Everyone picks and chooses what they believe. Nothing's wrong with that. It's ironic that the Tea Party talks about Atlas Shrugged and the Bible being the most important books ever written because they're so much at odds with each other, though.
could i get a source on this or is this just an opinion?
Ayn Rand was a fervent atheist, mystery.
Examples:
Quote from Ayn Rand »
The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question.
Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 139
Quote from Ayn Rand »
It has often been noted that a proof of God would be fatal to religion: a God susceptible of proof would have to be finite and limited; He would be one entity among others within the universe, not a mystic omnipotence transcending science and reality. What nourishes the spirit of religion is not proof, but faith, i.e., the undercutting of man’s mind.
Leonard Peikoff, “‘Maybe You’re Wrong,’”
The Objectivist Forum, April 1981, 12
While I agree with many of her ideas on religion, I find her tendency to equate altruism and Russian communism repugnant. Individualism just isn’t my bag.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I never said she wasn't and athiest in fact on page 1 towards the bottom i specifically said that she was an athiest.
I asked for a source on the claim that the tea party does exactly what he stated. I have never seen that stance from the tea party. maybe i was a little vague on what i was requesting.
most conservatives will quote rand from a economic point of view vs a theology point of view.
Individualism just isn’t my bag.
yet it is individualism that will determine the course that society takes.
my quote from the previous page.
while rand herself was an athiest she had many extreme views more later than earlier in her life
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Right, but the thing is, Ayn Rand was staunchly pro-abortion rights, anti-religion and pro-sexual liberation. I understand that her economic beliefs are attractive to people who think the US government is too authoritarian in that regard, but using an anti-populist to drum up support within a populist movement is deeply ironic.
And yes, between the Tea Party's funding of the Atlas Shrugged film and Paul Ryan citing the book as the most important thing he's ever read, the Tea Party is implicitly endorsing her ideology while dispensing with the portions they don't agree with. I'm not saying that the Tea Party is alone in ideological inconsistency, but Rand vs. Jesus definitely falls into that category.
Yea but atlas shrugged deals mostly with the economic side of things and a governmenet that has abandoned the task for which it is suppose to uphold.
which is the main stay of the tea party movement that government is out of control and that the working person is no longer able to support the spending binge of that government.
if you want to get into the theology of rand then i would agree it is at odds with Christ. that is the good thing about not being a totally devote objectivist. i can agree and or disagree with it.
just as i agree and disagree with other christains interpritation of the bible. more so those that are in the faith based or seed ministery they pick and choose verses to support their philosophy only in order to mislead other people and basically steal their money.
in fact it boils my blood that these snake oil sales men are able to get away with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Which, let me emphasize, is not a bad thing. Thinking critically and making individual judgments beats the hell out of dogmatism.
But objectivism doesn't allow for picking and choosing. There is one correct interpretation of things, and if you don't agree, you are being irrational and need to check your premises.
if you want to get into the theology of rand then i would agree it is at odds with Christ. that is the good thing about not being a totally devote objectivist. i can agree and or disagree with it.
just as i agree and disagree with other christains interpritation of the bible. more so those that are in the faith based or seed ministery they pick and choose verses to support their philosophy only in order to mislead other people and basically steal their money.
which is the main stay of the tea party movement that government is out of control and that the working person is no longer able to support the spending binge of that government.
Except that the Tea Party movement has expanded to include social conservatives and, in fact, champion them (see the aforementioned Paul Ryan, see also Sarah Palin). If the Tea Party was primarily concerned with the size of government, I'd agree with you--but they're primarily concerned with misunderstandings about government spending (such as welfare and foreign aid; they tend to be supportive of high defense spending and farm subsidies) and picking and choosing which areas the government should remain socially laissez-faire about (hands off my guns, yet anti-reproductive rights and anti-gay rights). These are not, generally, positions Rand would be supporting.
Atlas Shrugged has been brought up multiple times by *insert mainstream conservative here* over these past few years. Paul Ryan of course expressed his affection for Rand during the election, citing her as the reason he got into politics to begin with. There is no shortage of love for Rand on the right, yet I wonder if they realize just how socially liberal Rand was. Rand was an atheist, supported abortion, and although she considered homosexual marriage to be disgusting, she didn't go out of her way to want to have it regulated.
You can't talk about liking Rand about talking about objectivism.
I see 3 possibilities:
A) He(they) is ignorant and doesn't know jack about Rand (perhaps never even read Atlas Shrugged at all, or at least not critically).
