General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDick Cavett - I knew I loved that guy
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/01/03/dick-cavett-perfectly-sums-up-why-we-despise-ayn-rand-and-why-the-right-loves-her/She was supposed to be on my show; I was kind of sorry she wasnt, because I was kind of laying for her. I did not succumb, as a kid, to being enthused by Ayn Rand, and that sense of power, as every kid was at one time until they outgrew it. The old bag sent over a list of fifteen conditions for appearing with me, or for appearing with anyone, I guess. One of them was, There will be no disagreeing with Ms. Rands philosophy.
GREEN: Youre kidding.
CAVETT: No! I wrote at the bottom of the list, to be sent back to her, There will be no Ms. Rand, either.'
=======================
My cousin was on Cavett in the 70's.
He worked at a TV station in Greenwood , MS and snagged an interview with Margaret Mitchell who was in hiding with friends there. Cavett bought the interview and had him on his show.
I was talking to another cousin (his older brother) during the holidays to meet my wife. Of course I brought up the interview. I knew most of the details except that I hadn't known that Cavett had had John up to his home in NY for about a week preparing for the show.
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)... several hammerheads who insist they've never read any of Rand's verbal diarreah, yet they hold all the beliefs and use all the buzzwords.
That shit has become part of the goddam wallpaper with those people.
It's easy to argue against Rand, but harder when the dumbshits think they came up with that bilge themselves.
Martin Eden
(12,869 posts)Her bilge has become part of the rightwing ideology, with the buzzwords and twisted morality spread wide across the internet. They're probably not the type to read books in the first place.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)While being WRONG about EVERYTHING.
The infuriating thing is when you discover they're in management.
Then you remember managers you knew in the past that did things like walking into a closed sliding patio screen door.
There's some comfort in that.
Martin Eden
(12,869 posts)It also provides a rationale for selfishness with total disregard of the common good.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)I ran into one that claimed ALL charities including homeless shelters are nothing but a money laundering scam.
Martin Eden
(12,869 posts)... and a large percentage of them also believe they are Christians who will go to heaven.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They believe God rewards you with wealth and punishes with poverty so they figure giving to the poor is undermining the will of God.
Have you ever heard Sunday morning TV ministries? They claim if you send them a 'seed' you will reap a 'harvest'.
One I heard was specific. He claimed if you sent him $500 that God would give you back $5000. He even claimed the power was supernatural. He was said, "Imagine paying off your mortgage" as if it was a sure thing. No disclaimer AT ALL. Those that don't get the payout? They lack faith.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I remember thinking when my children were small that I could not believe it but I really would have gladly died if I could have saved my children. I never needed to, but that is the biological link between a baby and its mother (and maybe also in the father, but I never was a father) in, I believe, a normal person.
Ayn Rand was an abnormal person in my estimation. She was not a person who could know the ultimate joy of selfless love. That joy is essential to the healthy continuation of our species, as is the need to be part of a family and a society that is nurturing and in which we are protected as we nurture others.
A child cannot survive its first 10 months to 1 year of age without the nurture of its parents. That is pretty much not true of other animals, other species. Ayn Rand's philosophy ignores the social nature, the necessarily social nature of humans and despises our also necessary interdependence on each other.
In short, her philosophy is irrelevant to the reality of human life, our needs, our survival.
Sorry, I'm not saying this very well.
But the essence that a society that assiduously followed her philosophy would, I believe, become extinct within two generations.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Ayn Rand was a horrible person with a destructive philosophy that has been adopted by a cruel and greedy American Fascist right wing.
We don't play that.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)...then turned out to be a pack of self appointed authorities but were actually out of touch misfits, nutcases and freakazoids with ZERO successes to justify their posturing. Oh, and there's a difference between an actual measurable and generally regarded success and a refusal to admit being wrong. And it's STILL not a success if one's inner circle of devoted followers rents a hotel banquet room to give out a pretty award that's only considered to be cool in their closed group. (The Heritage Foundation likes to do this. Conservatives treat it like Oscar Night.)
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)The depth of my love for my children astounds me; as an empathic person I have difficulty with children being killed in movies for plot development, let alone real life. The only people who think Randian philosophy is reasonable usually believe in their own immortality. I have also noticed a strong "if I play by the rules, then this will happen" (where they haven't figured out the rules are subject to change).
