It’s not too hard to take care of him, at least so far.  He sleeps, he eats, he poops, and that’s about it.  Below are some pictures!

Jeff Britting did a great job. When it was his turn to speak about Ayn Rand’s character in “Old School” by Tobias Wolff, he nailed it. Britting started by stating that Wolff’s presentation of Ayn Rand was a “total distortion,” among other words, and then went on in detail to explain who she was, the themes of her four fiction books, and a little bit of her philosophy. Near the end of his presentation he compared Wolff’s “character that shares Ayn Rand’s name” with the actual Ayn Rand and showed a few specific cases where the two are polar opposites. He also asked the audience to not take his presentation or Wolff’s presentation of Ayn Rand on faith by reading Rand’s books for themselves.

Britting’s presentation of Ayn Rand was everything Wolff’s was not. While Wolff presentation Ayn Rand as a mean, dismissive, and rude woman that no rational person would want to be around (except for her dark-clothes-wearing acolytes), Britting presented an intelligent woman who took ideas and her writing seriously. And he did it in a way that would leave someone who knew little about her with a desire to want to know more.

The panel also included a speaker for Robert Frost and a speaker for Ernest Hemingway, and both got a fair amount of time. I think Ayn Rand was the focus of the evening, however. Perhaps I’m a little biased in making that judgement, but the majority of the questions were about Ayn Rand and the more interesting responses seemed to come from Britting.

The surprise of the evening for me was a student who read a few passages from Atlas Shrugged. Before each speaker a student came on stage and read a few passages from that particular writer. The student who was tasked with Ayn Rand’s work came up with three great passages: one from Dagny’s first ride on the John Galt Line, one from the Francico’s money speech, and another from John Galt’s speech. The passages she picked were just perfect, and it was heartening to see them read to the audience.

The panel was taped with two cameras, and one of the camera operaters told me after the event that there might be a chance the video could be released online. I’ll keep my eye out and see what happens.

Overall, it was a great night! Thanks to Jeff Britting for making the trip all the way out to Kansas City. We don’t get events like this very often!

1.) A lot of people I talked to had either heard of Ayn Rand, had read Atlas Shrugged, or were in the process of reading it. There were times when I just stood with my “Ayn Rand is Right” and “Read Atlas Shrugged” sign and people would come to me to talk. I even met a few new Objectivists, including a supporter of ARI who I had never met. Overall, it was very heartening to see such a positive response to Ayn Rand.

2.) There were a *lot* of people there. I can’t judge crowds too well, but from what I saw I don’t doubt the newspaper reports that put the crowd at somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000. Traffic to the site was backed up as far as I could see in all directions. There were a few crazies in the crowd, but the vast majority of the people there had great signs and seemed to understand some of the real problems that our country has put itself in.

Below is a picture of my sister and I, and you can use this link to view the rest of the pictures I took: http://tinyurl.com/dx72da

Rachelle and Darren

—–

If we judge today’s tax system and the Fair Tax according to the damage they would do to the economy and our lives, I would agree that the Fair Tax is a tax system I’d rather live under. The Fair Tax simple, it treats all individuals equally, people know what they “owe,” it is transparent, it’s easier for indiviudals to pay, it’s easier for businesses to manage… across the board, it beats the IRS hands-down. I read Neal Boortz’s first Fair Tax book, so I know that the entire system can be explained fully (including rationale, ramifications, and examples, AND in readable, non-legal English) in a small book that can be read in a few hours. If I had a magic wand that could magically convert today’s tax system into the Fair Tax, I’d wave it in a way that would put Harry Potter to shame.

Unfortunately, I don’t have that wand, and we live in a system where we’re all up-to-our-eyeballs deep in this horrible, arbitrary mess of a tax system. There are taxes on everything, the tax system is so large its impossible to read or understand, and it has spread to every level of government. Local, county, state, federal… there’s no escape from it. We don’t know who is taxing us, what they’re taxing us for, or even how or when new taxes are added. And if this wasn’t enough already, the ideas and philosophy that let this happen are stronger and more popular than ever. Most people either don’t care, or worse, they like today’s system.

So what do we do from our current position, this deep in today’s system? I think the only way is to fight the battle of ideas. We have to get people to understand what government’s role should be in our lives, that productive work is the only way to create wealth, that freedom is essential to human life, or even that human life is a good thing. Without getting those ideas worked out, any change we make in today’s system will just be destroyed tomorrow by the same force that’s causing things to get worse today. And from this position that we’re in, I think the Fair Tax is actually worse than doing nothing. It not only perpetuates the same bad ideas, it makes them worse and even more arbitrary.

