REPORT ON THE ATLAS SHRUGGED MOVIE PREVIEW

BY FREDERICK COOKINHAM

The Hudson Theater preview for the Atlas Shrugged movie included many comments from not only the producers, but also the screenwriter and many others involved behind the scenes. Here’s a full report.

On December 7th, producers John Aglialoro and Harmond Kaslow and The Atlas Society hosted a $100-per-ticket preview of the Atlas Shrugged movie at the 107-year-old Hudson Theatre, off Times Square. This is where Shaw’s Man and Superman had its U.S. premiere in 1905 — the year of Ayn Rand’s birth. A little Shavian irony.

Atlas Society Chairman Jay Lapeyre introduced David Kelley, who spoke on the core philosophical values of the book that had to be in the movie — mainly the theme of “the mind on strike” — though so much else was changed. Kelley described the disappearance of industrialists in the story, “going Galt,” as “a sort of secular Rapture.” The 150 to 200 attendees chortled.

Aglialoro was the man of the hour. He choked up a bit, thanking his comrades in his 18-year quest to get the movie made. He got an appreciative laugh when he announced that the film will premiere in about 100 theatres in thirty cities on April 15th — tax day!

 

Grant Bowler and Taylor Schilling as Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart

Then the preview rolled. It was eight minutes long, including the start of the movie, and the rest cut from about twenty scenes, somewhat like a trailer.

 

There is Galt, in shadowy profile, hat brim down, approaching Midas Mulligan on a dark, rainy street.

A properly sleazy, pouty-lipped Jim Taggart pulls rank on the straight-talking Eddie Willers, disregarding Eddie’s warning of disaster. Ellis Wyatt vents at Dagny.

The real-life Royal Gorge Bridge in Colorado is stretched to an impossible tenuousness by the film’s visual effects wizards. “There haven’t been shots of railroads in American movies like this in a long time,” said the Second Unit Director, Mike Marvin, who had taken the shots on rail lines from Chicago to McCoy, Colorado.

Dagny sees a de-railment on TV and hurries to the office, where she argues with Jim. Dagny goes to see Rearden about Rearden Metal rails. Jim and Wesley Mouch conspire. “If we want to bring Rearden down, we have to do it from the inside.” The tempo of the cuts increases. The music gets more tense.

Rearden calls Dagny about a motor he has found, and another character explains the epochal significance of the motor, smiles mysteriously, and says “Who is John Galt?” A title appears: “COMING IN APRIL.” Fade to black.

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal quizzed the panel on the making of the film. Fund mentioned meeting several freshman Congressmen in recent days who have read Atlas and, in the case of Nan Hayworth of Westchester County, NY, entered politics largely because of it. Her parents fled socialism in the UK. They went Galt.

Mike Marvin said he wanted to out-do Unstoppable, the current Denzel Washington movie about a runaway train, “with its $100 million budget. I was looking for the David Lean shot, like the train scenes in Dr. Zhivago.”

Hank and Dagny at Rearden Metal

The Post-production Supervisor, John Orland, described the cleaning up that still needs to be done before the film is ready to be printed and distributed. There were signals visible in the clips that indicated where a visual effect or sound effect or music needs to be added. The music in the clips we saw was temporary.

Elia Cmiral, Czech writer of the score for Ronin, will compose the Atlas score. Brian O’Toole, the screenwriter (with Aglialoro), explained that he had recently re-read Atlas to write for a computer game called “Bioshock,” which is based on Atlas.

All in the audience were excited that the producers had shot Atlas with the digital “Red Camera,” the latest technical wonder, which shoots a picture at twice the resolution theatres can show. It means they can blow up sections of the picture to twice the size without losing resolution, and use only part of the shot if they don’t want to use all of it — in effect, editing without editing. They figured Atlas deserved the best. “The Red Camera is the Rearden Metal of cameras,” said Orland.

Fund asked Aglialoro what he wanted the audience to think as they leave the theater. “I want the audience to learn that they deserve to run their own lives,” he replied.

Asked why they added the Galt-Mulligan scene, which does not appear in the novel, Aglialoro explained, “We needed to create a presence of John Galt” in this first part of the trilogy, or the audience that has not read the book will be confused and won’t like the film.

Parts Two and Three should come out at about one year intervals.

He wanted to premiere the film on February 2, Rand’s birthday, but he found that he would have to self-distribute, as well as self-produce, so that pushed the timetable back to April.

Fund wrapped up the panel by predicting that Tea Party groups will rent theaters and bring in supporters to watch the film together. The panel did not ask for questions from the floor, although that must have been the original plan, since there were microphones set up in the aisles, as usual for Atlas Society events.

The clips were run a second time as people drifted out to the lobby for refreshments. The $500-a-ticket crowd had an after-reception and the rest had our own.

 

The Taggart Transcontinental seal

The devoted fan of a novel is wise to lower his expectations before watching any film made from it. This period piece, written between 1945 and 1957, has been reconceived for 2010, as was inevitable. One clever thing they did, to smooth that anachronism, was to have a TV newsman explain that the airlines had all collapsed in bankruptcy, thus reviving railroads as the vital form of transportation.

But the film also posits a total cut-off of Middle Eastern oil, and that is one of the difficulties that will result from anachronizing a 53-year-old story. In telling the story, it was important to Rand that no foreign power seriously threaten the United States. For the premise of the world economy being brought down by a strike of mainly American industrialists to make sense, the United States must reign supreme, unchallenged economically or militarily, or the story would get too complicated and unbelievable.

That situation did prevail (economically, at least) in the 1950s, and that is one example of why the movie should have been done as a period piece. Once you change one premise, you must change every premise, and the story falls apart.

Language has also fallen apart since 1957. In the clips, Rearden says to Dagny, “It is us who move the world, and it’s us who will pull it through.” The “us” should be “we.” It is “we” in the novel, and all the screenwriter had to do was copy it. But apparently he found it necessary to dumb down the language from 1957’s English to 2010’s pidgin. (UPDATE: Apparently this was a change by the actor, not the screenwriter, and is going to be fixed in post-production.)

