WWNBS (Except in Lebanon)

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Domestic Terrorism

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Bad news: A neurobiology professor at UCLA specializing in vision research just gave up his work on primates due to persistent threats from animal rights activists. If justice was a metaphysical law written into the fabric of the universe, those &%*^@! man-haters would all go blind. Then again, I'd be delighted if ophthalmologists simply refused to treat them for even routine vision problems. Better yet, doctors could refuse to treat any known animal rights activist. It's best not to pollute those noble idealists with the fruits of medical experimentation upon animals, right? Let's end the sanction of the victim -- and let the animal rights activists wallow in the plentiful, debilitating, and oh-so-natural diseases of this earth.

(Via Slashdot and Doug Peltz)

Introducing the Objectivist Club Association Forums

Dear fellow Objectivists and campus club members,

The Objectivist Club Association (OCA), a new organization dedicated to assisting Objectivist campus and community clubs, has launched a new public forum - forums.objectivistclubs.org- for all those involved in a club or interested in founding one. Discussions of recruitment and advertising stategies, speaking events, club meetings, and other club-related topics are already ongoing, and you are welcome to start your own. By registering for free, you can ask questions of fellow club leaders, discuss possibilities for collaboration, share your experiences, and participate in a dialogue with other Objectivists who take ideas and cultural change as seriously as you do.

Hope to see you on the forum soon!

Regards,

The OCA staff

Socialist Medicine

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Paul just sent me the following:

The California legislature has approved a bill to mandate universal (state-run) health care in [California]; eliminating private insurance. We'll see if Schwarzenegger vetoes this one.

http://www.sfgate.com/...

"On a largely party-line 43-30 vote, the Assembly approved a bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, that would eliminate private medical insurance plans and establish a statewide health insurance system that would provide coverage to all Californians. The state Senate has already approved the plan once and is expected this week to approve changes that the Assembly made to the bill."

Holy socialism! I'm glad that Paul isn't practicing medicine in California any longer, because he certainly wouldn't practice under such a system.

As for the likelihood of a veto, the article also reports, "Schwarzenegger's office said it had no official position on the bill. The governor has said he would propose solutions to the state's health care crisis in his State of the State address next January if he is re-elected."

Strange Acronym, Great Course

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Ayn Rand Institute's Objectivism Academic Center is officially accepting registrations to audit the excellent year-long teleconference course on Objectivism taught by Dr. Onkar Ghate, i.e. the "Seminar On Ayn Rand's Philosophy Of Objectivism" or SARPO. Classes are recorded and made available on the web, so you don't need to block off your schedule for the whole academic year. The cost is $1000 for both semesters. That's a steal for 26 weeks of a three-hour class taught by Dr. Ghate! I took the course two years ago. It was truly superb.

For more information, see this page. Classes will begin soon -- and space is limited. So don't delay!

Update: I fixed the number of sessions, as per Greg Perkins' comment. Also, if you want to know more about how auditing works, you should contact Lin Zinser at lin@zinser.com.

LEE SANDSTEAD IN GOTHENBURG

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I learned plenty of things from Lee Sandstead's lectures on art. They gave me great inspiration to explore more works of art in the future. We are already planning for next year's event. It will be on art works displayed at the Fürstenberg Gallery at the Gothenburg Museum of Art.


Camilla H. took a picture of Lee Sandstead standing close to Masthugget Church, looking out at the harbor.

I look forward to Lee's book on Evelyn Beatrice Longman.


Photo by Ego. (Taken with a Qtek 9100 smartphone.) Print of Genius of Telegraphy.

Hurricane Katrina's Villain-ized Victims: Insurance Companies

Irvine, CA-- One year after Hurricane Katrina left the Gulf Coast in ruins, many residents have started to rebuild their homes and their lives, relying in many cases on payouts from their home-insurance policies.

Yet despite paying out an unprecedented $56 billion in claims to victims of Hurricane Katrina, U.S. insurance companies have been smeared as "greedy" and "cold-hearted" for not doing more. Some are even being sued by their customers for refusing to cover flood damage. This, even though the companies never sold flood insurance, which is only available through the federally funded National Flood Insurance Program.

"This is as absurd as hiring someone to mow your lawn and suing him because he did not also paint your house," said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "Insurance companies are responsible for fulfilling the terms of their contracts--not for satisfying their customers' every financial need.

"Insurance companies should not be demonized for insisting on the terms of their contracts. The fact that some Gulf Coast residents did not have flood insurance means that they must bear the costs of the flood damage or else rely on private charity. Their misfortune does not give them the right to impose those costs on anyone else."

A Surprising Integration

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A little while ago PhilosopherEagle posted a blog entry integrateing the conventions of modern logic with Ayn Rand's distinction between motivation by love and motivation by fear. No really, see for yourself:

Tonight, I resumed my study of modern symbolic logic, and I made an important integration with the distinction between motivation by love and motivation by fear. (Harry Binswanger criticized my presentation of Galileo for being motivated by the fear of criticism, so this distinction has been on my mind.) My observation is that the basic motivation of modern logic is the fear of slipping up and making a mistake rather than the value of coming to know the world. I have been puzzled for a couple of months now by many of the conventions of modern logicians. For example, any argument whose conclusion must be true is said to be deductively valid. So if our premise is that apples are delicious, we can validly conclude that John is either a carpenter or not a carpenter. I submit that this is not a valid deductive argument, because it is not an argument at all. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. In "The Logic Book," however, one finds this defense of the standard convention: "To put the point another way, this argument is truth-preserving. It will never lead us from truths to a falsehood because it will never lead us to falsehood--because the conclusion is logically true. There is no risk of reaching a false conclusion here precisely because there is no risk that the conclusion is false" (22). This point is true enough: if we have true premises, we will never deduce anything false from them. But the purpose of logic is not the avoidance any risk of falsehood. It is to guide us as we learn about the world and discover new knowledge. "Truth-preservation" is the wrong motivation for a system of logic. It is because of this motivation that modern logic is almost completely useless in real life.

Nice!

Bible Blogging

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Oh cool, it's irreverent but insightful Bible blogging! The chapter-by-chapter commentary by David Plotz is witty without either being preachy or hostile. The in-progress commentary on each book spans multiple pages, so you'll want to start with the first entries for Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. More will be forthcoming, I'm sure.

David Plotz has noticed some of the same delightful tidbits that I've noticed in my reading, such as:

"Creeping" is all over these last few verses of Creation. God tells His newly minted man and woman that they rule over world and its creatures, including, as the King James puts it--"every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." What a superb phrase! It's perfect for insects, terrorists, and children.

I also wondered about the sins worthy of the Flood:

The story of Noah: "The Lord saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on Earth, and His heart was saddened. The Lord said, 'I will blot out from the earth the men whom I created--men together with beasts, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I regret that I made them.' But Noah found favor with the Lord."

The mystery of this passage is: What has man done that's so terrible? There's no explanation here, or in the next chapter, which merely says: "The earth became corrupt before God; the earth was filled with lawlessness." What corruption? What lawlessness? It had been a very short time since Creation--how much evil could man have learned? Why would God give up on man so easily? Also, considering how detailed the Bible is about particular human crimes both before and after here, why is it so vague about the antediluvian wickedness?

Nothing could top this summary of the story of Lot:

This chapter makes the Jerry Springer Show look like Winnie the Pooh. The Sodom business is worse than I ever imagined. Two male angels visit Lot's house in Sodom. A crowd of men (Sodomites!) gathers outside the house and demands that the two angels be sent out, so the mob can rape them. Lot, whose hospitality is greater than his common sense, offers his virgin daughters to the mob instead. Before any rapes can happen, the mob is blinded by a mysterious flash of light. The angels lead Lot, his wife, and daughters out of the city, and God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone. Lot's wife looks back and is turned into a pillar of salt. (God may have listened to Abraham's rebuke, but He surely didn't heed it. What of all the innocent children murdered in Sodom and Gomorrah? What of Lot's innocent wife?)

But the chapter's not over. After the attempted mass gay rape, the father pimping, the urban devastation, uxorious saline murder, it looks like Lot and his daughters are finally safe. They're living alone in a cave in the mountains. But then the two daughters--think of them as Judea's Hilton sisters--complain that cave life is no fun because there aren't enough men around. So, one night they get Lot falling-down drunk and have sex with him. Chapter 19 poses what I would call the Sunday School Problem--as in, how do you teach this in Sunday school? What exactly is the moral lesson here?

The commentaries also contain some interesting and helpful discussions of themes and threads in the text.

I've only read the commentaries on Genesis and Exodus so far, but I'll be read the others soon enough. These commentaries aren't a substitute for reading the Bible, but they are a fun refresher thereupon!

Just remember: God created "every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth!"

INTERVIEW WITH ED CLINE

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

You could now listen to my interview with Ed Cline. Please go to Egoist at ThinkerToThinker.com and leave your comments.

I am planning to interview the following individuals in the near future:

• Craig Biddle of the Objective Standard.
• Jonathan Hoenig of CapitalistPig.
• Dwayne Bell of Body in Mind.
• Dave Stone of A Different Kind of Biz.

Stem Cell Breakthrough Won't Satisfy Religious Conservatives

Irvine, CA--"The researchers at Advanced Cell Technology should be congratulated for their scientific breakthrough," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "But their new method of creating stem cell lines will not stop religious opposition to scientific progress."

