I don't know him at all, but Mark Paredes is a dick

I have these conversations with conservative people sometimes on facebook. It amazes me how many people get lost in the throes of wrapping themselves in doctrine and loose sight of simple definitions of things.

I didn't want to push too far past my welcome by continuing the thread. The thing I like best about interjecting with a dissident opinion is that is flushes the dick-headed quail out of hiding. Hopefully, if nothing else the friends of Mark Paredes will see how even "smart" people can be shitheads, and maybe that will make his stock go down a little. We hope.

Evamarie Jill Newell Blizzard = Chelsea, Marta, Movies, Atlas Shrugged, Taxes, Cheesetique, Valentine cookies.

February 6 at 7:14am · Comment ·

Derek Tompkinson

what a coincidence I'm reading Atlas Shrugged and doing taxes as well. Yeah blizzard!

February 6 at 9:03am

Evamarie Jill Newell

I'll send over my taxes next--via pigeon or maybe owl). Oh, I feel an Atlas Shrugged conversation ensuring!

February 6 at 2:48pm

Phillip Bunker

I'd love to hear that conversation. Dying to know what cheesetique is...

February 6 at 4:41pm ·

Mark Paredes

William F. Buckley (a true conservative) on Ayn Rand's passing: "Ayn Rand is dead. So, incidentally, is the philosophy she sought to launch dead; it was in fact stillborn." I miss him!

February 6 at 9:24pm

Evamarie Jill Newell

PK: More of a list of happenings than a sole conversation. YOU would love Cheesetique--yum. www.cheesetique.com

Mark: Disagree...but let me get more than 100 pages in. Until then, I defer to my roomie.

February 7 at 8:48am

Chelsea Combs

So glad I inspired you to read Atlas, Jill!

As for Rand's philosophy being dead, the fact that sales of her book have soared in the past year leads me to believe that her philosophy is alive and well. Sorry, Mr. Buckley. Reality, as Rand was so fond of acknowledging, is reality. Killing Galielo still doesn't make the sun circle the earth.

February 7 at 8:53am

Phillip Bunker

But I always got the impression that objectivism was like Marxism - good in theory, but in practice lasseiz-faire capitalism is run by the greedy and immoral. That's why I've avoided reading her.

February 7 at 11:21am ·

Mark Paredes

I think you can find better uses for your time than perusing the work of a narcissistic, adulterous atheist. Great moral thinkers like C. S. Lewis are cited in General Conference addresses and modern prophetic writings; selfish misanthropes are not. While Mr. Buckley did not kill Ms. Rand à la Galileo, he emphatically declared that her principles were utterly incompatible with true Conservatism (they are also antithetical to gospel teachings). In that regard they were (and are) stillborn as to their merit. If we judge an author's thinking based on the number of books she sells, then we must acknowledge J. K. Rowling and Dan Brown as the greatest minds of our age. I have faith that your powers of discernment won't fail you, Jill. Cuídate mucho.

February 7 at 1:46pm

Derek Tompkinson

Reading Rand doesn't make one an Objectivest (or an atheist for that matter) like reading Marx doesn't make one a communist or reading C.S. Lewis make one a Christian. As far as Bill Buckley is concerned, I have little doubt he is correct in regards to Rand's moral philosophy. That being said, only the intellectually lazy would make an ipso facto argument that everything Rand is therefore invalid. Atlas may have received a bad review from Whitaker Chambers in the pages of National Review but then again there's a good chance Chambers was off base.

Rand's got progressivism pegged - their professed ends have the illusion of being noble but their means aren't just immoral but insidiously evil (like up-ending 200 years of law by ignoring Chrysler bond holder's legitimate legal claims in favor of the looters, with zero legal standing, who most contributed to Chrysler's insolvency in the first place). The real nobility is possessed by the producers who create wealth, making life better for all, including those who would destroy the producers. As long as current events continue approximating a Rand plot-line, she'll remain relevant.