We can hope, though, that this will not be the only Atlas movie ever made. The remake king is Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables, which has been made into a film 37 times, according to Guinness.

John Aglialoro’s great achievement is not that he will have made the only Atlas movie, but that he has made the first. If this movie does not get pigeonholed by history as merely Tea Party entertainment and an anti-Obama recruitment device, then it will kick off an exciting new chapter in the spread of the Ayn Rand phenomenon. Twenty Eleven will be fun.


Frederick Cookinham gives New York City walking tours, available through CenturyWalkingTours.com — including four on the subject of Ayn Rand and six of Revolutionary War sites.  He was interviewed at the Atlasphere in 2005. He is the author of the book The Age of Rand: Imagining an Objectivist Future World and has also written articles for The New Individualist, Nomos, Full Context, and The Pragmatist.

WHY DO THE POOR STAY POOR?

BY JOHN STOSSEL

Condescending do-gooders in the industrialized world think that giving handouts to the world’s poor can alleviate any grinding poverty. This could hardly be further from the truth.

Of the 6 billion people on Earth, 2 billion try to survive on a few dollars a day. They don’t build businesses, or if they do, they don’t expand them. Unlike people in the United States, Europe and Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, etc., they don’t lift themselves out of poverty. Why not? What’s the difference between them and us? Hernando de Soto taught me that the biggest difference may be property rights.

I first met de Soto maybe 15 years ago. It was at one of those lunches where people sit around wondering how to end poverty. I go to these things because it bugs me that much of the world hasn’t yet figured out what gave us Americans the power to prosper.

I go, but I’m skeptical. There sits de Soto, president of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy in Peru, and he starts pulling pictures out showing slum dwellings built on top of each other. I wondered what they meant.

As de Soto explained: “These pictures show that roughly 4 billion people in the world actually build their homes and own their businesses outside the legal system. … Because of the lack of rule of law (and) the definition of who owns what, and because they don’t have addresses, they can’t get credit (for investment loans).”

They don’t have addresses?

“To get an address, somebody’s got to recognize that that’s where you live. That means … you’ve a got mailing address. … When you make a deal with someone, you can be identified. But until property is defined by law, people can’t … specialize and create wealth. The day they get title (is) the day that the businesses in their homes, the sewing machines, the cotton gins, the car repair shop finally gets recognized. They can start expanding.”

That’s the road to prosperity. But first they need to be recognized by someone in local authority who says, “This is yours.” They need the rule of law. But many places in the developing world barely have law. So enterprising people take a risk. They work a deal with the guy on the first floor, and they build their house on the second floor.

“Probably the guy on the first floor, who had the guts to squat and make a deal with somebody from government who decided to look the other way, has got an invisible property right. It’s not very different from when you Americans started going west, (but) Americans at that time were absolutely conscious of what the rule of law was about,” de Soto said.

Americans marked off property, courts recognized that property, and the people got deeds that meant everyone knew their property was theirs. They could then buy and sell and borrow against it as they saw fit.

This idea of a deed protecting property seems simple, but it’s powerful. Commerce between total strangers wouldn’t happen otherwise. It applies to more than just skyscrapers and factories. It applies to stock markets, which only work because of deed-like paperwork that we trust because we have the rule of law.

Is de Soto saying that if the developing world had the rule of law they could become as rich as we are?

“Oh, yes. Of course. But let me tell you, bringing in the rule of law is no easy thing.”

De Soto started his work in Peru, as an economic adviser to the president, trying to establish property rights there. He was successful enough that leaders of 23 countries, including Russia, Libya, Egypt, Honduras and the Philippines, now pay him to teach them about property rights. Those leaders at least get that they’re doing something wrong.

“They get it easier than a North American,” he said, “because the people who brought the rule of law and property rights to the United States (lived) in the 18th and 19th centuries. They were your great-great-great-great-granddaddies.”

De Soto says we’ve forgotten what made us prosperous. “But (leaders in the developing world) see that they’re pot-poor relative to your wealth.” They are beginning to grasp the importance of private property.

Let’s hope we haven’t forgotten what they are beginning to learn.


John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.” To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com

ATLAS SHRUGGED MOVIE: THE FIRST 10 MINUTES

BY RICHARD GLEAVES

Last night John Aglialoro showcased a ten-minute clip from the new Atlas Shrugged movie for an exclusive audience in NYC. Here’s a detailed description of what we saw — and what it portends for the final movie.

Last night I attended the Atlas Society’s sneak preview of the Atlas Shrugged – Part 1 movie — the same preview discussed in the Atlasphere’s recent interview with Producer John Aglialoro.

At the event, the preview was preceded by some notable comments from Aglialoro and others; but the centerpiece of the event was, unmistakably, the ten-minute clip from the film itself.

So how was it?

Very good. Better than I expected. I wouldn’t say it’s perfect, as you’ll see from my many nitpicks below. Based upon the preview we saw, however, I think this movie will do credit to the novel and to the characters.

Let’s walk through it bit by bit. This is based on my memory of two viewings, plus some detailed notes.

The opening clip from the beginning of the movie was eight minutes long, proceeding from the opening sequence, through Dagny’s initial conference with Jim and then leaving to see Rearden in Philadelphia to discuss the line. The clip then segued into a sort of trailer for the rest of the film.

The preview we saw had temporary special effects which had not yet gone through post production. The opening sequence also happens to be heavy on commercial stock footage and so, with licenses still being finalized, much of the first minute had Getty watermarks and the like.

The version we saw was also missing a score, which, if done right, will add a lot. They spoke of a big orchestral score and revealed that the composer will be Elia Cmiral, who scored the movie Stigmata, among others.

Opening Sequence

The film opened with a montage: “Dow Jones dropped by 4000” … “Stock volatility” … footage of man-on-the-street interviews.

There’s trouble in the Middle East, gas is $34 a gallon, the airline industry has collapsed from want of fuel, and the railroads are now carrying most passenger and freight traffic.

