Monday, April 25, 2011

Moonbats, Reporters, and MSNBC

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism

One has to wonder, I mean really really wonder about the Moonbats that heavily populate the democratic party, and the progressive movement. Author and reporter David Cay Johnston has just taken Moonbattery to new heights. I mean really new heights!

During an MSNBC segment with Ed Schultz {one of the moonbats} discussing Rep. Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity deficit reduction proposal he questioned Ryan's legitimacy because he is an advocate of Rand's views. He pointed to Rand's bestseller The Fountainhead , a story about a fiercely individualistic young struggling architect as as a reason to question Rep. Ryan's legitimacy.

Of course by condensing the entire plot to a singular event in the book, without giving proper lead in and explanation, Mr. Johnston was attempting to question not only Ryan's legitimacy, but his motive and integrity as well.

Excerpt  and video from The Daily Caller
...Johnston called in to question Ryan’s legitimacy, as he’s a fan of Ayn Rand. And according to Johnston, in Rand’s book, “The Fountainhead,” the fictional character Howard Roark blows up a building, and that means people should evaluate the possibility Ryan is a proponent of blowing up buildings.

“You know, Congressman Ryan requires his staff to read Ayn Rand, whose fictional hero, Howard Roark, is a man who blew up a building because it wasn’t built exactly to his specifications as the architect,” Johnston said. “I mean, that’s the kind of society we want where our leaders say, not only are we taking from the sick and poor but we’re going to hold out as a model people who commit felonies like blowing up buildings....


Aside from the obvious class envy and class warfare card the progressives have always played, Mr Johnston also took a very cheap shot at both Rep. Ryan and Ayn Rand, the author of a book that has sold over 6.5 million copies world wide. There has never been an incident of someone blowing up a building or a terrorist act as a result of someone having read The Fountainhead.

Now a video that actually captures the very essence of Ayn Rands novel The Fountainhead.

Beware of low flying progressive Moonbats!

Cross posted to the Left Coast Rebel

Via: Memeorandum


  1. Oh and yesterday all of the folks over at Left Coast Rebel were rejoicing over the fact that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh steal their articles and run with them....

    Even you have claimed that Glenn Beck is a rightwing moonbat entertainer....

    Why is one so rational when it comes to their opponent but so irrational when it comes to their own supporters? Doesn't a "Rational Nation" begin in one home?

  2. Your choice of words to describe my position on Beck is a bit embellished, however I stand my my prior posts.

    Your point is not lost on me. However, it is misplaced in this case.

    I stand also by post today.

  3. "There has never been an incident of someone blowing up a building or a terrorist act as a result of someone having read The Fountainhead."

    This is a good point. I don't like Randism, but Marxism is far worse. Followers of Marx have destroyed entire nations, eliminated indigenous cultures, and killed tens of millions of people in efforts to apply the ideals of Marx to the real world.

    To elaborate my previous analogy. Some kids playing soccer accidentally kick the soccer ball into the fenced yard of a grumpy old man.

    If the man were a Randist, he'd mutter some crap about property rights... and keep the ball.

    If the man were a socialist, he'd deflate the soccer ball, and cut it into equal sized pieces. He'd then kill the kid who actually owned the ball, calling him an oppressor of the working class. He'd kill a couple of the kid's friends for good measure (maybe for wearing glasses, or having the wrong faith: socialists tend to do this).

    Then the grumpy old man would give the shreds to the surviving kids and tell them to play.

  4. dmarks - I had to laugh at your analogy, even though I don't by it all.

    Property rights are a fundamental right.

    I am an Objectivist. I am am old. I can be grumpy, although less frequently than not.

    I would take the ball, return it to the kid that owned it explaining that while it is his ball he should understand that I don't want his ball on my property. I give him the ball and let him know if it continues I will have no choice but to keep the ball the next time. Then I give him, and his playmate some candy as a thank you in advance for not kicking it into my hard again.

