Magazine - The Atlasphere Social Network

CAPTURING THE SPIRIT OF ATLAS SHRUGGED

Posted on December 20, 2010 by TeamAtlas

BY DONOVAN ALBANESI

What was it like to attend the ten-minute sneak-peek of the Atlas Shrugged movie earlier this month in New York City? An Atlasphere member relates his firsthand experience.

On December 7, 2010, I attended the Atlas Shrugged movie event hosted by the Atlas Society. I had no idea how many people would attend; I had made my RSVP through Facebook, which listed only seven registered attendees.

I traveled from my home in Dallas, Texas to be at this historic event. As I walked in the cold along the streets of New York City, I found myself in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral on 5th Avenue.

I turned my head to the right and there, in front of Rockefeller Center, was the bronze statue of Atlas carrying the world on his back. I smiled; I had not anticipated seeing the statue. This only set the stage for what would prove to be an experience of a lifetime.

The statue of Atlas in front of Rockefeller Center in New York City

Since the announcement of the production of the film in June 2010, expectations among fans of Atlas Shrugged and among Objectivists in particular have been mixed, and the attitude in some circles has been decidedly pessimistic.

Some people expressed prejudicial concerns that the film would be a flop, because it was not a major Hollywood undertaking.

Due to the modest production budget and the limited time available to complete the filming, some critics have been either indifferent to or contemptuous of the endeavor.

Some blog writers actually hoped that John Aglialoro, a former founding contributor of the Ayn Rand Institute and now a trustee of the Atlas Society, would fail to meet his filming deadline, so that the movie rights would revert back to Leonard Peikoff, trustee of the Ayn Rand estate.

Other bloggers wrote that they wanted the film to fail simply because, were it to succeed, it would be an achievement for the Atlas Society, a competitor to the Ayn Rand Institute. My thinking has always been that the grandeur of this story could carry the film, just as Atlas, the mythological Greek god, carried the world on his shoulders.

Hank and Dagny in Hank’s office

This is not the first attempt to produce a film of Atlas Shrugged. Ed Snider, a highly successful businessman and one of the original founders of the Ayn Rand Institute, tried to produce a movie version of the book in the 1980s in collaboration with Peikoff. Snider lost over half a million dollars in the process due to Peikoff’s apparent unwillingness or inability to see the project through.

Decorations at Columbus Circle, from the author’s trip to New York City

Peikoff later sold the Atlas Shrugged movie rights to Aglialoro for a million dollars, granting him full artistic license. In my view, Aglialoro exemplifies the spirit of a Hank Rearden: taking on the Herculean task of adapting to film one of the most challenging books ever written and investing millions of dollars of his own money into the enterprise.

When I arrived at the event, I was surprised to see around 150 people in attendance.

At the same time, I was disappointed; I knew how many people should have been there, and why they weren’t.

The atmosphere, however, was incredibly positive. The speeches preceding the ten-minute movie clip were inspirational and passionate. When the preview began, I was swept into the world of Atlas Shrugged — the actors and the visual effects captured the spirit of the story!

I was immediately drawn into the context of an America that is in serious economic peril, a society on the brink of total collapse. The world looks dirty, corrupted, and cold.

Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart at the 20th Century Motor Plant

Even if you have not read Atlas Shrugged, you will quickly know the difference between the heroes and the villains, the achievers and the looters.

Taylor Schilling plays Dagny Taggart

Still-frame pictures on the movie’s Facebook fan page cannot begin to portray the total power of the film: the imagery, the background sounds, the music, the voices of the characters, and the thunder of the trains.

Taylor Schilling is a beautiful, confident, and thrilling Dagny Taggart.

Grant Bowler is a fantastic Rearden: his posture, his facial expressions, and his deep voice embody the strength of steel.

At the end of the preview, I was deeply moved as Dagny cries out a screaming and guttural “NO!” as she watches Ellis Wyatt’s oilfields burn.

The final clip showed a mysterious man ominously asking the question, “Who is John Galt?”

If the full movie is consistent with the preview, it will be a heroic tribute to Ayn Rand’s magnum opus.

Donovan Albanesi is the founder and president of The Culture of Reason Center, a resource and study center for students of Objectivism located in Dallas, TX. His website provides many interesting downloadable materials.

