Dr. Flash Regurgitates Ayn Rand

Autie Ayn Says:
"OK Flash Repeat after me"

The Flash Echo:

"The fact is your health care is not, nor can it be, my financial obligation. As a moral precept, I do not owe you anything except what I owe to myself and to all other men - an obligation to act rationally.

Hillary Clinton, or anyone who argues that government has a role in "health care," is operating from a moral premise which assumes self-sacrifice as a virtue. That all of us are, indeed, born as indentured servants to the greater good of society. Nothing could be further from the intentions and vision of the founding of America. The basic premise upon which this country was founded was not Christian alms for the poor, or a code of self-sacrifice. What the truly unique American idea was, was that the individual is not subordinated to the group, the state, or society. Yet, this is precisely what is implied by either state run or federally mandated health care.

This pernicious idea of self-sacrifice as a virtue has caused more damage to more people than any other single concept. Its evil lies in the fact that when need is the standard, every man is both a victim and a parasite. The state requires him to pay taxes and labor to satisfy the perceived needs of others, leaving himself and his own family in the disgraceful position of a parasitic animal who is required to let some of his needs be filled by others. Under such a code of morality, the first value one is forced to sacrifice is morality itself, and next is ones own self-esteem."


Atlas said...

You guys should thank OTBL for bringing the "new" ideas from the '50s into the discussion on the local political blogoshere. I'm tire of your sixties hippy crap!

Cato said...

You know what struck me the most in the interview? It wasn't anything she said, as I've heard it all before, but it was that Wallace allowed her to speak. Sometimes he injected something but usually he allowed her to speak. No one does that anymore. It's all just talking points and often turns into yelling.

Ink Stained Wretch said...


That's because Mike Wallace is what intelligent people call a journalist.
He's no Bill O'Reilly for sure.

If you watch again, Ayn interrupted
Mike Wallace on more than one occasion.
Regardless, I think this is a fascinating interview because this is right from the horses mouth.
Of course you've heard all this before because the people with the one track mind of who swallow this woman's "philosophy" repeat the same thing over and over again ad nauseum. They never have an original thought of their own because they have all the answers and don't need to question.

blue diamond said...

Yea, remember when Bill Buckley did Firing Line for a few decades? He invited the spectum of political debate on his show and they discussed the topics like intelligent human beings with a difference of opinion.

When it comes to politics, there's a lot of theory involved and a great many overt and convert variables interacting. I don't think there is such thing as the "perfect system." What works best for one world view doesn't work at all for another.

The politcal debates, aka, pissing matches, of today are akin to a bunch of flaming matchheads telling the sun they know what hot is.

Of course, right-wing babblologist like Lintball and Hannity would be calling Buckley at Marxist.

Cato said...

Well the thing is, as Wallace correctly points out repeatedly, [i]she's[/i] the one who questions authority, those people with one-track minds.

And no, he's no Bill O'Reilly, but he's not acting like much of any so-called journalist these days. O'Reilly isn't pretending to be a journalist though, he has a show where he speaks his mind. That's fine. But 'journalists' these days like to interject too much.

Cato said...


Ink Stained Wretch said...


Funny thing, many who I consider giants in journalism, Ted Koepel, Walter Cronkite, Bill Moyers, Daniel Shore, have gone to PBS and NPR where they can actually be journalists. Funny and ironic that the publicly subsidized news organization is one of the few who provide real news and a home for real journalism.

Ink Stained Wretch said...

One more point. The entertainment "news" we have today is a direct result of "free market" journalism. It panders to the lowest common denominator to boost ratings and advertising revenue. This is why Brittany Spears trumps the war in Iraq for coverage. It's pitiful!!

Cato said...

Well, it's infotainment. It's on every channel. And places like NPR... I can't really listen to that because it upsets me that they are allowed to do anything but be news-readers to be honest.

So I don't watch or listen to news, I read news.

Anonymous said...


One journalist the interjects way too much is Charlie Rose. He has interesting guests, but he needs to shut up and listen.

Ink Stained Wretch said...

Sorry CATO:
I know you think NPR & PBS are liberally biased, I might even agree with that, but they are far beyond "newreaders" This comment only proves you haven't listened in a long time.
Frontline has the best documentary producers ever, and I find them comparatively objective.