    I like the analogy of the socialist. ;)

  5. RN: you are a bad "Objectivist". Too altruistic, really: your example has you spending your time giving free education to the kid. And then candy,

  6. Les hates to admit it but he is actually a closet progressive dmarks....

    I don't know why but somehow when I was ready your "grumpy old man" comment I couldn't help but get the feeling that you were the grumpy old man! :)

  7. If he were a progressive, he would advocate giving his wealth and time to ruling elites, on the promise from the ruling elites they would help people.

    I can be grumpy at times, but I actually used "grumpy old man" thinking of the Ed Asner character in "Up", and the Grumpy Old Men movies which I love.

  8. dmarks -As a "good" objectivist I consider it in my rational self interest to educate and then motivate the "kids". After all they are the future, and besides everyone deserves a second opportunity.

    TAO - Ha, nice twist on words. A "classical liberal" perhaps, a progressive, not likdely.

  9. Look, guys there's a very good reason there are so many critics of Ayn Rand: She was lunatic.

    Her stories are ludicrous. In themselves, the stories are set in ridiculous contexts, with characters who are reacting to ridiculous hypotheticals.

    Ayn Rand was a lunatic. Sure, she seems like an interesting character, probably brilliant in some ways, and that would explain the interesting writing, but she did not have an intellectual grasp on complex systems. She was primarily an ideologue, and only fore and aft that a thinker.


  10. Look JMJ, the perception of lunacy, or lack there of can either be objectively determined or it and be subjectively determined.

    You fall into the later. Why? Certainly not because of a lack of intelligence. Rather you refuse to view her philosophy as having any merit right from the get go. The reason? You have been accepted the dogma of the socialist, progressive , and altruistic mindset that has essential prevailed in America for at least the last 110 years.

    If viewing Rand as a lunatic makes you feel superior, by all means have at it. If you think it it serves your rational self interest then ya gotta believe and do what ya gotta do.

    .... BIFF ....

  11. Ed Schultz is a cartoon-like individual whose entire shtick is good vs. evil (replete, of course, with like-minded guests who completely parrot him). It is not at all surprising this "analysis" of his.

  12. Ayn Rand a lunatic? Proof Jersey! Provide proof!

    You probably think Ed Schultz is sane...

    Her novels are stilted, but the philosophical novel genre of that era served a primary purpose of educating people and getting the author's point across. Ever read Huxley? Even historical novelist James Michener fell prey to cardboard cutout characters.

    You may disagree with Ayn Rand, but she was no lunatic.

    Poke a hole in any of her arguments, I dare you! C'mon Jersey, if she was such a lunatic it should be easy for a man of your towering intellect.

  13. Les? Do you actually watch Morons Spouting Nothing But Crap? Good God man, that is crack cocaine for the brain!

  14. Here you go SF...

    Thesis: SOCIETY

    Anti Thesis: SELF INTERESTS

    SYNTHESIS: There isn't one.

    The ideal of Ayn Rand as an ideal type is negated by biology, the fact that we are born and give birth and thus develop bonds, altruistic ones at that. We are members of a family, a neigborhood, a community, and on and on negates the ideal type of egotistical self interests.

    Now, you can believe that you choose to participate, you choose to determine what altruistic bonds you maintain, and what societal groups you belong to but the argument rests on the reality that you did NOT choose.

    We all sacrifice our individuality as members of society, whether we choose to do so or not....and we are all members of society regardless of what our choice might be.

    Knock up a woman and the child is yours regardless of if you choose to accept responsibility or not. Decide to commit a crime and you are going to prison, whether you agree or disagree with society's right to judge your behavior.

    Now, if it makes you feel better to believe that you made conscious decisions to accept your lot in life that is fine....but it really doesn't make much difference.

  15. Tao, are you saying that there doesn't exist somewhere within that Socratic/Hegelian dialectic a compromise between total anarchy/individualism and bald collectivism? I mean, isn't our entire existence all about finding that compromise?

  16. Following was taken from a comment at LCR by Shane Atwell. He is an objectivist and his response to the issue is spot on. I'm sure he won't mind me brining it over here and using it to shed some more objective light on this iisue.

