Lance Armstrong's Heroism Is a Moral Inspiration

From Andrew Bernstein, writing for the Ayn Rand Institute:
Athletic victories provide a rare and crucial moral value: the sight of human achievement.
When Lance Armstrong rode through Paris on Sunday, crowning his unprecedented seventh consecutive victory in the grueling Tour de France, he put an exclamation mark on what is more than merely an extraordinary athletic career.
By this time, the entire world knows Armstrong’s story–his remarkable recovery from what was feared to be terminal cancer, his exhausting training program, his legendary endurance, his dauntless determination, his unequalled dominance of cycling?s premier event. Millions around the world properly celebrate him and his lofty accomplishments.
But what explains the enormous interest in Armstrong’s success–or that of any other sports hero? Why do sports fans set such a strong personal stake in the victories of their heroes? After all, little of any practical significance depends on such victories; a seventh Armstrong win won’t get his fans a raise or help send their children to college. Why do sports have such an enormous, enduring appeal in human life?
The answer lies in a rarely recognized aspect of sports: their moral significance. What athletic victories provide is a rare and crucial moral value: the sight of human achievement.
Continue reading “Lance Armstrong's Heroism Is a Moral Inspiration”

Ayn Rand featured in the Museum of the Jewish People

The Museum of the Jewish People in Tel Aviv, Israel, features Ayn Rand on its online “Who is Who in the Jewish World?
The web page honors “[a] gallery of famous Jewish personalities, who have left a significant imprint on history” and provides information on “personalities chosen from various fields of historical, cultural, religious, political and scientific life.”
Each week, a person is featured as “Personality of the Week.” Ayn Rand was featured with a fair and accurate entry on her life and achievements:

Ayn Rand (Alissa Rosenbaum)
(1905 – 1982) writer and philosopher
Born in Russia, she studied at the University of Petrograd graduating in 1924. She immigrated to the United States two years later and became a screenwriter in Hollywood. During the late 1930s, she began developing her philosophy of Objectivism, a worldview proclaiming support for each individual’s talent and effort that according to her opinion finds his or her best expression solely within a pure Capitalist framework. Rand argued in favor of her viewpoint in a number of novels, among them “The Fountainhead”, published in 1943, and “Atlas Shrugged” released in 1957. She further elaborated her views in a number of non-fiction works as well as in two journals under her editorship: “The Objectivist” (1962-1971) and “The Ayn Rand Letter” (1971-1976).

Tom Cruise, Ayn Rand, and the Self-Made Man

Today’s Sydney Morning Herald contains this interesting ramble by Ruth Wajnryb about the power of remaking oneself in one’s own image:

[Tom] Cruise wasn’t always going to be Cruise. He used to be a gawky, orthodontically challenged, two-bit nobody. Then he had his teeth fixed, and who knows what else, and emerged looking as close as he could dream to being a latter-day James Dean in Top Gun. Then he was A Few Good Men’s hunk – the white-uniformed fledgling lawyer-officer with God on his side, a baseball bat in his hand and Demi Moore beside him.
Call me weird, but I actually carry around in my day-planner a very old picture of Tom Cruise – and I mean old. Before Nicole, before Top Gun, before the radical teeth work. It’s a before-pic, to which I’ve attached an after-pic; together they serve as a kind of talis(wo)man. They keep me grounded, reminding me that what we know of Cruise has been commodified to within an inch of his life. Grumpy old woman that I’m becoming, that’s nice to know. It is, well, settling.

And:

Yet face work and air-brushing only go so far. It’s really in the language that Cruise constructs his persona. He talks the talk masterfully. He’s the expert. A major part of talking the talk is massaging past biography into a version that’s congruent with the present. I read somewhere that Cruise said that when he was young he used to look about in the street for people he might help – little old ladies struggling to cross the road, others laden with heavy shopping.
Now hold this boy scout image against the code of the Samurai, which he will passionately explicate for anyone who asks, obligingly allowing his on-screen identity to bleed into him: “Be acutely honest throughout your dealings with all people. Believe in justice … To the true Samurai, there are no shades of grey. There’s only right and wrong. A life of honour, a life of honesty. These are things, the way I try to live my life. Doing things right, and treating people with respect.”