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They think the harder you work, the more wealth is created therefore rich people are the hardest workers and poor people are lazy.
This is also why they don't believe housework can be that hard because there's no money in it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And what mystifies me is those Randians who claim to be Christian. The two philosophies, beliefs are completely incompatible. They are opposite. You have to choose. In fact, you have to choose between humanism and Randism. Rand was quite simply a sociopath who cloaked her anti-social philosophy in groovy-sounding words. She deserved to be a fad and no more.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The same way Hannibal Lector was studied.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)That sounded like something Jack Handy would have said.
Eons ago I tried reading Atlas Shrugged. Long book and very close to torture. I made it about three quarters of the way through and said fuck it. Not just her drivel, either, but truly, mind bogglingly boring.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)her main sycophant, Rush Limbaugh, spews it like oral diarrhea
madokie
(51,076 posts)He gave good interviews and was always ready for his interviewee. I watched him instead of Carson when he was on the same time.
Dick Cavett always did his homework
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)that's why she fell out with even her closest associates on a regular basis.
It was like those schisms of the church Garrison Keillor described to great comic effect.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Not sure really why that is, but they do...most realize later what crap Ayn Rand's works are...those who don't become Koch Bros sockpuppets.
eppur_se_muova
(36,263 posts)You can be young only once, but you can be immature forever.
calimary
(81,283 posts)It superbly sums up the mindset of the current republi-CON/teabagger party.
eppur_se_muova
(36,263 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Except I have to ask, who exactly did your cousin interview? Margaret Mitchell died in 1948, and so I'm guessing you had a brain fart (I have them all the time) and typed in the wrong name.
MADem
(135,425 posts)ashling
(25,771 posts)John Mitchell's wife - object of Richard Nixon's goons
Pantagruelsmember
(106 posts)"The Mitchells separated in 1973. After the Watergate break-in, Martha Mitchell began contacting reporters when her husband's role in the scandal became known, which earned her the title, "the Mouth of the South."[citation needed] Nixon was later to tell interviewer David Frost in 1977 that Martha was a distraction to John Mitchell, such that no one was minding the store, and "If it hadn't been for Martha Mitchell, there'd have been no Watergate."
At one point, she insisted she had been held against her will in a California hotel room and sedated[1] to prevent her from making controversial phone calls to the news media. Because of her allegations, she was discredited and even abandoned by most of her family, except her son Jay. Nixon aides even leaked to the press that she had a drinking problem.[citation needed] The "Martha Mitchell effect", in which a psychiatrist mistakenly or purposely identifies a patient's extraordinary claims as delusions, despite their veracity, was later named after her."
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)I was a grown person back then, and I remember the general consensus that she was quite nuts. Over time, I've come to think that she was simply marginalized, and the men in power were able to do so because, after all, she was a woman and we all know that women aren't really stable or capable of higher order thinking, are they? I hope it's obvious that I'm being sarcastic here.
quite the all purpose negation of a person. so easy to use against women. and so hard, for some reason, for people to look one step further to see just what might have driven them to "crazy". hint- usually a man. husbands should always be the first place to look. if they are rich and/or powerful, you prolly need look no further.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)dmr
(28,347 posts)I found a very interesting snippet from a Helen Thomas book where she describes Martha's ordeal. Helen believed Martha.
I'm on my cell phone so it's hard for me to cut/paste relevant passages, but here is the link:
http://www.maebrussell.com/Watergate/Helen%20Thomas.html
Martha also suspected that the shot they forced on her induced her illness.
Even though they painted Martha as unstable, I always believed her. So did my dad, who said people, places and things can be sacrificed when powerful men have a lot to lose. We saw all this under Bush*/Darth, didn't we?
samsingh
(17,599 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Sometimes it was tough having to decide between two good shows out of four on the dial!!!
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)PS: or grab my telescope and watch the Universe.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You can find Cavett on YOUTUBE!
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)during an interview with Janice Joplin. They were talking about a young up and comer for whom Ms. Joplin was a fan. Mr. Cavett said he had never heard of this person. That was Tina Turner. I saw this sometime in the late 1990's, and it just made me chuckle. I'm sure he's heard a song or two from Tina Turner in that time. At least I hope so, cause she's beyond awesome.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Martin Eden
(12,869 posts)The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.
- written by John Rogers, often misattributed to Raj Patel
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)I have never been able to get into the Lord of the Rings. High fantasy has never been of interest to me. And when I was about 17 I tried reading Atlas Shrugged. A friend a few years older than I had read it and thought it was the best thing ever. I started it, and while I didn't have the intellect to properly dissect or critique it, I knew that it was garbage, and the the philosophy being promulgated was total b.s., and didn't get past about three or four chapters.
Oh, and I'm not intending to trash LOTR, just that it's a genre that doesn't work for me. I tend to like hard science fiction rather than fantasy.
added on edit: I also don't find the zombie and werewolf books at all appealing, either. That's just me.
bvf
(6,604 posts)a friend of mine, who knew I liked parody, suggested a quick read of "Bored of the Rings" first. I took his advice and afterwards couldn't get two chapters into LOTR without thinking, "Gee, I'm glad someone made fun of this," and put it down for good.
No offense to Tolkien fans intended. Just wasn't my cup of tea.
But we're talking about Dick Cavett and Ayn Rand, so:
I love Dick Cavett, and I wish Ayn Rand were alive to see the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers that today constitute her rea-- er, followers.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)love LOTR are in any way wrong to love it, but for some of us, it just doesn't work.
Ayn Rand was a world class hypocrite in the end. She took social security and medicare, even after she'd proclaimed that everyone should be independent of such things. Unfortunately, that sort of thing is still current. "Take your government hands off my Medicare" simply shows the profound ignorance of so many.
Rand wasn't ignorant. She knew EXACTLY what she was promulgating, which made her even more dangerous. The scary thing is that far too many people who discovered her when they were 14 or so, never outgrew their adolescent admiration of her bullshit.
bvf
(6,604 posts)On second thought (after reading your response), she'd probably be grateful for the army of Neanderthals I referred to, so I hereby retract my earlier wish for her, in favor of being thankful that she herself is no more.
Stuart G
(38,427 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)people read it on buses and benches (socialist transport and socialized recreation, natch), and don't read anything else
for 1,500 pages
about events with no relation to any real thing (Aristotle and Plato are mentioned a few times each)
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Nobody did so I will.
This also shows Right Wingers historically have hated to have their views challenged by reality.
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)or her failure as a screenwriter.
Despite her pretensions, she had to be aware that motion pictures were the propaganda vehicles of the 20th century.
What a miserable person.
amb123
(1,581 posts)CAVETT: I wrote at the bottom of the list, to be sent back to her, "There will be no Ms. Rand, either.
See? Dick Cavett wants Americans to burn all of Ayn Rand's books! It's them Libtards who are intoleree... intolerry... intolleru... ummm ... Haters!
lives. rules.
Most of us with functioning brain cells hated Rand, primarily because she was a very poor writer. She had absolutely no concept of how to tell a story. Right wingers don't care much about her abilities as a writer; they simply worship her pitiful excuse for a philosophy.
Dick Cavett would have ripped her hide off if she had had the courage to do his show.
marym625
(17,997 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)but didn't know it was from Cavett.
Bravo!
marym625
(17,997 posts)Recently. He was absolutely fabulous.
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)This was an actual bumper sticker I saw on a parked vehicle the other day! I wanted to wait by their car to shake their hand for making Randbot heads explode...
Gloria
(17,663 posts)at Madison Square Garden...it was Jagger's birthday at the time....
More recently, heard him interviewed on the BBC (?) and he was just wonderfully witty...wish he were still
hosting on TV!!!!
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)But, yes, he was great. Hope he's doing well.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Ayn Rand knew deep down inside she was a phony and a hack.
She was far too weak and flimsy a thinker to withstand any counter-argument or disagreement with her
pathetic excuse for a "philosophy".
Ayn Rand is a joke, taken seriously only by the ignorant, or willfully deceptive.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Total asshole, full of herself, idiotic opinions and only spews them when there is no one to challenge her.
Man she would have had a prime time gig...