This montage is interwoven with footage of a train tearing through open country. The train footage is quite effective; it’s very kinetic, very thunderous.

The visual style is quite modern. They linger appropriately on machinery and industry, and the footage — of a conductor’s hands on the wheel of the train, on tinder boxes, on track rails, etc. — is very effective.

We see bits of Wesley Mouch, James Taggart, and Ellis Wyatt bickering on television over oil, industry, etc. A lot of exposition was being thrown out.

As the train hurtles past, we see a close up of a split rail on the track ahead. This train is hurtling towards disaster.

Then it cuts to footage of Congress passing the “Fair Pay” act, making it impossible to fire anyone from any company that is still making money. Ragnar Danneskjold appears in a newspaper headline: “Pirate Ragnar Strikes Again.”

Meanwhile, the train continues to hurtle towards disaster and is kicking up some thunder. The conductor sees the split rail and throws the brake, followed by a shower of sparks.

It then cuts to the exterior of a diner, where it’s raining. The graffiti on the wall reads “ON STRIKE,” which seems like a bit of a tell; but no first-time viewer would get spoiled by it, so let’s call it a subliminal hint.

Inside the Diner

A bum enters the diner, takes a booth, and starts swiping the Sweet’N Lows. The waitress asks him if he’s got any money. He says he’s got plenty. She says, “What happened to you, anyway?”

Then we see a close-up of bums face and he says, “Who is John Galt?”

On the TV screens in the diner, we see Taggart and Wyatt being interviewed: “Mr Taggart, your company is one of the few to survive in our current economic downturn, yet there have been dozens of derailments on your lines in the last year alone….”

Wyatt says, “You wouldn’t be going anywhere without oil.”

He and James bicker, and it is pretty personal in tone, with Wyatt lecturing James about how much better his father’s stewardship of TT was. Wyatt scolds him for opening a branch line in Mexico and neglecting his rails here.

Wesley Mouch is on TV talking about the crucial role of government, and how every company must lend a helping hand.

A dapper gentleman enters the diner and picks up a cherry pie. He is chummy with the waitress, saying, “Thank you, dear,” etc.

She says, “See you tomorrow, Mr. Mulligan”

Outside the Diner

“Midas Mulligan?” says a voice, as he walks in the rain.

“Who’s asking?” Mulligan says.

“Someone who knows what it is to work for himself and not to let others profit off his energy,” answers the man.

“That’s funny,” says Mulligan, “That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking.”

“We’re alike, you and I,” says the man.

“Who are you?” Mulligan asks.

Then it cuts to the “ATLAS SHRUGGED” title card.

To me, this exchange seemed stilted, and I’m a bit concerned about the screenwriting — not the organization of exposition, which seems to be going fine, but with the handling of iconic moments and the rendering of Rand’s dialogue.

The end of their conversation seemed abrupt, too, with a strange little fadeout. The producers still have months of post-production left to go, however, so I hope the dialogue dub is better-acted and the glitches are worked out.

Dagny’s Apartment

We hear the sound of a cell phone ringing.

Dagny wakes up on the couch and pads in, in her bare feet, to answer her phone. For my taste, she looks a bit frumpy and “just woke up” for her first scene. But she has her apartment shades moving on a motor, which is kind of cool, and if you’re observant you’ll notice she has a little picture of Ayn Rand taped on her computer monitor.

Eddie is calling her about the wreck. She flips on the TV, sees the destroyed train, and says, “I’ll be right in.”

Thematically, I don’t feel like this is how we should first meet Dagny. Why is she at home asleep while Eddie is already in the office? Does she have to be so frumpy? (And elephants on the couch pillow — really?)

 

Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart

But let me say this before I go any further: Taylor Schilling is an excellent Dagny. That bit of good news is 90% of the battle, right there.

 

We follow Dagny through the streets of New York. She walks down a trashy street with ripped up roads, down into a subway that needs work.

There’s a bum with a sign looking for a job. Dagny stoicly marches with her briefcase down the subway platform, among the other New Yorkers.

James’s Office

James and Eddie are bickering. People are scared by the wreck and are going to the Phoenix-Durango. They reference Ellis Wyatt, who does not want to deal with Taggart Transcontinental. At one point Eddie says “For Christ’s sake” — which jumped out at me.

I found these two a little disappointing. James has got the look down, but he’s a bit stiff. Maybe the acting choice is for James to seem a bit out of his depth as a railroad president. His best moment in the scene is coldly saying, “Are you accusing me of not doing my job?”

He tells Eddie that “everyone’s expendable,” and at one point Eddie says, “Colorado is our last hope.”

Dagny walks in. “Eddie, will you excuse us? I need a conversation with my brother.” Dagny then tells James he’s “pissing off” the heart of their business — Wyatt.

In terms of the language, clearly this is not your father’s Atlas, and these little things take some getting used to. To me they seemed like touches of naturalism, of “folks next door,” which is not what we go to this book for.

But the scene is competently done, if a bit rushed feeling. Dagny is using Rearden metal, and Dagny will take responsibility. She is going to Philadelphia to finalize the deal with Hank Rearden.

It then cuts to moving trains and a “Philadelphia” title card. Dagny walks into Hank’s office and shakes his hand.

Montage from the Rest of the Film

Then, as a sort of trailer for the movie, we saw a montage from the rest of the film: Dagny has no time for James and his friends in Washington. James sits with Phil Larkin and Wesley Mouch in a restaurant, saying, “If we’re going to bring Rearden down, we should do it from the inside.”

Dagny says to Mowen, “You’ve been working with Rearden Metal for four months now; you know it’s the best material available. What’s going on?” Mowen replies, “We’ve been threatened.” “Who’s threatening you?” Dagny asks.

A man in Rearden’s office says, “The State Science institute is requesting you stop production on Rearden Metal.” Rearden says, “If you have any proof that Rearden Metal poses a threat, show it to me.”

A man on radio says, “They’re not allowing any trains into Colorado.”

Dagny sits in car, saying, “This is madness.”