    Shane Atwell said...
    Ayn Rand was above all an individualist and advocate of reason. She was anti-democratic in the sense that she thought every person has certain rights that can't be curtailed or violated just because 51% of the population wants to. As is consistent with her advocacy of reason, she was an atheist. Unfortunately this is controversial. She was an advocate of rational self-interest, i.e. selfishness, and thought that the highest moral purpose for anyone is their own life and happiness.

    Roark did not destroy 'someone else's building'. Roark dynamited Cortland because he considered it HIS. He had designed it and demanded one thing in payment, that the design not be altered. His only satisfaction was to see it built as he received no money. He was defrauded, the plans altered and he did the only thing he thought right, he blew it up. He injured noone and stayed on scene to turn himself in. His act was not that of a terrorist, but that of a person defending their property and their right to be compensated. His act was selfish, it was a demand for payment and a refusal to be a sacrificial victim.

    To say that Rand is somehow a threat to 'other people's' property is absurd. She's probably the staunchest defender of property rights ever. Its the Left who threatens property, because they don't recognize ownership, only redistribution. That's why the (in part) Rand inspired Tea Party is civil, respectful and clean, while the Leftist inspired rallies are rife with incivility, property damage and violent attacks. Do people need to be reminded that Obama admires actual terrorists, like the Weather Underground members?

    If anyone still thinks that Rand or the Tea party or Paul Ryan are somehow connected to violence, they've got their head in the sand and haven't read any news from the last 150 years.

  17. Siverfiddle - No I don't actually watch this crap on any regular basis. But when I run across it at Memeorandum it peaks my curiosity and I simply have an itch to watch and respond.

  18. I love how the lefty commentator make completely unconnected irrelevant observations. Why not join in?

    I've never been a fan of the Lakers, and remember the Republicans under Reagan ran up debts.

  19. Here's a great review on a recent bio of Rand.

    Read it.

    Look, I've been around. I know about Rand and Objectivism. She was a nut. I was quite the libertarian when I was young, and could argue it with the best of them, but I always found Rand's philosophy offensive. I think she imagined herself as a sort of Catherine the Great of the 20th century. She was a classist. An elitist. A wanna-be aristocrat. She was everything most of her admirers hate.

    Les, the TEA Party was in trouble again just a few days ago for passing around pictures of Obama and his "parents" as chimpazees. Yeah. they're really "civil."

    "Roark" is a whiny little faggot who lacks the maturity and serenity to deal with life - showing Rand's inability to write a good male character. He goes out of his way to bargain without position - showing Rand's inability to understand capitalism. He gets screwed by the same sorts of people the corporatocracy in the real world would put before him with the most laizzez-faire government imaginable - showing the failure of Rand's entire ideology.

    It's all well and fine to be a libertarian. You don't need Ayn Rand to be one.


  20. JMJ - Get Rand's Lexicon. Check up on her position on Libertarianism. If you actually knew Jack a**t about Rand you would know she was not a Libertarian. Study a bit of her material, learn what she actually said, not what some snizzly nosed, pointy headed, progressive academic tells you.

    Give it up JMJ. Objectivism and the morality of selfishness {aka: rational self interest} properly understood enhances, or should I say enriches one's life immeasurably.

  21. ""Roark" is a whiny little faggot"

    I see now JMJ ia bashing a fictional character for being a homosexual. I thought this sort of thing usually came from the Right. But once again it comes from the Left.

    So, thanks for your argument, JMJ, that Rand's philosophy is bad because she had a homosexual main character in one of her main two novels.

  22. >>"Roark" is a whiny little faggot...

    Wow. Liberalism, thy name is Jersey McJones.

    JMJ, you just lost all credibility with me. You have finally succeeded in verifying what so many of us believe about the hypocrisy that is the Left.

    Best gift I have received this year.

    Donald in Bethel, CT

  23. It's like the leftists who claim to oppose racism, but then routinely call Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas by racial slurs, and call for his lynching.

  24. Les,

    There's no fine line between Objectivism and Libertarian. There is a massive overlap. And both embrace the morality of selfishness, but Rand takes it to the nth. That's why here stories are so outlandish - there's no way to make her point in the real world.


