AYN RAND’S UFO

BY FREDERICK COOKINHAM

A recent article in Forbes magazine tells us Ayn Rand “believed in UFOs.” Did Miss Rand have a hobby none of us knew about? Don your tinfoil hat, grab your binoculars, and let’s take a look.

I’ve seen some smears of Ayn Rand in my day, but this one reaches interplanetary heights.

The April 1, 2010 issue of Forbes Magazine included a review of Anne C. Heller’s biography Ayn Rand and the World She Made, titled “Booked Bio: Who Is Ayn Rand?” The reviewer, Hannah Elliott, lists many reasons to dislike Rand. Some of them are even true, or at least reported by eyewitnesses. But she manages to give the unsuspecting reader a far darker picture of Rand than Heller intended in her biography.

Elliott writes of Rand that she “believed in UFOs.” No more than those short words does she give us on the subject. So here is the rest of the story.

In the fall of 2007, Anne Heller asked me “Did you know that Rand saw a UFO?” Already we’re down from Elliott’s indefinite number of UFOs to just one, and the epistemology is very different than casual readers might conclude: Rand did not “believe” in UFOs; she merely reported seeing something in the sky that she could not identify.

I predicted to Heller that on her book tour, at every stop there would be some clown asking about that silly UFO story. So far, I have been dead wrong about that — thank goodness. My prediction was prompted, in part, by a TV debate among the dozen-or-so Democratic presidential contenders that fall. Moderator Tim Russert asked Dennis Kucinich about a report that he had spotted a UFO hovering over the home of Shirley MacLaine … as if there’s anything unusual about that.

The source of Rand’s UFO story is Ruth Beebe Hill, a California friend of Rand’s circa 1950 and later the author of Hanta Yo, a novel about the Dakota Indians. Ruth told Heller that Ayn had pointed out her bedroom window one day and matter-of-factly said, “A UFO came by there last night.” Ayn had seen it at night, above a line of juniper trees across the lawn. It was round and its outer edges were lighted. It made no sound. It hovered, then flew in slow motion. By the time she had awakened Frank, it had moved out of sight.

First of all, remember that Hill is recalling the incident some sixty-five years after it happened. Second, if you see something at night, in the dark, surrounded by rim lights — you may be seeing just the lights, and merely inferring something solid in their midst.

The moral that Heller draws from this story is that Rand, true to her philosophy, was relying on the evidence of her senses.

My lesson is different. Rand, like myself, was a very literal-minded person. When she first learned the expression “UFO” — if Hill is even correct in recalling that that was the term Rand used — she probably took it to mean what I take it to mean: unidentified flying object.

But my wife often reminds me that other people are not so literal-minded as I am. To most people, “UFO” means only one thing: a spacecraft from another planet, filled with little green men with antennae.

I would guess that to Rand, much as to me, if you see something in the sky and you don’t know what it is, then — to you — it is a UFO. The guy standing next to you may know what it is, and so to him it is not a UFO. People who habitually gaze at the sky see UFOs all the time: pilots, air traffic controllers, birdwatchers, astronomers, meteorologists, Grand Canyon tourists and so on. If they are trained observers, they don’t jump to conclusions about what they saw.

More recently I found a big coffee-table book on the work of Richard Neutra, the architect who designed the house in Chatsworth, at the far northwestern corner of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles, where Ayn and Frank lived from 1944 to 1951. He had designed it in 1935 for Marlene Dietrich and Joseph von Sternberg. It was all steel, painted light blue, and was almost as long as a destroyer, and was surrounded by miles of orange and lemon groves; so military pilot trainees used it at that time as a mock bombing and strafing target. I read that and said, “Aha! That would explain Ayn’s UFO!”

If a formation of planes is flying straight at you from fifty miles away, and it is dark, then in the dry, clear, desert air of Southern California, you will see the lights of the planes for a long time, and those lights will not be moving across your field of vision, but holding steady in a formation that will appear to hover over the tree line until they either zoom over your head or veer off to one side and disappear from your window view.

