Filed under Rational Thinking …

Aug 20 2011
Leave a comment
Current Affairs, Economics, Government, Liberty, Politics, Rational Thinking, Thought, USA, Voting

A Rebuttal to “How Rich is Too Rich” by Sam Harris

Sam Harris wrote a piece on August 17 on his blog entitled “How Rich is Too Rich?“.  It was a genuinely thoughtful piece with some great points but he lost my hope when he used the line “how much wealth can one person be allowed to keep“.  Allowed?  By whom?

And what about the other side of the “How Rich is Too Rich” coin such as “How Much Stealing is the Right Amount?” or maybe “How Much Waste is There in Government” or even “How Lazy Can You Be?

When it comes to private individuals generating wealth (even one dime) by performing a legal service or selling a legal product, the profit generated after belongs not to society but to the individuals and stakeholders that took the initiative to make it happen.

If we want to start throwing around the “allowed” word the very first place we should put that word is with the federal government.  We should not be asking how much Steve Jobs should be allowed too keep, but rather how much should the government be allowed to have from the taxpayers generating the wealth.

The US Government holds its position at the consent of the governed, and people are mad because government is using billions of dollars in taxpayer money to go way beyond the core purposes of government.  By and large Americans don’t have a problem with the concept of paying taxes, they have a problem with paying taxes when the tax revenue gets squandered.

Taxpayers who have trouble making ends meet are not thinking about Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or anyone else like that, they’re thinking about their mortgage, their gas bill, groceries, medical bills, and other items that they could purchase if they only were “allowed” to keep more of their income.

They get mad because of the sheer waste all around them, such as this $600,000 gurgling toad sculpture.  How many tax paying households had to chip in to pay for this?  Don’t you think whatever monies were taxed and redistributed to purchase this commissioned work could have been put to better use by the people that earned that money?  There is an almost limitless supply of examples of government waste we could discuss – here’s 50.  It’s government that is “allowed” to keep too much money not individuals.

Sam posits a question and gives his answer.

“How many Republicans who have vowed not to raise taxes on billionaires would want to live in a country with a trillionaire and 30 percent unemployment? If the answer is “none”—and it really must be—then everyone is in favor of “wealth redistribution.” They just haven’t been forced to admit it.”

What about framing the argument this way?

How many Democrats who have vowed to raise taxes on anyone making over $250,000 would want to live in a country where employment goes to 30% because business owners limited to $250,000 in income have no incentive to grow past that – because anything over that amount would simply be confiscated?

Which do you think is a more likely scenario?  Clearly the second because nobody is close to an individual wealth of a triilion bucks, but we have all kinds of Democrats wanting to raise taxes on people who generate over $250,000 in income.

In Mr. Harris’ blog post, he brings up the news about Warren Buffett’s op-ed wherein he mentions he’s taxed at a lower rate than his secretary (and that many Conservatives pretend not to find this embarrassing).

This is comparing apples and oranges.  One is capital gains taxation and the other is ordinary income taxation. Mr. Buffett could always choose to pay himself ordinary income.  Why doesn’t he?  Mr. Buffett instead of pledging his billions to the Gates Foundation could choose to disperse with his wealth in some other way that’s not maybe as tax efficient.

Moreover, as this article points out, even if you flat out took all the money the super wealthy had you wouldn’t even put a dent in the problem. The root issue is not how much private people earn, it is the amount government spends.  This tired argument of taxing the hell out of rich people simply because they have it does not solve the problem.  Government must shrink.

And anyway, does anyone need a trillion dollars?  Of course not, but that’s not the point.  The point is does a need on my part create an automatic obligation on everyone elses?  If the answer is “yes”, then those people answering that way are in favor of stealing, they just haven’t been forced to admit it.

The problem we’re facing in the USA (and indeed the world) is that for many people the answer is “to hell with property rights, I want my stuff”.  They call this “social justice”.  But what is “just” about taking from your neighbor simply because you deem him to be more than satiated?