How? The prebate. The fact that the government actually sends money out to individuals *before* they pay taxes. Look at today’s culture and guess how that would be perceived. How would a “common” man, one that doesn’t really understand or think about government’s proper role but likes the fact that the government seems to do things for him, think when he gets his first government check that he can cash at his bank? I bet it would be the same as many think when they get their “rebate” check from the government: FREE MONEY! Twelve checks a year! I understand that the money is supposed to offset the cost that he or she would have spent on taxes for “basic necessities,” and you do too, but this idea goes beyond taxation. At least a tax on consumption or a tax on production is a tax on *something*. This prebate is a free government check of an arbitrary amount decided upon by a government committee that has no business managing our money.

If the Fair Tax were a variant of a flat tax or, at the very least, a simpler tax system, I’d stand behind it. Not as the final solution, but just as a measure that will lessen the impact government has on our lives. But to me, the prebate is a “jump the shark” type of idea that makes it impossible to support. *Especially* if it tries to latch on to the surge of support and understanding about the problems with the direction our government has. As we all know, half of the battle today is getting people to realize that there *is* a free-market, pro-individual-rights path to take. Adding one more false alternative to today’s mess is only going to make it worse.

While listening to the Neal Boortz show a few weeks ago, I heard Boortz bash the “tea parties” that were springing up around the country. He was asked why he was so angry about it, considering the fact that it seems that the tea party supporters agreed with much of what Boortz believed. He responded by saying that he was frustrated that so many people could see a problem without seeing the “real” solution, which was the Fair Tax. I guess I’m the opposite of Neal Boortz on this one. I’m frustrated that so many people invest so much time and effort to try to herd people into directions without trying to address the ideas that are making people go in the wrong direction in the first place.

I wrote an email to another Objectivist in town, and since it almost constitutes a fun blog post I thought I’d include it here:

—–

I’m not so concerned with Fair Tax supporters being at the protest as much as I am with Fair Tax supporters organizing the protest and turning it into a Fair Tax rally. I think the Fair Tax is, in some ways, much worse than the crazy tax system we have today, and it’s not something that I want to support. Nor do I want to lend Ayn Rand’s name to their cause (as if it were mind to lend). I listen to the Neal Boortz show regularly (Boortz cowrote the books on the Fair Tax), and I think they’re trying to take advantage of the good, honest anger that people feel about what the government is doing to our economy in order to push their fake cure, the Fair Tax. I’m not concerned now that I know that the Fair Tax supporters are actually going to be doing their own thing on the JCCC campus.

If I were to write out the Fair Tax scenario I had in my head, it would be something like this:

FAIR TAX ORGANIZER: We have to stop this mindless regulation of the economy!

ANGRY CITIZENS: Yeah!

FAIR TAX ORGANIZER: We have to get the government out of the economy and our lives!

ANGRY CITIZENS: Yeah!

FAIR TAX ORGANIZER: We have to put the government in its place!

ANGRY CITIZENS: YEAH!

FAIR TAX ORGANIZER: Ok, so now that we all agree, here’s what we’ve gotta do! First, we have to repeal the 16th amendment! Then we’ll get rid of the federal income taxes and start up a 30%…. ERRRRRR 23%……… sales tax on everything you buy! Then we’ll form a government committee to determine how much tax dollars an individual would have to spend to buy the “basic necessities,” and then we’ll deposit that amount in a special government bank account every month, and then we’ll send every citizen their own debit card that they can use to get their government money! Then all companies will flock to the United States, the government will still have the same amount of tax dollars to spend (if not more!), and the poor won’t have to pay any taxes at all! Say it with me! Fair Tax, Fair Tax, Fair T……

ANGRY CITIZENS: ????????????????????????????

I made a sign, too. It was a small chance to spread some good ideas, even to people who might already agree. So, on one side of my sign I wrote “Ayn Rand Was Right,” and on the other side, “Read Atlas Shrugged.” I received many positive comments and a few questions from those who want to know what it was about, so I consider the morning a success.

I can’t retire the sign just yet. There’s going to be another protest this Sunday, this time near downtown Kansas City. It should be even bigger! Pictures below:

Ayn Rand Was Right

Read Atlas Shrugged

Here’s a link to all of the photos I took on Flickr.

To get back into the writing grove, I’m posting a comment I just put on a coworker’s blog about the Facebook terms of service issue that came up this week. Here’s my quick opinion:

—

I’m also not with the many who are up-in-arms in regards to the terms of service, but not so much for the privacy issue. I think its a private property issue. While people do own the content they create, Facebook also owns their servers and software. If we want to use their property, we have to get their permission. That’s what terms of service are all about. As Facebook’s potential customers, our only choice is to meet their terms or walk away. Nobody has a right to a Facebook account.

There is one other thing to consider: There’s a big difference between having access to something and owning it. For example, I may be able to read your blog posts through Facebook, I can’t republish it without your permission. You still own it. What Facebook wants, from what I understand, is ownership. That’s a pretty steep price. I understand why some don’t want to pay it, but again. if you don’t want to pay it, don’t. Just don’t expect anything from Facebook in return.