CHRISTMAS BOOKS

Posted on December 17, 2010 by TeamAtlas

BY THOMAS SOWELL

If you happen to be stuck for last-minute holiday gift ideas for the rational thinkers in your life, these books carry a wonderfully weighty endorsement!

It is hard to come up with Christmas gifts for people who already seem to have everything. But there are few — if any — people who can keep up with the flood of books coming off the presses. Books can be good gifts for such people.

Among the books I read this year, the one that made the biggest impact on me was New Deal or Raw Deal by Burton Folsom, Jr., a professor at Hillsdale College. It was that rare kind of book, one thoroughly researched by a scholar and yet written in plain language, readily understood by anyone.

So many myths and legends glorifying Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal administration have become part of folklore that a dose of cold facts is very much needed.

The next time someone repeats one of the many myths about FDR, or tries to use the New Deal as a model of how we should try to solve current economic problems, whoever reads this book will have the hard, documented facts with which to shoot down such claims.

The Myth of the Robber Barons

Another book by the same author was published this year — the 6th edition of The Myth of the Robber Barons. When I have asked people, “Just whom did the robber barons rob?” I have never gotten an answer. This book shows why.

Apparently the real sin of the so-called “robber barons,” like that of Wal-Mart today, is that they charged lower prices than their competitors, many of whom went out of business because they were not efficient enough to be able to bring down their prices.

A book more focused on our contemporary culture is Spoilt Rotten! by Theodore Dalrymple. Its subtitle gives its theme: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality. Dr. Dalrymple sees sentimentality as not just a silly foible but as a serious danger to government policy-making, as well as a corruption of personal relations.

A new book on the New York Times by award-winning journalist William McGowan is titled Gray Lady Down: What the Decline and Fall of the New York Times Means for America.

The New York Times is not just another newspaper. It has long been a major influence on the rest of the media and on public opinion, so its degeneration into a propaganda publication in recent years is a national tragedy. McGowan spells it all out in plain words and with numerous examples.

The fact that the New York Times has lost both circulation and credibility is its problem. The fact that America has lost a once reliable source of news is a national problem.

I don’t usually read autobiographical books but two very good ones came out this year. My favorite is Up from the Projects by economist, columnist and personal friend Walter Williams. It is a small book with a big punch. Once you start reading it, it is hard to put down.

Up From the Projects

Up from the Projects is not only a remarkable story of a remarkable man’s life, it is the story of both progress and retrogression in the black community. Everyone wants to take credit for the progress but nobody wants to take the blame for the retrogression.

An even smaller book by a very different man in very different circumstances is Inside the Nixon Administration — subtitled “The Secret Diary of Arthur Burns, 1969-1974.” Distinguished economist Arthur F. Burns was chairman of the Federal Reserve System in those years, and these posthumous excerpts from his diary paint a chilling picture of the irresponsibility, vanity, dishonesty and incompetence in the Nixon White House.

This book is not just about the Nixon administration, however. It is about the ugly realities of politics behind the pious talk of “public service.” And it is about what it means to have a very strange man as President of the United States — something that is all too relevant to our own times.

Intellectuals and Society

My own new books this year are Intellectuals and Society, an account of another strange and dangerous group of people, and the 4th edition of Basic Economics, which is more than twice as large as the first edition. It has been putting on weight over the years, like its author, but the weight is muscle in the case of the book.

Basic Economics has sold more copies than any other book of mine and has been translated into more foreign languages. Apparently there are a lot of people who want to understand economics without having to wade through graphs and equations.

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 Intellectuals and Society, from January 2010.

BERNIE, BERNIE: WAS IT SELFISH?

Posted on December 16, 2010 by TeamAtlas

BY WALTER DONWAY

Many would say Bernie Madoff was a very selfish man — a man who hurt others, including his own family, because he acted only for himself. But did he?

Bernard Madoff announced yesterday, through his lawyer, that he will not attend the funeral of his oldest son, Mark Madoff, 46, who committed suicide over the weekend. Mark hung himself in his Soho, New York, apartment, using a dog leash slung over a pipe. He left his second wife, his two-year-old daughter, and also a previous family that includes two grown children.

A father ordinarily might wish to attend the funeral of his oldest son, but Bernard Madoff is serving a 150-year prison sentence for perpetrating the largest, most damaging (non-governmental) Ponzi scheme investment fraud in history, which devastated the lives of thousands of investors who trusted him. If he attended his son’s funeral, his presence would create a media circus of epic proportions, turning the funeral into a horror show for Mark Madoff’s wife and baby daughter and other family members, including Bernard Madoff’s wife.