This American Life on NPR has stories
you will not find anywhere else.

I find myself sitting in the driveway listening to the ends of some because are so unique and fascinating. This is not infotainment. There's rarely I a time I don't learn something of value from these programs.
The National Press Club Luncheons have speakers like Newt Gingrich and many others from across the political spectrum.
Believe me when Ted Koepel or Daniel Shore do a commentary, they are not "newsreading". These are thoughtful journalists. You should expand your horizons and give some of this a listen.

Ink Stained Wretch said...

I don't watch Charlie Rose often, but the interviews I've seen I might agree with your take on him. It's never really bothered me that interviewers interject, I never thought much about it unless they were way overboard.

Cato said...

I meant to say that they should only be able to be newsreaders. This is because they are publicly subsidized. I don't agree that the state should be able to fund any propaganda machine like PBS or NPR. The BBC for example has news-readers, not "journalists". This is far "more appropriate" (to be clear, no government-funded media can ever be really be appropriate).

Ink Stained Wretch said...

Then I guess we'll have to settle for Brittany and Paris in the headlines.
What do you mean by newsreaders? Who is going to write the news that's read. Hell, you might as well have computers "read" the news like the automated weather service.
You are so absolutely attached to your ideals that you have no care about the outcome.
Explain to me how entertainment news is NOT the result of turning News into a "for profit" enterprise? In the past newsrooms were isolated from marketing as a part of journalistic ethics. This in no way implies that there's anything wrong with media outlets earning a profit. They used to use their entertainment profits to internally "subsidize" real news. Now that's gone we have crap for "news". I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion.

From the ghost of Ayn Rand:
(to be clear, no government-funded media can ever be really be appropriate).

Cato said...

Well how could it be appropriate?

Now, I don't think it is appropriate for Government to be invloved in religion. Now it's not really banned from being involved, but it is not appropriate for it to do so (it IS banned from making a national Church). Now when I see that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" I read that quite plainly. I don't think it should have any regulations on media and be completely withdrawn from media. Now, local governments could, if they wish, use the media to propagandize but the national government should not have a propaganda machine like it does.

Like I said, I don't watch the infotainment. Most people are not interested in "news" they want to hear about America's Royalty also known as Hollywood celebrities like Britney Spears, Courtney Love, Al Gore, and other drug addicts. Of course, then, the infotainment would be focusing on them.

This is funny, although possibly staged anyway.


Ink Stained Wretch said...

I don't think it's staged. I really don't think it's funny.(sorry) I actually think the reporter was trying to make a statement. It's rare for this to happen on air. I've been in television control rooms. I can picture this being a battle over the headsets between the on air reporter and the producer, who is taking this all quite lightly because his face isn't reading the crap. Many reporters went to school to study journalism seriously. When they get out into the "real" world of infotainment I'm sure they feel extremely trivialized. I think that's what's happening here and I completely understand it.

Cato said...

I'm pretty sure it was scripted. It got something on the order of 20x more people to watch that little segment of MSNBC on youtube than would have watched the show IIRC. She wasn't fired or disciplined in anyway.

Also, it was funny.

Anonymous said...


That you consider Ted Koepel, Walter Cronkite, Bill Moyers, Daniel Shore to be “giants in journalism” – now that’s funny. And that you think these blowhards have gone to PBS and NPR so that they can “actually be journalists” is hilariously funny.

Those old farts bloviate on government-subsidized media because commercial media can’t afford to support such un-insightful opinionating.

That this bunch may once have been quality journalists I will not debate, but they no longer merit such approbation. They are now nothing more than old men using public money and public airways to broadcast their unmitigated and liberal-biased views of the world around them.

I listen to NPR all the time, and generally enjoy it. One feature that sends my fingers to the dial is the commentary of Daniel Shore, who can not longer find and original thought or meaningful interpretation of the world around him.

Ink Stained Wretch said...

From a BBC article on the incident:


The majority of com mentors below don't seem to be in your camp.

"What do you think of Mika Brzezinski's protest? Do you agree that Iraq should have been the lead story over Paris Hilton? You sent us your views.