According to the Opera Software CEO, Jon von Tetzchner:

It’s important that people have a choice of browsers. It’s important that we don’t have one company dominating the browser market.

Is it necessary to point out that people do have a choice of browsers, and that installing a new browser is only a few clicks away? Is it necessary to point out that Internet Explorer has been leaking market share to Firefox (my personal choice) and other browsers? Is it necessary to point out that in Europe that market share was down to 59%? Since when does 59% of market-share constitute a monopoly in Europe?

The answers to these questions don’t get at the fundamental issue, which is the right to own property. Computer programmers should have — and must have — the right to write software programs as they see fit, to write software with whom they choose, and to charge whatever they want, and this ruling is an attack on that basic right. Still, those questions and their answers show just how ridiculous this EU prosecution is and how petty Jon von Tetzchner and Opera must be for even filing their ruling. Because even after the EU levies millions in fines and forces Microsoft to make another crippled version of Windows, nobody’s still going to know what Opera is nor are they going to go to the trouble of installing it. The Opera browser just doesn’t offer what the others offer (especially Firefox), which their stagnant and almost non-existent market share shows.

Jon von Tetzchner and Opera are probably going to be successful in using the EU to hurt Microsoft in a way they could never do in the free market, and I bet they’ll get away with it, too. The best way to stop these types of government abuse is to stand for individual rights and petition the government not to involve themselves, but in the meantime I’m going to suggest a smaller step: Uninstall Opera. You probably don’t have it installed, anyway, but in case you do, drop it like a bad habit. I just did. It’s not going to help Microsoft, but it might make you feel a little better.

—

If the point of “I.O.U.S.A” was wake Americans up to our economic woes, I think it was lacking. Economic problems don’t just appear randomly like weather events. They have specific causes, but it’s those causes that this movie refuses to address. It tries to stay agnostic when it comes to determining the cause of the problems it’s supposed to warn us about. But since those causes resulted in those problems, and the problems are what we don’t want, they can’t be ignored. It’s actually the causes that we have to focus on, not ignore.

I don’t have an exact quote, but later in the movie the narrator says something to the equivalent of, “No matter what you think caused this problem…” and then later “It’s only a question of *when* this will
happen unless we change.” Well, how can they say *when* when they haven’t identified the *what*? And how can we change something when we don’t know what causes the problems?

Imagine if a fireman took this approach when giving a presentation to school kids about the dangers of fire.

Fireman: “Ok, kids, fire is very dangerous. It burns things, including people. Questions?”

Kid 1: “How can I prevent fires from starting at my home?”

Fireman: “Sorry kid, that falls outside the scope of this discussion. I’m here to tell you that fire is bad. Next?”

Kid 2: “What should I do if a fire starts?”

Fireman: “There are many possible actions available to you, but all I can say right now is that if you come across fire you should do something to change the situation.”

I’ll take my criticism of this movie one level deeper. So far as this movie refuses to acknowledge the role that government intervention has played in getting us here, it actually makes the problem worse.
Instead of alerting Americans to the problems that government intervention has caused, it tricks them into thinking that more government intervention is the cure! The CNN discussion after the movie is a great example. While discussing the fact that Americans don’t save money, one of the moderators suggested (while smiling) that the government “force” or “strongly suggest” that Americans save. Nobody on the discussion panel batted an eye, including the two men that were actually behind the making of “I.O.U.S.A!” That type of discussion is the type of “waking up” that this movie brings to those that watch it.

I have only one positive thing to say about the movie. It smashes the myth of the “budget surplus” that Clinton fans are so proud of. It shows that the “surplus” is actually just a temporary overage in Social Security income versus payouts, and those “surplus” dollars will still have to be made up later.

That aside, I’m giving the movie two big thumbs down. It’s hard enough to get people to look honestly at our economic problems and see that the free market is the victim, not the culprit. This movie just muddies that issue even more. I’d rather try to argue with an environmentalist who had just watched “An Inconvenient Truth” than an average person who had just watched “I.O.U.S.A.”

Darren

Well, without getting into specifics, we had to spend some time at the hospital last weekend. We thought it was nothing, and it turned out to be nothing, but it took some tests and an overnight stay. We learned a few things from last year, though, and were able to handle things better this time. The biggest change in what we did is also the simplest:

Write everything down.

If a doctor comes in, write down his or her name, what he or she did, what was said, and the time. If a nurse asks a question or dispenses any medication, write down the nurse’s name, the medication, and the time. If a lab guy comes in to get labs, write down the lab tech’s name and time. Basically, keep your own timed log of the care you are given, written in your own words.

You’ll probably never need it, and if things turn out great you can file it away. But if things turn out a little worse and the hospital stay is longer, it might be all you have except your memory. Hey, if anything, when your family asks how things are going you can answer their question. It will give you just that little extra bit of control that you wouldn’t otherwise have.