We’re all looking down the barrel of ugly arguments and scenarios these days not because of productive, job-giving, wealth creating entrepreneurs, but because of government fools who get in the way of free markets efficiently delivering solutions to people.  The very people government claims to help and champion are the very people that get wiped out by government.

Are free markets perfectly efficient?  No but they are far more efficient and “fair” than centrally planned economies where a few people pick winners and losers and there are only but a few winners. Remember fairness is a two lane highway.

In the USA we do have “crisis of inequality” and on a global level it’s even worse, but government interference, corruption, and waste only exacerbates the problem.  Americans (and likely most people in rich countries) do not want to live in a society with huge “inequalities” in wealth but the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is how we achieve that.  One could also easily point out that we have a crises of inequality in effort put forth by many people.

Offering 99 weeks unemployment checks or incremental welfare subsidies for every baby you have while on welfare only keeps people down when they might otherwise get up on their own.

The brutal truth is some politicians would have it no other way.  Until we elect people that limit government to what it is supposed to do instead of all of these superflous programs it won’t change too much.

If there is one place we should be pointing the “how rich is rich” question it is not at private individuals, it is at government.

Photo by Stuck in Customs

Aug 08 2011
Leave a comment
Interviews, Personalities, Quality Experiences, Rational Thinking, Sex, Thought

An Interview with Nicole Daedone of OneTaste

Q.  So that I can tee this up properly, would you mind first telling us what is OneTaste so we have the right context.

A. OneTaste is a company redefining the way women (and men) relate to female orgasm and pleasure.  We teach a practice called Orgasmic Meditation, a partnered sexuality practice focused on the female genitals for 15 minutes. Through this practice, people experience deeper intimacy, sensation and connection to their partners, bodies,sex and orgasm.

Q. How do most (many) people think of orgasm versus what it can be with a little deeper attention and understanding?

A. Orgasm, as it exists in our cultural mindset is one small moment (what we at OneTaste call climax) often the end goal of a sexual experience.  We think of “having” an orgasm, rather than noticing the sexual, or orgasmic energy that permeates the whole experience.  At OneTaste, we think of it not as something to have, but rather something to be inside of.  Orgasm is the energy that creates the sexual experience.  The climax is only one small part of the whole. Another way to look at it would be to consider climax as a spark and orgasm as the fire that spark is born from.

Q. Tell me about a world where people took the time to really focus on this area – say the way they block out time for the gym or dining?

A. I LOVE this question.  Our sexuality, just like any other part of our human experience, should be given care, time and attention.  We do this for our intellect in the form of work, creative process, reading and other hobbies.  We do this for our physical body in terms of eating, exercising and sleeping.  Some of us do this with our emotions by hiring a coach or seeing a therapist.  Our sex should be no different; it is key to our experience as humans and yet we keep it hushed up, in the dark, full of taboo and shame.

If people were to take on OM as a practice, the world would look just about the same, only a brighter – a  better version of what we experience now. The world would go from black & white to color. So, imagine the way you feel after a great makeout, where your senses are more awake, your critical self is a bit more at rest and your willingness to be more a part of the present moment  is amplified – and extend that into all moments of your life. Imagine everyone feeling like this all the time. What you might find is that all of the distractions (food, drugs, shopping, arguing, isolation) we use to dull our senses, because we feel disconnected, would begin simply, quietly to fall away, because they would no longer be necessary.

Q. For some reason if I quickly think about four words right at this very moment I come up with Stress, Release, Breathing, Health.  Why do you think I associated these words immediately?

A. It’s likely that you tuned into me, if such a crazy thing is possible. These things have unquestionably been my focus of late. I’ve been working with Dr. Sara Gottfried, an amazing Harvard trained MD and together we’re looking at this epidemic of low vitality caused by stress in the culture and how the release of hormones through orgasm can remedy its myriad symptoms. Perhaps the word breath comes to mind because in my mind’s eye, when i see a woman having her first OM, it’s invariably some version of watching her exhale in a way she hasn’t been able to exhale for years. Finally she can let go of something she hasn’t known how to let go of.