    Don't be goofy. I meant "faggot" as the ol' term for "crybaby." Why would someone like me bash him for being supposedly gay?

    Ironically, Rand HATED homosexuals! Yet another example of her flawed character.

    The point I was making about this character, was that he was a whiny little faoogt who just HAD to have his way, like a toddler who just HAS to have a toy or a candy bar or whatever it grabs. He's an offenisely stupid character.


  25. JMJ - Here is some more useful info for you.

    Rand on Libertarianism...

    "For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called "hippies of the right," who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping , whim worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs." Reverence the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

    So JMJ, before you espouse bull s**t I humbly suggest you do your homework.

  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

  27. I note the vaunted TAO and the intellectual thinker Jersey could not attack Rand's logic.

    Look guys, I find the cult she engendered around her to be creepy, but that is separate and distinct from the woman's theories and the logic she employed to argue them.

    TAO: You cannot synthesize society and self-interest? Put down your crayons and look around you.

    How much "altruism" is really a rational decision? I've even heard people posit that if doing that good deed made you feel good, it's not altruistic.

    I find it hilarious that people who trash Rand will then turn around and talk about "saving the planet" or some such nonsense because they heard their progressive overlords (who have carbon footprints the size of small countries) say it.

    These same people continue to have undying faith in more and bigger government, when all data point to an inverse relationship between "progress" and government spending and intervention.

    The left is irrational, unbalanced, incoherent and intellectually lazy.

    A really smart lady named Susannah Fleetwood wrote a brilliant piece describing how the left has become intellectually flabby and unwilling or unable to debate, relying instead on id-driven rants and name-calling. The latest Wonkette meltdown and Ed Schultz every day being the most prominent examples

    3 reasons why wonkette self-destructed

    Her third reason gets to the heart of the matter

  28. Large carbon footprints, SF - are you possibly referring to Al Gore's humongous mansion on the Pacific Ocean (I thought that this dude was worried about the oceans RISING) - the one that's currently being heated by 100% fossil fuels?

  29. You guys really shouldn't bother with JMJ's ad hominem. If someone is not interested in ideas, why converse?

  30. The Dude on that has a mansion on the Pacific Ocean {where I used to reside} has a carbon footprint the size of Godzilla or larger!

    But fear not, if your a flaming hypocritical progressive it's just fine and dandy.

    Right now I won't say what I'm really thinking! ;)

  31. Silver - I, like, you find it interesting that when facts are presented with respect to Rand's true philosophy are silent on the issue.

    TAO and JMJ re nothing more than empty progressive shirts and trousers!

  32. Ayn Rand's writings are fiction. Just as FOX's show "24." Still, the right bases it's policies and beliefs on these things.

    Remember the republican presidentiasl primary debate when the entire group said they would be looking for JacK Bauer in the event of another terrorist attack.

    Rand had a theory and wrote fictional works supporting it.

    I leave you with the sign of the dollar. I'm very fond of dollars.

  33. TRUTH 101 - Rand had a philosophy {as attested to by her MANY non fictional writing's, you ought to read them all sometime}and wrote a fictional novel that personified her Objectivist philosophy.

    One must first have a philosophy to write as powerfully as Rand did in Atlas. Her logic was brilliant, it was objective and non contradictory, and it scares the hell out of people who are afraid to be an individual rather than part of the huge collective of pull peddlers and parasites.

    And I leave you with the sign of the dollar as well.

    I like dollars as well. They enhance one's rational self interest.

  34. JMJ,

    Liberal back-pedaling and the "I'm not anti-gay, I have gay friends! Look at me! I'm a liberal, remember?!" excuse.

    Not buying it. Even if you say that "faggot" is used as a way to describe a person who is a "crybaby", you are still showing your true colors. Like so many liberals, you are a liar. I can't imagine what you call black Americans when they're not around. Especially if those black Americans happen to not be knee-jerk, cultural Democrats! Yikes!

    Donald in Bethel, CT

    The bad part is, no one with any common sense is buying your nonsense any longer. You blew it.

  35. Truth: You must not be familiar with some of the more well-known philosophers. Fiction is a common way to present philosophical ideas, from Plato, to Camus, Aldous Huxley and many more in between.