I’m guessing that if Ayn had said she saw the lights come down in front of the line of junipers, Ruth would have remembered that, because since the junipers were only twelve feet high, we would be talking about a landing, not just an aerial sighting.

It would have been great for the sales of Heller’s book if she could reveal an abduction of Ayn Rand by aliens, but alas….

Jonathan Hirschfeld, a Paris sculptor who also happens to be Nathaniel Branden’s nephew, had the wisest comment on the UFO: If Ayn Rand had been abducted by aliens, then we would merely see Objectivism flowering on some other planet.

Live long and prosper. And check your premises.


Frederick Cookinham gives New York City walking tours, available through In Depth Walking Tours — 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.

New feature: Browse sites and blogs for free

We’ve made some experimental changes to the Atlasphere’s member directory pages:

  1. Unpaid members can now see full names
  2. Unpaid members can now browse all member blogs
  3. Unpaid members can now browse all member websites

Previously, these features were available only to paid subscribers.
There are thousands of member blogs and websites listed in the Atlasphere directory, so this opens up a significant new channel for interaction, even among members with no paid subscription.
We hope you find these new features useful and welcome your feedback about this or any other aspect of the Atlasphere.

FREE OR FAIR?

BY  WALTER E WILLIAMS

Cheaper prices on various goods and services from around the world are generally a good thing for American consumers. So why is it that so many ‘free trade’ advocates see this as unfair?

At first blush, the mercantilists’ call for “free trade but fair trade” sounds reasonable. After all, who can be against fairness? Giving the idea just a bit of thought suggests that fairness as a guide for public policy lays the groundwork for tyranny. You say, “Williams, I’ve never heard anything so farfetched! Explain yourself.”

Think about the First Amendment to our Constitution that reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

How many of us would prefer that the Founders had written the First Amendment so as to focus on fairness rather than freedom and instead wrote: “Congress shall make no unfair laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the fair exercise thereof; or abridging the fairness of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble in a fair fashion, and to fairly petition the Government for a redress of grievances”?

How supportive would you be to a person who argued that he was for free religion but fair religion, or he was for free speech but fair speech? Would you be supportive of government efforts to limit unfair religion and unfair speech? How might life look under a regime of fairness of religion, speech and the press?

Suppose a newspaper published a statement like “President Obama might easily end his term alongside Jimmy Carter as one of America’s worse presidents.” Some people might consider that fair speech while other people denounce it as unfair speech. What to do? A tribunal would have to be formed to decide on the fairness or unfairness of the statement.

It goes without saying that the political makeup of the tribunal would be a matter of controversy. Once such a tribunal was set up, how much generalized agreement would there be on what it decreed? And, if deemed unfair speech, what should the penalties be?

The bottom line is that what’s fair or unfair is an elusive concept and the same applies to trade. Last summer, I purchased a 2010 LS 460 Lexus, through a U.S. intermediary, from a Japanese producer for $70,000. Here’s my question to you: Was that a fair or unfair trade? I was free to keep my $70,000 or purchase the car. The Japanese producer was free to keep his Lexus or sell me the car.

As it turned out, I gave up my $70,000 and took possession of the car, and the Japanese producer gave up possession of the car and took possession of my money. The exchange occurred because I saw myself as being better off and so did the Japanese producer. I think it was both free and fair trade, and I’d like an American mercantilist to explain to me how it wasn’t.

Mercantilists have absolutely no argument when we recognize that trade is mostly between individuals. Mercantilists pretend that trade occurs between nations such as U.S. trading with England or Japan to appeal to our jingoism. First, does the U.S. trade with Japan and England? In other words, is it members of the U.S. Congress trading with their counterparts in the Japanese Diet or the English Parliament?

That’s nonsense. Trade occurs between individuals in one country, through intermediaries, with individuals in another country.

Who might protest that my trade with the Lexus manufacturer was unfair? If you said an American car manufacturer and their union workers, go to the head of the class. They would like Congress to restrict foreign trade so that they can sell their cars at a pleasing price and their workers earn a pleasing wage.

As a matter of fact, it’s never American consumers who complain about cheaper prices. It’s always American producers and their unions who do the complaining. That ought to tell us something.


