NOTABLOG MONTHLY ARCHIVES: 2002 - 2020
|MARCH 2006||MAY 2006|
APRIL 30, 2006
Song of the Day: Your Personal Touch (audio clip at that link), featuring the words and music of Allen George and F. McFarlane, is delivered with jazzy and funky flair by Evelyn Champagne King. (Wow, this marks the1000th entry on Notablog!)
APRIL 29, 2006
Song of the Day: Sir Duke, words and music by Stevie Wonder, is a tribute to birthday boy Duke Ellington. Today also happens to be the birthday of my brother, jazz guitarist Carl Barry, who would sometimes perform this little nugget, with my jazz vocalist sister-in-law Joanne, on club dates. Happy Birthday!
APRIL 28, 2006
Song of the Day: Doralice, words and music by Dorival Caymmi and Antonio Almeida, is another great selection from one of my favorite all-time albums: Getz/Gilberto (audio clip at that link).
APRIL 27, 2006
Song of the Day: Someone to Light Up My Life (Se Todos Fossem Iguais A Voce), words and music by Antonio Carlos Jobim, Gene Lees, Vinicius De Moraes, has been recorded by many artists. Listen to audio clips of versions by Sinatra and Jobim and Nancy Ames with guitarist Laurindo Almeida.
APRIL 26, 2006
Song of the Day: For Me features the words and music of Harold Lobo and Norman Gimbel. I adore a version by Brasil 66 from the album, "Equinox" (audio clip at that link).
APRIL 25, 2006
Song of the Day: Love Light in Flight, words, music, and performance by Stevie Wonder, was featured in the 1984 film, "The Woman in Red." Listen to an audio clip of this rhythmic soulful song here.
APRIL 24, 2006
Song of the Day: Where is the Wonder?, words and music by Michael Barr and Dion McGregor, is featured in a sweet arrangement by Peter Matz from today's birthday girl Barbra Streisand's magnificent album, "My Name is Barbra" (audio clip at that link). It was also featured on Streisand's stupendous 1965 TV special of the same name.
APRIL 23, 2006
Song of the Day: Ben-Hur ("Choral Suite") (audio clips at that link), was composed by Miklos Rozsa and arranged and reconstructed by Daniel Robbins. Happy Easter to my family and to all my Greek and Russian Orthodox friends. And our Rozsa Tribute, which began here, comes to a conclusion. Next year, the tribute will return to mark the Rozsa Centenary!
APRIL 22, 2006
Song of the Day: Sinfonia Concertante for Violin and Cello, Op. 29, composed by Miklos Rozsa, is one of the maestro's finest concert works. Listen to audio clips from renditions featuring the great violinist Jascha Heifetz, cellist Richard Bock and violinist Igor Gruppman with the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, and the Philharmonia Hungarica.
APRIL 21, 2006
Song of the Day: Ben-Hur ("The Procession to Calvary" / "The Bearing of the Cross") (audio clips at that link), composed by Miklos Rozsa, coincides with the Eastern Orthodox Good Friday. It is as if Rozsa captures all the pain of The Passion; it's a classic musical moment in a classic film.
APRIL 20, 2006
Song of the Day: Lust for Life ("Sien" / "Reunion"), composed by Miklos Rozsa, is from the score for the 1956 film "Lust for Life," starring Kirk Douglas. Listen to the full-length audio clips of these cues here; check out here also.
APRIL 19, 2006
I always look forward to the installment on "American Idol" that focuses on the Great American Songbook. Last night's competition round was, for me, the most satisfying yet insofar as most of the contestants were pretty strong. Of course, some of the great standards were "butchered," as one of the contestants admitted, but it was still an entertaining hour.
Tonight, Rod Stewart takes the stage to showcase his take on the standards. I've not been too impressed with his various volumes dedicated to the Golden Era of American songwriting, but I give him credit for mining the gold therein.
In any event, after tonight, another contestant will "bite the dust" (yeah, they did a Queen-focused show last week).
I think Kelly Pickler is the next to go!
Posted by: Elaine | April 19, 2006 08:03 AM
Ironically, she's the one who admitted to "butchering" the song she chose. "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered" (ah, they don't write 'em like that anymore)---led Simon to say she was just "bewildered."
We'll see tonight!
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 19, 2006 08:12 AM
Well, she certainly _should_ be the one to go. But democracy being the blunt instrument that it is, she may well get an undeserved pass. Ace did better than I expected, and I'm not a huge fan, but if it's anyone besides Kellie, it will be demonstrably wrong. Wouldn't surprise me, though. FAR superior: Katherine, Paris, Elliott. We'll see tonight...
Posted by: Aeon Skoble | April 19, 2006 08:23 AM
I like Elliot. He has a fantastic voice and his performances are consistent every week. His take on �Moodey�s Mood for Love� a few weeks ago makes him my idol.
Posted by: Mick Russell | April 19, 2006 11:36 AM
SPOILER ALERT: And so, the tossed contestant: Ace!!!
I love Elliott, and I even link to his rendition of "Moody's Mood For Love" right here.
Any predictions as to who will be left standing in the top three? Top two? I have my thoughts...
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 20, 2006 06:36 AM
It's not a grave injustice that Ace was sent home, although I'd argue he's better than Pickler. In fact, all of the "bottom three" last night were demonstrably better than Pickler. Her fan base has evidently decided she must win, even if she's plainly not the best, not even top 5. Good lesson in democracy! ;-)
Posted by: Aeon Skoble | April 20, 2006 06:54 AM
Soooo, true. I was actually thinking that the group on the far side of the stage would be the "bottom 3," but had a feeling that they were going to switch it on us.
Very interesting group still standing...
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 20, 2006 07:11 AM
Oh, AI talk! Yum!
Ok: Eliot is far and away the best singer on the show. He had me at "Moody's Mood for Love." He's the best singer they've had since Fantasia, whose potential has been squandered since her "victory" two years ago. Fantasia has rough potential that should be nurtured rather than putting out that "Baby Mama" schlock.
But enough ranting about the squandering of Fantasia. On the night Eliot sang "Moody's," Simon told the guy he shouldn't sing those kinds of songs...Simon may know what's "marketable" but doesn't know good music...
Based on talent, Eliot SHOULD win, but won't.
Kelly's "ah'm juhst a duhmb blonde hi-yick from the Say-outh" persona seems to have garnered a lot of irrational affection from the American Public. Let's hear it for Daisy Mae Yokum...blech. She'll be in the top three, mark my words...
The top three should be--well, Eliot and two other people--possibly Taylor and Katharine.
The top three WILL be: Taylor, Chris and Kelly.
Posted by: Peri Sword | April 20, 2006 09:56 AM
I�m increasingly optimistic about Elliott�s chances of making it to the final 3. Unfortunately the boring Chris and the untalented twit Kelly will probably join him. My final 3 would be Elliott, Katherine and Paris.
Now about Rod Stewart and his recordings of the Great American Songbook. Talk about butchering wonderful songs. After listening to his performance last night, I�m convinced that old lecher wouldn�t be able to crack the top 24 of American Idol. Thankfully he�s returning to Rock.
I think Chris pointed out that �Moody�s Mood for Love� was based on a James Moody solo during a recording of �I�m in the Mood for Love�. I had the good fortune of seeing James Moody in concert a few years ago at the San Diego Street Scene. While Maceo Parker was creating noise on one of the main stages, Moody was blowing away those who just happened upon him on one of the side stages. Oh the injustice!
Posted by: Mick Russell | April 20, 2006 03:37 PM
Know this isn't related to the main discussion but did anyone catch the Queen focused show?
I am a fan of their sounds and like'd to know if it went well.
Posted by: Nick | April 22, 2006 12:44 AM
It did not go well.
Posted by: Mick Russell | April 22, 2006 02:02 AM
It all depends on what you mean by "well." ;-)
They showed clips of Brian and Roger jamming with the kids. There was one now-infamous clip where Ace came to them with his own arrangement of "We Will Rock You," and it appears that the guys, Brian in particular, aren't too happy with the arragement, and balked. (Brian has since commented on his blog that it was not that way at all and Brian was none-too-happy with the AI editing of the clips).
I could do a recap of the episode, but well--it will suffice to say that Freddie Mercury is sorely missed.
On a positive note, it wasn't as bad as I feared it would be.
Posted by: Peri Sword | April 22, 2006 09:08 AM
Thanks for tipping me off to the band blogs.
Are there any clips of the show available online?
Hope the version of Bohemian Rhapsody,if there was one,went well.
Posted by: Nick | April 22, 2006 12:50 PM
Bohemian Rhapsody was performed by Kelly Pickler. I believe all three judges liked her version. I thought it was horrendous. Constantine Maroulis did a fantastic version of Bohemian Rhapsody last season.
Posted by: Mick Russell | April 22, 2006 02:45 PM
I believe you may be able to pull up some clips from the past shows on americanidol.com. On that site, you can also find recaps of the various episodes under "Jaded Journalist".
Yes, I have no real life! ;-)
Posted by: Peri | April 23, 2006 11:10 AM
Heh,thanks for the info ( :
I'll do some surfing when I get a chance.
Posted by: Nick | April 23, 2006 06:58 PM
Well, another week, another show. It will be very interesting to see where AI goes tonight.
About the remaining contestants: I do enjoy Elliott's performances very much too. I'm not as crazy about Pickler as others have expressed; I do like Taylor, who is sufficiently different to be interesting. Chris has talent, but his vibrato makes him sound like a nanny-goat at times. McPhee sounds and looks the part of an Idol. And I think Paris has a lot of promise.
Anyway, we'll see what happens tonight...
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 25, 2006 07:14 AM
Well, Andrea Bocelli is the guest coach and the theme is "classic love songs." I hope they don't force the kids to onlt sing songs from Bocelli's recorded work. Mastering lyrics in English can be difficult enough for some of these kids -- to ask them to sing in Italian is asking a bit much.
