Objectivist reader. To start that off, I’m loaning a couple of Aristotle books (Poetics and an Introduction) as well as some great plays (Cyrano de Bergerac and a collection by Ibsen). And I’ve made a copy of Atlas Shrugged available through the club library, since the Marriott library seems to have lost both of their copies.

Check out the library today, and if you are a club member and would like to borrow something, or if you have a question about any of the materials we have available, let me know.

Update 12.20: I have just added Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People to the section of books by non-Objectivists.

Thanks to David’s hard work, the club website has been relocated to a new server. That should take care of the recent problems. The website looks to be fully restored and fully functional, but if you encounter any bugs, please let me know.

My objectivismonline.net email address is working again as well, but if you sent me anything during the past week or so I probably didn’t get it, so please re-send me your message. I also lost the club email list that was in the address book in that email account, but I have managed to put it back together from hard copies. However, I may have missed an address or two, so if you see this message here but did not receive a notification that the website was back up via email, please let me know and I will put you back on the list.

A while back I noted that our campus was holding Islam Awareness Week, which included a panel discussion about “Revealing the Truth about Women in Islam.” The idea is that Islamic women are not oppressed by their religion, but rather empowered by it. Personally, I find this attempt by the left to reconcile two of their great dogmas, feminism and multiculturalism, absolutely hysterical—because they so obviously can’t be reconciled.

Anyway, today on MSNBC there is a story about the hardships Iraqi women are currently facing. Apparently, if they dare venture outside in tight pants, without a head covering, or without a male family member, many Muslim men feel justified in kidnapping and raping them. To make matters worse, the woman’s family typically seems to agree, putting her to death for bringing shame to their family (as if she were the criminal, and not the victim).

I hope that you all have a wonderful holiday. And remember that you should be thankful to the producers who’ve made all of the modern conveniences of your life possible, from the Thanksgiving feast you eat to the network of computers that allow you to read this information—not to God. And you certainly shouldn’t feel guilty for having these things to enjoy, as some leftists claim.

Check out this new op-ed on the meaning of Thanksgiving for a rational basis for the holiday.

I have found myself in the unenviable position of defending U of U philosophy professor Deen Chatterjee. In response to letters to the editor published in the Chronicle over the past week attacking one of Chatterjee’s articles, I have written a defense of it. I never thought I’d see the day, but for once Chatterjee’s article was essentially correct.

I submitted my letter Monday night, and since the Chronicle didn’t print it today I doubt that they will. I will post an update if they do next week, but for now you can read it below.

(For background on this particular issue, including Chatterjee’s original article and the letter to which I am responding—the 11.24 update—click here. For background on my feud with Chatterjee, click here.)

UPDATE 12.01: Well, they didn’t print mine, but they did print another excellent letter by someone else. My congratulations to the author, Zac Terry. The ending of his letter could have been better, but the first two-thirds brilliantly identify the essential flaw in one of Oakes’ arguments, and he draws an insightful comparison between collectivist/statist politics (the real cause of Nazi/Communist horrors) and Christianity, showing that the so-called political “right” and “left” are not really opposite but fundamentally similar—and both wrong (the implication being that the way the political spectrum is currently understood by most people is a false alternative). Bravo!

I have added several new links to the right-side menu, mostly to University of Utah related websites. One of these is also related to Objectivism: a search for Ayn Rand materials available at the Marriott Library. Apparently a lot of people on campus are reading Ayn Rand, because many of the materials were checked out when I initially made the link, including: We the Living, Anthem, two copies of The Fountainhead, Night of January 16th, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The New Left and Return of the Primitive, The Art of Fiction, The Ayn Rand Column, The Ayn Rand Reader, and The Ayn Rand Lexicon. So that’s an encouraging sign. (Both of the library’s copies of Atlas Shrugged are listed as “lost,” so I’m not quite sure what to make of that.) You may also read Anthem in its entirety online via the library’s website.

They also have many interesting items in the Multimedia Center, such as audio recordings of several of Ayn Rand’s Ford Hall Forum speeches (including one that was recorded from a broadcast on a Salt Lake radio station, “A Nation’s Unity”).

Other new links include some science-related pages, one from an explicitly Objectivist perspective (Objective Science), and another that isn’t but does good work on uncovering the lack of real scientific evidence supporting the environmental movement (SEPP). I also added a new art link, to Michael Newberry’s online gallery. The link goes to one of my favorite works of his (check it out, see if it doesn’t blow you away even in scanned .jpg form), but you can browse the rest of his site from there.