It was the firestorm of anger and hate for the very Madoff name, and also an endless stream of lawsuits, criminal and civil, that drove Mark Madoff to kill himself on the second anniversary of his father’s arrest for the legendary Ponzi scheme. The same vehement notoriety caused Bernard Madoff’s wife to petition a court to change her name and the name of her two children from Madoff to something — anything — else.

As Bernard Madoff’s various homes, boats, and other possessions, including even his shoes, have been auctioned off to raise a few dollars to help compensate his victims, his name has become synonymous with dishonesty — the very embodiment of ugly immorality. Given the sentence he received, he will die in jail, but this is viewed as inadequate punishment for his crimes.

Our culture has one virtually universally agreed-upon term for Bernard Madoff’s behavior: “selfish.”

Bernie Madoff

That was the motivation, was it not, of this man who ruthlessly devastated the lives of so many people, so many friends, family members, and associates who trusted him with their savings?

He acted only for himself; and, we have been taught, selfish behavior in all its forms is the cardinal moral danger to the social order.

To act merely for oneself, one’s own values, goals, interests, implies a possible range of behavior from merely mean to monstrous.

Given no principle but selfishness to guide behavior, there supposedly are no limits to destructiveness. Hence Bernard Madoff.

But this brief description of Bernard Madoff’s life, today, raises an obvious question: How did behavior motivated solely by concern for himself, for his own self-interest, lead to the life he now lives — and will live until his death behind bars?

He has nothing of his own, save personal effects in his prison cell. His wife seeks only to sever herself from his name. His eldest son timed his suicide to mark the anniversary of Bernard Madoff’s arrest and public disgrace, and Madoff himself is viewed as such a fascinating object of loathing and morbid curiosity that he dare not attend his son’s funeral.

Bernard Madoff was and is a brilliant man. He created and maintained a mind-bogglingly complex scheme of deception that over decades fooled government regulators, bankers, brokers, and investment professionals of every kind — as well as his associates, closest friends, and family. He built an empire based on out-witting all comers in one of the most scrutinized and competitive businesses in the world. If he set his mind to pursuing only his self-interest, his own values and fulfillment, how could he have gone so completely, disastrously wrong?

Posed this way, the question has no satisfactory answer. The problem, I think, is with one of our assumptions. Before we accept the assumption that Bernard Madoff acted selfishly, we should pose a commonsense test. If we were in young Bernard Madoff’s shoes, beginning his career, what would be some obvious selfish goals? To be plain, and perhaps unimaginative: to earn lots of money to obtain and enjoy comforts, such as luxurious apartments, and pleasures, such as perhaps travel, vacation homes, boats — and to enjoy these acquisitions in peace.

Perhaps to marry an attractive woman (he did) who would love us and admire us, and to have children who would admire us and make us proud by succeeding in their own right. To enjoy the admiration and friendship of colleagues and friends. Simple and obvious things — and nary a mention of what are deemed unselfish pursuits, such as philanthropy, service to our fellow men, religious piety, or sacrifice for supposed ideals such as public service, patriotism, making a better world.

But I would suggest that Bernard Madoff, by any common reckoning, pursued none of those selfish values. He did not earn money, he stole it; and, although he acquired many possessions, he hardly could have enjoyed them in anything like peace and serenity, given his constant vigilance, scheming, deception, and manipulation. And, of course, he lost everything and is spending what should be his years of achievement and satisfaction in a medium-security federal prison.

Did he enjoy the admiration and love of his wife, given what he knew all along about the life he had created for her? And what do any years in which she did love and admire him mean now, as she seeks to disown his very name? His sons, his friends, his colleagues? He did not in fact pursue any of these values; he pursued the pretense of them: the appearance of achievement, the misguided love and admiration of wife, sons, and friends. He pursued not one real value, not one real interest of the self.

I would suggest to you that Bernard Madoff pursued only an image in the minds of others: the image of a successful businessman, the image of a caring husband and father, the image of the creator of wealth and plenty, the image of a man on top of the world. He was not selfish; he created a life in which his existence was solely in the deluded minds of others.