The premise doesn't sound promising, but we'll see...
Posted by: Peri | April 25, 2006 09:18 AM
I managed to track down some clips related to the Queen show on Americanidol.com but not any really good ones of the performances.
Just a lot of the judges talking with the contestants afterwards.
Posted by: Nick | April 25, 2006 09:34 AM
Kellie gone, only a few more shows to go. Stay tuned.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 28, 2006 08:12 AM
Song of the Day: Diane ("Beauty and Grace"), composed by Miklos Rozsa, is from the film score to the 1956 MGM swashbuckler. Listen to an audio clip from the soundtrack here and to full-length cues here (especially the lovely version with piano and violin).
APRIL 18, 2006
Today, I publish a Notablog exclusive: An interview of me conducted by Jason Dixon. The interview was conducted in late 2005-early 2006, but is finally seeing the light of day here at Notablog.
Check it out:
An Interview Conducted by Jason Dixon
Comments welcome. Also noted at L&P.
"We are all post-Randians now." Fantastic quote, Chris. And an excellent interview! Looking forward to the next JARS. Hope you are feeling well.
Posted by: Dennis Hardin | April 18, 2006 12:55 PM
Hey, thanks Dennis. The issue should be out sometime in May!
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 19, 2006 07:56 AM
Your discussion of looking at issues on "many different levels of generality" was a key spark for my book idea.
By the way,does the term Randian mean someone who views objectivism as a closed system?
Posted by: Nick | April 22, 2006 12:41 AM
Hey, Nick: I use the term "Randian" in the same way I'd use the term "Kantian" or "Aristotelian." It is much wider than "Objectivist" and would include those who were influenced by Rand, even if such people would not be characterized as "Objectivists." As I state in my essay, "In Praise of Hijacking," "'Randian' is, of course, a wide designation, meaning 'of, relating to, or resembling' Rand's philosophic framework�since every act of personal interpretation or application by anyone on any subject is a step removed from Rand�s formally enunciated philosophy."
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 25, 2006 07:10 AM
Thanks for clearing that up,but what's your meaning behind all of us being post-Randians now?
Posted by: Nick | April 25, 2006 02:53 PM
My understanding of what Chris meant was that the debates about who is or is not a �true Objectivist� have now become pedantic. It is a pointless game played by pretenders to the throne that only one person has ever rightly claimed. Ayn Rand gave us the basic principles. Beyond that, we are all on our own. To attack other Randians by calling them �enemies of Objectivism� is tantamount to claiming clairvoyance--and preposterous on its face.
Posted by: Dennis Hardin | April 25, 2006 03:49 PM
Thanks for your additional comments, folks.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 28, 2006 08:13 AM
Song of the Day: Theme, Variations, and Finale (audio clips at that link) is one the finest orchestral compositions in the Miklos Rozsa canon. Today would have been the maestro's 99th birthday! Happy Birthday, Miklos!
APRIL 17, 2006
Song of the Day: Sodom and Gomorrah ("Lot's Mission" / "Epilogue") (audio clip at that link), composed by Miklos Rozsa, is featured on the soundtrack to the 1962 film. Check out an additional clip from the soundtrack here.
APRIL 16, 2006
Song of the Day: Quo Vadis ("Choral Suite") was composed by Miklos Rozsa and arranged and reconstructed by Daniel Robbins. Happy Easter to all my Western Christian friends! Listen to audio clips from the suite here and to Mario Lanza, who provides a vocal rendition of the "Lygia" theme from the film.
APRIL 15, 2006
Song of the Day: El Cid ("Love Theme: The Falcon and the Dove"), music by Miklos Rozsa, lyrics by Paul Francis Webster, was nominated for a 1961 Academy Award for Best Song from the epic film, "El Cid." This was the only "Best Song" nomination of Rozsa's career; it lost out to another great song: "Moon River." Listen to an audio clip of an instrumental version here.
APRIL 14, 2006
Song of the Day: King of Kings ("Choral Suite"), composed by Miklos Rozsa, arranged and reconstructed by Daniel Robbins, begins a ten-day tribute to Rozsa that will encompass his birthday and the Easter holidays. Given some of the music he wrote for Biblical epics, it's an appropriate coincidence of dates. Today marks the Western Christian Good Friday; I highlight this magnificent choral suite from the film score to the 1961 version of "King of Kings." It was recorded by the Cincinnati Pops Orchestra, with Erich Kunzel conducting, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, directed by Craig Jessop. Listen to audio clips from the suite here.
APRIL 13, 2006
Song of the Day: Moonlight Sonata (aka "Piano Sonata No. 14, C-Sharp Minor, Op. 27, No. 2") is one of the great compositions of Ludwig van Beethoven. A full moon today... how apropos! Listen to an audio clip here.
APRIL 12, 2006
Yesterday, the Yanks took the ninth consecutive Opening Day in Da Bronx. And they did it with "Captain Clout."
@!#$%^& Yankees���@!#$%^& Red Sox � @!#$%^& Yankees � @!#$%^& Red Sox
Posted by: Tom Matassa (Blue Jays fan) | April 13, 2006 09:56 AM
Posted by: josh | April 13, 2006 03:56 PM
Congrats on your Yanks!
You could have great baseball discussions with my uncles ( :
Posted by: Nick | April 14, 2006 01:15 AM
Hey, Tom, the Blue Jays kicked Yankee butt last night (10-5). But Jeter went 2 for 3, with a double and a triple. Sorry 'bout that, Josh. :)
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 19, 2006 07:55 AM
Here's a where are they now file I'm sure Baltimore Oriole fans will appreciate.
UNION-TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICES
April 22, 2006
Remember Jeff Maier?
In the 1996 ALCS, Maier, then a 12-year-old Yankees fan, tried to catch Derek Jeter's home run. He reached over the right-field wall and deflected the ball before the Orioles' Tony Tarasco gloved it, and it wound up as a tying home run for Jeter. The Yanks won the game and began their run of four World Series titles in five years.
These days, Jeffrey Maier, 22, is a senior and a baseball star at Wesleyan College in Middletown, Conn.
Maier doesn't hit many homers himself � career total: 7. But he broke the school record for hits (168) and has a .373 career average. His main position is center field.
�Good for him,� Jeter told The Associated Press. �Now he has the chance to be remembered for something other than just catching a home run.�
Maier says he sometimes gets trash-talked by opposing players and fans who figure out who he is, but he doesn't mind. In fact, he appeared in a student movie spoofing his notoriety � �I Hate Jeffrey Maier� � about himself and an O's fan.
Posted by: Mick Russell | April 22, 2006 05:05 PM
Thanks for the memories, Mick. :)
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 25, 2006 07:10 AM
Song of the Day: Show Me Love, words and music by Allan George and Fred McFarlane, was a #1 hit on the Billboard Dance chart for Robin S in 1993. Listen to an audio clip of this house music favorite here.
APRIL 11, 2006
Song of the Day: Gotta See You Tonight, words and music by Paul Simpson, was a #1 dance hit in 1986, recorded by Barbara Roy. Listen here to an audio clip of this dance track, driven by a propulsive bass line.
APRIL 10, 2006
Song of the Day: Like a Lover features the words and music of Dori Caymmi, Nelson Motta, Alan and Marilyn Bergman. Sensuous as the "velvet moon," it has been recorded by Sarah Vaughan, Diane Reeves, and Brasil 66 (audio clips at those links).
APRIL 09, 2006
Not to be sacrilegious or anything, but HALLELUAH and HOSANNA IN THE HIGHEST (the Western Palm Sunday has arrived, hasn't it?). I finished preparing the Spring 2006 issue of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, and I am delighted that it's now going into production. Readers should expect it sometime in the late Spring.
It's going to be a really nice issue for those who are especially interested in Ayn Rand's ethics. JARS had published two critical essays on Rand's ethics some time ago, one written by Eric Mack and the other by Douglas Rasmussen. The essays elicited replies in the forthcoming issue from Tibor Machan and Frank Bubb, and both Mack and Rasmussen have written rejoinders. In addition, we have a very interesting exchange on the issue of egoism and individual rights, which features a contribution from Robert Bass, replies from Chris Cathcart and Robert Campbell, and a rejoinder from Bass.
The second half of the issue features essays on epistemology (Jetton), Rand's descriptive style (Saint-Andre), Atlas Shrugged and Quo Vadis (Keefner), Thomas Szasz and Ayn Rand (Sheldon Richman), and reviews of Stephen Hicks's book on postmodernism (Hocutt), Ed Younkins's book Capitalism and Commerce (Yates), and Robert Mayhew's edited volume on Rand's Q&A's (Brown).
Abstracts and contributor biographies will be made available online when the issue is published and ready for shipment.
Meanwhile, I was just alerted to an ongoing debate at SOLO-Passion, which, apparently, has given rise to some familiar criticism of JARS, a journal that remains near and dear to my heart.
As readers of Notablog are well aware, I resolved at the beginning of December 2005 that I would not be posting to forums anymore. Aside from the occasional cross-post to Liberty and Power Group Blog or the Mises Economics Blog, I have stopped posting to the nearly two dozen forums on which I was once an avid participant. My reputation for spreading myself around led SOLO founder Lindsay Perigo to once dub me "Her Royal Whoreness." Well, this whore has retired to the quiet life of research, writing, and editing. There are just so many hours in the day, and I have chosen to focus my efforts on the things that are most important: My work done my way on my time. Naturally, therefore, Notablog has become the primary place for my regular musings on everything from music to foreign policy.
On a personal note, I should add, however, that my absence from the various forums on which I used to participate has also been necessitated by ongoing serious health problems, which have compelled me to be extremely selective about the kind of time I devote to various activities. Since making these various adjustments in my time, my schedule, and my priorities, I have been feeling more invigorated, both emotionally and intellectually, and ever more productive.