The naked deity “allegedly tried to bite off a police officer’s finger.”

(I think he really must be Jesus to spend any amount of time outside in yesterday’s freezing weather naked—and that would also explain why the police officer’s Tazer had little effect.)

And not only were the Pleasant Grove police after him, so was the Mexican mafia.

I’m just glad that this menace is finally off the streets.

Join us on Friday, December 12th, for a viewing of the World War II-era Italian film version of Ayn Rand’s We the Living. This film adaptation of Rand’s pro-individualist, anti-statist novel features an excellent cast and is very faithful to the source material. This event will take place in room 312 of the Olpin Union building and will begin at 2:00 p.m. (The film is three hours long, and we have the room reserved for another hour afterward in case anyone wants to discuss the film or just chat.)

An article in today’s Chronicle provides one of the best concrete examples I have ever seen of how mixed philosophical premises can lead to disastrous results in one’s practical judgments. In the context of a discussion on the legalization of marijuana, Sheriff Richard Mack makes the following astute observation:

But he also says:

Incidentally, Mack (who is also incidentally a devout Mormon) seems to be a Libertarian.

Last night’s meeting went well. Those present found Dr. Andrew Bernstein to be an intelligent, lively, and engaging speaker. His lecture, “The Mind As Hero in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged,” was entertaining and incredibly informative, integrating a wide range of philosophical topics from every branch of philosophy (but especially epistemology and ethics) into an examination of the role of the mind in Ayn Rand’s philosophy and the meaning of heroism. Thanks to those of you who came and helped make this event a success!

I hope that these will be my last entries for a while dealing with religion, since it might be starting to seem like I’m hung up on it. (I’m not, it’s just that most of the interesting things going on around here are always somehow tied up with it.)

Anyway, although I don’t see eye-to-eye with U of U philosophy professor Deen Chatterjee, his column this week was actually decent. I have some stylistic problems with it, and I think that there are a few more fundamental issues he failed to deal with, but overall the content is pretty good. Check it out.

Also, it has apparently been Islam Awareness Week at the U. I just wish that I had known about yesterday’s panel discussion on “Revealing the Truth about Women in Islam.” David came up with some great questions to ask them during the question and answer period at a similar event at his university. It sounds like it could have been an entertaining way to spend an afternoon.

UPDATE 11.21: Chatterjee’s article has already generated a couple of responses on the Chronicle’s editorial page—here (no comment is needed on this one) and here (there are good things about this letter, but it’s not great). I’m sure there will be more to come next week. If any of them are interesting, I’ll post them here.

UPDATE 11.24: [sarcasm]It just keeps getting better.[/sarcasm]

Here’s a bit of a weightier issue than hair stylists in bikinis. Envirocare has withdrawn its federal application to bring more highly-concentrated radioactive waste to Utah (from the Salt Lake Tribune).

It’s interesting that they withdrew their application one day after the Alliance for Unity, which includes several LDS general authorities, registered their official opposition. I guess they realized, after witnessing what happened to the Boyer Co. in the Nordstrom fiasco, that once church leaders speak out on an issue it is impossible to budge this state’s lawmakers any other way.

But religion aside, the government should have no say in this matter. Envirocare should be able to store whatever they want on their own private property, until it can be proven that it is harming or otherwise infringing upon the rights of others—and the actual scientific evidence indicates otherwise.

Deseret News columnist Lee Benson also had an article on this issue today. I usually disagree with Benson on everything, but this was right on.

Of course, we should be used to the environmentalists’ scare-mongering tactics by now. What’s more disturbing is that so many people today unquestioningly buy into it—and the say-so of their religious leaders, whom they dogmatically follow anyway, certainly doesn’t help.

UPDATE 11.22: To the best of my knowledge, the Alliance for Unity is the most dangerous political group that has ever existed in the state of Utah. Even their name is rather ominous, when you think about it.

Yet another example that there is not a strict separation between church and state in Utah, and why there should be: Resolution in Sandy targets hair salon.

If men get their hair cut by women in bikinis, they’ll become pornography-addicted sex-offenders!

Never a dull moment in this state. (And for God’s sake, don’t get me started on zoning regulations!)