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.

The Stuxnet story: Better than fiction

If you haven’t already seen it, don’t miss the story “Mystery Surrounds Cyber Missile That Crippled Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Ambitions.”
I found myself marveling several times at the brilliance and ingenuity of Stuxnet. The way it unfolded on the world stage seems like the sort of “series of mysterious events” that could have been in Atlas Shrugged, were it written today rather than in the 1950s.

YARON BROOK: CAPITALISM WITHOUT GUILT

BY  TARA OVERZAT

Brook has become a leading crusader for Ayn Rand’s ideas, in the media and elsewhere. We joined him at a recent event in Atlanta to see what his speaking events are like in person.

Energetic. Engaging. Funny.

Not words one might imagine using to describe a lecture on a college campus. But Yaron Brook delivered all of this and more at a recent talk at Mercer University’s Atlanta campus.

It is worth mentioning that Dr. Brook is punctual. These days, we are so used to events — whether plays, concerts, or lectures — starting late. (C’mon, when was the last time you were at a rock concert and didn’t hear the crowd cheer for some roadie who appeared on stage to plug in an amp, in hopes that the main act was finally about to start the show?) Without excessive pleasantries, Dr. Brook dove into the topic of the night, “Capitalism Without Guilt: The Moral Case for Freedom.”

Dr. Brook began by talking about the housing boom and bust. Government incentives for Americans to take on debt to buy a home, with HUD insuring up to ninety percent of mortgages, were setting people up for failure. For every one dollar of equity, there were one thousand dollars of debt. This also contributed to an artificially low interest rate on mortgages. No private entity would lend money to such a losing enterprise, but the government readily supported the housing market and the inappropriate loans people were procuring.

He then pondered why it is that, whenever there is an economic downturn, people are so quick to blame the free market instead of government intervention. He briefly revisited the government snafus that helped to shape the Great Depression and prolong it, including myriad mistakes by the Federal Reserve.

Next he held up Hong Kong — which he characterized as a small rock surrounded by water, with few natural resources — as an example of a free market at work. Why is it that people are flocking there, sometimes even risking their lives to go there? With its tremendous prosperity, he said that it works “because freedom works. Capitalism works. Free markets work.”

 

Ayn Rand Institute President Yaron Brook

But what about the human face of fiscal success? He cited Bill Gates as an example of someone who had been vilified; but now that he is giving away the millions upon millions he made, he’s a “good guy.”

 

In fact, Dr. Brook clarified, if Gates gave away everything he owned and moved into a hut on an island, we’d call him a great guy — even if he were nuts.

Holding up his iPhone, Dr. Brook explained to the audience that trade, not sacrifice, is best. Steve Jobs aims to make the best product possible, and owning the smartphone Brook held in his hand is worth more to him than the $200 he paid for it.

For him, and other iPhone users, the cost of the phone was more than worth the price paid for it — that’s why they bought them. The consumer benefits from a product they enjoy, and that makes their lives easier, and the company benefits by making a profit on a good product. Such free trade is always a win-win, he told the crowd; and it is sacrifice, in contrast, that creates a lose-lose situation.

So, what about Bernie Madoff? Madoff, Dr. Brook explained, is not selfish but self-destructive. Selfish people “make their lives the best that they can be,” but Madoff put himself on a path that ruined his life. He postulated that Madoff was probably relieved when he finally got caught, because the scam was over. All of the lies, the deception, the fear of getting caught, had now vanished.

Addressing the subject of global warming and the environment more generally, Dr. Brook opined that, “We change our environment in order to live in it.” People live in skyscrapers, not caves. As animals, people are “pathetic” — we have no claws, sharp teeth, or strength. It is our minds that make our survival possible.

He further explained that the best way to protect, say, the spotted owl, was to allow protections for private property. If a person liked spotted owls and wanted them around, he could contribute to a spotted owl preserve. If people want their rivers clean, private property makes that possible, since it allows you to sue the person polluting your river. In other words, your property is protected by the rule of law and cannot be contaminated by others.

