Ashley Judd Speaks Out...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Rarely do I visit the Daily Beast. When I do, more often than not I find the material less than interesting or substantive. Today was just a bit different.


The Conversation about women’s bodies exists largely outside of us, while it is also directed at (and marketed to) us, and used to define and control us. The Conversation about women happens everywhere, publicly and privately. We are described and detailed, our faces and bodies analyzed and picked apart, our worth ascertained and ascribed based on the reduction of personhood to simple physical objectification. Our voices, our personhood, our potential, and our accomplishments are regularly minimized and muted.

As an actor and woman who, at times, avails herself of the media, I am painfully aware of the conversation about women’s bodies, and it frequently migrates to my own body. I know this, even though my personal practice is to ignore what is written about me. I do not, for example, read interviews I do with news outlets. I hold that it is none of my business what people think of me. I arrived at this belief after first, when I began working as an actor 18 years ago, reading everything. I evolved into selecting only the “good” pieces to read. Over time, I matured into the understanding that good and bad are equally fanciful interpretations. I do not want to give my power, my self-esteem, or my autonomy, to any person, place, or thing outside myself. I thus abstain from all media about myself. The only thing that matters is how I feel about myself, my personal integrity, and my relationship with my Creator. Of course, it’s wonderful to be held in esteem and fond regard by family, friends, and community, but a central part of my spiritual practice is letting go of otheration. And casting one’s lot with the public is dangerous and self-destructive, and I value myself too much to do that {emphasis mine}. {Read More}

I am quite certain Ayn Rand would be smiling in agreement where see here today.

Via: Memeorandum

Comments

  1. I don't think she's talking about politics and policy there...

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yo really are clueless about the depth of Rand's philosophy and ethics aren't you jmj?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It was nice to actually comprehend what Ms. Judd was saying. Usually, when the gal talking, I have a little comprehension/attention issue (if in fact you can catch my drift).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Les, I suppose I couldn't say that I really understand Ayn Rand. I've read her words, read and watched her interviews, etc, but I'm just not sold on her philosophy. Personally, I think she's nuts.

    I also understand that millions of people think Ayn Rand was a great thinker. I get that. There are things she's said that resonate for most any didactic individual.

    I still think she was crazy, though, and I don't understand your particular fascination with her. Ayn Rand makes a fair point, but it has never been tested, and is a long way from possibly being so.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no fascination with Rand. I think, that is not fascination jmj. Now, Good night.

      Delete
  5. Les, I didn't mean to offend. I understand the Objectivist viewpoint, and I do not think it is wrong-headed. But grasping the complexity of modern society to understand the interconnection of Objectivism with reality, it's impossible to reconcile. IE; it's all well and fine to propose ridding society of the safety net, but what happens when crime rises, when the working class decide it's more profitable to steal than to earn, ya' know, like those Wall Street scumbags? What happens when the rich man can't find a safe place to live in his own nation?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, you didn't offend. I just remain fascinated by your arguments.

      Delete
  6. From Wikipedia: "[Ashely Judd] has also campaigned extensively locally and nationally for a variety of Democratic candidates, including President Barack Obama in critical swing states". Is that what Ayn Rand would be smiling about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wd - Stick to the point of the post...

      Specifically - "And casting one’s lot with the public is dangerous and self-destructive, and I value myself too much to do that {emphasis mine}."

      So now go try and figure out why I posted this and why Ayn Rand would be smiling with respect to Ashley's position on this issue.

      Delete
    2. And if she thinks this through to its other conclusions, she won't be an Obama supporter anymore. That is, if she finds Romney to be different enough.

      Delete
  7. Sorry, guys, but I still haven't gotten past Ashley Judd. Who-ah!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jersey said: "Les, I suppose I couldn't say that I really understand Ayn Rand. I've read her words, read and watched her interviews, etc, but I'm just not sold on her philosophy. Personally, I think she's nuts."

    If so, it is a harmless kind of nuts. Not anything to make someone wake up in the morning with a zeal to kill as many people as possible during the day. This is not true at all of Karl Marx, perhaps Rand's ideological opposite, the patron saint of the Left, who inspired most of the worst mass murders in history.

    I'm no Randist. But the world would be a lot safer, sane, and less deadly if every Marxist became a Randist instead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a advocate of Objectivist philosophy and therefore could not agree more with your closing statement dmarks.

      Delete
    2. For me, the choice is obvious between a relatively benign philosophy I happen to have some major disagreements with, and one that is by any standard pure evil and causes significant catastrophe whenever it is tried.

      The Khmer Rouge is a typical and expected result of socialism. There's no way anything like that could happen under "Objectivism"

      Delete
    3. I essentially agree. Other than I have by far fewer disagreements with Objectivist philosophy than I do with any other.

      As an aside, Rand was not an advocate of Libertarianism.

      Delete
  9. Most of the mass murders in History were perpetrated by Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. None of which followed, or even agreed with what Marx wrote, spoke about, or inferred. Stalin did not set up his government on the ideology of Marx; neither did Hitler, or Mao.
    "the patron saint of the left" You mean like Obama? Your extremism is showing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course you know Hitler was a facist and Stalin and Mao were communists. I'm sure you understand the differences.

      Both are evil and both places the state above the individual.

      Marx was wrong yet he in no way advocated what modern communism became. Marx in fact would be a strong adversary of modern communist totalitarianism.

      Delete
    2. Anon: Stalin (actually following Lenin the founder of the USSR) and Mao did indeed set up their governments on the ideology pf Marx. Two of the three men indeed followed Marx. Note that I said "most" of the mass murderers, not all. There are exceptions such as Hitler, who were not followers of Marx.

      The rule/ideology/etc of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao is the dominant strand of interpretation and implementation of the ldeas of Karl Marx.

      ""the patron saint of the left" You mean like Obama? Your extremism is showing."

      What extremism? I call your bluff. Show it to me. Karl Marx is the patron saint of the hard Left. Obama is not by any stretch. That you think Obama is extremist probably is a good indicator of your own extremism.

      Delete
  10. RN: The socialism of Mao and Stalin completely meets the definition of fascism

    "... a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

    The difference between the rule of the communists and the rule of Hitler as per the definition of fascism are negligible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except for one detail. Facism allow for private property, albeit highly regulated. Communism does not as all property is owned by the collective, ie: the state.

      I am fully aware of the similarities. It is important to understand the differences as well.

      So, how is the USA trending in your opinion?

      Delete
    2. with the trend toward the ruling elites getting more and more power (Obamacare being a big example), do you have to ask?

      As for socialism and private property, socialism DOES tend to allow private property and the assertion of individual rights. However, unlike with libertarianism, these rights belong to the few rulers only.

      Delete
    3. Oh I know quite well. The USA has been moving towards Facism for at least the past several decades. But given the basic misunderstanding many have I asked the question.

      Delete

Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.



Top Posts

As the Obama Administration and a Compliant Lame Stream Media Continue the Benghazi Spin...

It's Going To Be Close, Brace Yourself For Continued Polarization of America, Especially if Obama Loses...

Another Republican Accused Of Sexual Misconduct...

The "Scandal" That Won't Go Away...

Illinois Democrats Move To Tighten Firearm Regulation/Restrictions...

Democrats Bought By Special Interest Money, and They Say It's All Republicans...

The Public's Trust In Government on the Decline...

Explain This Liberals...