Wyatt — very pissed at Dagny in her office — says, “Maybe you should let me finish speaking! I will not lower my business standards to your lousy level of incompetence.”

Hank is on the phone with Dagny — apparently calling her from his bathtub — and says, “It’s us who move the world.”

Hank says, “Remember that motor company I told you about in Wisconsin?” and talks about the prototype of a motor. Dagny replies, “It’s worth a look.” (The implication here is that they go to the factory looking for the motor, rather than discovering it by accident. This seems a bit odd, but I won’t gripe.) Then Hank and Dagny look down rows of files, for the engineer of that motor firm.

 

Rearden and Dagny at the Twentieth Century Motor Company plant

 

Hugh Akston says, “The secret you are trying to solve is much greater than a motor that runs on atmospheric electricity” — and lifts a cigarette with a dollar sign to his lips.

Dagny talks to Hank about the bridge collapsing. Dagny says to James, “If you double-cross me I will destroy you.”

There’s a gorgeous shot of the Rearden Metal bridge which looks very modern and sleek, like an impossibly delicate filament over space.

Dagny yells “No!” looking at (presumably) the Wyatt fire. Her shout dissolves over a very creepy looking man (Ferris?) smiling blankly and saying, “Who is John Galt?”

And there, the montage ended.

My Preliminary Verdict

Based on this preview, I am hopeful, but my fears are not totally dispelled. Whether the movie is really good or not depends on how they handle the stylistic disconnect between the quasi-naturalism of their storytelling technique and the stylized romantic language of Galt, etc. And that stilted exchange with Mulligan worries me. Visually, however, I think it will be excellent — even innovative.

I think it will be as faithful as a Harry Potter adaptation, which has pitfalls of its own, of course — namely that, in the rush to get everything in, you linger on nothing and so the film becomes a “greatest hits” recap of the book.

The production quality is far higher than I expected; they’ve done a lot with very little money and they definitely “get” the story. So there’s a lot to be hopeful about.

Notwithstanding my criticisms, my expectations have been raised by this preview, and I feel better than I did previously about the project. It looks professional and visually gorgeous. The casting is good, and I look forward to seeing those opening credits in an actual theater.

With Aglialoro at the helm, we could be in far worse hands, and the big picture is that I think we will have 75% or more of our dream Atlas movie. Hopefully with more money and more time for the screenwriting, the second and third parts of the trilogy will be even better, so let’s applaud Aglialoro and his team for getting things off to a good start.

We all know how difficult it has been. The most emotional moment of the night was Aglialoro’s heartfelt thanks to his crew. They made this film, from a standing start, in nine months. Coincidentally, that’s the same amount of time Dagny had for the John Galt line.

I’m a stickler for little details, though. Were it not for some of these details, I would be incredibly excited. As it happens, I may have been able to make a difference in just one detail. After the presentation, I cornered the post-production director and argued they should change the date shown in the opening sequence.

In the opening sequence, over the images of the doomed train, the date appears as “September 2, 2016.” I told him to definitely dump the “2016” or else in ten years the film will seem dated. I think I convinced him that to pin it down to a definite year is a mistake and they shouldn’t do it. We’ll see.

If — when the movie opens on Tax Day April 15th, 2011 — you see a simple iconic “September 2” appear on the screen, with no year, you will know that a lone Atlas Shrugged fan, arm-twisting a production member at a cocktail party, can still make a difference.

Publisher’s note: Want to see a lot more photos like the ones shown here? Join the Atlas Shrugged movie’s Facebook fan page. For regular updates and breaking news about the Atlas Shrugged movie, visit the Atlas Shrugged Movie blog.


Richard Gleaves is a writer and composer in Astoria, New York.

RHETORIC RIDES AGAIN

BY THOMAS SOWELL

When the government talks about taxing the wealthy, the net result is usually a disincentive to work and produce to the best of one’s ability. So why is this rhetoric so perennially popular?

Let’s face it, politics is largely the art of deception, and political rhetoric is largely the art of misstating issues. A classic example is the current debate over whether to give money to the unemployed by extending how long unemployment benefits will be provided, or instead to give “tax cuts to the rich.”

First of all, nobody’s taxes — whether rich or poor — is going to be cut in this lame duck session of Congress. The only real issue is whether our current tax rates will go up in January, whether for everybody or nobody or somewhere in between.

The most we can hope for is that tax rates will not go up. So the next time you hear some politician or media talking head say “tax cuts for the rich,” that will just tell you whether they are serious about facts or just addicted to talking points.

Not only are the so-called “tax cuts” not really tax cuts, most of the people called “rich” are not really rich. Rich means having a lot of wealth. But income taxes don’t touch wealth. No wonder some billionaires are saying it’s OK to raise income taxes. They would still be billionaires if taxes took 100 percent of their current income.

What those who are arguing against “tax cuts for the rich” are promoting is raising the tax rates on families making $250,000 a year and up. A husband and wife making $125,000 a year each are not rich. If they have a kid going to one of the many colleges charging $30,000 a year (in after-tax money) for tuition alone, they are not likely to feel anywhere close to being rich.

Many people earning an annual income of $125,000 a year do so only after years of earning a lot less than that before eventually working their way up to that level. For politicians to step in at that point and confiscate what they have invested years of working to achieve is a little much.

It also takes a lot of brass to talk about taxing “millionaires and billionaires” when most of the people whose taxes the liberals want to raise are neither. Why is so much deception necessary, if your case is good?

Those who own their own small businesses have usually reached their peak earnings many years after having started their business, and often operating with very low income, or even operating at a loss, when their businesses first got started.

Again, having politicians step in with an extra tax at that point, when later incomes compensate earlier sacrifices, is sheer brass — especially when real millionaires and billionaires have their wealth safely stowed in tax shelters.

Another fashionable political and media deception is making a parallel between giving money to the unemployed versus giving money to “the rich.”

When you refrain from raising someone’s taxes, you are not “giving” them anything. Even if you were actually cutting their tax rate — which is out of the question today — you would still not be “giving” them anything, but only allowing them to keep more of what they have earned.

