Hypocrisy and Safety

So I'm getting ready to start my blog for the week, still in my comfey, sleeping clothes, when Steve calls and says, "Whatcha doin?" and says that he's gonna be there in 15 minutes to go to brunch with Sean and Jeanne.... crap. Sunday is for blogging, relaxing, and tweeting with anyone (bloggers, news people, scientists, porn stars, the whole lot) while trying to wrap my mind around ultimate answers to hard questions. Like "Why do people believe in such bull-shit as God created man" (and what about woman... that always bothered me even though I'm male so you'd likely think I was cool with that notion... nope). Any ways, I get my act together (barely) then it's off to Roseville.

Sean looks much better after the back surgery and Jeanne is such a trooper. After we're done, we walk out (a major accomplishment for Sean) and everyone's words seem to get lost in the rain.. the rain... it makes me contemplative. Then I realize after finishing my work at home how dark it gets so early in Winter. I come back to my sanctuary of a home and begin to realize that my friends have it better than I do in one large regard... they can profess who they are and their belief in NOT believing. I don't dare do that at my work or near my place of employment. If I did, I'd risk being terminated by a crazy, religiously fanatical parent. I use subterfuge and use my Zen Buddhist goings as my out. "Oh no, I'm not a non-believer; I'm a Zen Buddhist." The Buddhism statement is true, but the 'not a non-believer' is not.... I feel like such a hypocrite.

My friends regularly tell me that they understand my situation but it still gets to me. How can I be the co-founder of an Atheist and Non-Believer group but not come out to support it. I let certain friends know but sometimes I just want to shout to the world, "I don't believe in ANYTHING, especially your bullshit notion of God because there isn't any God!" But no, I stay in the 'closet' so-to-speak and let my friends take the brunt for being one of the last and most hated minority groups in America. Someday.... it just sticks in my throat. I hate it.

Then I come across a Science Blog which tries to say the things I want to express. Please read this Blog.

Refusing Flu Shots? Maybe You're a Denialist...

Listening to NPR as I do every day in the morning I heard a great discussion between Weekend Edition Saturday host Scott Simon and Michael Specter a reporter for The New Yorker magazine concerning his new book just out titled Denialism. In the talk he discusses how a group of island residents have stopped vaccinating their children against childhood diseases and how 40% of the children at a school in Marina del Rey got exceptions for vaccinations. His arguments are cogent and timely and make us confront the way we see the world. I am constantly confronted in my work with the insanity that parents and media foist upon our young people (" Is the world really going to end in 2012?" or "Is it true that we came from monkeys?".... Oh come on people!). But Michael Specter's point boils down to the threat that our irrational and denialist thought has for our well being and our continued existence. But why should I try to state the points when the author can do that for himself:

Monday Morning Musings

I'm just sitting at the table listening to NPR about the Comic Con in San Diego while thumbing through Facebook and following my Twitter feeds. So, I start reading about the changing tactics about getting Gay Marriage legal again in California. It reminded me of the only Republican I've read or listened to so far this year (and I used to be a Republican when I first started voting then quickly came to my senses and found out that I HATE political parties... sorry but I just can't drink their Kool-aide no matter how hard I try... I'm just to independent a thinker): Megan McCain. I know, I know. You read that and do what my dog does when I send a nonsequitor his way; cock his head to the side and give and audible 'urhh?' But she has reminded me that if change is to happen it typically comes as the generations change. Go see this little article she wrote about posing for the "No H8 Campaign"

I also like that she told 'Joe the Plumber' that he is a 'dumb-ass' and just ripped Ann Coulter in her blogs. I'll defend anyone who speaks her mind like that! I have hope for the future more than I did before.