B) He(they) is being disingenuous and using false/incomplete interpretations to influence other ignorant individuals, which is pretty much the party MO.
C) All of the above
It's really much more simple than this conversation has become. Those Conservatives are Conservative Christians, which an entirely different hypocritical beast. The reality is that the political beliefs they espouse and the religious beliefs they hold come into conflict regularly, and the religious beliefs win. They want the government out of individual's lives except when it comes to things that conflict with their Christian beliefs. This is the reality of the majority of the Republican party (and especially Conservative pundits) for the last 30 or so years.
They preach that if you sow a seed (usually money to them) that God will bless you 10 fold. They use a series of verses that are neither connected or take them out of context to support their claims.
Every year the con millions of people out of millions of dollars. They prey on people that are in bad circumstances or have major issues going on in their life.
much like the catholic church selling indulgences of old. same scheme just a different version of it.
picking and choosing which areas the government should remain socially laissez-faire about (hands off my guns, yet anti-reproductive rights and anti-gay rights). These are not, generally, positions Rand would be supporting.
no she wouldn't but i also know that her eutopia of capitalism won't work just like Communism won't work. We tried something similar to pure capitalism. While it had a huge benefit and allowed the US to grow exponentially during the 1920's it also had a bad side effect.
The question is how much regulation is needed. Personally i think the federal government has gone overboard. companies are shutting down and not hiring or expanding because they can't afford the cost of regulation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Reagan also made his political career by telling lies about his fellow actors being communists to the FBI, then spreading the lie that all the issues at Berkeley were from communists, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Reagan also made his political career by telling lies about his fellow actors being communists to the FBI, then spreading the lie that all the issues at Berkeley were from communists, etc.
And Ronald Reagan wouldn't fly in the contemporary Tea Party anyway. He had this crazy idea that people don't need AK-47s for home defense.
Ayn Rand specifically said in one of her books that people are justified in procuring unemployment/social security/medicare if they have paid into the systems, even if the systems themselves are unethical.
There's lots of things wrong with Rand on many different levels, but I guess people would rather be lazy and construct straw men without reading her stuff.
Even if that was true (which I'm quite sure it isn't but her bibliography does have 3 works I've not read) its still a change of direction compared to her most oft quoted pieces. 99% of people that quote her haven't read any of her 1970+ works.
Ayn Rand specifically said in one of her books that people are justified in procuring unemployment/social security/medicare if they have paid into the systems, even if the systems themselves are unethical.
There's lots of things wrong with Rand on many different levels, but I guess people would rather be lazy and construct straw men without reading her stuff.
Are these people justified to take more than they paid in?
Ayn Rand specifically said in one of her books that people are justified in procuring unemployment/social security/medicare if they have paid into the systems, even if the systems themselves are unethical.
There's lots of things wrong with Rand on many different levels, but I guess people would rather be lazy and construct straw men without reading her stuff.
Can I be against oversized child tax credits and still take one? I don't need it, but it sure does help make up for some other financial mistakes along the way.
I have these discussions with middle income families in my church about WIC all the time, one of the most widespread welfare programs in existence. it's funny people only demonize what they don't accept.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Ayn Rand specifically said in one of her books that people are justified in procuring unemployment/social security/medicare if they have paid into the systems, even if the systems themselves are unethical.
There's lots of things wrong with Rand on many different levels, but I guess people would rather be lazy and construct straw men without reading her stuff.
There's a political trend toward "defend the strawman". It's like how a lot of liberals think that changing the language will have any effect whatsoever on social issues, and still think "building self-esteem" produces anything more than entitled egotists after 30 years of emphasis on it.
Conversely, a lot of conservatives believe any sort of government system you invested in shouldn't pay you off later, or you're a parasite. There is an argument about parasitism; the tragedy of the commons is a serious situation, after all. But just assuming everyone is a parasite? I can't abide by that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
A lot of conservative Republicans are of the view that the rich are superior human beings. Ayn Rand's entire philosophy is essentially plutocracy in its most exaggerated form. The rich get richer on the backs of the inferior workers because if the workers were good enough to be rich they would be.
Ayn Rand was a disgusting human being and a hypocrite of the worst order. She lived off of her disciples for the latter half of her life because she was a failure as a writer and everything else she tried. All "Randroids" seem to forget that her books were almost universally panned by critics as simplistic, shortsighted and lacking in personality, compelling characters and stories. She was trying to spread her message but it mostly only resonated with rich kids who were born into money. Unfortunately followers of her philosophy have been in positions to spread their insidious worldview in the form of policy. Most visibly is Paul Ryan, but most egregiously is Alan Greenspan. His constant efforts to deregulate markets and give benefits to the wealthy caused at least 2 economic downturns and the largest wealth gap in American history.