Coming to the close of his talk, Dr. Brook invited questions. A man stood up and humbly asked about books that better explain Objectivism. Dr. Brook’s suggestions included Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness and Tara Smith’s Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist. (Tara Smith is the BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism at University of Texas at Austin.)

The next audience member questioned Dr. Brook’s claim that a the free market system is what made Hong Kong so affluent and successful, citing instead the more oppressive Singapore as the best example of economic prosperity. I have attended many lectures at campuses in the Southeast, with notables such as Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, Noam Chomsky, and Dennis Kucinich, to name a few. But I have never seen a speaker so graciously allow an audience member to make his point and then return with his answer without a trace of animosity — no anger at being challenged nor signs of being flustered by the question.

This confidence that exists when one is knowledgeable of the facts and open to intellectual discourse reminded me what Objectivism is all about. Dr. Brook acceded that Singapore was in fact a wealthy city-state, but also reminded the audience of the overly-strict social rules that its government enacts, including the much-publicized caning of an American citizen for vandalism in the Nineties. However, the government of Singapore allows their economy to run as a free-market — providing further evidence, Brook observed, that it is in fact free markets that bring prosperity.

If Dr. Brook comes to a university or lecture hall near you, I highly recommend going to see him speak. I left feeling reinvigorated and further confirmed in my own beliefs in the free market and the many virtues of enlightened self-interest.


Tara Overzat is a writer and a graduate student in Clinical Mental Health Counseling in Atlanta, Georgia. She blogs at Shy Extrovert and the American Counseling Association Blog.

IS JULIAN ASSANGE A JOURNALIST?

BY JACOB SULLUM

When it comes to the First Amendment, there is no restriction on who may publish information. Why, then, has Wikileaks been targeted so aggressively by the US government?

Despite Vice President Biden’s recent squabbling with Republican senators over the meaning of Christmas, he and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell do agree on something. They both say WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has published thousands of confidential Pentagon and State Department documents on his group’s website, is “a high-tech terrorist.”

But assuming that President Obama is not ready to drop a bomb on Assange, punishing him for disseminating military records and diplomatic cables will require specifying what crime he committed under U.S. law. That won’t be easy, unless the Justice Department is prepared to criminalize something journalists do every day: divulge information that the government wants to keep secret.

Last week, Assange’s lawyer claimed a grand jury has been convened in Alexandria, Va., with the aim of indicting him. But under what statute?

The most obvious possibility is the Espionage Act of 1917, which makes it a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to “receive,” “deliver,” “transmit” or “communicate” any “information relating to the national defense” that “the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.”

In spite of the law’s sweeping language, it has almost always been applied to government employees who leak information, as opposed to people who receive it and pass it on.

The one exception was the 2005 indictment of two former pro-Israel lobbyists who were accused of receiving and disclosing classified information about U.S. policy toward Iran. Their source, a Pentagon official, was convicted under the Espionage Act, but the case against them fell apart after the judge ruled that the government would have to show they knew their disclosures were unauthorized and might damage national security.

Assange could be prosecuted even under that reading of the law, and so could all the news organizations that ran stories about the WikiLeaks documents. But the government has never used the Espionage Act to prosecute a journalist, which is what Assange claims to be.

His critics disagree. “WikiLeaks is not a news organization,” writes Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen. “It is a criminal enterprise. Its reason for existence is to obtain classified national security information and disseminate it as widely as possible. … These actions are likely a violation of the Espionage Act, and they arguably constitute material support for terrorism.”

There is a circular quality to this argument: Assange is not a journalist because he’s a criminal, and he’s a criminal because he’s not a journalist. But for constitutional purposes, it does not matter whether Marc Thiessen, Attorney General Eric Holder or anyone else considers Assange a journalist.

“Freedom of the press” does not mean the freedom of those individuals who are lucky enough to be officially recognized as members of the Fourth Estate. It means the freedom to use technologies of mass communication, which today include the Internet. This freedom does not amount to much if the government can deny it to someone by questioning his journalistic credentials.

The government could try to avoid First Amendment problems by accusing Assange of conspiring with Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst who is charged with leaking the Pentagon and State Department documents.

