I read his book online. Toward the end he tells you precisely who is critics are, and I believe cites the names of the articles. As I recall, they are from peer-reviewed, subscription journals (as with those that support Altemeyer) and thus are not available online -- at least not free.

Further, I believe he has an email address listed at his web site. He seems like a very forthcoming fellow, and I imagine he'd direct you to any online discussions of his work of which he is aware.

I would think that our characters are better describe by how we respond to our temptations than by the temptations themselves.

Look, first you described Altemeyer's work as "pseudoscience," with no support for that accusation. Then you proceeded to describe it as so "tendentious" that you'd be tempted not to cite strong critics, strongly implying -- with no basis -- that Altemeyer also keeps them hidden.

I read Altemeyer with an open mind, and tho I'm skeptical of some clinical psychology, and tho I think paternalistic leftists can cause as much harm as the authoritarian right (and do not accept Altemeyer's notion that Stalin and his Western supporters were for all practical purposes RWAs), I found his work modest, calm, reasoned, and well-documented. You have no basis for the aspersions you have cast on him, and that does, indeed, reflect poorly on your character.

Well Mona I think maybe you are right.... Maybe it was Milton Friedman that was the disciple of Ayn Rand, But thanks for the correction anyways, not withstanding the smug self-righteousness of it.

No. Milton Friedman was far too wed to pragmatism to be an Objectivist/Randroid. And I sincerely meant no smugness, and do not know why you took it that way. Anyway, perhaps you are thinking of Alan Greenspan?

Greenspan was initially a Keynesian and logical positivist, but was converted to Objectivism by Rand. During the 1950s and '60s Greenspan was a proponent of her philosophy, writing articles for Objectivist newsletters and contributed several essays for Rand's 1966 book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal including an essay supporting the gold standard.[7] During the 1950s, Greenspan was one of the members of Ayn Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. Although Greenspan continues to advocate laissez-faire capitalism,[8] some Objectivists find his support for a gold standard somewhat of an irony given the Federal Reserve's role in America's fiat money system and endogenous inflation. He has come under criticism by Harry Binswanger,[9] as they believe that working for the Federal Reserve is an abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles.

When Greenspan was sworn in as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in 1974, Ayn Rand attended the ceremony. Greenspan attended Rand's funeral in 1982.

Again, wiki is correct in all that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan

Milton Friedman was a disciple of Milton Berle. It all went horribly wrong one night in the Catskills.

Trust me. You don't want to know.

Milton Berle did not stare down generals during Vietnam-era congressional hearings and convince Nixon to abolish the draft. Neither did Berle formulate the negative income tax, which in micro version became the Earned Income Tax Credit. Friedman did both. But don't let your contempt for those you disagree impede your Rovian caricatures.

Libertarians really don't have a sense of humor, do they?

I wasn't mocking Friedman. I was gently mocking Conservativeslayer's ignorance--on your behalf, actually.

Well, ok then: I apologize. It is simply that I am used to demented and ignorant cracks aimed at libertarians in these parts, and so am perhaps overly sensitive. If that is so in this instance, I am sorry.

As Goldsmith says: "I'm not a civil libertarian, and what I did wasn't driven by concerns about civil liberties per se."

Did that not simply make your jaw drop? I mean, what American lawyer declines to be described as a "civil libertarian?" Sure, others of us might think if/when, say, Rudy claims that label, its utter codswallop, but who affirmatively rejects it?

Er, no. He's a Rothabrdian, and I just am not. He holds some views I find unrealistic and even extreme.

Codswallop is a perfectly fine word! I employ it reasonably often, and did so at Glenn's old blog, too.

Your [nrrzlfbbr] theology is un-Biblical, and to the extent it supports the subversion of Christian morality, satanic.

Most of what he writes, he believes. But not that nonsense -- that is pure bait and trolling. He is not a Xian of any sort, tho he holds the usual neocon admiration for social conservatives.

I'd say the three trolls, especially the major, are probably serving up parodies.

The Major, absolutely. That consensus was reached when Glenn was at his old site. Shooter -- no. Nazzlfbbr, absolutely not, as Glenn will also tell you, and has. That man has operated under numerous names at Glenn's blog(s), but some know who he is. He is baiting when he starts the evangelical shtick, in which he does not believe; but the rest generally reflects his actual neoconservaism. He is satire-proof, but mostly the real deal.

And I admire much about both of them. Rand, I admire *some*, but not as much. What I cannot fathom, tho, is a relevant comparison.

Let's see YOUR [Alden's] picture. You're way too defensive here.

How thoroughly revolting of you, Mr. Keane. As a female who is now a bit old and on the pudgy side, but who in her time was a total man magnet, I object. And I would even had I been born looking like the Elephant Man.

Glenn Greenwald is right in 90% of his judgment calls; he was wrong here. Attacking Alden as you have only shows why to reasonable and decent people.