The Randian ideology is a dangerous and heartless one.
Ayn Rand specifically said in one of her books that people are justified in procuring unemployment/social security/medicare if they have paid into the systems, even if the systems themselves are unethical.
There's lots of things wrong with Rand on many different levels, but I guess people would rather be lazy and construct straw men without reading her stuff.
You'll have to source that because I've read all of her books and many of her speeches and her thoughts on entitlement programs and the like was that they shouldn't exist at all. She saw the impoverished and working poor as leeches, undeserving of aid.
A lot of conservative Republicans are of the view that the rich are superior human beings. Ayn Rand's entire philosophy is essentially plutocracy in its most exaggerated form. The rich get richer on the backs of the inferior workers because if the workers were good enough to be rich they would be.
Ayn Rand was a disgusting human being and a hypocrite of the worst order. She lived off of her disciples for the latter half of her life because she was a failure as a writer and everything else she tried. All "Randroids" seem to forget that her books were almost universally panned by critics as simplistic, shortsighted and lacking in personality, compelling characters and stories. She was trying to spread her message but it mostly only resonated with rich kids who were born into money. Unfortunately followers of her philosophy have been in positions to spread their insidious worldview in the form of policy. Most visibly is Paul Ryan, but most egregiously is Alan Greenspan. His constant efforts to deregulate markets and give benefits to the wealthy caused at least 2 economic downturns and the largest wealth gap in American history.
The Randian ideology is a dangerous and heartless one.
That is a perfect assessment of Rand. I may have to recycle this as standard retort to the d' bag Rand fanboys I seem to keep running into. Kudos...
You'll have to source that because I've read all of her books and many of her speeches and her thoughts on entitlement programs and the like was that they shouldn't exist at all. She saw the impoverished and working poor as leeches, undeserving of aid.
While I'll agree that Rand was a little overobsessed with promoting the individual at all costs, your understanding of her point of view suggests to me that you are either bad at interpreting her words or you haven't really read what she wrote. I read a lot of her essays, and parts of her books (they were boring), and was a fan of her philosophy a while back for a few months. Rand was absolutely not one who despised people for taking aid that they'd been forced to pay into, she despised those who expected others to help them because of a duty the recipients felt everyone else owed them. She despised what she felt was the driving philosophy behind government aid programs as they were being carried out in the US. And in a lot of ways, her criticisms of contemporary politics and the grab-bag of philosophical tenants that came along with it were pretty accurate, even if her own beliefs were a little crazy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
You'll have to source that because I've read all of her books and many of her speeches and her thoughts on entitlement programs and the like was that they shouldn't exist at all. She saw the impoverished and working poor as leeches, undeserving of aid.
While I'll agree that Rand was a little overobsessed with promoting the individual at all costs, your understanding of her point of view suggests to me that you are either bad at interpreting her words or you haven't really read what she wrote. I read a lot of her essays, and parts of her books (they were boring), and was a fan of her philosophy a while back for a few months. Rand was absolutely not one who despised people for taking aid that they'd been forced to pay into, she despised those who expected others to help them because of a duty the recipients felt everyone else owed them. She despised what she felt was the driving philosophy behind government aid programs as they were being carried out in the US. And in a lot of ways, her criticisms of contemporary politics and the grab-bag of philosophical tenants that came along with it were pretty accurate, even if her own beliefs were a little crazy.
Rand said time and time again that relying on help from anyone else, especially the government, was a sign of weakness and made you a parasite. She collected government benefits under a fake name, for Grodd's sake. If she saw nothing wrong with collecting social security/medicaid benefits then she would have had no problem using her real name.
And like I said earlier, for the latter years of her life she was essentially leeching off of her "disciples." She didn't make much money as a writer(because she was an awful writer) and she lived decadently, so she was basically poor and living with/off of rich fans for about 20-25 years. She is without doubt and unarguably a hypocrite.
And like I said earlier, for the latter years of her life she was essentially leeching off of her "disciples." She didn't make much money as a writer(because she was an awful writer) and she lived decadently, so she was basically poor and living with/off of rich fans for about 20-25 years. She is without doubt and unarguably a hypocrite.
