Platonic Conservatism

A few weeks ago, Paul sent me to a lengthy TCS article by philosopher Edward Fesser on "The Metaphysics of Conservatism." The article consists of some downright disturbing discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of the various forms of modern conservatism. Fesser clearly grounds the core of conservatism in Plato's mystical metaphysics and intrinisicist epistemology. Since I've heard the critiques of neo-conservatism from Objectivist scholars like Yaron Brook and John Lewis, that's not news to me. Still, I was pleased to hear those ideas from the horse's mouth.

After some lengthy discussion of philosophy, the author distinguishes between three kinds of modern conservatism: Realist Conservatism, Reductionist Conservatism, and Anti-Realist Conservatism.

"Realist Conservatism" ... affirms the existence of an objective order of forms or universals that define the natures of things, including human nature, and what it seeks to conserve are just those institutions reflecting a recognition and respect for this objective order. Since human nature is, on this view, objective and universal, long-standing moral and cultural traditions are bound to reflect it and thus have a presumption in their favor.
...
Reductionist Conservatism ... might be defined as a variety of conservatism that agrees with Realist Conservatism in affirming that there is such a thing as human nature and that it is more or less fixed, but which would ground this affirmation, not in anything like an eternal realm of Forms, but rather in, say, certain contingent facts about human biology, or perhaps in the laws of economics or in a theory of cultural evolution. The Reductionist Conservative is, accordingly, more likely to look to empirical science for inspiration than to philosophy or theology. He is also bound to see grey in at least some areas where the Realist Conservative sees black and white, since facts about economics, human biology, and the like, while very stable, are not quite as fixed or implacable as the Forms. But he is less likely to see grey than is the Anti-Realist Conservative...
....
[The Anti-Realist Conservative] might be characterized as someone doubtful that any relatively fixed moral or political principles can be read off even from scientific or economic facts about the human condition. Whereas Realist and Reductionist Conservatives value tradition because there is at least a presumption that it reflects human nature, the Anti-Realist Conservative values it merely because it provides for stability and order.

As you might have noticed, this division of conservatives is itself highly Platonic, in that these three types of conservatism are defined in terms of Humean deviation from Platonism. Absolutism varies inversely with empiricism. Still, the categories do seem to capture the varieties of intrinsicism and subjectivism found in modern conservatism. Although I'm no expert on such matters, it does correspond to much of what I've seen from conservative intellectuals over the years.

As for the substance of his argument that modern conservatism is rooted in ancient thought, let me indicate just some of the mental gymnastics required to make that case.

For example, the article basically ignores the quasi-communist totalitarian dictatorship of The Republic, even though Plato regarded that state as the natural outgrowth of his mystical metaphysics and intuitionist epistemology -- and rightly so. As otherworldly entities, the Forms will be distant from the thoughts of most people. Lacking the special training of philosophy, ordinary people are easily deceived by the imperfect, changing, and sordid appearances of this world -- not to mention led astray by their passions. So a good society would have to be rule paternalistically by a special caste of those truly in touch with the Forms -- conservative intellectuals, no doubt. Although the details of Plato's ideal state -- such as women, children, and property in common -- would be rejected by modern conservatives, the basic ideal of a rigidly paternalistic state flows directly from Plato's metaphysics and epistemology. Fesser ignores that rather large element of Plato's philosophy, perhaps unwilling to admit just how paternalistic his conservative ideal would be.

Even worse, Fesser grossly misrepresents Aristotle's philosophy so as to claim him as a source for modern theocratic politics. For example, he attempts to use Aristotle's hylomorphism (i.e. the idea that substances are unions of form and matter) to justify a total ban on abortion, euthanasia, and the like. When he makes this argument, he's already mentioned that "Aristotle also emphasized the idea that a substance -- a statue, a tree, a human being -- is a composite of matter and form... And the soul, on Aristotle's view, is simply the form of a living body. A human person, therefore, is on his view a composite of soul (or form) and body (or living matter)." That's accurate. Yet consider what he does with those ideas:

... a person, being on the view in question a composite of soul (or form) and body (or matter), cannot be identified with either his psychological characteristics alone or his bodily characteristics alone. Moreover, since the soul is just the form of a living human body, for a living human body to exist at all is for it to have a soul, so that there can be no such thing as a living human body -- whether that of a fetus, an infant, a normal human adult or a severely brain damaged adult -- which does not have a soul, and which does not count as a person. For while even a human being who is damaged or not fully formed might not perfectly exhibit the form of the human body (any more than a hastily drawn triangle perfectly manifests the form of triangularity), he nevertheless does exhibit it, otherwise his body wouldn't count as a living human body at all (just as a hastily drawn triangle is still a triangle, however imperfect). One corollary of this is that every single living human body, within the womb or without, severely damaged or not, counts as the body of a person and as a being having all the rights of a person, including the right to life.

The first sentence and a half of that quote is accurate. The rest is a logical leap to Platonic and Christian garbage. Perhaps most obviously, the claims about damaged or immature humans "not perfectly exhibit[ing] the form of the human body" is a highly Platonic analysis -- and quite inconsistent with Aristotle's approach. Also, Aristotle would not even recognize all the talk about a fetus as a "person" with "all the rights of a person, including the right to life," since he had no concept of "rights." Yet even if we make some allowances on those scores, nothing in Aristotle's views about the metaphysical nature of the human organism supports the notion that abortion and/or euthanasia are morally wrong. If anything, Aristotle's discussions of these matters in De Anima (DA) or Generation of Animals (GA) suggests precisely the opposite view.

As already mentioned, Aristotle does regard the soul as the form of a living human body. Yet souls are not limited to human beings, as in Christian dogma and as implied in the above passage. Rather, the soul is the form of any living body, whether human, animal, or even plant. Different kinds of living organisms have different kinds of souls, differentiated by natural capacities. So plants have a "nutritive soul" of growth and reproduction. Animals have a "sensitive soul" also capable of perception and locomotion. Humans have even more, namely the "rational soul" required for abstract thought. (See DA 2:3)

Since souls are not uniquely human, the mere possession of a soul cannot confer any special moral standing upon all and only humans, as Fesser implies. Moreover, nor can the rational soul possessed by only humans do so, since not all humans have the capacity to reason. Some humans will only have a sensitive soul. Others are limited to a nutritive soul. As pertains to abortion, Aristotle explicitly says the soul of a human must develop from nutritive to sensitive to rational, albeit with some subtleties about actual versus potential. (See GA 2:1.) As for euthanasia, clearly a person suffering from degenerative brain disease may regress from a rational to sensitive to nutritive soul. That's why they're called "vegetables"!

Given Aristotle's analysis of the metaphysical nature of organisms, it's hardly surprising that he was no opponent of abortion, but rather allowed it in the early stages of pregnancy due to his metaphysical views. In his discussion of the best state in the Politics, he writes:

As to the exposure and rearing of children, let there be a law that no deformed child shall live, but that on the ground of an excess in the number of children, if the established customs of the state forbid this (for in our state population has a limit), no child is to be exposed, but when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation. (Politics 7:16, emphasis added)

In contrast, Aristotle is opposed to suicide, but for reasons which have nothing to do with the nature of the human soul. (For more details on Aristotle on both abortion and euthanasia, including detailed textual references, see this helpful paper.)

In short, by leaping from hylomorphism about humans to moral and legal opposition to abortion and euthanasia, Edward Fesser is engaged in that all-too-common practice in philosophy of "making stuff up." (Yes, that's technical terminology.) Even worse, he's obviously relying upon the ignorance of his audience to do so: Although his claims about Aristotle are little more than logical leaps based upon gross misinterpretations, few of his readers are likely to know those technical details of Aristotle's philosophy. Thus Edward Fesser, like the philosopher-kings of Plato's paternalistic totalitarianism, is perfectly willing to engage in whatever deceptions necessary to induce the rest of us lower beings to accept the rule of conservative intellectuals.

Lovely.

File this under 'impressive'

I just read this excellent letter to the editor in the Bismarck Tribune from Adam Twardowski to an op-ed that claimed that one needs money first before one can overcome poverty.

Please note, according to the paper, Twardowski is a middle school student.

This is in response to Jim Lein’s Feb. 20 column, "Helping the rich accumulate wealth."

Lein writes that "some degree of wealth is required to overcome poverty” but that “the dispute is over who should receive this degree of wealth — the poor or the already wealthy."

Lein, like so many others, fails to understand that wealth is not a static entity that exists in a fixed amount in the world. Production, which Ayn Rand defined as "the application of reason to the problem of survival," is the means by which wealth is created. Businessmen such as John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie and others possessed an extraordinary virtue: the ability to create wealth on an unprecedented scale.

Before it can be redistributed, wealth must be created. For that reason, it is the producers of wealth, not the dispensers of charity, who should be morally praised for advancing the human standard of living.

America did not become rich by the selfless giving of charity workers or the incessant taxation of the Internal Revenue Service, but by the profoundly selfish work of businessmen who, while pursuing their own profit, created jobs, raised salaries, reduced the working day and produced cheap and useful products that have advanced the average person’s standard of living more than any other period of human history prior to the birth of capitalism in the 18th century was able to.

Why are business executives rich? The amount of thought, planning and coordination a brilliant CEO requires to operate a profitable company can be compared to the amount of training an athlete such as Michael Jordan needs to compete in sports or the amount of creativity a musician such as Mozart needs to compose an inspiring symphony. CEOs are indispensable components of their companies and, for that reason, deserve every penny of their incomes.

Because every individual has the right to property, the wealth produced by businessmen cannot be expropriated from them against their own will. If Lein wants to see the problem of poverty resolved, he should support the principle of laissez-faire, so that productive geniuses will be free to create extraordinary amounts of wealth while pursuing their own selfish interests.

Wow--that's an fine letter--a taut defense of the productive mind. Bravo Adam!

A Strategy of Sacrifice, a Reply of Scorn

"The irony of fate," states one literary reference work, means "a strange fatality which has brought about something quite the reverse of what might have been expected." Or might have been intended. Irony in politics is uniquely and intimately linked to the law of unintended consequences. The term irony itself is rooted in the Greek eiron, or "a dissembler," or liar.

Altruism, or the moral code of sacrifice and living for others, has produced a larger number of ironies or unintended consequences than any other species of good intention. Its ironies cannot be fathomed except by reason coupled with a questioning of its morality. They become evident only after honest and extended questioning of altruism's practicality. The irony of altruist policies leaves some of their practitioners and observers baffled and ultimately discouraged. Others learn nothing from the failure of altruism; they just try harder to make it work.

Let us cite a few of the most recent and notable ironies.

The democratic election by Palestinians of HAMAS, a terrorist gang dedicated to the violent destruction of Israel, is an irony of the first rank. The election results received the blessing of our own Pope of Humility and Sacrifice, ex-president Jimmy Carter. However, even if it could be proved that the election was rigged in HAMAS's favor, it would not make a difference. American and European observers had hoped, in fact, had intended, that one of two things would emerge from those elections: a mellowed HAMAS that yearned for "peace" and was committed to negotiating with Israel; or, a slate of "moderate" Palestinians who wouldn't be as terrifying as the Koran-sanctioned, ski-masked gunmen behind them. After all, if they wear three-piece suits and pass a frisk for weapons before entering negotiations, then they must be civilized and open to a peacekeeping deal.

Or so our pragmatic policymakers believe. The White House has sworn never to deal with HAMAS, but pledged to continue "humanitarian" aid to the Palestinian government for schools, medical services, and food, even though little of it in the past has ever been used for those purposes. Our State Department and intelligence services know this. But altruism trumps reality and truth every time. HAMAS is synonymous with homicide. "Democracy" was supposed to work like alchemy and render the homicidal benign. HAMAS burst that illusion immediately upon being elected to power.

Competing for first rank in terms of bringing democracy to tribalist barbarians is the election of a nascent theocracy in Iraq itself. President Bush intended that Iraqis discover the blessings of liberty, and thousands of Americans have paid the price for his good intentions. The horrible truth is that he has accepted the verdict that it is a theocracy most Iraqis have chosen to govern them.

The U.S. military, particularly the Navy, has been sent by the White House to help victims of recent natural catastrophes: the tsunami, the Pakistani earthquake, and the Philippine mudslide. This meant the expenditure of manpower, time, and billions in aid matériel in repeated bids for goodwill. However, such "humanitarian" generosity is not purchasing the U.S. the love of either the stricken populations or their governments, as is intended. To earn their love, the U.S. must show evidence of pain. The U.S. to date has shown no pain in giving. The generosity earns us no merit or credit. How Kantian! Those ragged-looking mobs on our TV screens, accepting our bottled water, blankets, and bags of grain one day, will the next demonstrate against us with curses and flag-burnings. This suggests that they are wiser to the irony of altruism than is George Bush or Tony Blair.

It is another kind of fatal irony that while Third World countries (remember that derogatory but apt term?), including all Arab countries, are exercising their "self-determination," the nations of Europe are surrendering their own to the super bureaucracy of the European Union. What began long ago as the "Common Market," ostensively dedicated to lowering or eliminating protectionist trade barriers for the sake of increasing every nation's prosperity and well-being, has morphed into a bizarre, wealth and sovereignty consuming alliance of the inept against the able and the still prosperous. Particular animosity is reserved for Britain, which has one foot inside the Union and one out of it.

Now a new surrender of sovereignty is in the making: obeisance to the sensitivities of Muslims residing in Europe. Franco Frattini, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom, and Security, remarked in response to the anger against the Danish cartoons, that Europe "was aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression." Which is as much as saying: We are willing to gag our press in exchange for your not burning more cars, killing cartoonists, or going on a rampage.

But, there is hope for Europe yet. The French shot down the lumbering, politically correct EU constitution, probably to the relief of most Europeans. What would sentence the bureaucracy in Brussels to sure death would be an act of secession by one or two of the more prosperous members of the Union. This welcome development may occur. But those countries must first reject altruism and its partner in politics, collectivism. They must first learn that individualism and free speech cannot coexist with their antipodes within or without their borders.

Daniel Pipes, one of the most intransigent and prodigious sources of information about Islam, terrorism and the jihadist agenda, and whose knowledge of the creed and its blood-thirsty players is encyclopedic, denies that the "cartoon" war is "clash of civilizations" or a "war of cultures." Ironically, he claims that Arabs should realize that "disengagement" from the West in the form of boycotts against Danish or Scandinavian products will only cause the Arabs to suffer and experience further alienation from the West and its values, which could be said to ensure happiness on earth for the living.

The irony here is that most Arabs -- of "the street," of the diplomatic, of jihadist suasion -- place happiness on earth last in the list of their means and goals. Muslims are forbidden to make moral judgments of their creed. Period. Their acceptance of the whole cloth of the Koran and Hadith -- Shi'ite, Sunni, it little matters the sectarian version of the creed -- must be total and without reservation. Most of them are willing to sacrifice lives, wealth, and liberty to achieve Islamic hegemony on earth, or at least see the more activist among them achieve it in their name with beheadings, IEDs, suicide bombings, and fatwahs on Western cartoonists. They never grow tired of the U.S. saying it is sorry, and derive obvious, unspeakable pleasure in seeing a giant grovel, stumble and stammer.

We must thank Western news services for rushing to show us just how angry the "Arab street" is and how joyful it can be when the West offends it or suffers a setback. All those televised forays into Cairo coffee houses, alongside Iraqi funerals, and in the midst of gunfire-punctuated Palestinian demonstrations to solicit and broadcast the average Arab's opinion of the U.S. are intended to drive home to Western viewers lessons in moral equivalence.