Nevertheless, since JARS has been one of the activities on which I've focused, and since JARS is also the target of much criticism on that particular SOLO-Passion forum noted above, I'd like to make a few general comments in response to the various participants on that thread. I do not intend to engage in any discussion at SOLO-Passion or any other forums for the reasons I have just outlined.
First, Lindsay Perigo and I have had a very long dispute about the character of my work, and I don't expect it will ever be resolved to our mutual satisfaction. That said, however, I don't believe that he has read more than an issue or two of JARS (and, quite frankly, too many JARS critics don't seem to be on our subscription list, so it leaves me wondering how they are able to make such sweeping generalizations about the quality of the scholarship therein). In any event, to dismiss JARS as a haven of "pomo-wankers" is, I think, a slap in the face to so many writers who have graced our pages, including such people as Erika Holzer, George Reisman, Larry Sechrest, Kirsti Minsaas, Mimi Gladstein, Tibor Machan, Douglas Rasmussen, Eric Mack, Marsha Enright, John Enright, John Hospers, Adam Reed, Stephen Hicks, Fred Seddon, Lester Hunt, Ari Armstrong, Edward Younkins, Robert White, and so many others. Dare I say it, but many of these writers have appeared in the pages of The Free Radical, and have been published on SOLO. And last I saw, there was no explosion of "pomo-wanking" going on at SOLO.
Second, with regard to Diana Hsieh's criticisms of JARS: Over time, it has become very clear to readers that I have had some very serious disagreements with Diana, someone to whom I once acted as a mentor of sorts. Diana is now participating regularly at SOLO-Passion; she also runs the Noodlefood blog. Diana remarked at SOLO that she had promised not to comment "on The Russian Radical or the scholarship in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies ... steer[ing] clear of such criticisms out of consideration for [her] past friendship [with me]." But I think anybody with half a brain could see the fundamental differences that have emerged between Diana and me on many, many significant questions. As my mother used to say: You'd have to be deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid not to know where those differences lie. Diana and I do not have to spend hours upon hours doing a point-counterpoint in order to articulate those differences.
Because I am so focused on my own work at this time, I have taken a very laissez-faire attitude toward all this. I used to spend an inordinate amount of time engaging my interlocutors. But I've learned that there is only so much that one can say in any given context. Ultimately, my work speaks for itself. It is published in books, articles, encyclopedias, and journals. Much of it is accessible on the web as well. Form your own conclusions, go your own way, do your own thing. If I spent my time answering every criticism or every comment on my work, I'd not have enough time to breathe, let alone research, write, and edit.
Finally, for those who wonder, like Phil Coates, whether JARS articles are generally available: We do hope to get many of these articles online over the course of time, but some are already linked from the JARS site. Just go to any particular indexed issue and click into any hyperlinked title. (I should add that all of JARS' contributors have the right to make their articles available on any website or as a reprint in any anthology.)
Our institutional subscriptions are climbing, as are our individual subscriptions, both domestically and globally. And we are now indexed by over a dozen abstracting services in the humanities and social sciences, including three new additions, which had been very resistant to placing JARS in their indices. See here for more information.
Well, that's all for now.
Ha! Some irony in a site with a masturbatory name like "SOLO Passion" calling JARS a porno-wanker production. I'm glad you're not wasting your time wrangling with them any more.
Posted by: Roderick T. Long | April 9, 2006 12:52 AM
As usual, you maintain the comportment of a gentleman, even in the face of disparaging insinuations and remarks meant to diminish the importance of both your work, and that of many others. From this blog entry I can sense that you have decided to respond to your detractors in the manner that they deserve: if I may use an overused metaphor, you�ve decided to �shrug� them off.
Well done, Chris; let the mosquitoes buzz as they will. Their on-line masturbations are just that, and no more.
PS: The best batting line-up in the majors, and our pitching sucks so bad I could cry� we�re staring to look like the Texas Rangers did in the 90s.
Posted by: George Cordero | April 9, 2006 03:46 AM
You keep doing your magnificent work. There's an old saying from the Brazilian underworld that comes to mind: "Sometimes you can't help running with pigs. The secret is to never eat with them."
You are an inspiration to me.
Posted by: Michael Stuart Kelly | April 9, 2006 04:43 AM
When will JARS have online issues? You will radically increase your subscription base if you go online and make some back issues available.
Posted by: Laj | April 9, 2006 08:41 AM
It strikes me as a great pity that you must decline the chance for a truly unprecedented dialogue.
For so long I�ve heard complaints about how ARI scholars won�t engage the folks from TOC, JARS, etc. This accusation no longer sticks with me. Over at SOLOPassion ARI scholars are talking to everyone and about everything � and giving each a fair chance for such engagement. Issues that have been festering for too long are being discussed for the first time � by everyone, except, unfortunately, you.
I am very sorry that your schedule makes your participation in this unprecedented moment impossible.
Posted by: James Valliant | April 9, 2006 10:18 AM
Congratulations Chris! Your hard work and dedication are invaluable contributions to Rand Studies. I�m glad you�re felling better. Don�t risk your health and be bated into an argument with your detractors. I, like George, find the verbal masturbation on SOLO-Passion tiresome.
Posted by: Mick Russell | April 9, 2006 10:32 AM
I've been a suscriber of JARS since the beginning. Russian Radical and JARS is what got me interested in Rand after a long hiatus.
Until JARS' "enemies" start critiquing actual JARS articles, I think their criticism should be ignored.
Posted by: Neil Parille | April 9, 2006 10:43 AM
Just a note of thanks to the various commentators here. And a couple of points in response:
There will be a movement toward putting JARS articles online in the coming year. I'll keep everyone abreast of our development in this regard, indeed.
James, I appreciate your wanting me to participate in this dialogue at SOLO, but you have to understand that I've been participating in that kind of dialogue for about 15 years now, with both ARI and TOC scholars. I participated on forums such as apo and hpo, and many other Objectivist and Objectivist-oriented forums, even Diana's blog at one time---and, in all honesty and I never had problems engaging people from all corners of the Randian galaxy. But after 15 years of doing this, I can honestly say that some of the issues have changed, and even some of the loyalties, but the arguments and discussions are extremely familiar. I just don't know how many times I can go back to the well and say the same thing over and over again, without wasting time better spent on my own productive activities. And ultimately, the changes I've made to my own schedule over the past six months have enriched me and my work. I can't think of a finer testament to my admiration of Rand's ethos than that commitment to my self.
But I never say never; perhaps some day, I will find myself on one of these forums again. For now, come and visit me at Notablog. :)
As an aside, I should state that since I've been absent from these forums, the web "hits" at my site and Notablog have soared to unprecedented levels. I'm very pleased by how this site in particular has evolved.
Thanks again for all the comments, and, George: The season is early. But I'm not pleased. ;)
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 9, 2006 11:51 AM
Chris: Good for you! I know I make it a point to look at notablog everyday. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Chris Grieb | April 9, 2006 03:30 PM
What attracts me is the nonpartisan approach of JARS.
Posted by: Jenna | April 9, 2006 05:52 PM
Unless I'm missing something over at SOLOPassion, I don't see much of an effort by ARI associated folks to interact with material published by non-ARI types on a serious level.
I read attacks on JARS, not an attempt to interact with any article published there.
An example: I pointed out that in the most recent JARS there was an excellent essay by Rod Long discussing Rand's view of concepts with the Quine/Putnam view. I suggested that an ARI person might interact with this piece. The response? As someone used to say, "blank out."
Or: Ms. Hsieh attacked Fred Seddon on the most unreliable source on Kant. When Seddon asked for an example, I don't recall a response.
Posted by: Neil Parille | April 9, 2006 07:25 PM
Each side will be "attacked," and not every response you want will be forthcoming. This is the natue of a complex dialogue. A lot IS being discussed � and between persons and about subjects never discussed before between them. The insults have come fast and furious from Mr. Campbell of JARS and his silence on certain issues is disturbing to me.
How 'bout we TRY instead of bitching that the other side won't talk?
JARS would be better served if it had someone willing to engage its critics as ARI scholars appear willing to engage over at SOLOPassion. I'll leave it to readers of that site to see if what I am saying is true.
Posted by: James Valliant | April 9, 2006 08:07 PM
Whatever the quality of JARS, so long as so many Objectivist scholars and researchers, leaders in the field, refuse to publish there, it will not be representative of the serious scholarship in the field and will provide inadequate 'peer review' on the subject. This may or may not be justified, but calling any criticism an unfair attack is also a way of 'blanking out.' If someone like Tara Smith, with a major work coming out from Cambridge Univ. Press, no less, will not publish in JARS, for example... An attempt at conversation might help. And it might help if Mr. Campbell stops accusing people of possessing 'cult mentalities.'
Posted by: James Valliant | April 9, 2006 08:22 PM
James, please forgive me... but I was looking over various SOLO threads, and except for Diana Hsieh, who is an ARI supporter, I'm not sure I've seen any bona fide "ARI-affiliated scholars" participating on that forum. That is, unless there are people working with pseudonymns, I don't see anyone from the actual list of affiliated scholars of the Ayn Rand Institute. I do see people who are genuine supporters of both ARI and TOC participating, but not necessarily ARI-affiliated scholars.
Secondly, let me emphasize: Robert Campbell does not speak for JARS. Robert Campbell speaks for Robert Campbell. And Chris Sciabarra speaks for Chris Sciabarra. JARS is a nonpartisan academic periodical; we have published people who are more "orthodox" in their viewpoint, and those who are full-fledged revisionists. We've published conservatives and socialists too. Nobody "speaks" for JARS. And, quite frankly, none of the affiliated scholars of ARI or TOC should be "speaking" for either of those organizations. It would be my hope that each scholar makes decisions about participation in various forums and periodicals based entirely on his or her own independent judgment.
In any event, if I missed some of the threads at SOLO, just send me the links. SOLO is one big site!
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 9, 2006 08:42 PM
By "blanking out," I was referring to the fact that: (1) ARI scholars will attacks JARS as pseudo-scholarship, garbage, material produced by "enemies" of Rand, etc; but (2) will not discuss a solid, represenative article in JARS (such as the one I mentioned).
