Book Update

by Jason

This is an update on the progress of my book Sexual Perfection, since I haven't officially mentioned it in over a year.

The book is coming along well and I expect to begin resubmitting it to publishers again within a week or two. My proposal is done (and in roughly 7th draft) and we'll be submitting it with Chapter 2 (which I'm trying to get into a good 2nd draft now).

I say "we'll" be submitting it because I've acquired an agent for the book, Mr. James Fitzgerald of the James Fitzgerald Agency in New York. James is one of the best selling agents in the country and I'm confident that he'll be able to help me get Sexual Perfection into a good publisher.

I've included a condensed outline below and I've also indicated which sections are done or in progress.

If you are in the publishing field and are interested in the book, write me at erosophia.blogspot (@) gmail.com or contact my agent via his website linked above. Anyone else, leave a comment! ;)

-------------------

Sexual Perfection:

Foundations of a New Sexual Ethic

Chapter 1: Sexual Ethics (Complete Draft)

Section 1: The Necessity of Sexual Ethics

a. The Broad View: Atrocity and Sexual Crimes

b. The Narrow View: Sex as Life Affirming

Section 2: The Foundations of Ethics

a. Death as the Fundamental Impetus of Ethics

b. The Right of Self-Interested Action

Section 3: Flourishing as the Goal of Ethics

a. Virtue as a Means to Happiness

b. Happiness: a Way of Living, not Simply a Feeling

Chapter 2: Emotions (Complete Draft)

Section 1: The Nature of Emotions

a. Defining Emotions

b. The Emotional Process

c. Sense of Life

Section 2: Philosophy and Emotions

a. Conscious Philosophy and Emotional Integration

b. The Integrated Passionate Life

Chapter 3: Relationships and Love

Section 1: Different Kinds of Relationships

a. Familial Love

b. Kinds of Friendship

c. Romantic Love

Section 2: Love and Romantic Relationships

a. Relationships and Love

b. The Bases of Intimate Relationships

c. Sexual Attraction and Long-term Love

d. The Purpose of Marriage

Chapter 4: Sexual Attraction and Fantasy

Section 1: Sexual Attraction

a. Paradigms of Attraction

b. The Delusion of Physical Attraction

c. Robust Attraction

d. Philosophy and Sexual Attraction (In Progress)

Section 2: Fantasy

a. The Purpose of Fantasy

b. Different Kinds of Fantasy

c. Moral Considerations

Section 3: Masturbation

a. Sexual Development and Fulfillment

b. Sexual Self-Sufficiency

Chapter 5: Sexual Identities

Section 1: Possible Identities

a. Heterosexuality (In Progress)

b. Bisexuality (In Progress)

c. Homosexuality (In Progress)

d. Asexuality?

Section 2: Masculinity and Femininity

a. Origin and Nature of Masculinity and Femininity (In Progress)

b. Redefining Masculinity and Femininity (In Progress)

c. The Actualization of Masculinity and Femininity (In Progress)

Section 3: The Categorization of Desire

a. Orientation: Defined by Action or Desire?

b. Fluid Orientations

c. Natural Bisexuality

Chapter 6: Sexual Perfection

Section 1: Sex

a. The Nature of Sex

b. Sexual Pleasure

Section 2: Union

a. Stages of Union

b. The Nature of Union

Section 3: Human Completion through Sex

a. Impetus for Perfection

b. Sex as the Missing Piece of Complete Happiness

Chapter 7: Applications

Section 1: Erotic Decadence

a. Perversion

b. Fetishism

Section 2: Problems

a. Abortion (In Progress)

b. Birth Control

c. Children and Eroticism

d. Gay Marriage

e. Prostitution

f. Pornography

A Non-Religious Wedding Ceremony

by Megan

A year ago when Jason and I were starting to think about planning our wedding we realized that we were going to have to write a ceremony ourselves if we wanted something that was non-religious and not philosophically objectionable in some other way. For us, writing our ceremony was a meaningful experience that prepared us for our marriage. For others, however, writing a ceremony may be an unwanted burden, and trying to plan a wedding without religion may be a frustrating process. So, I thought I would post something about our ceremony to help people who might be planning a wedding without religion (and for anyone else who might be interested in hearing about our wedding).

We ended up following the outline of a typical Christian wedding ceremony. My father, who is a Christian minister, was the officiant at our wedding, so we decided to stick with the general format that he was comfortable with since we were completely changing the content. We began with the typical entrance of the wedding party (although I decided to enter with both of my parents instead of just my father), followed by a welcome from the officiant. We included several musical interludes throughout the ceremony (of course we used non-religious music). We also had two readings, one written by me, and one by Jason. Originally we thought we would have readings from philosophical texts, but we were unable to find anything that we completely agreed with and thought was fully appropriate. So, we decided that we would each write something. Jason's essay was about the necessity of romantic love for happiness, and mine was about the meaning of marriage. We chose to have other people read them instead of reading them ourselves, which I thought was the best way to do it since we both ended up feeling so nervous during the ceremony. After the readings, we exchanged the following vows:

Because of the joy that you bring to my life,

I take you, (Megan/Jason)

To be my (wife/husband).

I promise to value you above all others,

To remain faithful to you,

To support, challenge and encourage you,

To hold sacred my love for you,

And to share with you

All the joys and sorrows that life may bring

As long as we both shall live.

Our vows were very meaningful to us because they expressed exactly what we wanted to promise to each other, and because they were spoken in a context in which our essays about what our marriage will mean had just been read. We thought it was very important to emphasize that the reason we were making these promises was the joy that we each bring to the other's life, which is something that is not usually emphasized in marriage vows. After the vows, we exchanged rings, my father presented us as a couple, and we recessed. The whole thing only lasted about twenty minutes, which seems pretty long when you are standing in front of a room full of people with your heart pounding in your chest.

Our wedding was actually the first non-religious wedding I have ever been to, so I have no idea what other people have done. But I really loved the explicit emphasis that we were being joined together solely by our promises to each other and not by any bond from a supernatural being. It just seemed so much more real; no mystical talk about two souls being joined into one by some deity, but simply two people making promises to each other in the presence of people who care about them and wanted to support them. The process of writing our own ceremony may have been challenging, but it was definitely worth it for the end result.

Note: I haven't been blogging for a while because I was focusing on school (I just started an MA/PhD program in philosophy this fall), but hopefully I'll be able to blog a bit more frequently now that I'm somewhat adjusted. Also, if anyone is planning a non-religious wedding and would like to see the complete outline of our ceremony, leave your email address in the comments.

Cell Phones

by Jason

I firmly believe that cell phones are a luxury.  They make our lives easier, more convenient, and better connected.  However, we hardly need them to survive.  The federal government, however, believes them to be a necessity.  So, in their infinite wisdom, they are apparently now giving out free cell phones and free usage to poor people.

I think it is an atrocity to redistribute wealth at all, but in order for people to buy luxuries is patently absurd.  Although I do not agree with redistributionary programs at all, I can at least see what would make someone argue for food programs for the poor or even emergency medical care.  But what could be the possible justification for taking money from others in order to let poor people buy luxuries?  In the end, it's the logical conclusion of altruistic premises: I should sacrifice for others for whatever they may wish, since my needs are evil but their needs are somehow not.

------------
Safelinkwireless.com

SAFELINK WIRELESS SERVICE DESCRIPTION

SAFELINK WIRELESS service (or Service) is a U.S. government supported program for income eligible households provided by TracFone Wireless. In order to participate in the SAFELINK WIRELESS Service, a person must meet certain eligibility requirements set by each state where the Service is to be provided. These requirements are based on a person's participation in a state or federal support program(s) or by meeting the Income Poverty Guidelines as defined by the U.S. Government. SAFELINK WIRELESS Service is limited to one (1) per household and only the head of household is permitted to apply for this Service. Any person applying for the SAFELINK WIRELESS Service must complete an application form, provide supporting documentation that he/she meets the eligibility requirements and agrees, under penalty of perjury, to the following terms:

• HE/SHE IS ELIGIBLE FOR AND CURRENTLY RECEIVES BENEFITS FROM THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM(S) IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION FORM.
• HE/SHE IS A HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD.
• HE/SHE DOES NOT CURRENTLY RECEIVE LIFELINE SUPPORT FOR A TELEPHONE LINE SERVING HIS/HER RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AND NO OTHER RESIDENT IN HIS/HER HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATES IN THE LIFELINE PROGRAM. IF HE/SHE IS ALREADY PARTICIPATING IN ANOTHER LIFELINE PROGRAM, THEN HE/SHE AGREES TO CANCEL HIS/HER CURRENT HOUSEHOLD LIFELINE SUPPORT PROVIDER IN FAVOR OF SAFELINK WIRELESS.
• HE/SHE IS NOT CLAIMED AS A DEPENDENT ON ANOTHER PERSON'S FEDERAL OR STATE INCOME TAX RETURN.
• HE/SHE WILL NOTIFY SAFELINK WIRELESS WHEN HE/SHE NO LONGER QUALIFIES FOR ANY OF THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IDENTIFIED IN HIS/HER APPLICATION FORM BY CALLING 1- 800-SAFELINK.
• HE/SHE WILL NOTIFY SAFELINK WIRELESS OF ANY CHANGE OF ADDRESS BY CALLING 1- 800-SAFELINK
• THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN HIS/HER APPLICATION FORM IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.

A person who submits a SAFELINK WIRELESS application, together with supporting documentation (when required), and who meets the eligibility requirements, will receive a free cellular phone provided by TracFone Wireless together with a free allotment of airtime minutes each month for one year. TracFone Wireless will determine at its sole discretion whether or not an applicant meets the eligibility requirements to participate in the SAFELINK WIRELESS Service. The airtime minutes you will receive on a monthly basis will vary from state to state. Please call SAFELINK WIRELESS at 1-800-SAFELINK or visit our website at www.SafelinkWireless.com, for further information on the number of minutes you will receive each month (if you qualify to participate in the Service).

Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License (Update)

By Jason

(Originally Published 10/15/09)

The Associated Press is reporting (article) that an interracial couple has been denied a marriage license in Louisiana.  No, not in the 1940's, this very year!

NEW ORLEANS – A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long. (emphasis mine)

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday.

So, this particular Justice of the Peace has decided, in his infinite wisdom, that since he thinks that interracial marriages do not last and he states elsewhere that he thinks the children of these couples have a harder time, that he will not marry any interracial couples.  He contends that "he's not a racist," he only doesn't believe in "mixing the races that way."

If Bardwell (the Justice in question) is right that these marriages do not fare well, then it is only because of the hatred that he helps to perpetuate!  What makes him think that he has the right, in his capacity as a Justice of Peace, to arbitrarily choose who he will marry and who he won't?  If the couple in question fulfills the legal requirements, then it is Bardwell's duty to marry them.  If he does not, for whatever reason, then he has abdicated his duty and should be minimally removed from office, if not tried for discrimination.

To think that love can only happen between people of the same race is foolish.  Love is about certain attributes that one finds in another person; the fact that skin comes in different colors is irrelevant.

---UPDATE---


As of today (10/16) CNN is reporting that the Governor of Louisiana is calling for Bardwell's firing.

---UPDATE---

As of 11/03, the NY Times is reporting that Justice Bardwell has resigned and is facing a civil suit by the couple he denied the marriage license to.

CollegeHumor

by Jason

I've been going to CollegeHumor.com for a long time now and I've always thought they had really funny videos.  Recently, however, they seem to have raised the bar on their works and I'm enjoying it more than I used to.  Here's some of my recent favorites :

1. Wrong Hole Song - "In my defense, those holes are so close together"

2. The Dark Knight Meets Superman - Two superheroes, but only one with super powers.

3. If All Movies Had Cell Phones - I've had this discussion before.  I think that most 80's and 90's movies would be ruined if they had cell phones.  Think about your favorite movies from those decades and then add in a cell phone.  See?  Ruined.

4. Pixar Intro Parody - The lamp is evil.

Religulous

by Jason 

I have been meaning to see the movie Religulous for quite some time now, but I never got around to it.  I was partly put off by so many people tell me that it wasn’t a good movie and that it didn’t have much content: that it was just Bill Maher making fun of religious people.  I can see now why some people wouldn’t want me to see it, it is a full out attack on the irrationality of religious belief and it shows how absurd those beliefs are.  The thing is, though, Religulous doesn’t need to make fun of religion; religion does a pretty good job being ridiculous all by itself.

The movie primarily consists of Bill Maher traveling around and talking to religious authorities from different faiths and showing how their beliefs are irrational and even contradictory.  Bill Maher mostly seems to be a skeptic about religious belief, moreso than a militant atheist.

I highly recommend seeing Religulous if you haven’t yet.

The following is Bill Maher’s last monologue from the movie.  I wholeheartedly agree with him and I'm providing it here as an incentive to go and get the movie. 

The irony of religion is that, because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world actually could come to an end.

The plain fact is: religion must die for mankind to live.  The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken.  George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it.

Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.  It's nothing to brag about and those who preach faith, and enable, and elevate, it are our intellectual slaveholders keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.

Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings, who don't have all the answers, to think that they do.  Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing lord, I'll do whatever you want me to do." Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas.

And anyone who tells you they know, they just know, what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't.  How can I be so sure?  Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not.  The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt.  Doubt is humble and that's what man needs to be; considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong. 

This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves.  And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you, actually comes at a terrible price.

If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is: you'd resign in protest.  To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers.

If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future decimated by the effects of a religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was. That we learned how to precipitate mass death, before we got passed the neurological disorder of wishing for it.

That's it.

Grow up or die."

Seminal Plasma Hypersensitivity

By Jason

Seminal plasma hypersensitivity (SPH) is probably not a term you may have heard of before, but 20,000 to 40,000 women are affected by it in the US alone.  It is effectively an allergy that causes all of the usual allergic side effects like hives, swelling, and potentially death.  The trigger is specific proteins in semen.

That’s right; SPH is an allergy to semen.

In case you’re interested in an actual case of it, there is an article currently on ABC called: “Woman is Allergic to her Husband’s Sperm.” 

What is fascinating to me is that the more I study sex and sexual issues, the more interesting things I find out and the more I think I've got a good handle on the entirety of the subject, the more I find that there is always more to learn.

Health Care Rankings

by Jason

Amidst all of the calls for healthcare "reform" (i.e. Federal take-over), you frequently hear people say that the quality of care in the US lags behind many other countries.  A recent Wall Street Journal article begs to differ.

The article points out that the study on which the ranking is based is dubious at best.  One of the most damning things to me is that the WHO "study" did not even base its claims on health data!

An even bigger problem was shared by all five of these factors: The underlying data about each nation generally weren't available. So WHO researchers calculated the relationship between those factors and other, available numbers, such as literacy rates and income inequality. Such measures, they argued, were linked closely to health in those countries where fuller health data were available. Even though there was no way to be sure that link held in other countries, they used these literacy and income data to estimate health performance.

So, instead of actually using real healthcare data for all of their metrics, they extrapolated data from only arguably related factors.

This is another instance of "fun with math" used to justify what is really no more than a power grab. The worst part is that Democrats can't even be honest with themselves.  They claim that they are trying to "fix" healthcare and make it better for everyone.  But how will taxing the populace into destitution and degrading the health system help anyone? This will happen as good doctors quit, people line up for free visits for non-issues, and all private medicine fails while trying to compete with the government over-taxing and under-cutting them.  So, since the actual outcome will be detrimental to all people, and any reasonable person can see the signs and the historic evidence from other countries, then they must be lying about their real goals.

Prepare for War

by Jason

(Source: Wiki-Commons)

In handguns, one of the most common rounds is the 9mm parabellum (9x19mm or 9mm Luger).  What is interesting about this is that the latin appendage "parabellum" means "prepare for war" from the latin phrase "si vis pacem, para bellum," which means "if you want peace, prepare for war."

I always think it's interesting to find little quirks and hidden references in our language that I hadn't noticed before.  If anyone else has some fun ones to add, please feel free to leave a comment.

Just In: California Hates TV

by Jason

The LA Times is reporting that the People's State of California may soon move to ban big-screen TVs.  The controversy is, of course, that the TV's are "power guzzlers" and bad for the sacred environment.  The ironic part is that, as the article notes, private industry has already moved to newer technology and is already phasing out the older "power guzzlers," before the legislation had even been introduced.  The point of the legislation, then, is only to increase the scope of governmental powers.  The ban will, however, hurt consumer choice as the new technology is more expensive now than the existing technology.  Clearly, this law is clearly not about the welfare of the citizens, but the power of the government.

"When the Republic is at its most corrupt, the laws are the most numerous." ~ Tacitus

Sexual Perfection Extraneous

by Jason

The following is a rough draft of what was going to be section 1 of chapter 2 of my forthcoming book Sexual Perfection: Foundations of a New Sexual Ethic.  However, the section had to be cut after a restructuring.  Instead of merely scrapping the material, I've decided to post it here so that you, our loyal readers, can have a look at it.

Enjoy!

------------------------------------- 

Section 1: Brief History of the Problem

What is an emotion?  Each of us has experienced what we think are emotions and most of us would likely say that he knew what an emotion is.  However, it quickly becomes clear, once we begin to try to concretize this knowledge, that our conception of emotions is ephemeral at best.  For example, love is popularly considered a paradigm emotion, but what about shame, disgust, and pleasure?  Are these things emotions?  Furthermore, even in the paradigm case of love, it’s not clear what exactly love is: is love something inside me, or is it a relation between my lover and myself, or perhaps both?  Once we try to pin down the precise nature of an emotion, we quickly discover that the certainty we thought we had evaporates.

Yet, if we cannot understand even the more basic emotions and the role they play in our lives, it is hard to imagine that we shall be able to come to understand the true nature of sex or to ever know happiness.  But how, you may be wondering, with all of the advances in technology, in medicine, in psychology, and with the intervening 2500 years since philosophers began asking hard questions about emotions, how can we not know what emotions are?  The problem is that for all this time, there have been some serious errors that have prevented our understanding of emotions from progressing.

Plato was the first philosopher, of whom we have substantial record, to attempt to untangle the confusion regarding emotions.  He believed that humans were truly immortal souls trapped inside bodies and that after death these souls would transcend the material world to a pure world of Forms.[i]  However, while bound in a body, the soul had certain attributes.  In the Phaedrus, Plato uses the metaphor of a charioteer pulled by two strong steeds: a white purebred (reason) and a wild black stallion (the passions).^[ii]  He claims that in order to maintain one’s path, one must tame the black stallion as much as possible so that the two horses work together.  If the black horse of the passions cannot be tamed, then he shall pull the chariot astray.

The problem with Plato’s psychology is that it treats the passions as innate and irreducible, in addition to being opposed to reason.  Thus, while Plato would agree that it is the sight of a beautiful youth that stirs desire for a Greek, he would not think that any further analysis could be done.  Yet, if the sight of a young boy were simply enough to stir desire and this was innate, then all humans (or at least all human males) should feel desire for these beautiful youths.  However, today young men are not the objects of the lust of older men, but rather it is women that now serve as the ideal of beauty (a concept completely foreign to the Greek mind).[1]  By considering emotions as irreducible and opposed to reason, Plato set the stage for two millennia of confusion.

The next major setback for the understanding of emotions comes again from the Greeks, although this time it is the Stoics.  One of the Stoic ideals was what they called apatheia, or the absence of desire and emotions.[iii]  This ideal springs from their belief that emotions obscure our connection with the world and confuse our minds.  Instead, we are told by the Stoics to follow Reason dispassionately. 

The Stoics, instead of contesting the idea that the passions are opposed to reason, instead accept this as fact and decide that the only appropriate course of action must be to reject emotions in favor of reason.  However, with no emotional commitment to follow the edicts of reason, why should I desire to?  By completely denying that a passionate life could be a reasonable life, the Stoics severed any chance of someone desiring a life of reason and set up the ideal of the dispassionate life of “cold reason.”  We shall return to this point at the end of the chapter and see that our emotions can actually serve as the motivation for ethics.

So far, we have seen that Plato thought that emotions were unanalyzable and needed to be commanded by reason and that the Stoics went even farther by outright denying that emotions could have any useful role in life.  Yet, it was Kant, who insisted that emotions were absolutely opposed to reason and therefore anathema to Ethics, that struck home the final nail in the coffin for emotions.

While the Stoics had sought to create a philosophy dedicated to human reason in order to live a good life, Kant’s goal is something different.  Kant seeks to create a philosophy structured for a “pure rational agent”.  He seeks, as much as possible, to remove any human elements from his system and to enshrine “reason itself” as his deity.  Thus, he states an agent must always act “not from inclination but from duty, and by this would his conduct first acquire true moral worth.”[iv]  Thus, for Kant if a person has any emotional commitment (inclination) to an end, it cannot be ethical.  This emphasis completed the divorce of emotions and ethics that Plato started by insisting that reason had to tame emotions.  It also was the final blow against emotions insofar as understanding goes, since if emotions are only destructive of ethics, then we need not try and understand them.  It would be best to avoid them altogether.

The history of philosophy with regard to emotions is a rather bleak one and it gives rise to most of the problems we see in the current understanding of emotions.  Today, the three major problems in relation to emotions are: the open hostility to emotions, the dichotomy of reason versus emotions, and the idea that emotions are unanalyzable.  We have seen the historic and philosophic origins of these ideas and we have even anticipated the answers to some of these problems in chapter 1.  Now let us briefly address each before moving on to a thorough analysis of emotions.

First, we must point out that emotions are not necessarily destructive of ethics.  It is important to realize that Kant only thought that emotions were destructive of ethics because he was absolutely opposed to any sort of self-interested action and he believed that if emotions had any role in ethics, then people would be inclined towards egoism.[v]  Since we have already dismissed the arguments against egoism, let us set aside Kant’s agenda and move on to other problems.

Not only are emotions not necessarily destructive of ethics, they can also be the fuel that powers ethics.  If we realign emotions and reason, then emotions could help us to be ethical.  Imagine the difference in action between the person who was coldly ethical because he thought it was right, but had no emotional commitment to right action, and the person who passionately wanted to be good.  It should be obvious that the latter person will not only be better able to achieve a good life, he will also enjoy this life in a way that the former person will not.

We saw in chapter one that the conception of a person as having a separable soul/body was incorrect and that humans are actually integrated beings of soul and body such that when the body dies, the soul does not persist.  Although we can easily dispatch with dualism, we still need to understand the connections between reason and emotions in order to integrate the two back together.  In order to do this we shall have to provide a positive theory of emotions to replace the mistaken historic conception, which we shall do below.  In the process it will become clear that emotions are not irreducible primaries, but are open to analysis, and that reason and emotions are closely related.

Ayn Rand in the News

by Jason

I think it's great that the two new biographies of Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller and Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns, are really increasing the amount of media references.  For example, here is a short list of some of the bigger profile reviews.

Newsweek:  "Atlas Hugged" by Mark Sanford (Governor of South Carolina).

The New York Times: "Twin Biographies of a Singular Woman" by Janet Maslin.

Time: "Ayn Rand: Extremist or Visionary?" by Andrea Sachs.

And, perhaps the most interesting recent media Ayn Rand reference:

The Daily Beast: "Ayn Rand Power Dressing" by Rebecca Dana

While I don't think that any of the commenters on Ayn Rand are particularly well educated about Objectivism, I think that it is good that she is appearing more and more in the media.  Even the negative reviews are getting her name out there and will hopefully encourage at least some new people to go out and pick up the primary sources.