The Heretic and the Infidel

I have a couple of definitions I think we need to work with before I explain my position on naming myself. Let's begin:

[from the New American Dictionary On-Line, color emphasis totally my own]

her·e·tic

NOUN:
A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.
ADJECTIVE:
Heretical.
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English heretik, from Old French heretique, from Late Latin haereticus, from Greek hairetikos, able to choose, factious, from hairetos, chosen, from haireisthai, to choose ; see heresy

her·e·sy

NOUN:
pl. her·e·sies
1.
1. An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
2. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.
2.
1. A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science.
2. Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion.
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English heresie, from Old French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, a choosing, faction, from haireisthai, to choose, middle voice of hairein, to take

in·fi·del

NOUN:

1. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
2. One who has no religious beliefs.
3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English infidele, from Old French, from Latin infidlis, disloyal : in-, not ; see in- 1 + fidlis, faithful (from fids, faith; see bheidh- in Indo-European roots)

Now with these definitions firmly out of the way, I am please, nay, proud to say I am a Heretic and an Infidel (and they are capitalized because for the purposes of this essay I consider them proper nouns... more about this after a moment). I take my pride (if it can accurately be termed pride) in calling myself these things in the same way that the homosexual community has usurped the meaning of the word 'gay' for their own purposes. So too do I usurp the churches terms for my own purposes and take pride in being and Infidel and a Heretic. I reject all religious doctrine, dogma, systems, and principles... I have no use for them and I choose (see 'heresy' ) to find the truth for myself absent of any faith or orthodoxy. Now why do I reject orthodoxy? First define your term again:

[from 1. Wikitionary and 2. Ecce Romani latin course and dictionary]

1. Etymology

From Late Latin orthodoxus, from Ancient Greek ὀρθόδοξος (orthodoxos), from ὀρθός (orthos), “‘straight’”) + δόξα (doxa), “‘opinion’”).

2. From Latin "doxus" to opine, have opinion, or think.

It is one of the fallacies of religion and the nature of orthodoxy that it requires that you think in a particular way; that you have 'straight thinking.' In a word, bullshit. I have always thought that the one of the unstated reasons that people so fervently cling to their faith and religion other than the social aspects is that it tells them how to think about the world bu require that you stay within the rigid framework of the dogma of the faith. In short, your ability to reason outside of a certain 'box' is stunted and so is the growth of your mind. I reject this proposition completely, utterly, and emphatically.

I am forever grateful for the process of science that has freed my mind from the trap of dogma and orthodoxy. Despite all the effort he put into it, my Methodist pastor grandfather was never able to convince me that his church (or any other church) with any type of orthodoxy was a living, growing entity concerned with anything except the perpetuation of its own existence... It reminds me of the functioning of a virus.

I state again proudly and for the record: I am a Heretic and and Infidel.

Oklahoma is DOOMED....

While going through my usual morning reads of the Tweets, Blogs, and messages from my Facebook buds, I went to the Richard Dawkins Foundation website and came across this. It has to be one of the most asinine political moves that anyone has done in that state since.... oops, my bad. I forgot... I'm writing about a midwest state like Kansas. Remember the book titled "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Read the whole article on this idiotic resolution against Dawkins speaking on evolution at U of Ok. and maybe that will jog your memory. 

Then I get a different article after reading the above one on the legislative resolution. The thought that some dim-witted politician from Oklahoma of all fucking places would decide that free speech needs to be "investigated" just about pushed me over the edge to wanting to do violence! (No, no... don't worry. I won't go there). But finally Dawkins had his say:

The Devil's Handiwork

Well, it's a vacation time for me and it's nice because I have time to think for myself and enjoy the erudite pursuits... like YouTube. I came across an outstanding comic: Lewis Black. His best rif is on what is titled on YouTube as "The Devil's Handiwork." Now I am a scientist and am constantly having to define and defend it's findings from crackpots I come across (some of whose children I have to teach and what they are doing to their kids is just plain abusive to their mental faculties). Now Lewis Black does a fantastic job of putting forth what it is that makes me just nucking futs about these people... enjoy:

Sam Harris at the AAI '07 Conference

Sam Harris has been one of the most articulate speakers on the case for atheism and takes atheists to task for their inability to find an intimate understanding of the need for the contemplative state of being. Here is Sam in his own words:


Part 1


Part 2

In Defence of Science

In 1633, Galileo was convicted by an Inquisitional Tribunal of the religious crime of heresy. He was sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life for having argued (correctly) that the Sun was the center of the solar system and not the earth. He was forced as part of his sentence to:

"Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." However, while there is no doubt that Pope Urban VIII and the vast majority of Church officials did not believe in heliocentrism, heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, except insofar as it held (for instance, in the formal condemnation of Galileo) that "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures", and the converse as to the Sun's not revolving around the Earth."