That ARI scholars will not publish in JARS is not necessarily reflective of JARS' quality.
Concerning Tara Smith, I imagine that her work will be reviewed in JARS, probably favorably. (I believe Skoble reviewed Gotthelf's book favorably in JARS.) Will The Objective Standard say anything positive about a non-ARI book on Rand? For example, S. Hicks' book on pomo has no relevance to the TOC/ARI disupute, Branden or whatever, but I bet O.S. won't mention it.
Posted by: Neil Parille | April 9, 2006 08:47 PM
Chris, when you were engaging people on the various discussion lists, you were unvaryingly rational and civil. You were a wonderful role model for those of us with shorter fuses.
And now that you are no longer engaging people in the 381st round of pointless, mud-slinging debate over who is more (or less) immoral, etc., you are getting more accomplished, drawing more attention than ever to your excellent work, and (not surprisingly) enjoying life more. You are, in this respect, an even better role model -- especially for those of us who are so easily lured into said pointless debates and away from the work that will be our self-defining legacies.
Having said that, I also briefly want to raise another cheer, this one for another of my heroes and role models, Nathaniel Branden, who is 76 today! Happy Birthday, Nathaniel!!
Roger Bissell (a mere 57 :-)
Posted by: Roger Bissell | April 9, 2006 09:38 PM
Does Mike Mazza count?
Posted by: James Valliant | April 9, 2006 10:40 PM
And wouldn't having this discussion with former TOC folks like Bill Perry and Michelle Cohen also be helpful?
Posted by: James Valliant | April 9, 2006 10:55 PM
... Not to mention the growing list of people willing to defend various parts of the "ARI postion" appearing there. This whole list is blazing a trail that opens an unprecedented chance for dialogue, one that could show others that the water is just fine, that it's time to come on in! I am sure that, if not you, then some like you, Chris, would never have had the issues Mr. Mazza had with Mr. Campbell, for example.
Just seems a pity.
Posted by: James Valliant | April 10, 2006 12:47 AM
I can't speak much about the scholarship of JARS since I've only read some of the online articles but I do like it's openended approach to contributors.
Posted by: Nick | April 10, 2006 02:07 AM
Thanks to those who have posted additional comments here.
Let me just make a few things clear: To my knowledge, the only scholar affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute, who actually called for a "boycott" of JARS (and my work, I might add) was Andrew Bernstein. (Readers can see the original boycott notice here.) I'm not going to re-open that whole can of worms at this time, but I do not know of anybody else among ARI-affiliated scholars who has made any public statement that they will not publish in JARS. It is true that we have invited a number of ARI-affiliated scholars to write in JARS, usually in response to reviews of their publications that might appear in the journal. My interactions with a number of these scholars has been unfailingly polite, and not a single one has indicated that they are actually "boycotting" JARS. They simply declined to respond to any reviews (not unusual in scholarly circles). And that includes Tara Smith, whom I've met, and who was cordial in our introduction. She declined to respond to Lester Hunt's review of her book, Viable Values, which appeared in the Fall 2000 issue of JARS. She was already moving on to the subject of her next book, and we do intend to run a review of that book in a forthcoming issue of the journal. And I'm sure we'll invite her, again, to reply.
So we will see.
But, yes, James, I agree that it is a problem that a number of ARI-affiliated scholars have not published in JARS. It is not because they have been shunned.
As for my wondering about the participation of ARI-affiliated scholars at SOLO-Passion, I was thinking of the individuals noted on this list. Mike Mazza is not on that list, but that doesn't mean that I would shun a discussion with him. In fact, I did have an extended blog dialogue with him, which is referenced here. Admittedly, it is very difficult having a continued dialogue with somebody who views one's work as "arbitrary gibberish."
I know Bill Perry, and have corresponded with him, and have even spoken with him subsequent to his disassociation with TOC. And JARS has published Michelle Fram-Cohen (a fine article on Hugo's Ninety-Three, which appears in the Fall 2001 issue). Michelle's views have evolved over time, and I have had a personal and public dialogue with her. See here and here, for example.
As for "the growing list of people willing to defend various parts of the 'ARI position'," I am aware of some of these people, and have had some dialogue with them. Understand, however, that I've been having this dialogue with many such people for a decade-and-a-half. But the dialogue goes only so far when people dismiss you as a "pseudo-scholar," and question your honesty and intellectual integrity. I have learned that it is a waste of time to debate one's character and work with such people. When that happens, and dialogue is short-circuited, it is, indeed, a pity.
But my door is always open.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 10, 2006 09:30 AM
Having visited the SOLO and Noodlefood sites on the web as well as yours, I must say that your site is the most engaging, civil, and adult. By doing what's best FOR YOU, it's a lovely coincidence that your site and scholarship appeal to a wider audience than ever before. I find those other sites frequently tiresome and dogmatic and often emotionally childish.
By the way, is there ANY way a person can give someone a gift subscription to JARS? I wanted to do that about a month ago, but couldn't.
Posted by: Peri | April 10, 2006 09:33 AM
Absolutely, as Chris said, I don't speak for the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.
Nor, for that matter, do I speak for The Objectivist Center. I hold no leadership position in TOC, and rarely offer advice to those in leadership positions there; when I do, sometimes it is accepted, often it is not.
I had a cordial conversation with Bill Perry after he announced that he was leaving TOC. I have responded to his announcements on both SOLOPassion and RoR. Bill has not taken umbrage at anything I've said. By contrast, I don't see any value in a continuing conversation with Michelle Cohen. And I may be partly at fault for that...
I will confess to having a problem with people who condemn JARS without ever reading it (e.g., Mr. Mazza), and with those who have read something from it, but refuse to provide a detailed critique. Objectivism puts a high value on first-hand knowledge, after all. I would never condemn a publication by an ARI-affiliated scholar without reading it, and, if I've read it and I have objections, I will go to some trouble to explicate them.
What's more, I have a lot of responsibilities that are unrelated to Rand scholarship, let alone to discussions of Objectivism on message boards. (For instance, I am the editor of a psychology journal.) Adequate responses take time to prepare, and I find dealing with verbal abuse and unresponsive comments to be draining. Consequently I will not be sustaining my current level of activity on SOLOPassion, or on any other message board, for much longer. And, of course, I'll certainly respect anyone else who needs to take time for other priorities.
Posted by: Robert Campbell | April 10, 2006 03:39 PM
Congratulations on your ever-increasing productivity Chris!
I too am glad that you are no longer going to spend a great deal of time endlessly repeating yourself in debating the same old topics. While one shouldn't shy away from speaking up for the ideas or people one values, there of course comes a point where you've said all you have to say and/or the negativity of others rises to such a level that there is no rational purpose in continuing the discussion (and I say this as someone who in the past occasionally lost sight of that).
Keep doing it your way :-)
Posted by: Matthew Humphreys | April 11, 2006 03:32 PM
What I have a problem with, and I know Chris S. has commented on this more times than he could ever remember, is an attitude of *partisanship* that gets reflected in people's behaviors. Each individual case is different and should be judged on its merits. Tara Smith is an "ARI" affiliated scholar, and hasn't or won't publish in JARS, which is all fine and good. Ms. Smith doesn't need to publish in a particular forum to produce quality work. The fact that she is affiliated with ARI by itself shouldn't bear one way or the other on whether her work is good and therefore worth reading and studying. Same exact thing goes for other, non-ARI affiliated scholars. If the quality of the work is up to snuff, then there's no reason for the dedicated scholars in a field to be ignoring it.
Ms. Smith does happen to have published on numerous occasions in -Social Philosophy and Policy-, a journal run by individuals who are strong admirers of Rand but for whatever reasons are not affiliated with ARI. But in the end, so what? If she's publishing work of high quality, the merits of which stand up on their own, that's the important thing. From the standpoint of scholarship, of the study of *ideas*, the author or the venue are not relevant. If Roderick Long publishes an article that's worth looking into, especially if it's relevant to one's field of study, what does it matter that the article appeared in JARS and not somewhere else? You don't have to *like* Roderick Long the person or whatever crowd he consorts with, in order to study what he has to say in connection with the field or subject you're studying.
Which is why I would continue to say time and again that for Objectivist or Rand-inspired scholars (professional or otherwise) to do work or study in areas like rights theory, they need to acknowledge and take into account the contributions of people like Mack, Rasmussen and Den Uyl, whether or not they're in "good standing" with this organization or that.
And from the way I see things, scholars do quality work *as individuals*, not as affiliates of this or that group, and, in terms of scholarship, merit recognition on the basis of their work, not their group or "faction."
I have a thought: Probably just about any "faction" you could encounter in life is going to have its share of good guys and its share of a-holes. Partisanship is loyalty to those in your faction, rather than to good guys. Partisanship makes you one of the a-holes.
Posted by: chris cathcart | April 12, 2006 02:07 PM
James Valliant wrote:
"Whatever the quality of JARS, so long as so many Objectivist scholars and researchers, leaders in the field, refuse to publish there, it will not be representative of the serious scholarship in the field and will provide inadequate 'peer review' on the subject."
I don't want to take your words the wrong way, but the way your wording comes off, it would appear that you don't recognize people like Mack and Rasmussen (who have published in JARS) as "leaders in the field" (which they are).
Posted by: chris cathcart | April 12, 2006 02:45 PM
Chris and others,
I wrote a critique of Robert Campbell's JARS essay "Ayn Rand and the Cognitive Revolution in Psychology" on SOLOP here:
I was not impressed my Campbell's essay and (quite unusually for me) I was actually quite offended by his rough treatment of Rand. Chris, I don't think Campbell represents JARS very well by presenting this essay as a first look.