Such a conspiracy could be a crime under the Espionage Act or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which prohibits disclosure of sensitive national defense or foreign relations information obtained through unauthorized computer access. But so far no evidence has emerged that Assange was any more culpable in the leaks than a reporter who receives confidential information from a government source.

There is another way to stop anger over the WikiLeaks document dumps from turning into an assault on the First Amendment. Assuming the allegations against Manning are true, the government should be asking why its own data security practices are so shoddy that a single low-ranking soldier with computer access was able to divulge such a huge trove of supposedly secret information.


Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine, and his work appears in the new Reason anthology Choice (BenBella Books). Sullum is a graduate of Cornell University, where he majored in economics and psychology. He lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and daughter.

TRON’S LEGACY OF MORAL CONTRADICTIONS

BY ANDY GEORGE

The dazzling new Tron Legacy movie extends the original like a richly vivid fractal universe, amplifying every aspect of Tron — including Disney’s tired moral pretensions.

The new Tron Legacy movie updates the original Tron franchise to the more futuristic styles and darker looks that today’s movie going audiences enjoy. The dazzling state-of-the-art production values and computer generated imagery we’ve come to appreciate from a major studio like Disney are carefully woven into an even faster and hipper three-dimensional film tapestry.

An impressive array of contemporary industrial designers advance Tron’s costumes, vehicles, and settings, which are then skillfully balanced with its cleverly crafted new, and yet accurately derivative, story line.

After a brief segue intro from the time of the original Tron, we join Sam Flynn today as the estranged son of Tron creator Kevin Flynn. Sam is now hacking ENCOM, the software giant still exploiting his missing father’s legacy and corporate empire. Apparently as gifted as his Dad was with computer game design, Sam nonetheless languishes in his riverside loft as he schemes of ways to undermine ENCOM.

Alan Bradley, Kevin Flynn’s disgruntled former partner, opts to help Sam and tips him about an anachronistic styled phone page received from the abandoned Flynn’s video game arcade where it all began. Sam breaks into the arcade to discover the long forgotten portal that encoded and transported his Dad into his own video game’s universe. Sam’s bravado also gets him encoded and he finds himself trapped “on the grid” just like his Dad before him.

<<<Youtube Video>>>

The new Tron grid has gotten much vaster, scarier, and more powerful since the original Tron. The improved integration of better industrial design, computer graphics, and current 3D imaging creates an intense video game like reality that’s still very unique and also true to the original. More streamlined and faster by several factors, the original Tron video game thugs and bullies are also back again and ready to arrest Sam on arrival.

The new Tron grid has gotten much vaster, scarier, and more powerful since the original Tron. The improved integration of better industrial design, computer graphics, and current 3D imaging creates an intense video game like reality that’s still very unique and also true to the original. More streamlined and faster by several factors, the original Tron video game thugs and bullies are also back again and ready to arrest Sam on arrival.

Sam is immediately thrust into the games, the same as his Dad was, where he survives victorious thanks to his advanced video game skills. As the plot unfolds, Sam continues to prevail in various scenarios derived from his Dad’s ordeals in the original Tron.

The bearded, robed, Moses-like, and now wiser and older Kevin Flynn

We’re also quickly reminded of certain lingering moral contradictions within the Tron story. Kevin Flynn’s claim that his original Tron video game design ideas were stolen by evil ENCOM executive Ed Dillinger smacked of the typical Hollywood evil capitalist clichés — and this cliché is coming absurdly from Disney, one of the biggest and oldest entertainment corporations of all time.

Trying to be hip and get “in” with the new generation of software hacker countercultures, Disney reveals a gigantic, astounding example of absurd crony capitalist conservative me-to-isms. And since they’re stuck with this absurd plot cliché in order to expand the Tron franchise, they’re forced to exaggerate the contradiction rather than resolve it.

The new Tron’s explicit championing of its own self-fulfilling prophesy of the open source free-for-all business model, now even more prevalent than in old Tron’s, shines a giant CGI 3D spotlight on this inherent contradiction.