A few items have been added to the club library. Check it out, and let me know if there’s anything you want.

“If devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” —Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

“Traditionally, the great heroes admired by mankind, in both literature and life, have been men of distinctively physical prowess. But it is the men of the mind—the scientists, the thinkers, the producers—who are the greatest achievers. They are the life-giving creators whose work makes possible human success, prosperity, happiness.

“In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand presented a new, fully contemporary, rational hero. John Galt represents the best of modern civilization—with its science, its medical research, its technological progress, its intellectual achievements.”

Join us for the third meeting of the Objectivist Club at the University of Utah on Thursday, November 20th at 7:30 p.m. in room 312 of the Olpin Union building. We will watch and discuss a taped lecture by Dr. Andrew Bernstein, “The Mind As Hero in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged” (from the Harvard Lecture Series). In this insightful and entertaining lecture, Dr. Bernstein “discusses how, through the events of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand dramatized the thinker as hero.” He offers insight into the essence of heroism and discusses the role of the mind in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Don’t miss this great lecture!

You may have noticed a new section of links on the right side of the page lately. The first is the club’s Amazon.com Associates bookstore, through which you can buy Ayn Rand’s and other books and items; the second (coming soon) is a club merchandise store that will feature t-shirts and other items. Through either of these links, you can buy cool stuff for yourself and support the Objectivist Club at the same time! A portion of the profits from every purchase made through these links goes to the club. So if you want to buy one of Ayn Rand’s books, do it through our bookstore—there’s no extra cost to you, and we will get some money to help offer you more services.

Also check out the new link to CapitalistChicks.com. Those chicks run a great website, and also have some cool merchandise available for you to buy.

Oh, and I’ve gotten a bit of an upgrade in the past week too…a shave and a haircut. Try not to be too shocked when you see me. :)

In response to professor Deen Chatterjee’s recent attacks on Columbus, I wrote the following essay, which I am submitting to the Chronicle as a rebuttal. I doubt they will publish it, firstly due to the length (although it is shorter than Chatterjee’s article), and secondly due to the strong moral statements contained in it (although Chatterjee’s article also contained strong moral statements, but from a leftist agenda), including my condemnation of Chatterjee as a racist.

But you can read it here!

Thanks to everyone who came to the second meeting on Thursday. For those of you who missed it, we watched (in response to recent attacks on Columbus Day locally) a lecture on “The Enemies of Christopher Columbus” by Thomas Bowden, author of a new book by the same name, and discussed related issues. It was a fun and interesting event. I hope to see more of you at the next meeting, the announcement of which is forthcoming.

I’ve had a few people on the club email list tell me that although they’d like to attend club activities, Thursdays are not the best days for them. I would like to schedule events so that as many people as possible are able to participate, so if some other day would work better than Thursdays, I’d like to know so I can schedule future events accordingly. But I need to know more than just that Thursdays aren’t good for you—I need to know what days are good for you. So, if you’d like to see club activities scheduled on other days, please let me know. (Or, if Thursdays are good for you and you do want things scheduled on them, let me know that, too.)

The second meeting of the Objectivist Club at the University of Utah will be held on October 23rd at 7:30 p.m. in room 312 of the Olpin Union building. We will either listen to an audiotape lecture on “Rational Egoism in The Fountainhead” by Dr. Andrew Bernstein, or (since it is close to Columbus Day) watch a lecture by Thomas Bowden on “The Enemies of Christopher Columbus,” depending on the preference of those in attendance.

Continue reading for a further description of each of those lectures.

As you’ve noticed, some more stuff has been added to the website. The “about” page now contains info about the club, including a semester schedule, and I will soon have a lending library page up. There’s still work to do, but we’re getting there, thanks mostly to David Veksler from the Texas A&M club who has donated the server space, the basic site design, and much help debugging. He also runs ObjectivismOnline.net, including the forums. Give David a shout and let him know how awesome he is.

First of all, thanks to those of you who attended the club activity to see Cyrano de Bergerac at PTC on Thursday. I hope you enjoyed seeing an artistic presentation of Man the Hero as much as I did.