Chris, do you have editorial control over what gets published? Did you approve of Campbell's article? From what I remember, I quite enjoyed parts of "Russian Radical," especially the first part with the interesting historical background. Does "RR" more accurately represent the degree of scholarship in JARS, or Campbell's essay? Because if it's the latter, I am quite discouraged from buying a subscription.
I'm sure I'll read other articles from JARS at some point in the future, I just wanted to give you some feedback on that one essay, as I am a potential customer of yours.
Thanks for reading,
Posted by: Dan Edge | April 12, 2006 05:43 PM
Totally OT, but if you want a hilarious depiction of a bunch of sectarians busily debating who's "moral' and who's not, and who needs to be shunned for associating with somebody who associates with somebody who's immoral, I strongly recommend Garrison Keillor's account of the Plymouth Brethren in Lake Wobegon Days. Peter Schwartz would fit in well there.
Posted by: Kevin Carson | April 13, 2006 05:17 PM
Might I suggest my piece in the forthcoming issue. ;-)
Posted by: chris cathcart | April 13, 2006 06:47 PM
I only noticed this thread which includes references to me (by Chris Sciabarra, Valliant and Dr. Campbell) so here are my comments:
I am certainly not an �ARI-scholar.� I only recently started to read and study the scholarship produced by scholars affiliated with ARI. At this point in my life, I prefer not to engage in a dialogue with people from TOC or JARS because it will take up too much of my time and will divert my attention from what I want to study. As I indicated to Sciabarra in a private exchange, I withdrew the draft I submitted a year ago for publication in JARS because I was concerned that the editorial process will push me in a direction I did not want to go. I devoted five years of my life to the stance of TOC and JARS. It is time for me to move on.
I think it is great that people who support TOC/JARS and ARI are communicating on SOLOPassion, and hope that more people will decide to explore ARI. But I don�t believe that a dialogue can resolve the fundamental differences between the perspective of ARI and that of TOC and JARS.
Posted by: Michelle F. Cohen | April 14, 2006 10:33 AM
I wonder if anyone at TOC or ARI understands or cares how this partisan bickering appears to newcomers to Rand and who are genuinely interested in her ideas.
Surely, her ideas are the main point, aren't they? Not who slept with whom and for what reason or who got "the keys to the Rand Kingdom?" Wasn't her point to transform the individual into a more reasonable person motivated by enlightened self-interest?
I'm an outsider to this fold so perhaps my comments count for nil, but it all strikes me a little bit ridiculous, and more than a little depressing.
Posted by: Peri Sword | April 14, 2006 04:40 PM
A general reply to Michelle's comments: While I think it's clear that the JARS mission and the ARI mission are different, I think that if you let each side put forward its own best case as to what their own mission is, I think there is value to aspects of both. Over time I have come to recognize the admirable job that the ARI does in promoting study of Objectivism to the aim of well-integrated understanding of it. In terms of *understanding Objectivism thoroughly*, the ARI study approach has gained an stronghold, an upper hand as an institution if you will. From such a vantage-point, so much dialoguing with outsiders (including and perhaps especially in academia) is so much engaging in misguided and irrelevant debate over non-issues that are made out to be issues due to lack of grasp of proper context. So much of academia is beyond help in that regard, doing too much rationalistic mid-streaming with all its accompanying jargon. So some degree of dubiousness about the JARS approach is warranted. But within certain appropriate limits, the JARS approach serves a purpose, particularly in the sense that it fosters greater familiarity with what we're up against as far as barriers to proper understanding go. Seeing as understanding Objectivism is also understanding why it's true, the dialogue approach serves a twofold purpose: by weeding out what's untrue about the objections to Objectivism, as well as fortifying/clarifying a tenet of Objectivism against those objections.
Say that certain Rand-inspired thinkers claim, with plenty of reasonable justification offered, that despite Rand's opposition to the concept of "duty" in ethics, that aspects of her moral theory or especially her rights theory are properly understood as deontological if they are going to work. That's an issue I've been interested in for a good 10+ years now, since early in my study of Objectivism. And it's one where my thoughts have evolved somewhat over time as I think my understanding of Objectivism has deepened. Now some might think that this is an issue not needing taking seriously if one really properly understands Objectivism and its view of "duty." But there are some real issues that, as they stand, need some working-out and that's only going to happen via a survey of and reponse to some relevant literature. Tara Smith treats of the subject of deontological rights theories in her first book, but doesn't directly address points that arise as far as they're presented by Rand-inspired thinkers, namely Mack and the Dougs. So there are things to be explored: if these thinkers are advocating deontological notions in pretty convincing ways above Rand's objections, then we can ask such questions as "What is deontology, exactly?" We already know that deontology is a popular moral approach in academia, and I think there are one of two basic responses to the challenge here: to be dismissive, or to tackle their deontological ideas head-on. From what I can tell, JARS would play host to a back-and-forth about whether or how deontology has any place in Objectivism, but the ARI would consider the matter settled clearly enough (i.e., no deontology) to anyone who understands Objectivism well enough. But the whole idea is to *show* this.
My present thoughts are that there isn't room for a genuine deontology in Objectivism properly understood. That would *suggest* a reversal of the position that I had been advocating for years, and would also suggest that "non-ARI, JARS scholars" Mack and the Dougs are amongst those who don't adequately understand Objectivism (and, so a "spin" might go, which is why you find them associated with JARS and not ARI). That is, until you throw in the fact that I still have great regard for the understanding of rights theory that their writings have helped promote.
So what I'm saying is that a critique of their position could be done from within the framework of a solid understanding of Objectivism, and at the same time, that a place like JARS can be a useful forum to do such a critique, which I have thoughts of doing. And in doing so, I'd be doing something of a dialogue with "the academy" (not just deeply Rand-inspired thinkers) on the idea of deontology in morality.
(Anyhoo, why do I feel as if I'm among the select few who respect both -Russian Radical-, its "Polish" notwithstanding, and the -Understanding Objectivism- course? :-)
Posted by: chris cathcart | April 14, 2006 08:21 PM
First, thanks Peri and Matthew H for your kind words about Notablog and me too! And you're right: This is all about what is best for me. If you'd like to give a gift subscription, Peri, I can arrange for it. (The site only allows for printing out a subscription form and mailing it in. See here, or let's chat offline.)
On the issue of who speaks for JARS: Let me reiterate what Robert Campbell says here on my blog. He does not "speak" for JARS. JARS is a nonpartisan publication. It also does not prohibit any of its editors or associate editors or advisors from speaking out on any topic of their choice or taking any stance they wish, anywhere. Among our editors and board members are people who have profoundly different views on many, many subjects, including the nature of Rand scholarship.
Chris Cathcart is right that I've commented on the partisanship in Rand circles for years and years. See here, for example. It is simply not true, however, that a whole group of Rand scholars have chosen to boycott JARS because of the presence on our editorial or advisory board of this person or that person. Fundamentally, I agree with Chris: "scholars do quality work *as individuals*, not as affiliates of this or that group, and, in terms of scholarship, merit recognition on the basis of their work, not their group or 'faction'." I also agree with his comments on the nature of partisanship. See here, for example.
But the lack of participation by some scholars in our pages does not mean that JARS lacks credibility. We have actually increased both our visibility and credibility in the larger academic community. For some, of course, this very fact might be proof of the corrupt nature of the journal. But as we now enter our eighth year of publication, we are gaining credibility precisely because we are open to critical engagement among scholars from many disciplines and perspectives. One sign of that gaining credibility is that we continue to add indexing and abstracting services to our roster of coverage. See here, for example.
Now, as for Dan Edge's comments on Robert Campbell's piece: First, Dan, thanks for posting to Notablog. I've enjoyed some correspondence with you in the past, and I welcome your comments here.
Second, Robert's article, which comes from the very first issue of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, is not the only JARS article online. Let me provide links to other essays that are currently online at various places on the web. The listings below are arranged alphabetically by author's last name. Within each author category, the articles are listed chronologically (from the earliest to the most recent):
Bissell, Roger E.:
Music and Perceptual Cognition
Sailing the Turbulent Seas of the Objectivist Aesthetics
Critical Misinterpretations and Missed Opportunities: Errors and Omissions by Kamhi and Torres
Art as Microcosm
Langer and Camus: Unexpected Post-Kantian Affinities with Randian Aesthetics
Campbell, Robert L.:
Ayn Rand and the Cognitive Revolution in Psychology
A Veteran Reconnoiters Ayn Rand's Philosophy
Implied Epistemology, Epistemology of the Implicit
Can Academics Learn from a Mere Clinical Psychologist?
Goals, Values, and the Implicit: Explorations in Psychological Ontology
Art: What a Concept
Rand, Rush, and the De-Totalizing of Progressive Rock
Kamhi, Michelle Marder:
What "Rand's Aesthetics" Is and Why It Matters
Kamhi, Michelle Marder and Louis Torres:
Critical Neglect of Ayn Rand's Theory of Art
Object-Oriented Programming and Objectivist Epistemology: Parallels and Implications
Saying Yes to Rand and Rock
Sciabarra, Chris Matthew:
The Rand Transcript
Dialectical Libertarianism: All Benefits, No Hazards
Rand, Rush, and Rock
Rand, Rock, and Radicalism
The Illustrated Rand
The Rand Transcript, Revisited
Sciabarra, Chris Matthew and Larry Sechrest:
Introduction: Ayn Rand Among the Austrians
Scholarly Engagement: When It is Pleasurable and When It is Not
I think that is a generous helping of previously published JARS essays... so... enjoy! Or not.
Now, a word about our double-blind review process: Each essay that is submitted must first pass an editorial board review to make sure it is "in the ballpark," that is, the kind of piece JARS might be interested in publishing. The essay is then sent to any number of potential peer readers (and we have an ever-growing list of qualified scholars who act as readers). Each of the readers has a disciplinary specialty, and provides a comprehensive report on the submitted essay. Authors are invited to make revisions based on these suggestions. Typically, articles go through three or four revisions before being accepted. In many instances, articles are rejected outright.