I absolutely agree that Paris Hilton/Britney Spears/Lindsey Lohan/Madonna shobiz gossip should not be on the news at all. I admire Miss Brzezinski for having the guts to make a stand about this. I hope she isn't fired.
Glenn Lennox, Fort Worth, Texas, USA

Paris Hilton's story should be not the lead story but the forgotten story of the day.
Mark Chadbourne, Litchfield, Maine

Good for you, Mika! I work in news too, and I am sick and tired of seeing someone who essentially does nothing grabbing headlines when there's a plethora of important events occurring constantly around the world that would be extremely edifying to viewers were they actually to see them instead of pulpy twaddle about an heiress who got sent to jail. boo-freakin'- hoo. I say burn it!
Kristoffer Newsom, Sacramento, CA, USA

Good on her! I'm fed up with celebrity non-stories in the papers, when all I want to do is read the news. News editors - take note!
Mac Scotland, Glasgow, Scotland

A woman with integrity and sense! I've never heard of her but I love her!
Ben Wilson, Nottingham

I totally agree with Mika Brzezinski, there is no reason for the public to be hearing of stories of Paris Hilton coming out of jail when there are people in Iraq serving for their country. Good on you Mrs Brzezinski!
Lola, London

It is about time someone in the TV news media showed some sense. You could watch the news all day in the states and never know there was a war on at all.
Ms. Smith, Cambridge, MA USA

It's about time someone in a profile position stand up to the studio uppers. She is what America is really about. Taking a stance. Believing in something and taking the moral high ground.
Rohan, Sunrise Florida

I think she set a grand example for all 'real' journalists everywhere. Enough of Paris Hilton.
Holstein, New Haven, CT

Three cheers for Mika! It's long overdue for media personnel to stand up and make a stand over what the real important issues are today and not be distracted by fluff. Paris Hilton is a creation of the media-hype; it's time for the media to cut her loose and focus on the real issues.
Kathi Dickie, Fort Nelson, Canada

Am so proud of Mika's actions! We are sick to death of all the garbage and non-news on major stations in the US. There's nothing about Iraq, Darfur, global warming, questioning the illegalities of this Republican administration. We watch Daily Show, MSNBC Countdown or Bill Maher for that news!
Natalie Schlabaugh, Colorado Springs, CO USA

You go girl! It is absolutely sickening how US news producers try to push non-news instead of actual news. This way Americans stay ignorant of the real world and are more easily manipulated by the Bush crime family.
AJ, San Francisco, CA

Ms Brzezinski is just trying to make a name for herself. She is just as self-righteous and a sorry excuse for a journalist as any of them. Jumping on the bandwagon to bash Ms Hilton just shows low class.
Anonymous, Los Angeles, United States

If only we had more newsreaders and journalists like Mika Brzezinski. Shame on MSNBC for wanting to lead with Hilton and shame on her colleagues for ribbing her over it.

Finally! Somebody is taking a stand, stop this madness. We do not care, best thing we can do is ignore Paris and her antics. There are more important issues we should be focusing on. Good for you Mika!!
simi, Dublin,CA"

Ink Stained Wretch said...


"Those old farts bloviate on government-subsidized media because commercial media can’t afford to support such un-insightful opinionating."
Right, That's Walter Cronkite?
Give me one example a a "New Fart" who could carry a notepad for these guys! Give me the name of one who is even a real journalist.
Bill O'Reilly?, Tucker Carlson?
Sean Hannity ? Since I'm not a Right Wing world aficionado I can't even think of any contenders.

Anon, You're all wet on this one.

Mr. Blackwater said...

So NRP and PBS have turned into a retirment place for all the old journalists. Grumpy old journalist. I suppose Gwen Eyeful is playing the part of Ann Margret. Too bad they let Tucker Carlson go. I loved that blue shade of his face with that tight little bow tie of his.

Ink Stained Wretch said...


How can you "enjoy" NPR when sucks money from the kid's inheritance and it's so "inappropriate"? Could it be that it offers something of value without being profit centered?

Ink Stained Wretch said...


Where will Tucker go, when he starts shaving?

Anonymous said...