And since I can't help myself, two final points: First, I always considered Rand to be a Libertarian as opposed to a "true Conservative". Second, about once a year the staff and contributers to National Review Online have a Rand argument/symposium and it usually breaks down 50/50 in terms of who views Rand favorably vs. unfavorably. While I can sympathize with both sides, I think maybe Bill was being a bit hyperbolic with that whole still born thing.

February 7 at 3:44pm

Mark Paredes

Great answer, Derek. Speaking of Rand-like plot lines, her most famous acolyte is Alan Greenspan, the former Fed chairman whose application of Objectivist principles to the management of our economy led to the recent financial crash, bailouts, etc. [It's easy to see how he could make the intellectual leap from logical positivism to Objectivism]. At least he was honest enough to admit his failings in a congressional hearing last year. I think we'll see pigs fly before we see the reins of our economy given to another Objectivist economist.

In LDS theology, the greatest Objectivist statement ever uttered was made by Lucifer when he urged that his plan of salvation be adopted. He was ready to maximize his self-interest while limiting the eternal progression of untold billions of souls. Too many people focus on the totalitarian/communist nature of the society that Satan envisioned while giving his Objectivist approach to salvation a pass.

For the record, I do not believe that reading Rand makes one an Objectivist, nor do I believe that Ayn was wrong about everything (just like Mussolini's trains ran on time). I definitely agree that her views were much more Libertarian than Conservative.

As usual, the late, great Bill was right.

February 7 at 4:23pm

Evamarie Jill Newell

Goodness, I've got to get further along in this book so that I can argue a point.

February 7 at 8:35pm

Jeff Dickson

You're all too smart for your own good.

February 7 at 10:19pm

Phillip Bunker

You don't have to read to argue Jill. There's all kinds of things to pick apart. The majority of people who make broad generalizations are either getting their opinion from someone else or literally repeating what they've heard before, though these fellows reason well. So perhaps they've read, analyzed and memorized the key ideas contained in what I deem to be some books once popular with elite classes and now trickling it's way through the rest of us.

For my part, I don't think creating wealth is all that super, unless you're feeding the hungry, which of course most of it doesn't (plus the grain is always produced by the lowest bidder).

Book sales may be some indicator, but remember how skewed this could be by 1. translations being published, 2. death of the author, prompting re-release and maybe intellectual property changes, 3. university Philosophy classes and the occasional book burning.

Calling Satan totalitarian and communist and a Libertarian/Objectivist in the same paragraph may keep my eyes rolling for a lunar cycle however. I'm sure that's not quite what you meant. Very Buckley of you to say so I think.

Cognitive dissonance shrugs (or is there no room for philosophy in religion?)

February 8 at 12:01am ·

Mark Paredes

Actually, Phillip, it does pay to read before putting finger to keyboard. In this case, it would be useful to read history books as well as Rand's turgid prose. I stand by my statement about Lucifer. Your eyes can roll all they want, but history is full of examples of tyrants who use coercive methods in order to maximize their self-interest at the expense of millions of others (i.e., use totalitarian/communist means in pursuit of an Objectivist goal). BTW, Objectivists don't deny this: why do you?

You might try reading Buckley (as I have for over 30 years) before commenting on him. Libertarianism is not synonymous with Objectivism (as in your Libertarian/Objectivist formulation), and Bill would never have referred to Ms. Rand as a true Libertarian.

I don't know to what "generalizations" you are referring; all of my criticisms of Rand are specific and pointed.

Having read virtually all of Rand's oeuvres and attended symposia on her life and works at the nearby Ayn Rand Institute, I think that Jill is doing the right thing by gathering all of the info she can on this deeply disturbed woman and then reaching her own conclusions. May her (Jill's) tribe increase.

February 8 at 5:58am

Courtney Sudweeks

I agree with Jeff. Too many big words, people.

February 8 at 8:40am

Evamarie Jill Newell

I will say this to end the thread; I get the final say since it's my thread.

I am reading Rand because I agree with many of the principles I've heard discussed and what I've perused. Why not read the fiction that communicates her philosophy?