Hey now. Don't fall into the trap of trying to impute every vice to someone you don't like, or of setting up strawmen to mock. Rand's acceptance of government benefits is certainly a questionable matter, but there is absolutely nothing in her theories against accepting voluntary payments from people who appreciate the services she's providing them.
Nor is Rand's lack of mainstream success or acceptance any indicator whatsoever of the quality of her work. Should I start a list of famous "starving artists"? Because I'm sure I'll eventually hit one you think was an unappreciated genius.
And like I said earlier, for the latter years of her life she was essentially leeching off of her "disciples." She didn't make much money as a writer(because she was an awful writer) and she lived decadently, so she was basically poor and living with/off of rich fans for about 20-25 years. She is without doubt and unarguably a hypocrite.
Hey now. Don't fall into the trap of trying to impute every vice to someone you don't like, or of setting up strawmen to mock. Rand's acceptance of government benefits is certainly a questionable matter, but there is absolutely nothing in her theories against accepting voluntary payments from people who appreciate the services she's providing them.
Nor is Rand's lack of mainstream success or acceptance any indicator whatsoever of the quality of her work. Should I start a list of famous "starving artists"? Because I'm sure I'll eventually hit one you think was an unappreciated genius.
Rand provided no services in return for being taken care of. She was essentially crashing on friends' couches and eating their food for more than 20 years. It was exactly what she railed against. She wouldn't have had a home or food to eat if not for other people giving her money and taking care of her.
And I would argue that her work has never and will never find a wide audience. It's been a lifetime since her novels were published and they still only appeal to very specific, very small audience. She was an objectively lousy writer. She couldn't write compelling characters. She couldn't write compelling stories. She wrote thinly veiled political and social commentary based on a worldview that she herself never lived up to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Examples:
While I agree with many of her ideas on religion, I find her tendency to equate altruism and Russian communism repugnant. Individualism just isn’t my bag.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I asked for a source on the claim that the tea party does exactly what he stated. I have never seen that stance from the tea party. maybe i was a little vague on what i was requesting.
most conservatives will quote rand from a economic point of view vs a theology point of view.
yet it is individualism that will determine the course that society takes.
my quote from the previous page.
while rand herself was an athiest she had many extreme views more later than earlier in her life
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
And yes, between the Tea Party's funding of the Atlas Shrugged film and Paul Ryan citing the book as the most important thing he's ever read, the Tea Party is implicitly endorsing her ideology while dispensing with the portions they don't agree with. I'm not saying that the Tea Party is alone in ideological inconsistency, but Rand vs. Jesus definitely falls into that category.
Standard: W/R Aggro
which is the main stay of the tea party movement that government is out of control and that the working person is no longer able to support the spending binge of that government.
if you want to get into the theology of rand then i would agree it is at odds with Christ. that is the good thing about not being a totally devote objectivist. i can agree and or disagree with it.
just as i agree and disagree with other christains interpritation of the bible. more so those that are in the faith based or seed ministery they pick and choose verses to support their philosophy only in order to mislead other people and basically steal their money.
in fact it boils my blood that these snake oil sales men are able to get away with it.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Wait, what?
Fortunately, you can always pick and choose around the part that says "don't pick and choose".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Except that the Tea Party movement has expanded to include social conservatives and, in fact, champion them (see the aforementioned Paul Ryan, see also Sarah Palin). If the Tea Party was primarily concerned with the size of government, I'd agree with you--but they're primarily concerned with misunderstandings about government spending (such as welfare and foreign aid; they tend to be supportive of high defense spending and farm subsidies) and picking and choosing which areas the government should remain socially laissez-faire about (hands off my guns, yet anti-reproductive rights and anti-gay rights). These are not, generally, positions Rand would be supporting.
Standard: W/R Aggro
I see 3 possibilities:
A) He(they) is ignorant and doesn't know jack about Rand (perhaps never even read Atlas Shrugged at all, or at least not critically).
B) He(they) is being disingenuous and using false/incomplete interpretations to influence other ignorant individuals, which is pretty much the party MO.
C) All of the above
The likely answer is C...
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
It goes by the faith based or seed ministry.
They preach that if you sow a seed (usually money to them) that God will bless you 10 fold. They use a series of verses that are neither connected or take them out of context to support their claims.
Every year the con millions of people out of millions of dollars. They prey on people that are in bad circumstances or have major issues going on in their life.
much like the catholic church selling indulgences of old. same scheme just a different version of it.
no she wouldn't but i also know that her eutopia of capitalism won't work just like Communism won't work. We tried something similar to pure capitalism. While it had a huge benefit and allowed the US to grow exponentially during the 1920's it also had a bad side effect.