Quorra, the isometric algorithmic miraculously and spontaneously grid-generated program

Quorra, the newest Tron character and an isometric algorithmic miracle program created spontaneously by the grid itself, espouses Zen-like selflessness — and practices it too. Her altruistic sacrifice backfires, though, and she’s necessarily resurrected by the bearded, robed, Moses-like, and now wiser and older Kevin Flynn.

All the “heroes” are out to sink the real corporation from within their own virtual dream world, courtesy of that same corporation and its own technologies. Further contradictions abound as multiple characters morph and shape-shift morally to fit all sizes and forms of computer nerd fallacies inside Tron’s infinitely more flexible and relativistic video game universe.

Game grid player

Multiple dualisms and digital mysticism refract in a fractal house of CGI 3D mirrors that seem to extend into infinity. Anti-capitalism and anti-technology have now entered the perfect hypothetical environment from which to attack reality — all thanks, paradoxically, to the massive financial and creative resources of Disney Corporation.

Complex plot reversals and revisionist history only draw more attention to the twisting of the truth. This extreme exaggeration between several moral contradictions in the new Tron actually offers an amazing opportunity to examine Hollywood chasing its own CGI 3D tail on the global 150-million-dollar scale: Any of the soul, humor, or innocence of the original is finally displaced by faith and force.

Greetings, program!

While several scenes — like the awesome extreme-speed spectacle of the light cycle battles — are breathtakingly graphic and visually revolutionary, the irrational and derivative script and plot-twists soon unfold as being equally, if not more, underwhelming than the original Tron.

The impressive orchestration of the multiple layers of live action special effects, computer generated imagery and fantastic-looking costumes and sets soon crush the extremely strained narrative of backtracking and extrapolations.

The new Tron attempts to address some of the more scientific logical contradictions of its own legacy while distracting the audience from, and ignoring, the more important moral contradictions that have always been present in Tron. Such a huge waste of impressive production values is truly tragic at any price.

Light cycle with rider

Last, but by no means least, the new movie’s Daft Punk soundtrack is good and may be better suited for today’s modern audiences — but the original Tron’s Wendy Carlos soundtrack was vastly richer and deeper in scope, range and even innocence.

I’m somewhat biased, since its music is actually why I went to see the original Tron in the first place — at which point I was quite pleasantly surprised by its imaginative CGI work. I had even overlooked its altruistic themes, so distracted was I by the music and visuals. But you can be sure I’ll be paying much closer attention in the real future.

Greetings, program!


Andy George is an independent electronics product development craftsman and technician in New York City. He’s a drummer, a fan of science and science fiction films, and a pioneer of LED fashion technologies. He also participates actively in the NYC Objectivist community. His website is at www.andy-george.com.

Great story: Jaroslav Romanchuk teaching free market principles to Burmese dissidents

Kelley Currie at The Weekly Standard blog has this beautiful anecdote about our beloved Jaroslav:

I met Romanchuk about a decade ago in Thailand, of all places. He was sent to me by colleagues at the International Republican Institute, where I was working at the time, to help with a problem I was having with my Burmese dissidents. They were good guysâ??committed to democracy and willing to risk their lives for it. They were also big admirers of Communist economic theories, and did not seem to understand the infrangible link between the economics of Marxism and its political tyranny. My attempts to get them to read the Economist and Adam Smith were going nowhere, so I got the idea that it might help them to hear from someone who had actually lived under a Communist system and had run away from it screaming.
Enter Romanchuk. He was as close to a pure Ayn Rand-spouting Objectivist as I have ever met, not to mention an incredibly brilliant economist who gave my well-intentioned Burmese dissidents brain cramps when he clearly explained how oppressive an economy based on redistribution and “social justice” actually was in real life. You could have heard a pin drop when he told them about the unsuccessful attempts on his life as a result of his work with an opposition political party under Lukashenko’s dictatorship. He also exhibited an unbelievably foul sense of humor and could, naturally, drink us all under the table, which he proceeded to do every night. Because he had street credibility, the Burmese dissidents could relate to him immediately. They never stopped asking for me to bring him back for a second round, but unfortunately I was unable to do so.

See her full blog post for more context for this anecdote.