Q. I’d like to ask you to give a piece of advice to four groups of people.  Young couples, single women, single men, and long-time married couples. Is it the same commentary for all of them or slightly different?

A. OM is like the secret ingredient that when added to almost anything can make it better.  While I may recommend different OM “regimens” to people in these different categories, always based on their particular desire, OM is neutral yet powerful enough to help couples of any age to deepen connection, learn about the other person and create a bond that is fuller and richer.

For single men, I would say that there’s nothing more powerful than learning to be a friend to women. It’s a skill that benefits you whether you’re single or coupled. So, rather than all of these fancy new fangled ways of finding a partner, I would suggest that you learn how to be a friend. Genuinely, the best way to learn to be a friend to a women is to be an ally in her opening her sexual power. If a man is willing to be an instrument in this way, the level of intimacy between him and a woman will transcend any particular type of relationship. When my first OM partner introduced the practice to me, he simply said “I have a mindful sexuality practice I’d like to share with you.” He went on to describe how I would take my pants off, but his clothes would stay on. That we would both place our attention on my orgasm for 15 minutes and afterwards would talk about the experience. Finally that he would expect nothing in return. For me, this was radical and undeniable. It was my first experience of this kind of friendship.

If I could say one thing to women, it would be “ask”. It would be to recognize the depth of desire that exists in your body and recognize that it won’t go away through lack of use or pretending it’s not there. And then, muster whatever courage you can and set about to asking for what you want. It may be a clunky mess, possibly embarrassing, but eventually will turn out to be the key to your power. In this, you’ll want to practice the four stages of having – Knowing what you want, asking for what you want, receiving what you want, and acknowledging what you receive.

For young couples I often see a tendency to want to “protect” a partner from what is true for you. There is a truth that exists in our minds that we often keep from our partners – they are thoughts we think at night in bed, alone in the shower, driving to work.  We all know them – the moment when someone flirted with you and your temperature rose; or how your partner  touched you in a way that you didn’t like, but you pretended it turned you on. In my opinion, the practice of relationship is ultimately to know your partner and to be known by them – and this entails revealing the truth of those moments. It is a practice, something we’re always working at, not a static linear experience. These moments that invite truth telling will either be your tools or your weapons.They will either be what you use to construct a lifelong relationship or build walls against intimacy.

For long married couples: my experience is that people who have been married for a long time often suffer from a lack of novelty; it’s not that the novelty doesn’t exist, but the eye that once saw it has grown dull. My suggestion to couples in this place is to start small in discovering the lover inside of your partner that you’ve forgotten. At night, before you go to bed, simply exchange one secret desire with each other. Say nothing afterwards, but thank you. Your partner shares one, you say thank you.  You say one, your partner says thank you.   No more, no less.   Then, rest well in the knowledge that you are re-creating intimacy. From there, you have a whole new range of play and turn on to work with. Truth is the ultimate turn on.

Q. I was going over your website http://www.onetaste.us - What is the “oral tradition of extended orgasm?

A.   There have always been groups of people throughout cultures that know things about the human experience that aren’t expressed in a conventional context.  Extended orgasm is possible for everyone, but is rarely discussed, let alone taught, in any kind of real way that can improve people’s lives and well being.  I am lucky to have come across these teachings in my life and want everyone to benefit from what I know – and that is that orgasm can be a life changing practice that deepens and enriches all parts of who we are.  I took 10 years to practice and integrate this knowledge into my own life – the synthesis of which I present in my book “Slow Sex”.

Q. Can you give me an anecdote of a person or a couple that you’ve seen transformed (or at least awakened) by what they learned in this arena.

A. Hormones can be a wonderful but flighty friend. Practice is your loyal companion who will see you through thick and thin. A couple whom I recently worked with had been married for 4 years. While the beginning of their relationship had been ignited with heat, over time they began to feel  like strangers to  each other. Outside of the intoxication of their early days together, they couldn’t find their common interest and connection. Without the rush of attraction and bonding hormones, they felt dull. The OM practice provided an arena through which they could come together and deliberately cultivate connection, heat and intimacy.  They found a sustainable way to keep their connection alive and potent.