Bernard Madoff’s “self” was a mere misapprehension in other minds. When he dies, nothing real will die. Whatever existed will continue to exist in the minds of others — but now as an avatar of contemptible and ultimately pathetic futility.

Bernard Madoff is a very selfless man.

And we should be very, very afraid of unselfish men.

Walter Donway is a founding trustee of The Atlas Society and author of the book Touched by Its Rays.

WHY ARE LANGUAGE RULES SO BAFFLING?

Posted on December 14, 2010 by TeamAtlas

BY DON HAUPTMAN

Whatever your goals, it’s essential to possess the skills to express your ideas effectively and persuasively. When you master the tools of communication, you have an edge in work and in life.

Some years ago, a friend who is, like me, an admirer of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of reason, asked me to review an article he had written. Suddenly, he interrupted our conversation with this outburst:

“How does anyone know what’s right and wrong, anyway? Everyone disagrees! Why can’t English be as logical and consistent as mathematics?”

His frustration is understandable. When it comes to matters of English grammar and usage, how can we be sure of what’s correct and what isn’t? The answers aren’t always simple.

Why is the question important? A series of articles in The Wall Street Journal reported that poor writing and speech habits can damage an executive’s career prospects. What’s more, when you express your ideas and arguments with clarity and precision, people take them more seriously and are more likely to be persuaded.

First, let’s tackle my friend’s objection. He might be happier in France, which has a government-run academy that serves as the official authority for the French language, decreeing what’s acceptable and what’s prohibited.

Here in America, fortunately, we don’t have a language dictatorship but rather something of a free market. No single oracle dispenses the ultimate answers. But that freedom comes with a tradeoff. Each of us must consider various sources of language guidance, which sometimes conflict, and make our own decisions.

Language gurus generally fall into one of two schools. The prescriptivists offer explicit rules and advice. The descriptivists advocate recording how language is used, without passing judgments.

I’m often tempted to call the second group permissivists.

Once upon a time, dictionaries were prescriptive; they functioned as authorities that told us what was right and wrong. Increasingly, however, they have become descriptive; they simply reflect language as it is used. Thus, if a sufficient number of people use a word in the wrong sense, that sense is deemed “right” by popular, “democratic” vote.

I’m not making this up! The argument never struck me as especially sane, but descriptivism is now accepted practice among many lexicographers.

When people disagree about the meaning of a word, someone is bound to say, “Let’s look it up in the dictionary.” As if that will settle everything. But as the above analysis suggests, this solution doesn’t always work.

If you need the definition of an uncontroversial word, such as modicum or portico, a dictionary is an appropriate resource to consult. The problems occur with words that are routinely misused or that have disputed meanings.

Here are three examples of prescriptivism vs. descriptivism in practice. In each case, there’s a traditional, prescribed definition and an “everyone uses it that way” — otherwise known as incorrect — meaning.

disinterested: This word doesn’t mean uninterested. Rather, it means impartial, unbiased, having no vested interest in the matter under consideration.
enormity: Don’t use it to refer to something that’s merely large. The word means a great evil, wickedness, or atrocity, as in “the enormity of Nazism.”
verbal: Not a synonym for spoken. It means having to do with words or language, whether spoken or written. When you refer to the spoken as opposed to the written word, use oral.

When meanings are blurred, as often occurs with the words cited above, we lose valuable distinctions. The English language is thereby cheapened, a process analogous to the devaluation of a nation’s currency.

Some people say, in effect: “Who cares? What do the persnickety rules matter as long as we communicate?”

The answer is that not observing rules and definitions often means that we don’t communicate, or not very well. It’s important to express thoughts and ideas with precision. When a sentence is sloppy, it can cause ambiguity, confusion, and misunderstandings. Badly written prose can also appear awkward, clunky, or illiterate. Craft, style, eloquence, and erudition still count.

In general, I advise observing traditional rules, which constitute what’s called “Standard English,” unless a compelling reason exists to disregard them. Here’s why.

Customs and conventions aren’t irrelevant, nor are they “collectivist” injunctions that stifle individualism and creativity. They’re part of civilized society, and we ignore them at our peril.

We’re judged by how we use language. In your career and social life, you’re constantly viewed as educated or uneducated, literate or illiterate, on the basis of how well you speak and write. Like it or not, such first impressions help determine your status, advancement, wealth, romantic success, and so on. What’s more, many of the important people who pass such judgments respect tradition and care about standards. So it’s wise to act on the side of caution.