The ending:

My pictorial talisman started out quite personally – used to be something to glance at while waiting at the periodontist. Then I started showing the pictures to people and discovered their reaction gave me a buzz. Some, like me, were astounded at what cosmetic work can do for a face. But most have bought the Cruise line – dazzling success can be anyone’s, provided you really want it. It’s an Ayn Rand world: the rugged individual is born, has hopes and dreams, is single-mindedly ambitious, but also kind to old people, children and animals. All Cruise has done is embrace enthusiastically the pursuit of happiness that is everyone’s right.
Narro ergo sum. Loosely, I am my narrative.

See the full story for a bit more background.

Robert Garmong on Privatizing Space Exploration

The American Daily has published a new op-ed by Robert Garmong titled “Privatize Space Exploration.” It begins:

As NASA scrambles to make the July 31 window for the troubled launch of space shuttle Discovery, we should recall the first privately funded manned spacecraft, SpaceShipOne, which over a year ago shattered more than the boundary of outer space: it destroyed forever the myth that space exploration can only be done by the government.
Two years ago, a Bush Administration panel on space exploration recommended that NASA increase the role of private contractors in the push to permanently settle the moon and eventually explore Mars. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that NASA will consider the true free-market solution for America’s expensive space program: complete privatization.
There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration, as the grandest of man’s technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their creative thinking and judgment. Yet, by funding the space program through taxation, we necessarily place it at the mercy of bureaucratic whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA’s history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals.

See the full article for more information.
UPDATE: On a related note, Instapundit points us to this optimistic article in the Christian Science Monitor: “Beyond NASA: The Push to Privatize Space Flight.”

Fountainhead Fan: Wedding Crasher Vince Vaughn

Vince VaughnA brief article in the Chicago Tribune reports that actor Vince Vaughn‘s favorite book is Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead.
Vaughn co-stars in the new movie Wedding Crashers, due out in theaters tomorrow, July 15th.
From the Trib article:

The actor, who grew up in Lake Forest and recently moved to Chicago, was asked to name some favorites by InStyle magazine. He says his favorite book is “The Fountainhead” by Ayn Rand and his favorite film that he was in is “Swingers.” He won’t reveal his favorite government leader, though.
“I keep my politics to myself–I am just an actor making movies.”

Heh. Nice quality in an actor.
Vaughn also played Mr. Smith’s best friend (the guy who still lives with his mother) in Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
UPDATE: Wedding Crashers earns a good review from Roger Friedman over at FoxNews. Excerpts:

David Dobkin’s “Wedding Crashers,” a comedy from New Line, looks like it’s a big, freakin’ comedy hit.
It’s also rated R because it’s a little raunchy and very politically incorrect.
Nevertheless, Dobkin gets the best performances to date out of Vince Vaughn ? for whom this could be a breakout role ? and Owen Wilson. Luckily, he had a good script by Steve Faber and Bob Fisherto work with.
Vince took it in stride when I mentioned that he stole the movie, which isn’t an easy thing to do when Owen Wilson is around.
In between the riotously funny R-rated scenes, there are some nice character touches that give “Crashers” unexpected texture. It’s a perfect summer date movie.

UPDATE: Johnathan Pearce (writing for Samizdata.net) calls Wedding Crashers “two of the funniest hours [I’ve] spent at cinema in quite a while” and “an outrageous, politically incorrect, deplorable romp of a movie, the perfect tonic for these unpleasant times.”