Is the government doing any of us a big favor by not taking even more of what we have worked for? Is it not an insult to our intelligence to say that the government is “giving” us something by not taxing it away?

With unemployment compensation, however, you are in fact giving someone something. “Extending unemployment benefits” always sounds good politically — especially if you do not ask the basic question: “For how long should they be extended?” A year? Two years? No limit?

Studies have shown what common sense should have told us without studies: The longer the unemployment benefits are available, the longer people stay unemployed.

If I were fired tomorrow, should I be able to live off the government until such time as I find another job that is exactly the same, making the same or higher pay? What if I am offered another job that uses some of the same skills but doesn’t pay quite as much? Should I be allowed to keep on living off the government?

With the government making it more expensive for employers to hire workers, and at the same time subsidizing unemployed workers longer and longer, you can have as much unemployment as you are willing to pay for, for as long as you are willing to pay for it.


Thomas Sowell is a Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California. He has published dozens of books on economics, education, race, and other topics. His most recent book is The Housing Boom and Bust, from April 2009.

UNLIKELY INSPIRATION

BY STEPHEN BROWNE

What does it mean to behave honorably? Where do we draw the line, when we realize we’re expected to participate in something unethical? Inspiration, it turns out, can come from unlikely places.

I’ve written about heroes and heroism in this space before, and these days I’ve been thinking about what inspires people to behave honorably — in matters both great and commonplace.

I’ve pointed out examples of ordinary people who rose to extraordinary heights of courage and integrity when the occasion demanded. They are inspirations to all of us.

Yet lately I’ve found inspiration in odd and unusual places, in the words of people I otherwise profoundly disagree with.

This year I won my second consecutive first- and second-place awards in the North Dakota Newspaper Association’s “Better Newspapers Contest” in our category, and was given the largest single raise within the newspaper staff’s memory.

I celebrated by resigning. Right now, instead, I’m driving a semi truck for harvest, hauling seed and grain from point to point on North Dakota rural roads, sleeping in the cab most nights.

My reason for resigning? Among other things, the newspaper’s editor did something I considered ethically questionable. It concerned an article on three college jocks accused, but not charged, with an assault that sent a local man to the hospital.

I didn’t actually have a big part in the story, though the editor magnanimously told me he‘d credit me. I just researched any criminal records of the boys — and found none. Nor did the injuries described add up to a mass beating.

As I found my doubts growing — and I still don’t know anything for sure — I researched further.

Finally I went to a source I trusted in the college administration and asked bluntly, “Did we do a hatchet job on those boys?”

“Yes,” he answered. “And they can’t say anything in their own defense because of a potential lawsuit.”

I further found that of the other two people in the newsroom, one old-timer thought for sure it was a hatchet job, but wasn’t saying anything. And I believe the sports reporter does too, but doesn’t want to get involved.

To make a long story short, I wanted to raise the subject at the next editorial meeting. The editor said he was dispensing with meetings — and no, we wouldn’t discuss his article. He also indicated in no uncertain terms he expected me to be a hatchet man.

I might mention that this editor is a young man laid off from a bigger paper that, like a lot of city papers these days, is downsizing. My guess is he’s looking for the big score that’ll get him out of our little town. I might also mention that he once “improved” an editorial of mine by identifying Neville Chamberlain as prime minister — of Czechoslovakia! (That was excruciatingly embarrassing; it was my name on it.)

Still, why did I resign? My publisher had told me she thought I could be a nationally syndicated columnist — a high compliment for someone who entered journalism this late in life. Now I’ve exposed my family to an uncertain future over a point of principle nobody will remember next year.

Thinking about it while bouncing down our state highways, I have to ruefully admit it wasn’t the example of Miep Gies or Steven Vincent, or the fictional John Galt. It was Walter Lippmann.

I detest most of what Walter Lippmann stood for. Lippman advocated that elites should lead the masses by “manufacturing consent” through the media. (And that phrase was adopted for the title of a book by two other intellectuals I detest: Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman.)

Yet Lippmann also defined honor in the most succinct and clear way I’ve ever read.

“A man has honor,” he wrote, “when he adheres to a code of conduct when it is unpopular, unprofitable, or dangerous to do so.”

Honor is one of the most misunderstood, abused, and often-corrupted concepts in history. After Lippmann’s definition, however, it will be very difficult to misunderstand, abuse, or corrupt the ideal of personal honor.

As for me? I can still write. Not behind the wheel of a truck; but I do most of my composing in my head before I sit down at my laptop anyway. I can compose driving down the road to who-knows-where. That road may be long and hard, but I’m going down it considerably lighter of heart, for now.


Stephen W. Browne is a writer, editor, and teacher of martial arts and English as a second language. He is also the founder of the Liberty English Camps, held annually in Eastern Europe, which brings together students from all over Eastern Europe for intensive English study using texts important to the history of political liberty and free markets. In 1997 he was elected an Honorary Member of the Yugoslav Movement for the Protection of Human Rights for his work supporting dissidents during the Milosevic regime. His regularly-updated blog is at StephenWBrowne.com.

MAKING PARKS DECENT AGAIN

BY JOHN STOSSEL

Many see the privatization of public parks as an evil encroachment by the rich in the public sphere. In reality, privatized parks today are friendlier and more inclusive than ever.

America is filled with parks that are filthy, dangerous and badly maintained. The governments in charge plead: We can’t help it. Our budgets have been slashed. We don’t have enough money!

Bryant Park, in midtown Manhattan, was once such an unsavory place. But now it’s nice. What changed? Dan Biederman essentially privatized the park.

With permission from frustrated officials who’d watch government repeatedly fail to clean up the park, Biederman raised private funds from “businesses around the park, real estate owners, concessions and events sponsorships. … (S)ince 1996, we have not asked the city government for a single dollar.”

Sounds good to me. But not to Shirley Kressel, a Boston journalist.

I asked her what’s wrong with getting the money from private businesses, as Dan does.

“Because it goes into private pockets,” she said.

So what?