Q. What’s the worst that can happen?

A.  The worst that can happen is that people try OM with an exact expectation.  OM does a LOT to awaken sex drive, create more intimacy and have women (re)connect with their sexual selves.  However, going into any practice – yoga, sitting meditation, martial arts – with a goal can often not have you see all that you are gaining from the experience outside of your goal.  Take yoga for example:  If your sole purpose is to do a perfect handstand and all your practice goes into perfecting and strengthening your arm muscles and core strength to get to that handstand, you may miss the flexibility you’ve gained in your hips, or how your hamstrings have elongated, how the back pain you used to have has suddenly disappeared.  Even so, the most you have to lose is 15 minutes, so why not try it and see?

Thanks Nicole for being interviewed here on Anthidote!

Jun 14 2011
Leave a comment
Current Affairs, Government, Liberty, Politics, Rational Thinking, USA, Voting

Obama and The Waiting Game

We are all just waiting.  Waiting for the clock to run out.  Waiting for people to have a reason to grow their business.  Waiting for employers to have a reason to hire.  Waiting for the time when we can have a President that is not hell bent on destroying the country.  We (mankind) have at least a hundred years of recent history of failed socialistic experiments all over the world that always end up in ruins yet there is a constituency out there that insists that we just haven’t given it enough time.

Two years into Obama’s presidency the President has only two ways to explain the situation the country is in:

1. He inherited a mess from Bush

2. He didn’t realize that the mess he inherited from Bush was as big as it was.

Let’s take the first one.  Obama certainly walked into office at a tough time.  The country was in a real mess for sure.  But there are two key points to make here.  First, regardless of how we were in that situation, why would you double down (and actually quadruple down) on the problem.  Obama didn’t reverse course from where he picked up the ball – on the contrary his policies directly made a real mess into a real big mess.  If you wanted to get America going in a healthy direction, you wouldn’t do ANY of the things President Obama has put in motion.

As for the second one, the reason the USA was in the fiscal mess it was in can be directly tied to the real estate market and directly to the specific people that created the conditions such that we would end up in the situation were in.  Specifically Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and then Senator Obama with the implicit help of a Democratically controlled Congress.  It’s just too easy to say everything is Bush’s fault when in this specific issue in fact the Bush administration explicitly went to Congress to ask them to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending openness.

Watch this video

As far as the people who voted heavily for Obama in 2008, African Americans, Low Income People, and Young Professionals/College Students) their life under Obama not only has not improved, it has become even harder (how could it not with a President who insists are crushing the private sector and discouraging employment).  Check out this article.

According to the website endoftheamericandream.com  from June 6, 2011, here are 20 ways the US Economy has gotten worse since Obama became President (with supporting links to the details).

#1 In January 2009, the official U.S. unemployment rate was 7.6 percent.  Today it is 9.1 percent.

#2 When Barack Obama took office, the number of “long-term unemployed” in the United States was approximately 2.6 million.  Today, that number is up to 6.2 million.

#3 When Barack Obama first became president, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States was $1.83.  Today it is $3.79.  This also affects the price of almost everything else that we buy.

#4 In April 2009, the average U.S. household spent approximately $201 on gasoline.  In April 2011, the average U.S. household spent approximately $369 on gasoline.

#5 According to an article in the Daily Mail, the cost of a Memorial Day cookout was 29 percent higher this year than it was last year.

#6 When Barack Obama was sworn in, there were nearly 32 million Americans on food stamps.  Today, there are more than 44 million on food stamps.

#7 According to the U.S. Census, the number of children living in poverty has gone up by about 2 million in just the past 2 years.

#8 When Barack Obama took office, the U.S. national debt was 10.6 trillion dollars.  Today it is 14.3 trillion dollars.

