Comments from NoodleFood

Note: This comment system was replaced with Disqus in May 2010.

Comment #1

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 11:27:36 mdt
Name: Mike

"such action comes across as mere bluster and grandstanding -- not genuine courage."

"Bluster and grandstanding!?" Now who could THAT describe?

Comment #2

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 11:45:34 mdt
Name: hbwill

I am utterly convinced not to read this article. However, I am eagerly awaiting the article I should be reading..... Well?

Comment #3

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 11:48:15 mdt
Name: PMB

Um...ARI has written numerous op-eds, letters to the editor, and issued a number of press releases on this issue, as well as put on something like five free speech events (with at least two more to come).

Comment #4

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 12:10:17 mdt
Name: Brad

I tried reading the article just now, and could not do it: "diffuse and pointless" to be sure. You forgot to say "pitiful."

In wonderful contrast, TIA's writing on the subject (in *its* March issue, which has a similar cover) is as clear and principled as always:

The TIA cover can be seen here:

Comment #5

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 13:33:35 mdt
Name: Adam

Having read Hudgin's article, Greg is correct that this is a non-Objectivist analysis of the issue. Noticeably absent from this publication by "The Objectivist Center" is any mention of Ayn Rand's ideas on individual rights, freedom of speech, or limited government, let alone the more fundamental Objectivist analysis of religion, faith, and reason.

Instead, Hudgin offers us a wishy-washy appeal to "Enlightenment ideals," and the only philosopher he deems worthy of mentioning in his so-called Objectivist publication is John Mill. John Mill!?! Even worse, Hudgin offers us a *postive* assessment of Mill's skeptical, utilitarian "defense" of free speech.(!) Meanwhile, Objectivist philosophers, such as Bob Garmong, have done great work explaining how Mill's widely known defense of free speech is in fact antithetical to protecting the right to free speech.

Of course, Hudgin relies on Mill precisely because Mill's defense of free speech is widely known and widely accepted, errors and all. It's equally obvious why Ayn Rand is so glaringly absent from this alleged Objectivist article. Ayn Rand is controversial, and thus Hudgin doesn't want to mention her or her ideas--people might then conclude that Hudgin is trying to say something radical about the absolute protection of individual rights, which includes free speech, and laissez-faire government. Perish the thought! :) Once again, the social metaphysics and second-handedness of The (so-called) Objectivist Center trumps both truth and morality. It's a disgrace that Hudgin and his ilk continue to write and speak under the "Objectivist" banner.

Comment #6

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 15:12:29 mdt
Name: Joe Maurone

The problem with Bidinotto's boasting of the boldness of the piece is that it smacks of "me-tooism." He was trumpeting the arrival of this magazine on as if to say that "See! We're not wimps!" It was so blatant, yet so...desperate?

Comment #7

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 19:44:23 mdt
Name: RT

"...the power and clarity to be found in the Objectivist formulation and validation of rights is all but avoided..."

...while instead a large part of the article's argument is built around the virtue of "tolerance". Coincidence? Not when the concept of "tolerance" is the entire raison d'etre for your "Center".

Comment #8

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 21:32:34 mdt
Name: Grant Jones

I couldn't agree more:

Grant Jones

Comment #9

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 22:31:08 mdt
Name: Diana Hsieh

This response to Ed Hudgins' article is well worth reading:


Robert Bidinotto, true ambassador for TOC-style tolerance, actually called the guy a "fundamentalist jihadist" for withdrawing his praise after reading Ed's article and noting the association with TOC.