Actually, they work to achieve just the opposite: a contempt for maliciously medieval minds, regardless of whether their owners wear traditional garb or Nike baseball caps. The average American must ask himself, when he sees Arab men and boys beating themselves on their heads with swords, or dying by the hundreds in stampedes to throw pebbles at a rock: Is this what we're sending our troops to protect? For whose country or what values are our troops dying and being maimed for life? This is what we're supposed to respect? Why aren't we doing something about Iran, and Syria, and Saudi Arabia? Aren't they our real enemies? What are we waiting for? Another 9/11?

Americans do not realize that President Bush and his ilk are waiting for tolerance and altruism to work their "magic."

The multiculturalist philosophy that denies the West any degree of superiority over demonstrably inferior cultures is not advancing the gospel of "equality" in the pestholes of the world, which include Iraq and Afghanistan. One may include Pakistan and any other nation with a Muslim majority. Quite the opposite. It has given those pestholes, each ruled by a tripartite philosophy of mysticism, stagnation and corruption, leave to declare war on the West.

Of course, the latest irony is President Bush's stubborn, reason-defying defence of a plan to hand over management of American ports to an Arab firm based in Dubai. Would FDR have proposed handing over management of American ports to a German firm during World War II, because it was more "efficient"? Don't worry about it, say the press secretary and the news anchors. Look at Dubai's skyline, it's so modern! They're even planning on building the world's tallest skyscraper here. And the U.S. Navy calls on Dubai hundreds of times. But, one wonders how much all that is costing the U.S. taxpayer in oil prices and expenditures to maintain our military in a war the White House refuses to prosecute.

However, if we can't trust the Pakistani intelligence and military to hunt down the Taliban and bin Laden, or the Iraqi government not to turn against its sponsor, the U.S., why should we trust the interlocking Arab connections that would profit from Bush's folly to not let Al Quada or the Muslim Brotherhood or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to sneak a WMD into the U.S.?

Didn't Dubai only last week agree, at the behest of Adolf Ahmadinejad, to stop anti-Iranian broadcasts? With allies in the "war on terror" like Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- whose president planted a Judas kiss on Bush by demanding that the Mohammed cartoons cease -- who needs enemies?

Altruism delivers a Judas kiss every time it is embraced in foreign policy. All we need do is turn the other cheek to receive it. It has been the premier liar and traitor of Western history. Sometimes the unintended consequences are immediate; at other times, long in fruition. We are witnessing a soufflé of both. But its practitioners have never been the ones to pay the price. When men begin to tire of being lied to and betrayed and sacrificed in the name of an unearthly ideal, when reason rules men's means, ends and values, that will be the end of altruist irony.

Feel-Good Story of the Weekend

This is an astounding story of an autistic high-school student who got to play a few minutes at the end of a basketball game.

Senior Jason McElwain had been the manager of the varsity basketball team of Greece Athena High School in Rochester, N.Y.

McElwain, who's autistic, was added to the roster by coach Jim Johnson so he could be given a jersey and get to sit on the bench in the team's last game of the year.

Johnson hoped the situation would even enable him to get McElwain onto the floor a little playing time.

He got the chance, with Greece Athena up by double-digits with four minutes go to.

And, in his first action of the year, McElwain missed his first two shots, but then sank six three-pointers and another shot, for a total of 20 points in three minutes.

Be sure to watch the video included in the news article. It would be interesting to know if his skill with the basketball is related in some fashion to his autism.

Bush, Vatican Forget Freedom

Both the President and the Vatican had stern-sounding words for rioting Moslems today. Unfortunately, both, when read between the lines, had said exactly what the Moslems were hoping to hear.

First, the leader of the most powerful free country in the world, George W. Bush denounced the recent bombing of a major mosque in Iraq with the following words.

"The act was an evil act," Bush said. "The destruction of a holy site is a political act intending to create strife. So I am pleased with the voices of reason that have spoken out. And we will continue to work with those voices of reason to enable Iraq to continue on the path of a democracy that unites people and doesn't divide them."

Except for the fact that so much of what gets preached in mosques these days amounts to incitement, one could, I suppose, call such an act "evil". Too bad we didn't get the same term from our President concerning the worldwide jihad against free speech also known as "the cartoon riots". Here's an example of what he said about those:

First of all, I think its very important for people around the world to know that a free press is important for a democratic state. A free press for peaceful states, as well. Free press holds people to account. Free press makes sure that there is a check and a balance on people in power. Free press also must be a responsible press.

Secondly, I fully understand people taking -- not liking the cartoons. On the other hand, I do not believe that people should use that as a pretext for violence; nor do I appreciate the fact that some are using -- manipulating the anger over the cartoons to achieve political ends.

And therefore, its very important for governments to not allow policy to be set by those who are cynically manipulating the anger that some have felt over these cartoons.

"Fully understand people not liking the catroons"? Bush might as well cultivate a lisp and set money aside for his jizyah.

While he sounds like he understands the importance of freedom of speech here, his failure to morally condemn the deadly rioting reeks of weakness to these animals. "What will this man do to us if he is afraid even to state his mind about what we are doing?" they will rightly ask.

The man in charge of protecting our sacred rights has no business walking on eggshells just because some followers of the religion that inspired the deaths of 3,000 Americans in a single morning claim to be "offended". Until terrorism, rioting, and murder committed in Allah's name become newsworthy again, no Moslem has a right to be offended about anything coming from a Westerner.

And then there's the Vatican. Prima facie, the Catholic Church sounds far better.

After backing calls by Muslims for respect for their religion in the Mohammad cartoons row, the Vatican is now urging Islamic countries to reciprocate by showing more tolerance toward their Christian minorities.

Roman Catholic leaders at first said Muslims were right to be outraged when Western newspapers reprinted Danish caricatures of the Prophet, including one with a bomb in his turban. Most Muslims consider any images of Mohammad to be blasphemous. [bold added]

Note the two passages in bold. To the first, it is sad that the Church is asking for reciprocation from Moslems when our President fails to do even this much. (Indeed, he should be demanding and enforcing reciprocation from Moslems the world over for the rights their coreligionists enjoy in America.) But notice that the Church agrees that Moslems were "right to be outraged". Freedom is not what the Church is concerned about. Rather, the focus is on religion. Notice that the Church's entire focus is on the rights of Christians, and specifically, of them to practice their faith.

Both Washington and the Vatican have vigorously denounced acts against religion, but sound almost indifferent by comparison concerning acts against men. Moslems demonstrate so frequently with suicide bombings the consequences of placing a higher value on religion than on man's life that there is no excuse for a failure on anyone's part to appreciate the point. This makes the statements of both Bush and the Vatican completely unacceptable.

In each case, the notion that religion is more important than man's life was implicitly supported. Agreeing with your enemy's most evil premise is no way to confront him, to rally a defense, or to win.

-- CAV

PS: The piece on the Vatican is titled very aptly, coming from the mainstream media: "Vatican to Muslims: practice what you preach." this sounds fantastic to Westerners and fanatics alike. The Westerners will be thinking about the calls for "tolerance" from Moslems. But what of this Koranic verse: "Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war." Quran, Sura 9:5"? Looks like the fanatics already are "practicing what they preach".

PPS: Here's a very funny animated cartoon I learned about on the phone with my friend Tom. I believe the first word is Dutch for "sensitivity".

Updates

Today: Minor edits and added postscripts.

Carnival of the Objectivists!

You know what Objectivist bloggers need: a blog carnival of their own. I propose the Rule of Reason host the first "Carnival of the Objectivists" Saturday, March 4th. After that, we can pass on the hosting to other Objectivist blogs, say once every two weeks or so.

Drop a line in the comments box if you want to include your blog or website and be a future host. Let's have some fun this--it's carnival-time!

Update: So here's the plan: participants (you) should let the host know (me) what's hot on your respective blogs. As host, I’ll put it all together in one article, add a festive atmosphere and publish it all on the 4th.

The only caveat: This carnival will be an Objectivist carnival, and Objectivishes are not allowed.

And if you want to sign up to host the next Objectivist carnival (every two weeks should be enough to encourage good content on the smaller blogs), let me know, and I'll administer that process as well (well, I’ll just put your blog on the list). Think the competition to be the host city for the Olympics, only with the bribery being heartily encouraged. :-P

That’s it. Let’s have some fun!

Binswanger on the ports controversy

Harry Binswanger gets to the heart of the issue:

[I] refuse to get embroiled in the discussion of the pros and cons of who operates our ports--as I refuse to get embroiled in the discussion of whether wire-tapping of phone calls is or isn't a legitimate means of "homeland defense." These things are a diversion of the issue.

You fear a nuclear bomb going off in New York Harbor? Then crush the enemy. End the mullahs regime in Iran. Crush Syria. Whip the Saudis into line. And tell the world that self-sacrifice is evil and religion is a lie. Which means: tell the world that man is an end in himself, that his life on this earth is the only thing that is sacred, that the individual has a right to exist for his own sake, and that reason, not faith or force, is man's only means of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

It's either/or. The forces of literal barbarism are rising around the world. And here in America, as well--on the left and the right. There is not much time left, but we have to act on the premise that there is still time to change the intellectual
climate.

Exactly. Have I mentioned that you ought to subscribe to HBL recently?

How Times Have Changed

I've been listening to Leonard Peikoff's excellent lecture course "Understanding Objectivism", and I was struck by his assessment of the state of religion in the US back in 1983:

Now almost nobody is religious today in the way it was once the rule to be. The whole West in the medieval period was tremendously religious and today the most religious zealot in the United States would have been drummed out in the Middle Ages because he would be hopelessly tainted with secularism.

So religious is a dying phenomenon and I must confess I feel a certain sympathy or sorrow -- not sorrow -- but like I feel sorry for the way that these people are historically on the way out. Religion is fading all the time, so it's not that big a factor in most people's lives. It's a casual utterance which they don't really act on, although in some people absolutely it's a real factor.

("Judging Intellectual Honesty", Lecture 11, CD track 5, time index 3:22)

Of course, since that time Peikoff has significantly revised his position. In his also-excellent "DIM Hypothesis" course, given in 2004, he makes a persuasive argument that religion poses the most significant (and still rapidly-growing) philosophical danger to the United States, far more than the discredited ideas of the secular leftists/collectivists.

It's amazing how much things have changed in 20 years.

"Lady And The Tramp" At Box Office Mojo

Are you a Disney fan? Scott Holleran reviews a classic:

Walt Disney's Lady and the Tramp is another animated feature in Disney's vault that deserves praise and attention. To this uninitiated viewer, this movie, released in 1955, always looked like a harmless treat about a couple of dogs that swoon over one another. It is that and more, and it's far superior to what passes for kids' movies.

More here.

United Arab Emirates port purchase to be blocked?

So some folks from the United Arab Emirates want to buy six American ports. No big deal--unless the purchase is blocked by the government--and that looks quite threatening.

So here's my question to the anti-free ownership advocates (it's a three-fer):

1.) What does American ownership of the ports give law enforcement that they don't already have given that the ports are already foreign controlled (the ports in question are already owned by a British firm)?

2.) If you support American-based ports being repatriated by law, what would your reaction be if an foreign government repatriated American-owned property that rest on its shores?

3.) Do you disagree that repatriating foreign-owned property would have negative economic implications for the US? Do you think foreigners would still feel secure investing in the US?

Kant as Destroyer

Someone who probably wishes to remain anonymous sent me the following comment on my post on David Kelley Versus Ayn Rand on Kant:

[Your post] brought to mind a passage I discovered in a book by Heinrich Heine (a 19th century German poet). Speaking of Kant, Heine writes:

What a strange contrast did this man's outward life present to his destructive, world-annihilating thoughts! In sooth, had the citizens of Konigsberg had the least presentiment of the full significance of his ideas, they would have felt a far more awful dread at the presence of this man than at the sight of an executioner, who can but kill the body. But the worthy folk saw in him nothing more than a Professor of Philosophy, and as he passed at his customary hour, they greeted him in a friendly manner and set their watches by him." [Religion and Philosophy in Germany, translated by John Snodgrass (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986), p. 109.]

The "worthy folk" of Konigsberg had an excuse: They were not professional philosophers, had not seen the historical consequences of Kant's ideas, and had not read Ayn Rand. David Kelley has no such excuse.

Indeed! David Kelley should know better than to think that the Marxist professors who advocate the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are morally better than actual dictators of that proletariat. Yes, those Marxist professors do merely attempt to persuade others -- but they attempt to persuade some to exercise brute force while rationalizing and/or denying the resulting rivers of blood to others.

The fact that the professors wouldn't dream of bloodying their own hands does not exonerate them, but condemns them further. It shows that they wish for the illusion of civilization, even while obviously supporting the very opposite, including death camps for even suspicion of dissent, show trials against loyal communists, and starving whole peoples into submission. (Yes, Marxist professors did support such atrocities, not just by rejecting such "bourgeois" concepts as individual rights, objective law, and economic freedom, but also by defending the USSR and other communist regimes against almost any criticism.) To be unable to slit the throats of your ideological victims yourself, yet continue to preach the ideas which justify and inspire others to slit throats, is not a sign of any redeeming virtue but only of dishonest cowardice.

Information About What?

On a mailing list to which I subscribe, Travis Norsen posted the following message:

A friend of mine who does research on Bohm's version of quantum physics pointed me to a horrible article in Nature (Dec. '05) on "The message of the quantum." It's written by the prestigious Anton Zeilinger, and its core paragraph would be a strong candidate for inclusion in a top-10 horror file collection:

"So, what is the message of the quantum? I suggest we look at the situation from a new angle. We have learned in the history of physics that it is important not to make distinctions that have no basis -- such as the pre-newtonian distinction between the laws on Earth and those that govern the motion of heavenly bodies. I suggest that in a similar way, the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made. There is no way to refer to reality without using the information we have about it."

This is actually an expression of a semi-trendy movement in the foundations of QM recently -- the idea that QM is fundamentally about "information" (which concept thus evidently replaces "matter" as the basic referent of physical theories). [Physicist John Archibald] Wheeler's pithy name for this movement (which he supports) is brilliant (-ly bad): "it from bit."

The full article is available online to subscribers. (Any educational institution worth its salt should have a subscription.)

Travis submitted the following letter in response to the article to Nature, but it wasn't printed. He's graciously allowed me to post it to NoodleFood.

Anton Zeilinger (Nature, Vol. 438, 8 Dec. '05, pg 743) claims that anti-realism is "the message of the quantum". He suggests that "the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made." This commits the error that philosopher Ayn Rand dubbed "the fallacy of the stolen concept". For example, one cannot validly argue against the institution of private property by claiming that "property is theft". The concept "theft" is rendered literally meaningless outside of a context in which property rights are considered valid. Equally vacuous is the idea that, really, there is no reality but only "information". "Information" means information about something. There can be no information without something real that the information is information about, no awareness without some object which is the object of the awareness. Or in Rand's words: "If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms." This is the fundamental reason that any argument for anti-realism is unavoidably self-defeating.

Zeilinger's rationale for his anti-realism also deserves comment. He advises that "We have learned in the history of physics that it is important not to make distinctions that have no basis -- such as the pre-newtonian distinction between the laws on Earth and those that govern the motion of heavenly bodies." Good advice. But rather than realism, isn't the obvious target here the orthodox quantum theory itself? That theory postulates two distinct laws governing the evolution of quantum states: one applying under "normal" circumstances, and the other applying when a "measurement" is made. Surely if ever there was a distinction without basis -- and hence with no place in the fundamental laws of nature -- it is this vague and shifty distinction between those physical interactions which are and aren't "measurements".

If one wishes to avoid arbitrary distinctions -- and to avoid committing conceptual grand larceny -- one must uphold some version of quantum theory (such as the de Broglie - Bohm theory) which treats all physical processes in a uniform fashion and refuses to apologize for calling them "physical".

Prof. Travis Norsen, Marlboro College

(If you're interested in such matters, Travis published a three-part article on physics in the first three issues of Axiomatic Magazine.)

Put Up Or Shut Up

This is from Amit Ghate at Thrutch:

To all those who -- in the name not offending anyone’s feelings -- advocate “self-censorship”, kindly self-censor yourselves, for I find your statements incredibly offensive.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

I would like to dedicate this post to the cowards at The Charlotte Observer.

Private Schools Accountable To No One

Amazing from The CNW Group:

The public education system is responsible and held accountable for
employing certified teachers, administering the provincial curriculum and
operating with fiscal integrity. The private system is accountable to no one.

Let's repeat that for emphasis..

The private system is accountable to no one. And that is what the public education establishment considers parents to be: No one.

Sounds like School Board Chairman Joe White to me.

In Maryland there appears to be a different view:

The Maryland Catholic Conference has drafted a bill that's currently in the state Senate that would give a tax breaks to companies that support a Catholic school education. Tooten reported the bill is patterned after a law now on the books in Pennsylvania.

"It allows businesses, small corporations and small businesses to take 75 percent of a tax credit and apply it toward scholarships or scholarship organizations," said Dr. Ronald Valenti, superintendent of the Archdiocese of Baltimore's Catholic schools. [WBAL]

It should be broader than Catholic school education of course. But on the right path.

Property Rights in the Hurtt Locker?

Crunchy-Cons: the new face of conservatism

This snip by George H. Nash in today's Wall Street Journal describes the "crunchy-cons," a new aspect to the conservative movement:

Rod Dreher, a columnist and editor at the Dallas Morning News, is a self-confessed member of the vast right-wing conspiracy. As a lapsed Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism several years ago, he is an unabashed religious and social conservative. He has little use for the morally relativist and libertine tendencies of modern liberalism. Too often, he says, "the Democrats act like the Party of Lust."

But Mr. Dreher is also a passionate environmentalist, a devotee of organic farming and a proponent of the New Urbanism, an anti-sprawl movement aimed at making residential neighborhoods more like pre-suburban small towns. He dislikes industrial agriculture, shopping malls, television, McMansions and mass consumerism. Efficiency--the guiding principle of free markets--is an "idol," he says, that must be "smashed." Too often, he claims, Republicans act like "the Party of Greed."

Ready to punch in the wall? It gets better:

In Mr. Dreher's view, consumer-crazed capitalism makes a fetish of individual choice and, if left unchecked, "tends to pull families and communities apart." Thus consumerism and conservatism are, for him, incompatible, a fact that mainstream conservatives, he says, simply do not grasp. He warns that capitalism must be reined in by "the moral and spiritual energies of the people." It is not politics and economics that will save us, he declares. It is adherence to the "eternal moral norms" known as the Permanent Things.

And the most permanent thing of all is God. At the heart of Mr. Dreher's family-centered crunchy conservatism is an unwavering commitment to religious faith. And not just any religious faith but rigorous, old-fashioned orthodoxy. Only a firm grounding in religious commitment, he believes, can sustain crunchy conservatives in their struggle against the radical individualism and materialism he decries. Nearly all the crunchy cons he interviews are devoutly Christian or orthodox Jewish believers who are deliberately ordering their lives toward the ultimate end of "serving God, not the self"--often at considerable financial sacrifice.

What a hero, sacrificing himself to old-fashioned transcendent ideals and how brave the stand to "smash" the free market. I guess I should be all happy, because underneath these monstrous and wicked ideas stands the vibrant American sense of life.

Yet as the chestnut goes, with friends like these, who needs enemies? Will this new subset of the conservatives once and for all kill the notion that conservatives have anything to do with capitalism? I sure as hell hope so, because I for one get sick and tired of being even remotely lumped in with the likes of Mr. Rod Dreher.

Thomas Paine

I didn't post yesterday because I was not quite ready for the next thing I wanted to post: my interpretation of Thomas Paine.  I recently purchased a book of his works entitled Common Sense and other Writings, but Common Sense made up less than a quarter of the total of the book, so I didn't really think I could just post a book review with that title and be done with it.  

My initial impression is that this man was the absolute nuclear generator of quotes; even more so than Ayn Rand, and she is eminently quotable.  The reason that both were very quotable is, in my mind, that both spent their time turning a vast complexity of information into simple, memorable principles.  They are different, though, in that when you quote Ayn Rand, you have to remember that you are summoning up a vast context for your quote and be careful not to oversimplify the case.  Thomas Paine's quotes generally require little or no context, and he frequently manages to oversimplify the case without the interference of any outside agency.

His writings are fascinating because they outline, in exquisite detail, the essence of the American character with all its strengths and flaws.  He is adept on the attack, especially in revealing the inanity of other views, but he is not very good at defending his own ideas; his defense consists frequently of announcing that his idea is the only alternative to the ridiculous.  He rejects fanatical religion for a secular lifestyle but still maintains the air of theology.  He attempts to moderate freedom with progressive social programs.

I'll discuss his writings individually and you will be able to see it for yourself.

African Slavery in America (1775)

This is the simplest and most straightforward of the articles I have, I think because it has one point: to demonstrate that slavery is vile and absurd and should be abolished.  Pain excels at demonstrating this point, bringing in moral, financial, and political data to support it.  This article is credited in the appendix with starting the Abolitionist movement in America, which led very rapidly to the end of slavery north of the Mason-Dixon line, and even, eventually, to the end of slavery in rest of the country.

Quote:

"They show as little Reason as Conscience who put the matter by with saying--'Men, in some cases, are lawfully made Slaves, and why may not these?' So men, in some cases, are lawfully put to death, deprived of their goods, without their consent; may any man, therefore, be treated so, without any conviction of desert?"

Common Sense (1776)

Paine attacked the English hereditary monarchy (as he does again in later writings), and promotes the case of the Americans in wishing for separation.  It's particularly interesting to me that, apparently, everyone thought a separation would have to happen sooner or later; no one was contesting that fact.  The impossibility of England ruling the increasingly populous and prosperous American colonies at a delay of six months was abundantly clear.  The difficulty was that popular sentiment wanted to wait for years or decades until they were forced into the situation; the common belief was that America could not yet withstand a war with England.

Thomas Paine insisted that the perfect time was, in fact, eight months before, when the country should have rallied in support of the Massachusetts Minutemen after the battle of Lexington.  The longer the delay, the worse the position of America would be to battle England.  He then proceeded to explain the real situation of the English military and navy, thought to be so overwhelming, and contrasted it with the excellent condition of America, which he felt could easily support this war.

Common Sense is generally attributed with finally convincing the peaceful Americans that only war would enable them to get back to their other pursuits.

Quotes:

". . . a long Habit of not thinking a Thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence [sic] of Custom.  But the Tumult soon subsides.  Time makes more Converts than Reason."

"The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind."

"Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices."

"Men do not change from enemies to friends by the alteration of a name: And in order to show that reconciliation now is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm, that it would be policy in the King at this time to repeal the acts, for the sake of reinstating himself in the government of the provinces; In order that HE MAY ACCOMPLISH BY CRAFT AND SUBTLETY, IN THE LONG RUN, WHAT HE CANNOT DO BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IN THE SHORT ONE.  Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related."

The American Crisis Papers (1776-1783)

The Revolution going badly, Washington having been dealt defeat after defeat and forced to retreat, rescuing only a part of his supplies, Paine attempts to rally the Americans again in support of the war and largely succeeds.  He continues throughout the battles that follow until a settlement is realized, when he further gives advice to the struggling new nation.  Although these papers were largely propaganda, it is to Paine's credit that they could not possibly be considered cheap propaganda.

Paine was very much in favor of the union of the states, in fact, he is credited with being the first to use the term "United States of America".  Washington created this country with the sword; Paine gave it a shape and a name with his pen.

Quotes:

"These are the times that try men's souls.  The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.  Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered . . ."

"America did not, nor does not want force; but she wanted a proper application of that force.  Wisdom is not the purchase of a day, and it is no wonder that we should err at the first setting off."

"Of all the innocent passions which actuate the human mind there is none more universally prevalent than curiosity."

[on England] "It is strange that a nation must run through such a labyrinth of trouble, and expend such a mass of wealth to gain the wisdom which an hour's reflection might have taught."

Rights of Man [1791-1792]

This is where Paine begins to falter.  From the title, it would seem that these books should be a treatise on, well, the Rights of Man, but Paine speaks largely about the rights of nations and refutes a pamphlet (if you can use that term to refer to something that was over 400 pages long) written by Edmund Burke to condemn the French Revolution.  It's a symptom, I think, of the fact that individual rights were considered at the time to need no defense.  They were self-evident.  Anyone could see that.

Experience has demonstrated that this is not the case.

What Paine does, however, is somewhat interesting, and can be observed in the modern day: he equates democracy (and representative government) with individual rights.  It's really quite startling to see how many modern attitudes the man originated.  He speaks a great deal about differences between governments while taking the ideology behind those governments entirely for granted, as if government produces ideology and not the other way around.  He succeeds, mournfully, in constructing a great castle on a foundation of sand.  A democracy may elect Hamas just as well as it might elect George Washington.  A useful thing to remember.

Quotes:

"Nature has been kinder to Mr. Burke than he is to her.  He is not affected by the reality of distress touching his heart, but by the showy resemblance of it striking his imagination.  He pities the plumage, but forgets the dying bird."

"Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind.  If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on.  Reason obeys itself; and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it."

The Age of Reason [1794]

This is Paine's attack on organized religion, the Bible, revealed religion, and various other aspects of Christianity.  He declares that Deism is the closest approach to faith and that the Word of God is, well, all the Creations of God, which can be understood by means of Reason and Science.

He neglects, however, to ask himself one very important question.  What makes him certain that there is a God?  He admits that this question is possible, but he dismisses it as irrelevant: God, like rights, is self-evident.  Someone had to make all this and keep it running.  Anything else is absurd.

This approach begs the question; who, then, made God?  The Age of Reason is interesting to read largely because Paine makes so many truly humorous comments about the absurdity of religion, but it's not really informative.  The book was, in fact, largely responsible for the destruction of Paine's reputation, to the extent that Theodore Roosevelt once referred to him as "that filthy little atheist".  Deism is not really a tenable position; like most middle-of-the-road approaches it succeeds in nothing but procuring universal condemnation.  The attempt to combine reason with religion in America is decaying, and ugly fanaticism is rearing its head once more.

Quote:

"The story of the whale swallowing Jonah, though a whale is large enough to do it, borders greatly on the marvellous [sic]; but it would have approached nearer to the idea of a miracle, if Jonah had swallowed the whale."

Agrarian Justice [1795]

And, here, we have the final decay of the man (and nation) who so defiantly promoted freedom: socialism.  Fortunately, Paine named the foundational principle for his version of socialism, so it can be easily discredited:

"It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race.  In that state every man would have been born to property.  He would have been a joint life proprietor with the rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal.

"But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state.  And as it is impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, the lidea of landed property arose from that inseparable connection; but it is nevertheless true that it is the value of the improvement only, not the earth itself, that is individual property."

He then continues to insist that the owners of improved land owe some sort of rent to the rest of mankind for the use of "their" property, the land itself, which they have improved.

One single fact knocks an enormous hole in this reasoning: the value of unimproved land is zero.  So the recipients of this rent would be receiving value in return for something that, at the start, has no value.  They are receiving something for nothing.  This is justice?

Conclusion

I have to say that I found reading these papers to be very interesting; it gave me a very accurate view of the ideological foundations of America straight from the pen of the man who wrote them.  It is both heartening and alarming, though, to know how little has changed.

Newspapers Must Defend Freedom of Speech Against the Cartoon Jihad

By David Holcberg:

If fear of violence against their staff is the reason newspapers did not publish the Muhammad cartoons, they should say so. Admitting such fear would be a great service to their readers; it would remind them of the Islamist threat under which we live, including the dangers any one of us faces in criticizing or ridiculing Islam.

But if the decision not to publish the Danish cartoons was based on a consideration for the "religious sensibilities" of Muslims, then the decision is disgraceful.

All American and Western newspapers should show their support for the Danish cartoonists now hiding from Islamists threatening their lives.

We who value freedom must stand together and actively defend our rights to life and liberty against those who seek to subjugate us to Islam and its taboos.

A public show of support for the Danish newspaper and for our freedom of speech is not only still possible, it is necessary. We the readers should expect nothing less from our newspapers.

David Holcberg
Ayn Rand Institute

Property and Speech

Two issues illustrate a huge problem faced by anyone concerned with the cartoon riots: How does one stem the tide of multiculturalism, which threatens us with dhimmitude as people fail to stand up for their freedom of speech by standing with the cartoonists?

Bear with me for a moment as I bring up something apparently unrelated: this bit of good news on the reactions of state legislatures to the Supreme Court's universally-reviled Kelo decision.

In a rare display of unanimity that cuts across partisan and geographic lines, lawmakers in virtually every statehouse across the country are advancing bills and constitutional amendments to limit use of the government's power of eminent domain to seize private property for economic development purposes.

This is truly amazing at first glance. One would think that Democrats, seeing projects like the one in New London, Connecticut, that started this mess as a means of raising property values and thus tax receipts, would not be so swift to jump on this bandwagon. Plenty of Republicans, too.

Of course, politicians are timid creatures who stick their fingers in the wind constantly, so all but the most principled will abandon their professed beliefs at the first sign of significant public opposition. So where did all this opposition come from? Almost everybody, it seems. I recall stopping by a few lefty blogs after Kelo and even the ones who have never met a tax cut they didn't hate were suddenly singing hymns on the sanctity of the home.

In America, it seems that virtually everyone understands on a fundamental level the importance of making sure that private citizens can't simply be evicted from their own homes. I am sure that everyone came up a huge list of things they love about their homes and would be damned before letting the government help someone take them away.

Now consider the cartoon riots. Many people -- but mostly those of us who frequently exercise our freedom of speech -- are properly outraged over our government's tepid response to this blatant assault on our freedom of speech. However, most people seem almost oblivious to the problem even beyond what could be chalked up to the miserable failure of our media to report what's going on. Amit Ghate provides a very illuminating quote from a story in the Daily Telegraph about the trend towards dhimmitude in Britain:

Perhaps the explanation is just that they do not take it seriously. "I fear that is exactly the problem," says Dr Sookhdeo. "The trouble is that Tony Blair and other ministers see Islam through the prism of their own secular outlook.

They simply do not realise how seriously Muslims take their religion. Islamic clerics regard themselves as locked in mortal combat with secularism.

"For example, one of the fundamental notions of a secular society is the moral importance of freedom, of individual choice. But in Islam, choice is not allowable: there cannot be free choice about whether to choose or reject any of the fundamental aspects of the religion, [my bold] because they are all divinely ordained. God has laid down the law, and man must obey.

And I would say that many Britons also do not appreciate the threat posed by the Islamists, or their representatives would be acting to protect freedom of speech in an anti-Kelo-esque "rare display of unanimity".

I think that most people in America and perhaps other parts of the West would begin to awaken to this threat if they realized what it meant to them on a personal level. (And bloggers are ahead on that score because we are more directly affected by what has transpired so far.) Who would take, sitting down, being told to shut up every other word? Who would accept for himself the kind of self-imposed censorship that has kept Mo off television and the front pages of virtually every American paper if they understood it to mean, "Shut your piehole, infidel?" If they realized that that they were next?

But whereas most people appreciate the fact that the government, if it says it wants to take away your house, will take away your house, I don't think most people either take the Islamists seriously enough or appreciate on a personal level what not showing the cartoons for fear of offending Moslems really means. The Islamists want to be able to tell us what to do and what not to do. They mean it. Too bad the people they are speaking to don't believe them to begin with or understand the scope of the orders they are being given.

The biggest problem we face in the fight for freedom of speech is, I think, not so much the need to convince people of the value of free speech, but the difficulty in helping them appreciate that it is just as much under threat now as their homes were after Kelo. With Kelo, people knew that the government meant business, and they knew that that business meant they'd be out on the streets. How do we get people to appreciate that Moslems really believe that sharia is God's will? And how do we help them realize that, with the cartoons being mysteriously absent from their newspapers, that they have already been served with an eviction notice?

This difficulty is also the biggest opportunity: If people began to fully appreciate this threat, I have a feeling our politicians might suddenly become a lot more willing to stop snivelling about offended Moslems and start fighting to protect the right to freedom of speech possessed by their angry and impatient constituents.

I am not sure how to do this, but someone needs to figure this out. Fast.

-- CAV

A memorial . . . scholarship fund

It seems UW has now created a special Gregory "Pappy" Boyington Memorial Scholarship Fund. This from the university fundraising website:

[This] scholarship fund honor[s] World War II Fighter Pilot Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, a Congressional Medal of Honor winner and UW alumnus. Boyington was a 1934 UW aeronautics & astronautics engineering graduate. This fund provides scholarships to undergraduate students who are either a U.S Marine Corps veteran or are the child of a U.S Marine Corps veteran.

I have to hand it to the university. They have turned the controversy around into something that will bring them money. Still, the good news it that the funds will go to Marine veterans and their children, and not the kind of goofballs and mooks that sparked the outrage in the first place.

The Capitalist's Amicus Curiae

Since its inception, the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism has filed several amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs with American courts, including briefs on the Microsoft antitrust case, the Nike commercial speech case, the University of Michigan affirmative action cases and a case involving the application of the antitrust laws to the US Postal Service.

The reason that the Center elected to file the briefs is academic: the decisions of the US Supreme Court and lower courts affect the freedom and prosperity of every American. Additionally, as the most intellectual branch of our government, the courts are the realm where Objectivists are particularly well-suited toward having a positive impact.

Building upon CAC's groundbreaking legal advocacy, I propose a new effort to submit amicus curiae briefs on every key case before the Supreme Court that impacts the right of Americans to live for their own sake and to profit from their own work. I solicit the financial support of Objectivists who believe in fighting for their freedom—and who want to help to find and empower new Objectivists in the process.

My proposal and my call for financial support will be met with controversy by some. It will be argued that individual legal arguments alone cannot change the direction in which our nation is headed. Those who demand quick results often find easy disappointment.

Yet as a stream of principled answers to important questions of our day, coupled with law-review essays, newspaper op-eds, and other elements of a well-constructed campaign of Objectivist intellectual activism, CAC's legal advocacy will have a significant impact—if one is willing to think and fight for the long-term.

The principle governing my optimism is straightforward: to be heard by others, one must speak to their interests. To attract new adherents to our philosophy, I believe that one must constantly demonstrate that Objectivism provides practical answers to the problems that we face as a people and that Objectivism's proponents consistently act from a reasoned base. While spreading knowledge of Ayn Rand’s written works is the proper foundation of any campaign to advance Objectivism, it is not the only means of advancing Objectivism. Ayn Rand provided powerful analyses of the trials of her day—it is for us to analyze and answer the trials of ours.

Ayn Rand’s genius created a tool that will allow man to reach summits that today we can only imagine. Will you join me and help to expand her legacy? Will you help to support the Center and be a part of its new effort to expand the fight for reason, egoism and individual rights in our most important institutions?

Random Reason Quotes on your site

Do you like the random quotes you see on the right? Would you like to add a random quote generator to your site? You can do so in a number of ways:

• As a JavaScript include (easiest method):
  Paste the following text into your html:
  

  
  <script language="Javascript" src="http://www.rationalmind.net/random.php?format=js;"> </script>

  



• As XML: Use this URL:
  http://www.rationalmind.net/random.php?format=xml


• As PHP code:
  

  
<?php include("http://www.rationalmind.net/random.php");
?>

  
  


• As text (when screen scraping): http://www.rationalmind.net/random.php

If you want to submit your own quotes, you can browse the full list and add new quotes.

Introducing live chat!

Objectivism Online now has a new live chat page at www.objectivismonline.net/chat/ Try it out and add a plug to your website:

<iframe src="http://www.objectivismonline.net/chat/whois.php" height="72" frameborder="0" scrolling="auto" width="220"></iframe>


Sneak Preview of The Virtuous Egoist

Heh. This will be my second, uncharacteristically short post in one day. The apocalypse is at hand.

Via Passing Thoughts, I have learned that an excerpt of Tara Smith's upcoming scholarly book, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, is available on line. He recommends the PDF version since it has the footnotes. Here's an excerpt of the excerpt:

Much recent discussion in ethics has danced around the edges of egoism, as renewed attention to virtue ethics, eudaimonia, and perfectionism naturally raise questions about the role of self-interest in a good life. Although the ancient Greek conception of ethics that is currently enjoying a revival does not fit stereotypes of egoism, it certainly does not advocate altruism. As Rosalind Hursthouse acknowledges, much virtue ethics portrays morality as a form of enlightened self-interest. Although authors increasingly have defended aspects of egoism (see, for instance, David Schmidtz, Jean Hampton, Neera Badhwar), the overwhelming majority of ethicists remains averse not only to endorsing egoism but even to seriously considering it. Those who do speak on its behalf usually urge that we incorporate discrete elements of egoism, such as self-respect, alongside altruistic obligations. Rather than urge that we replace altruism with egoism, in other words, they seek to reconcile select self-beneficial qualities with the altruism that we all already "know" morality demands. This latter assumption remains ubiquitous. Christine Korsgaard's claim that "...moral conduct by definition is not motivated by self-interest" is typical.

Consequently, the questions raised by these recent developments in moral philosophy have not been adequately pursued. Is eudaimonia a selfish end? What does selfishness actually mean? What sorts of actions does it demand? What are the implications of pursuing eudaimonia for a person's relationships with others? Yet another nascent movement in ethics, perhaps spawned by virtue ethics, also points to a need to confront egoism more squarely: the advocacy of naturalism as the foundation of morality. In the past few years, Philippa Foot, Rosalind Hursthouse, and Berys Gaut have all defended the idea that the bedrock source of proper moral norms rests in needs dictated by human nature. A little earlier, James Wallace's Virtues and Vices (1978) advocated the same basic view. [footnote numbers omitted]

Mike says, "I'm looking forward to reading the entire book, but $80!?" I say, "Gulp!"

-- CAV

Marine veterans appalled by University of Washington attempt to spin Boyington controversy

Below is the Marine veterans' answer the University of Washington administration's weasel-like response to the Boyington open letter.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A group of Marine Corps veterans remain dismayed by the University of Washington's response to the national outrage surrounding a decision by the university's student government to quash a proposal that would have honored university alumnus and Medal of Honor recipient Gregory "Pappy" Boyington with a small memorial.

Angered by reports that the student government's action was animated by the view that Boyington was a "white male" who killed other people and thus was not a role model worthy of emulation, a group of one-hundred-fourteen Marine Corps veterans wrote an open letter to the university community defending Boyington and calling on the university community to reconsider its decision. Yet instead of a thoughtful response to an upsetting controversy, the veterans received a form letter reply that denied that any of the outrageous statements reported in the media took place.

According to Nicholas Provenzo, author of the open letter and a Marine veteran, the university is attempting to spin the controversy away rather than take ownership of the appalling statements made against the memory a great American hero.

"This controversy didn't miracle itself into existence," says Provenzo. "What did happen was members of the public examined the posted minutes of the student senate meeting where the monument proposal was voted down. When they read the offensive and incendiary statements made by some of the students, that was enough to ignite the firestorm."

"It's the students own record of their meeting that sparked this national outrage," says Provenzo. "Yet the university nevertheless has the gall to accuse the public of misconstruing the very words the students used to describe their own debate."

"This issue is about more than just a monument to one man," says David Williams, another veteran signatory of the open-letter. "It is about recognizing that the actions by certain people in history were essential toward protecting the freedoms that are the basis of our nation and civilization."

"The irony of this debate is that the students are now spiting on the memory of a man whose very deeds allow them to speak their minds without fear of repercussion from police, church, or government," says Williams.

University of Washington spins "Pappy" Boyington outrage

I received the following form letter reply from the University of Washington for the Marine veteran's letter that was sent out this morning:

President Emmert asked me to respond on his behalf to your message about the Associated Students of the University of Washington (ASUW) Senate debate regarding a memorial to honor Col. Boyington.

The ASUW Senate, an arm of student government on campus, is a forum in which students discuss a wide range of issues, including the proposal for the memorial. After considerable debate, the resolution failed by a tiebreaker vote. As ASUW Senate Chair Alex Kim described in the message below, students thought long and hard about their decision and cast their votes for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons that have been publicized are addressed in Mr. Kim's report.

According to Mr. Kim and ASUW President Lee Dunbar, who co-sponsored the resolution, many students felt that we should honor all veterans appropriately, and not single out one, even though Col. Boyington was a Medal of Honor winner. It should also be noted that thanks to the work of Dean Emeritus Brewster Denny and the contributions of many UW alumni, several years ago the University erected a fitting memorial to UW students, faculty and staff who lost their lives in World War II.

Different versions of what transpired during the debate have circulated through the electronic media. I hope you will take a moment to read Mr. Kim's account. I also hope that regardless of one's point of view on this issue, the exercise of democracy that occurred at the Senate meeting can be seen as a meaningful learning opportunity for the students engaged in the debate.

Sincerely,

Eric S. Godfrey
Acting Vice President for Student Affairs

________________________________________________________________________

It has recently come to our attention that the actions of the ASUW Student Senate last night have been greatly misrepresented to the student body and the general public. As such I wanted to clarify what actually occurred.

The Student Senate exists to create official student opinion by bringing together student representatives from all across campus. The resolution concerning Colonel Boyington (available online at http://senate.asuw.org/legislation/12/R/R-12-18.html) cited the Colonel's exemplary service record, including the fact that he was awarded the Medal of Honor for service in World War II. The resolution called for the creation of a memorial in his honor. Passage of the resolution would not have necessarily resulted in the creation such a memorial, but would have recommended it to the University of Washington.

The debate within the Senate was fair, balanced, and respectful. Senators representing a diverse array of viewpoints spoke on the resolution, raising numerous points as to the merits and demerits of the resolution.

1.) The ASUW Student Senate declined to support the construction of a memorial for an individual. This in no way indicates a lack of respect for the individual or the cause, merely that the Senate did not support the construction of a memorial. The Senate weighed factors such as financial viability, the logistics of implementation, which historical points are relevant, and the difficulty in assessing which veterans should be memorialized over others. Questions regarding these factors were not addressed in the legislation itself and thus became points of debate during the meeting.

2.) Senators speak on behalf of the opinions of their constituents. This legislation has been posted publicly for nearly a month and senators have used that time to discuss the issues with their constituents. There is no way to distill a central argument of the Senate for or against any piece of legislation the Senate discusses. While the vote itself is a yes or no decision, the reasons senators choose to vote in a particular manner vary widely. Therefore, it is inappropriate to represent a decision by the Therefore, it is inappropriate to represent a decision by the Senate as resulting from any single statement or point-of-view.

3.) No senator speaking in opposition to the resolution suggested that deaths in war are the equivalent of murder. One senator, in making a motion to remove references to the number of Japanese planes shot down, suggested the focus of the resolution should be on the man's service to his country. The sponsor of the amendment suggested that death in war was sometimes a "necessary evil" and that the focus of the honor should not be on the necessary evil, but rather on the service. That motion passed overwhelmingly. A further amendment to remove the text of the inscription of the Medal of Honor from the legislation subsequently failed overwhelmingly.

4.) No senator stated that we should not pass the resolution on the grounds that Colonel Boyington was a "white male." One senator stated that we have many monuments and memorials to white males, but did not suggest this was a reason to not support the resolution.

Throughout the debate in the Student Senate, the tone was very respectful.

If you have any additional questions, please contact:
ASUW President Lee Dunbar (asuwpres@u.washington.edu),
Student Senate Chair Alex Kim (asuwssch@u.washington.edu),
Student Senate Vice-Chair Erin Shields (asuwssvc@u.washington.edu)
or Director of Operations Karl Smith (asuwbdop@u.washington.edu)

Alex Kim
Student Senate Chair
Associated Students of the University of Washington
206.543.1780(office)
206.669.9562 (mobile)
http://senate.asuw.org/

Office of the President
University of Washington
Room 301, Gerberding Hall
Box 351230
Seattle, WA 98195
Phone: (206) 543-5010
Fax: (206) 616-1784

This is what one calls spin. "Oh we didn't to this, we did that--Oh, we didn't mean this, we meant that."

This story didn't just miracle itself into existence. What did happen was someone read the posted minuets of the student senate meeting that nixed the monument proposal with all its incendiary quotes, and that was enough to ignite the firestorm.

It's their own minuets--how can the university accuse the public of misconstruing the very words the students themselves used to memorialize their senate meeting?

My spin detector is signaling red hot here. Time to get thinking about the next steps . . .

Science and the State

A Leaden Silence on the Threat to Free Speech

An ominous silence has followed the initial uproar over the Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. The silence is deafening, emanating from two quarters that properly should be the most concerned: the news media and the government. They are either oblivious or indifferent to the crucial issue of the inviolability of the First Amendment.

Instead, they are obsessed with issues far removed from the question of whether or not anyone has the right to mock an idea or an icon or simply express thoughtful criticism of it. New Orleans and the Katrina victims, Vice President Cheney's hunting accident, videos of state policemen hit by passing cars while writing speeding tickets, obese children, and truth in multi-grain cereal labels, comprise just a fraction of the myopic fare offered on primetime news. So many deserving scrub pines obscure the redwoods in the distance.

The continuing destructive and deadly riots against the cartoons in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other locales now only merit incidental reportage, if any at all. Our politicians as well have tiptoed around the cartoon subject with a pusillanimity hard to credit them. They are otherwise so voluble about everything else, such as the necessity of smoking bans, gun control, reducing high cholesterol, punishing oil companies for their profits, and simpler Medicare prescription drug guidelines.

One should not blame semi-clueless, photogenic news anchors too much; they are just highly paid teleprompter readers posing as reporters cum entertainers. They read whatever their highly paid, politically correct house news writers churn out on orders from their editors. Who are they to initiate a probe into the speech restrictions of the Campaign Finance Law?

One can, however, charge a heavier responsibility to our politicians. Every one of them is sworn to uphold the Constitution, but not one has dared say much about the Danish cartoonists and how their predicament and jeopardy might just as easily be imported to the U.S. and experienced by American cartoonists. A veritable "clash of civilizations" is underway. Not one governor, senator, or representative has shown the least inclination to enter the fray on behalf of his electorate or constituents, or even demonstrated awareness of the clash.

One might be tempted to think they are exercising discretion as the better part of valor; after all, they could very well be targeted for Islamic violence or at least a noisy demonstration by Muslims if they publicly took the side of free speech and never minded anyone's offended feelings. But that temptation would be brief, given the venal and pragmatic character of most politicians. Their philosophy of serving and protecting productive Americans is to manage and regulate their lives for their own good, in exchange for handsome salaries, generous medical benefits, bountiful retirement plans, and innumerable perquisites. All paid for by fettered and yoked tax cows.

The realm of ideas and rights seems too frightening for most politicians to venture into. They fear it for one of two reasons: they might discover principles which they might otherwise feel compelled to champion, but would not want to for various reasons ranging from party loyalty to careerist inconvenience; or because they might anticipate the shame of ignorance and a sense of inferiority that can only be assuaged by a pragmatic disdain projecting a sense of superiority. As one Oxford don, a professor of logic, remarked: "Philosophy teaches you how to detect bad arguments, so it is no surprise when politicians are not keen for it to be studied." Nor keen to study it, either.

Silence is golden, goes the proverb. Golden, perhaps, for a spell of contemplation and cogitation. Silence can be leaden, too, signaling a baleful ignorance or a pernicious turpitude when the times demand the knowledge, courage and character of our Founders. Listen carefully; you might in time hear the dull thud of the First Amendment as it falls behind a diverting forest of the pedestrian and mundane, unheralded by our pseudo-Solons and unnoticed by the news media.

A Chinese Hero

Way back in May, I learned about a very brave man, Li Xinde, a blogger in China, through this article, "Death by a Thousand Blogs", which is very good and still available. From that article, it might be worth recalling what Li has to do to blog.

Li travels around China with an I.B.M. laptop and a digital camera, investigating cases of official wrongdoing. Then he writes about them on his Web site and skips town before the local authorities can arrest him.

Think about that the next time you get cranky about the inconvenience of blogging, as I did a little today after a really crazy week both on and off the job. Puts things into perspective just a wee bit.

At any rate, I'm glad to hear that Mr. Li still kicking despite the best efforts of the three stooges, Yahoo, and the Chinese authorities. Interestingly, as Cox and Forkum report, censorship is being challeneged from within China. (If the government loosens up, it would probably be for no nobler reason than the fact that they simply aren't succeeding and they're hoping to "liberalize" so they can take credit.)

I've blogged about the gargantuan task of clamping the lid down on Chinese censorship here and here, as well as on civil unrest. Cox and Forkum quote the New York Times.

"At the turning point in our history from a totalitarian to a constitutional system, depriving the public of freedom of speech will bring disaster for our social and political transition and give rise to group confrontation and social unrest," the letter [by some former Communist Party officials and some scholars] said. "Experience has proved that allowing a free flow of ideas can improve stability and alleviate social problems."

Blogger Li Xinde, however, says, in a very interesting article, "too late!"

Chinese Communist Party elders and U.S. lawmakers fired shots at China's powerful censors this week, but Li Xinde says muck-raking campaigners like himself are undermining the country's barriers to free speech every day.

Li is one of just a handful of Internet investigative reporters, exposing corrupt officials and injustice on his China Public Opinion Surveillance Net (www.yuluncn.com). [Link added, but you'll need to know Chinese. And: Why didn't Reuters add a hyperlink?]

Here's some more on how he blogs and how effective he has been.

[Li] spreads his often outrageous, sometimes gruesome stories on some of the 49 blogs he uses to slip past censors.

"They shut down one, so I move to another," he told Reuters.

"It's what Chairman Mao called sparrow tactics. You stay small and independent, you move around a lot, and you choose when to strike and when to run."

Li, 46, lives in Fuyang, a city of 360,000 in the rural eastern province of Anhui, and he is far from a household name among Chinese readers, even Internet enthusiasts.

But some of the cases he first reported became notorious after other reporters, even state-run television, took them up. Li's Web site has become a magnet for discontented rural citizens hoping to turn his spotlight on their complaints.

In 2004, Li helped bring down a corrupt deputy mayor in the eastern province of Shandong after posting bizarre pictures of the official kneeling before his one-time business partner, apparently begging her to stay silent.

And oh yeah. He makes a living at this and has something Larry, Sergey, and Bill (and quite a few others) need to hear.

Before embracing the Internet in 2003, Li was a soldier who joined the Communist Party and and then worked as a reporter for a series of small newspapers. Now payments from well-wishers and reporters who use his leads give him a small living.

Several Chinese journalists who have written for Internet sites abroad are in jail, and in two cases Yahoo provided evidence used against them.

Li said it might make business sense for international companies such as Yahoo and Google to comply with China's censors, "but morally it's wrong to sell people's freedom". [link and bold added]

Li's efforts are heroic and bode ill for the Chi-Comm's efforts to maintain authoritarian rule, but do they portend a revolution or merely a revolt?

On loading Li's site, I noticed that a wallpaper of Communist symbols appeared in my browser while I waited for the site to load. Also, Li mentions Mao at one point during the article and at least has been a Communist. It would be interesting to know whether Li now considers himself a Communist, and whether many like him who are unhappy with the government merely think it is no longer properly implementing Communism.

A quick search unearthed this article, from a site produced in Hong Kong, but hosted in the U.S., which holds a more pessimistic view of the impact people like Li can have, and has this to say about him.

Li Xinde's website is decorated with a banner featuring a picture of Hu Jintao and animated Party slogans like "Completely implement the Three Represents" (reproduced above). Li Xinde is himself a Party member.

Although being a Communist in China may be about as significant as being a member of a union in America, I have heard often about Chinese citizens who do not see Communism as a big problem. (Indeed, many in the U.S. spy for China.)

As heroic as Li's efforts are, then, any optimism for China has to be tempered by the realization that even some of its most heroic dissidents may not fully grasp the connection between Communism and their present state of serfdom. A revolution that is not animated by ideas more conducive to freedom than Communism may weaken China militarily and might improve the lot of her people in the short term. But in the long term, the Chinese people will not become free if they replace their fascist state with a more truly Communist one.

-- CAV

"I Don't Think, Therefore I Don't Exist"

Daily Illini Editors Suspended

[Welcome Norbizness readers! Please show your liberal support of freedom of the press! Write to the University of Illinois and condemn them for squashing dissent at a student newspaper!]

The other day I posted on The Undercurrent's letter to the staff of the Daily Illini for having the courage to print the Mohammed cartoons. Let us not forget that the left controls college campuses and the left considers the Islamists to be their brothers-in-arms. I guess this was to be expected:

Illinois Student Newspaper Editors Suspended for Running the Danish Cartoons [via The Volokh Conspiracy via Instapundit]

Well as Andrew Sullivan said:

You can see Saddam Hussein in his underwear and members of the royal family in compromising positions. You can see Andres Serrano’s famously blasphemous photograph of a crucifix in urine, called Piss Christ. But a political cartoon that deals with Islam? Not our job, guv. Move right along. Nothing to see here.

It would be interesting to perform a review of the Daily Illini over, say, the last six years and see if this is the greatest "sin" of its editors. I doubt it.

UPDATE: This story is gaining steam. The Chicago Tribune throws the BS flag on Mary Cory, the publisher of the DI.

The problem with Mary Cory's letter--and a big reason I ripped her for humbug yesterday -- is that she simultaneously asserts "the right of the editor in chief to have full editorial control of the paper" while denying that right.

Further, she says that "the public will erroneously think the editors were suspended for running the cartoons" when, in fact, we all know that's exactly why they were suspended.

I agree. Ms. Cory sounds like a real PC-type. Her editor may have been guilty of some questionable practices, but in the end, Cory's story doesn't hold water.

In addition, I've got some interesting visitors to this post...a major network and the office of the president of a major university. Not terribly unusual, but oddly focused upon one post in a short time frame.

UPDATE: "I don't think therefore I don't exist." Here.

University of Washington should honor 'Pappy' Boyington

Below is the text of an open letter I am composing in regards to the recent decision by the University of Washington's student government to quash a proposal to erect a small monument to Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, a WWII Marine Corps legend.

My goal is to get marine veterans to sign the letter which I will submit to the university president, student government president and campus newspaper. [Hat tip: Grant Jones at the Dougout]

An open letter to the students, faculty and staff of the University of Washington:

According to the University of Washington student government, university alumnus Gregory "Pappy" Boyington should not be honored with a memorial on campus because as a Marine Corps officer, he was a "rich white man" who killed the enemies he fought, and was not a person university students should strive to emulate.

As veterans of the Marine Corps who have dedicated our lives to the defense of America, we find the student government's position deeply offensive and hypocritical. The exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of an American academic institution is the product of America's protection of the freedom of the mind. Without that freedom, the university itself ceases to exist.

Yet during the Second World War, the freedom of the mind was under deliberate attack by the forces of fascism and military dictatorship. American victory was only achieved because of the great courage, skill, and commitment of those who fought-a group of men and women who often won their battles at a great personal cost.

Few better personify the history of this struggle than Colonel "Pappy" Boyington. A maverick leader, Boyington assembled one of the most effective air wings in the Pacific theater of battle and was personally responsible for twenty-eight aerial victories over Japanese fighters. As commander of the famous "Black Sheep" squadron, Boyington led a formation of twenty-four Marine fighters over a Japanese airbase where sixty hostile aircraft were grounded. There, Boyington and his men persistently circled the airdrome and shot down twenty Japanese fighters without the loss of a single American aircraft. Later shot down himself and captured by the Japanese, Boyington endured twenty harrowing months as a prisoner of war.

Yet in final victory, Boyington bore no hatred toward his former enemy, and even credited a Japanese woman for saving him from death by starvation while he was a prisoner. A grateful nation choose to honor Boyington with the Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross, America's two top awards for heroism and valor under fire.

In the face of such achievement, it is inconceivable to us that the students of today's University of Washington would throttle an attempt to honor one of their university's most famous and illustrious alumni. The university community stands in part due to the deeds of this giant, yet today it seems all Boyington's memory receives from the university is malice and false witness.

Worse, these curses against Boyington's name come at a time when a new generation of Americans are locked in a life-and-death struggle with an enemy no less as tyrannical then the one Boyington had to face. Will this new generation of American servicemen and women be denied the inspiration of the University of Washington's great alumnus because a handful of students blanch at the thought of killing an enemy who is trying to kill us and are wedded to a pet ideology that slanders courage?

We, the undersigned hope not. We urge our fellow Americans to remember Boyington as a unique American hero, worthy of emulation, and we urge the students of the University of Washington to redress the injustice its student government has committed against a great hero's memory.

Andy Bernstein on Ayn Rand's Fiction

A rather large number of lectures by Andy Bernstein are on sale at the Ayn Rand Bookstore through February. For those who've heard some or all of them, I'm wondering which you might recommend as particularly enlightening. To set the context, I'm largely interested in them as source material for teaching The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in philosophy courses. So Kantianism vs. Objectivism in The Fountainhead and Ayn Rand's Characters as Philosophic Archetypes (Parts 1 & 2) sound particularly interesting to me.

Here's the list of the lectures on sale:

• Rational Egoism in The Fountainhead -- Sale Price: $22.36 (List Price: $27.95)
  
• Kantianism vs. Objectivism in The Fountainhead -- Sale Price: $14.36 (List Price: $17.95)
  
• Ayn Rand's Characters as Philosophic Archetypes (Parts 1 & 2) -- Sale Price: $88.74 (List Price: $147.90)
  
• The Mind vs. Collectivism in Ayn Rand's Novels -- Sale Price: $11.16 (List Price: $13.95)
  
• The Mind as Hero in Atlas Shrugged -- Sale Price: $19.16 (List Price: $23.95)
  
• Atlas Shrugged as the Culmination of the Romantic Novel -- Sale Price: $14.36 (List Price: $17.95)
  
• Philosophic and Literary Integration in Atlas Shrugged -- Sale Price: $63.67 (List Price: $90.95)
  
• Objectivism's Man-Worship vs. Contemporary Man-Hatred -- Sale Price: $44.96 (List Price: $59.95)
  
• The Philosophy of Romantic Fiction -- Sale Price: $47.21 (List Price: $62.95)
  
• How to Be an Impassioned Valuer -- Sale Price: $38.96 (List Price: $51.95)
  
• Primacy of Consciousness vs. The Objectivist Ethics -- Sale Price: $42.71 (List Price: $56.95)
  
• Objectivism and the Revolution in Political Philosophy -- Sale Price: $48.27 (List Price: $68.95)
  
• How to Spread Objectivism -- Sale Price: $7.00 (List Price: $8.75)
  
• Objectivism for Beginners -- Sale Price: $42.71 (List Price: $56.95)
  
• Four Giants of Philosophy -- Sale Price: $34.46 (List Price: $45.95)
  
• Friedrich Nietzsche: His Thought, His Legacy, His Influence on Ayn Rand -- Sale Price: $48.27 (List Price: $68.95)
  
• Villainy: The Nature of Evil -- Sale Price: $14.36 (List Price: $17.95)

I'm still very intrestested in what listeners would recommend.

LUPERCALIA

From the article, Saudi lovers suffer blues over red roses:

Valentine's day is a bonanza for florists around the world. But selling red roses is complicated in Saudi Arabia, where religious authorities tell young people not to imitate western culture, especially when the celebration is related to a Christian saint. (FT.com, 02/13/06.)

I wonder if the members of the American Family Association are aware that Valentine's Day has its roots from celebrating the god of fertility...

Here is a quote by Dwayne Bell:

It seems it's much more important to Christian totalitarians to not fall behind the Islamic totalitarian tyrannies in the world. Not only are the AFA and its supporters completely unconcerned what living under a religious dictatorship would be like for our children and grandchildren, it would appear that this is their ultimate goal.

In light of the fact that internationally right now the U.S. is siding with Islamic thugs over the Dutch free speech activists, do we have long to wait for similar violence domesticly from totalitarian Christians? (BodyInMind.com, 02/11/06.)

Recommended reading: My post, HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY.

Hmmm. The Indians weren't hippies, after all!

Democrat Desperation

Book Review

Ayn Rand: My Fiction-Writing Teacher by Erika Holzer has a lot of good tips for writers. Holzer was fortunate to have Ayn Rand give her private lessons in fiction writing in the 1960’s. The book has a lot of anecdotes of conversations the author had with Ayn Rand.

The portrait of Ayn Rand in this book is different from the smears of her enemies. Murray Rothbard, the Brandens and even William F. Buckley, Jr. in a recent novel depict Rand as a bizarre woman who dictates how others must think. There is none of that here.

Being a philosopher as well as a novelist (and a good introspecter), Ayn Rand understood better than anyone the thinking a writer needs to do to create good fiction. She understood that she could not do Holzer’s thinking for her and instead pointed her in the direction of the work she needed to do.

People with a shallow or rationalistic understanding of Objectivism might be surprised that Rand advised Holzer to write about things she had strong feelings about. Rand urged fiction writers to be selfish and write about what excited them. Otherwise, writing feels too much like a duty and if anything gets done the product is lifeless.

Rand also advised a writer not to overdo the outline, but to leave room for flexibility. A detailed, rigid outline shuts down the subconscious from producing new ideas.

Holzer’s tips on revising are especially useful, as she lists what she looks for in each pass. She might go through a manuscript one time just looking for clichés, another time just looking for character consistency, etc. This is not platonic, inspirational writing. The amount of revising work and the different things Rand and Holzer looked for are good to know. A writer needs to put in the extra effort.

I was surprised to see that on the subject of how to make a logical progression of events, Ayn Rand sounds very much like Bernard Grebanier and the syllogism method he writes about in Playwriting. Grebanier got his ideas on plot from a critic named William Price, who got his ideas from Aristotle. Here is how Holzer says Rand explains the logical progression of Romeo and Juliet:

To have a logical progression, you must first have a common dramatic element. Look at it in three steps.

Step one: love at first sight.

Step two: marriage.

The common element is the family feud. It infuses step one and two with drama and builds in a logical progression to an inevitable question – to step three:

Will they be happy?

At first glance it might seem odd that something as emotional and exciting as drama depends on logic, which most people think of as dry and detached from values. But in fact, without logical inevitability there is no drama. The process of “if this, then that” is the essence of a logical progression of events – the essence of a plot.

Some parts of Holzer’s book are less interesting, such as her Hollywood experiences. She wastes two chapters on endorsements for her novels. The chapter discussing what actors should play the parts in Atlas Shrugged will be outdated in five years, which is just as well – the actors Holzer picks all seem hopelessly inadequate to me. Russell Crowe as Hank Reardon? Annette Benning as Dagny Taggart? Gag.

In one annoying chapter Holzer fictionalizes a conversation with Ayn Rand about the 2002 Academy Awards show. It didn’t sound like Ayn Rand to me. I can’t picture her saying “reverse racism,” which is just racism, or talking about hobbits.

Submission

Amit Ghate at Thrutch:

I discovered today that Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's film Submission, directed by the murdered Theo Van Gogh, is available as a google film. I suggest watching it ASAP, before Islamists have it withdrawn.

Here.

Atlas on UPN?

I had heard from several sources about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged being used as a prop device for the UPN sitcom One on One, but it wasn't until I saw this clip [Hat Tip: NoodleFood and CyberNet] that I realized just how utterly remarkable the presentation was. The Atlas Shrugged reference is exact, informative and precisely what one might say if they were to offer a brief explanation of Objectivism to a friend.

The story goes like this: an 18-something Breanna is stressed out while preparing for a college philosophy test on Objectivism the next day. Her friends enter and explain to her that Objectivism is an integrated philosophy that Ayn Rand developed to show man as he is-and ought to be. After a quip about the cover of the book (Breanna's boyfriend Arnaz notes that if Atlas is holding up the world, what then is he standing on), they all get to studying.

And that's the clip. Incredible!

Now I can just imagine someone saying that's not how you present philosophy and the portrayal was on UPN, so it can't be any good. Oh, spare me. The fact is a 5th season sitcom ran a positive portrayal of Objectivism that featured attractive young people treating the philosophy as something a person with high aspirations ought to know. That's fantastic.

Hell, I wish I would have had that to watch when I was a Marine on sea duty instead of all those tapes of Family Matters my platoon-mate's mother had sent him.

Abramoff Scandal

From Dr. Yaron Brook:

Washington's attempts to fight rampant corruption will amount to nothing unless they address its basic cause.

The fundamental reason for today's rampant corruption is that our government has adopted a corrupt purpose. Once a protector of the life, liberty, and property of every American, the US government now uses its power to pursue an undefined "public good" by sacrificing some Americans to other Americans.

If we want to get rid of the Jack Abramoffs and the "bridges to nowhere," we have to return our government to its sole legitimate purpose: the protection of individual rights.

Dr. Yaron Brook
Ayn Rand Institute Executive Director
Irvine, CA

Undercurrent Call For Submissions - April Issue

Dear students and Undercurrent supporters,

After publishing over 20,000 copies of our fifth issue--and distributing it on 34 campuses across North America--we are excited to begin work on our sixth. The next deadline for submissions is March 1st.

At present, we are anticipating that the next issue, due out in April, will focus mainly on foreign policy. As usual, however, we are interested in looking at submissions on all topics, so please feel free to submit anything you think may be of general interest to a college audience unfamiliar with Objectivism.

Whatever your idea, it also helps to email an abstract of your topic in advance of the deadline. This way we can let you know if yours is the kind of piece we're interested in running.

Best,

The Undercurrent Staff
http://www.the-undercurrent.com
mail@the-undercurrent.com

Valentine's Day

Sunny Andy Bernstein

Wow, what a delightfully pleasant interview with Andy Bernstein in today's Baltimore Sun! Andy will be speaking in Columbia, Maryland on Saturday, February 18th. (That's in my old territory -- just about 25 minutes from the farm on which I grew up.)

Here's the announcement:

Bernstein to Talk in Maryland on February 18

Andrew Bernstein will have a book signing and presentation about The Capitalist Manifesto in Columbia, Maryland on February 18. The title of the talk is: "The Capitalist Manifesto: How in Two Brief Centuries Capitalism Brought Freedom and Widespread Wealth to Mankind After Millennia of Oppression and Destitution." Multiple copies of the book will be available for sale.

Manfred Smith is organizing this event. If you would like to help Manfred to advertise the event, or have any questions, please contact him at 410-730-0073 or manfredsmith_at_comcast.net.

Book Signing and Presentation
Saturday, FEBRUARY 18th at 1:00 pm
Howard Community College
Columbia, MD
Kittleman Room (ILB 100)

Please forward it to anyone in the area you think might be interested.

"Faith-Based" and Inescapable

Individualism Versus Non-conformism

A while back, Ranil Illesinghe has a nice post on the difference between individualism and non-conformism. The whole entry is worth reading, particularly for people new to Objectivism. I particularly liked the litmus test at the end:

I find that the best test to see whether or not someone is an individual is to ask the following question: If the mainstream acted in the same way that he acted, would he:
A. Stay the same OR
B. Do things differently?

If he chooses to stay the same, then he is a true individualist, because it does not matter how many people act LIKE you, as long as you are relying on nothing but your independent judgment. If they start being different for the sake of being different, then that person is the worst sort of coward -- the fashionable non-conformist.

Can you imagine Howard Roark abandoning his style of buildings simply because great masses of people started recognizing their superiority over the buildings designed by Peter Keating or Gus Webb? Perish the thought!

Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

This Spiegel interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Muslim response to the Danish cartoons is well worth reading in its entirety. However, I particularly appreciated this exchange:

SPIEGEL: What should the appropriate European response look like?

Hirsi Ali: There should be solidarity. The cartoons should be displayed everywhere. After all, the Arabs can't boycott goods from every country. They're far too dependent on imports. And Scandinavian companies should be compensated for their losses. Freedom of speech should at least be worth that much to us.

SPIEGEL: But Muslims, like any religious community, should also be able to protect themselves against slander and insult.

Hirsi Ali: That's exactly the reflex I was just talking about: offering the other cheek. Not a day passes, in Europe and elsewhere, when radical imams aren't preaching hatred in their mosques. They call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they're just exercising their freedom of speech. When will the Europeans realize that the Islamists don't allow their critics the same right? After the West prostrates itself, they'll be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless.

(Via Orson Olsen)

Also, Onkar Ghate has a good op-ed on the pathetic response of the United States government to these events. Here's a teaser:

Why does a Muslim have a moral right to his dogmas, but we don't to our rational principles? Why, when journalists uphold free speech and Muslims respond with death threats, does the State Department signal out the journalists for moral censure? Why the vicious double standard? Why admonish the good to mollify evil?

The answer lies in the West's conception of morality.

Beware, the last line of the article is quite chilling.

Kelly Clarkson

The Cartoon Jihad: Free Speech in the Balance

We must uncompromisingly defend the right to freedom of speech.

By Christian Beenfeldt and Onkar Ghate

A battle for Western freedom is being fought overseas. The specific object of the battle is merely a handful of cartoons. The outcome of the struggle, however, will reverberate for years.

The conflict began when the leading Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed twelve cartoons of Mohammed to expose and challenge the country's existing climate of fear of criticizing Islam. Confirming the newspaper's nightmares, the response was the deluge of Islamic rage, death threats and violence now sweeping the world.

The issue at stake is the right to speak one's mind.

Recognizing this, many European newspapers reprinted the cartoons. Echoing the story of the defiant slaves, who, when the Romans came for Spartacus, the leader of their rebellion, each proclaimed "I am Spartacus"--this was a clear show of support for the Danish paper and a symbolic affirmation of the right to free speech.

In the United States, however, fear of Muslim anger has suppressed a similar show of support. Indeed, the Bush administration and the mainstream media have generally sided with the raging religionists; while dutifully paying lip service to the First Amendment, their main concern has been for the "hurt feelings" of Muslims. Bush cautioned that we have "a responsibility to be thoughtful about others." Offering similar reasons, major U.S. newspapers like the New York Times refuse to print the cartoons. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the world that "of course freedom of speech is never absolute."

Well, is freedom of speech absolute?

Absolutely.

The right to free speech means the right to express one's ideas without danger of coercion, of physical suppression or interference, by anyone. This freedom includes the right to make movies, write books, draw pictures, voice political opinions--and satirize religion. This right flows from the right to think: the right to observe, to follow the evidence, to reach the conclusions you judge the facts warrant--and then to convey your thoughts to others.

To demand special status for any idea or ideology--to declare Judaism or Christianity or Marxism or Islam off-limits, above public criticism--is to negate these rights. No rational mind can function under the order: Follow the evidence wherever you think it leads, but don't you dare come to a negative conclusion about the philosophy of Marxism or the religion of Islam.

The consequence of making submission to authority and not thought--faith, not reason--the sacred value of a society can be observed throughout the Middle East, where censorship, state propaganda, intellectual stagnation, forced compliance with religious edicts and medieval punishments for religious offences are part of everyday life.

Unlike the Muslims now raging across the world, however, many Americans do cherish free speech--yet may be wondering, when so many other Muslims appear to be offended, is this really the issue on which to make an intransigent stand? The answer to this question is unequivocally yes.

Even if it were true that many Muslims are angered by the specific nature of the cartoons, not by the mere fact that Islam was criticized, their anger is irrelevant. Is a Jew to be silenced because Christians find it offensive that he refuses to accept the divinity of Jesus? Or are the Christians to be silenced, because the Jew finds the Trinity offensive? Is the atheist to be silenced, because Jew, Christian and Muslim alike find his ideas offensive? Maybe all the scientific heirs to Galileo should be silenced, as Galileo himself was by the Church, since those who take the Bible literally are angered by the claim that the earth moves?

If we allow anyone's feelings to reign, we destroy freedom of thought and speech.

In a free society, anyone angered by someone else's ideas has a simple and powerful recourse: don't buy his books, watch his movies, read his newspapers. If one judges his ideas dangerous, argue against them. The purveyor of evil ideas is no threat to those who remain free to counter them with rational ones.

(Note that many European nations have laws limiting free speech, all of which should be repealed; to protest these, however, one does not demand "equal censorship.")

The moment someone decides to answer those he finds offensive with a gun, not an argument--as many Muslims have by demanding that European governments censor the newspapers or by issuing calls for beheadings and other violence against Europeans--he removes himself from civilized society and any rational consideration.

And against this kind of threat to free speech, every free man must stand up. We must vociferously condemn the attempt by religionists to impose censorship in the West. We must extol--without apology or qualifications--the indispensable pillar of a free society: freedom of thought and speech.

The U.S. press should do so by immediately publishing the cartoons, declaring that "I, too, am Spartacus."

Dr. Onkar Ghate, PhD in philosophy, is a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. Christian Beenfeldt, MA in philosophy, lives in Denmark and is a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Institute (www.aynrand.org/).

ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT

Glenn Reynolds says:

Sweden is rethinking its economic model in favor of one that's more friendly to small businesses and startups. (InstaPundit.com, 02/09/06.)

Here is an excerpt from the article (Sweden looks to fuel growth via economic, market reforms) Glenn Reynolds is linking to.

The non-socialist alliance's main goal is to lower taxation on labor and wealth, but it seeks to abolish unnecessary rules and regulations for those who start up their own company. Easing the path for Swedish entrepreneurs is a key issue on both sides of the political spectrum. Since the peak years between 1997 and 2000, the number of entrepreneurs has gone down dramatically with 20,000 fewer people starting up their own company in 2005. (MarketWatch.com, 02/09/06.)

I would be happy if this is really the case, but I think it is a long way to go... It is soon election time in Sweden and the debate is heating up between the politicians in power and business leaders.

The Social Democrats' party secretary Marita Ulvskog has accused Sweden's biggest companies of intentionally withholding investment in order to make the government look bad in the run-up to the election in September. Instead, she says, they are choosing to lavish billions on shareholders. (TheLocal.se, 02/08/06.)

IdeaTank will organize lectures and meetings on how to change the business climate. This week we had a meeting with the real estate owner, signing the contract. We will have the keys to the premises on March 1. We want to open for the public as soon as possible, but it takes time to deal with different agencies. The Companies Registration Office has taken about a month to handle our application. After we have got our "organization number," we have to send the blue print and a detailed list of the place to a similar agency (environment and food) like FDA. We are not allowed to start our business until a bureaucrat has come on a visit, checking our place. This procedure could take several weeks. We have to come up with our own "critical control point" program. There are new rules in the EU since January 1, 2006.

[Editor's note: If you know of a good content management system, please feel free to leave a comment or send an email. My business partners have set up a TikiWiki at our Blue Chip Café site.]

The Twilight of Freedom of Speech

The West's current failure to staunchly defend our freedom to speak and criticize is explained by the injunction to love our enemies.
By Onkar Ghate
To fathom our government's contemptible treatment of a handful of unbowed journalists, you must see the roots of that treatment in the moral ideal Christianity bequeathed the West.
In the face of the intimidation and murder of European authors, film makers and politicians by Islamic militants, a few European newspapers have the courage to defend their freedom of speech: they publish twelve cartoons to test whether it's still possible to criticize Islam. They discover it isn't. Muslims riot, burn embassies, and demand the censorship and death of infidels. The Danish cartoonists go into hiding; if they weren't afraid to speak before, they are now.

How do our leaders respond? Do they declare that an individual's freedom of speech is inviolable, no matter who screams offense at his ideas? No. Do they defend our right to life and pledge to hunt down anyone, anywhere, who abets the murder of a Westerner for having had the effrontery to speak? No--as they did not when the fatwa against Rushdie was issued or his translators were attacked and murdered.

Instead, the U.S. government announces that although free speech is important, the government shares "the offense that Muslims have taken at these images," and even hints that it is disrespectful to publish them.
Why does a Muslim have a moral right to his dogmas, but we don't to our rational principles? Why, when journalists uphold free speech and Muslims respond with death threats, does the State Department signal out the journalists for moral censure? Why the vicious double standard? Why admonish the good to mollify evil?

The answer lies in the West's conception of morality.
Morality, we are told incessantly, by secularists and religionists, the left and the right, means sacrifice; give up your values in selfless service to others. "Serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself," Bush proclaims to a believing nation.

But when you surrender your values, are you to give them up for men you admire, for those you think have earned and deserve them? Obviously not--otherwise yours would be an act of trade, of justice, of self-assertiveness, not self-sacrifice.

You must give to that which you don't admire, to that which you judge to be unworthy, undeserving, irrational. An employee, for instance, must give up his job for a competitor he deems inferior; a businessman must contribute to ideological causes he opposes; a taxpayer must fund modern, unemployed "artists" whose feces-covered works he loathes; the United States must finance the UN, which it knows to be a pack of America-hating dictatorships.

To uphold your rational convictions is the most selfish of acts. To renounce them, to surrender the world to that which you judge to be irrational and evil, is the epitome of sacrifice. When Jesus, the great preacher of self-sacrifice, commanded "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you," he knew whereof he spoke.

In the left's adaptation of this perverse ideal, selfless surrender to evil translates into a foreign policy of self-loathing and "sensitivity," of spitting in America and the West's face while showing respect for the barbarisms of every gang.

Bill Clinton, for instance, certainly no radical leftist, jumped into the recent fray to castigate us: "None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic groups, and different religions . . . there was this appalling example in . . . Denmark . . . these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam."

The answer lies in the West's conception of morality.
Morality, we are told incessantly, by secularists and religionists, the left and the right, means sacrifice; give up your values in selfless service to others. "Serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself," Bush proclaims to a believing nation.

But when you surrender your values, are you to give them up for men you admire, for those you think have earned and deserve them? Obviously not--otherwise yours would be an act of trade, of justice, of self-assertiveness, not self-sacrifice.

You must give to that which you don't admire, to that which you judge to be unworthy, undeserving, irrational. An employee, for instance, must give up his job for a competitor he deems inferior; a businessman must contribute to ideological causes he opposes; a taxpayer must fund modern, unemployed "artists" whose feces-covered works he loathes; the United States must finance the UN, which it knows to be a pack of America-hating dictatorships.

To uphold your rational convictions is the most selfish of acts. To renounce them, to surrender the world to that which you judge to be irrational and evil, is the epitome of sacrifice. When Jesus, the great preacher of self-sacrifice, commanded "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you," he knew whereof he spoke.

In the left's adaptation of this perverse ideal, selfless surrender to evil translates into a foreign policy of self-loathing and "sensitivity," of spitting in America and the West's face while showing respect for the barbarisms of every gang.

Bill Clinton, for instance, certainly no radical leftist, jumped into the recent fray to castigate us: "None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic groups, and different religions . . . there was this appalling example in . . . Denmark . . . these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam."


In the right's version, selfless surrender to evil translates into a foreign policy of self-effacing service.

Our duty, Bush declares, is to bring the vote to Iraqis and Palestinians, but we dare not tell them what constitution to adopt, or ban the killers they want to vote for. We have no right to assert our principles, because they are rational and good. But the Iraqis and Palestinians have a right to enact their tribal and terrorist beliefs at our expense, because their beliefs are irrational and evil. In the present crisis, the State Department will not defend free speech, because this principle is rationally defensible; to unequivocally assert this value would be selfish. But the Department will suggest that we respectfully refrain from publishing cartoons that upset the mental lethargy of self-made slaves to authority; Muslims have a right to their mystical taboos, precisely because the beliefs are mystical.

Tonight, when you turn on the news and see hatred-seething hordes burning the West's flags and torching its embassies, remember that this is the enemy your morality commands you to love and serve--and remember the lonely Danes hiding in fear for their lives.

And then, in the ultimate act of self-assertiveness, pledge to renounce the morality of sacrifice and learn its opposite: the morality of rational self-interest.

Though the West's twilight has begun, the darkness of suicide has not yet engulfed us. We still have a chance.

Dr. Onkar Ghate is a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

State Department vs. Free Speech

Dear Editor:

Our State Department's condemnation of European newspapers for printing cartoons of Mohammad--in the face of Muslim death threats against this act of free speech--is a low point in American diplomatic history.

When Muslim groups threaten the West for "un-Islamic" content, it is irrelevant whether the content in question is in bad taste. The only proper response is to condemn the militant enemies of free speech, and to do whatever is necessary to make sure that they do not act on their threats. The idea that freedom of the press must be "coupled with press responsibility" means that we are only free to say things that don't offend Muslims--which means that free speech is not a right, but a fleeting permission.

Dr. Yaron Brook
Ayn Rand Institute executive director

Solidarity

According to Brit Hume tonight, the Denver's own Rocky Mountain News is one of just four American newspapers willing to publish the Danish cartoons. Ari Armstrong saw the print edition. He said that the newspaper published the "Stop stop we ran out of virgins!" cartoon with this op-ed. As Ari said, "Surely, according to the principles of justice, the News deserves our gratitude and thanks for its defense of liberty and denunciation of Muslim violence." I particularly loved this passage from the editorial:

Defense of free speech is not so robust in this country as it could be, either. A State Department spokesman issued a mealy-mouthed statement that recognized the importance of freedom of speech but then added that the publication of cartoons that incite religious or ethnic hatred is unacceptable -- as if that is what happened. There is no evidence whatsoever that the cartoons incited hatred against Muslims or Islam, only that they incited violence by Muslims. That is, indeed, unacceptable.

From what I've read, most media outlets refusing to print the cartoons claim that to do so would be offensive to Muslims, in bad taste, and so on. That's a pathetic, context-dropping rationalization. They ought not run the cartoons as cartoons -- but as news. However, at this point, given the overwhelming barbarity of the response from the Muslim world, the cartoons damn well ought to be reprinted as cartoons, not just as an act of solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, but also as a perfectly just comment upon the deplorable violence of the Muslim response.

Election In Costa Rica

Frederick Douglass

A few days ago, I was preparing some notes for an upcoming FROG discussion of the chapter on slavery from Andy Bernstein's so-far excellent book The Capitalist Manifesto. Apropos Andy's argument that Enlightenment rather than Christian ideals eliminated slavery in the West, I remembered Frederick Douglass' comments on the particular brutality of religious slaveowners from his short but powerful Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. The passage was even more wonderful than I remembered:

Another advantage I gained in my new master was, he made no pretensions to, or profession of, religion; and this, in my opinion, was truly a great advantage. I assert most unhesitatingly, that the religion of the south is a mere covering for the most horrid crimes,--a justifier of the most appalling barbarity,--a sanctifier of the most hateful frauds,--and a dark shelter under, which the darkest, foulest, grossest, and most infernal deeds of slaveholders find the strongest protection. Were I to be again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to that enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall me. For of all slaveholders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have ever found them the meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others. It was my unhappy lot not only to belong to a religious slaveholder, but to live in a community of such religionists. Very near Mr. Freeland lived the Rev. Daniel Weeden, and in the same neighborhood lived the Rev. Rigby Hopkins. These were members and ministers in the Reformed Methodist Church. Mr. Weeden owned, among others, a woman slave, whose name I have forgotten. This woman's back, for weeks, was kept literally raw, made so by the lash of this merciless, religious wretch. He used to hire hands. His maxim was, Behave well or behave ill, it is the duty of a master occasionally to whip a slave, to remind him of his master's authority. Such was his theory, and such his practice.

Mr. Hopkins was even worse than Mr. Weeden. His chief boast was his ability to manage slaves. The peculiar, feature of his government was that of whipping slaves in advance of deserving it. He always managed to have one or more of his slaves to whip every Monday morning. He did this to alarm their fears, and strike terror into those who escaped. His plan was to whip for the smallest offences, to prevent the commission of large ones. Mr. Hopkins could always find some excuse for whipping a slave. It would astonish one, unaccustomed to a slaveholding life, to see with what wonderful ease a slaveholder can find things, of which to make occasion to whip a slave.

A mere look, word, or motion,--a mistake, accident, or want of power,--are all matters for which a slave may be whipped at any time. Does a slave look dissatisfied? It is said, he has the devil in him, and it must be whipped out. Does he speak loudly when spoken to by his master? Then he is getting high-minded, and should be taken down a button-hole lower. Does he forget to pull off his hat at the approach of a white person? Then he is wanting in reverence, and should be whipped for it. Does he ever venture to vindicate his conduct, when censured for it? Then he is guilty of impudence,--one of the greatest crimes of which a slave can be guilty. Does he ever venture to suggest a different mode of doing things from that pointed out by his master? He is indeed presumptuous, and getting above himself; and nothing less than a flogging will do for him. Does he, while ploughing, break a plough,--or, while hoeing, break a hoe? It is owing to his carelessness, and for it a slave must always be whipped. Mr. Hopkins could always find something of this sort to justify the use of the lash, and he seldom failed to embrace such opportunities. There was not a man in the whole county, with whom the slaves who had the getting their own home, would not prefer to live, rather than with this Rev. Mr. Hopkins. And yet there was not a man any where round, who, made higher professions of religion, or was more active in revivals, --more attentive to the class, love-feast, prayer and preaching meetings, or more devotional in his family,--that prayed earlier, later, louder, and longer,--than this same reverend slave-driver, Rigby Hopkins.

More recently, I ran across this fantastic quote from Mr. Douglass on Tom Palmer's blog:

The old doctrine that the slavery of the black, is essential to the freedom of the white race, can maintain itself only in the presence of slavery where interest and prejudice are the controlling powers, but it stands condemned equally by reason and experience. The statesmanship of to-day condemns and repudiates it as a shallow pretext for oppression. It belongs with the commercial fallacies long ago exposed by Adam Smith. It stands on a level with the contemptible notion, that every crumb of bread that goes into another man's mouth, is just so much bread taken from mine. Whereas, the rule is in this country of abundant land, the more mouths you have, the more bread you can put into your pocket, the more I can put into mine. As with political economy, so with political and civil rights (Frederick Douglass, November 17, 1864).

I've not read much from Frederick Douglass, but every bit I do read inspires me to read more.

The Big Picture: The Power Of Ideas

If you are interested in today's politics, it is important to understand the power of ideas. It is extremely helpful to have concrete examples of how ideas drive actions. That is the realm of the history of ideas. How cultures have viewed reality, how men know things, and how men should act have driven history.

Competing philosophies have dominated in various eras. At the bottom of this post is a listing of Wilhelm Windelband's eras. The following list of books cover some or all of the eras.

1. Start here...

"A History Of Knowledge" by Charles Van Doren: Though the latter part of the book gets into some suspect ideas, the majority of the book provides a simple and clear review of ideas and their impact on history from the ancients to today. Highly recommended. His eras are very similar to Windelband's.

National Geographic: Milestones Of Science: Which eras produced the greatest scientific advances? Which eras had limited advances? This is a beautiful illustrated coffee table book which covers in an integrated manner scientific advances through the eras. Similiar eras to Windelband and Van Doren.

The Aristotle Adventure by Burgess Laughlin: What ideas were almost lost completely and drove Man into the Dark Ages? How were those ideas kept alive to pull Man out of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance? Like a detective story!

A World Lit Only By Fire by William Manchester: A fascinating look at the sliver of time covering the end of the Dark Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance -- some of the ideas and men who drove the change.

The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein. The historic, economic, and philosophic ideas which released Man from the final chains of Dark Age feudalism to freedom and wealth. These are the ideas of the Enlightenment.


2. Going Deeper: Same eras, just a deeper look

A History Of Philosophy by Wilhelm Windelband:

1. The Philosophy of the Greeks: from the beginnings of scientific thought to the death of Aristotle, -- from about 600 to 322 B.C.

2. Hellenistic-Roman Philosophy: from the death of Aristotle to the passing away of Neo-Platonism, -- from 322 B.C. to about 500 A.D.

3. Mediaeval Philosophy: from Augustine to Nicolaus Cusanus, -- from the fifth to the fifteenth century.

4. The Philosophy of the Renaissance: from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century.

5. The Philosophy of the Enlightenment: from Locke to the death of Lessing, -- 1689-1781.

6. The German Philosophy: from Kant to Hegel and Herbart, -- 1781-1820.

7. The Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century.

Objectivism: The Philosophy Of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. The epilogue is "The Duel Between Plato and Aristotle": a short review of the history of ideas.

For The New Intellectual by Ayn Rand. A review of the history of ideas from Ancient Greece to the present using her unique concepts of type of men (and the ideas they held) who drove history.

Various recorded lectures by Dr. John Ridpath and others on the history of ideas.

The Sleepwalkers : A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe is an in-depth look at how Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton broke out of medieval thinking and discovered the truth about the universe.

Something New

The interracial romantic comedy, Something New, is like a cocktail party with several juicy moments. Taking on an affair between a black woman and a white man, director Sanaa Hamri and writer Kriss Truner have carefully navigated the minefield of black middle class guilt, and that they make it through alive is some sort of miracle.

From Scott Holleran at Box Office Mojo

HItchens Does It Again

Register Now to Save on the Weekend Conference on Law

The last day to register at the discounted early registration price for Front Range Objectivism's Weekend Conference on Law, Individual Rights and the Judicial System is quickly approaching: It's this Saturday, February 11th. Don't miss your opportunity to save $75 on the conference fee!

The conference itself will be held on March 4-5, 2006 in Denver, Colorado. You can register by mail by following the instructions on the brochure. Or you can register online. Here's the information from about the speakers and lectures from the web site:

Tara Smith, PhD, will open the conference with a lecture on Why Originalism Won't Die: Common Mistakes in Competing Theories of Judicial Interpretation. In the debate over judicial interpretation of the Constitution, the theory of Originalism (advocated by Antonin Scalia, among others) has been subjected to seemingly fatal criticisms. Despite the exposure of flaws that would normally bury a theory, however, Originalism continues to attract tremendous support. What explains its resilient appeal? Why do many continue to regard it as the most reasonable basis for judicial interpretation? This lecture will answer these questions by identifying the fundamental weakness of the leading alternatives to Originalism and by demonstrating that the heart of Originalism's appeal–its promise of judicial objectivity–is illusory. All camps in this debate, we will see, suffer from serious misunderstandings of the nature of objectivity.

Dana Berliner, JD, of the Institute for Justice, will present two lectures on Reading "Public Use" out of the Fifth Amendment: A Look at the Use of Eminent Domain for Private Parties in the United States. Eminent Domain, the power of government to take private property, is limited by the U.S. Constitution to "public use" and requires "just compensation" when property is taken. Without a proper understanding of the importance of property to individual rights, fuzzy language and exceptions have eroded the limitations on this governmental power. Part I will trace the history of the law of eminent domain, its inclusion in the Constitution, its subsequent interpretation by courts and other branches of government, and the relationship of the public use issue to the debate about "judicial activism" in the courts.

Part II will focus on more recent developments in the issue of eminent domain, covering the development and litigation of the Kelo case at the U.S. Supreme Court, focusing on both the litigation strategy and the constitutional analysis in the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions. Ms. Berliner will also discuss the subsequent popular and political backlash, and show the difficulty of implementing philosophically consistent policy in legislation.

Eric Daniels, PhD, will discuss Unenumerated Rights: From Calder v. Bull to Lawrence v. Texas. The Founding Fathers intended to create a government to secure individual rights. They listed and laid out numerous rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but they also added the Ninth Amendment to guarantee "unenumerated rights." What are these rights? How can they be protected? Has this been a successful means of protecting individual rights?

These two lectures will explore the history of the framing of the Ninth Amendment and the implementation of unenumerated rights in major court decisions from the Founding to the present. They will explore how individual rights–both enumerated and unenumerated–have fared under the changing philosophies of interpretation and theories of jurisprudence that American courts have embraced.

Amy Peikoff, JD, PhD, will give two lectures entitled Is There a Right to Privacy?, in which she will explain why she opposes the current legal recognition of a right to privacy. In the first lecture, she will discuss the history of the right to privacy in the United States, including descriptions of the cases in which a right to privacy has been recognized, and summaries of the main arguments given in favor of such a right. In her second lecture, Dr. Peikoff will present what she thinks is the proper approach to the legal protection of privacy, an approach based on Ayn Rand's philosophy.

The conference will conclude on Sunday afternoon with a panel discussion by Jim McCrory, Steve Plafker and Michael Conger, officers of TAFOL, The Association For Objective Law, seeking to provide an integrated perspective on the issues discussed throughout the weekend sessions. These lectures, presented over one weekend, March 4 - 5, 2006, promise to be a unique experience, applying Objectivism to the philosophy of law.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Lin Zinser by e-mail (Lin@Zinser.com) or phone (303.431.2525).

Knowing what I do about the organizer and the speakers of this Weekend Conference on Law, Individual Rights and the Judicial System, I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Town Rejects Plan to Evict Souter

It seems the "Lost Liberty" Hotel has reached the end of the line:

Residents on Saturday rejected a proposal to evict U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his farmhouse to make way for the "Lost Liberty Hotel."

A group angered by last year's court decision that gave local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development had petitioned to use the ruling against the justice.

But voters deciding which issues should go on the town's March ballot replaced the group's proposal with a call to strengthen New Hampshire's law on eminent domain.

"This is a game," said Walter Bohlin. "Why would we take something from one of ours? This is not the appropriate way."

Souter, who grew up in Weare, a central New Hampshire town of 8,500, has not commented on the matter and was not at the meeting.

Joshua Solomon, a member of the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights, was disappointed with the vote.

"We lost today, not because there isn't support in this town but because the turnout wasn't here," he said. "It's not exactly the message we intended to have." [AP]

Um, wouldn't a lack of turnout indicate a lack of support? Face the facts, New Hampshire residents don't like eminent domain for private gain and they aren't going to support it--even against an eminent domain proponent like Souter.

The "Lost Liberty" hotel plan was out of line from the start--simple Libertarian mindlessness. You don't meet outrage with outrage--you meet it with a moral argument.

Why The Public Needs To Dump Public Schools

Modal Spouses

A few weeks ago, Tyler Cowen blogged about alternative marriages, but not in the way that you might think:

I define a modal wife (or husband) as a person you would have married (could have married?) had you met them at the right time, unattached, and under normal life conditions. The number of modal wives is typically greater than or equal to the number of real wives, although clever philosophers will recognize possible [sic] counterexamples.

Under one view, you have hundreds or thousands of modal wives, most of whom you never meet. (How many does the average person meet, how soon do you know when you meet one, and how confused would you be if they were all in the same room at once?) Your correct dating strategy is to cast your net very widely, and hope to find and marry one of these people.

Under another view, modal wives are no big deal. Your so-called "modal wives" are no better for you than, say, the best woman you could pick out of a lot of thirty eligibles. The key inputs for a good marriage are attitude and a minimum degree of compatibility, not search and discovery.

If this is true, searching for modal wives, or perhaps even thinking about the concept, can make you worse off. The quest for the perfect mate makes it harder to come to terms with what is otherwise a compatible marriage. Which perhaps is all you are going to get anyway. Marriage is good for you, and don't be too fussy, this is not iTunes. Too much choice, or too much perceived choice, is problematic.

The two views offer directly conflicting advice (TC: My views are closer to the first position, although attitude remains all-important). Yet we may be uncertain which view applies to us and to what extent. You could put all your eggs in one basket and pursue just one strategy, but what a risk if you are wrong. You could act upon some weighted average of the two views; I suspect this is what most people do. But then the two strategies are constantly undercutting each other.

That is one reason why it is hard to marry well.

Tyler's concept of a "modal spouse" is quite clever. Personally, I've noticed that my almost-seven years of marriage to Paul have rendered me ever-more romantically incompatible with other men. When we were first married, I could at least imagine myself dating some other men that I knew, even though I had zero interest in doing so. Over the years, that's become harder to do. Now even such imaginings are impossible, since almost every deviation from Paul would constitute an unwelcome defect. Much to my annoyance, I even like his annoying qualities! More precisely, I wouldn't wish his annoying qualities to be different, since I know them to be deeply connected to other aspects of him that I value intensely.

Thus my husband has systematically eliminated my modal husbands -- apparently by some dastardly scheme of love! Of course, that's the normal progression of a good marriage, since a married couple should integrate their lives with respect to a wide range of particulars, not just core abstract values.

Notably, I do suspect that many people do fit the "best of thirty" model of marriage fairly well. They are ever so flexible in their choice of spouse largely because they could be satisfied with almost any reasonably decent, attractive, and sensible person. Although convenient, such flexibility is not to be sought or envied. It is a symptom of selflessness -- in the literal sense of "lacking a self."

Like Peter Keating in The Fountainhead, such selfless people do not slowly carve out their soul in the process of choosing their values. Instead, they go with the flow, carelessly absorbing conventional values from the culture. Such people lack the deep passions that might enable them to find a truly significant other. They only need someone like themselves: someone safe, moderate, conventional, and ordinary. They need not search too hard, since they aren't looking for much. So they'll focus on relatively superficial qualities of prospective spouses, although usually not with any great clarity. They say: "Oh, he makes me laugh," "She's sensible," "She likes my dog," "My dog likes her," "He adores me," "He buys me presents," "My parents love her," "She's kind," and so on.

Although such qualities may be of some importance in a spouse, they ought to pale in comparison to more fundamental values. After all, why care that your wife loves your dog when she's also determined to teach your children to love Jesus? Of what importance is your husband's similar taste in movies in comparison to his jealousy of your every professional success? What if your wife supports your career ambitions, but only so that she can throw the most lavish parties on the block? What if she's just as easy with the pool boy as she is with a joke? What if your husband's close relationship with his family means that he'll submit to their unwelcome interference in your marriage? How valuable is a wife's everyday kindness if she melts into a puddle of helpless dependence in an emergency? Superficial qualities simply don't say much about the choices that a person will make -- yet those choices may bring joyful delights or unbearable misery.

While spouses in a good marriage may not explicitly share a system of philosophy, their operational philosophic principles do matter a great deal. Imagine that one spouse regards facts as absolutes, whereas the other ignores or wishes them away. Or that one spouse is guided by reason, whereas the other is a slave to the passions. Or that one meets disagreements with respectful understanding and persuasion, whereas the other resorts to manipulation, if not force. Or that one regards full virtue as possible, while other rationalizes failures by appeal to innate human weakness. Or that one regards work as an onerous chore, but it's a core love for the other. Or that one spouse is determined to raise thoughtful children, while the other indulges their whims out of fear of being disliked. These are not minor issues: they shape the whole course of a person's life, especially a marriage.

Moreover, a person's deep values are not exhausted by the universal values of philosophy. Particularly in marriage, highly personal values matter. Some people immerse themselves in the aesthetic side of life, while others captivated by technology, the drama of sports, or the solitude of nature. Perfectly moral people differently value qualities like vivacity, reserve, sensitivity, passion, discipline, strength, calm, caution, spontaneity, exuberance, steadiness, openness, organization, friendliness, and so on -- both in themselves and in others. Good people also pursue a variety of different careers, hobbies, passions, and entertainments -- although those particulars are often somewhat flexible. So much variety is possible, yet the values of a married couple must be compatible or complimentary, although not necessarily identical. They cannot clash in their basic approach to life, since then life together will be painful, if not impossible.

As Ayn Rand argued in "Philosophy Who Needs It," even people who never think of such issues in terms of abstract philosophic principles cannot escape them. They merely act upon implicit conclusions, whether right or wrong. The more than a person explicitly grasps and embraces his operational philosophic principles, the far less likely he is to betray them in practice. And that matters in marriage -- and much else in life. Notably, people can explicitly consider philosophic issues even if wholly unschooled in the discipline of philosophy. In choosing a spouse, a person can consider his own character, personality, morals, and vision of the good life -- comparing and contrasting it to that of any potential spouse. Unfortunately, many people lack even such basic skills of judgment, thanks to the "judge not" theme in our culture. They tend to fall back upon their emotions, often unhappily, and often to very bad ends.

Ultimately then, a person with deeply-held values must and will be very particular in his/her choice of spouse. He will not be content with any reasonably decent, attractive, and sensible person. He will understand that his value hierarchy cannot be integrated with most people, nor even with most good people. And he will be aware that many people hold deeply wrong if not pathological values. That knowledge will make a person choose his spouse very carefully -- and rightfully so!

Blogstyle

Illegal Criticisms Of Religion

Fair Trial For Saddam?

A few days ago, Saddam Hussein got upset with the judge and marched out of the court.

If you or I were on trial and upset with the proceedings, would we be able to just stop the trial by marching out? I don't think so. Doesn't seem right.

Elan Journo doesn't think so either:

Once we defeat and capture a militant dictator like Hussein, he deserves to be definitively condemned as evil and then executed--immediately, or after any valuable information is extracted from him. Prior to his execution, there can be a legitimate reason to hold a public hearing--not to establish his guilt, but to fully expose his secretive dictatorship by publicly cataloguing its myriad vile deeds. Such a hearing would recognize that, unlike a private citizen, a dictator is responsible not merely for his own individual acts of violence but for all crimes committed by his regime, whether or not in any given case he himself pulled the trigger or gave a direct order to murder the victims.

I agree. They should have shot the rat while he was in the rat hole.

Communism in the USA

Although not all of the facts presented were new to me, I did enjoy reading David Bernstein's Thirteen Things I Didn't Know about American Communism. Since Ayn Rand's HUAC testimony was mentioned in the comments, I tried to post a link to my review of Robert Mayhew's very excellent Ayn Rand and Song of Russia. Unfortunately, the comments seemed to be closed.

Let's All Stay at Home!

Sometimes Dear Abby is just unbearably stupid. For example:

DEAR ABBY: I was sitting with a friend today, and we began talking about the rising gas prices. After a few minutes she said, "Why don't Americans do what they do in Europe?"

I asked her what that was, and she told me that Europeans take a regular day off from driving -- which not only saves gas but also brings families closer together. What an excellent idea for people here in the United States.

I think it is a simple solution to a growing problem and could make a huge difference. Do you think this is possible? -- JIM H., NAPLES, FLA.

DEAR JIM H.: I certainly do. When people are determined enough, anything is possible. We may not be able to control gas prices, but we can decide how we want to spend our money. For those who need to economize, walking, riding bicycles, ride-sharing and public transportation are sensible solutions.

So shall I walk the 60 miles to Boulder one day a week? (On some days, Paul and I might be able to walk the first 15 miles together!) Or bike on busy roads through the foothills of the Rockies? Or ride-share with all those other graduate students living in Sedalia? Or use that non-existent public transportation? Or maybe I'll just stay at home in bed with Paul. Although he'll miss work and I'll miss class, our little family will be "closer together"! Or maybe I'll flap my arms and fly to Boulder, on the premise that "when people are determined enough, anything is possible"!

Here's a better suggestion for Dear Abby: Use your clout to advocate eliminating the myriad inane government restrictions upon the supply of gasoline, such as in drilling and refining. That's probably too much to ask, so I'd be happy if she didn't publish inanities like the above.

Someone who knows more than I do about energy regulation might consider writing a brief, polite letter in response. Abby does sometimes publish replies -- and if published, it will be read by many, many, many more people than any ordinary "Letter to the Editor."

Policing the Powerful Is Not Easy

Around the Web on 2-1-06

One's Own Fairy Godmother

I like the way Jennifer Snow puts it when she considers the importance of one's own effort in effecting a personal transformation.

From Ovid's Metamorphoses to fairy tales to modern rags-to-riches tales, the thread is always there. Change is what humans are all about.

In fairy tales, though, the transformation is always at the impetus of some outside source, some spell or fruit or fairy godmother that rewards the deserving or forces the wicked into some serious soul-searching.

...

When you do, you'll find at the end that, surprisingly, you did have that ingredient after all. You conjured it up out of thin air. You are your own fairy godmother.

Nuke Detection

I'm not talking about bombs here, but people. (Nuclear-trained submariners are often called "nukes".)

Every once in awhile, Bothenook writes up a post about his Navy days that makes me wish I were back, and that's not even accounting for the decade younger I'd be.

as an aside, but related. i used to keep a 3 way main steam stop bypass valve on my desk at work. i could always tell who was truly a nuke or not within seconds. if you came to my desk, saw the valve, and DIDN'T pick it up, take it apart, and put it back together while standing there talking to me, you probably weren't a nuke.

there just seems to be a natural curiosity in the breed. most of them would ignore the wooden puzzle box, but were unable to leave the valve alone

That one made me chuckle.

Naval Research is Discriminatory?!?!

Grant Jones reports on the threat posed by leftist academics to military research at the University of Hawaii.

The claim that unclassified military research somehow violates Hawaii's anti-discrimination law was floated last year by UH law professor Jon Van Dyke. Since this argument is patently absurd, Keever is now linking it to alleged classified research and alleged required security clearances.

While working for various defense electronic companies I have had security clearances. At the lower level of clearance the company itself runs a background check. Background checks on public school teachers are more thorough than these low level clearances. Even at a higher level no civilian is ever asked about their sexual orientation.

Soon the university's Board of Regents will be deciding on whether to accept the UARC proposal. The academic leftists are right; the future of the institution will be determined by the Board's decision. The University of Hawaii Manoa has recently dropped to third-tier status according to U.S. News and World Reports. The university responded that this is "not quite the distinction we want." If the Board votes down the UARC, it's a distinction they had better get used to.

...

With its vote the Board will be sending a message to the state and nation. Does the university represent the people of the state, the overwhelming majority of who support the Navy and its mission, or is the university to be controlled by a small cabal of anti-American leftists? Let's hope for the sake of the university and the people of Hawaii the Board votes in favor of the U.S. Navy.

This week, I have two pairs of posts that mention the same subject. One of each pair is serious, the other not. I like all four posts, so I offer...

A Study in Contrasts I: The State of the Union

Nick Provenzo pointed out that Bush's State of the Union Address might drive one to drink ...

So not unlike President Clinton's State of the Union addresses, President Bush is expected to rely upon the "micro-initiative" to sell his agenda. How pathetic.

... while Bubblehead proposed a way to at least have fun doing it.

So, everytime Mother Sheehan is shown while President Bush is discussing military issues, take one drink. If she's shown while the President is honoring our fallen heroes, throw the bottle at the TV...

As it turns out, Mother Sheehan was absent, but the microinitiatives were allowed in.

The absence of Mother Sheehan, mentioned before beginning of the speech by the crew at Fox News was its high point, but things quickly went downhill from there. I was especially unhappy when Bush came to within an inch of ripping Iran a new one, only to induce cognitive whiplash with his sudden shift into HIV/AIDS.

But would we, as Provenzo would have us ponder, necessarily be better off, in terms of the battle of ideas, with John Kerry in office? That's an interesting question.

A Study in Contrasts II: Copyright Law

I discussed a fantastically bad "defense" of copyright law I ran into recently...

To refer to the fact that child pornography and snuff films are illegal as "social censorship" is doubly wrong. (1) It ignores the fact that one man's rights do not supercede another's. And (2), it uses the name of a violation of the rights of one man to refer to what is actually a protection of the rights of another! This would be like pointing out that policemen sometimes have to kill criminals, and saying that sometimes it is necessary to have "social murder".

... while at Save the Humans, Jason Roth demonstrates fair use.

Now, in my opinion, it's doubtful that some non-profit company or government agency paid for an original photo. There's no need to retake a photo that could easily be purchased cheaply from a third party. So, here's what I'm wondering. Do you think, when the chick signed the contract with the stock photo company, that she knew she would be a poster child for safe sex?

He then photoblogs on the possible consequences of posing for stock photo companies.

In my post, one William Rees-Mogg compares copyright law to censorship -- with a straight face -- as his argument for Google, now that it has shown support for censorship, to respect copyright law. Try again, Mr. Rees-Mogg.

Coincidentally, my employer exercises its property rights to bar access to "pornographic" sites like Save the Humans, meaning that I can't access Roth's handiwork from ... work.

A Russian Answer to Anti-Missile Defenses?

Vigilis discusses Bulava missiles at Molten Eagle.

Will Russia place the new missiles on its submarines? Putin said the new missiles were capable of carrying nuclear warheads. He wouldn't say whether the Russian military already had commissioned any such missiles., but as Molten Eagle note 4 days ago here, Russian is laying the keel of the third strategic submarine of the new Borey-class, constructed to carry the new solid-propellant, 10-warhead maneuverable Bulava missiles.

Apply the Thirteenth Amendment to Me!

Andy over at the Charlotte Capitalist makes the following excellent point about the income tax.

Today In History in 1865. This was a great moment for all Americans -- black and white. It continued the trend against slavery throughout the world brought on by the Enlightenment and capitalism[.] ...

What is slavery?

the state of a person who is a chattel of another

Just a few amendments later:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Hmmm...what happened to forbidding involuntary servitude? Not buying it? Take a look at how much of your paycheck goes to "social services" at the federal, state, and local level. You are not paying for those "services" voluntarily.

Diana Got Fan Mail!

Diana Hsieh over at Noodle Food shares with us an email with an interesting list of reading recommendations. The sender's general tone showed that he is as well-versed in the art of persuasion as he is in Middle Eastern affairs. He recommends, not just with a straight face, but with an angry scowl:

1) The Zionist Connection by Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal
2) The Question of Palestine by Edward Said
3) The Fateful Triangle by Noam Chomsky
4) The Great War For Civilization: The Conquest of The Middle East by Robert Fisk
5) What Price Israel ? by Alfred M. Lilienthal
6) The Other Side of The Coin by Alfred M. Lilienthal
7) Pity The Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon by Robert Fisk

I particularly recommend also perusing the reader comments. (e.g. "What, no "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? A careless oversight by Mr. Hardesty, I'm sure." Hee hee!)

I don't get such quality hate mail, but I do occasionally get a comment that makes up for that fact.

The Meme Game

Elizabeth at Hence, the Elizabethan has joined the Meme Game I played recently. She even answered the Beer Question I added as an improvement. She is a fellow guest blogger at Ego, where she does some memorable cat blogging from time to time.

Joined in Progress: Just after I composed this post (but before publication), Lubber's Line threw his hat in the ring, including the Beer Question and following Alex's lead with "Four Cars I Have Owned".

Stop by and visit the other players, listed here and here.

-- CAV

Rising Standard of Living