Take the prohibition on splitting infinitives. For centuries, language purists insisted on this taboo. Then the permissivists scoffed, derided the rule as a “superstition,” and proclaimed that nothing is wrong with the practice.

My view: Let’s respect the rule — unless the result sounds awkward or unnatural. I wonder if anything would have been lost if the Star Trek mission had been “to go boldly where no man has gone before.”

The sometimes puzzling and arbitrary rules of English inspired me to create what I archly call “The Necktie Principle.” No rational reasons exist to wear these sartorial embellishments, and one could offer several compelling arguments against them. But a male in the corporate world who abandons this accessory will likely come to regret that decision.

So it is with language. Even the permissivists don’t spell physician with an F, or knowledge without the K, although those revisions would, after all, be more “logical.” As for those who proclaim, “It’s in the dictionary,” don’t forget that dictionaries include the word ain’t, which will never be accepted in cultured circles no matter how many people use it.

As you might guess, I incline toward the prescriptivist camp. But language changes, and I’m willing to concede that the rules may be modified, revised, or bent when a good reason to do so exists.

If following a rule creates an awkward or stilted result, you might need to break it. But first, try rephrasing the sentence, a trick that often sidesteps the problem.

As for words with evolving meanings, consider mutual. Traditionally, it refers to a direct interaction between two or more persons or things, not between, for example, two people and their relationship to a third person. By this definition, Dickens erred when he titled his novel Our Mutual Friend. But “shared friend” and other alternative locutions are clumsy and tortuous. Thus, I’m willing to sanction “mutual friend” and “mutual acquaintance” because in this case there’s a reason to violate the rule.

As with many things in life, balance and common sense should prevail. And, of course, there are levels of discourse: A formal piece of writing, such as an academic paper or job application, requires a different style than a casual conversation or a note to the dry cleaner.

So what practical action can you take to improve your writing and communication skills? A solution is at hand.

In addition to a dictionary, every writer should own a good usage guide. By their nature, usage guides are prescriptivist. Many choices exist, of varying quality and reliability, and no single volume covers everything.

Here are four favorites that have served me well. Keep one or more of these recommended volumes on your desk, and you’ll deploy the written and spoken word with greater clarity, power, and effectiveness.

The Elements of Style by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White. This is the classic — a slender volume packed with advice on how to write well, along with clear explanations of frequently disputed words and expressions. The current Fourth Edition is a revision that followed the deaths of the authors, and some sticklers object to the changes. If you’re a purist, you may want to track down an earlier edition.

The Careful Writer by Theodore M. Bernstein. This is a much larger book, so it covers many issues not found in Strunk and White. The author explains each point clearly and elegantly, with common sense and vivid examples. But the book was published almost five decades ago, and in a few instances the advice is dated or excessively rigid.

The Accidents of Style by Charles Harrington Elster. This quirky, entertaining usage guide was published in 2010, so it addresses many current language matters. In 350 wry and well-reasoned entries, the author resolves a host of thorny problems.

Garner’s Modern American Usage by Bryan A. Garner. If you’re a serious writer, this comprehensive volume — almost 900 pages — should be on your shelf. I’ve rarely had a question that Garner doesn’t cover, and the guidance he offers is almost always sound.

Finally, here are a few tips for perfecting your writing. Good writers edit their work through multiple drafts. Revise them on printouts as well as on your computer screen. Ask one or more trusted reviewers to vet your drafts. Read them aloud. This procedure will help ensure that your communications achieve their objectives … and make you look good as well.

Don Hauptman is a New York City-based advertising copywriter and humorist, and a longtime Objectivist. He writes a weekly online column on language. He is also author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book that shows creative people how to diversify into public speaking, consulting, training, and other profitable activities.

REPORT ON THE ATLAS SHRUGGED MOVIE PREVIEW

Posted on December 13, 2010 by TeamAtlas

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?

Posted on December 9, 2010 by TeamAtlas

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

Posted on December 8, 2010 by TeamAtlas

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

Posted on December 7, 2010 by TeamAtlas

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.

UNLIKELY INSPIRATION

Posted on December 3, 2010 by TeamAtlas

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

Posted on December 2, 2010 by TeamAtlas

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.

Category: Magazine