“Because it’s very good (for Dan) to use the public land for running a private business, a rent-a-park, where all year ’round there’s commercial revenue from renting it out to businesses. He keeps all that money. People don’t realize that.”

So what? I don’t care if they think the money is going to Mars. The park is nice, and people don’t have to pay taxes to support it.

The park is certainly more “commercial” now. The day I videotaped, there were booths selling food and holiday gifts. The public seemed fine with that.

Biederman is not finished with his efforts to save public parks. He next wants to apply his skills to the Boston Common. The Common is America’s oldest public park, and like many others, it’s largely a barren field. Biederman doesn’t want to seek business funding, as he did with Bryant Park, because the area is not as commercial. Instead, he would combine the Bryant Park and Central Park models.

I know something about Central Park because I’m on the board of the charity that helps manage it. When government managed Central Park, it was a crime zone. Now it’s wonderful. Those of us who live near it donated most of the money that renovated and now maintains Central Park. It’s not a business arrangement.

Kressel says she’ll fight Biederman’s plan for Boston.

“(W)e don’t need … to teach our next generation of children that the only way they can get a public realm is as the charity ward of rich people and corporations,” she said. “We can afford our public realm. We’re entitled to it. We pay taxes, and that’s the government’s job.”

The Central Park model “doesn’t work for 98 percent of the country,” she added.

I don’t know what’ll happen to the rest of the country, but it’s working in Central Park. Why not try it in Boston? It’s working for the public.

“It’s not, because these people, the money bags, get to decide how the park is used and who goes there and who the desirables are and who are the undesirables. Undesirables are primarily homeless people. … Homeless people have to be somewhere. If we don’t make a system that accommodates people who don’t have a place to live, they have to be in the public realm.”

Biederman has a ready answer: “We have the same number of homeless people in Bryant Park today as we had when it was viewed by everyone as horrible in the early 1980s. What we didn’t have then — and we have now — is 4,000 other people. The ratio of non-homeless to homeless is 4,000 to 13 instead of 250 to 13.

So any female walking into Bryant Park who might have in the past been concerned about her security says, ‘This doesn’t look like a homeless hangout to me.’ The homeless people are welcomed into Bryant Park if they follow the rules. And those same 13 people are there almost every day. We know their names.”

Once again, the creative minds of the private sector invent solutions that never occur to government bureaucrats. If government would just get out of the way, entrepreneurship and innovation, stimulated by the profit motive, will make our lives better.


John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.” To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com

MINIMUM WAGE, MAXIMUM FOLLY

BY  WALTER E WILLIAMS

As with so many ‘progressive’ ideas, minimum wage laws actually reduce the standard of living for many, almost invariably causing employment rates to plummet.  Why is this so?

How about this: The law of gravity is applicable to the behavior of falling objects on the U.S. mainland but not applicable on our Pacific Ocean territories Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands. You say, “Williams, that’s lunacy! Laws are applicable everywhere; that’s why they call it a law.”

You’re right, but does the same reasoning apply to the law of demand that holds: The higher the price of something, the less people will take of it; and the lower its price, the more people will take of it? The law of demand applies to wages, interest and rent because, after all, they are the prices of something.

In 2007, the Democrat-led Congress and White House enacted legislation raising the minimum wage law, in steps, from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. With some modification, the increases applied to our Pacific Ocean territories. Republicans and others opposed to the increases were labeled as hostile toward workers.

According to most opinion polls taken in 2006, more than 80 percent of Americans favored Congress’ intention to raise the minimum wage. Most Americans see the minimum wage as a good thing, and without it, rapacious employers wouldn’t pay workers much of anything.

On the eve of the 2007 minimum wage increase, someone got 650 of my fellow economists, including a couple awarded the Nobel Prize in economics, to sign a petition that read “We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed.” At the time, I wrote that I felt embarrassment for them, but at least the petition was not signed by any George Mason University economists.

According to a Sept. 30, 2010 American Samoa government press release, “Governor Togiola Tulafono today expressed his sincere gratitude to President Barack Obama for signing legislation that will delay the minimum wage increase scheduled to take effect in American Samoa for 2010 and 2011.” My question to you is why would a Democrat-controlled Congress pass a measure (HR 3940), and a Democrat president sign it, that would postpone the enactment of something as “wonderful” as an increase in the minimum wage law.

The fact of the matter is that increases in minimum wages have had a devastating impact on American Samoan workers. In my “Minimum Wage Cruelty: Update” column of May 26, 2010, I wrote: “Chicken of the Sea International moved its operation from Samoa to a highly automated cannery plant in Lyons, Ga. That resulted in roughly 2,000 jobs lost in Samoa and a gain of 200 jobs in Georgia. StarKist, the island’s remaining cannery, announced that between 600 and 800 people will be laid off over the next six months, reducing the company’s Samoan workforce from a high of more than 3,000 in 2008 to less than 1,200 workers.” According to SamoanNews.Com, in August, 300 workers received layoff letters in phase one of Starkist’s downsizing plans.

Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times staff writer who wrote “Territories snared in wage debate,” (10/18/10) said, “A number of those involved with the minimum-wage issue appeared not to want to talk about it. The White House didn’t return a call seeking comment, nor did the AFL-CIO, the chief umbrella group for labor unions.”

Does the law of demand that we’ve seen applying to American Samoa also apply to the U.S. mainland? It does and particularly for teenagers and especially black teenagers. In 2007, the unemployment rate for all teens was 15 percent; today it’s 25 percent. For black teenagers, in 2007, unemployment was 26 percent; today it’s over 50 percent. Overall unemployment is a little over 9 percent.

Those who argue that the minimum wage has no effect on labor markets in the U.S. but has an effect in American Samoa are either liars, lunatics or idiots, and that includes those 650 economists who signed that petition suggesting that a “modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers.”


Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He has authored more than 150 publications, including many in scholarly journals, and has frequently given expert testimony before Congressional committees on public policy issues ranging from labor policy to taxation and spending.

