Nobody's posted anything here for a while (as usual) so I thought I'd contribute something.
Here's a video from The Colbert Report, that I thought might be interesting to some of you:
Apparently, because of people's fears of Obama the "Socialist," Ayn Rand is becoming popular again, although she can't really be that popular, judging by the number of people who call her "Anne" Rand. Wouldn't it be great if some of these executives and other greedy bastards followed John Galt's example and just left? We'd be much better off without them. To be fair, I know Ayn Rand wouldn't have approved of people who steal from their own companies and the taxpayers, giving nothing of value in return, but perhaps she should have expected that greedy people will cheat if they can get away with it.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Initially formed in the fall of 2004, the CGS Riverbend Class of 2008 had been together of an epic four years of high school. It disbanded in 2008 after graduation, but it still remains the best in all of CGS history.
6 comments:
like anne coulter
fannnnnntastic.
I wonder if they're still going to make Atlas Shrugged, the movie. IMDb says it is scheduled for 2011, but they've taken down the cast list that used to be there. If Angelina Jolie isn't going to be in it anymore they could get Anne Coulter to play Dagny, the character who, I believe Ayn Rand based on herself. Actually Anne Coulter could probably also convincingly play one of the male characters.
Hahahahaha eff Ann Coulter.
I really want them to make it, I think it would be amazing. About 15 hours long, but amazing nonetheless.
They probably never will though, its such a daunting task for filmmakers/script adapters. =(
I loved the clip. It's a good point, too. In fact, I'm fairly certain the Galt withdraw has begun:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=91103
Don't try to tell me that you wouldn't go join. They even have a state flag for it:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2068/2625527709_a97f75cb5d.jpg
Anyway, you have a good point. Frankly, if people saw the opportunity to 'cheat,' as it were (not that I'm denying they did, I'm just not sure that it's the right word), I'm not sure she'd expect them not too. I don't think she'd consider it a character flaw so much as a flaw in the system.
And if all the big producers left, I'd just sit back and laugh. Because it wouldn't be a good thing. And the government is getting more socialist--at least to a degree. Forcing Chrysler to sell to Fiat, and the CEO of GM to resign? That's not the place of the government. Frankly, in terms of the car crisis, a large part of it came around because of the government. They kept the prices of gasoline artificially low, which spurred consumers to fall in love with the big cars--and didn't force the big three to innovate or have much incentive to become more efficient on gas. And now, they're all floundering, and we have to bail them out. Frankly, I'd let them go bankrupt--I do believe that'd be for the best.
And I'd love to see Atlas Shrugged as a movie or TV series, but they cannot squish the whole thing into 3 hours. It just wouldn't do it justice.
Hahaha awesome! If they form their own country, at least they'll have the most powerful army in the world: Chuck Norris. But on a more serious note, as I recall, some Southern states tried to secede in the past and it didn't go so well... It'd probably be a bad idea to try that again, especially considering how Obama is trying to be like Lincoln.
Well that's the problem, it's a flaw in the system. There are two possible sources of this flaw, either the system actively encourages these abuses or the system lacks regulation to prevent them. Which one is the cause would depend on what the "system" is, if the "system" is the government, then I think a lack of regulation is the problem. However, there is a system that actively encourages CEOs to act irresponsibly and rewards failure just as much as success, but it isn't the government, its the power structure the executives created themselves, independent of the government. From what she's written, Rand seems to say that this "looting" is only possible if the actual elected government is the one doing the looting. In her idealized version of the world, the tycoons are independent players, their best interests are inescapably tied to the best interests of their companies, and they don't conspire together to gain an unfair advantage.
It is the place of the government to do those things now that it practically owns those companies. I can see why the government isn't allowing them to go bankrupt, thousands of people would lose their jobs if the auto companies went under and it'd really mess up the economy if the banks did. But yes, they do deserve to go bankrupt and it'd probably be better than what's happening now. I hate what the new treasury secretary Tim Geithner is doing with the bonuses and the toxic asset plan, he's just as corrupt as Paulson. They're throwing money at these companies, when the people running them are the same ones that ruined them in the first place, what do they expect to happen? The auto bailout isn't that bad compared to the bank bailout, I wish the government would take a bigger role in telling the banks what to do and fire some bank CEOs too. Complete nationalization of the banks the government already "owns" because of the bailout would be a great start.
I think Galt's speech alone would make the movie more than 3 hours. Actually it might be good if Chuck Norris was cast in the movie, they could take some of the boring substance out and replace it with a few roundhouse kicks to the face, it'd be much shorter that way. (because Chuck Norris does everything justice)
Post a Comment