You might be forgiven if you think that we would have progressed since that time to where science is no longer on trial by religious idiots and bigots... you would be wrong. Witness as proof of my contention the Dover 'Intelligent Design' trial as diligently shown by the PBS science series NOVA:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Note: you must have Quicktime installed to watch the program. Also, it is a two hour program which comes in 12 parts but I implore you to watch all the segments to get the full story before you think you can make any judgements as the the veracity of the program. Here is a preview of the program:



Here is some information from BBC Video about the Intelligent Design controversy:

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5

The Evolution of Suicide Bombers

It has been a while since I have posted and thus I offer my apologies to my readers (all two of you) with more from the Richard Dawkins Foundation. Recently, there was an international conference of atheists in Washington D.C. with the "Four Horseman" of modern atheism in attendance (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens) and numerous other scholars and academics addressing many issues important to everyone in the world. Professor Andy Thompson of the University of Virgina gave a lecture on the origins of suicide bombers and suicide bombings from the ancient times to today which he titled "We few, we happy few. We band of brothers" from Shakespear's Henry V play. Here are the lecture and the Q and A sessions that came directly after the presentation:

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3: Q & A

Godless Awe and Inspiration

I am reminded today, for what reason I am not entirely certain, that religion is not a necessary requirement to be inspired by the Universe. Ah, yes, now it comes to me. One of the young girls who is at my coffee shop while I write this is going to a catholic high school and studying the world's religions. It can be a fascinating study in anthropology... but I have been through that and found every one of them lacking the inspiration that the real Universe gives me.

I lost my 'faith' a long time ago when the contradictions of the ideas of faith came crashing into the reality of the Universe as revealed by science. I am not the only person who has had reality dissolve their faith away. Even Mother Teresa experienced this:

From TIME Magazine Article, August 23, 2007 -

"On Dec. 11, 1979, Mother Teresa, the "Saint of the Gutters," went to Oslo. Dressed in her signature blue-bordered sari and shod in sandals despite below-zero temperatures, the former Agnes Bojaxhiu received that ultimate worldly accolade, the Nobel Peace Prize. In her acceptance lecture, Teresa, whose Missionaries of Charity had grown from a one-woman folly in Calcutta in 1948 into a global beacon of self-abnegating care, delivered the kind of message the world had come to expect from her. "It is not enough for us to say, 'I love God, but I do not love my neighbor,'" she said, since in dying on the Cross, God had "[made] himself the hungry one — the naked one — the homeless one." Jesus' hunger, she said, is what "you and I must find" and alleviate. She condemned abortion and bemoaned youthful drug addiction in the West. Finally, she suggested that the upcoming Christmas holiday should remind the world "that radiating joy is real" because Christ is everywhere — "Christ in our hearts, Christ in the poor we meet, Christ in the smile we give and in the smile that we receive."

Yet less than three months earlier, in a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, that is only now being made public, she wrote with weary familiarity of a different Christ, an absent one. "Jesus has a very special love for you," she assured Van der Peet. "[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me — that I let Him have [a] free hand."

The two statements, 11 weeks apart, are extravagantly dissonant. The first is typical of the woman the world thought it knew. The second sounds as though it had wandered in from some 1950s existentialist drama. Together they suggest a startling portrait in self-contradiction — that one of the great human icons of the past 100 years, whose remarkable deeds seemed inextricably connected to her closeness to God and who was routinely observed in silent and seemingly peaceful prayer by her associates as well as the television camera, was living out a very different spiritual reality privately, an arid landscape from which the deity had disappeared.