#9 The federal government has borrowed 29,660 more dollars per household since Barack Obama signed the economic stimulus law two years ago.

#10 During Barack Obama’s first two years in office, the U.S. government added more to the U.S. national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined.

#11 The combined debt of the major GSEs (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Sallie Mae) has increased from 3.2 trillion in 2008 to 6.4 trillion in 2011.  Thanks to George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress, U.S. taxpayers are standing behind that debt.

#12 Under Obama, the U.S. trade deficit continues to grow.  The trade deficit was about 33 percent larger in 2010 than it was in 2009, and the 2011 trade deficit is expected to be even bigger.

#13 Only 66.8% of American men had a job last year.  That was the lowest level that has ever been recorded in all of U.S. history.

#14 Just since August, 2 million more Americans have left the labor force.

#15 In 2010, more than a million U.S. families lost their homes to foreclosure for the first time ever, and that number is expected to go even higher in 2011.

#16 The U.S. real estate crisis just continues to get worse.  During the first three months of this year, less new homes were sold in the U.S. than in any three month period ever recorded.

#17 The U.S. dollar has fallen by 17 percent compared to other major national currencies since 2009.

#18 Faith in the U.S. dollar and in U.S. Treasuries is rapidly declining.  The mainstream news is not reporting on it much, but right now the Chinese are rapidly dumping U.S. government debt.  That is not a good sign.

#19 When Barack Obama first took office, an ounce of gold was going for about $850.  Today an ounce of gold costs about $1500.

#20 Americans seem to be more pessimistic about the economy than ever.  According to a brand new poll, 61 percent of Americans believe that they will not return to their “pre-recession” lifestyles until at least 2014.

But don’t you worry because the number of limousines is up 73% in the Obama administration.  You would think that those in the Obama administration would want to move around in a Prius or a Volt – after all, they want you to.

And the above 20 ways didn’t even get into Obama’s Foreign Policy brilliance.

What about Healthcare?  Obama doesn’t even talk about is signature piece of Legislation – Health Care Reform (Deform).  You would think that if this was your absolute signature piece of leadership you’d be all over it.  Why doesn’t he do this?  Maybe because everyone knows it stinks and is unconstitutional to boot.  If it were so good why would 26 states be suing over this legislation and why would there be (so far) 1400 waivers from having to participate in such a system?

 

 

Closing:

The net result is there is a lot of money in the USA in the private sector and it’s not coming out for productive use until and unless Barack Obama is voted out of office in 2012.  The choice before the country is extraordinarily clear – keep this ridiculous and destructive charade of PeeWee’s Big Adventure going or vote this menace out of office – yes menace.

Certainly whomever the Republican nominee will be needs to be sharp because if Obama thinks he inheirited a mess in 2008, it’s going to be nothing compared the mess the Republican nominee is going to walk into in 2013.

At this point I am 100% sure for at least 48,000,000 voting Americans it simply does not matter who the Republican nominee is as long as he or she can be put in the “other” check box – and that 48MM is by now more likely closer to 60MM.

Obama did this to himself (and to the country) and “ironically speaking” thank God Obama won in 2008 otherwise America may have never woken up.

>> I’ll leave you with article from today.  1.9 Million Fewer Americans Have Jobs Today Than When Obama Signed Stimulus.

“Other” is the only choice forward if we are interested in any sort of future for our kids.  I think it’s that serious.

Apr 20 2011
2 Comments
Politics, Rational Thinking, USA, Voting

Your Fairness or My Fairness?

What is the rational approach to take with Barack Obama and his stunning assault on America?  On April 19th Barack Obama gave a speech to a group of mostly students at North Virginia Community College that was a stunning show of arrogance, platitudes, and deception.

The Arrogance

BO:  ”the amount of taxes you pay shouldn’t depend on whether you can hire a fancy accountant or not“

Anthidote: Go pound sand.  If the taxes were not so punitive and if the tax code did not have so many if-then statements in it maybe less people would have to hire accountants to figure it out.

BO: “And we’ve also gotta end tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans” (applause from the students who of course know what it’s like to have to support themselves).

Anthidote: Why target the most productive punitively?  Barack has asked before “how much is enough”.  The answer is “as much as someone wants and is capable of”.  But that question also applies to taxes paid – Hey Barack, how much is enough?  Just because someone earns a lot of money does that make it right to take more of it?  On what grounds?  Does that person consume more of the government services?  Hardly and on the contrary.  By what edict does Obama think a wealthy person should pay more for living in America.  It’s most likely that person is already doing far more than his or her share not only in the taxes they pay but it is likely they also employ others and/or generate a boatload of other economic activity thanks to their wealth.

BO: “I suspect there’s a lot of people out there in this audience that are going to be wealthy one day and that’s good, we want you to… we want to you be able to go out there and start businesses, create jobs, and put other people to work“

Anthidote:  Yeah right – so we can tax the hell out of you and yell from the top of the mountain how unfair it now is that you’ve succeeded.

BO: “We are going to have to ask everybody to sacrifice“.

Anthidote: Hey BO, we’d like to see the US Government sacrifice.  We do not have a revenue problem, you have a spending problem.  The Treasury takes in $2 Trillion per year and you spend $3 Trillion per year.  Let’s see some leadership on the sacrifice front and offer us (your employers) a plan that shows how you’re going to sacrifice in the area of government spending.

BO: “If community colleges need to sacrifice then we can ask millionaires and billionaires to make a little sacrifice too” (applause)

Anthidote: Do you not already think millionaires and billionaires have made huge sacrifices to get where they are (maybe not the Kennedy’s but most others surely).  What gives you or anyone the right to confiscate more money from those that have earned it simply because they have it?  This is about principle and since we’re looking at what is fair, I don’t think it is fair to steal people’s money even if they can absorb the impact.  If that were the case, why don’t you just post IRS agents at ATMs and demand your cut right there.  Would that be “fair”?  What’s the difference? A shakedown is a shakedown.

BO “We can’t just tell the wealthiest among us you don’t have to do a thing, you just sit there and relax and everybody else we’re gonna solve this problem“

Anthidote: The arrogance now is at DEFCON 5.  ”Sit there and relax!”  You must be talking about WIC mama’s, welfare recipients, and system abusers like those who could be employed but prefer not to because if they get a job the unemployment money runs out.  That’s the crowd that is sitting there and relaxing while the wealthiest among us are either working or providing others with jobs.  Who are you kidding? (beside the students in the hall behind you in this video).

The Platitudes

BO: “And we can reform the tax code so that it’s fair and that it’s simple“

Anthidote: Wow what a generally great idea.  Why hasn’t anyone thought of that.  Moreover why doesn’t it ever get done?  And here’s a good question.  Fair according to whom?  Those that earn the money and support the country with their taxes or those that receive the redistributed payouts?

BO : “We’ve still gotta invest in you” (the middle class)

Anthidote: Oh thank you your highness.  Then cut spending so we have country in a few years.

BO: “I want to live in a society that’s fair“

Anthidote: Us too and you’re not helping.  You vision of fairness involves stealing from the productive to give to the unproductive.  That’s not going to work.  All you’re doing is creating class warfare and stifling private sector growth.

The Deception (deliberate or not)

BO: “The point is that for every dime you earn you’re paying into social security but for Warren Buffet he stops paying at a little over a hundred thousand dollars and the next $50 Billion he’s not paying a dime in social security taxes“.

Anthidote: The law is the same for everyone.  You pay into Social Security up to just a little over a hundred thousand bucks and then you don’t.  The money you’re talking about with Mr. Buffet is not “earned income” but rather capital gains where there is not social security due.  Either stop the deliberate verbal slight of hand with the student audience or get a clue.

2012 and a one term Presidency cannot come soon enough.  The sham is just agonizing to watch, just jaw-dropping. There could be no better message to the country and the world but to overwhelmingly end this man’s presidency with as decisive a victory as possible at the ballot box.

Mar 30 2011
Leave a comment
Current Affairs, Film, Government, Interviews, Liberty, Personalities, Rational Thinking, Rights, USA

An Interview with Harmon Kaslow

 

Q. Mr. Kaslow, thank you for your time today to be interviewed about the long awaited Atlas Shrugged movie.  I first read Atlas Shrugged in 1992 and I can unequivocally say that the book changed my life.  It was as if I discovered what I had always known but up until then never had anyone concretize the thoughts as well as Ayn Rand did in this incredible story.  What was your reaction when you first read the book and do you remember when you first read it?

A.  I’ve always considered myself to be an individualist – even without having any previous substantial exposure to the material. So, this project was really my formal  introduction to Ayn Rand and Atlas. And, what an INCREDIBLE introduction it was. During production, we had some incredible minds on the set. In addition to John Aglialoro, David Kelley and John’s co-screenwriter, Brian O’Toole, provided great insight into the material. So, I was able to listen and participate in a number of philosophical discussions that happened during production. In the process, I learned a lot. On set, Ayn’s philosophy spoke to me loudly, and I feel honored to have been chosen by John for such an important role. It was an amazing experience, and I’ll never forget it.

 

Q. The theme of the book is timeless.  It seems that no matter who you ask, they almost always say that when they were reading Atlas Shrugged they would see in the headlines of the day almost exactly what was going on in the book.  Have you had this same experience and do you think the audience will get this from the movie?

A. This is a movie about NOW.  Look what’s happening right NOW: there is turmoil in the middle east, the price of gasoline is skyrocketing, people are turning towards public forms of transportation … our businesses are being strangled with government regulation.  These very issues were the one’s setting the stage for Atlas Shrugged more than 50 years ago, and now we’re hearing about them on the daily news! The story describes heroes – the kind of heroes who made our nation great – people who, in Ayn’s words, “move the world” – and in the context of Atlas Shrugged these are the people running railroads and producing innovative products such as new metal alloys that create enormous economic benefits.  And, instead of encouraging the people who ARE the lifeblood of our country, government bureaucrats create laws to stymie their achievement – in the delusion that equality is achieved by bringing the top down.  It is the individual against the state. And the heroes of Atlas Shrugged have finally had enough, which is what I think the audience will get from the movie.

 

Q. The book makes it clear that the competent amongst us should be appreciated and that government is far more useless than useful.   Do you think people will ever understand the true unintended consequences of demonizing the achievers in society?

A. You’re correct about the book. What’s interesting is that Atlas Shrugged, first published in 1957, described a world that is the world of TODAY.  The story centers around capitalism being a dirty word, where government power is escalating, individual liberty is being attacked and collectivism is growing.  So, even though this was her vision 50 years ago when she wrote the book, this is the world we hear about every night on the news. I think people are starting to get it and had enough. I look at the Tea Party and I see a movement that is the result of excessive government spending and taxation. They are diligently working to attract, educate, and mobilize Americans who share these values, and they are having an impact.

 

Q. Why do so many people absolutely love this book?  Why do so many people absolutely despise this book?  Do you think the movie can “reach” those that have not read the book with the same full impact?

A. People are inspired by this book and are passionate about its message. I am certain they will wholeheartedly embrace the film. Anyone who embraces our constitution and understands economics could not “despise” the book. More importantly, the movie should be incredibly inspiring to women as the lead character in the movie, Dagny Taggart, is a smart, attractive, and courageous woman working against bureaucrats and lazy businessmen. She gets things done and shows the level of tenacity that’s really needed to be productive and successful. On a bigger scale, this movie should inspire everyone as it shows how hard work and rational self-interest can be guides to greater personal happiness.  This is a powerful message and one that is easily gleaned from the movie.