This has got me thinking about heroism. What is it about Cyrano that makes him such a heroic character? The popular view is to chalk it up to “selflessness,” as in the introduction to the Signet Classic edition in which Eteel Lawson describes Cyrano as “the selfless, passionate…hero” (p. x) and states: “The final act of the play is a testament to how far Cyrano will rise in the ranks of self-sacrifice and courage” and “[Cyrano] would rather die than break his word to [Roxane]—another act of self-sacrifice” (p. xv). But is it Cyrano’s selflessness that makes him heroic? Is he, in fact, essentially selfless? Are the acts described above actually acts of self-sacrifice?

No. The adjectives “selfless” and “passionate” are mutually contradictory, as are the alleged virtue of self-sacrifice and the actual virtue of courage. A deeper examination of Cyrano’s character will help explain this.

As part of an assignment for the logic class I took through the OAC over the summer, we were given passages and asked to identify the logical fallacies they contained. One such passage was taken from The Communist Manifesto. Though only two sentences, the passage contained several logical fallacies. This came up in discussion with a couple of club members, who were interested in seeing the passage and my brief logical analysis of it—so I thought I’d post that bit of the assignment here (in my analysis, the fallacies are in bold):

This is coming a few weeks late, but for those of you who missed my article in the Chronicle on September 23rd, it can be found here. It was written in response to this article, about what the author calls “the battle between altruism and egoism.”

Of course, they did edit my article a bit. While they mostly just made minor changes to make the language a bit more politically correct, and although I do rather like the title they gave my letter, they hacked off most of my closing paragraph and replaced it with an incredibly bland sentence of their own. This is probably in part because I was using the letter to advertise for the club’s upcoming first meeting later that week. However, given what they replaced it with (“I am among those who would disagree”), I think it was also because they didn’t want to print a strong moral condemnation of altruism.

Read the original version of the letter and draw your own conclusion:

After the first club meeting, it came to my attention that a few people were put off by some of my comments regarding foreign policy.

Someone on the club email list sent me an email on Thursday, suggesting that we see Cloud Nine at the Babcock theatre instead of Cyrano. Unfortunately, we don’t have time to arrange a club viewing of this at least for this week (I would have posted this sooner, but the server was down all weekend until last night), and we’ve already arranged to go to Cyrano for our activity this month.

However, I see no reason why people can’t see more than one play this week, so if you’re free, tonight is “free preview night.” While I can’t vouch for the quality of this particular show, I am told that it has some wonderful performances and interesting subject matter, and Babcock usually does put out good productions (Oedipus at Colonus a few weeks ago was quite good). You can read a synopsis of the play, as well as more dates and ticket information, at Babcock’s website.

As announced in the email I sent out to the club list today, we are considering arranging a night to go see Cyrano de Bergerac at PTC as a club activity. Please leave your comments here (by clicking on “Comments” below) letting me know if you’re interested and what night would work best for you. I will edit this post later and list the specific dates that are possible.

EDIT: Continue reading (click below) for important new information…

Thanks again to everyone who came to the first meeting on Thursday. I apologize that it did not go quite as planned due to the problems with the “Introduction to Objectivism” tape, but I hope that my impromptu version of the lecture gave you an idea of the structure of the philosophy. I think we had a productive discussion, and, all things considered, I think the meeting was a success.

The next meeting is scheduled for October 23rd. More details are forthcoming.

In case anyone doesn’t already know, Pioneer Theatre Company is currently putting on Cyrano de Bergerac by Edmond Rostand. This is one of the greatest plays ever written, and, if I recall correctly, one of Ayn Rand’s favorites. These kinds of statements are a good indication of why:

“…I scorn to be like parasitic ivy, even though I’m not an oak. I may not rise very high, but I’ll climb alone!”

“Yes, I go too far…But for the sake of principle, and to set an example, too, I feel that it’s good to go too far in that direction.”

I haven’t seen PTC’s production of the play yet, but the initial reviews are very good. I will post a brief review, and probably a recommendation, of it here once I have (probably within the next week).

As you can see, this is the web site for the Objectivist Club at the University of Utah. And, as you can also see, it is far from being completed. However, I’ve decided that I may as well start making use of it, and posting some content. Eventually, the site will be much more structured and informative—the links to the left will point to pages containing the club schedule, lending library, etc. But until then, club events and other announcements will be posted here on the main page.

P.S. If any of you club members have experience designing web pages, and would be willing to contribute some of your time to helping me out with this site, I would really appreciate it. Just contact me, and we can arrange to meet and discuss it. I can use all the help I can get. ;)