And in fact, that appears to be the case. A new, innocuously titled book, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light (Doubleday), consisting primarily of correspondence between Teresa and her confessors and superiors over a period of 66 years, provides the spiritual counterpoint to a life known mostly through its works. The letters, many of them preserved against her wishes (she had requested that they be destroyed but was overruled by her church), reveal that for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever — or, as the book's compiler and editor, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, writes, "neither in her heart or in the eucharist." "

The article goes on to say:

"Not all atheists and doubters will agree. Both Kolodiejchuk and Martin assume that Teresa's inability to perceive Christ in her life did not mean he wasn't there. In fact, they see his absence as part of the divine gift that enabled her to do great work. But to the U.S.'s increasingly assertive cadre of atheists, that argument will seem absurd. They will see the book's Teresa more like the woman in the archetypal country-and-western song who holds a torch for her husband 30 years after he left to buy a pack of cigarettes and never returned. Says Christopher Hitchens, author of The Missionary Position, a scathing polemic on Teresa, and more recently of the atheist manifesto God Is Not Great: "She was no more exempt from the realization that religion is a human fabrication than any other person, and that her attempted cure was more and more professions of faith could only have deepened the pit that she had dug for herself." "

I must place myself fully with this camp of atheists. We are creatures of habit and I can only guess at the Mother's inner views for sure, but the implication is clear to a skeptic... she lost her faith and could not come to terms with it. I'm sure that she is not the only one. Perhaps, obliquely, it is not unlike the older generation of people who are in fact homosexual but unable to come to terms with it and thus they repress the notion and end up in men's rooms in Minneapolis airports looking to satisfy their mental, emotional, and physical desires that they repress... but this is, again, just speculation.

Here, I speak only for myself. I am fairly certain, upon reflection, that my liberation began when I was about 8 years old. I received a small telescope from my great-uncle Arthur and a book to go with it entitled simply Stars by H.A. Rey. I read about the 'Great Nebula in Orion' and after learning the positions of the stars, one cold December night I took my new instrument on my first tour of the true Heavens. Before my eyes swirled a ghostly green apparition the likes of which I will never forget. If I were a person of 'faith' I might have thought poetically that I had 'glimpsed the face of God.' I did not... instead, I got my first true glimpse of reality. Faith was no longer necessary. Instead, logic and curiosity became my constant companions and they have never failed or abandoned me (unlike a mythical god from the mythology of our primitive neo-cortex that we have yet to abandon as a species). I offer as exhibits to that wonderment and inspiration the preceding pictures at the beginning of this blog. The awe and inspiration of such pictures as these from the Hubble Space Telescope are a greater testament to Nature and the Universe than any work of man... and yet it precisely the work of science and of our minds in search of reality in the raw that has made them possible. It brings to mind the quote some attribute to Christopher Marlow's The Tragic Tale of Dr. Faustus where the doomed wizard states "Vi veri universum vivicus vici"; roughly translated: "By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the Universe."

The Perils of an Atheist Teacher

While working on a post previous to this one, I started to wonder what the ramifications for my well-being might be if I were to let slip out during my class time that I was an atheist. Now I must admit that I have a bit of a cover but it is in no way meant to be a cover for my atheism. I practice Soto Zen Buddhism and it's associated techniques of meditation (termed zazen in Buddhist circles) and I have been a 'somewhat' practitioner of Zen for over 20 years ever since I began my practices of the martial art of Aikido. So, when it invariably happens that a student asks what I believe in, I state that I am a Zen Buddhist. Now these are 8th graders and so they are naturally curious about their instructor that they are due to spend months with before moving on. In addition the brain of an 8th grader is growing in its number of connections at a rate only surpassed by the newborn to 5 year-old. This makes if difficult for me to want to 'put-off' my students so I resort to my Zen answers rather than risk what unknown ramifications may come about due to my atheism. Though I am honest with my students, it seems that I play a sad bit of subterfuge with them as well since I omit the answer that they should be expected to get - "Yes Virginia, I don't find it logical that there is a God."

Richard Dawkins talks at length about how misunderstood and even hated atheists are in America and in a suburban/rural environ it is especially true. Never mind that I remind my students CONSTANTLY that the scientific method of investigation does not abide unsupported, untestable, magical belief that has not factual evidence to support it or that the term belief is really inappropriate in a scientific setting. Never mind that I do my best to instill in my students the idea of experiment, hypothesis, and repeatable phenomena as the basis of science - the minute one of my students were to tell their overly-zealous, extremely pious, 'bible-thumping' parents I don't believe in God (any god for that matter) my effective days as a teacher could very well be numbered. Despite the fact that I have a very supportive administration at my school site, despite the fact that I live in the state of California with the curriculum explicitly stating that we should teach evolution, and despite some very well thought out regulations defending a person's retention should not be based on race, creed, color, or national origin it just seems to me that my lack of faith could be used against me.

I can envisage the following scenario: I come to work one day and am asked to meet with my principal. She states that she has received several complaints from parents that I stated in my class that I didn't believe in God and that they refuse to let their children be taught by some Godless atheist scum (or some words or phrases to that effect). I am then asked if it is true that I said that such a thing or stated any words that can be taken to state my position as an atheist. Now, I have a few ways I can handle this and none of them sit well with me. One, I can lie. Yes, lie. I can fall back on my notions of being a Zen Buddhist (because I am and , no, I don't see being an atheist and a Zen Buddhist as a contradiction - but now is not the place for such a discussion) and thus shield myself behind what most other people see as 'my religion' even though I don't share that view. Two, I can commit subterfuge a different way. I can state that "as a scientist" there is no place for God in the scientific approach to the universe and that the students must have 'misunderstood' me when I explained the limits and workings of science. Now, this would be using my science as a shield as well, but it may also be construed as a lie assuming I did in point of fact say I don't believe in a God. Three, I could deny the whole occurrence OR question what this has to do with my instruction in science in the first place, then bring out my ACLU membership card and my lawyers card thus ending the discussion right there (most administrators shudder at the thought of lawyers getting involved). This is not likely to leave an enduring good impression on my superiors and runs into some very dangerous territory indeed. Or, finally, I could simply state the truth and then ask my principal what she is going to do to protect my non-belief as much as she would someones stated belief in a being I consider to be a complete fiction. I am so unsure of how well my good principal would be able to protect me from her idiot superiors and their social/political expediency; that the one answer I desire to give I may never be able to state as a public pronouncement especially for someone in my position - and this is just as equally detestable from a purely moral point as is a lie or subterfuge ... so much so as to make me ill.

And so, where does that leave me? Well, in a perilous position to say the least where every word that I say concerning astronomy, cosmology, geology, evolution and the other ultimate questions of the universe that may not nicely jibe with a students indoctrination in the religious dogma of their parents could potentially be a land-mine. If not for the state of California's explicit science benchmarks and the ability of my administration to use these to protect me (assuming the intestinal fortitude of the chain of command is a constant), I could see a career of 20 years terminated terribly. I must admit also that I have seen my district stand up to the Eagle Forum and other nasty right-wing groups on other occasions and for that I am made to feel a bit better. But all it would take is one superintendent or school board member to feel they have an axe to grind or an example to make of me and all my good feelings could be terribly misplaced. I must admit that it is a bit like the feeling one gets having to work your way through a mine-field; no matter the administration, the regulations, my excellent reputation and record a determined parent could put me in their cross-hairs and see me destroyed. Sad. Welcome to the 21st century. Now I know a little how Galileo might have felt.

The Case for Atheism

I just finished the book The God Delusion yesterday and was visiting the Richard Dawkins website as a follow-up. It was there, that I found the following video by Richard Hitchens. Now I don't agree with his politics often, but I find his discussion of the moral imperative of atheism to be cogent, exacting, lucid, and quite to the point:



Yes, to be an atheist and deny the delusions of gods and other unprovable phenomena is a moral imperative in my estimation and I use Hitchens discussion(s) as evidence of this imperative.

The Pale Blue Dot

A while back I was sent a Feedblitz for the blog from the Bad Astronomy weblog run by Phil Platt. In it was a link to a picture taken by the Voyager spacecraft on it's way out of the solar system which was of the Earth from that great distance. It was called "The Pale Blue Dot" by the late Carl Sagan (astronomer and educator of Cosmos fame). The picture was stunning; especially when taken with the words of the great astronomer himself who was the advocate for the taking of that picture in the first place (See at the bottom of the post for the link). Now, on YouTube I have found some videos that work with this picture:

[1] Pale Blue Dot by Ice-Core Scientist with their own indie rock music to go with it



[2] and now a video showing the difference between believers and atheists:



http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/space_missions/voyager/pale_blue_dot.html

Beyond Belief '06 (Part 3 - Dawkins has the last word)

The final clips from the Beyond Belief '06 conference are from the eminent Richard Dawkins of The God Delusion authorship. Here he addresses the changing moral zietgeist as the decades and centuries have changed and how he denies that religion has anything to do with a person's morals:

Beyond Belief '06 (Part 2) - Physics Speaks

Now we have Steven Weinberg (The Nobel Prize winning physicist from the University of Texas and co-discoverer of the unification of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces) speaks to the conflict between religion and science and how even as scientists of some schools try to get some main-line religious denominations to be our "allies" so to speak, that if we are really honest about it we cannot allow religion and it's inherent irrationality to prevail:




And what if religion were to disapper? Then what? Weinberg answers:

Beyond Belief '06

In November 2006, The Science Network put on a conference at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California (my fair state) with a huge list of speakers and attendees (go to the below included URL from The Edge magazine for more information on who was there) from many, many different disciplines in science and many points of view as well (including Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris with others such as Anne Druyan and Alex deGrasse Tyson of the Hayden Planetarium). I include here several exerpts from the conference from the YouTube website and ask that you view them in order. I feel there is a coming change to science where the scientific community is no longer willing to accept or defer to religious belief as something which is somehow "untouchable" or to be given special status anymore. Rational discussion and the use of the scientific method CAN begin to explain the reasons behind belief of all kinds and it is this that the conference attempted to start to address:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/beyond_belief06/beyond_belief06_index.html

Sam Harris: Clips 1 to 5 on "Science and Intellectual Honesty"











More from the conference in later blogs.

The God Delusion (Part 2)

Here is the continuation of the discussion with Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. As you might notice, many of the questioners stated that they were from Liberty University not the host campus... Liberty is the so-called univeristy run by the right-wing christian minister Jerry Falwell and his so-called Moral Majority. As Mr. Dawkins states himself of the Q and A session, "Many of the questioners announced themselves as either students or faculty from Liberty, rather than from Randolph Macon which was my host institution. One by one they tried to trip me up, and one by one their failure to do so was applauded by the audience. Finally, I said that my advice to all Liberty students was to resign immediately and apply to a proper university instead. That received thunderous applause, so that I almost began to feel slightly sorry for the Liberty people. Only almost and only slightly, however."

The God Delusion (Part 1)

Richard Dawkins has been writing about science, biology, and evolution for years. I recently picked up his book The God Delusion and can't seem to put it down. If you google Richard Dawkins you will be directed to his website and there is lots of information (I personally find it a great site). On that site is a lecture that Dawkins gave at a southern university near the end of last year. I find his views to express most of how I view the world as a scientist and his books are excellent now matter which you chose to read. So, here is part 1 of his lecture from last year:

Ayn Rand Interview - Objectivism redux

In the late 1970's, Phil Donahue interviewed Ayn Rand (and this was shortly before her death). If there was any time more than any other that showed Ayn Rand being no-nonsense and not caring about her image. OK, just take a look:





Here Ayn Rand takes on religion... gotta love:



Now Ayn Rand goes off a bit on what I think was her thin skin to criticism





And then two years later, the great mind of Ayn Rand passed away.

Ayn Rand - rounding things out

Ayn now finishes the interview with Wallace and comes around with personal outlooks which I both agree and disagree with (Ayn's economics just can't help but drive me a bit nuts but her outlook on personal responsibility and denial of belief for convictions I adore). I leave Ms. Rand to defend herself: