Last night, I was watching documentaries on Netflix with my boyfriend Corey. One of them was called "Park Avenue: Money, Power, and the American Dream," which features clips of Ayn Rand speaking about her vision of Laissez Faire Capitalism. This brought me into research mode, wanting to find out a little more about the Ayn Rand Institute. I have loved Ayn Rand and "Atlas Shrugged" for years, but I never knew that ARI was a political powerhouse. On my quest, I came across an article George Saunders had written for the New Yorker called "I Was Ayn Rand's Lover."
I had known about Ayn Rand's affair with Nathaniel Branden from reading her many biographies, in particular "The Passion of Ayn Rand." It creeped me out quite a bit back then, but now to see that she prowled on more than one innocent young man left me with a sour taste. If you know Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism, you wouldn't be too surprised that Nathaniel Branden was a target on her radar. To hear Saunders recount his having essentially been "raped" by her was a little off-putting to say the least, but his developing jealousy over Ayn having set her eyes on a young Paul Ryan disturbed me. It wasn't his feelings of jealousy that disturbed me, rather her voracious appetite for bedding young men in late puberty is what was particularly disturbing.
So, we now know of three men in their late teens who were successfully pursued by Ayn Rand. There are probably plenty more, but my interest stops there. Seeing Paul Ryan run wild with Ayn's version of Laissez Faire Capitalism as it pertains to our present day economy was like being punched in the gut by Ayn Rand herself. All of her theories sound good as just that -- a theory, but when put into practice as Paul Ryan has done as a congressman, they are truly frightening. I don't know what plagues me more: the affairs with young boys, or being disillusioned by Paul Ryan's crazy plans for American prosperity.
To understand what I'm talking about, you'll have to do a little research. Most of it can be done by watching the "Park Avenue" documentary, reading "Atlas Shrugged," "The Passion of Ayn Rand" (also a film), and then reading George Saunder's New Yorker piece (which is very well-written, I might add). It amounts to a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach, I'll bet, because that's what I'm feeling right now. It can all be summed up in one word: UGH!
Watch the entire "Park Avenue" documentary:
Barbara Branden (Nathaniel Branden's wife) on The Passion of Ayn Rand:
The United States and Russia have come to an agreement about how they'll count and secure Syria's chemical weapons, according to a breaking news article in the New York Times.
In what they're calling a "framework" agreement, inspectors will begin the process in November, says John Kerry and Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov. Judging by the map to the left, they're going to have a lot of work to do.
What I'm wondering, is why Assad is giving up so easily. Something seems fishy, but I hope it all goes well. I also hope this is the end of the start of World War 3. Thank God.
I find this video shocking. I would honestly think Syrian citizens would be afraid of a strike, but here they are begging for one against Assad. If the US can pinpoint Assad's location so as not to harm innocent people, I'm for it. This video swayed my opinion. I just don't want the US to become embroiled in the civil war there. What do you think?
The above slideshow contains screen captures of the Syrian President's son Hafez Assad's Facebook post and some of the comments left mostly by Syrian residents. The post essentially invites the US to take action because we supposedly don't know what we're getting into. Here is the New York Times article that questions the true identity of the account holder of this particular Facebook page. It does seem pretty well written for an 11-year-old. What do you think?
> New York Times: Debating the Case for Force
>Huffington Post: Kerry fumbles over "Boots on the Ground"
Boy, John Kerry is looking old these days. Maybe it's due, in part, to all the work he's doing to get us into the Syrian civil war. Everywhere I turn, John Kerry is talking about reasons to strike. If that isn't enough, he's become the president's mouthpiece saying, "He believes we need to move. He’s made his decision. Now it’s up to the Congress of the United States to join him in affirming the international norm with respect to enforcement against the use of chemical weapons.”
Good for him, and good for you, John Kerry. This pisses me off. When I'm angry about something, I find it hard to write about, but in this case, I don't believe we need to use force against Syria. It's not going to stop Assad from gassing his own people yet again, and I believe it'll provoke the man into unleashing greater force upon his people and maybe the people who are attacking him--which would be us. America. I don't want bombs falling on Philadelphia, or any other city for that matter. 9/11 was bad enough.
Assad's ties with Russia worry me. If we do go ahead with a strike, that is if the houses approve it, are we risking Russian retaliation? Russia is much bigger than Syria, and far more powerful. Is anyone thinking of the consequences here? Or does Kerry just like to see himself on TV acting all important?
I am against a war. Are you?
Update: 09/07/13 - This New York Times article calls John Kerry "the Obama administration's chief salesman for a punitive strike", which is totally accurate. It describes what Kerry is doing to sway the opinions of European nations.
Subscribe for Updates
My name is Nicholas Emeigh, but everyone calls me Nick, and I prefer it. I'm usually called Nicholas when I'm in trouble. I'm from the Philadelphia area, work in business, and fancy myself as a freelance graphic designer, writer, and artist. I have a passion for art in all its forms including music, but I restrict my singing to the shower and the car for the good of society. If you'd like to know more, just send me an e-mail. I really appreciate you stopping by.