The question is how much regulation is needed. Personally i think the federal government has gone overboard. companies are shutting down and not hiring or expanding because they can't afford the cost of regulation.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Standard: W/R Aggro
Reagan also made his political career by telling lies about his fellow actors being communists to the FBI, then spreading the lie that all the issues at Berkeley were from communists, etc.
On phasing:
And Ronald Reagan wouldn't fly in the contemporary Tea Party anyway. He had this crazy idea that people don't need AK-47s for home defense.
Standard: W/R Aggro
There's lots of things wrong with Rand on many different levels, but I guess people would rather be lazy and construct straw men without reading her stuff.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Are these people justified to take more than they paid in?
Can I be against oversized child tax credits and still take one? I don't need it, but it sure does help make up for some other financial mistakes along the way.
I have these discussions with middle income families in my church about WIC all the time, one of the most widespread welfare programs in existence. it's funny people only demonize what they don't accept.
There's a political trend toward "defend the strawman". It's like how a lot of liberals think that changing the language will have any effect whatsoever on social issues, and still think "building self-esteem" produces anything more than entitled egotists after 30 years of emphasis on it.
Conversely, a lot of conservatives believe any sort of government system you invested in shouldn't pay you off later, or you're a parasite. There is an argument about parasitism; the tragedy of the commons is a serious situation, after all. But just assuming everyone is a parasite? I can't abide by that.
On phasing:
Ayn Rand was a disgusting human being and a hypocrite of the worst order. She lived off of her disciples for the latter half of her life because she was a failure as a writer and everything else she tried. All "Randroids" seem to forget that her books were almost universally panned by critics as simplistic, shortsighted and lacking in personality, compelling characters and stories. She was trying to spread her message but it mostly only resonated with rich kids who were born into money. Unfortunately followers of her philosophy have been in positions to spread their insidious worldview in the form of policy. Most visibly is Paul Ryan, but most egregiously is Alan Greenspan. His constant efforts to deregulate markets and give benefits to the wealthy caused at least 2 economic downturns and the largest wealth gap in American history.
The Randian ideology is a dangerous and heartless one.
You'll have to source that because I've read all of her books and many of her speeches and her thoughts on entitlement programs and the like was that they shouldn't exist at all. She saw the impoverished and working poor as leeches, undeserving of aid.
That is a perfect assessment of Rand. I may have to recycle this as standard retort to the d' bag Rand fanboys I seem to keep running into. Kudos...
While I'll agree that Rand was a little overobsessed with promoting the individual at all costs, your understanding of her point of view suggests to me that you are either bad at interpreting her words or you haven't really read what she wrote. I read a lot of her essays, and parts of her books (they were boring), and was a fan of her philosophy a while back for a few months. Rand was absolutely not one who despised people for taking aid that they'd been forced to pay into, she despised those who expected others to help them because of a duty the recipients felt everyone else owed them. She despised what she felt was the driving philosophy behind government aid programs as they were being carried out in the US. And in a lot of ways, her criticisms of contemporary politics and the grab-bag of philosophical tenants that came along with it were pretty accurate, even if her own beliefs were a little crazy.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Rand said time and time again that relying on help from anyone else, especially the government, was a sign of weakness and made you a parasite. She collected government benefits under a fake name, for Grodd's sake. If she saw nothing wrong with collecting social security/medicaid benefits then she would have had no problem using her real name.
And like I said earlier, for the latter years of her life she was essentially leeching off of her "disciples." She didn't make much money as a writer(because she was an awful writer) and she lived decadently, so she was basically poor and living with/off of rich fans for about 20-25 years. She is without doubt and unarguably a hypocrite.
Nor is Rand's lack of mainstream success or acceptance any indicator whatsoever of the quality of her work. Should I start a list of famous "starving artists"? Because I'm sure I'll eventually hit one you think was an unappreciated genius.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Rand provided no services in return for being taken care of. She was essentially crashing on friends' couches and eating their food for more than 20 years. It was exactly what she railed against. She wouldn't have had a home or food to eat if not for other people giving her money and taking care of her.
And I would argue that her work has never and will never find a wide audience. It's been a lifetime since her novels were published and they still only appeal to very specific, very small audience. She was an objectively lousy writer. She couldn't write compelling characters. She couldn't write compelling stories. She wrote thinly veiled political and social commentary based on a worldview that she herself never lived up to.