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!