That's all for now.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 15, 2006 11:10 AM
That's for the links and the welcome. I'll check out some of the essays and hopefully write some reviews. I particularly like the title: "Saying Yes to Rand and Rock." I think I'll check that one out first :)
Posted by: Dan Edge | April 15, 2006 06:38 PM
That's a wonderful list of essays on JARS. I would like to add one by Roger
Bissell called "Art as Microcosm: The Real Meaning of the Objectivist Concept of
OL version here
PDF version here
I posted this list in the Sciabarra Corner on Objectivist Living here.
If people add to it, I will bu sure to drop you a line.
Thanks for putting this together.
Posted by: Michael Stuart Kelly | April 16, 2006 05:14 PM
These are some of the things that the associate editor of JARS has recently written about me at SOLOPassion:
�I quit debating Mr. Valliant and his claque back in November, because I'd crunched both of my wrists in an accident and needed all of my resources to recover. But even if I hadn't been faced with an imperative to change my priorities, I had the sense that the debate was well past the point of bringing further returns.�
�Mr. Valliant will never succeed in convincing the wider world that Ayn Rand was a moral paragon before whom they should get on their knees. To the extent that non-Randians accept Mr. Valliant�s equation of respect for Ayn Rand�s ideas with worship of her person, they are unlikely to respond with either. Nor will non-Randians be much impressed by Mr. Valliant�s efforts to tie every last sin, real or alleged, of Rand and her movement onto the backs of �the Brandens.� As some observers have already pointed out, what Mr. Valliant has actually produced is the latest test of loyalty for orthodox Objectivists.�
�I haven't read Ayn Rand Answers, so I can't comment on Dr. Mayhew's editing thereof. I have read Mr. Valliant's book, however, and, in my opinion, it has a lot to do with the ARI true believer mentality. PARC shares with official ARI publications the presumption that Ayn Rand never did anything wrong and had no character traits that might merit criticism.�
Chris, your only response to my concern about this is to say that it is you, not Campbell, whom I will be dealing with if I publish in JARS.
Whatever JARS' position is, do you ~ yourself ~ agree with or endorse his assertions?
Do you think that this is "civil discourse"?
Posted by: James Valliant | April 17, 2006 04:06 PM
Robert Campbell has recently posted this over at SOLOPassion:
"Let me add that Mr. Valliant's complaints about JARS are extremely unlikely to be of recent origin, because the data about the journal have changed so little... Complaints about articles critical of Rand, from those I would consider 'true believers,' began within the year after JARS first appeared... I suspect that Mr. Valliant's new-found complaints have a lot to do with recent shifts in political alignments here at SOLOPassion and very little to do with either my opinions (critical of Rand on some issues, openly opposed to ARI, critical of many of the claims that Mr. Valliant makes in his book)--or Dr. Sciabarra's views--or editorial policies at JARS."
You know the actual truth behind THIS one, too, Chris, and will you allow him to psychologize like that?
Posted by: James Valliant | April 17, 2006 08:56 PM
I added the following essay by Robert Campbell to my "Links to JARS essays online" on OL:
Can Academics Learn from a Mere Clinical Psychologist? (review of The Art of Living Consciously: The Power of Awareness to Transform Everyday Life by Nathaniel Branden)
Posted by: Michael Stuart Kelly | April 17, 2006 09:13 PM
Okay, gents, let's go back to our respective corners, and see if we can sort some of this out.
First, let me reiterate a few statements about James Valliant and his book: As readers of Notablog are well aware, I published my review of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics (PARC) way back in July 2005. When James's book first came out, I decided that it was important enough to read and to devote 18,000+ words to it, while others were refusing to read it or were condemning it based on its dust jacket. Oh how I appreciate the frustration any author must feel with those kinds of "reviews"! I got the same treatment in 1995 from those who had a similar reaction to Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical.
In the wake of my review of PARC, I opened up Notablog to a discussion in which James himself participated. It was among the most popular discussions in the history of Notablog, generating nearly 60 posts to that thread. I still stand by my review of James's book. And our Notablog discussion made clear our many serious disagreements over a number of issues. But James has continued to post on occasion to Notablog. His participation here has been exemplary. I do not believe that he is some kind of wild-eyed cultic whack-job nut-case "true believer." I think he is seriously concerned about the portrayal of Ayn Rand in the Branden books, and has raised significant questions about the interpretations therein. I don't think PARC was concerned as much with convincing the wider world of Rand's 'perfection'; it was, instead, a prosecutorial "case against the Brandens," much more concerned with attacking the Brandens' accounts than it was in building up sufficiently any alternative narrative.
Due to the controversy of its subject, PARC has generated quite a few discussions on various forums, wherein some posters on both sides of the divide have expressed a level of rage that I have always found to be counterproductive. In fact, there was a point in my own reading of these discussions that I had wished the whole dialogue had ended completely; for example, after over a thousand posts on the subject this past autumn, that discussion, in my eyes, had reached the point of no return, full of rage and rancor, with people talking over each other's heads. I was frustrated and disgusted with much of the uncivil tone that seemed to predominate.
Nevertheless, I'm now satisfied that the discussion has continued; clearly, it has had, and will continue to have, many long-term consequences, some intended, some not, some good, some bad. That's in the nature of any text worth reading: it leaves a "trace," as the "hermeneutics" school tells us, one that has myriad implications that can only be appreciated as a discussion runs its course. And this particular discussion has a long way to go.
The above comments should make it very clear that I differ on some issues with my friend and colleague Robert Campbell both in his assessment of PARC and of its author. Sometimes, however, I think it is the case that certain people just don't click [James and Robert], and I think this is one of those times. And I think a certain incivility has leaked into this conversation that is best checked at the door (Robert suggesting James is a "true believer" and James suggesting that Robert be "fired" from his non-paying associate editing of JARS are just two examples of what might have pissed off the other guy... )
Now, as for your complaints about JARS, James: I repeat... No single advisor or editor speaks for JARS. But every single one of them has the right to present his or her own individual opinions in any forum they so choose. That most definitely includes me.
I can only promise you that anything you submit to JARS will be dealt with respectfully, and that any reply you choose to publish in JARS will have your final approval, as is our policy with every single author who has ever published in our pages. I would personally welcome your reply to any review that JARS publishes of PARC.
And as I have said to you personally, JARS reaches an audience far beyond the "in-house" discussants in the Randian movement who are currently dominating the dialogue on various "in-house" forums. Any exchange between you and the JARS reviewer will be abstracted and indexed by over a dozen of the most credible academic indices in the humanities and social sciences, thus potentially reaching thousands of scholars worldwide. It can only benefit your book and its reception to have that kind of dialogue. And it benefits JARS as well to feature that kind of engagement, in the spirit of its nonpartisan credo.
I leave the decision to you. Perhaps you can simply wait to actually see the review before making that decision. I hope to have final page proofs on that review before too long. In fact, as I've indicated to you, we usually run a review of a book and run a reply-rejoinder exchange in a later issue of the journal. In this instance, because of the highly controversial nature of the subject, I hope to run a review, your reply, and the reviewer's rejoinder all in the same issue, thus providing readers with an opportunity to see the point-counterpoint in one place. I can't think of a fairer way to feature discussion of your book.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 18, 2006 06:36 AM
How nice! Getting in some new B.S. digs at me when I pose a reasonable question? (And I've got to have an "alternative narrative" -- whatever the flaws the Brandens'? So, we're stuck with a moon made of green cheese until the astronauts get back? Sorry, don't buy it.)
Chris, I asked of Campbell's statements, "Do you think that this is 'civil discourse'?"
To which you responded, I think, "No."
However, this incivility was aimed not just at me, but at an entire category of Rand writers. A category you have recently conceded you have a problem attracting as authors � and that this is a real problem for JARS.
So long as 1/3 of JARS' editorial staff is calling us all names, don't expect these writers to contribute. Expect your problem to grow.
Hardly surprising, right?
Just don't pretend that JARS is the victim.
Posted by: James Valliant | April 18, 2006 09:17 AM
James, what "B.S. digs"?? My point was that your book was not a narrative about Rand's perfection, but about what you believe are the Branden books' imperfections. This was a "case against the Brandens" (properly subtitled), not a "case for Rand's perfection." You were not obligated to present such a case in any event. Where is the B.S.??
Yes, I think the debate has been uncivil at times.
But, I'm sorry, sir, the incivility that some JARS editors show "an entire category of Rand writers" is not a one way street. This journal began in 1999, and from Square One, we were bullied with threats of litigation. That has had a way of affecting the tone of the discussion from the very beginning.
In any event, I don't recognize "an entire category of Rand writers," as I argue above. The reactions from various "orthodox" scholars has been varied; I think of each scholar as an individual.
I will share the review with you, when it is complete, and invite you to respond. You can make an informed decision.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 18, 2006 09:31 AM
I would like to point out that Prof. Campbell used information which he obtained in his capacity as associate editor, which I did not intend to be public, in order to smear me in a post which was 75% fabricated, as even he admitted. I had no contact or public exchange with Prof. Campbell for over a year prior to that post, which was totally unprovoked and uncalled for. If a contributor gets slammed in public for withdrawing a draft which did not go through the editorial process, with the false claim that it was "ready for publication," one has to wonder about Prof. Campbell's tactics. Why portray someone who already published in JARS in such a negative light?
The SoloPassion references:
Posted by: Michelle F. Cohen | April 18, 2006 09:41 AM
Robert Campbell's recollections of your reasons for withdrawing your article from JARS were incorrect. In fact, to my knowledge, he only knew you withdrew your piece, but I don't recall discussing the private dialogue that you and I had about it. Robert is not even the designated co-editor on the Nietzsche-Rand project. My co-editor for that project is Lester Hunt.
In any event, I'm happy to see that Robert set the record straight.
I have been nothing but kind and considerate toward you, Michelle. And in this very thread, I praise your contribution to JARS.
In the end, those who don't wish to read or publish in JARS: Don't.