 

Q. What was perhaps the biggest challenge in getting this movie produced?  Why would a book that sells so many copies each year and has so many fans be so complicated to get made into a movie.  You would have thought this movie would have been made years ago (I’m glad it wasn’t though…)

A. When John Aglialoro, a successful entrepreneur, acquired the rights more than 18 years ago, he had the expectation that a Hollywood studio would jump at the chance to produce a movie based on this popular influential novel.  That didn’t come to fruition despite attaching accomplished producers, directors and actors. So, it’s clear this is not the kind of movie Hollywood would embrace. We can speculate as to all the reasons why Hollywood might not want to produce or see this movie distributed, even though Atlas Shrugged has been read by millions who found inspiration from its timeless message.  Some of these reasons include the fear of the message and politics, the failure to recognize the large number of Americans who would support a movie with such a powerful and smart message, and the absence of the artistic courage required to adapt faithfully such an important piece of literature into a movie accessible to millions of people. So, it’s ironic that even though Atlas Shrugged has been read by millions all over the globe – no studio was willing to produce it.   So in the spirit of true individualism, we produced it ourselves.  It wasn’t easy but John and I had a very talented, committed, and courageous team that work tirelessly on the film under difficult circumstances. But the time was right to produce the movie.

 

Q. My understanding is that unlike the book, the movie takes place in 2016.  I like this idea for the movie.  Do you think that was to keep the context of the book relevant to a younger audience?

A.  No. Dating the movie was heavily debated, and John and I sought advice from scholars and people with a deep understanding of the book and Ayn Rand. I’ve been told that Ayn Rand set her story a “few days into the future.” So, we took the liberty of a “few years into the future.” As it turns out, it was a production necessity because we did not have the time and resources to create a “timeless” movie. After all, nearly all the props in this movie will date the movie. For example, the cell phones, cars, newspapers and magazines change overtime and are included in the movie. We hope is that the future depicted in the movie never comes to be, which can be accomplished by people reading the book, embracing its philosophy and getting this country back to a place envisioned by our founding fathers.

 

Q. Are parts 2 and 3 coming out soon after or do you think we’re looking at years between episodes?

A. We didn’t feel that we could do justice to the magnificence of this 1100 page story in one movie – so we divided the movie into the same 3 parts as the book. I note this is similar to what the producers did with Lord of Rings. As it turns out, Part 1 sets an excellent context and setting for the characters and story so that people not familiar with the book or the slogan “Who’s John Galt” can have an inspiring and entertaining experience. Parts 2 and 3 should follow in 2012 and 2013 respectively.

___

 

Thank you Harmon for your insight into what should be one of the most anticipated movies ever.  I for one am very happy someone finally had the fortitude to make it happen. Can’t wait to see it.

Tony Forcucci

* Harmon Kaslow is the co-producer of Atlas Shrugged Movie

 

Jan 14 2011
Leave a comment
Current Affairs, Europe, Government, Rational Thinking

The Euro and Paul Krugman

I saw an article today written by Paul Krugman recently titled “Why the Euro Could be Doomed” and there was a part of this article that stood out to me as self evident on a larger issue.  In this article Mr. Krugman writes:

“The tragedy of the Euromess is that the creation of the euro was supposed to be the finest moment in a grand and noble undertaking: the generations-long effort to bring peace, democracy and shared prosperity to a once and frequently war-torn continent. But the architects of the euro, caught up in their project’s sweep and romance, chose to ignore the mundane difficulties a shared currency would predictably encounter — to ignore warnings, which were issued right from the beginning, that Europe lacked the institutions needed to make a common currency workable. Instead, they engaged in magical thinking, acting as if the nobility of their mission transcended such concerns.”

Does this not perfectly apply to not only the Euro but to liberalism and socialism itself?  Substitute the word Socialism for the word Euro and it fits perfectly.

It was “supposed to be the finest moment in a grand and noble undertaking“…. but the “architects of socialism [were] caught up in their project’s sweep and romance.….instead they engaged in magical thinking” …. as they continue to do so today I might add.

If only Paul Krugman would apply this same logic to so many other areas of life and social politics.

Magical thinking ha!

 

← Older posts
Newer posts →
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 335 other followers