TO BE AN ACTRESS

BY MICHELLE C

Some elements of the human spirit cannot be subdued. Holocaust survivor Nava Shean’s dedication to acting, in the face of great peril, is a testament to just such strength and passion.

A girl of nine plays the part of a Japanese boy bravely facing execution in a theater show in Prague. At eighteen, she has a promising career in Prague’s Children Theater.

The German invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938 bans her from acting on the stage, so she acts behind the stage, reciting the dialogue in a puppet show. Deported to Terezin concentration camp, she organizes a theater where inmates perform plays by Edmond Rostand, Rudyard Kipling, Jean Cocteau and Nikolai Gogol. The spectators pay for their tickets to the shows by food.

Throughout her life, Nava Shean remained true to her greatest passion: to be an actress, “even if I can only walk across the stage and wave a handkerchief.” Her love of acting sustained her spirit against internment, economic hardships, and intrigue and betrayal by colleagues.

 

To Be an Actress

Nava Shean was born as Vlasta Schönová in Czechoslovakia in 1919. She survived the concentration camp and in 1948 immigrated to Israel, where she changed her nickname “Vava” into “Nava” and “Schön” into “Shean.”

 

While interned in the concentration camp, Shean performed with fellow actors, musicians, and directors. They rehearsed and performed at night, after a full day of menial labor. Shean also organized a children’s theater, where she adapted the Czech children’s story Broucci (fireflies). She describes how, years later at a reunion of Terezin survivors, a woman approached her, introduced herself as “a firefly,” and told Shean:

I owe you my childhood. My entire childhood was totally erased from my memory because of the trauma of the holocaust… When I was your ‘firefly,’ this became my best childhood memory: to run around the stage and sing ‘the Spring will come.’ It was for me more than you can imagine. You created there, under the difficult conditions, great moments for the children.

Shean’s single-minded concentration on acting enabled her to transcend the ugliness and misery around her. She describes how while in Terezin, she has to work at a hospital ward of elderly women. Shean watches one woman and thinks:

I will perform this on the stage if I ever have such a role. I must register all the small details in my memory. How she is moving her hands, never lies still. Vava, you are disgusting. Rather than feel some human compassion you think about the theater? You are not human. Yes, I am disgusted with myself. I am a true actress.

After the liberation, Shean returned to the Czech stage and served as the manager of a new theater in the town of Brno. In 1948 she escaped Czechoslovakia’s looming Communist takeover, seizing an opportunity to immigrate to Israel. In Israel she overcame the language barrier and eventually performed Shakespearean roles such as King Lear’s Goneril.

As a young single mother, Shean resisted the arguments that her child’s welfare required that she relinquishes acting. Having no relatives in her new country, she found an older couple who served as adoptive parents for her and her baby daughter. Her acting continued uninterrupted.

In 1968, during the Prague Spring, Shean visited Czechoslovakia for the first time since leaving twenty years earlier. The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia cut short her visit and she had to escape Communism once again.

But during that visit, she resumed a relationship cut short by World War II with Hubert Hermann, who had saved her sister during the war. Hermann joined her in Israel after eight years of fighting Communist bureaucracy. Excerpts from his letters to Shean during those years provide a glance into life under Communism and an insight into Hermann’s resistance to its stifling impact through wry humor. (“I only need to add up 65 monthly salaries to buy a Škoda!”)

The memoir, To Be an Actress, is not intellectual, but experiential. It does not preach an ideology, but shows Shean’s adherence to her convictions of dedication, hard work, and independence. There is no explicit criticism of the Kibbutz ideology, but Shean tells how she left the Kibbutz once the members voted against her continuing to act.

For her, there was never a choice between acting and economic security. She moved to the city and built her life and career on her own, supporting herself by traveling shows. In the end, Shean was an entrepreneur who established herself as a one-woman theater.

In fact, it would be wrong to say that Shean does not preach an ideology. She preaches the ideology of dedication to her greatest passion: to be an actress.

Translation note: Shean published two versions of her memoir. The Hebrew version was published in Israel in 1991, under the title Lehiyot Sachkanit, and the Czech version was published in the Czech Republic in 1993 under the title Chtěla jsem být herečkou. To Be an Actress is the translation of the Hebrew version.


Michelle Fram Cohen is a translator, interpreter, and language instructor and tester. She hold graduate degrees in Comparative Literature and History and is pursuing a PhD which combines the two fields. She lives in Maryland with her husband and son.

AIRPORT ‘SECURITY’?

BY THOMAS SOWELL

The unconstitutionally invasive new airport security measures in the US are not only illegal, but doomed to be ineffective. Why, then, do the powers that be insist on going forward?

No country has better airport security than Israel — and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don’t have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts.

Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs?

“Security” may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this administration in other areas is all too painfully apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures.

Can you remember a time when a Cabinet member in a free America boasted of having his “foot on the neck” of some business or when the President of the United States threatened on television to put his foot on another part of some citizens’ anatomy?

Yet this and more has happened in the current administration, which is not yet two years old. One Cabinet member warned that there would be “zero tolerance” for “misinformation” when an insurance company said the obvious, that the mandates of ObamaCare would raise costs and therefore raise premiums. Zero tolerance for exercising the First Amendment right of free speech?

More than two centuries ago, Edmund Burke warned about the dangers of new people with new power. This administration, only halfway through its term, has demonstrated that in many ways.

What other administration has had an Attorney General call the American People “cowards”? And refuse to call terrorists Islamic? What other administration has had a Secretary of Homeland Security warn law enforcement officials across the country of security threats from people who are anti-abortion, for federalism or are returning military veterans?

If anything good comes out of the airport “security” outrages, it may be in opening the eyes of more people to the utter contempt that this administration has for the American people.

Those who made excuses for all of candidate Barack Obama’s long years of alliances with people who expressed their contempt for this country, and when as president he appointed people with a record of antipathy to American interests and values, may finally get it when they feel some stranger’s hand in their crotch.

As for the excuse of “security,” this is one of the least security-minded administrations we have had. When hundreds of illegal immigrants from terrorist-sponsoring countries were captured crossing the border from Mexico — and then released on their own recognizance within the United States, that tells you all you need to know about this administration’s concern for security.