'Batman Begins' Popular Among Ayn Rand Fans

An article in the Miami Herald (“Batman’s laissez-faire-weather fans“) notes that Batman Begins has become very popular among Ayn Rand fans and other advocates of individualism and capitalism:

Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan’s brooding comic-book blockbuster that opened June 15, has been embraced by its fans for many things: Nolan’s dark, shadowy aesthetic, the detail with which he has teased out Batman’s mythical origins, and Christian Bale’s wholly credible performance as the psychologically complex billionaire-turned-Dark Knight.
But Batman Begins has become something of a cult hit among fans of free markets, individualism and Ayn Rand, among other things. Perform a cursory Google search with the terms Batman Begins and “capitalism,” for instance, and you come up with a blogosphere love-fest, with conservative and especially libertarian commentators praising the film’s pro-business, anti-statist themes.

The article continues:

David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, saw Batman Begins recently at the encouragement of a friend at the Objectivist Center, which, on its website, champions “reason, individualism, freedom and achievement.”
Boaz was happily struck by the fact that the hero was a businessman, he says, “but I think what was more interesting . . . is that the movie takes a strong stand that some things are evil, some people are evil. Crime is bad. And criminals need to be punished, not to be understood and coddled and let out of jail for more therapy.”
Boaz says he was gratified as well to see a heroic portrayal of individualism and the idea “that it’s up to each person to take a stand and each person has his own talents, abilities and opportunities. Bruce Wayne, because of his money and training, has more talent and opportunities to do these things than most of us, but it’s made clear that it’s important for everybody to take a stand.”
Although Hollywood often takes the rap for touting reflexively left-wing pieties, Boaz says the ideas that run through Batman Begins actually aren’t that rare at the multiplex or on TV; he cites such hits as The Aviator, with its multimillionaire hero, The Incredibles, with its sly critiques of egalitarianism (“If everybody’s special, then nobody is”) and the gleefully libertarian South Park as only the most recent examples.
“America is basically a libertarian country,” Boaz says, “so Americans are going to put libertarian themes into the art they create, and sometimes it’s more explicit and sometimes it’s less so. But it’s not a big surprise to see individualism, anti-totalitarianism and fighting for freedom and social tolerance showing up in American art.” Kapow!

See the full article for more information.

Update on Judge Souter and the Lost Liberty Hotel

According to a new article in the Dakota Voice, Logan Darrow Clements has received an enthusiastically supportive response from New Hampshire residents and is proceeding with his plans for the Lost Liberty Hotel:
Logan Darrow Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, is moving forward with plans to have the town of Weare, New Hampshire, take the home of Supreme Court Judge David H. Souter for development of a new “Lost Liberty Hotel.”
As reported by Dakota Voice and others, Clements expressed interest in Souter’s home after a Supreme Court ruling supported by Souter himself was made in “Kelo vs. City of New London,” allowing city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
Just 24 hours after Clements’ announcement, the town of Weare was “inundated” by calls and emails of support for Clements’ proposal.
Mr. Clements wants to build “The Lost Liberty Hotel,” which will feature the “Just Desserts Café.” The hotel would include a museum, open to the general public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”
In the Lost Liberty Hotel newsletter issued today, Clements said some of the comments he has received “inspired me and others made me laugh so hard I nearly fell out of my chair.”
Clements says he has received about 6,000 emails and voicemails, and his website started to receive about 370,000 visits a day. He is is looking to hire staff to help him.
The newsletter also states that Clements is looking for an experienced hotel developer. He is already talking to several companies, but would like to hear from more so that he can make the best decision possible.
Clements also says that even if the Board of Selectmen in Weare doesn’t vote in favor of his proposal, which would generate more tax revenue for them than Souter’s property tax nets, that several citizens are drafting ballot initiatives which would bypass the Board and accomplish the same results.
Clements points out that he has not yet officially made this proposal, but wants to secure a development company first, to prepare all the architectural drawings, economic viability statistics, financial statements, etc. to illustrate how the venture will work and succeed. Clements says that at this point, he has only faxed the town, asking them to outline the procedures for making such a proposal.
Clements is scheduled to appear on a national cable television show the afternoon of Tuesday, July 12 (more details to follow).