O'Reilly, Carlson, and Hannity are not journalists. They are opinionated bloviators just like Koppel, Moyers, and Shore are now, with the further disqualifier that they never were reporters and/or journalists in the first place.

Reporters/journalists should just get out there and get the facts, then deliver them to us unadorned. We don't need them woven into a larger story or narrative; the public is plenty smart enough to do that for themselves. Besides, it can lead to complete journalistic disasters when facts are missed, fudged, or intentionally left out when they compromise the narrative.

A good case study on this point is the Duke Lacrosse team non-rape story. Despite the fact that the lads were declared innocent of all charges, Evan Thomas, the editor of Newsweek magazine, clung to his biases to the end, declaring that "We had the narrative right, but the facts wrong." That in a nutshell is what is wrong with journalism today.

And hey, I did not and never do use the ridiculously vapid term "inappropriate."

Ink Stained Wretch said...


If Koppel, Moyers, and Shore were never journalists, who does that leave to fill the lofty vacuum you created?

I also have to challenge your
Detective Friday "just the facts ma'am" school of journalism.
In most cases there's no such thing as just the facts. Did you flip channels during the reporting of the bridge collapse. I did, and I got several different sets of "facts" as I did. In most cases, not all, the "facts" depend on both an event and participants in an event and an observer aka a reporter. No two observers ever see the identical event or report an identical event. The "facts" are never as reliable as you insinuate.
Objectivity is indeed the ideal goal of a real journalist, but is hardly every achieved totally.
I also have to challenge your assertion that the public is "smart". Give me a break. The networks cater to the "market". Right now that's celebrity news trumping real news. "Smart" people don't make choices like that, but that's what the "market" is demanding.
The guy from Newsweek, does he fit your mold for a journalist? I'd think not. That statement made by him is just plain stupid, unless I'm missing something by not knowing the context in which it was made. Rape cases are especially difficult to ascertain all the facts. Often it comes down to he said she said. I'm glad theses players were exonerated. I'm also glad to see the prosecutor doing time. He ruined lived to enhance his own political motives.
I find your discussion interesting.
You should really choose a name. You can do so by checking "other" below and typing what you want. You're still anonymous but at least you won't be confused with the anonymous idiot who recently posted profanity laced comments against people he thinks post on this blog.
That's why comment moderation is on again.

Roadkill said...


The antecedent subjects of my pronoun “they” (as in “they were never reporters and/or journalists in the first place”) were O’Reilly, Carlson, and Hannity. I acknowledged in my first post that Koppel, Moyers, and Shore were at one time quality journalists.

I agree that reporters often get the facts wrong, but again, this is often due to the pressure to make them fit a larger narrative. As John Adams once said (during his defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre): “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Reporters repeatedly demonstrate, however, that they will not let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story.

It may take a bit more work, and it may require reporters to leave aside the dictates of modern J-schools which urge young journalists to fashion stories to promote “social justice,” but getting the facts right the first time is not all that difficult. Especially if the intent is to inform the public, and not to preach to them or, heaven forbid, entertain them.

And of course its not just me who feels that journalists should cleave to objectivity; most all the top journalists claim to be objective purveyors of fact. They demonstrably are not, of course, but they continue to claim to be. But then again, they seem to have a high tolerance for embarrassment and irony, and little shame when caught in the act.

Keeping the facts on page one and the commentary on the OpEd page is a prescription that most journalists would endorse – but with which few would comply. The temptation to lace news stories with subtle – and not so subtle – commentary is just too great. Lord Acton warned that power corrupts, and the power of the press has demonstrated just such a tendency towards corruption.

Ink Stained Wretch said...


I think we've pretty well covered the "journalist" angle here, all of which is pretty much off the original topic which is the incessant repetition of Ayn Randisms I read coming from our local objectivist groupies on ontheborderline.nut and wherever else in cyberspace the occasionally stray from their cages. I was frankly amazed at how consistent and redundant the words of Ayn Rand were when compared to her followers on our local fruitcake farm blog. Personally, I think sacrifice is a valiant thing. When I think of my father's generation and the real sacrifices they made during WWII, being sacrificial animals is far from the first image that enters my mind, rather, noble warriors defending the American way of life. Today, that has pretty much deteriorated to mere sloganeering.