When captured terrorists who are not covered by either the Geneva Convention or the Constitution of the United States are nevertheless put on trial in American civilian courts by the Obama Justice Department, that too tells you all you need to know about how concerned they are about national security.

The rules of criminal justice in American courts were not designed for trying terrorists. For one thing, revealing the evidence against them can reveal how our intelligence services got wind of them in the first place, and thereby endanger the lives of people who helped us nab them.

Not a lot of people in other countries, or perhaps even in this country, are going to help us stop terrorists if their role is revealed and their families are exposed to revenge by the terrorists’ bloodthirsty comrades.

What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security do not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter — and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works.

Meanwhile, this administration is so hung up on political correctness that they have turned “profiling” into a bugaboo. They would rather have electronic scanners look under the clothes of nuns than to detain a Jihadist imam for some questioning.

Will America be undermined from within by an administration obsessed with political correctness and intoxicated with the adolescent thrill of exercising its new-found powers? Stay tuned.


Thomas Sowell is a Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California. He has published dozens of books on economics, education, race, and other topics. His most recent book is The Housing Boom and Bust, from April 2009.

PUTTING OBAMACARE ON ICE

BY LOGAN CLEMENTS

Mass media is a powerful tool for disseminating ideas to the public. And now, a great new movie and business opportunity is available to help quash support for ObamaCare.

Like all progressive legislation, ObamaCare poses as a cure for the malfeasance of the market. We’ve heard the proclamation, repeated often enough, that “if you like your health insurance you can keep it.” This is a cruel joke, but only those with the inclination and understanding will get the punchline — there won’t be any health insurance market when ObamaCare is done.

More importantly, there won’t be much in the way of good healthcare either. Doctors may be smart, drugs miraculous, and procedures life-saving, but it will all be flat-lined when decisions about your medical care are based on political considerations and Marxist ideology.

To change the political reality of a society, you need to change the ideas first and the politicians last. Most ideas percolate in the universities before being served to the public. Unfortunately, America’s universities are dominated by post-modernist ideology that pollutes all points downriver, assuring that simply replacing a current crop of politicians at the bottom will be futile. We need to win the war of ideas, the air war, if we ever want to gain and keep ground (or water), rather than just swapping it back and forth every six years.

I look forward to the day when tenured Marxist professors end up with offices and class schedules in some of the less cozy parts of the Aleutian Islands. But replacing the forges of America’s mind-factories will take decades. Until then, we can win the war at slightly lower altitude using mass media.

Movies in particular serve as a powerful platform to take the ammunition produced by free-market authors and think tanks to win the public debate. Few people would want to read a public policy book about healthcare, but who wouldn’t want to see me rent a Canadian hospital and have a sexy girl chased by a beaver?

My new movie, “Sick and Sicker: ObamaCare Canadian Style,” has a simple mission; to show Americans where ObamaCare will take us. It’s a world where politicians try to reduce health care costs by reducing access to healthcare itself. “What’s driving all these costs?” the bureaucrats asked. Doctors, of course. Doctors perform operations, doctors write prescriptions, and doctors consult with patients.

So in the early 1990s, the health bureaucrats in Canada paid doctors to quit practicing medicine. A doctor shortage ensued. Now over 4 million Canadians don’t have a family doctor. And the system is rigged so that you can’t see a specialist without a referral from a family doctor. The family doctor is the bouncer at Club Savoir Life.

The irony is excruciating. While the entire system was created to take “money out of medicine,” nothing factors more into each decision than the cost. Five of the cancer patients I interviewed complained that they were refused the best and most timely treatments due to cost. They all died before my movie was finished.

I was impressed by their courage to speak out. Most Canadians are afraid to talk, and why wouldn’t they be? If they speak out, their own access to medicine, or that of a relative, could be cut off. One person I wanted to interview told me exactly this. Her father died of a treatable heart condition while stuck on a government waiting list. But she didn’t want to say anything, because another relative was seeking treatment and she feared retribution.

Actually, I’d like to provide a second opinion. There is one thing besides cost that is king in system of PolitiCare, and that’s the kings themselves and their desire to stay on top. You see, patients are treated not by hospital buildings, but by the doctors and nurses working inside those buildings. However in a PolitiCare system, the politicians get re-elected by having a new hospital built in their district, even if their vote to retire doctors leaves those buildings half empty.

Remember when the Soviet Union was on its last legs, and the Soviet air force earned some extra vodka money by selling rides on its jets? Well, it’s kind of like that.  While more than 800,000 Canadians are stuck on waiting lists, large sections of many Canadian hospitals sit empty. What do they do with this empty space? Of course, they rent it out to movie producers to make a little extra money. I felt obliged to take them up on their offer. As I say, “What would Borat do?”

Now the real challenge is getting this movie in front of regular Americans and Canadians. Yet therein lies a common bond between medicine and movies. Both need profits to thrive. So I’m attempting to create a new way for movies to get past the left-wing bottleneck of Hollywood distribution. I want those battling ObamaCare in America and socialized medicine in Canada to make money, lots of money, by showing my movie.

From today until January 31, 2011 anyone (tea partier, Ayn Rand fan, doctor, nurse, Republican or just patriotic person) can become an official screener of my movie for $500. Download it to your laptop computer, plug it into regular projector and get fifty people to watch it for $10.  Congratulations, you just broke even.  Now, keep showing it as many times as you can and make as much money as you can until January 31. But don’t worry, if you live in a remote part of the Aleutian Islands, you can just download a single user version for $5.

Find both versions of the movie at SickAndSickerMovie.com.


Logan Darrow Clements is the former publisher of American Venture magazine. In 2005, he fought eminent domain abuse by trying to take the house of a Supreme Court justice who helped unleash it. Clements’s next movie is already underway, and covers eminent domain battles up close. You can watch trailers and short videos at FreestarMedia.com, including one of a monkey beating Social Security’s return rate with some darts.