I could touch on so much of what's been said, but it's time for put this thread to bed. If any of you want to continue the discussion, meet me at Rustico in Alexandria for lunch someday. :)

February 8 at 9:24pm

Kimberlee Hiatt

Man. If only I'd started reading Buckley when I was two, I'd have something insightful to say in response here. (Sorry Jill. You can write again if you REALLY want the last word. How is DC??)

February 8 at 9:54pm

Jeff Richardson

I need some skin in this game!

Chelsea, how dare you take the credit for inspiring Jill to read Atlas Shrugged! It was I who opened the book and read it to her (well, I played her clips from the abridged audio book :). Just because you partially inspired me to read it, doesn't mean that you can take all the glory!

[end sarcastic humor]

Is Rand good or evil? Was the Rand Corporation started by John Galt, Francisco d'Anconia, and Ragnar Danneskjöld? Are Crunch Berries better than Cinamon Toast Crunch?

Who is John Galt?

:)

Oh, and this op-ed that ran in the WSJ is awesome:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html

February 9 at 6:24pm

Chelsea Combs

Jeff, I officially take credit for being the original source of inspiration for anyone you inspire to read Atlas. Or how 'bout anyone you inspire. Period.

Oh, and the answer is Crunch Berries.

Come for CPAC!!!!

February 9 at 7:10pm

Evamarie Jill Newell

1. This post has been adjourned.
2. Chels, Jeff did reference you when we were discussing it.
3. Jeff, obey Chelsea's command.
4. I concur, Crunch Berries (but Oh's are the best of all)
5. Kimberlee, DC is grand.
6. Last WORD.

Final word from PK:

I have no respect for Mark as an intellectual, which leads me to believe I have no respect for LDS scholars or other people who read and read and read but only think along the lines they were born into ("none but ourselves can free our minds" B.Marley said).

Mark doesn't understand my points:

Communism isn't Totalitariansim, though they have been associated, and both are quite distinct from Objectivism or Libertariansim (which I admit aren't the same thing, but are so linked and close, and both sooo far from the other two...), so calling that satan fellow all four at once makes me think he was just listing off evil things and calling them satan. (I hate lamp!)

His comments begin with saying reading this stuff is immoral and a waste of time, yet he's apparently read every word and spends time at the Ayn Rand Institute.

He also doesn't realize that I've read lots and lots of history, and that I've discovered that the ONLY way to effect any changes at all in the world is to COERCE your fellow human beings into doing something. Only on large large scales has communism as a political philosophy been used to prop up evil dictators - I've been to many communes, and am pretty sure that their fictional Jesus would have fit in quite well in those places.

Furthermore, since I need to feel self-righteous and correct again:

I do not deny that history is full of examples of tyrants that use coercive methods to further their self-interest...I think calling them satan is equivocating and a stupid thing to say. My eyes roll because you clearly don't care about logic when you say lucifer is three or four completely different political orientations at once. I happen to think that every nation on earth furthers their self-interest through coercive methods, especially us, though I don't equivocate this with evil, and I don't live in your little bubble of christianity which says that we are in fact a non-self-interested moral nation (which of course it doesn't but which you seem to imply).

Also, I don't need to read Buckley to comment on him. I read a wikipedia article and it told me all I ever need to know about that fucker. So glad your Jesus-lapel-pin religion worships someone who was a racist pig until he grew up a little in his old old age.

Oh, and the generalizations I referred to weren't just Mark's, but everyone who was broad brushing the issues. Saying Greenspan was an Objectivist without furnishing a short list of examples, to me, or any debater, would be called a generalization. Though from his perspective it never would be, I'd say calling Lucifer an Objectivist is also a mighty generalization. But, whatev...

The point is, that people who read a lot or use big words like to pretend like if you haven't read as much or know as many big words that you automatically lose an arguement with them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Intuition and logic are the greatest gifts that humans have, and everyone is endowed with them, despite what the elitist pricks want you to believe.