    So calling something fiction means nothing whatsoever.

    The article I linked to earlier is being borne out by the lefties here: No logic, just loud pronouncements shot through with meaningless cultural referenced garnered from tv watching and shot through with ad hominem.

    MSNBC and hopium are a brain-killing combo...

  36. Speaking of unfamiliarity with philosophers, we all got a big laugh awhile back when Tao called his muddled logic, disconnected statements, skirting the issue, and rabid insults, "using the Socratic method."

    Sir, I studied Socrates and wept at Plato's Phaedo, I could almost say Socrates was a friend of mine, and you sir are no Socrates.

  37. JMJ - You said,

    "Les, the TEA Party was in trouble again just a few days ago for passing around pictures of Obama and his "parents" as chimpazees. Yeah. they're really "civil."

    "Roark" is a whiny little faggot who lacks the maturity and serenity to deal with life..."

    This, sir, (or madame or whoever the hell you are) truly shows how disgusting, guttural and just flat out mean spirited you are. And to call the Rand character Roark a "faggot" while pointing to the Orange County GOP official that none of us defend shows just how moronic and vacuous you truly are. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, you are a leftist, after all.

    For all of the thousands of posts at LCR, I -- or my friends at the site -- have never castigated our opponents (or moral and intellectual inferiors, such as you), using derogatory and/or bigoted language. It speaks volumes for your lack of character that you would do so here. I wonder if in private you prefer to black conservatives as "Uncle Toms" or even worse, the 'n' word? I don't doubt that you do. Disgusting.

    I assume that like many in the far left, you are motivated by hatred of anyone that espouses conservative or libertarian from the heart the mouth (and mind) speaks. Remind me to completely ignore your useless tripe going forward and to delete any of your nonsense if I EVER see you leave your dung trail at Left Coast Rebel.

  38. LCR: They cannot logically argue or rebut a mooted point, so they resort to these Jerry Springer tactics.

  39. Well it's clear that he has no idea about the meaning of Rand's work or Objectivism. Unbelievable..


  41. Speaking of literary counterparts, I believe that Turgenev's Bazarov (from "Fathers and Sons") was the first really fleshed out nihilist (far preceding those from Mr. Nietzsche's pen) .

  42. Wanna have fun? They are lauding "The Peoples Budget" over at Sue's.

  43. While I aish my left leaning friend had not used the "F" word,it gives me comfort reading how sensitive all my right leaning friend are concerning it's use.

    Your devotion to objectivism is admirable. At least the word "objectivism" as Rand defines: government protecting the interests of the wealthy who make all things possible and without we'd still be in caves or swinging from trees, is objective.

    Then you guys will glorify small businesses that create more jobs than big businesses but aren't run by fabulously wealthy people in most cases but we still need to make sure BP and Exxon and Halliburton can do whatever they want because that would be objective.

  44. TRUTH 101 - I have no idea what you are babbling about.

    Please supply your reference as to Rands definition of Objectivism.

    Objectivism... Objectivity:

    "Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independently of any perceiver's consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of th fact that a perceivers (man's) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic)." ... Ayn Rand Lexicon

    I would suggest you acquire the book TRUTH 101.

  45. I glorify no one but Jesus the Christ.

    I just want government to leave us free to exercise our God-given liberties and to keep its nose stuck in it's constitutionally-mandated duties.

    If I want to use grossly inefficient 10,000 watt incandescent bulbs, flush my toilet with at thousand gallon tank and sit down with my family to a tub of bacon grease, it's nobody's damned business but my own.

  46. SF - I glorify no one. I do believe objective truth ought to be high on the list however.

  47. TAO,

    >>While I aish my left leaning friend had not used the "F" word,it gives me comfort reading how sensitive all my right leaning friend are concerning it's use.

    For myself, it's not sensitivity. I could care less about the usage of such words, for a word only has meaning in the ear of the hearer, does it not?


    It simply shows how much JMJ cares about the discriminated against and vilified homosexual movement.

    Donald in Bethel, CT


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.