Why Won't Muslims Denounce Their 'Extremists'?

In the wake of the recent London bombings, a number of writers around the web are re-asking the very good question “Why don’t Islamics denounce and suppress their own so-called ‘extremists’ more effectively?”
In his aptly titled blog entry “Is it Islamic “extremism” — or is it Islam itself?” Objectivist writer Robert Bidinotto begins:

In the wake of the London bombings, we are forced again to confront this most uncomfortable question:
Do the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists truly represent a marginal minority among Muslims worldwide?
Or is the term “Islamic fundamentalist” really just a redundancy?
I am by no means an expert on Islam. But since 9/11, and countless terrorist incidents since, I have been patiently awaiting evidence that the majority of Muslims worldwide repudiate the premises and tactics of Islamic terrorists.
Well, I’m still waiting. And there comes a time when one must finally draw conclusions, however painful, from the facts presented.
If there really is some sort of ongoing war between “extremists” and “moderates” for the soul of Islam, it appears to be one of the quietest contests in the history of ideological warfare.

Instapundit addressed this topic yesterday as well, and provides this quote from an article by Tom Friedman in the NYTimes:

Because there is no obvious target to retaliate against, and because there are not enough police to police every opening in an open society, either the Muslim world begins to really restrain, inhibit and denounce its own extremists – if it turns out that they are behind the London bombings – or the West is going to do it for them. And the West will do it in a rough, crude way – by simply shutting them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent.
And because I think that would be a disaster, it is essential that the Muslim world wake up to the fact that it has a jihadist death cult in its midst. If it does not fight that death cult, that cancer, within its own body politic, it is going to infect Muslim-Western relations everywhere. Only the Muslim world can root out that death cult. It takes a village. . . .
The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day – to this day – no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.

See Instapundit’s full discussion for more analysis and a link to information about one Muslim group that has, in fact, issued a Fatwah against Osama bin Laden.

Africa Needs Mercenaries, Not Musicians

Yesterday’s LATimes.com included an excellent article by Max Boot (“Mercenaries, Not Musicians, for Africa“) exposing the real problem in Africa, and why all the various charity concerts absolutely will not help:
In the last 50 years, $2.3 trillion has been spent to help poor countries. Yet Africans’ income and life expectancy have gone down, not up, during that period, while South Korea, Singapore and other Asian nations that received little if any assistance have moved from African-level poverty to European-level prosperity thanks to their superior economic policies.
Economists who have studied aid projects have found numerous reasons for the failures. In many instances, money was siphoned off by corrupt officials. Even when funds did reach the intended beneficiaries, the money often distorted local markets for goods and labor, creating inflation that drove local businesses out of business. . . .
Oddly enough, Sachs ignores the most obvious obstacle to Africa’s escape from the “poverty trap,” what his pal Bob Geldof has accurately described as “corruption and thuggery.” (This was also Sachs’ blind spot when he tried to reform the Russian economy in the 1990s.) Yet not even Sir Bob has offered any plausible ideas for addressing these deep-rooted woes.
Africans continue to be tormented not by the G-8, as anti-poverty campaigners imply, but by their own politicos, including Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who is abetting genocide in Darfur, and Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, who is turning his once-prosperous country into a famine-plagued basket case. Unless it’s linked to specific “good governance” benchmarks (as with the new U.S. Millennium Challenge Account), more aid risks subsidizing dysfunctional regimes.
Any real solution to Africa’s problems must focus on the root causes of poverty ? mainly misgovernment. Instead of pouring billions more down the same old rat holes, maybe the Live 8 crew should promote a more innovative approach: Use the G-8’s jillions 2 hire mercenaries 4 the overthrow of the 6 most thuggish regimes in Africa. That would do more to help ordinary Africans than any number of musical extravaganzas.
See the full article for more great information. (Found via Instapundit.)