<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Ayn Rand is still relevant</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/why-ayn-rand-is-still-relevant/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/why-ayn-rand-is-still-relevant/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:44:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Solddillamb</title>
		<link>http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/why-ayn-rand-is-still-relevant/comment-page-1/#comment-2029</link>
		<dc:creator>Solddillamb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:37:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3162#comment-2029</guid>
		<description>Excellent article, great looking blog, added it to my favs!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent article, great looking blog, added it to my favs!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Colin Fraizer</title>
		<link>http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/why-ayn-rand-is-still-relevant/comment-page-1/#comment-1077</link>
		<dc:creator>Colin Fraizer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:53:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3162#comment-1077</guid>
		<description>Sorry I can&#039;t make it for the Revolution event.  I notice it&#039;s at the W Hotel at 541 Lex.  Any chance you could get them to post a banner that says &quot;ayne-Falkland&quot; after the &quot;W&quot;?

Best regards,
--Colin Fraizer</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry I can&#8217;t make it for the Revolution event.  I notice it&#8217;s at the W Hotel at 541 Lex.  Any chance you could get them to post a banner that says &#8220;ayne-Falkland&#8221; after the &#8220;W&#8221;?</p>
<p>Best regards,<br />
&#8211;Colin Fraizer</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Eastburn</title>
		<link>http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/why-ayn-rand-is-still-relevant/comment-page-1/#comment-1072</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Eastburn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:03:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3162#comment-1072</guid>
		<description>So true. Well done.

While I applaud CNBC for giving your ideas a major media outlet, I still find CNBC to be a hypocritical bunch. Or, perhaps the day shift there just has a different agenda. Whatever the case, their daytime programming shows a distinct leftist, pro-government slant. Just the other day, they had on a guest who went on and on about how China was winning the &quot;green energy war&quot; because America wasn&#039;t pouring enough private capital into green energy. He was quite proud of the billions of dollars of government stimulus the solar industry is getting! Naturally, there was no guest there to explain there might be a perfectly logical reason(s) why American businesses might not want to be investing in such technologies. As another example, CNBC featured a speaker from the Commodity Futures Trading Commision (CFTC) hearings, which dealt with expanding position limits to certain energy speculators. As you probably know, the popular thesis has been that the recent volatility in oil and natural gas prices has been due entirely to rampant speculation, even though there is no credible data whatsoever to support this position. I read the papers from those hearings, and one in particular stood out as being a 3rd grade essay drowning in the middle of a quantum physics symposium. But since the author (Paul Sicio) was an advocate of the &quot;speculators are evil&quot; theory, he was the one CNBC deemed worthy of an interview (unrefuted of course).

Keep up your brilliant work!

Regards,
Michael Eastburn</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So true. Well done.</p>
<p>While I applaud CNBC for giving your ideas a major media outlet, I still find CNBC to be a hypocritical bunch. Or, perhaps the day shift there just has a different agenda. Whatever the case, their daytime programming shows a distinct leftist, pro-government slant. Just the other day, they had on a guest who went on and on about how China was winning the &#8220;green energy war&#8221; because America wasn&#8217;t pouring enough private capital into green energy. He was quite proud of the billions of dollars of government stimulus the solar industry is getting! Naturally, there was no guest there to explain there might be a perfectly logical reason(s) why American businesses might not want to be investing in such technologies. As another example, CNBC featured a speaker from the Commodity Futures Trading Commision (CFTC) hearings, which dealt with expanding position limits to certain energy speculators. As you probably know, the popular thesis has been that the recent volatility in oil and natural gas prices has been due entirely to rampant speculation, even though there is no credible data whatsoever to support this position. I read the papers from those hearings, and one in particular stood out as being a 3rd grade essay drowning in the middle of a quantum physics symposium. But since the author (Paul Sicio) was an advocate of the &#8220;speculators are evil&#8221; theory, he was the one CNBC deemed worthy of an interview (unrefuted of course).</p>
<p>Keep up your brilliant work!</p>
<p>Regards,<br />
Michael Eastburn</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ajibayo Ogunshola</title>
		<link>http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/why-ayn-rand-is-still-relevant/comment-page-1/#comment-1071</link>
		<dc:creator>Ajibayo Ogunshola</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:58:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3162#comment-1071</guid>
		<description>Great essay, except: &quot;do-gooders?&quot;  Sounds more like Thomas-Sowell-&quot;good-intentions&quot;-type conservativism than Objectivism to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great essay, except: &#8220;do-gooders?&#8221;  Sounds more like Thomas-Sowell-&#8221;good-intentions&#8221;-type conservativism than Objectivism to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: D. Jason Fleming (djasonfleming) 's status on Tuesday, 11-Aug-09 20:03:36 UTC - Identi.ca</title>
		<link>http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/why-ayn-rand-is-still-relevant/comment-page-1/#comment-1067</link>
		<dc:creator>D. Jason Fleming (djasonfleming) 's status on Tuesday, 11-Aug-09 20:03:36 UTC - Identi.ca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:03:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=3162#comment-1067</guid>
		<description>[...]  http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/why-ayn-rand-is-still-relevant/  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  <a href="http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/why-ayn-rand-is-still-relevant/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/why-ayn-rand-is-still-relevant/</a>  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

