Atlas Shrugged becomes fact

[hoog62]

As our gov is preparing to toss another trillion dollars of good money down the bailout shitter, remember the '57 novel by Ayn Rand. Sounds like this book should be required reading before the mid-terms in 2010.

Atlas Shrugged: Fiction to Fact in 52 Years.

Video (http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2009/01/atlas-shrugged-wasnt-fiction-tom-smith-.html)

Story (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html)

[DanDiver]

One of my all time favorate books and I agree, everyone should be required to read it.

[eljeffe]

You mean it is no longer a required reading in High School anymore?

I remember dreading the required reading assignments in high school, but in retrospect, much of the assigned books had a great impact on how would give insights into how the world is perceived by the literary greats of history.

Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare. We had to do the "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears" speech in front of the class. This was less valuable to me as a work of literature, but gave me my first taste of what public speaking was like, and how to prepare for it.

Paradise Lost by John Milton. The excruciating weeks we discussed this agonizing read where we would have welcomed an indefinite stay at GITMO and daily waterboarding.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I find it interesting that this blogger called it 52 years, because the economic strife of the mid to late 70s, brought on by war, oil shortages and prices, and huge government economic stimulus programs, were said to have been blamed on programs similar to what Rand suggests in Shrugged.

The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. This is the book that seemed to stick with me. It showed me how at one time, Unions and government oversight agencies actually did things to better working conditions and the safety and well-being of the workers. It opened my eyes to how corrupt unions and over-reaching government programs hurt anyone who works for a paycheck.

There were others like The Canterbury Tales from Chaucer, Once and Future King from T.H. White, Fahrenheit 451 and other works by Ray Bradbury, and Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut.

Then there were the works that I picked to read at the same time, including Dune by Frank Herbert, the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, and Harold Robbins (not kidding).

[SLTex]

The Hollow Men by T.S. Elliot.

We are the hollow men, the stuffed men leaning together head piece filled with straw.....


.....This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper.

or was that Political Correctness.

[dsauer608]

You mean it is no longer a required reading in High School anymore?

I wish I'd gone to your high school! Our required reading was stuff like "The Metamorphosis" by Kafka, "Jonathan Livingston Seagull", and other such drivel. Being a math nerd I could not begin to understand wasting my time on all that touchy feely stuff.

But not meaning to hijack this thread, Yes, Atlas Shrugged should be mandatory reading right now. Maybe we should send copies to congress.

[meese]

Yes, Atlas Shrugged should be mandatory reading right now. Maybe we should send copies to congress.I just downloaded the audiobook to listen to on the bike. As for Congress, I think they already have a copy, which is part of the problem . . .

[jayjacobson]

As our gov is preparing to toss another trillion dollars of good money down the bailout shitter, remember the '57 novel by Ayn Rand. Sounds like this book should be required reading before the mid-terms in 2010.

Atlas Shrugged: Fiction to Fact in 52 Years....
And to this very second, Dave, when I tell people I DO NOT support ANY government pork-outs, people still look at me and say: "well we gotta do something!" :crybaby: So, in other words, of doing "something" just makes the situation worse, it's better than doing "nothing?" :confused:

I would submit that "Atlas Shrugged" 20-30 years ago--we just didn't have the balls to admit it--or do anything about it! :( Guess what? Now we'll be FORCED to do something about it! :)

Let me pose a question: does a man dare defy the laws of physics? Does he ignore gravity? So why does a man think he can ignore the "laws" of economics? :confused:

[fenixroyale]

<....> Let me pose a question: does a man dare defy the laws of physics? Does he ignore gravity? So why does a man think he can ignore the "laws" of economics? :confused:

The same way he dares defy the laws of decency. The same way he dares defy the laws of justice. The same ways he dares defy the laws of reasonableness. The same way he dares defy his own heart.

I have anger issues, and try (these days) to not get drawn into issues over which I can have no control or influence. But it is impossible to read the headlines without getting either involved to the point of pointless anger, or angry to the point of pointless involvement.

Marijuana laws are a crime. Same goes for most drug laws. Same goes for most of the laws designed by busybody do-goodiy legislators who think their job is to protect us from ourselves.

"Make a law, take a law" should be the law. Otherwise, send the fuckers home.

It never ends. I'm going to court on Thursday to defend myself against some Highway Nazi Patrolman who thought (erroniously) that one taillight bulb out of four being out on the Lexus was aganist some kind of law. I read the law, and he is either wrong or he lied. Meanwhile, I'm confident the judge will be crooked and locked in to the big picture (it's all about the money), but I plan to take it to appeal.

But no, I'm not angry.