In developing a method of extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, the team was, in part, trying to address the concerns of those opposed to the destruction of embryos. As the team leader said: "There is no rational reason left to oppose this research."

"But there has never been a rational reason to oppose embryonic stem cell research," said Dr. Brook. "The opposition comes mainly from religious conservatives and is--by their own declaration--based on faith, not on reason. It is based on the irrational belief that a mere clump of cells is a full-fledged human being."

"There is no rational reason to morally oppose this research, and its potential to produce treatments for such diseases as diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's is ample reason to morally support it.

"It is a mistake to try to appease religious conservatives on this issue. What they are opposed to, fundamentally, is science as such."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute

A Lovecraftian Folly

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Dr. Yaron Brook to Speak at the Ford Hall Forum

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I'm so thoroughly pleased to see the tradition of Objectivist speakers at the Ford Hall Forum continue. I'm particularly pleased by the choice of speaker, since I can't imagine a better person for the job than Yaron Brook. Here's ARI's announcement:

Sunday, October 22, 2006
A Ford Hall Forum Event

Democracy vs. Victory: Why the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" Had to Fail
Yaron Brook

[After Sept. 11 the Bush administration declared that we must go on a mission to bring freedom to the Middle Eastern nations that threaten us; thus, the Forward Strategy of Freedom. According to this strategy, establishing democracies in key Muslim countries, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq, would spur a revolution in the rest of the Muslim world--a revolution that would bring free, pro-Western, anti-terrorist governments to power.

But the strategy has failed. With the rise of the religious Shiites in Iraq, of Hamas and of Hezbollah, and with the electoral victories of Islamic radicals elsewhere in the Middle East, the Muslim world has grown more militant.

Why has the Forward Strategy of Freedom failed, and why was failure inevitable? What are the flaws inherent in the strategy? How does it necessarily undermine victory? What motivates it and what strategy should replace it? These are the questions Dr. Brook will address in this talk.]

Established in 1908, the Ford Hall Forum hosts public lectures in Boston, Massachusetts, by leading cultural figures, politicians and intellectuals. From 1961 to 1981, Ayn Rand was a frequent invited speaker at the Forum. Several of her lectures were subsequently published as essays in such books as The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought. Since her death, Dr. Leonard Peikoff has spoken at the Forum on a number of occasions, most recently in 2003. Dr. Brook will speak at the Forum for the first time this year.

Dr. Brook's lecture... will be preceded by several lecture events and a panel discussion, beginning with a campus club talk by Dr. Brook at Tufts University on Friday evening; more details will follow.

Location:
Ford Hall Forum/Faneuil Hall
Boston, Massachusetts

Time:
6:30 PM

Paul and I will be traveling to Boston to attend.

ELECTION ON SEPTEMBER 17 IN SWEDEN

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I will help Pajamas Media (Politics Central) in doing some coverage of the parliament election in Sweden. [Editor's note and full disclosure: I haven't voted for an established party for a very long time. I voted in the Swedish election to the European Parliament.]

In 2002, the Social Democrats won the elections together with the Left (former Communist party) and support from the Green Party. This time you could pick between plenty of pressure groups, e.g., Feminist Initiative, Health Care Party and the Pirate Party. Here is an expert from Quinn Norton's article, A Nation Divided Over Piracy:

But it was the spike in the Pirate Party's numbers after the raid that might have the most lasting consequences for Sweden. Membership shot past the nation's Green Party, which holds 17 seats in the Riksdag, Sweden's parliament. There's no guarantee that membership will translate into votes, but the pirates have raised enough funds to print 3 million ballots for next month's election, and they have enough volunteers to get them out to all the polling places. (Wired News, 08/17/06.)

For a guide to the Swedish Election, go the The Local. [Editor's comment: I am not one of the undecided voters. I have decided not to vote at all...]

Related: My post, OPEN THREAD POST: ELECTIONS.

The Fascists in our Midst

By Edward Cline from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

On August 10th President Bush, speaking about the foiled, London-based plot to blow up ten planes with liquid-based devices assembled during flight by Al-Quada linked would-be suicide bombers, said, "The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."

Before addressing this subject, let us first define and clarify the meaning of the term fascism. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1956), defines fascism as "any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition." The American Heritage Dictionary (2nd edition, 1982) is less exact in its definition, and, frankly, woozier: "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism."

Surprisingly, while the Oxford English Dictionary discusses the Italian Fascismo, it defines neither that term nor fascism, limiting itself to the Mussolini phenomenon, a startlingly blinkered identification that excludes its occurrence in such countries as Spain and Argentina.

Ayn Rand, in her article, "The Fascist New Frontier," remarks: "The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open....Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretence of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal." She cites the definition of fascism found in The American College Dictionary (1957): "a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism...."

She notes further that the "fascist-Nazi axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest.....The fascist-Nazi axis offers nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of racial or national greatness." (Emphasis Rand's).

This last notation perfectly implicates Islamofascism. Miss Rand may be forgiven for omitting religious greatness, for when she wrote "The Fascist New Frontier" (a damning indictment of President John F. Kennedy, which her publisher, Bennett Cerf at Random House, refused to include in a collection of her essays) religion as such did not play much of a prominent role in politics. I imagine that Islam at that time (the 1960's, the PLO, for example, being founded in 1964) was as far removed in her mind as a credible peril as, say, ouija boards. And it is the advocacy of religious greatness that characterizes Islam. All of it.

Bush's use of the term Islamic fascists apparently offended Muslims everywhere and moved their spokesmen to write letters of indignation and make public statements.

In Britain, the merest hint that Islam motivated the would-be plotters caused its Muslim spokesmen to take curiously defensive and offensive positions. The Los Angeles Times of August 13th reported that, "In an open letter to several newspapers, the leaders of much of Britain's establishment Muslim community, including six Muslim lawmakers, said British foreign policy is 'putting civilians at increased risk, both in the U.K. and abroad,' and said the government should focus less on domestic anti-terrorism laws and more on reorienting its policy in the Middle East.

"While emphasizing that 'attacking civilians is never justified,' the letter
said that 'the debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an
immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East [read Lebanese civilians, not Israeli] not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, but is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.'"

Yes, Islamic terrorism does threaten "us all." How many Muslims died in the World Trade Center, and on the London underground last July 7th, and in Iraq? Between Shi'ite and Sunni terrorist acts in Iraq, about 1,000 Muslims die a month. Some brotherhood of Mohammed. No mention of Hezbollah's and Hamas's use of civilians as shields to deter Israeli strikes. Islamists are hypocritically selective in their public grieving for "innocent" civilians.

The Los Angeles Times article continues:

"Shahid Malik, a Labour Party member of Parliament from an area that was home to one of the July bombers, said Israel's bombing campaign in Lebanon and Britain's failure to condemn it are issues of substantial frustration.

"'Obviously, I think everybody would condemn Hezbollah and their actions,' he said, "but it's critically important that we say the actions of Israel, and the reactive inaction of us in the West, is [sic] contributing to increasing anger and frustration among Muslims in the U.K., in America, and across the world. And invariably, if you're angry and frustrated, then you're more likely to be susceptible to voices that are sinister.'"

I contend that these statements are more sinister than an open call to behead and massacre infidels. These are veiled threats. What would alleviate the "frustration" of young Muslims are the wholesale conversion of Britain to Islam and Sharia law, Britain's immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the dissolution of Parliament. Then British Muslim youth will no longer be angry and frustrated and susceptible to sinister voices urging them on to violence. They'll become "good Britons."

On this side of the Atlantic, Muslims have been equally disingenuous. Daniel Pipes, an authority on Islam and the Middle East, in an article on FrontPage Magazine on August 14th, "At War with Islamic Fascists," quotes a number of them. Leading the pack are representatives from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

"CAIR's board chairman, Parvez Ahmed, sent an open letter to President Bush: 'You have on many occasions said Islam is a 'religion of peace.' Today you equated the religion of peace with the ugliness of fascism.'"

Perhaps he is concerned that Bush is waking up to the true nature of Islam.

Pipes reports that Nihad Awad, also of CAIR, called the term (Islamic fascists) "ill-advised" and "counter-productive," and suggested that we "take advantage of these incidents (the arrest of the London plotters) to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims."

Excuse me? It would be untoward to start a "religious" war against Islam and Muslims, when Islam and Muslims are waging a "religious" war against the West? One supposes there would be no strife if we would all just roll over and submit to Islam, acquire a taste for goat meat and self-flagellation, and replace the Constitution with Sharia law.

In his article, Pipes subsequently bursts the balloon of Muslim sensitivity and objection to the term, citing its use by Bush numerous times in the past, when no one, not Muslims, not the press or news media, raised an eyebrow.

Pipes then discusses, and questions, the use of the term Islamic fascist or Islamofascism. He asserts it is inappropriate.

"I applaud the increasing willingness to focus on some form of Islam as the enemy, but find the word fascist misleading in this context. Few historic or philosophic connections exist between fascism and radical Islam. Fascism glorifies the state, emphasizes racial 'purity,' promotes social Darwinism, denigrates reason, exalts the will, and rejects organized religion -- all outlooks anathema to Islamists."

I have the highest regard for Daniel Pipes, but even he has lapses of insight. It surprised me when I encountered that statement. I agree with Ayn Rand that the differences between socialism and fascism are superficial and merely formal; likewise, the differences between German Nazism and Italian fascism are superficial, since they were both "crude" forms of planned economies and total power over a nation's citizens. Fascism has properly become synonymous with Nazism. And when one examines the supreme goal of "radical" Islam, which is the establishment of a global caliphate, what would it entail but much the same thing as global fascism of the secular German variety?

Islamofascism would glorify the caliphate (or the state), emphasize not racial "purity," but religious purity, promote religious (and therefore social) Darwinism by asserting that Muslims are superior to everyone else, denigrate reason (since when has any religious faith been regarded as a paragon of reason?), exalt the will (Immanuel Kant's anti-reason can be applied equally to Islam as to Christianity; Christians began martyring and sacrificing themselves long before Muslims got the idea), and uphold organized religion, which, in this instance, would be Islam and only Islam.

And what else would a grand caliphate be but a governmental system with a strong centralized system (controlled by theocrats) that permitted no opposition or criticism, that controlled all affairs of the globe, and that emphasized an aggressive global "nationalism" (next stop, South America, China?)? Models for Islamofascism already exist. Look at Iran, but also at Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai, and even Iraq. Where are their Anglican, Methodist, Jewish or atheistic billionaires and sheiks? How many billions do their regimes spend on their welfare programs, open only to Muslims? Hezbollah also boasts of a welfare state for loyal Muslims, just as the Nazis had for loyal, allegiance-swearing Germans.

And, what is the visceral difference between watching old clips of Nazi rallies at Nuremberg, showing tens of thousands of Germans giving the Nazi salute, and recent footage of tens of thousands of Islamists (Pipes's preferred term) giving their mass salutes in Beirut, Gaza, and Tehran? Does the object make a difference? In Germany, it was to Hitler and National Socialism; in the Mideast, it is to Allah or Mohammad and the local dictator or mullah that commands the selfless, "spiritual" dedication to the cause.

Pipes quotes an editorial from the Washington Times, "It's Fascism":

"Fascism is a chauvinistic political philosophy that exalts a group over the individual -- usually a race or nation, but in this case the adherents of a religion....It also describes Thursday's terrorists. It very accurately describes the philosophy of Al-Quada, Hezbollah, Hamas and many other stripes of Islamism around the world."

And, unfortunately, Pipes still doesn't get it. He still believes that peaceful, law-abiding American (or British) Muslims pose no threat to the country, and that they ought to be more proactive in denouncing "radicals" who give Islam a bad name by blowing up planes and pizza parlors and subways and firing rockets into Israel and committing atrocities such as they did in Beslan. But the reason we do not hear more from these "law-abiding" "moderate" Muslims is because their creed silences them.

A belief in Islam short-circuits their minds. The either/or factor stops their thinking cold, rendering them as thoughtless and inarticulate as the creed requires them to be. Islam does not tolerate divided loyalties: not between the Constitution and a mullah or imam, not between reason and faith, not between Allah and the deity of any other creed, not between freedom of expression and a prohibition of representations of Allah and Mohammad. I have said it before here and elsewhere: subject the Koran and Hadith to a vivisection to rid them of their belligerent, homicidal, and authoritarian dictates, and Islam would no longer be Islam, but a creed as innocuous and pacific as the Amish or Quaker. Force is an integral element of Islam, lending the creed a natural predilection for totalitarianism.

The short-circuiting of the minds of rank-and-file Muslims allows their leaders to speak with forked-tongues and advance the goal of Islamifying Western societies. We see it happening in Britain and Europe, and it is occurring in the U.S., as well. It is not "rights" that Muslims seek in Western societies, but privileges and a special, protected status. To use a football analogy, organizations like CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council carry the ball to the goal post, while lesser Muslim advocates run interference.

Yes, Islam can inculcate nothing but Islamic fascists. And American Muslims must face their either/or: to repudiate Islam, or remain a quiet, sanctioning fifth column.

Help put The Objective Standard in America's libraries

By Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I support this effort 100%, and urge RoR readers to help out as they can:

The Objective Standard is now available to all libraries through EBSCO Subscription Services. Library sales are an important part of the journal’s success, so please contact your school’s librarian and urge him to subscribe (he will be familiar with EBSCO). If your efforts result in your school’s library (or any library) purchasing a subscription, I will give you your own one-year subscription or renewal at half price—that is: $19.50 for the online-only version or $24.50 for the print and online versions combined. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me directly at 800-423-6151.

Sincerely,

Craig Biddle, Editor
The Objective Standard
www.theobjectivestandard.com
Phone: 804-747-1776
Fax: 804-273-0500

FDA Nonsense, Libertarian Nonsense

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A recent press release from the Ayn Rand Institute, "Medieval Sexual Morality at the FDA," says:

Irvine, CA--"The FDA must stop the stalling tactics that have prevented over-the-counter sale of the 'morning-after pill,'" said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"There is no question about the safety of the drug. The FDA's own advisory panel endorsed it three years ago for over-the-counter use. The delays are clearly an attempt by conservative FDA officials to impose their brand of medieval sexual morality on Americans. Such an egregious violation of the separation of church and state is unacceptable in a free country."

Personally, I'm baffled as to why we have a system in which I need a prescription for birth control at all. I've been on the pill more-or-less continuously since I was a teenager. So why exactly do I need my doctor to authorize my taking it for yet another year? Oh right, it's because government bureaucrats think me incompetent. Silly me, I forgot!

These days, religious conservatives are more than happy to use that regulatory structure to force their values down our throats. And liberals might scream and stamp their feet about some particular policy, but they'll never entertain the idea that the FDA itself ought to be abolished. That's because statists of all stripes are fundamentally allies. Sure, they'll viciously fight for power -- or for this rather than that concrete proposal. Yet they all agree upon the propriety -- even necessity -- of tangled masses of business regulations, paternalistic laws against vices, expensive welfare programs for the poor, elderly, and otherwise downtrodden, and so on. The only disputes are the form of these laws -- if even that. Today, new programs are supported or not solely based upon party loyalties -- as in the prescription drug benefit for the elderly. The power-lusters on both sides are well-aware that expansions of power by their opponents can be molded to serve their own ends once they regain power. So the liberals will use the power of the FDA to reign in those evil drug companies, while the conservatives will use it to control contraception.

To put the point another way, this simple example clearly illustrates the absurdity of Randy Barnett's attempt in "The Moral Foundations of Modern Libertarianism" to portray libertarianism as a second-best alternative for pragmatic statists, whether liberal or conservative. Here's the abstract of his paper:

Libertarians no longer argue, as they once did in the 1970s, about whether libertarianism must be grounded on moral rights or on consequences; they no longer act as though they must choose between these two moral views. In this paper, I contend that libertarians need not choose between moral rights and consequences because theirs is a political, not a moral, philosophy; one that can be shown to be compatible with various moral theories, which is one source of its appeal.

Moral theories based on either moral rights or on consequentialism purport to be "comprehensive," insofar as they apply to all moral questions to the exclusion of all other moral theories. Although the acceptance of one of these moral theories entails the rejection of all others, libertarian moral rights philosophers on the one hand, and utilitarians on the other, can embrace libertarian political theory with equal fervor. I explain how can this be and why it is a strength rather than a weakness of libertarian political theory.

Conservatives, neoconservatives, and those on the left who seek to impose by force their comprehensive conception of "the good" neglect the problem of power - an exacerbated instance of the twin fundamental social problems of knowledge and interest. For a comprehensive moralist of the right or left, using force to impose their morality on others might be their first choice among social arrangements. Having another's comprehensive morality imposed upon them by force is their last choice. The libertarian minimalist approach of enforcing only the natural rights that define justice should be everyone's second choice. A compromise, as it were, that makes civil society possible. And therein lies its imperative.

This abstract is overflowing with obvious disdain for the philosophic foundations of political theory: Philosophic debates between libertarians are of no significance today. Truth need not be considered, since opposing philosophic foundations can produce "equal fervor" for liberty. Liberals and conservatives should embrace libertarianism not for its truth, but for its capacity to optimize the satisfaction of their desires.

In fact, Randy Barnett's pragmatism seems to run so deep that he's unable to see the obvious fact that none of the many varieties of statists are fundamentally opposed to each other. Although statists often viciously fight for power, they share basic principles. That's why they can and do build upon the "achievements" of the statists who come before them, of whatever stripe. That's why both George Bush and Ted Kennedy are committed to government welfare programs: the only difference between them is the particular form of those welfare programs. Ted wants monolithic state control, while George demands the illusion of choice in which all options are helpfully pre-screened by the government. Yet somehow, in the rationalist dreams of a libertarian, both Ted and George might instead opt to totally eliminate government welfare so as to prevent themselves from being "oppressed" by the statism of the other.

Oh please. Will the pope have an abortion next week too?

If libertarians paid more attention to philosophical principles underlying political theory -- particularly to the facts about human nature and about the world that make freedom necessary to human life -- these rationalistic absurdities might be avoided. If Randy Barnett did that, he wouldn't be able to trot out the standard contemporary divide between "moral rights" and consequences" as if an ironclad brute fact of nature, as he so often does. Nor could he think of politics merely in terms of the satisfaction of magically-given and unquestionable desires. Nor could he offer a string of abstractions wholly disconnected from the facts about the conflicts between statist politicians. And so on.

Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath waiting for such a change.

The Agony of Self-Defeat

By Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This report on the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah reveals everything wrong with the half-hearted war against militant Islam.

For the first time in a month, no rockets were fired into northern Israel, but few Israelis who fled the war were seen returning and Israel's government advised them to stay away for now.

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah declared that his guerrillas achieved a "strategic, historic victory" over Israel. But President Bush said Hezbollah was defeated, and Israel's prime minister maintained the offensive eliminated the "state within a state" run by the militants in southern Lebanon.

Israeli soldiers reported killing six Hezbollah fighters in four skirmishes in southern Lebanon after the guns fell silent, highlighting the tensions that could unravel the peace plan. [KATHY GANNON, Associated Press Writer]

If Hezbollah was truly defeated as President Bush claims, Hassan Nasrallah would not be in a position to declare anything, let alone that he and is “Party of God” was victorious in battle.

So who wins in such a situation? When evil is allowed to exist despite its many premeditated transgressions, only evil can benefit. Score yet another victory for altruism and the policy of self-immolation.

A Prediction

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Within five to ten years, I predict that substantial numbers of seriously Christian women will opt to veil themselves in church (if not elsewhere) as a symbol of modesty and submission. Why? The question of veils is a much-discussed topic in relation to Islam at present. Not all of it is negative: I remember reading reports of fashion designers influenced by Muslim dress in their designs for women a year or so ago. Serious Christians are also increasingly concerned with modesty in dress for women -- and where better to look than Islam? Moreover, Paul (of the Bible, not of GeekPress) clearly requires women to cover their heads in church in First Corinthians 11:2-16:

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I must admit, I find the logic of all that a bit baffling. That's not important for Christian though, since the instructions are clear enough.

In the course of searching for commentaries on this passage, I quickly found this lengthy defense of women veiling themselves in church. (See the "In Modern Times" section.) If I'm right, expect to see more debate on this topic from Christians in coming years.

Objective Appreciation of Art

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Speaking of VanDamme Academy teachers, Luc Travers will be giving two guided tours of The Huntington Galleries (near Los Angeles) this Saturday. A number of friends from Front Range Objectivism were able to attend similar guided tours in Boston during OCON: they all rave about the experience, some even describing it as the highlight of the conference. Lin Zinser told me that Luc's guided tour taught her to understand art conceptually, as opposed to merely responding emotionally, something she's never been able to do before. (Unfortunately, my schedule was so full at OCON that I wasn't able to attend.)

Here's the announcement:

Appreciating Art, Objectively
A Guided Tour of the Huntington
by Luc Travers

When: Saturday, August 12th, 11am and 2pm
Where: The Huntington Galleries and Gardens, main entrance near ticket counter
Cost: $10 for tour fee.
Museum admission is $15*, $10 for students.
Info: www.huntington.org
Luc's cell: (949) 813-5287

Please RSVP--the number of participants on the tours will be limited!

* A substantial discount will be included if at least 15 people confirm their attendance.

This tour will apply the principles of visiting museums and "reading" art that were introduced on my previous tours. The goal is to come out of the museum spiritually refueled, just as you might feel after seeing a good movie.

The Huntington is one of the West Coast's great collections of art and is especially strong in 18th and 19th century European and American works. For breaks in your art "reading", the Huntington estate is filled with a variety of incredible gardens (the Japanese garden is especially picturesque).

This will be the first in an upcoming series of tours of Southern California Museums. I look forward to seeing you there!

Luc told me that he'll accept RSVPs through Saturday morning, but space is limited, so a spot is not guaranteed.

LECTURES BY LEE SANDSTEAD

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Are you coming to Gothenburg in week 34 (Friday August 25 - Sunday 27)? Click here for the details, e.g., how and when to pay, accommodation, and links of interest, etc. Here is a description of the lectures on 8/26 by Lee Sandstead:

• The Use Value of Art

Art Historian Lee Sandstead will discuss the importance of art under the concept of "use value." This lecture will view the history of art from the standpoint of what that art can do for us, living today, striving to be happy. Starting with the Ancient Greeks, we will focus on how the everyday man used art in his own daily life—and how we can use their art in our own daily lives. Significant discussion will be given to the idea that art can be used by an individual as a technological *tool*--then we will springboard through art history looking for the best *tools* and how to use them.

• Lecture: Master Sculptor: Evelyn Beatrice Longman

If someone told you that there was a 6 ½ foot, bronze portrait bust of Thomas Edison—a masterpiece—would you believe him? If someone told you that there was a 15-foot, gilded bronze statue of a winged, nude male called the Genius of Electricity—again a masterpiece—would you believe him? Surely images such as these would be known by everyone, right? Wouldn't both of these images proliferate through prints and other media?

But yet these two pieces exist, right in front of our eyes, in everyday life. But, tragically, few people know of their existence. They are certainly not written about, not photographed and can only be found in obscure, dated art-historical texts. Why? After 100 years of modernism, these two masterpieces—and hundreds more—have been buried.

The 6 ½ foot bronze portrait bust of Thomas Edison (1952)—the only portrait that he ever sat for--is in Washington D.C. at the Naval Research Laboratory. The 15-foot Genius of Electricity (1915), while now at AT&T's world headquarters in Bedminster, NJ, once stood atop a skyscraper in NYC.

In both cases, the artist is Evelyn Beatrice Longman, one of America's greatest sculptors. Today, she is all but forgotten.

Over the past two years, art-historian Lee Sandstead has traveled through several states locating, documenting and photographing the many works of Evelyn Longman. What he has found, quite simply, is amazing. Come to this stirring illustrated lecture to learn more about Evelyn Longman and learn for yourself why she is a master sculptor—and guidepost.

Our Carry-On Luggage Is Not the Real Problem

By Debi Ghate:

If termites are weakening a home's foundation, what do we do? We call
the exterminator and eliminate the problem. If armed robbers are at
our doors trying to break their way in, what do we do? We defend
ourselves to the best of our abilities until the authorities arrive to
eliminate the threat.

If Islamic totalitarians come close to murdering hundreds of people by
mixing common household materials to blow up airplanes, what do we
do? Apparently, we stop carrying liquids and gels in our carry-on
luggage.

What should we do? We should insist that our government eliminate
the real source of the problem decisively and quickly. Islamic
totalitarian groups such as Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, and the countries
supporting them such as Iran and Syria, are hell-bent on attacking
Americans. They will not stop unless we make it impossible for them to
function or regroup. Their infrastructure and support networks
have to be permanently disabled as quickly as possible in whatever way
our military recommends. A drawn-out, five-year "War on Terror"
where we help build roads, plants and hospitals in the Middle East
only strengthens the resolve of our enemies.

And they'll keep trying to blow up planes in the meantime.

Copyright (c) 2006 Ayn Rand(R) Institute. All rights reserved.

Four Movies and a Cold

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I got really sick yesterday. I'm still damn sick today. It's just a cold, but it hit me so hard toward the mid-morning yesterday that I couldn't do much other than lay about and watch movies. So I watched:

Bride and Prejudice: An Indian musical version of Pride and Prejudice. It was a very fun production, but I'm sure the story would have been terribly confusing to someone unfamiliar with some version of the original. Lalita Bakshi (i.e. Lizzie Bennett) was far too political. Her relationship with Mr. Darcy wasn't adequately developed. The dialogue suffered at times from being written by someone obviously less brilliant than Jane Austen. However, Mr. Kohli (i.e. Mr. Collins) was super-fantastic. Also, watching the uber-intense Sayid from Lost sing and dance as happy-go-lucky Balraj Bingley (i.e. Mr. Bingley) was priceless.

Oddly, and I'm not sure if this is a general feature of Bollywood movies, the movie was highly sexualized in its dances and dress, but the main characters did not so much as kiss. (They leaned and hugged instead.) Can anyone explain that?

Sense and Sensibility: This three-hour BBC miniseries had terrible production values, particularly in contrast to the lush Ang Lee movie (with Emma Thompson). Marrianne was well-played, but Elinor was stony rather than restrained. Plus, Elinor was terribly ugly. Mostly though, this version was boring beyond belief: it lacked the gripping drama of the novel and the movie.

War of the Worlds: This movie was not as bad as I thought it would be. The incompetent divorced father alienated from his children was sooooo cliche -- and sooooo annoying. The daughter (well-played by the delightful Dakota Fanning) was disturbingly neurotic for a girl under ten. The appearance of the son at the end was bizarrely out-out-place, since he seemed to have been wholly engulfed in a large fireball earlier due to his altruistic determination to bravely sacrifice himself in a futile battle with the aliens. I particularly disliked the way in which the aliens perished: deux ex machina -- or rather bacterium ex machina. (Paul tells me that's the fault of H.G. Wells, not the movie-makers.) Really, shouldn't the aliens have considered the possibility of germs?!? To my great frustration, that sudden ending foreclosed the much-hinted-at possibility of the humans discovering some ingenious method of destroying the aliens. That would have been lovely: existing human weapons might be too primitive to defeat the invaders, but clever humans can find some weakness to exploit if they choose to think rather than run screaming in fear.

In general, this movie confirmed by general view of Stephen Spielberg's action movies: he masterfully places his audience in a thoroughly alien world, but doesn't do anything significant in the course of returning them to normality other than place a bunch of random obstacles in the way.

Kingdom of Heaven: I'm ready to adopt Orlando Bloom. (He's real man in this movie, not some blonde gay elf with a bow!) The plot isn't terribly original: it's too much like Ridley Scott's other recent ancient epic, Gladiator. And it's not even remotely historically accurate, not even to the customs of the time. (In other words, it whitewashes left and right.) Still, I greatly enjoyed the integrity of Balian, as well as the portrayal of the inhumanity and power-lust of the most outwardly devout Christians.

Interestingly, one strong theme of the movie is the independence of morality from God's commands. In other words, it's opposed to Divine Command Theory. (BEWARE: SPOILERS AHEAD!) The hero Balian is motivated to go to Jerusalem to redeem the soul of his wife, unjustly consigned to hell by Christian doctrine for suicide while in the depths of grief over a dead child. Once Balian arrives in Jerusalem, he laments that he hears no call from God: he fears that he has been forsaken.

Thanks to some sound advice from his father and the leprous King of Jerusalem, Balian does not languish in despair or pursue the divine further. Instead, he lives a secular life guided by his own moral principles. Most notably, he digs wells and irrigates his bone-dry land--thereby allowing for the creation of substantial wealth by the Muslims, Christians, and Jews working it. Similarly, when he fights to protect Jerusalem, he does not do so because God commands him or even because the city is holy, but because he knows the inhabitants will be slaughtered by the invading Muslims if it falls. (Of course, I wouldn't endorse all that Balian does as moral, but the point is that the movie portrays his path as consistently moral--and moral in an basically secular way.) More generally, the uneasy peace in Jerusalem is made possible by the firm denials by the leprous King of any and all calls to do God's will by slaughtering the infidel Muslims. Like Balian, he pursues a basically secular path, even punishing the Christian fanatics for killing Muslims as far as he is able.

In contrast, all the trouble in the movie is caused by Muslims and Christians claiming to be executing the will of God by executing Christians and Muslims, respectively. The Christian fanatics create unnecessary conflicts with the Muslims by attacking their caravans. Since the King lacks the power to restrain these fanatics, the Muslims are forced to respond. The Muslim political leader clearly prefers the old peace made with the now-dead King: he's shown sharply resisting pressure from his religious cleric to retake Jerusalem. Still, Saladin is forced into war. Even after the slaughter of the fanatical Christians, the two sides are committed to fighting--and the result is mass death and destruction for both sides.

So the basic message from all that is that morality based upon adherence to God's divine commands results in conflict, suffering, and death, whereas moralities based upon some kind of conscience or reasoning yield peace, prosperity, and life. Notably, the movie clearly portrays the necessity of all sides renouncing the authority of God's commands, in that even a minority of one side pursuing divine commands will result in bloody conflict.

The most clear statement of the relationship between God and morality comes toward the end of the movie. During the siege of Jerusalem, Balian declares that they must burn the bodies of the dead, lest the living be infected with disease. While he knows that such is contrary to Christian burial practices, he openly declares that God will understand--and that if He doesn't, then He's not God. In other words, God's moral demands can and ought to be ignored when they fail to conform to the facts.

Pretty good, no?

ARI Programs

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

For those of you who haven't seen Dr. Yaron Brook's fantastic "State of ARI" presentation (or even haven't seen it lately), you'll want to check out the just-updated "About ARI page on the Ayn Rand Institute's web site. It lays out the essentials of that "State of ARI" talk, summarizing ARI's overall strategy and particular programs. While I'm always delighted to see such a small organization doing so much, keep in mind that this text version is no substitute for the excitement of seeing the full talk live and in person.

Also, for those of you who saw Dr. Brook give the latest version of "State of ARI" at OCON, you'll notice a new program under "Going Forward":

Expansion of ARI's campaign to promote a U.S. foreign policy of self-interest. This effort will entail a significant expansion of our advocacy work on college campuses, in public forums, through the print and electronic media, and with policymakers and academics.

Excellent!

Medieval Sexual Morality at the FDA

Irvine, CA--"The FDA must stop the stalling tactics that have prevented over-the-counter sale of the 'morning-after pill,'" said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"There is no question about the safety of the drug. The FDA's own advisory panel endorsed it three years ago for over-the-counter use. The delays are clearly an attempt by conservative FDA officials to impose their brand of medieval sexual morality on Americans. Such an egregious violation of the separation of church and state is unacceptable in a free country."

Quick Roundup 84

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

AMLO Denied Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, leftist Mayor of Mexico City and rabble-rouser extraordinaire, has been denied the full, vote-by-vote recount he has been demanding since he lost the 2006 presidential election. By a unanimous decision, the seven-member Federal Electoral Tribunal agreed instead to recount ballots in about 9 percent of the more than 130,000 voting precincts nationwide. The

A Tale of Two Pullings

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A weekend without air conditioning in (gasp!) subtropical (pant!) Houston is tough on blogging, not to mention (#$&*!) everything else. (And if posting is irregular over the next couple of days, this will be why.) Nevertheless, I came by my office to check on one pulling only to learn of another.... Reuters Pulls Doctored Photos Via Thrutch and Cox and Forkum: It seems that Reuters has had to

Patriotism

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Sascha Settegast recently posted a lengthy blog entry on on patriotism. Here's a bit of an appetizer:

Patriotism commonly is understood as "love for the fatherland". From this point of view patriotism mainly is an emotional disposition. It consists in feeling somehow "proud" of the country you live in. Tragically, most people today have no sufficient idea of their country's history, ideological makeup, and other things that could lead one to be legitimately proud of it. Instead, their pride is a seemingly causeless sense of "belonging". Ask people in the street why exactly they are proud of their country. If you can get any answer out of them at all, it will be insignificant. What these people evade is the fact that patriotism is not merely an emotional, but primarily an intellectual issue. It does not merely consist in feeling "good" about one's country without giving reasons. One should know what is good about one's country, and reversely, one also should know what is bad about it--and why. Since "good" and "bad" are value judgments, patriotism thus concerns itself with values, and especially--but not exclusively--with political values.

I haven't thought much about patriotism, so I can't say much other than (1) that I like that approach and (2) that the whole post is an intriguing foray into the topic.

Our Islamic Nemesis, Then and Now

By Edward Cline from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Browsing through the thousands of pages of a diplomatic history of the United States commissioned by the State Department, I came across this interesting paragraph about the efforts and obstacles of the U.S. to establish civil relations with foreign powers under the Articles of Confederation, before adoption of the Constitution:

"The Confederation's lack of power was an even more significant factor in the abortive negotiations over American sailors held captive in Algiers. Unlike relations with Spain...Algiers held all the advantages. The guarantee of safe passage in the Mediterranean was always available: namely, to pay suitable tribute to the Dey [Muhammad III, Emperor of Morocco, 1757-1790]. This route was followed by European powers, who found it less expensive to pay the pirates than to fight them. Such recourse was not open to Americans. Although the issue was never as vital to America's survival as other problems in foreign relations, none was more painful. For Jefferson, who was given the task of ransoming the American captives, the solution lay in arms. He wanted to join a federation that would sweep the pirates from the sea once and for all, and was distressed over France's submitting to Algerine demands. [John] Jay's reaction was more cynical; he sensed that Europe had no interest in challenging the pirates, and would relish the prospect of a war between America and the Barbary States, from which Europe would benefit...."

(From The Emerging Nation: Foreign Relations of the United States Under the Articles of Confederation, 1780-89, Vol. 3. National Historical Publications and Records Commission, 1996)

Jefferson at this time was minister to France, and John Jay minister to Spain. What impressed me was the echo from that distant era of Europe's toleration of the Barbary pirates, in particular France's, and Europe's unwillingness to "sweep the pirates from the sea once and for all." The U.S., at the time strapped for cash to launch a navy that would have satisfied Jefferson's recommendation, could do little else but emulate the European policy and pay tribute. In 1786 the U.S. representative, John Barclay, negotiated a "non-molestation" treaty with Morocco, whose "emperor" was paid $10,000 in gifts to sign it. But Tripoli, Algiers and Tunis for the next three decades continued their seizures of American vessels and enslaving their crews and passengers. After the Dey's death, Morocco also resumed its depredations.

It should be noted here that during the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, Barbary pirates would turn over seized American vessels to the British navy—for a price, of course.

As president, Jefferson took the first concrete steps to counter the Barbary looters by sending a squadron to combat Tripoli, which had declared war on the U.S. because it didn't think it was receiving enough in tribute. (For details, see the adventures of Stephen Decatur). Jefferson, struggling with a contentious Congress, was unable to deal effectively with the other Barbary States. It fell to President James Madison to finish the task of reducing Algiers, Tunis, Morocco and Tripoli and forcing them to cease their plundering of American vessels (1815).

One must observe that neither Jefferson, Jay nor Madison responded to the Barbary "crisis" by proposing to "democratize" the Barbary States for the sake of "peace" in the Mediterranean, or rebuild towns damaged by American bombardments, or pay compensation to "innocent" Muslims affected by the fighting. And all they got in the way of European response to the idea of an international military effort to subdue the Barbary States was indifference and expressions of "such is life" tolerance of Barbary extortion. Further, Jay was correct in his assessment of Europe, in that it benefited from American action at no cost to it, not even in an expression of gratitude. Today, Europe is similarly benefiting at the expense of the U.S. expending blood and treasure fighting the wrong war.

The historical parallels of and differences between that age and this one are noteworthy, not only in terms of actions taken, but in terms of a nation asserting its right to reply to force with force. Jefferson and Madison were not by nature "men of war," but they nonetheless settled on war instead of continuing to pay tribute to barbarians and submitting to their extortion. Their decisions were not governed by an unreasoning, emotional anathema to "violence." In that era, the U.S. had to wait until it was solvent enough to dispatch a navy to end the "crisis." And when the causes of the "crisis" were dealt with, there was no more crisis to bedevil the country.

When one watches the frantic, contemptible relief with which the U.S. and Europe react to the least chance for "peace" between Israel and Lebanon (re the recent U.N. Security Council resolution to end the fighting, but condescending to allow Israel to defend itself), one cannot help but sense that it is not "peace" they are seeking, but release from the responsibility of taking a moral stand, in this instance, on the right of Israel to retaliate with force against a power seeking its destruction. Thus, Hezbollah, a more vicious and dangerous band of killers than the Barbary pirates ever could be (they were not being financed with Iranian oil revenues), is being treated as an ineluctable metaphysical fact that must be dealt with on its own terms.

Somehow, think President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Prime Minister Blair, France and other parties, the perilous conflict in the Mideast can be reduced to the level of a Hatfield-McCoy feud of "proportionate," tit-for-tat "reciprocal" actions, refereed by the United Nations, which has in the past, more than once, demonstrated a virulent hatred of Israel (and of the U.S.).

Underscoring the nature of the conflict, King Abdullah of Jordan, who has criticized the U.S. and Israel over the war, according to the BBC, "stressed the only way to achieve peace was to end the Israeli occupation of Arab lands."

Concretely, he was referring to the territories Israel won and kept after being attacked by its Arab neighbors. More broadly, he was referring to the claim by Hezbollah, by the Palestinians, by Syria, by Iran, that Israel itself "occupies' Arab land, and that its destruction would bring "peace" to the Mideast.

A moral stand in this and in any other "crisis" that involves aggression would be a refusal to sacrifice the good to evil and a "proactive" policy to preserve the good. This is not our present policy. Now we are asking Israel, the good, what one commentator called the "frontline of civilization in the Mideast," to jeopardize its existence by accommodating an unacknowledged evil, Islamofascism. This is a totalitarian movement which, as one Iranian ayatollah recently proclaimed, will one day rule from Spain to Iran, by jihad or by diplomacy.

There would be no need for a U.N. sponsored "international" force to patrol the Israeli-Lebanese border if Israel were allowed to eradicate Hezbollah "once and for all." As for the Lebanese government, it should fall. The Lebanese should learn the hard way that it should not pay to form a "democratic" alliance with totalitarian killers.

Our Islamic enemies understand us, all too well, and are advancing because they grasp that the West is unwilling to assert not only its right to exist, but its moral superiority. When will our political leaders begin to understand our enemies and act to vanquish them? Only when they grasp the fact that retaliatory violence is the only answer to force and terror.

"First Look at Founders College"

The university inspired by Ayn Rand's ideas that's been in the news recently has finally made a public announcement:

There's been a lot of mystery surrounding the startup of Founders College--the greatest revolution in higher education of our lifetime. You can be the first to get the real deal (not the media mush) on this exciting project by checking out www.founderscollege.com. Whether you're a friend or just curious about the project, you're getting a first look because you're a rational, prolific, powerful web communicator [Ed: thanks!]. There will be many exciting milestones to come--announcement of our location, full faculty listing, and much, much more--and we'll be in touch along the way.

Mel and Madonna

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Yesterday, I ran across an article about an upcoming appearance by Madonna in Rome. It seems that the sophomoric pop star and Kabbalah faddist is going to star in a mock crucifixion. The Roman Catholic Church is not amused.

Cardinal Ersilio Tonino, speaking with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI said: "This time the limits have really been pushed too far.

"This concert is a blashphemous challenge to the faith and a profanation of the cross. She should be excommunicated."

This alone is no big deal. The Cardinal is merely doing his job -- and showing what adherence to religion is really all about. On that latter score, I urge him to keep it up: Most people merely pay lip service to religion and so don't appreciate what a threat it would pose to freedom if it ever were to gain real power again -- which is exactly what is also going on.

Before we continue, let's recall some recent history.

Quick. Which side did Pope Benedict XVI line up behind during the Cartoon Riots: (a) the Danish artists who received death threats over some drawings of Mohammed or (b) the smelly, unkempt barbarians who were delivering said threats even as they rioted, burned, and murdered worldwide? The answer was b, although Benedict had to say something about the bad behavior of the children so it wouldn't be too obvious he was catering to their tantrum.

"It is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols are respected, and that believers are not the object of provocations that harm their progress and their religious feelings," he said.

"However, intolerance and violence can never be justified as responses to offences," he warned.

Note that it was respect for religion that he called "urgent"; not putting a stop to barbaric behavior, mayhem, and death threats.

And now, the Moslems are returning the favor, with some religious Jews getting into the act. (I am surprised by the Jews, who are frequently the target of religious-fueled hatred and really ought to know better. Perhaps this is natural selection at work....)

In an unusual show of religious solidarity, Muslim and Jewish leaders added their condemnation of the self-styled Queen of Pop, famous for peppering her concerts and videos with controversial religious and sexual imagery.

"I think her idea is in the worst taste and she'd do better to go home," Mario Scialoja, head of Italy's Muslim League said.

I normally don't give a tinker's dam about Madonna or her various mystical enthusiasms, but this story bears watching, as it looks like we may soon see the Church attempt to regain more of the secular authority it once had.

In the meantime, the Vatican has remained tellingly silent about the escapades of another famous non-mainstream Catholic entertainer: Mel Gibson, a traditionalist Catholic. I was originally thinking about blogging something about how the different treatments of Gibson and Madonna might reflect the true priorities of the Vatican, but there are too many confounding variables to make the point just yet, in part because the stories are both too young. Nevertheless, I did find an article at the Townhall web site that illustrates my point -- that the religious care more about silencing objections to their dicta than anything else -- better than I could have made it anyway.

Brent Bozell -- who champions censorship as the founder and president of the Parents Television Council -- has written a column in defense of Mel Gibson that attempts to blur the distinction between bigotry of the type that Mel Gibson famously gave voice to recently and remarks unfriendly to or even merely critical of religion.

How does he do this? First, he omits what Gibson said, which included: "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." This is loony, completely without merit, and is the kind of excuse used throughout history to persecute the Jews. This is not a joke about Judaism. Nor is it an intellectual argument against or objection to the tenets of Judaism. Not even a poorly-crafted one.

Bozell's tack, after having conveniently passed over the above, is to play "gotcha" with Gibson's Hollywood detractors by calling them hypocrites -- for calling Gibson intolerant while being guilty of attacking Christianity (or even daring to point out valid criticisms of Christian institutions), which Bozell equates to what Gibson did.

An excerpt of his "counter argument" should be sufficient. [My comments are bracketted and in bold.]

The first thing Mel Gibson and everyone else should do is ignore people like these. They are hypocrites.

They were nowhere to be found when "Da Vinci Code" actor Ian McKellen publicly accused the Catholic Church of "perhaps misleading us all this time," and stated, "the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction." And what of the movie itself, a bigoted anti-Catholic screed if ever there was one? Any denouncements from them? [(1) Perhaps Mr. Bozell is privy to a proof of God's existence I am unaware of. If not, then perhaps the Church is misleading us. If he does, then we can move on to other points, which are based on this assumption. (2) I haven't seen this movie, but I have read the book. I wouldn't have found this offensive or "anti-Catholic" even when I was Catholic: It's a work of historical fiction which takes as its basis a fictional conspiracy by members of the Church.]

Where were they when Comedy Central's Dennis Leary aired his "Merry F*ing Christmas" special, publicly called the Christmas story "bull[bleep]" and said of the baby Jesus and the Virgin Mary, "I also believe that about nine months before he was born, somebody sure as [bleep] banged the hell out of his mom"? Any religious bigotry there, folks? [Tasteless humor. Yes. A joke at the expense of a myth -- or have you a shred of proof, Mr. Bozell? -- about parthenogenisis. But still, these are attacks against doctrines, and not accusations like, "Those Romans are behind all the wars."]

Have any of these people ever said a word about the "South Park" DVD featuring an episode called "Red Hot Catholic Love," in which almost every Catholic priest and cardinal in the world favors having sex with altar boys because supposedly it's been enshrined in Vatican law? ... [Satire, Mr. Bozell, and about a serious problem -- that the church YOU are defending -- has indisputably had and, as far as I can tell, is failing to address. For one thing, the fictional conspiracy in The Da Vinci Code is small potatoes compared to the real live one, to cover up for pedophiles, that you're doing your part to whitewash. Or was there another reason Cardinal Bernard Law wound up in Rome?]

Just as Bozell wants Mel Gibson to ignore his criticism, he wants his readers to ignore the difference between bigotry against human beings such as Gibson's -- which is morally repugnant -- and two entirely unrelated things: (1) intellectual objections concerning religion, and (2) discussions about real live scandals in religious institutions. He implicitly condemns the latter even when it means acqiescing to the trampling of the lives of young boys underfoot.

Thank you for sharing with us your sense of priorities, Mr. Bozell. You have made my point.

-- CAV

NO Cease-fire Until Hezbollah Is Obliterated

Irvine, CA--Echoing numerous world leaders, Pope Benedict has called for an immediate cease-fire in the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, asking both to "immediately put down their arms."

"But that's the last thing Israel should do," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"Israel must continue its war in Lebanon until it obliterates Hezbollah's presence there. And the leaders of every civilized country should be urging Israel to do just that.

"Israel is Western civilization's frontline in the war against Islamic totalitarianism, a religious ideology that seeks to subjugate the whole world to Islam.

"It is in the self-interest of every free or semi-free country in the world that Israel defeat Hezbollah, an Islamic terror group sponsored by the Islamic republic of Iran.

"The Islamic totalitarians will not be defeated until we in the West support Israel and gain the courage and the moral certitude to fight them without restraint."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Ensure Your Health Young

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This NY Times article is a fascinating look at the causes of the robust health enjoyed by modern Americans. Although medications are helpful, the fact is that we suffer from the diseases themselves far less often, far later in life, and far less severely than did our ancestors. So what explains that? Scientists suspect that better living, particularly better nutrition and fewer serious diseases (thanks to vaccines) for fetuses and babies (i.e. through age two) is responsible. Fascinating! (Hat tip: Virginia Postrel)

Two Lecture Courses on Sale

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Ayn Rand Bookstore is selling two of Leonard Peikoff's excellent lecture courses at a substantial discount:

Induction in Physics and Philosophy
By Leonard Peikoff

These historic lectures present, for the first time, the solution to the problem of induction--and thereby complete, in every essential respect, the validation of reason ...

(13 hrs., 42 min., across 7 sessions, with Q & A)

Audio CD; 14-CD set:
Regular price: $210
Sale price: $145

Audiocassette; 12-tape set:
Regular price: $180
Sale price: $125

The Dim Hypothesis: The Epistemological Mechanics by which Philosophy Shapes Society
By Leonard Peikoff

This 15-session course--part lecture, part discussion--was presented live to a worldwide audience by phone and on the Internet. It is based on Dr. Peikoff's The DIM Hypothesis (book-in-progress), in which he looks at the role of integration in the culture and in practical life ...

(22 hrs., 9 min., with Q & A)

Audio CD; 30-CD set:
Regular price: $310
Sale price: $215

Audiocassette; 15-tape set:
Regular price: $265
Sale price: $185

The sale ends on October 1st.

MSM in Denial on Castro

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Babalu Blog remains a must-read during (choose one: Fidel Castro's health/the Cuban succession) crisis. While major news outlets like Reuters simultaneously assert that Castro is alive and yet sound like they're already writing his eulogy, Babalu Blog is making sure that the intelligent reader has access to the cold, hard facts. Just compare this silly bit of cheerleading by Reuters to the plethora of information available from Babalu Blog. I'll make just a few comparisons between what I was able to learn thanks to just one post (pointing to material at National Review Online) on the anti-Castro blog and what Reuters is trying to pass off as news.

First, there are the little problems of "illness", timing of death announcements, and general honesty with the media -- and the huge problem of succession -- in Communist countries. Reuters downplays all these problems (and ignores history) in an article touting Castro's power handover to his brother Raul as if it is a test for how well Cuba's "system" of choosing his successor will work.

Hopes held by exiles and other die-hard opponents that Fidel Castro's failing health would trigger a crisis of confidence in Cuban communism have been dampened by the apparently smooth succession plan set off by his illness.

The immediate appointment of his defense minister brother Raul as provisional president and calm coverage by state media have sent a strong message that the communist system will go on, even without its 79-year-old founder, Cuba-watchers say.

...

Some analysts say it could well be a smart move by Castro to test the resilience of his succession plan while he is still around and in charge, even from a hospital bed.

Horse hockey! If Castro is such a genius and is so genuinely concerned about Cuba, why did he wait to do this until he was eighty freaking years old, and why is his brother, no spring chicken himself, the apparent successor?

Meanwhile, we have this much more believable explanation of events at National Review.

In Communist societies, the fall of a dictator is often marked by a public statement about the dictator's failing health that (a) doesn't make sense, and (b) is not delivered by the dictator himself. That's what we saw on Monday night, when Cuban dictator Fidel Castro issued a "letter to the people" in which he explains that he had suffered intestinal bleeding due to stress, needed an operation, and would be in bed for several weeks. The missive was coldly Orwellian in how little it said about Castro -- and in how much detail it gave about those who were now "temporarily" assuming power.

The next day another Cuban official read a more entertaining letter in which Castro purports to explain (again in pure Newspeak) that because of the imminent threat from the United States, the details of his health are now a state secret. But there's only one detail about Castro's health that could possibly be a state secret: that he's dead.

Sure, he could be in a coma. But any student of Communism can say now with certainty that his reign is over. The only thing his heirs care about now is figuring out who really controls the estate -- and who's going to end up with it.

Castro's non-death declaration -- essentially his last will and testament -- leaves a series of key posts, and control of the state budget, to several senior leaders. But it only establishes the initial position of the players. The real game starts now, as the realities of internal power dynamics start making for unexpected conflicts and strange bedfellows. This unstable phase of the struggle for succession is highly characteristic in Communist regimes. It may last many weeks or months, and it is doubtful, if history is any guide, that all of the initial players will survive -- literally. [bold and link added]

Mario Loyola then takes a look at four people who may end up in charge after the dust settles and, for the sake of the generation of readers who didn't grow up with the Soviet Union around, does an entertaining bit of historical review. I love the ending: "And on and on went the history of the Soviet Union, until the day it finally died, when a group of would-be coup leaders explained in a press conference that Premier Gorbachev had been taken ill, and some reporters just started laughing."

And while we're on the matter of succession, Reuters runs a real gem about Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's thoughts on the matter.

"The succession process is a decision the Cuban people will have to take," Lula told reporters in Brasilia.

...

"The main concern of representatives from countries friendly to Cuba is that Cubans decide their future without interference," said Tilden Santiago, Brazilian ambassador in Havana.

"It would be very bad to see interventionist attitudes repeated in Cuba, in a world that has seen episodes like those in Iraq," he said without naming the United States.

Lula, you see, equates the will of "the Cuban people" with that of Castro. He would apparently rather see anything besides free elections held in a nation that respects individual rights. He has just voiced support for Castro, support for his hand-picked successor (See below.), opposition to any American-aided transition of Cuba to freedom, and implicit support for the way "the Cuban people" chose Castro, as detailed by the wife of an eye-witness.

[F]or days [after Batista fled] there was chaos in Havana. Mobs looted the casinos and smashed open the parking meters. No one was in control.

...

"What's happening in Havana?" Castro asked. [Radio sportscaster Buck] Canel began to explain: Different groups had taken over different parts of the city. Castro wanted to know specifics. "Who's in control of the police? The airport? The university?" he asked. And finally, "Who is running the radio and television station?"

Canel didn't have all the answers, but knew definitely that Castro's supporters were in charge at the radio and television station. He had been there earlier that day to make a broadcast.

"Are you sure?" asked Castro.

"Absolutely sure." Canel replied.

"Let's go then," said Castro.

He and his bodyguards left the building and climbed into a battered old American jeep. My husband and Canel got back into their taxi and followed behind as they headed towards Havana. Nearing the city, the crowds got bigger and bigger as they realized Castro was on his way. Outside the broadcasting building, Castro leaped out of the jeep and went inside. He went straight to a studio, told the technicians to switch on the transmitter, and Castro started talking into the camera. He talked and talked and talked -- for seven hours non-stop.

And that, my husband always says, is how Castro took Cuba. [bold added]

Yeah. A guerilla war, followed by anarchy, and seizure of the press by thugs, all so the windbag control freak who started the whole mess can take over the country! God, if only our Founding Fathers had thought of that!

And finally, in another story, we have this terse and rather unsatisfying comment on how a permanent succession of Raul Castro would affect United States policy towards Cuba.

The U.S. administration, which has tightened a long embargo of Cuba, has dismissed any possibility of a softer stance toward the Cuban government even if Raul Castro takes over permanently.

"Even if Raul Castro takes over"? Leaving aside the question of whether American policy towards Cuba has been effective, if it is premised on harming the regime, why should it change "even if" Castro's brother takes over? This seems to imply, among other things, that Raul is "not so bad".

Those wanting a more detailed (and therefore sober) assessment of such outcome can find it here.

Nothing suggests that Raul Castro -- Fidel's designated successor since 1959 -- will fail to take control of the country upon his elder brother's death. And nothing about Raul suggests that he would be a more benevolent dictator than his predecessor. He is reportedly more ideological than Fidel, having belonged to a Communist youth group well before the older Castro publicly declared himself a socialist. He is responsible for hundreds of extra-judicial assassinations. Fidel has described him as "more radical than I." And while he has expressed interest in Chinese-style economic reforms, he has shown no desire to retreat from Cuba's Stalinist politics, and has hinted that his hostility toward the United States exceeds even that of his brother. Though Raul is 75 years old, the upper ranks of the Communist leadership are filled with his loyalists, making it likely that his poisonous ideology will live many years longer than he.

Babalu Blog deserves daily visits as these events unfold. You owe it to yourself to have other sources of information besides the fawning liberal media, and when the offical death announcement occurs, your sanity may need it! (Actually, things are already getting quite ugly.)

What do I think? Castro has got to be in mortal peril if not already dead. Beyond that, I don't know what could occur. I think Raul has a decent shot of coming out on top, but he is too old to see Chinese-style market reforms help him, personally, hold on to power. If he does implement such reforms, the survival of "communism", Chinese-style is possible for a time -- unless there is enough popular discontent for a rebellion to occur before the economic benefits (to the regime) of reform are realized. But as with other communist states, capitalist reforms have a way of whetting a people's taste for freedom. Whether the regime in charge of Cuba is in danger of losing power any time soon depends largely on how much of its power depended on Castro himself and on how unhappy (and assertive) the Cubans are, two variables with which I have no familiarity. Certainly, U.S. policy ought to change in favor of destabilizing Cuba if the regime remains intact.

-- CAV

PS: I congratulate Babalu Blog on its recent well-deserved media exposure (e.g., Investor's Business Daily on the subject of socialized medicine in Cuba).

Sparrowhawk: Observations of a Book Signer

By Edward Cline from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

During my numerous booksignings at Colonial Williamsburg, I have made countless observations and acquired sales skills which I did not know I had the patience and fortitude to develop (I am not naturally an extrovert). The observations center on the motivations people exhibit in coming to see "Revolutionary City" (that is Colonial Williamsburg's current theme) and in their interest in my Sparrowhawk novels.

One observation is that, when I am booksigning with other authors at the same time, which is frequently, I am not in competition with them. People who are colonial era "buffs" will gravitate to those authors who have written about colonial life or some military aspect of the time. The ideas that moved the Founders do not interest them as much as do the accouterments and customs of the period. People who find interesting a book about the adventures of a colonial era squirrel are not going to be interested in an epic of pre-Revolutionary America. And people who are interested in having mere facts spoon-fed to them show no interest in the circumstances of those facts, and cannot be persuaded to crack open a book to acquire them, whether it is a novel or a history.

One can only pity the patrons of the colonial squirrel. But I have grown an antipathy for those interested only in facts, an antipathy that can only extend to those who pander to such mentalities.

A couple appears often at the Colonial Williamsburg bookstore whom I shall refer to only as the "Chart People." They do a lot of business at the store, and occupy an entire corner of the Visitor's Center arcade. Their product is not a book, but a chart, a huge, gaudy schematic of the times between 1762 and 1783, which, as they explain it to anyone interested, "for the first time puts the whole Revolutionary War in one place." The chart resembles the periodic table of elements.

Their sales pitch goes something like this, and is almost self-explanatory:

"Just give me sixty seconds of your time. You can become an instant expert, and this takes all the confusion from the Revolutionary War. Everything is in chronological order. All you have to do is follow the colored dots, red for British, blue for American, to know when all the battles were fought and who was doing what when.....See the picture here? Here's George Washington, and you can follow his career just by following the dots....You can use the chart here or our CD and watch the slide show. By watching the slide show four or five times, you'll learn all about the Revolution....Just $19.95....By the way, we're planning a chart for the Civil War, too!"

It is not so much what they say about their chart that I find so revolting, as what they wordlessly imply in their tone and manner and in what they cater to when speaking to prospective customers:

"You or your kids don't have to think about it. We've done all the thinking for you. All you have to do is stick to the color-coding and get instant information. We've saved you the effort of reading and thinking, of acquiring and evaluating any fundamental knowledge. If you're interested in just facts, so your kids can pass a test or something, we don't bother them with causal relationships or motivations or context or any of that heavy stuff. They won't have to bother with books ever again."

Every time I hear this unspoken spiel, I cannot help but recall Ayn Rand's comments in The Journals about a particular species of looter, comments she made in notes in preparation for writing Atlas Shrugged. The Chart People pander to that species.

"...The arrogance of the 'common man': he expects 'to be convinced,' with no mental effort on his own part....He wants mental food to be pre-digested and automatic. Also -- he is firmly convinced that the main job of the thinkers (perhaps the only job) is to convince him, to educate him. If asked how one could go about educating him (or making him understand anything), his answer would be: 'I don't know. That's your job. You've got to educate me -- both give me the right ideas and invent a way to convince me that they are the right ideas....'" (The Journals, p. 546.)

The Chart People do not even offer pre-digested ideas, but merely pre-digested "facts" on a subject many people want knowledge of but without they or their children having to exert much or any effort to acquire it. The Chart People bill their product as an "educational tool," calling it "learning with ease." They are willing to serve the looters of spirit and intellect. And, I am not in competition with them, and people seeking only effortless, automatic knowledge would never be my customers, either.

I am convinced that parents who innocently fall for the "chart" do their children a disservice. Knowledge that children might gain by such a means will not become permanent knowledge of the Revolution or of any other subject. Once it has served its purpose (for a course, a test, a term paper), it will vanish from their minds as just so much extraneous, disposable data. The charts will be rolled up and stowed in a closet or garage, and the CD buried in a pile of video game CDs.

Offsetting the presence of the Chart People, for me, at least (and, in fact, erasing them from existence), are the visitors who find in my novels an incomparable value. The common theme among parents looking for something with which to educate and entertain their children is desperation for something that brings history to life or that counteracts politically correct textbooks. Long ago I lost count of the number of eight- or nine-year-olds who read the first page of Book One: Jack Frake, whose eyes lit up, and glanced up at their father or mother with a silent "Yes!" and a big smile.

And the first sentence of that title is a long one, breaking the rule that opening sentences should be short and punchy. I wrote it so that it would address the soul of anyone who read it, regardless of his age ("soul" here meaning the sum of one's character and philosophical and moral premises). It is a "grabber," to put it in editorial jargon, especially for those who still have a "soul" they can call their own. Often that "Yes" is enough to convince an adult, parent or a child that Sparrowhawk is worth reading and pursuing clear to the end of the series. At times I must assure a parent that there are no lurid or graphic sex scenes, no gory battle details or no profanity in the series.

Another gratifying occurrence is when someone buys Book One, reads it overnight in his hotel room, and returns to my table the next morning to get the next in the series or the even whole series. Visitors are often people who have driven from neighboring states to talk with me or have their copies signed when they know I will be at the bookstore. Teachers become intrigued by the series and arrange with the bookstore or the publisher to supply their classes with it.

The only two nationalities that have shown no interest in the series are the Japanese and the French: the Japanese because they are there solely to take pictures, and the French, because they lost (or rather, their ancestors did). More amusing are what I call the "missing links," visitors who espy the covers of the books from across the arcade, come over to the table, stare dumbly at the covers for longer than is necessary for anyone to read the print, then realize that they are looking at books, not pictures, and shuffle away.

There are also the "sadists" who express interest, fondle the books, engage me in long conversations about the period, then walk away with a smug "I'm not convinced" attitude that Rand described. Their parting words always give them away; they "fooled" me, enjoyed wasting my time and passion on them, and dashing my hopes for a sale. These, too, are Rand's "looters" of the spirit. They are the only visitors who give me the sense of having been robbed.

They are overwhelmingly outnumbered, however, by people seeking literary and esthetic values, and who find them at my table, and more often than not express their gratitude personally or in fan mail. The Visitors Center bookstore is both a terminus and an embarkation point for tens of thousands of people, from across the country, from across the world. If I manage to persuade one half of one percent of the people who pass through the Center to merely sample one of the titles, I will consider the series successful. The store certainly considers it a success.

Global Warming Update

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Global warming is being blamed for all sorts of crap.

Roboscallop

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Medical researchers are developing a clever new drug-delivery device called the "roboscallop":

A device that mimics a sea scallop -- propelling itself by alternately sucking and blowing -- could one day carry drugs to hard-to-reach parts of the human body.

"Our motor has no moving parts and can be powered remotely with no connecting wires," says Claus-Dieter Ohl, a physicist at the University of Twente in the Netherlands who led the team that built the device.

The so-called "roboscallop" consists of a tube a few millimetres long and about 750 microns in diameter that is closed at one end and contains a bubble of air. Submerging the tube in fluid and bombarding it with sound waves causes the bubble to expand and contract, alternately sucking and blowing liquid from one end of the tube. The process generates thrust because fluid enters the tube from a wide angle but is expelled as a narrow jet.

"It's how a scallop moves," explains team member Rory Dijkink. "When you watch our device, it looks as if it is making two steps forward and one step back."...

Because the roboscallop is powered by sound waves, it needs no internal power source or connecting wires. "You could drive one inside the human body by placing the skin in contact with a loudspeaker," says Ohl. The sound needed to drive the device is loud but bearable, the researchers say.

Anyone who's seen Greg Salmieri's eerily realistic imitation of a value-seeking scallop at his 2006 OCON course on Objectivist epistemology will know exactly how this works.

Death by Iron Fist, I Hope

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog