I tuned in to Fox News earlier today to see a John Kerry campaign speech about the “war on terrorism.†After a eulogy for American soldiers (“I speak from experience†the notorious peacenik said) he said that a new policy in the war on terrorism was needed so that “their deaths are not in vain.†This is “a turning point in American foreign policy†he said, “a chance to show the world that we want their respect, not fear†and “a spirit of cooperation, not unilateralism.â€
A few hours later, I went the Fox News website to read that Jassim Mohammed Saleh, a former general in Saddam’s National Guard, led Iraqi troops in his old army uniform today as they replaced U.S. Marines in Fallujah. Meanwhile, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has organized a militia in Najaf responsible for many of the 738 American and 1,200 Iraqi deaths. He has found refuge from our soldiers in mosques and “has gone freely back and forth to nearby Kufa every Friday for the noon prayers for the past three weeks.†A cease-fire restrained our troops for weeks, while the “insurgents†continued their attacks.
As I read about what was is happening in Iraq, I reflected on how wonderful it would be if Kerry’s accusations were true – if the goal of the Bush administration was to unilaterally instill fear in our enemies. The sad reality is that the opposite is true – we are “cooperating†with our opponents, holding back our forces, asking the UN for leadership and begging other nations to send in their forces.
Despite Kerry’s campaign promises, our reward has not been their “respect,†but a growing number of brazen fanatics who cheer at the moral weakness of their enemy and do not hesitate to attack our soldiers and the values we hold sacred – the lives of innocent civilians. In the bizzaro world of post 9/11, the leftist's most scathing vilifications are precisely what we most urgently need, and the conservative's most sincere justifications are the cause of our failures.
The term "politically correct" was coined, as I recall, to connote the fact that a certain kind of extreme "liberal" evaluated the truth or falsehood of an idea or even a concept in terms of its ramifications in politics. For example, color-blind admissions procedures are bad because they result in the "incorrect" mix of races, genders, and cultures being admitted to a university.
A number of Objectivists and even "conservatives" have written about political correctness, particularly related to affirmative action. Some have even gone so far as to stage affirmative action bake sales, with different prices for different races (boy have they made the politically-correct people mad!)
I have not read anything about politically-correct grammar. It almost seems as if this front has been surrendered completely by the forces of P.C. Therefore, I want to make the case that grammar has been assaulted by the same kind of unreasoning thugs as college admissions.
Nearly everyone from the Marxist Left to the Christian Right accepts today that any sentence beginning with the third person pronoun should be written, "He or she …" Those who don’t agree take the same principle more consistently, "She … "
It is a simple fact that English grammar has used the male pronoun for the generic in cases where gender is unknown. It’s not because of our misogynist, Christian, sartorial, chauvinist, racist, animal-eating, wood- and coal-burning roots. Think of how one forms the concepts, in terms of genus and differentia. A man is the rational animal. A woman is a man who is feminine. (One does not say that woman is the rational animal, and a man is a woman who lacks femininity.) See the "Woman President" thread in the forums for more info on this point.
Whether one uses the masculine or feminine pronoun, though, the grammar of the English language requires that generic case uses one word. "When you go to the doctor,
The grammar requires the use of a pronoun to refer to "the doctor". But now one is saying "he or she." Which is it?
There is another problem. The subject of the sentence is non-determinate, except it ought not to be. What began as an exercise in gender-fairness writing has butchered the grammar until one can’t even say with certainty who is the subject of the sentence! Is there a grammatical term for a "pronoun conjunctive phrase?" "Pronoun-conjunction phrase?" "Conjunction-pronound phrase?"
If such grammar could have any meaning, it would only be in the rare case when the writer is clearly uncertain of the subject of the sentence. For example, "When you arrive at John and Mary’s house, one of them will greet you at the front door. He or she will invite you in." Now "he" refers to John and "she" refers to Mary. The phrase he or she means John or Mary.
A P.C.'er might argue that so it is in the case of the doctor "he or she." But this is wrong. That sentence began as a perfectly innocuous sentence describing what to expect when visiting the doctor, until it was edited by a P.C.'er.
The new sub-theme of the sentence is: women can be doctors also. This is the “cash value.†It’s true; women can be doctors just like men can be. But is reinforcement of this premise an appropriate goal of the grammar itself? Is it correct to say this every time one says anything at all in English?
If the use of "he or she" is in poor grammar, there are other P.C. distortions which are even worse. "He/she" is a syntactical abortion which is difficult to read and impossible to speak aloud. "S/he" is a step even farther in that absurd direction.
"They" has come into common use. Many people who don’t mean harm, but who are sick of being pounded on this issue, use the word "they" because they feel it is a safe word. It cannot possible offend anyone. Well, it offends anyone who takes grammar (and objective communication) seriously. "They" is a plural pronoun; it refers to more than one person--i.e. not "the doctor."
Finally, some people who do mean harm use "she" for the generic pronoun. Their argument, if they dared state it openly is something like this. "It’s not fair that men have been socially favored for centuries, and using the word 'he' offends me. So therefore I will use the word 'she' because you men deserve to be offended for the next few centuries until the genders are even." It is collectivist. It is genderism. It is quite malevolent, because it seeks to do unto men what it claims is intolerable when done to women. The equivalent would be if the Jews started murdering Germans.
When one reads the word "she" used like this, evaluate the sentence as if the author means this person must be female. If you evaluate this claim to be false, write the author and his editor a letter explaining why. He can only get away with it by the sanction of the guilty head-hanging victim.
This nonsense would stop if even 1% of the population stood up and wrote to the editor, "The author's poor grammar and poor attitude offends me. As a professional writer, he/she should know better!"
Looking for a place to host your blog? ObjectivismOnline offers free blogs and email accounts for rational individuals as well as websites for campus clubs. You can host your blog or mail account at one of three domains: objectivismonline.net, rationalmind.net, and heroicdesigns.com. We are also provide free websites and web design help to campus clubs.
To get your account, contact David with your desired subdomain, username, and password. For questions or technical support, please post on the forum.
Ariel Sharon has renounced his previous committment to not physically harm Yasser Arafat.
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) said on Friday he was no longer bound by a pledge he gave President Bush (news - web sites) not to harm Palestinian President Yasser Arafat (news - web sites). "I said during in our first meeting about three years ago that I accepted his request not to harm Arafat physically," Sharon told Israel's Channel 2. "But I am released from this commitment. I release myself from this commitment regarding Arafat."Sharon gave no indication that any move against Arafat was imminent. Although the United States does not acknowledge the Palestinian leader, Washington is opposed to Israel killing him.
An advisor for Arafat, Nabil Abu Rdainah, said Sharon's statement would lead to increased tensions in the region.
"We reject Sharon's statement and demand clarification from Mr. Bush on such a statement and hold Sharon responsible for such a dangerous statement," he said. "This is an escalation and will lead to increased tensions."
Good for Sharon. Any agreemen to not physically harm the leader of a terrorist group plotting one's destruction is a complete farce.
Hopefully Bush will support this move by Israel.
On April 23rd at 5:30 PM (Pacific) Drs. Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate will be guests of Objectivism Online for a one hour moderated public chat. The purpose of the chat is to meet students interested in Objectivism, The Ayn Rand Institute, or the Objectivist Academic Center, and to answer their questions. Non-students are welcome as well. (Drs Brook and Ghate do not necessarily endorse the content of www.objectivismonline.net or of its chat room and their appearance as guests during this public chat should not be construed as such.)
Update: The transcript for this chat is now available here.
Technical Details:
The chat will be hosted at the #AynRand IRC channel on Undernet. It may be joined over the web at www.objectivismonline.net/chat or using any IRC client.
About Dr. Yaron Brook:
Dr. Brook is the president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. As a recognized expert on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Dr. Brook has been interviewed extensively by the print, radio and television media for the Objectivist position on current events, including the Middle East conflict, terrorism, environmentalism, animal rights, the energy crisis and religion. Among his recent interviews have been appearances on Talk Back Live (CNN), Your World with Neil Cavuto (Fox News Channel), The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News Channel), Alan Keyes Is Making Sense (MSNBC) and At Large With Geraldo Rivera (Fox News Channel).
About Dr. Onkar Ghate:
Dr. Ghate is a Senior Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute where he teaches in the Institute's Objectivist Academic Center. This past academic year he taught a year-long undergraduate course on Objectivism and a year-long undergraduate course on Philosophy. He has lectured on philosophy and Objectivism throughout North America. Dr. Ghate received his doctorate in philosophy from the University of Calgary.
About ObjectivismOnline.NET:
ObjectivismOnline.NET is a student-run online community created to bring together the vast marketplace of Objectivist ideas, commentary on current events, essays written by intellectuals, discussion with Objectivists, and the vast number of other Objectivist websites that have spread across the Internet.
About #AynRand on UnderNet
#AynRand is the only realtime Objectivist chat room on the Internet.
Active for many years, it has hosted moderated discussions, been the topic of some controversy, helped many people understand the philosophy better, introduced business associates and even romantic partners. #AynRand is owned by Bearster.
Unfortunately for freethinkers, when the pope speaks, the world listens.
Pope John Paul II stunned the world when he recently announced that it is "morally obligatory" to continue artificial feeding and hydration of people in a persistent vegetative state. Reportedly, 1 in 10 U.S. hospitals will have to reconsider their rules for "end-of-life" care.
Without getting too deep into the specifics, I'd like to propose a question: why does Christianity denounce our lives here on Earth as "materialistic" and full of "sin", but at the same time, forbid any form of suicide or euthenasia?
I do not in any way condone suicide, I find it to be a form of evasion which only a weak mind would resort to. However, it is absolutely moral for an individual to dictate the terms of their own existence, including what state of mind they wish to live in. If this does not include "vegetable", then one should be able to provide contingencies in their will for euthenasia.
An inconsistency (only one of many) arises in Christian doctrine. How can it be that a code of ethics deems life on Earth as fundamentally immoral, yet escape to paradise equally immoral? I am not sure of what the pope's answer would be, but my answer is: profit motive.
Though there may very well be some fringe religion being practiced in some primitive corner of the globe which praises Earthly existence, all of the major religions that affected the history of the world are fundamentally anti-life. Some are more open about it than others (such as Islam). However, despite the fact that they pine for the after-life, they manage to find some way to keep their followers around. This is because their belief systems are based on one idea, which I assure you is VERY "materialistic". That idea is mind control.
In the spirit of Ellsworth Toohey in Ayn Rand's epic, The Fountainhead, all of the major religions show no honest desire for the salvation of their followers. Their top priority has always been dictating the terms of peoples' existences. Salvation is merely the carrot dangled in front of a worshipper's nose.
The church wasn't thinking about salvation when they ordered each of the four Holy Crusades which resulted in the deaths of over nine million people. The church wasn't thinking about salvation when they ordered inquisitions of the gnostics and other christian cults. The church wasn't thinking about salvation when they branded Martin Luther a heretic upon his demand that the Bible be translated to German and printed for circulation amongst the masses. And the church is not thinking about salvation now, with their demand that doctors do everything possible to make sure that people stay here on Earth as long as possible, no matter what the costs.
At first, the idea behind the con game of the Catholic church was pretty straightforward. A select group of religious officials used scare tactics on the masses in order to extract tithes from them which would allow the officials to live confortably. Frightening the masses with damnation for this, that, and the other thing, ensured that the tithes would keep flowing. As evidence, it is well known that the Vatican was once the largest landowner in the world, as well as one of the wealthiest organizations throughout the middle ages, and a trend-setter that even the most powerful kings and feudal lords would not dispute.
Over the course of history, people got smarter, and less suceptible to the threat of divine force by the church. So, the profit motive of the church faded into the background, gradually replaced with the idea of goodwill at the forefront of their motivation. This of course was and still is a facade for their original method: mind control.
Its little wonder why the Catholic church condemns birth control and encourages Catholics to raise large families. The more Catholics there are walking the Earth, the greater the power of the church. Anything that reduces their numbers would be detrimental to their influence as a world ethic-setting machine. They fall right in line with the nuances of any gang mentality: strength in numbers.
Today, Catholics are still one of the most influential religious groups walking the planet. However, they have been forced over the ages to compromise many of their old hard-line ethics in order to maintain unity in a changing world. Still, such edicts as the one in question are still serving the interests of their traditional goal, which is mass subservience to their authority. No one was ever deified for telling people that they had a mind and a life that was worth something. No one ever gained power by declaring individual rights. There have only been two forces in history that ever succeeded in uniting and motivating great numbers of people. They are the common bond of liberty, and the common bond of hatred for life. The former was only ever implemented by the founders of the American constitution.
So we can chalk the pope's latest declaration up as another Christian inconsisteny. Ordering doctors to maintain lives not worth maintaining, as a requirement for walking God's ethical line, is inconsistent with any ideas for salvation. It is merely another way of ensuring the mindless adherence of masses to the Catholic dogma, which ultimately results in a few religious officials getting paid.
Hold it right there, Pope, isn't the profit motive supposed to be a materialistic sin???
Palestinian refugees can go to Palestine when the new state is created, he said; Israel is a Jewish state. The major Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are facts on the ground and cannot be wished away. The separation barrier Israel is building between its population centers and those of the Palestinians is OK, as long as it's not forever.And by the way, Bush added, Sharon -- the Israeli whom Palestinians love to hate more than any other -- is a bold and capable leader, one whose courage they should emulate.
If it wasn't the Palestinian leadership's worst nightmare, it was pretty close.
After a morning meeting in Ramallah, they condemned Sharon's proposal to withdraw all Jewish settlements and some military installations from the Gaza Strip as an attempt to turn Gaza into "a big prison."They also threatened to cancel all their "commitments in the signed accords," an apparent reference to Bush's internationally-endorsed "road map" to Mideast peace, in which they committed to repress terrorist organizations and stop incitement against Israel.
Due to a previous dispute on the #AynRand IRC channel, a conflict between Bearster, the owner of the channel, and various individuals opposed to him spilled over to this site. I allowed him present his position on this site because these individuals attempted (unsuccessfully) to challenge the decision to host an upcoming chat sponsored by this site on that channel.
I have since decided that the posting was inappropriate for this site - not because the assertions in it are inaccurate, but because I do not wish to use this site as a forum for what is essentially a personal dispute. Instead, I would like this forum to remain a civilized arena in which Objectivism may be discussed free of personal attacks from anyone towards anyone. (By "personal attacks" I mean debates based primarily on an individual's character, not moral evaluations as such.)
Further posts concerning this topic will not be placed on this forum - either by participants or by other members of the site. For those interested continuing the discussion, I have mirrored the discussion on another site, and will present my opinion there shortly. For the record, I support Bearster's position, and plan to continue hosting future chats on the #AynRand channel.
The Ayn Rand Institute's Objectivist Academic Center (OAC) is now accepting applications to its undergraduate program for the fall. The April 26 deadline is quickly approaching. So, if you are interested in applying go to www.aynrand.org/academic and complete the online application form.
The OAC's program is a systematic course of study designed to give aspiring intellectuals a thorough grounding in the essentials of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. It is meant to supplement a standard college education. OAC students are enrolled in only one or two courses per semester. Each course includes graded assignments and exams, and some include one-on-one tutorials with the professor. Classes are Web-based. Therefore, it is possible to attend from anywhere in the world.
For more information, visit the Web site www.aynrand.org/academic or send questions to: study@aynrand.org.
Alex Marriott writes:
Taken from John Kerry's website:
Creating a New Army of Patriots:
On September 11th, 2001, America experienced the most terrible and deadly attack in its history. Yet, President Bush's response was to call on Americans to wait in long lines at airports, go shopping, or wrap their windows in plastic.
As President, John Kerry will have the courage to lead and call on all Americans to make our nation stronger. Whether it is protecting America from the threats of terrorism or addressing the problems we have at home, America's new challenges will not be met by the same old answers of big government or big tax cuts for the wealthy. John Kerry will call on all Americans - tapping into the idealism and ingenuity of Americans and putting it to work on building a safer, stronger, and more secure nation. Americans already make an enormous difference in their communities, volunteering, in Boys and Girls Clubs or homeless shelters. Many Americans do full time service. John Kerry believes that in these times, we need to bolster these efforts with a nationwide commitment to national service. Whether it is a Summer of Service for our teenagers, helping young people serve their country in return for college, or the Older Americans in Service program, John Kerry's plan will call on every American of every age and every background to serve. John Kerry will set a goal of one million Americans a year in national service within the next decade.
Entry by Newintellectual :
The House, in an unusually strong rebuff to the White House, voted 357 to 65 yesterday to approve a $275 billion transportation bill that exceeds a spending limit set by President Bush (news - web sites) and is laden with thousands of highway and bridge projects for lawmakers' districts.This line of text in a recent news article perked my interest. I was not aware that such legislation was even being considered by congress. Had I known, I would have written my congressmen a nasty letter, scolding them for even taking the time to consider such an atrocity. Here's more from the article.
The behemoth measure approved yesterday provides a blueprint for federal highway, mass transit and safety programs over the next six years. "It does what's necessary to keep this country moving," said Rep. Don Young (news, bio, voting record) (R-Alaska), who chairs the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.So, according to Mr. Young, what is necessary to "keep the country moving" has nothing to do with the economy. And it most certainly has nothing to do with allowing individuals the ability to dictate where their values go, i.e., preventing their money from being sucked into some hair-brained multi-billion$ planned infrastructure scheme.
Members of both parties said the legislation is critically needed to repair crumbling highways and bridges, relieve traffic congestion and air pollution from vehicles, and provide jobs in nearly every county in the nation.My, my. This is beginning to sound like the Works Progress Administration now isn't it? And did any of these congressmen stop to think about WHY these proverbial "highways and bridges" are crumbling? I find that the roads in areas of the most business tend to be in decent shape. So let's not group the already fair roads with the crumbling ones. (Cue Sesame Street music) One of these things is not like the other. Along with a noted $11 billion in pork-barrel projects involved in this plan, "such far-flung locations as Pago Pago, American Samoa islands, and North Pole, Alaska, were singled out for projects." Ah, democracy at its best. Everyone gets what the majority deserves...wait, it doesn't sound like there's any majority involved here. It looks like our old monkey-on-our back, collectivism, has struck again. I'm glad I'm doing my "civic duty" to help fund all of these expensive projects to benefit people and places I will never know or visit.
And it looks like my hometown is getting in on the act too. "A 133-page amendment approved overwhelmingly Thursday provides an additional $1 billion in new projects, including $7 million to build a "Renaissance Square" in Rochester, N.Y."
Let me tell you, Rochester is slowly dying. What it needs is more business, which means FREE enterprise. NOT more culture.
There must be some kind of precedent for this action. The money being spent here flies in the face of everything that capitalism stands for. And rather than pick over each one of my rants here, I would like to point out the most important one(next to the money being expropriated from taxpayers of course): if this measure is intended to create jobs through massive public spending, what then will happen to the private contractors not involved with the measure? Will they not lose work to this public spending?
Of course they will. Not only will they lose, but all Americans will lose. We will lose money, we will lose out on the benefits of private infrastructure, and we will lose more of our freedom.
So, what else is new.