I don't particularly care what you think, for about half of you disagree with me, and the other half I disagree with. The older I get, the more I think that what's important is taking care of business in my own backyard, like Robinson Crusoe, and when that's all done, I'll look beyond the fences and see if what I think even matters to anyone else.

Meanwhile, at least I've spoken out on the BMW list! By God!

T.

[fenixroyale]

A friend of mine who is a graphic artist just happened to send this to me just now. I think it's what I was trying to say, but he said it better.


T.

[fenixroyale]

I just downloaded the audiobook to listen to on the bike. As for Congress, I think they already have a copy, which is part of the problem . . .

I did, too. Not to listen to on the bike, but to listen to before sleep, since we're all out of Penn and Teller "BULLSHIT!" episodes on DVD.

I read Fountainhead when I was a kid, but never read Atlas Shrugged (although I did read 1984, Farenheit 451, and everything Heinlein ever wrote, starting with "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel" in the fifth grade.)

In 1963, about the book written in the late 50's, Ayn Rand said (paraphrased from memory) "The book takes place ten years ahead of whenever you read it."

Looking forward. We'll start it tonight.

T.

[jayjacobson]

The same way he dares defy the laws of decency. The same way he dares defy the laws of justice. The same ways he dares defy the laws of reasonableness. The same way he dares defy his own heart....
Yes Ted, while I was speaking more toward economics, these issues definetly bleed over into what you're talking about. I find it morally repugnant to create a new slave class--those enslaved economically by the ever-growing, nanny-state, worthless big government hacks. Of course, while these hacks are enslaving people economically, their tom foolery is not just confined to solely economic issues. But expands to other areas--such as silly drug policies/laws, etc.
....It never ends. I'm going to court on Thursday to defend myself against some Highway Nazi Patrolman who thought (erroniously) that one taillight bulb out of four being out on the Lexus was aganist some kind of law....
What I can't believe is that you were actually cited for a taillight being out. Slow day on the highways of Arkansas? :confused: Can you say CHICKEN SHIT!?:eek:

[fenixroyale]

What I can't believe is that you were actually cited for a taillight being out. Slow day on the highways of Arkansas? :confused: Can you say CHICKEN SHIT!?:eek:

This reply's pretty much to Jay, since it'll bore the crap out of anyone else.

Well, I didn't tell the whole story, which left out the whole truth. What I was actually cited for was failure to have proof of insurance in the car. The officer approached and asked for my license, registration and proof of insurance. I asked him "What's this all about?" since he didn't volunteer. He said when he saw my tail lights, with one bulb out of four being out, he ran my plates and the computer showed no insurance. But I've always had insurance. The computer he relies on was wrong (a seperate issue with my insurance agent, who didn't properly report).

We were on our way home from holiday travel, and it was New Year's Eve. Our insurance on two vehicles is renewed every six months, so I am constantly printing out the cards and I try to keep them in the vehicles, but sometimes fall behind. Before we left on a 1,000 mile round trip, however, I did just that, printed out the proof of insurance to bring with us. I'm not actually as stupid as I look.

Thing is, it was 8 degrees when we left Arkansas, but warm when we returned. Three miles from our house the guy hit his lights on me. As soon as I got home, I found my insurance papers in my coat pocket...the coat was in the trunk, which is why I couldn't find them.

The issues I contest are two:

First, that I never should have fallen under his scrutiny in the first place. Arkansas law reads that every vehicle shall have at least one bulb on both sides of the vehicle. I had that, but the officer said "If you have a bulb, it has to be lighted." Wrong. What the law actually says is that the bulbs shall be wired to come on when the headlights are on. I had the minimum requirement of "at least one bulb on both sides of the car."

So he had no good reason to be running my plates in the first place, and his reading of the law is incorrect. Yeah, I know, good luck with that one. It's secondary anyway.

The real issue is the Arkansas law of criminal procedure:


Rule 3.2. Advice as to reason for detention.

A law enforcement officer who has detained a person under Rule 3.1 shall immediately advise that person of his official identity and the reason for the detention.


The officer didn't do that. After demanding "Your Papers" he made me ask him "What's this all about?" before he told me why he'd stopped me in the first place. Reading the records of the Arkansas Court of Appeals, I've seen guys with 2 kilos of cocaine in their trunks get off for similar errors of procedure, so maybe I can get out of this $30 ticket on the same basis. At least I'll have my day and say in court. All that's at risk is having to pay the full possible fine of $264 plus court costs, instead of the $30 I'd have to pay by simply showing the judge my insurance papers on the day of court.


If I'd had no insurance I'd be making no beef, I've always been willing to take the lumps I deserve. But I'm tired of the gubmint reaching into my pocket at every opportunity, so I'm going to wrestle them on their own mat. I never should have fallen under the cop's scrutiny in the first place, I did have insurance, had a semi-good reason for not being able to produce the papers, and the officer did not follow the procedure proscribed by Arkansas criminal law.

Eh, it's worth a shot, anyway. I imagine it'll be in the Appelate Court before anyone'll pay attention, tho. The local traffic judge simply bangs his gavel and finds everyone guilty, which only means "Pay up" and has little to do with the nitty gritty. 99 out of 100 do just pay up. It's all about the money.

In fairness to the patrolman, however, he did not write me a ticket for the frivolous tail light issue, although he did use it as an excuse to run my plates, which seems Barney Fife to me.

As for the word, "Chickenshit?" Sure, I said that, and more. But not until the cop was back in his car and my window was rolled all the way up.

Who wants to end up on Youtube with a taser in his ass?

T.

[jayjacobson]

This reply's pretty much to Jay, since it'll bore the crap out of anyone else.

Well, I didn't tell the whole story, which left out the whole truth. What I was actually cited for was failure to have proof of insurance in the car. The officer approached and asked for my license, registration and proof of insurance. I asked him "What's this all about?" since he didn't volunteer. He said when he saw my tail lights, with one bulb out of four being out, he ran my plates and the computer showed no insurance. But I've always had insurance. The computer he relies on was wrong (a seperate issue with my insurance agent, who didn't properly report).

We were on our way home from holiday travel, and it was New Year's Eve. Our insurance on two vehicles is renewed every six months, so I am constantly printing out the cards and I try to keep them in the vehicles, but sometimes fall behind. Before we left on a 1,000 mile round trip, however, I did just that, printed out the proof of insurance to bring with us. I'm not actually as stupid as I look.

Thing is, it was 8 degrees when we left Arkansas, but warm when we returned. Three miles from our house the guy hit his lights on me. As soon as I got home, I found my insurance papers in my coat pocket...the coat was in the trunk, which is why I couldn't find them.

The issues I contest are two:

First, that I never should have fallen under his scrutiny in the first place. Arkansas law reads that every vehicle shall have at least one bulb on both sides of the vehicle. I had that, but the officer said "If you have a bulb, it has to be lighted." Wrong. What the law actually says is that the bulbs shall be wired to come on when the headlights are on. I had the minimum requirement of "at least one bulb on both sides of the car."

So he had no good reason to be running my plates in the first place, and his reading of the law is incorrect. Yeah, I know, good luck with that one. It's secondary anyway.

The real issue is the Arkansas law of criminal procedure:


Rule 3.2. Advice as to reason for detention.

A law enforcement officer who has detained a person under Rule 3.1 shall immediately advise that person of his official identity and the reason for the detention.


The officer didn't do that. After demanding "Your Papers" he made me ask him "What's this all about?" before he told me why he'd stopped me in the first place. Reading the records of the Arkansas Court of Appeals, I've seen guys with 2 kilos of cocaine in their trunks get off for similar errors of procedure, so maybe I can get out of this $30 ticket on the same basis. At least I'll have my day and say in court. All that's at risk is having to pay the full possible fine of $264 plus court costs, instead of the $30 I'd have to pay by simply showing the judge my insurance papers on the day of court.


If I'd had no insurance I'd be making no beef, I've always been willing to take the lumps I deserve. But I'm tired of the gubmint reaching into my pocket at every opportunity, so I'm going to wrestle them on their own mat. I never should have fallen under the cop's scrutiny in the first place, I did have insurance, had a semi-good reason for not being able to produce the papers, and the officer did not follow the procedure proscribed by Arkansas criminal law.

Eh, it's worth a shot, anyway. I imagine it'll be in the Appelate Court before anyone'll pay attention, tho. The local traffic judge simply bangs his gavel and finds everyone guilty, which only means "Pay up" and has little to do with the nitty gritty. 99 out of 100 do just pay up. It's all about the money.

In fairness to the patrolman, however, he did not write me a ticket for the frivolous tail light issue, although he did use it as an excuse to run my plates, which seems Barney Fife to me.

As for the word, "Chickenshit?" Sure, I said that, and more. But not until the cop was back in his car and my window was rolled all the way up.

Who wants to end up on Youtube with a taser in his ass?
Yes, Ted, it would seem it was a slow day on the highways of Arkansas. Let me contrast law enforcement in California: the other day I stopped a dude that HAD a REAL, VALID DL! :eek: :eek2: Needless to say, I was very confused. :confused: I was looking around for the special kameras and microphones. I spent the whole rest of the night convinced the sky was gonna fall down on me! :D

So you see, I have no time for taillights and insurance when I'm LUCKY if I even get a DL. ;)

[pickerbiker]

This reply's pretty much to Jay, since it'll bore the crap out of anyone else.

Well, I didn't tell the whole story, which left out the whole truth. What I was actually cited for was failure to have proof of insurance in the car. The officer approached and asked for my license, registration and proof of insurance. I asked him "What's this all about?" since he didn't volunteer. He said when he saw my tail lights, with one bulb out of four being out, he ran my plates and the computer showed no insurance. But I've always had insurance. The computer he relies on was wrong (a seperate issue with my insurance agent, who didn't properly report).

We were on our way home from holiday travel, and it was New Year's Eve. Our insurance on two vehicles is renewed every six months, so I am constantly printing out the cards and I try to keep them in the vehicles, but sometimes fall behind. Before we left on a 1,000 mile round trip, however, I did just that, printed out the proof of insurance to bring with us. I'm not actually as stupid as I look.

Thing is, it was 8 degrees when we left Arkansas, but warm when we returned. Three miles from our house the guy hit his lights on me. As soon as I got home, I found my insurance papers in my coat pocket...the coat was in the trunk, which is why I couldn't find them.

The issues I contest are two:

First, that I never should have fallen under his scrutiny in the first place. Arkansas law reads that every vehicle shall have at least one bulb on both sides of the vehicle. I had that, but the officer said "If you have a bulb, it has to be lighted." Wrong. What the law actually says is that the bulbs shall be wired to come on when the headlights are on. I had the minimum requirement of "at least one bulb on both sides of the car."

So he had no good reason to be running my plates in the first place, and his reading of the law is incorrect. Yeah, I know, good luck with that one. It's secondary anyway.

The real issue is the Arkansas law of criminal procedure:


Rule 3.2. Advice as to reason for detention.

A law enforcement officer who has detained a person under Rule 3.1 shall immediately advise that person of his official identity and the reason for the detention.


The officer didn't do that. After demanding "Your Papers" he made me ask him "What's this all about?" before he told me why he'd stopped me in the first place. Reading the records of the Arkansas Court of Appeals, I've seen guys with 2 kilos of cocaine in their trunks get off for similar errors of procedure, so maybe I can get out of this $30 ticket on the same basis. At least I'll have my day and say in court. All that's at risk is having to pay the full possible fine of $264 plus court costs, instead of the $30 I'd have to pay by simply showing the judge my insurance papers on the day of court.


If I'd had no insurance I'd be making no beef, I've always been willing to take the lumps I deserve. But I'm tired of the gubmint reaching into my pocket at every opportunity, so I'm going to wrestle them on their own mat. I never should have fallen under the cop's scrutiny in the first place, I did have insurance, had a semi-good reason for not being able to produce the papers, and the officer did not follow the procedure proscribed by Arkansas criminal law.

Eh, it's worth a shot, anyway. I imagine it'll be in the Appelate Court before anyone'll pay attention, tho. The local traffic judge simply bangs his gavel and finds everyone guilty, which only means "Pay up" and has little to do with the nitty gritty. 99 out of 100 do just pay up. It's all about the money.

In fairness to the patrolman, however, he did not write me a ticket for the frivolous tail light issue, although he did use it as an excuse to run my plates, which seems Barney Fife to me.

As for the word, "Chickenshit?" Sure, I said that, and more. But not until the cop was back in his car and my window was rolled all the way up.

Who wants to end up on Youtube with a taser in his ass?

T.

Could it be you were driving a Lexus, so he figured you could afford a contribution to the state?

[jayjacobson]

Could it be you were driving a Lexus, so he figured you could afford a contribution to the state?
:rotf: A kind of "luxury tax?" :histerica

[gpolakow]

I never cared much for Ayn Rand's stereotypes. But that's just me.
However, I have believed for a long time that all Americans should read Walden, by Henry David Thoreau.
And just about everyone should read Moby Dick.

[jayjacobson]

I never cared much for Ayn Rand's stereotypes....
As I always say: if the shoe fits, Cinderfella! :D

[gpolakow]

As I always say: if the shoe fits, Cinderfella! :D

Streoptypes are oversimplifications, Jay; they don't fit anyone. That's why they are called stereotypes. Ayn's books were full of the typical oversimplification of most pure conservative thought, i.e. all liberal thinking is bad, all conservative thinking is good. Hitler used much the same approach. It's powerful, but that doesn't make it the same as true. Life just ain't that simple, though many would like to think it is.

[hoog62]

.... Life just ain't that simple, though many would like to think it is.

Did you actually watch the video, or read the article linked in the OP?

[jayjacobson]

Streoptypes are oversimplifications, Jay; they don't fit anyone. That's why they are called stereotypes....
Couldn't agree more! If the shoe DOESN'T fit..... ;)