Those who do wish to read or publish in JARS: Do.
Fortunately, nobody is obligated to do either. I am thoroughly satisfied with our ever-increasing submission rate, subscription rate, and our ever-increasing visibility in the scholarly community.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 18, 2006 09:53 AM
If JARS wants to make all of its (even merely potential) skeptics and critics into life-long enemies � then Campbell's comments are the way to go.
Posted by: James Valliant | April 18, 2006 09:56 AM
According to a recent post at SOLOPassion, Campbell believes that my mind changed about JARS some weeks ago. Please inform him that it changed a week ago today, as you know, and as much of the "why" as you can.
Posted by: James Valliant | April 18, 2006 12:51 PM
I think you've been fairly explicit about "why," but I will certainly inform him that your mind changed a week ago today.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 18, 2006 01:03 PM
To be precise, my mind started to change about nine days ago.
Posted by: James Valliant | April 18, 2006 01:03 PM
I have no quarrel with you, Sciabarra, as you know.
Posted by: Michelle F. Cohen | April 18, 2006 03:29 PM
Glad to hear it!
Thanks for all the input, folks.
Now, I need to get back to actually doing JARS work!
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 18, 2006 08:31 PM
Song of the Day: Mas Que Nada (Pow Pow Pow) features the words and music of L. Deane and J. Ben. Listen to audio clips of this Brazilian nugget recorded by Dizzy Gillespie, Brasil 66, Sergio Mendes and the Black Eyed Peas, and, my favorite rendition, by Nancy Ames.
APRIL 08, 2006
I have watched with some fascination over the last few days, various stories�on "ABC World News Tonight," "Good Morning America," and "Nightline," and today, I read this Elaine Pagels article�all on the subject of the so-called "Gospel of Judas." Once thought lost, the ancient papyrus made its way to the National Geographic, which airs a special on the book tomorrow night.
I am not a theologian, but I have always been a "student" of religion, an interest that goes far beyond my political stance on the separation of church and state, and on the corrupting influences of various forms of fundamentalism on cultural life. Perhaps some of this comes from the fact that I am the grandson of a man who was the founder of the first Greek Orthodox church in Brooklyn, New York. (His name was Vasilios P. Michalopoulos, but he died 7 years before I was born.) The Greek Orthodox certainly know how to put on a ceremony; many of their services are ripe with symbolism and aesthetic beauty. That family upbringing certainly fueled my own interests in grappling with many of these issues.
I have read the Old and New Testaments from cover to cover, and many of the so-called "heretical" Christian gospels of which Pagels speaks in her article. As I said, this hardly makes me an expert in Judeo-Christian religious matters, but the story of Judas Iscariot is one that has always puzzled me.
I know there are many conflicting and contradictory passages in the Bible, and my interest here is not in debating the pros or the cons of theism or atheism or any other -ism. What interests me is how this new "Gospel of Judas" is providing another look at a scorned character in the Christian corpus. Dante placed him on the ninth circle of hell, with Lucifer. It appears that the new gospel projects a Judas who was Jesus's best friend, one who was asked by Jesus to betray him so that the scripture could be fulfilled, so that the Son of Man might be delivered to those who would crucify him, leading to his death, and subsequent Resurrection.
But I don't think this message is entirely lost in the four main Gospels. At the Last Supper, Jesus certainly seems to know that Judas is going to betray him, even if we are left with very little information regarding Judas's motivations, beyond the "thirty pieces of silver." So I've often asked myself: If Judas is needed to tell the story of the Passion, and if his betrayal is predetermined by a divine plan, why on earth, or heaven, should he be condemned to the ninth circle of hell? Without him, there is no betrayal, no crucifixion, no resurrection. He is an essential part of the story, fulfilling a role that is necessary�dare I say, "internally related"�to the whole Christian drama.
In the past, I've asked some theologians why Judas should be condemned for doing what he was "supposed to do." In my own book of ethics, of course, there are no predetermined plans. There is only human choice�contextualized choice, for sure, but choice nonetheless. Some of my religious friends have claimed that Judas suffers that eternal damnation for committing suicide. But surely Jesus would have known that a guilty conscience would have driven his once beloved apostle to hang himself. When he said, from the Cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," he didn't add the proviso: "Except for Judas..."
I know, I know, this must all be a Trickster postmodernist plot to invert heroes and villains, taking us "beyond good and evil."
But I'm truly fascinated by all of this, and I'll be watching the National Geographic special, or at least recording it�while I watch a key episode of "The West Wing," marking the passing of beloved actor John Spencer, who played the character Leo McGarry, and who, last we saw, was awaiting the results of Election Day in the great Santos-Vinick Presidential race. (For those who don't know: McGarry is the Vice Presidential candidate on the Democratic Santos ticket.)
And for those of you who are also interested in religious films, this week offers lots of old and new treats, including a new two-part miniseries of "The Ten Commandments" airing on Monday and Tuesday, and the re-airing of DeMille's classic 1956 version on Saturday, April 10th. Check your local ABC listings.
I saw Ten Commandments shortly after it came out in 1956. I thought it was a great movie. I saw it when I was an adult recently and I thought there was more ham then in a pig farm. Some of Anne Baxter's lines are laugh out loud funny. I don't know if I will watch the remake. Maybe just to get a taste. On the Gospel of Judas has it been throughly autenicated.
Posted by: chris Grieb | April 8, 2006 10:40 AM
A similar version to the the idea of the gospel of Judas was portrayed in the great film, the last Temptation of Christ. Regarding the Ten Commandments, I watch that film frequently and I have no problem with the lines. Everything is high and mighty and overblown, but for me it works very well and still makes the case. The whole story is supposed to be larger than life and that is how it comes across to me.
Posted by: Technomaget | April 8, 2006 11:38 AM
I too have an interest in this subject, though for somewhat different reasons, having held some fairly strong Christian beliefs prior to discovering Ayn Rand.
Though I'm no longer a believer, Christianity's historical development into a cultural force remains of interest to me, and particularly the various works suggesting that the dogmas of the Chrisitian churches are substantially out of synch with Jesus's true teachings (a theory that thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson and even Ayn Rand touched on).
In any case, even while I was a believer, the villification of those such as Judas, Pontius Pilate and others held responsible for Jesus' crucifixion never quite made sense to me; for the precise reasons you touch on above.
Overall, I think the increasing "deconstruction" of establish Christian tradition can only be a good thing for secularists.
I'll probably have much more to say after seeing the documentary (which, I'm pleased to say, is airing on National Geographic's British/Irish channel tonight as well!)
Posted by: Matthew Humphreys | April 9, 2006 10:00 AM
Who gets the "keys to the kingdom," who gets the secret revelation, who gets the story in straight talk, not parables, who was given the true authority after Christ, etc., and it's parallel issue, "who's to blame?," are driving issues in the ancient literature. The Coptic Church has long regarded Pilate as a saint, for example. And what's the whole name-game going on the Gospels about anyway?
Just some food for thought.
Posted by: James Valliant | April 9, 2006 05:07 PM
I've been following this also. I have to say, until recently, I was not very interested in learning about religion. Being so, I was ignorant of most religious teachings from Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
I was much more familiar with Buddhism and Taoism, these being more reasonable in my eyes. Whatever one thinks about the different major religions, they all should be read. These teachings have shaped our world for better or worse, in such a massive way, it would be foolish not to learn more about them.
Like Homer, Plato, Aristotle and Shakespeare, they are writings, maybe more then any other, that have shaped, inspired and created minds.
I found this link on the Lew Rockwell Blog you might want to check out:
P.S.- By the way, I think you are making the right choice to not waste your precious time debating on the Solo-Passion site. Life is to short.
Posted by: Shane | April 9, 2006 05:21 PM
I caught a little of the ABC 10 Commandments and what I saw was awful. DeMille's verision is still the best. I still stand by my comments about Anne Baxter's dialog.
Posted by: Chris Grieb | April 13, 2006 10:31 AM
Wow, I got so caught up in the JARS/ARI brouhaha that I completely overlooked this.
I am a recovering "born-again" who struggled mightily with discarding the faith, and the subject still fascinates me. It was not an easy transition to discard my emotional investment in my belief in Jesus to go with what my intellect told me was incredible, in the precise meaning of that word. In fact, it was, and is, one of the most profound struggles of my life (for the record--even in my deepest point of unreason, I always believed in a seperation of Church and State and found myself at odds with many other born-agains over politics and dogma. If anything, my faith steered me more towards a lefty-socialist viewpoint than a fundamentalist Religious Right outlook. Couldn't stand them then; can't stand them now. Some things don't change, faith or no faith). I was raised by a woman of profound faith--my mother; and a father who pretty much kept his viewpoints on the subject to himself.
What began to shake my faith? Form criticism! Rudolf Bultmann and other form critics blew over my whole life's outlook like a rush of wind on house of cards and my emotional foundation just scattered into fragments here and there. After being exposed to form criticism, I went back and read the Gospels; it amazes me now how much my emotions were tied up in the meaning I derived from the text. I tried to study my way back to faith--C.S. Lewis and the shameful Josh McDowell, but I could see right through their apologetics.
Most of my adult life has been a search for another philosophy to take faith's place. I was not a philosphy student in college (I have a BA in English), and I am unfamiliar with the terminology (most of the discussion on SOLO, etc. sails over my silly blonde head; but the name-calling and partisanship is depressingly familiar to me--reminds me of some of the debates I had with religious folk back in the day) but...
Well, I digress (and how!). So I'll wrap it up. I look forward to reading this Gospel when it is published. Wonder what the form critics and the Jesus Seminar will make of it.
I always thought Judas got a bum rap.
Posted by: Peri Sword | April 14, 2006 12:16 PM
I look forward to your upcoming book on the New Testament.
Posted by: Mick Russell | April 14, 2006 07:44 PM
I taped the new TV version of "The Ten Commandments," and have yet to watch it, so I can't yet comment. And while I think some of the 1956 script has that dated feel to it... I am still drawn in by the DeMille film. It's just good storytelling on an epic scale.
And Technomaget, you're right about "Last Temptation of Christ."
Thanks to all the other posters for the really thought-provoking comments here; I've really enjoyed reading this thread.
The religious controversy quotient is liable to increase soon: "The Da Vinci Code" hits theaters on May 19th! (And, no, I've not read that book yet either!!!)
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 19, 2006 08:01 AM
"Without him, there is no betrayal, no crucifixion, no resurrection. He is an essential part of the story, fulfilling a role that is necessary�dare I say, "internally related"�to the whole Christian drama."
Of course. Judas as the "damned" is simply another marketing tool, like everyone not believing in Jesus as God goes to hell.
There is nothing accidental about the construction of religion.
Posted by: biLL Samples | April 20, 2006 05:39 PM
Bill says: "Judas as the "damned" is simply another marketing tool, like everyone not believing in Jesus as God goes to hell.
There is nothing accidental about the construction of religion."
Ah, so sometimes the free market has its pitfalls! ;-)
Snarky comments aside, this brings up another question. I've just begun to read Ayn Rand's "For the New Intellectual" and was struck by the Witch Doctor/Atilla analogies. Certainly, it explains Western Civilization. But...man, Ms. Rand rags and rags on Buddhism as the religion of barefoot savages living in squalid mud huts. But Japan is where Buddhism really took hold, correct? They had an advanced civilization when Western Europeans were dirty and unwashed (and kept that way by promises by the Witch Doctor of a pie in the sky, by and by, and the Atillas).
One thing I find interesting about Buddhism is that as far as I know, there's no efforts to convert others--no "markenting!" My knowledge of its history is skin-deep, so if I'm wrong, I'm willing to be enlightened.
I'm just curious about Rand's antipathy to Buddhism--Zen Buddhism in particular. Why?
I have really strayed off topic, so I will close.
Posted by: Per | April 21, 2006 09:37 AM
Hey, Peri, I have some differences with Rand on a number of her interpretations in that lead essay in For the New Intellectual. Putting that aside, I think you'd find the following sites of interest, insofar as they attempt a dialogue between Objectivism and Buddhism:
The Mudita Forum
I should also note that there have been attempts to view Aristotle through a Buddhist lens, and Aristotle, of course, made a major impact on Rand's work. In this context, I've always been fond of a book by Stephen R. L. Clark, entitled Aristotle's Man: Speculations upon Aristotelian Anthropology. As I state in Total Freedom (page 41 n. 34), Clark places Aristotle
in a "Chinese setting" that focuses on the "yin-and-yang" analysis of reciprocal relations in contrariety ... Readers might be surprised to see Aristotle treated as "something like a Mahayana Buddhist," but Clark's discussion is provocative.
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 25, 2006 07:05 AM
Song of the Day: Roda, words and music by Gilberto Gil and Joao Augusto, features a lovely melody caressed by a Brazilian beat. Listen to an audio clip of a rendition performed by Brasil 66.
APRIL 07, 2006
Song of the Day: My Man (Mon Homme) features French lyrics by Albert Willemetz and Jacques Charles, English lyrics by Channing Pollock, and music by Maurice Yvain. (Additional writing credits go to I. Bibo and L. Woods.) It was sung originally by Fanny Brice, but was revived magnificently by Barbra Streisand for "Funny Girl" (audio clip at that link). My favorite Streisand version of this song is on her classic album "My Name is Barbra" (audio clip at that link).
APRIL 06, 2006
Song of the Day: Deep Purple, sometimes referred to as "When the Deep Purple Falls," lyrics by Mitchell Parish, music by Peter DeRose, has been recorded in many wonderful renditions. I love an instrumental version by the "Dark Angel of the Fiddle," jazz violinist Eddie South (audio clip at that link). Check out audio clips of other versions by Artie Shaw with vocalist Helen Forrest and Billy Ward and His Dominoes.
APRIL 05, 2006
Song of the Day: If You Leave Me Now, music by Glenn Gutierrez, Dadgel Atabay, and Stevie B., who also provides the lyrics. Listen to an audio clip of a rendition by Stevie B., but the version that I love most was recorded by Jaya (audio clip at that link). Stevie B. actually produced that track, and provided the background vocals too.
APRIL 04, 2006
The New York Mets won their opener, 3-2, hosting the biggest Opening Day sellout crowd in their history at Shea Stadium, with 3B David Wright hitting an opposite field home run.
And then, last night, the New York Yankees rocked pitcher Barry Zito and the Oakland As with a 15-2 opening day victory. A-Rod had a grand slam home run, Johnny Damon went 3 for 7 in his Yankee debut, Hideki Matsui tacked on a HR too, and The Captain had 2 RBIs, 2 hits, and scored 2 runs.
That's not all the news: I caught a few moments of the San Diego Padres-San Francisco Giants game on ESPN as well. Former Mets catcher Mike Piazza hit a home run in his first at-bat as a Padres player; he led his team to a 6-1 victory over the Giants. Barry Bonds, under suspicion of rampant steroid use over the last few years, was greeted with quite a few boos; at one point a fan threw a syringe in his direction. Bonds should expect that and more in the coming weeks, as he moves toward eclipsing Babe Ruth's and Hank Aaron's career home run stats.
One game down, 161 games to go.
Oh, and that reminds me: Check out fellow blogger Tom Stone's post on his baseball book project here. I have had some really good baseball chats with Tom, who runs Episteme Links. His Philosopher Stone blog started up last month.
Click on my name to go to lifeloveandliberty.blogspot.com.
I have a uncle whose a Red Sox fan.
Are you friendly to them Chris?
Posted by: Nick | April 4, 2006 01:48 PM
I swear, this is going to sound like one of those tired cliches, but, honestly, one of my oldest and dearest friends is... oy, a RED SOX fan. For the first 20 years of our friendship, it was terribly one sided. There was that year in 1978, when I got him a Ron Guidry shirt, and he got me a Jim Rice shirt. And Rice got the MVP. GRUMBLE, GRRRRRRRRRR
But some years after that... well, the Sox won ONE. Which, of course, negates four score and six years of history. :)
Anyway, some of my best friends ...
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 4, 2006 06:21 PM
Bonds is an arrogant, cheating, 'roid juicin' jerk, but c'mon...throwing syringes? It had better NOT have been a San Diego native who pulled that stunt, but one of the myriad transplants lured here by the weather. That crud made me ashamed of my hometown.
Posted by: Peri Sword | April 5, 2006 09:59 AM
I think throwing syringes is bit over the top. I think hitting another fan is perhaps the biggest reason not to. Some other symbol should be found.
Posted by: Chris Grieb | April 5, 2006 12:50 PM
Announcing Nick's book and with a hyperlink to boot!
Nick's First Book-He's Excitied!
Research Reading-Studies In Dialectical Libertarianism
And a warm thanks to Chris for letting me use his blog for ads ( :
There's a battle in the family between the Red Sox and the Yankees sometimes
Posted by: Nick | April 5, 2006 02:33 PM
Song of the Day: Fried Pies (audio clip at that link) was composed and recorded by the great jazz guitarist Wes Montgomery. Swingin'.
APRIL 03, 2006
The World Champion Chicago White Sox opened the 2006 baseball season with a win last night.
Today, weather permitting, the New York Mets open their season at Shea Stadium, and the Yankees open their season on the road, in Oakland.
I'm still busy with journal editing, but you can rest assured I'll be watching the Yanks, starting 10 p.m. tonight.
"rest assured I'll be watching the
Yanks, starting 10 p.m. tonight."
Very courteous of them to hold off on starting the game til after "24" is over!
Posted by: Aeon J. Skoble | April 3, 2006 10:00 AM
I thought Japan won the World Championship.
Posted by: Mick Russell | April 3, 2006 10:13 AM
If only I knew much about baseball but I have a uncle whose a Yankee's fan.
Posted by: Nick | April 3, 2006 01:59 PM
Aeon, you are so right! Very courteous of them, indeed.
Mick: You're right... I guess I should have said "World Series Champion"... though that World thingy was kinda ridiculous. I mean: Mike Piazza playing for Italy? :)
Nick: A fine Uncle, I'm sure!
Posted by: Chris Matthew Sciabarra | April 4, 2006 06:27 PM
Chris, I was just kidding around with you. Yes the World Baseball Classic was a bit ridiculous. I never did figure out the tie breaking formula. Korea beat Japan 2 out of three yet that one loss kept Korea out of the title game. A best out of seven series is a better way to determine a champion. And besides, with the exception of Cuba, all the best players of each team were MLB players. I am glad that Mike Piazza is out of Italy and playing for my Pads :)
Posted by: Mick | April 4, 2006 09:18 PM
He's definitely an interesting guy and his hometown is philly.
A priest and knowledgeable about European history.
Posted by: Nick | April 6, 2006 06:48 PM
Song of the Day: Song of India, composed by Nikolai Andreevich Rimsky-Korsakov, with English lyrics by Johnny Mercer, has been recorded in countless versions. Though a lovely orchestral piece, it was also a hit for Mario Lanza and became a great Big Band hit for Tommy Dorsey (audio clips at those links).
APRIL 02, 2006
Song of the Day: I'm Gonna Sit Right Down and Write Myself a Letter, music by Fred E. Ahlert, lyrics by Joe Young, is a fine ol' standard from Tin Pan Alley. Listen to audio clips performed by Dean Martin, Sarah Vaughan, actor-turned-singer Danny Aiello, and Billy Williams.
APRIL 01, 2006
Song of the Day: What Kind of Fool Am I? features the music of Lesley Bricusse and the lyrics of Anthony Newley, who performed it in the early 1960s musical, "Stop the World I Want to Get Off" (audio clip at that link). Listen to audio clips of other versions by Keely Smith and Sammy Davis Jr. And a Happy April Fool's Day to all!