San Diego Has No Right to Ban Wal-Mart or Other Superstores

From Dr. Andrew Bernstein:

IRVINE, CA--On Tuesday the San Diego City Council voted to ban retail stores of more than 90,000 square feet that use 10 percent of space to sell groceries and other products that are not subject to sales tax. The ban targets Wal-Mart and similar large stores.

"Neither the residents of San Diego nor their representatives on the city council have a right to prevent Wal-Mart from opening a store there," said Andrew Bernstein, senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute.

"Wal-Mart violates no one's rights by opening stores on its own land and should be free to do so even if local residents are against it.

"Wal-Mart deals with its customers and employees by voluntary means. Wal-Mart offers products that people can choose not to buy and jobs people can choose not to take. That millions shop in Wal-Mart's stores and thousands line up for job openings in the company is evidence that huge numbers of people find value in dealing with Wal-Mart.

"While local retailers may indeed lose their business to Wal-Mart, they have no right to be protected from competition and from Wal-Mart's ability to offer lower prices.

"Likewise, while local residents may be inconvenienced by a surge in traffic or by the sight of a Wal-Mart store, they have no right to prevent Wal-Mart from opening a store in their city.

"If the residents of San Diego--or any other American city--don't want Wal-Mart to succeed, they should not shop in its stores."

Dr. Andrew Bernstein is a Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Marist College; he also teaches at SUNY Purchase and formerly at Pace University, and Marymount College. Dr. Bernstein lectures regularly at American universities and appears frequently on the radio talk shows. His Op-Eds have been published in The San Francisco Chronicle, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Atlanta Constitution, The Washington Times, The Los Angeles Daily News, The Houston Chronicle and others. Dr. Bernstein is the author of The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire.

AROUND THE WEB ON 11-22-06

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

Cross-posted from Gus Van Horn

Since I will be spending time with family tomorrow and Friday, I will take a break from blogging on those two days, returning some time on the weekend. Since I'll be away, I decided to do my normal weekly roundup early.

Rangel's "Draft" is Really National Service Slavery

Mark my words. And when this becomes apparent, Republican resistance to it is going to soften.

Yesterday, I posted again on Rangel's proposal to reinstitute the military draft because I saw yet another weak objection to it at a prominent conservative blog. In addition to noting the weaknesses of that argument, I anticipated how the national debate over the proposal might progress since Rangel has admitted that he is not thinking exclusively along the lines of military service when he says he wants to make everyone serve the state for two years.

Given that Colin Powell and John McCain -- to name just two prominent Republicans -- both favor national service, how likely will other Republicans be to take a stand against Rangel's "draft"? If volunteering for the military can substitute for it? If the military gets to cherry-pick from the draftees? If some of the draftees get to serve in "faith-based" initiatives?

The more I think about this, the more worried get that unless more and better arguments are made against this horrendous idea on moral grounds, the more likely we Americans are to get blindsided by a bunch of politicians pulling the bait-and-switch of a national service measure Republicans foolishly support in the initial guise of an anti-war draft proposal by a Democrat.

Andy over at Cozy Corner gives this a go. He rightly notes that, "[T]he draft is a form of institutionalized slavery," but he undercuts himself by conceding that the draft is morally defensible "for the survival of a nation". The flaw in this argument is that it forgets what the proper purpose of a government is: the defense of individual rights, the most fundamental of which is the right to one's own life. If a nation does not do just that, it does not deserve to survive.

When one of America's Founding Fathers said, "A republic, if you can keep it," he very succinctly stated how crucial it is for the people to take self-government seriously. Andy (like very many others) sees clearly that a nation cannot defend itself without an army. But what good is such a "defense" if said country denies the rights of its own citizens to decide for themselves whether to risk combat?

We must not only be willing to serve in the military or at least offer strong support to those who do (or find another means of self-defense, like hiring mercenaries) in order to remain free, we must consistently adhere to the principle that servitude is wrong. Once we make even one exception, we open the door to countless others.

The government is only our servant. It cannot make us as individuals do what it takes to remain free whether that is to bear arms or to uphold the principle of individual rights. Those jobs lie with the master, us. Government force cannot replace a people's desire to be free or their responsibility to think and act accordingly.

Net Neutrality: Gateway to Censorship

Myrhaf gives us a timely update on efforts by the Democrats -- and we all knew they were coming -- to impose government control over alternative media.

Such an innocuous name: net neutrality. Who could be against that? And the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 sounds so fair! What bigot would dare oppose nondiscrimination?

Under the cover of these happy fuzzy words the Democrats are about to slap price controls on internet providers. Americans should be happy, as the consumers in the Soviet Union were under price controls. Oh, wait -- there were long lines and empty shelves? Scratch that.

...

But making the internet better is not really the point of all this legislation. Giving the state power over the internet is the point.

There have been rumbles about this for quite some time, too.

Although Rangel's "draft" threatens to impose two years of slavery on every American, the threat of censorship is by far the greatest danger we face, for only the free exchange of ideas permits rational debate about politics to occur, and only reason permits us any hope of examining and correcting past mistakes.

Keeping our freedom of speech is Job One for the foreseeable future in the current political climate.

A Small Victory

On the Freedom of Speech front: the California Supreme Court recently made a ruling that is clearly applicable to bloggers. "Websites that publish inflammatory information written by other parties cannot be sued for libel, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday."

News from the Front

Oh yeah. I nearly forgot, there's a war going on.

Quick, remind the President!

Negotiating with terrorists will be far less effective at achieving peace even than participating in this "Global Orgasm for Peace". (There's a "liberal orgasm" for you, Mr. Limbaugh.)

Japanese Submarine Accident

Bubblehead posts an update on the recent collision of a Japanese submarine with a tanker, complete with a photo of the damage. Money quote: "Note for non-submariners: The rudder is supposed to be vertical."

Wah!, Part I

So the United States is "the most unfriendly country to visitors".

Rude immigration officials and visa delays keep millions of foreign visitors away from the United States, hurt the country's already battered image, and cost the U.S. billions of dollars in lost revenue, according to an advocacy group formed to push for a better system.

To drive home the point, the Discover America Partnership released the result of a global survey on Monday which showed that international travelers see the United States as the world's worst country in terms of getting a visa and, once you have it, making your way past rude immigration officials.

Gosh. I wonder why. Before I get to my point, though, there is the following not unrelated story.

Wah!, Part II

Six imams have the audacity to act indignant when they arouse suspicion aboard a plane flight and are escorted off in handcuffs, which is standard for passengers who do not obey orders from the flight crew.

A passenger initially raised concerns about the group through a note passed to a flight attendant, according to Andrea Rader, a spokeswoman for US Airways. She said police were called after the captain and airport security workers asked the men to leave the plane and the men refused.

"They took us off the plane, humiliated us in a very disrespectful way," said Omar Shahin, of Phoenix.

...

"CAIR will be filing a complaint with relevant authorities in the morning over the treatment of the imams to determine whether the incident was caused by anti-Muslim hysteria by the passengers and/or the airline crew," Hooper said. "Because, unfortunately, this is a growing problem of singling out Muslims or people perceived to be Muslims at airports, and it's one that we've been addressing for some time."

As I said about a similar incident, in which a Middle Easterner wearing an Arabic tee shirt in an airport raised Cain over being told to wear something else:

While we all have freedom of speech in America, we are not entitled to express our opinions through the use of someone else's resources. This is why I cannot simply plant a campaign poster in my neighbor's yard. This is why [Raed] Jarrar should not have my tax money at his disposal (if he does) to finance his various foreign junkets. Nor I his money for my causes. Indeed, Jarrar himself seems to apprehend this point: He has closed the comments on his blog. This is no more an infringement of my freedom of speech than JetBlue's imposition of a rule against Arabic script would be an infringement of Jarrar's. If he objects to the notion that an airline can have "no Arabic script" as part of a customer dress code, then he has some explaining to do. [bold added today]

But even if our government actually protected the right of a carrier like Jet Blue to bar certain forms of dress on its flights, all the above still does not mean that the government would properly just ignore suspicious-looking characters with an interest in domestic aviation. Not after the atrocities committed in the name of Islam on September 11, 2001.

So these imams were allegedly praying. Let them pray, but do not force an airline to ignore the fact that they are Moslem or pretend that their religion does not rightfully arouse suspicions among most Americans. If they haven't the foresight to schedule a flight around prayer time in an overwhelmingly non-Moslem country which has been repeatedly attacked by Moslems, then tough nuts. Have these nincompoops never heard of red-eye flights? Or trains? Or automobiles?

I thank US Airways for being attentive to the concerns of its passengers and fully support its right -- which our government does not adequately defend and may infringe further -- to refuse service to anyone for any reason it pleases.

Perhaps if our government would fight a ruthless war abroad and respect property rights at home -- rather than indiscriminately hassling all foreign visitors -- we would not have our ill-deserved new reputation.

A New Genre?

Software Nerd asks an interesting question: Why aren't there more business novels?

Good Photographer

Robert Tracy introduces and provides a link to the site of a talented, self-taught photographer, Chris Kamphaus.

Fault Lines

There is a short, but interesting article at MSNBC about fault lines in the Democratic Party.

But the tectonic plates move in dangerous ways when the topics are taxes, trade, torts and terrorism. [George] Miller voted against reducing the federal tax code's "marriage penalty"; [Ellen] Tauscher was for it. He was against liberalizing trade with China; she was for it. He was against limiting awards in lawsuits; she was for it.

Then there is terrorism -- and Iraq. Tauscher, with her lower Manhattan ties and her swing district (which includes two of the government's most important defense-research labs), voted to authorize the war in Iraq and is wary of the consequences of a too-hasty exit. To Miller, the war is an unsalvageable blunder. Coming of age in antiwar San Francisco, his view is framed by Vietnam. He voted against authorizing the invasion. He admires Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania for having come forward last year to denounce it. "Everyone discounted the criticisms of people like me because we were the 'antiwar crowd'," Miller says. "Jack gave the Democratic Party a place to stand."

Tauscher is a mixed bag to be sure, but if there are more people like her in the party (and this article is accurate), that would be a very good thing.

What's Up ...

... with Oak Tree? I can still access individual entries from my feed, but the main page of the blog is FUBAR.

Army, Navy, Air Force, Missionaries

Nick Provenzo reports on an unwarranted use of our military: spreading religion.

The Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co. manufactures a Jesus doll that is less a toy and more a tool with which to preach Christianity to children. For example, the toy quotes the Holy Bible with statements like "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." The doll's manufacturer offered to donate 4,000 of its dolls to the Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, founded by the Marines in 1947 to ensure that needy children received some toys for Christmas.

The foundation, supported today by the Marine Corps Reserves as part of its official mission, opted to refuse the Jesus dolls on the grounds that the Marines don't profess one faith over another, and that the doll was an inappropriate gift for a non-Christian family. And that's when all hell broke lose.

In response to its decision, the foundation was peppered with so many calls of Christian outrage that The Washington Post reports that it became impossible for the foundation to perform its mission -- which is simply to give some hard-luck kids something nice to play with on Christmas Day. Caving in to the pressure, the foundation reversed itself and agreed to accept the Jesus dolls, and will simply have to make an extra effort in addition to its already large commitments to ensure that these dolls don't go to families that don't want them.

The purpose of our military is to defend the United States from foreign threats. Not to serve as an overseas welfare agency (to which many conservatives rightfully object) or as a religious order. This is an outrage.

"Saying Justice"

As an atheist, I have noticed that religion often coopts many legitimate tasks of cultural transmission, like education, sponsorship of art, and various cultural ceremonies.

A corollary of this is that many times, those of us who do not follow a religion find ourselves lacking a viable alternative to a common, at least partially worthwhile cultural practice that has been traditionally prescribed by religion.

In that vein, Craig Biddle notices that the positive role of the Christian custom of saying grace at Thanksgiving -- in reminding us of how fortunate we are -- is compromised by the fact that it fails to do justice to those who make our prosperity possible.

To say grace is to give credit where none is due -- and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.

Rational, productive people -- whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself -- are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. This holiday season -- and from here out -- don't say grace; say justice: Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they're through. It's the right thing to do.

Thank you, Craig, and Happy Thanksgiving!

And to all who stop by, ....

Thank you, and Happy Thanksgiving!

-- CAV

So much for “unanimous” - an inconvenient truth

By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Al Gore’s new movie on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” opens with scenes from Hurricane Katrina slamming into New Orleans. The former vice president says unequivocally that because of global warming, it is all but certain that future hurricanes will be more violent and destructive than those in the past.
…
With the official start of hurricane season days away, meteorologists are unanimous that the 2006 tropical storm season, which runs from June 1 through November, is likely to be a doozy.

(emp. mine)
Can you name a single hurricane from 2006? If not, don’t be too hard on yourself -it’s “the most tranquil season in a decade“.

The History of America

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Historian Eric Daniels' full set of courses on American history is now available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. Although I own the set, I've not yet listened to them. Given all the rave reviews I've heard, I'm eager to do so. In the meantime, I'm enjoying Dr. Daniels' "History of Capitalism" course immensely; it's been a real historical eye-opener. It's taught through the graduate program of the Objectivist Academic Center. (It is available for auditing!)

Allen Farris on The Two Christianities

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Allen Farris recently sent me this second essay on Christianity. (His first concerned Christian Fundamentalism.) I'm happy to post it.

Preface

I would like to thank all those who posted comments on my previous essay on Christian fundamentalism. I was a bit surprised at the number of people who recognized similarities to my own background. Several people also raised some interesting questions. Rather than answering individually, I decided to respond with this brief essay.

The Two Christianities

The Christian religion is not a monolithic structure; two major strains stand out in its history. From a philosophical perspective these two might appear to be separate religions only loosely associated, since they have very different answers to what is the nature of the world, the relationship between faith and reason, and how one should live one's life. These two perspectives have formed a polar opposition and much of the history of Christianity can be seen as a struggle between them.

The first of these two derives from Saint Paul of the New Testament and Augustine (354 - 430). This world is to be avoided; emphasis is clearly on the kingdom of God. In fact, this world is regarded as corrupt, a source of temptation, and the province of Satan. Equally emphatic is the denunciation of reason. The only justifiable exercise of reason is as a handmaiden of faith. Without faith, the exercise of reason not only leads to error, it is also corrupt, evil, and the province of Satan. Without faith, mankind is hopelessly mired in mountains of sin, to the extent that no amount of good works could form even a molehill in comparison. Salvation, then, is a free gift of God's grace, completely undeserved. Complete obedience to God is demanded in return.

Now, of course, it is not easy to remain alive in this world with such guiding principles. So, there has been a counter trend within Christianity throughout its history. The most articulate spokesman for this trend is Thomas Aquinas (1224 - 1274). The natural world is good; after all, God created it and pronounced it to be good. Consequently, interest in the natural world is appropriate and can even lead to God. This attitude is the source of such views of an awareness of the laws of physics as "thinking God's thoughts after Him". Reason is viewed as a natural capacity of human beings and can lead to truth about the world. Aquinas was very careful to distinguish philosophy from religion, and the "God of Philosophy" from the "God of faith". His famous five proofs of the existence of God can be criticized philosophically; this is a proper subject of rational debate. However, the "God of faith" is not subject to rational deliberation. But, Aquinas insists, there can be no conflict between faith and reason. Ethically, to live successfully in this world according to one's nature is a good thing for all living creatures, including human beings.

Most modern Christian denominations are complex mixtures of these two perspectives falling, on average, somewhere at an intermediate point on this continuum. This is also true of the Catholic Church. Various monastic orders tend to emphasize one side or the other of this divergence. For example, the Augustinian and Jesuit orders tend to fall on the Augustine side; the Benedictine order tends to fall on the Aquinas side. I attended a small Catholic college run by Benedictine monks my first two years. It was there that I was introduced to Aristotle, logic, and Thomas Aquinas, as well as getting a superb grounding in the fundamentals of mathematics.

Another example is also illustrative here. Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) was a theologian and a member of the Augustinian order within the Catholic Church. His "reformation" actually began as a friendly dispute over some rather arcane theological points related to the relevance of good works to salvation. His point of view was a conservative reaction to the "liberalism" of his day, harking back to the older teachings of Paul and Augustine. Later in his life, as the reformation took on political dimensions and resulted in an overt split from the church, he moved even closer to the positions of Paul and Augustine. His position on reason is unambiguous. He described it as "the Devil's Whore" and urged the faithful to slay it.

Ideas matter; they influence and shape our lives. Therefore, these two oppositions are more than theoretical; they very much affect the daily lives of people caught in the grips of the Christian religion. One of the best portrayals of these affects is in the movie Chocolat. At the beginning of the story, a small French village is caught in the grips of the Augustinian side of this opposition. The mayor and priest keep the people in a dour state of misery, suffering, and general malaise. Along comes the heroine of our story who brazenly opens a chocolate shop, during Lent no less. The movie can be seen as an allegory, using chocolate as symbolic of the enjoyment of life, as it portrays the gradual transformation of the lives of the people in the village moving toward the Aquinas side of this opposition.

Now let us turn to Christian fundamentalism and ask how it fits into this picture. Traditionally, three pillars grounded Christian faith: the authority of the church, tradition, and Holy Scripture. The church provided an interpretation of the Bible; it wasn't necessarily taken as literal truth. Fundamentalism in Christianity tends to reject the authority of the church and tradition, grounding its faith solely in a literal interpretation of the Bible as the revealed word of God. Fundamentalism may be found across all dimensions of Christianity. Many fundamentalists choose to remain in mainstream Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church. However, many do not; they may attend independent or non-denominational churches, or even gather informally in small groups. This is one reason why one must be very careful in interpreting polls about attitudes toward religion. Unless questions are carefully phrased, some fundamentalists fall through the cracks, since they do not regard themselves as part of traditional Christian denominations.

While I doubt that a blanket statement can be made that covers all fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists overwhelmingly tend to fall on the Paul/Augustine side of the ledger. The Bible is the source of all truth: What is the nature of reality? Whatever the Bible says it is. How do you know? It is in the Bible. How should one live? Do whatever the Bible says. There is no room for rational debate; it has been completely cut off. This is why fundamentalists have so little regard for historical scholarship as it applies to the origins of the church and the Bible. The acceptance of the Bible is itself a matter of faith and is not subject to rational deliberation.

How does one judge the content of fundamentalism? By looking at what is philosophically significant about it. By asking: How do they view the nature of the world? How do they regard the use of reason and the relationship between reason and faith? How do they answer the question of how should one live one's life? The answers to these questions are fairly easy to discover. Moreover, it is important to accurately identify their contents and treat fundamentalism accordingly. It is especially important to judge how they regard the exercise of reason.

Judging the cultural significance of contemporary Christian fundamentalism is more difficult. In this respect Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis is very helpful. So is his The Ominous Parallels, which is an underrated work. I am aware that it is denigrated in certain quarters that call themselves Objectivist, but this is a huge mistake. Not only is The Ominous Parallels the most coherent account of the rise of Nazism in Germany that exists, it is a remarkably detailed account of how ideas are spread throughout a culture. This process is by no means obvious; it takes a lot of work to trace the interconnections. Furthermore, Peikoff shows that the essential preconditions that made the rise of totalitarianism possible are operative here in the United States.

Let me make one observation about contemporary society. If you look at the recognizable intellectual movements of the last fifty years or so: pragmatism, positivism, socialism, Marxism, post-modernism, multi-culturalism, etc. the adjectives one would use to describe these movements today would not include "rejuvenated", "enthusiastic", and "energetic." Indeed, many of these movements are regarded today as a dead-end. Do they still have influence? Yes, but it is more from inertia than anything else. They are not going anywhere. Even linguistic analysis and existentialism, long dominant in many quarters in philosophy, can't be described as "vital." Their adherents continue to engage them because that is what they know how to do and they can't see any alternative. At best, contemporary society is characterized by a kind of intellectual vacuum. Just as in science, nature abhors a vacuum, so does society. Something will emerge to fill that vacuum. Today, one movement that can be described as rejuvenated, enthusiastic, and energetic is Christian fundamentalism.

The kind of split within Christianity that I have characterized here is probably applicable to other religions as well. I do not know as much about the history of Islam, but my impression is that this kind of split is present there as well. Indeed, it seems that Islamic fundamentalism runs parallel to fundamentalism within Christianity and the Augustinian side of this split. This is one reason why the United States has been so ineffective in fighting the war on terrorism. To do so requires a vigorous denunciation of religious fundamentalism and an emphatic insistence on the separation of religion and state. But, of course, to take such steps requires a philosophical understanding of why these positions are necessary.

The antidote to Christian fundamentalism is a philosophy based on reason and reality. Our hope for the future lies in the fact that there is another movement that can be described as rejuvenated, enthusiastic, and energetic: Objectivism.

Allen Farris
November 22, 2006

For those of you wishing to explore these issues further, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy has reasonably competent overview articles on Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther. Also, if you haven't read The Ominous Parallels I recommend it highly.

I would add just one small point based upon my own preliminary readings of the New Testament, Augustine, and Aquinas. It's not just Paul that is allied with Augustine: Jesus himself is too. The Gospels -- particularly Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" -- are thoroughly anti-worldly and anti-reason. All of the values of this world are totally opposite to those commanded by God. Although I've just started reading Augustine, his fundamental philosophy is clearly that of the New Testament. In contrast, Aquinas is often shockingly Aristotelian in his fundamental method and principles, so much so that Christian doctrine often seems like an afterthought. While Aquinas often exploits Aristotle's Platonic remnants (e.g. the contemplation of eternal as the best form of life), he's fundamentally grounded in a philosophy contrary to that of the New Testament.

Another Putin critic assasinated by radiation

By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog

As if you needed more proof that Russia has reverted to a dictatorship, the Brits have found conclusive evidence that yet another Putin critic has been assassinated by radiation.

Security sources said MI5 believes the Russian intelligence services assassinated Mr Litvinenko. Britain made a formal request to Moscow for help in the murder investigation. But Mr Putin left diplomats open-mouthed with claims that the former spy did not die ‘a violent death’.

At a dramatic press conference in London the Health Protection Agency (HPA) revealed that he had been killed by a ‘large dose’ of radioactive polonium 210, and not thallium as previously thought.

Only a speck of it would have been enough to prove fatal once it got into his system, probably by being slipped into his drink or on to food.

Whoever did this must have been expert in the dosage because giving him too much would have caused almost instant death while it took weeks for him to become gravely ill, giving the killer ample chance to escape.

Don't Say Grace. Say Justice.

By Andy from The Charlotte Capitalist,cross-posted by MetaBlog

From Craig Biddle at Principles In Practice: The religious tradition of saying grace before meals becomes especially popular around the holidays, when we all are reminded of how fortunate we are to have an abundance of life-sustaining goods and services at our disposal. But there is a grave injustice involved in this tradition. It is the injustice of thanking an alleged “God” for the productive

The Real Meaning of "Pro-Family"

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

For those interested in Christianity in America, I cannot recommend this article Arrows for the War highly enough. Here's a small taste:

...Janet Wolfson is a 44-year-old mother of eight in Canton, Georgia. Tracie Moore, a 39-year-old midwife who lives in southern Kentucky, is mother to fourteen. Wendy Dufkin in Coxsackie has her thirteen. And while Jamie Stoltzfus, a 27-year-old Illinois mom, has only four children so far, she plans on bearing enough to populate "two teams." All four mothers are devoted to a way of life New York Times columnist David Brooks has praised as a new spiritual movement taking hold among exurban and Sunbelt families. Brooks called these parents "natalists" and described their progeny as a new wave of "Red-Diaper Babies"--as in "red state."

But Wolfson, Moore and thousands of mothers like them call themselves and their belief system "Quiverfull." They borrow their name from Psalm 127: "Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate." Quiverfull mothers think of their children as no mere movement but as an army they're building for God.

Quiverfull parents try to have upwards of six children. They home-school their families, attend fundamentalist churches and follow biblical guidelines of male headship--"Father knows best"--and female submissiveness. They refuse any attempt to regulate pregnancy. Quiverfull began with the publication of Rick and Jan Hess's 1989 book, A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ, which argues that God, as the "Great Physician" and sole "Birth Controller," opens and closes the womb on a case-by-case basis. Women's attempts to control their own bodies--the Lord's temple--are a seizure of divine power.

I'd like to read more about this movement, as I suspect these Christians are drawing upon Augustine's views of sex, marriage, and procreation. (That Augustine essay is very revealing.)

In the meantime, I'm reading the highly informative book With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America by sociologist William Martin. The book confirms -- in fabulous detail -- the major change wrought in the late 1970s and early 1980s by the politicization of evangelical Christianity. For those of you interested in the facts about religion in America, I think you'll find it fascinating, albeit in a scary kind of way.

Bugs and Glitches vs. Art

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

I am still in the middle of Dianne Durante's fascinating article, "19th-Century French Painting and Philosophy" in the Fall 2006 issue of The Objective Standard, but I have noticed an interesting parallel between the historical progression it describes and a scene from a clinical tale from the field of neurology.

Consider the common analogy between man's brain and his cognitive ability on the one hand and computers and programming on the other. Man's brain, the hardware, has a definite nature and must be functioning properly, at least in most respects, for him to have the ability to reason and act efficaciously within reality. His philosophy, the software, will help or impede his ability to reason depending on how "glitch-free", or correct, it is. (The analogy is not perfect because, among other things, man has free will and thus the power to question his philosophy and change it.)

With the above analogy in mind, consider the effects of progressively worse "programming" on a succession of French artists, taken from the conclusion of the article on p. 140:

As a result of the changes in philosophical ideas from Enlightenment assumptions to Kantian premises, we have seen the subjects of French 19th-century paintings move from the heroic to the ordinary to the unrecognizable, and style move from the careful evocation of texture and atmosphere to daubs and smears applied with a palette knife. By the early years of the 20th century, the works being produced by the French avant-garde were bizarre and incomprehensible, but were defended vehemently by the artists and critics. Hence, although it is startling that Matisse's Luxe, calme, e volupte (fig. 2) was accepted as an admirable work of art a mere century after David painted Madame Recamier (fig. 1), it is understandable in the context of the time. Art is, after all, subject to cause and effect. Most artists, like most other people, uncritically adopt the ideas circulating in their culture. The philosophical ideas circulating by 1900 were horrendous. Art followed suit.

Compare this to the following passage from the clinical tale whose title lends itself to the collection The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, by Oliver Sacks, in which he shows us the dramatic toll a physical illness can take on a man's cognitive powers:

"Yes," Mrs. P. said, "he was a gifted painter as well as a singer. The School exhibited his pictures every year."

I strolled past them curiously -- they were in chronological order. All his earlier work was naturalistic and realistic, with vivid mood and atmosphere, but finely detailed and concrete. Then, years later, they became less vivid, less concrete, less realistic and naturalistic, but far more abstract, even geometrical and cubist Finally, in the last paintings, the canvasses became nonsense, or nonsense to me -- mere chaotic lines and blotches of paint. I commented on this to Mrs. P.

"Ach, you doctors, you're such Philistines!" she exclaimed. "Can you not see the artistic development -- how he renounced the realism of his earlier years, and advanced into abstract, nonrepresentational art?"

"No, that's not it," I said to myself (but forbore to say it to poor Mrs. P.). He had indeed moved from realism to nonrepresentation to the abstract, yet this was not the artist, but the pathology, advancing -- advancing towards a profound visual agnosia, in which all powers of representation and imagery, all sense of reality, were being destroyed. This wall of paintings was a tragic pathological exhibit, which belonged to neurology, not art. (p.17) [link added]

Fortunately, if we regard Western civilization, too, as a patient with an illness, the prognosis is uncertain, but it is far from hopeless.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Two minor edits.

Medworth and Hester on Tracinski

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

The commentary on Robert Tracinski's laying out so far of his theory of how ideas propagate through cultures and affect history continues. Harry Binswanger's analysis at HBL has been excellent, although it (like Tracinski's theory at TIA Daily) remains unavailable to non-subscribers. Fortunately, Andrew Medworth has taken the time to consider Tracinski's views in detail at his blog, and my friend Adrian Hester has given me permission to reproduce some thoughts on the controversy he shared with me over email.


First, Medworth: His post (via Myrhaf) is quite long, but I agree with almost all of it and highly recommend it. Three points in particular are worth repeating here. The first two follow:

I object to Rob's theory, on two main grounds. Firstly, I believe he is seriously misrepresenting Leonard Peikoff's view of the role of ideas in history, in essence constructing a straw man. Secondly, I see Tracinski's own new and still-forming theory as being incompatible with Peikoff's actual view, with which I agree completely. [bold added]

Like Ed Cline, Medworth notices that Tracinski quotes only part of a larger passage on the subject from Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Like Harry Binswanger, he quotes a much larger passage -- the quote Tracinski used along with some relevant missing context. Medworth uses this larger passage as a basis for examining in more depth how Objectivists think ideas shape history.

Unlike anyone else so far, Medworth also notes a point made by Tracinski with which he agrees:

I do agree with Tracinski on one point, and that is that the modern achievements are significantly helped by the collapse of Objectivism's enemies. In particular, the Kantian influence in the world has taken a big knock. Fascism is dead, and communism is discredited, an ideological "dead man walking". Socialism has been exposed as a failure, and this has left a gap for freedom to be advanced by the more rational thinkers in society. More fundamentally, modern academic philosophy is widely held to be a useless joke, even among academic philosophers. I know of philosophers today who see their profession as a meaningless pushing-around of words, a fraud perpetrated on those (usually taxpayers) who fund them. This blunts their influence on society.

But the collapse of a negative is not a positive. What we increasingly have today is an ideological vacuum waiting to be filled.

If Objectivists are getting anything wrong at present, I think it might be an underestimation of the strength of good ideas in society. Reason and egoism may be in a parlous state in modern academic philosophy, but the strength of their influence in society (the "cultural momentum", if you will) is still strong. Looking around society today, it is absurd to say that reason and egoism are dead today. ... [bold added]

This is not only the most thorough freely-available discussion of the controversy I have seen so far, it is the most polite. In fact, Medworth urges us to take the time to hear Tracinski out.

I am certain that Tracinski has received many letters from TIA Daily readers making many of the points I did above. Tracinski is not a fool, nor do I have any reason to suspect he is dishonest. I see no call for frenzied denunciations or insults: in fact I am grateful to him, and to Harry Binswanger, Ed Cline and others who have commented, for helping me to think through these issues. Tracinski is only half-way through his six-part article, and it will be interesting to see how he responds to his critics.

Fair enough. But after reading the following from an Editor's Note in Friday's TIA Daily, I would add a caveat.

"[O]n the question of whether I disagree with Ayn Rand on this topic, the answer is: I'm still trying to figure that out for sure, and I am certain there will be many people who will offer their suggestions (friendly or otherwise) on this question. I certainly don't reject the essentials of Ayn Rand's philosophy -- indeed, I am relying upon them in this series -- nor do I mean to imply, for example, that she held that the content of specialized fields could be deduced from philosophy.

That leads me to say something about the status of my own theory. I have always held that Objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy and stands for her ideas, and that any new theory contributed by a subsequent thinker is his own. So I am not arguing that my view on the role of ideas in the world is the "real" Objectivist theory. To the extent that what I am saying is original, it is my theory, and the reader may judge for himself to what extent it is consistent with Ayn Rand's philosophy -- and, most important, with the facts of reality. [my bold]

If Medworth closes his post by citing Ayn Rand on the the role of ideas in history, I will close my comments on his post by quoting her on the matter of being in less-than-full agreement with Objectivism. I owe the following quote to Diana Hsieh:

There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings -- or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods? (From "The Moratorium on Brains," Question and Answer Period.)

If Robert Tracinski, upon finally stating his theory, believes (or even suspects) that it is at variance with Objectivism, I would hope that he would publicly announce that, although he is strongly influenced by her ideas, he is not an adherent to her philosophy. That he has forthrightly acknowledged that he might be at odds with Ayn Rand is encouraging in that respect.


And now, Adrian Hester. The following is lifted from three emails I received from him and is quoted unchanged but for some minor editing on his part, minor formatting changes by myself, and whatever commentary I added outside the blocked quotes or within brackets.

I was interested enough in his new series to read it pretty closely, and I'm not convinced. He made a point about a common view among Objectivists; I've run across it myself. However, he doesn't do a good job at all of quoting anyone actually propounding that view, and among major Objectivist thinkers I'm not sure he'd be able to do so.

So, at best he's cleaning out some undergrowth, but his misquotes of Peikoff are shadowboxing with a cardboard cutout of his own making. My considered response is exactly what Edward Cline's was -- the growth of knowledge in the special sciences only leads to the growth of rational philosophy at large when there's an openness to and glimmerings of rational philosophy in a culture in the first place. [cf. Medworth's "mutual reinforcement" as below --ed]

In the past the circumstances have sometimes been due basically to historical accident; for instance, the rise of science and liberal philosophy and the decline in religiosity in England after Elizabeth's accession because the balance of power between the Church of England and the low-church sects was such as to encourage tolerance (in other circumstances you'd have ended up with disastrous wars of religion like the Thirty Years' War just a few years after her death).

If you're going to discuss the history of those ideas as an historian, you'll have to take all that into account rather than rationalistically deriving things from bare ideas, and more than that, you'll have to take into account the interaction between one generation of thinkers' ideas and those of the following as well as the growth (or extinction) of knowledge in the various fields of thought.

However, historical accidents merely give opportunities, and if the ideas aren't there, all the freedom and scientific research in the world isn't going to bring them into existence. Basically, he's taking too short-term a view of things; at best he's simply arguing past Peikoff. [my bold]

The bold above reminded me of an attempt on my part a few months ago to write a rather lengthy review of Glenn Reynold's An Army of Davids because the error Tracinski makes is like one that Glenn Reynolds makes, and which permeates his entire book. Reynolds' error seems to be that it is advancing technology -- and not better ideas -- that will fundamentally improve society in the long haul. Quoting from that review:

Here's another counterexample to the notion that technology -- unaided by an improvement in a society's intellectual climate -- can effect meaningful social change. Reynolds notes that Philippine President Joseph Estrada was brought down by a text-messaging flash mob. He fails to mention that this flash mob gathered in exactly the same place the old-fashioned mob that overthrew Ferdinand Marcos 15 years before had gathered. I dare say that unless the people of the Philippines make fundamental cultural and political changes, some other corrupt president will probably have to be overthrown later on. What difference does it make that a president can be overthrown if he never gets replaced by anything better?

Although, as Medworth points out, the various advances -- in philosphy and the special sciences -- of a rational society can be "mutually reinforcing", it is clearly easy to lose sight (by dropping context) of when a technological advance serves as "reinforcement" of the underlying rationality of a culture and when it falls more into the category of "historical accident".

In the above example, the existence of text messaging technology in the Philippines was, in the context of the discontented populace, merely an historical accident which afforded the opportunity to overthrow their president. Unfortunately, it was just that, and the opportunity was lost in every meaningful sense because the people were ill-equipped, ideologically, to take full advantage of it.

And how would such technology reinforce the underlying rationality of a culture? In any number of ways. For example, it could inspire further technological or scientific innovation or even inspire advances in commerce (e.g., suggest a new way of doing business). It could even conceivably cause someone to think about something as abstract as epistemology. But still, the technology could only provoke rational thought, and in someone capable of and inclined towards rational thought at that. [11-20 Update: Text messaging can also, simply by being available to the enterprising, make it easier for someone to be productive or innovative. It is probably this means of "mutual reinforcement" (or as I have called it, "positive feedback") that lends itself to being misinterpreted and overestimated.]

I cannot help but wonder, especially given the homage to bloggers in Tracinski's title, "Pajamas Epistemology", how heavily influenced he is by Glenn Reynolds.

And now, back to Adrian Hester's thoughts. We now start the second of the three emails.

And besides, the example Tracinski uses of Aristotle's biology is misleading in another way than Edward Cline mentioned. Aristotle didn't start Greek science or philosophy. The two advanced pretty much hand in hand starting with Thales (actually, probably centuries earlier than him, but he's the first big name in both), and the really significant fact about Greek science and philosophy is that both flourished because Greek thinkers were free (within broad limits, such as not denying certain aspects of a given city's religious myths) to pursue thought as far as they could.

How that culture came about is a ripe question, and no, I don't have an answer; but it was only with such a view of reason that Greek science could advance beyond the rules of thumb of Egypt and Mesopotamia and philosophy beyond the Homeric myths. (In that regard, compare the Greek myths and subsequent philosophy with Hindu myths and philosophy; the two started with the same Indo-European basis and ended up in quite different places. And the two philosophical systems, or better, bundles of systems, ended up more similar than many people realize because they converged with the spread of Greek thought under Alexander and his successors.

For example, three of the four Aristotelian syllogistic figures are basic to Tibetan Buddhist logic, and the realistic musculature of Greek sculpture lives on in Japanese (!) sculptures of Buddhist guardian dieties, thanks to the spread of Hellenism to the East and its influence on Buddhism.) Aristotle didn't just start pursuing science out of the blue, nor for that matter did Thales; Aristotle pursued science in reaction against his training in Platonism at the Academy, and Thales pursued science because he was seeking to understand the nature of the world -- you can't even separate the scientific and the philosophical into different compartments with those guys.

Binswanger made a related point about the ability of scientists to function as philosophers. He noted that a scientist who, say, figured out an epistemological method needed for his research, was functioning as a philosopher when he did so.

And that, when you think about it, is one big reason they made the progress they did, and why progress in the specialized sciences is in the long run philosophically nugatory without a pro-reason philosophy. And without some favor for reason in a culture, you're not going to have the specialized sciences growing at breakneck pace in the first place. And thus you can see from another vantage point in what way Tracinski's view is short-term; he's confusing the inertia of institutionalized science with the motive power of free reason.

[This is from a third email.]

And of course, having thought about it further, this is a good sentence of mine to think about: "Thales pursued science because he was seeking to understand the nature of the world -- you can't even separate the scientific and the philosophical into different compartments with those guys." Which condemns the tendencies of our age -- if it's not nonsensical to think of science but not philosophy as seeking to understand the nature of the world, that's a sign science is doomed in the long run.

And another thought: Greek science didn't end with Aristotle, though he was certainly the height of Greek philosophy. So, obviously the continued progress in Greek (more precisely, Hellenistic) science didn't translate into philosophical progress. Instead, you had a pinnacle of scientific knowledge roughly around the time the Mediterranean became a Roman lake, and then a slow contraction in what was known to the world outside a few centers of learning.

It's not directly related to a decline in rational philosophy, but instead is due to a number of historical factors: There was foremost the transformation of the Mediterranean into a Roman lake, or more precisely the rise of the imperial system, which demanded a strictly set curriculum devoted to the practical arts of administration; this led to the concomitant reduction of the curriculum to the seven greatest plays of each dramatist, the greatest works of each poet, etc. Their other works were less and less copied at Alexandria and other centers of learning, which caused a slow winnowing of the mass of classical learning. Over the centuries there was a slow funnel effect of more and more of the non-essential material being discarded and a loss of variety in the manuscripts made.

More generally there was the straitening effect of a uniform and prosaic imperial system (not to mention the simple fact that it was run by Romans, who were skilled at technology and the brutely practical but had little curiosity on the whole for science or philosophy); and socially and economically there was a marked decline in independent cultural centers in the cities of the empire from the high imperial period on (say after Trajan) due to increased taxation and interference from the center. The factors more familiar to most people, like the rise of Christianity, the incursion of barbarians, and the severing of tradition as higher civilization collapsed, were added onto this.

But again, how much of that is not due in some way to the decline of rational worldly philosophy?

I will close by noting a thought of my own. Harry Binswanger's series on Tracinski he titles, "The Power of Philosophy", which reminds me of the current title of a blog by a fly-by-night "Objectivist" whose blogging style is to overwhelm the reader with tons of selected evidence, slipping in his own assumptions on the sly the whole time. I at one time contemplated fisking this blog, using the title of "The Fallacy of Narrative".

While I am not accusing Tracinski of the above offenses against good journalism, I would note that the kind of news he chooses to cover will be affected by his views on the importance of ideas in history and thus he will certainly seem, especially to readers too busy to look at many other news outlets, to have provided plenty of evidence for his views, including any that are in error.

Therefore, if we owe it to Tracinski to hear him out, we owe it to ourselves -- especially if TIA Daily is one's primary or only source of news -- to check Tracinski's premises, especially regarding his advice on the last election. For example: Just how much "debate" really is going on within the right? About anything?

-- CAV

Updates

11-20-06: Added update on "mutual reinforcement" within text.

The Fissures Widen

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Controversies brew among online Objectivists.

First, Gus Van Horn regrets agreeing with Robert Tracinski and voting Republican. He is dismayed by Republican support for various statist schemes. He thinks it is better to have Democrats in charge because (to put it in my words) they don't pretend to be friends of capitalism and the free market and people would see more clearly that we are heading away from freedom.

Well, I'm not surprised that the Republicans are no friends of freedom. I still don't see how they're worse than the Democrats. We're heading downhill either way. The most important question to ask is: Which way do I vote to buy us the most time for Objectivism to spread through the culture? The far left elements and the whiff of totalitarianism in the Democrats frighten me. However, I will admit that the Republicans are deteriorating so quickly that the difference between the two parties is almost a moot point.

Second, Jack Wakeland fantasized on the Forum for Ayn Rand Fans about shooting a regulator. Diana Hsieh is horrified and Nicholas Provenzo wants Wakeland to rescind his remarks or stop referring to himself an Objectivist.

My eyebrows rose when I first read Wakeland's fantasy. I take it as over-the-top bravado like you hear from young libertarians. Vigilantism is wrong, especially when we still have freedom of speech and the peaceful recourse to change the law. I am most bothered by this sentence:

Killing a regulator who does not answer to the will of the people is justice.

"The will of the people" is some high-flying rhetoric, but what does it mean? Regulation is bad because it violates individual rights, not because it is undemocratic.

I file his statement away and watch carefully for a more explicit, well considered statement.

Third, Harry Binswanger on HBList and Edward Cline have criticized Robert Tracinski for misunderstanding how ideas move history in an essay called "What Went Right." I want to read Tracinski's essay before I judge. This is certainly something to watch.

UPDATE: Slight revision.

UPDATE: Wakeland retracts. Also here.

The Rise of the Atheists

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

Author Sam Harris takes on mysticism at Newsweek:

Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the Earth, more than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue. Those with the power to elect presidents and congressmen—and many who themselves get elected—believe that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noah's Ark, that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the Earth and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God.

This is embarrassing.

I agree. I've noticed that in the past year or so, atheist views have taken on a much larger public profile than they have in the past. Even South Park noticed the trend in a recent episode (as it nevertheless tried to lampoon atheists as dogmatists who are no less ruthless than the religious).

Nevertheless, this overall trend is heartening, because it indicates a growing debate over the nature of truth and inherent conflict between faith and reason. Not all atheists are our allies on the simple grounds that the absence of faith does not necessarily indicate the presence of reason, yet if this larger debate is the fruit of their hands, it's a welcome opportunity for Objectivists to present their arguments to the public.

The Intellectual Activist’s lost guide

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

Robert W. Tracinski, editor of The Intellectual Activist, has taken a public stand that makes clear the gulf between his thinking and the philosophy of Objectivism that he had previously claimed to espouse. He recently states in Part 3 of his position, "What Went Right?" that "every thinking man who does honest work in his own field is our ally and is helping to move civilization forward. The work of such men is not mere cultural 'momentum' from a previous era, but an active addition to human knowledge and achievement. And whatever their philosophical errors, in their professional work these men are creating valid and important ideas that do change the course of events."

Counterpoint: Such men are today working in a philosophical vacuum. Unless a philosophy of reason salvages our culture and civilization, civilization cannot move forward and the work of such men will be for nought. Their work will constitute the rubble of a civilization that committed suicide because it rejected a fully consistent philosophy of reason.

"But philosophy does not and cannot dictate the content of a specialized field."

Counterpoint: Yes, philosophy can and will dictate the content of any specialized field. Until men subscribed to reason - reason anchored to reality - they floundered for centuries trying to explain reality and the universe. Much of what constituted knowledge in antiquity was lost in the Dark Ages. It had to be rediscovered - by a philosophy of reason. This philosophy of reason was an incomplete system. Nevertheless, that incomplete philosophy of reason allowed men to abandon attempts to turn lead into gold and discover physics and chemistry. A philosophy of reason allowed them to discover the true properties of lead and gold.

To illustrate his claim that philosophy cannot sire all the "details" of specialized fields, Tracinski quotes Dr. Peikoff from p. 453 in the Epilogue of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:

"Philosophy is not the only cause of the course of the centuries. It is the ultimate cause, the cause of all the other causes. The books of philosophers are the beginning. Step by step, the books turn into motives, passions, statues, politicians, and headlines."

This is an incomplete, and dishonest quotation. The full quotation should have been:

"Objectivism does not deny that 'many factors' are involved in historical causation. Economic, psychological, military, and other forces play a role. Ayn Rand does not, however, regard all these forces as primaries.

"There is no dichotomy between philosophy and the specialized factors. Philosophy is not the only cause of the course of the centuries. It is the ultimate cause, the cause of all the other causes. If there is to be an explanation of so vast a sum as human history, which involves all men in all fields, only the science dealing with the widest abstractions can provide it. The reason is that only the widest abstractions can integrate all those fields.

"The books of philosophers are the beginning. Step by step, the books turn into motives, passions, statues, politicians, and headlines.

"Philosophy determines essentials, not details...." (Dutton edition)

And without a determination of the essentials, details will be contextless, unintegrated, and random, as they were in the Dark Ages, and as they are to any modern child or adult until he grasps the role of reason. It was the discovery of essentials by men that allowed them to abandon alchemy and found the sciences of chemistry and physics. And the integrator of essentials is philosophy. The full quotation of Dr. Peikoff's excerpt blows Tracinski's assertions to pieces. Tracinski omitted those parts of the quotation that did not fit his thesis.

Tracinski follows his dishonest quotation of Peikoff with this assertion:

"This is a kind of trickle-down theory of intellectual influence, in which the philosopher is the originator and only source of the ideas that drive the course of history, while the public intellectuals and the men in the specialized sciences are mere transmitters and translators of those ideas."

How would one then explain the "trickle-down" intellectual influence of Kant and his successors in philosophy? Tracinski dwells on "fact-driven" knowledge in the sciences and in the headlines, but discards the ultimate philosophical causes of those facts. If men defy reality and pursue the irrational, regardless of the consequences in reality - such as the Democrats wishing to impose socialism on America or Bush refusing to acknowledge this country's foreign enemies - what will govern and explain the "new" facts of the impoverishment of Americans and Iran's Ahmadinejad developing nuclear bombs? What will explain suicide bombers, or the Amish forgiving the killer of schoolgirls? What would explain advances in stem cell research, or its prohibition by government?

Tracinski is on his way to rejecting Objectivism. The very first sentence of OPAR, in Chapter 1: Reality, reads: "Philosophy is not a bauble of the intellect, but a power from which no man can abstain." Tracinski is following a path of logic that will lead him to more or less state: "Yes, philosophy is a bauble of the intellect. It has its uses, but the true referent is reality and men can abstain from taking it too seriously."

Hailing the investigations and reporting of Internet bloggers versus the standard fare of the news media, Tracinski writes:

"Theirs is a career path with one healthy epistemological consequence: the work of these intellectuals is relentlessly fact-driven. Every day brings new events whose causes and consequences they have to explain."

Explain how? Are they the heirs of Aristotle, or of Kant? While it is not necessary for a journalist to be able to trace the ultimate origin of a fact, the fact remains that philosophy is the origin of facts. If the fact-driven epistemology of a 21st century American is healthier than that of a feudal serf (or of most modern journalists), what can explain the difference?

In trying to explain how philosophy is a kind of "adjunct" to reality, Tracinski writes:

"It is worth noting that the first great pro-reason philosopher, Aristotle, was also his era's greatest biologist and an inheritor of several centuries of progress in Greek science. Or, in a modern context, consider where the defenders of reason would be without Newton and Darwin, men who provided natural, scientific explanations for the nature of the universe and the origin of man, two questions that had traditionally been the exclusive domain of religion."

Counterpoint: Aristotle was a pioneer in his fields and applied reason to them (not always consistently, since, as Rand and Peikoff noted, there were still elements of intrinsicism in his thinking). And, it was the advocates of an incomplete philosophy of reason that allowed Newton and Darwin to accomplish what they did, advocates who lived and wrote before Newton's and Darwin's times.

As for the alleged dependence of the defenders of reason on the discoveries of "fact-driven" scientists such as Newton and Darwin, the philosophy of reason did not have a fully consistent defender until Ayn Rand, from the Renaissance to the 20th century. What validated Newton's and Darwin's discoveries? A philosophy of reason.

Tony Donadio on the Violation of Rights

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

In response to some of the discussion about rights on this comment thread, Tony Donadio posted the following mini-essay in the comments. I agree with Tony's view. Since I appreciated his manner of approaching the issue, I thought his comment worth reposting on NoodleFood itself. Here it is, with some HTML-ish formatting changes:

Fred Weiss recently wrote the following:

Tony said: "if someone mistakenly thinks you're about to kill his wife, and shoots you to prevent it, he is NOT wrong, and has NOT violated your rights, if the circumstances are such that his mistaken belief is objective and rationally justified."

Brian's reply to this was correct. It is a violation of rights, but the motivation and intention based on the error can constitute mitigation... In any event, whatever led to your action, you have violated the victim's rights. Your context of knowledge or motivation doesn't change that fact.

I briefly stated that I think this analysis implicitly rests on a mistaken understanding of the nature and justification of rights, and one that is inconsistent with the Objectivist view. I'll defend that position in the following post. (Warning in advance: to treat this issue properly, this post will have to be long.)

Let me preface my remarks by saying that of course I do not intend that statement as an attack on or a disparagement of anyone -- neither Fred, nor anyone else who may agree with him. I would have thought that would go without saying, but if it doesn't, then by all means let me say it. I certainly wouldn't take it as a disparaging reflection on myself if someone turns out to be able to argue that it is my understanding of this issue is in error. That is entirely possible, and it wouldn't exactly be the first time that it has happened. :)

Let me start by positing two nearly identical scenarios. You are armed, and you witness a man you do not know behaving erratically, brandishing a toy gun, and shouting about how he is about to kill your spouse -- who is well within firing range, and with no cover. You have your weapon aimed at him, when he begins to raise his gun toward your spouse's head. You fire, and kill him.

The two scenarios are identical, except for the following, single difference:

Scenario 1. You know that the man's gun is a toy.
Scenario 2. You do NOT know that the man's gun is a toy.

I would argue that in Scenario 1, you have at the very least committed manslaughter, if not murder -- since there was in fact no real threat to your spouse's life, and you knew it. In that case, I would agree that you have violated the man's right to life. In the second scenario, by contrast, you were acting entirely and legitimately in self-defense. You were entirely justified in believing that your spouse's life was in danger. In an emergency situation, if the police are not present, you have a right to act in self-defense, and there is no legitimate argument to be made that you ought not to have shot him. Had the gun in fact been real and loaded, no rational jury in the world could (or should) convict you.

Fred states explicitly that: "...whatever led to your action, you have violated the victim's rights. Your context of knowledge or motivation doesn't change that fact." On that premise, I see only three possible positions to take with regard to these two examples -- since the only difference between them lies in your context of knowledge.

1. In both scenarios, you have violated the victim's rights, and are morally culpable in the victim's death.
2. In both scenarios, you have not violated the victim's rights -- irrespective of your knowledge or lack thereof about the gun.
3. In both scenarios, you have violated the victim's rights, but in scenario 2 that violation of rights is somehow "OK" or "justified" by the mitigating circumstances.

From my reading of your objection, Fred, I'm assuming that it is position 3 that you would defend. I state the others just for the record.

(To anticipate one objection relevant to argument 2: I do not think it is legitimate to posit that by his actions, the man has forfeited his right to life in both scenarios. The fact that you have the right to use force in self-defense, and in an emergency situation, does not entitle you to use force when you know that your self-defense does not require it, and when you know that you are not in an emergency situation. Doing so would make you an objective threat to the lives and safety of others, who would be justified in treating you accordingly.)

Why do I think that position 3 is wrong? This is where I think the Objectivist definition and defense of the nature of rights comes in. According to Objectivism, "A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." There are two aspects of this definition that I want to focus on in making my point. The first is that a right is a moral principle. As such, like every other principle, it is contextual -- that is, it has a context in which it applies, and there are also contexts in which it does not apply. The second is that it is a "sanction to independent action." What this means is that a right is a moral claim upon the actions of others -- specifically, a claim that they not interfere with your exercise of independent action. I think it follows from this that because rights are moral claims upon the actions of others, that a violation of someone's rights is necessarily an immoral act.

Thus, it doesn't make sense to me to talk of a rights violation that is nevertheless "OK" because of mitigating circumstances. If you violated someone's rights, then the victim had a moral claim on you not to have acted as you did, and what you did was wrong; that's what I understand a right to mean. But if what you did was "OK" because of mitigating circumstances, then he didn't have a moral claim against your actions, under those circumstances. That's why I think that position 3 entails a contradiction. It's one thing to argue (as an earlier poster did, and I would agree) that mitigating circumstances mitigate the severity of the moral breach involved in a rights violation, and thus the appropriate punishment. It's another to say that mitigating circumstances somehow make the rights violation "OK." In order for that to be the case, you would have to have stepped outside the context in which the moral principle in question (the right) applies, and thus you would not be talking about a rights violation at all -- in that context.

I think it is helpful in trying to identify whether something is or is not a rights violation to always ask the question: "What did the victim have a moral claim against the perpetrator not to have done?" -- in other words, "What ought the perpetrator to have done differently?" When I apply that question to the second scenario above, I can't see a legitimate answer. The man can't have a moral claim on you to hold your fire, given that you have legitimate cause to believe that someone's life was in immediate danger. To say that he does is to ask the impossible -- namely, that you divine causelessly (by "noumenal insight," so to speak) that the gun was fake. A rational and objective view of rights cannot be based on moral claims that demand the impossible.

I think that most of us (myself included) were probably raised (thanks to the influence of religion) with a view of rights that is colored by an intrinsicist perspective. Certainly I think that is the predominant mindset within which most people understand the meaning of rights. In that mindset, rights are a kind of "inalienable possession" that all of us "have" as part of our natures, and which others violate or "take away" from us by certain actions. This is a mindset that I've specifically had to work to overcome over the years, and one which I've found tended to lead me to certain errors in thinking about rights. One of these was to lose sight of the issue of rights as moral claims, and instead to focus on the loss of something that one is "entitled to by right" as the defining element of a rights violation.

I don't want to ask anyone to wear this shoe if it doesn't fit, but it seems to me that something like this is implicit in statements like "...whatever led to your action, you have violated the victim's rights." These place a focus entirely on the outcome, and the facts regarding what the victim has "lost," rather than on what moral obligations the alleged perpetrator can reasonably be expected to have had under the circumstances. The facts of the outcome, and what the victim has "lost," however, cannot be the sole and defining element of a rights violation. If they were, then a rock falling on you during an avalanche would be a "rights violation" as well -- and never mind the fact that moral claims that recognize context of knowledge cannot reasonably be made of inanimate nature.

That's an outline of my basis for thinking that context of knowledge has to be an important factor in defining when something is and is not a rights violation. I'm certainly interested in what others think, in particular about whether there may be any flaws in my reasoning. As Diana said, being wrong isn't a moral failing, and I won't object if anyone can make a case for why I am. :)

Put your thoughts on a Starbucks coffee cup!

By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Starbucks has a “The Way I See It” program that accepts submissions from customers and celebrities to be printed on their coffee cups. You can comment on the random thoughts you found on one of their cups, or submit your own. Most of the submissions are predictably boring. Wouldn’t it be great to see some really great ideas on a cup? Submit yours here.

The Importance of a Good Definition

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Today's story of epistemology in action concerns a lawsuit over the proper definition of a "sandwich". In this case, a judge ruled that a burrito was not a sandwich:

Is a burrito a sandwich? The Panera Bread Co. bakery-and-cafe chain says yes. But a judge said no, ruling against Panera in its bid to prevent a Mexican restaurant from moving into the same shopping mall.

Panera has a clause in its lease that prevents the White City Shopping Center in Shrewsbury from renting to another sandwich shop. Panera tried to invoke that clause to stop the opening of an Qdoba Mexican Grill.

But Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Locke cited Webster's Dictionary as well as testimony from a chef and a former high-ranking federal agriculture official in ruling that Qdoba's burritos and other offerings are not sandwiches.

The difference, the judge ruled, comes down to two slices of bread versus one tortilla.

"A sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans," Locke wrote in a decision released last week.

In court papers, Panera, a St. Louis-based chain of more than 900 cafes, argued for a broad definition of a sandwich, saying that a flour tortilla is bread and that a food product with bread and a filling is a sandwich.

Net Neutrality?

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The people at Democratic Underground are excited about something called “net neutrality.”

Internet neutrality proponents believe that the recent change in Congress is likely to boost their efforts to push legislation that would prohibit tiered access to the Internet.

SaveTheInternet lobbied to stop telecommunications and cable companies from setting higher prices for improved speed and access to some customers. The group said election results have catapulted their efforts forward.

"The outlook for better, more public-spirited Internet legislation is now quite good," the group said through a prepared statement.

In fact, U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who proposed legislation supporting their cause, is set to lead telecommunications policy for the House majority in 2007. So is U.S. Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, who said he would propose a telecommunications reform bill with public interest and net neutrality in mind.

And:

The House Judiciary Committee's Task Force on Telecommunications and Antitrust is holding a hearing Tuesday on whether the Internet should operate like a utility, with equal service, or whether providers should be able to provided tiered access and pricing.

Over in the Senate:

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on Thursday unveiled a bill that would prohibit telephone and cable companies from charging others businesses for faster delivery of content to consumers over the Internet.

The bill to ensure so-called 'Net neutrality' would also prohibit network operators from favoring content over others, such as their own video services over those of Internet companies.

In unveiling the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006, Wyden said in a statement that allowing cable and telephone companies to create a two-tiered system for distributing content over their networks would "have a chilling effect on small mom and pop businesses that can't afford the priority lane, leaving these smaller businesses no hope of competing against the Wal-Marts of the world."

To read some of the comments, you would think the Democrats are striking a blow to protect truth, justice and the American way:

The Tubes are safe!

YES ... we get to keep the Internets!!!

They should make it an Amendment to the Constitution that no one can ever take our tubes away from us. The Intenets are the only true democracy!

Kerry's heading the Senate Committee and he's a firm believer in MORE ACCESS to citizens not less, with restrictions only for serious matters like child porn.

Just reading the legislative initiatives that our Dem representatives have put out in the past week makes me want to sob in relief. And I have a feeling they're just getting started--they aren't even in power yet!

Speaking only as an individual, I am telling you that if I hadn't had the net these past few years, I wouldn't have known of many of the incredible rip-offs, crimes, boondoggles, and other Abramoff-esque antics of the repukes. I certainly wouldn't have learned of them from cable news, nor from our pathetic local newspaper. You, unlike the repukes, seem not to be afraid of an informed public. The free net is the best news ever for those of us who want to hear something besides the ol' Mighty Wurlitzer blasting in our ears.

In the Democrat imagination, were it not for the legislation passed by brave Democrats regulating the internet, the repukes would shut it down because they can’t tolerate an informed public.

Such an innocuous name: net neutrality. Who could be against that? And the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 sounds so fair! What bigot would dare oppose nondiscrimination?

Under the cover of these happy fuzzy words the Democrats are about to slap price controls on internet providers. Americans should be happy, as the consumers in the Soviet Union were under price controls. Oh, wait -- there were long lines and empty shelves? Scratch that.

Americans should be happy, as drivers in the 1970’s were under price controls. Oh, wait -- there were long lines and gasoline shortages? Scratch that.

Price controls cause shortages. Internet service will suffer somehow under this law. Internet providers will not continue to improve service as much as they would without this law.

But making the internet better is not really the point of all this legislation. Giving the state power over the internet is the point. Socialists simply cannot stand free Americans having power over their own lives. They must stick the state’s gun in the ribs of the internet and say, “Listen, Bud -- we’re taking over now. Just do as we say and you won’t get hurt.”

As one commenter above noted, "they're just getting started--they aren't even in power yet!"

Around the Web on 11-16-06

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

Cross-posted from Gus Van Horn

A plate of humble pie awaits me.

I typically start my weekly roundups with whatever happens to be on my mind at the moment. Today, it is the election, thanks to last night's post. I'll get this out of the way right now. I was wrong to side with Robert Tracinski's idea of routing the left in this past election.

Although I modulated my position over time, I did not make a major effort to say so here. Furthermore, my position has changed even since Election Day as I have reviewed the positions of various other Objectivists, most notably C. Bradley Thompson, Paul and Diana Hsieh, and John Lewis. It isn't that I am any happier that the Democrats are now in a good position to ram their foolish agenda down our throats. It is that I have reached considered agreement with them that the Republican Party really has gone way downhill. Even many of the "small government" conservatives are just calling themselves that these days.

The GOP and the Democrats are now both pushing for the same goals in most cases, but at different speeds. If that is the way it is going to be, then let's at least have the people who are more easily seen as idiots pushing the foolishness. By analogy: If you were unscrupulous and wanted to sell one of your dogs, both cowards, would you feel more likely to get away with selling the one that barks a lot or the one that whimpers? On their prosecution of the war, opposition to environmentalism, and opposition to the welfare state, the Republicans have been barking a lot and the Democrats whimpering. It would be the GOP that would have the easiest time selling such idiocy as continued racial quotas and new carbon taxes because most Americans would not question their motives. At least with the Democrats in charge of Congress now, everything they do will be inspected with a fine-toothed comb.

Having said that, on with the show....


This old Cox and Forkum cartoon is especially apt for the following pair of news stories....


Via TIA Daily, it seems that we are "winning the peace" after essentially losing the Vietnam War. (But no, Vietnam did not defeat our military. Our own (oxy)moronic policy of "limited war" caused us to defeat ourselves.)

Communist officials give monotonous speeches warning the populace against "peaceful evolution" toward Western values and decadence. But many, including the revered Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, under whose command the Vietnamese defeated the French and then the Americans, send their children to study and live in the U.S. and Europe. (Many stay and launder their parents' ill-gotten gains in Western real estate.) The version of Vietnam the Vietnamese people like best is by far the one with America and its stuff.

Unfortunately, if we are "winning Vietnam after we lost Vietnam", we are "losing the American Revolution after we won the American Revolution":

The Belmont[, California, ] City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one's car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone. [bold added]

Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten that if you ban the smoking of tobacco, you must burn freedom to do so. Talk about some truly hazardous "second hand smoke"....


Andy might be interested in Rick Warren's newfound love for "Purpose-Driven" terrorism. FrontPage Magazine quotes a Syrian news account of a recent visit of the renowned evangelical to that state sponsor of terrorism:

Pastor Rick Warren, who yesterday met with [Syrian] President Al-Assad and Foreign Minister Al-Mu'allim, said: "Washington is wrong not to hold dialogue with Syria, which wants peace. I call on the Americans to visit Syria and meet its beautiful people. I will tell the Americans that their idea about Syria does not reflect the truth." This is what the American clergyman said after seeing the facts on the ground. It was not in his interest not to say the truth about what he himself and the accompanying Protestant delegation saw and felt. [bold added]

"Facts on the ground" is an argument that sometimes has merit, but as it is being used here, it is simply another variant of the "chickenhawk" fallacy. One need not actually go to Syria to know whether or not it is a state sponsor of terrorism. Nor does visiting the country transform someone into an expert. In fact, given that it is a dictatorship, such a visit will almost certainly make one less knowledgeable.


Call me crazy, but a "think tank that promotes thinking" that has already taken the wrong side in the global warming debate has already defeated its stated purpose.

While the speakers at the National Press Club unveiling were highly critical of Bush administration policies regarding stem cell research, global warming, abstinence-only sex education and the teaching of "intelligent design," they said that their group was nonpartisan and that many Democrats were hostile to keeping religion out of public policy. [bold added]

Although this group is right that, "This disdain for science is aggravated by the excessive influence of religious doctrine on our public policies," I would argue (and have) that it is far more damaging for organizations to push a leftist fad in the name of science. In fact, doing so makes the fundamentalists look more credible than they deserve. (HT: TIA Daily)


Diana Hsieh pointed out a fascinating interview with Judith Martin (aka Miss Manners), who has long been one of my favorite cultural commentators. If you haven't done so already, read it.

In addition, a commenter alerted me to a post from awhile back over there that quotes Frederick Douglass on slavery. That, too, is worth a look.

And that reminds me.... I still haven't read Andrew Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto! So much good reading. So little time.


Eric Ryle of The Sub Report offers some in-depth commentary (via Ultraquiet No More) on the recent incident involving the "stalking" of the USS Kitty Hawk by a Chinese submarine. He also discusses the Chinese military and espionage threats in general.

In addition, Michell Malkin has updated her post on the subject with more input from submariners.


Via Glenn Reynolds is an excellent piece by Ralph Peters on what we ought to do, for a change of pace, to bring some semblance of security to Iraq. Money quote:

What really matters is what our forces are ordered -- and permitted -- to do. With political correctness permeating our government and even the upper echelons of the military, we never tried the one technique that has a solid track record of defeating insurgents if applied consistently: the rigorous imposition of public order.

That means killing the bad guys. Not winning their hearts and minds, placating them or bringing them into the government. Killing them. [bold added]

I think this has even been used in the past against Islamic insurgents by the American military itself!


The Gaijin Biker points out a real horror story from a Polish student who went to America for a year as an exchange student and got a high-pressure program of religious indoctrination from his fundamentalist hosts instead. He quotes Spiegel Online:

When Polish student Michael Gromek, 19, went to America on a student exchange, he found himself trapped in a host family of Christian fundamentalists. What followed was a six-month hell of dawn church visits and sex education talks as his new family tried to banish the devil from his soul.

..."When I got out of the plane in Greensboro in the US state of North Carolina, I would never have expected my host family to welcome me at the airport, wielding a Bible, and saying, 'Child, our Lord sent you half-way around the world to bring you to us.' At that moment I just wanted to turn round and run back to the plane.

Things began to go wrong as soon as I arrived in my new home in Winston-Salem, where I was to spend my year abroad. For example, every Monday my host family would gather around the kitchen table to talk about sex. My host parents hadn't had sex for the last 17 years because -- so they told me -- they were devoting their lives to God. They also wanted to know whether I drank alcohol. I admitted that I liked beer and wine. They told me I had the devil in my heart. [bold added]

GB links to the whole story at his blog.


Captain Ed says that the GOP seems so far to have learned nothing from its recent shellacking. "[The House and Senate] leadership elections show that Republicans have not listened to their constituents." I would have to agree with that assessment as well as with much of what he says about John McCain, the presumable front-runner for its presidential nomination.


As a child, I used to love to sit around poring through our family's set of encyclopedias for hours on end. As an adult, I sometimes find myself wandering through Wikipedia. During a recent visit, I found two
very interesting links about Tom Bombadil, that most enigmatic character from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.

To describe either link would be to spoil it, so I shall simply ask, somewhat in the manner of Linda Richman, "Tom Bombadil is either the reader or the Witch-King of Angmar. Discuss."

-- CAV

The console market

By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog

According to market research firm iSuppli, the newly released PS3 game console costs Sony $241-$400 for each console sold. This is not the cost of the system - this is the net loss to the company after subtracting the price of each console from the cost of the components.

Game console makers like Sony and Microsoft take an initial loss for each system sold so they can provide the very best product to the customer. Of course they wouldn’t do this unless they believed that the initial loss would eventually yield a net profit. They make up for the loss in two ways. First, they take advantage of accelerating technology to get cheaper components. For example, while Microsoft initially took a $126 loss for each Xbox 360 sold, it now makes a $75 profit due to the cheaper cost of the components. It’s probable that some of the cost decrease comes from manufacturers who compete for the console maker’s business. Second, they take a cut of the price of every game sold for their system.

Think about the gamble such decisions involve. Microsoft bets on how many million systems will sell at a given performance level to determine whether it will recoup its costs. Hardware manufacturers bet on the success of a given console to decide where to direct their research. Game makers decide which platform deserves years of development time. Consumers, by comparison, face the least risk, but they must also decide which console will be successful and have the games they want. Success is far from guaranteed - consoles fail as often as they succeed, often taking their company down with them. Remember the Sega Dreamcast?

Do you have a sense yet for the excitement of markets? Such strategic decisions are made every day in every industry — to the extent that it is free. Why doesn’t Hollywood make movies about THIS, rather than yet another gang of thieves bickering with each other as they complete yet another caper?

DNS problems with the Objectivism Online Forum

Some people have reported problems accessing the forum. The forum was down for several hours yesterday, but should be fine now. If you continue to have problems, especially after today, please email heroic(at)gmailDOTcom.

Correction: The website is still having DNS issues. If you are unable to access any part of it, please try again tommorow.

Richard Dawkins has some advice

By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Richard Dawkins offers some advice for students of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, which has an exibit of dinosaur bones that are “3,000 years old.” Watch the video here. More on his site.

Ray Kurzweil on C-SPAN

By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog

There is an excellent three-hour interview with technologist and futurist Ray Kurzweil available on C-SPAN. Watch now.

This rare three-hour long interview allowed him to discuss his ideas in depth and take calls from the public. The show profiles his many inventions (starting with a videotape of his 1965 appearance at age 17 on “I’ve Got A Secret” with Steve Allen).

It also covers his career, ideas, and recent books, “The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology” and “Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough To Live Forever.”

Interview with Miss Manners

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

An alert NoodleFood reader send me a link to this fantastic interview with Miss Manners. She discusses her personal history, the history of etiquette, the distinction between manners, etiquette, and law, and much more. Some of her comments were quite thought-provoking, but I particularly liked this tidbit at the end:

Cole: I was just thinking . . . My father's highest accolade about somebody was that he was a gentleman.

Martin: Exactly. But in court societies you'd be a gentleman by birth no matter how you behaved. That's the point about America--you have to behave like a gentleman to be a gentleman. And surely that is a superior system.

Indeed!

Elton John as Exhibit A

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

The Art of Acting

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Blastoff for Blue Origin?

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

Waterboarding

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Although there has been lots of news discussion of the controversial interrogation technique known as "waterboarding", I never had a clear sense for what it actually entailed until I saw this video, in which Fox News reporter Steve Harrigan volunteered to undergo the procedure.

Here is an article excerpt describing the technique in more detail:

Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

Although it looks like a thoroughly unpleasant fear-inducing experience, it does not appear to cause any kind of permanent physical damage. Nor does the subject ever appear to be at a real risk of drowning.

One standard dictionary definition of "torture" is:

The act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

If one accepts that definition, then I'm not sure that waterboarding quite falls into that category. Because it appears to induce strong reflexive fear response (as opposed to direct pain), it seems different in kind from more "traditional" forms of torture (such as sticking hot pokers into the victim's body), although there are definitely some similarities as well. And there are also legitimate questions as to the reliability of any information gained by this technique.

Having seen the video, I have no desire to undergo waterboarding. But I'm not sure I would classify that as "torture", and it may be that we need a different conceptual category for these sorts of techniques.

(Perhaps one analogy would be taking a person with a strong fear of snakes, and putting him in a glass-walled room surrounded by snakes such that he can see the snakes and the snakes can see him, but they can't actually reach him. Should that be regarded as "torture"?)

The Anti-Life Movement

By Christian Beenfeldt

South Dakota voters have rejected the state’s proposed abortion law--a law that would have outlawed abortion in virtually every case. The law’s supporters claim that its rejection is a blow to “the sanctity of human life.” But is it?

Consider what banning abortion would mean for human life--not the "lives" of embryos or primitive fetuses, but the lives of real, living, breathing, thinking women.

It would mean that women who wanted to terminate a pregnancy because it resulted from rape or contraceptive failure--or because the would-be father has abandoned her--or because the fetus is malformed--would be forbidden from doing so. It would mean that they would be forced to endure the misery of unwanted pregnancy and the incredible burdens of child rearing. It would mean that women would be sentenced to 18-year terms of enslavement to unwanted children--thereby suffocating their hopes, their dreams, their personal ambitions, their chance of happiness. And it would mean that women who refused to submit to such a fate would be forced to turn to the "back-alley" at a staggering risk to their health. According to a World Health Organization estimate, 110,000 women worldwide die each year from such illegal abortions and up to six times as many suffer injury from them.

Clearly, anti-abortionists believe that such women's lives are an unimportant consideration in the issue of abortion. Why? Because, they claim, the embryo or fetus is a human being--and thus to abort it is murder. But an embryo is not a human being, and abortion is not murder.

There is no scientific reason to characterize a raisin-size lump of cells as a human being. Biologically speaking, such an embryo is far more primitive than a fish or a bird. Anatomically, its brain has yet to develop, so in terms of its capacity for consciousness, it doesn't bear the remotest similarity to a human being. This growth of cells has the potential to become a human being--if preserved, fed, nurtured, and brought to term by the woman that it depends on--but it is not actually a human being. Analogously, seeds can become mature plants--but that hardly makes a pile of acorns equal to a forest.

What can justify the sacrifice of an actual woman's life to human potential of the most primitive kind? There can be no rational justification for such a position--certainly not a genuine concern for human life. The ultimate "justification" of the "pro-life" position is religious dogma. Led by the American Roman Catholic Church and Protestant fundamentalists, the movement's basic tenet, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that an embryo must be treated "from conception as a person" created by the "action of God." What about the fact that an embryo is manifestly not a person, and treating it as such inflicts mass suffering on real people? This tenet is not subject to rational scrutiny; it is a dogma that must be accepted on faith.

The "pro-life" movement tries to obscure the religious, inhuman nature of its position by endlessly focusing on the medical details of late-term abortions (although it seldom mentions that "partialbirth" abortions are extremely rare, and often involve a malformed fetus or a threat to the life of the mother). But one must not allow this smokescreen to distract one from the real issue: the "pro-life" movement is on a faith-based crusade to ban abortion no matter the consequences to actual human life--part of what the Pro-Life Alliance calls the "absolute moral duty to do everything possible to stop abortion, even if in the first instance we are only able to chip away at the existing legislation." This is why it supports the South Dakota law, which is the closest the movement has come to achieving its avowed goal: to ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy, including the first trimester--when 90 percent of abortions take place. As the Pro-Life Alliance puts it: "We continue to campaign for total abolition."

The "pro-life" movement is not a defender of human life--it is, in fact, a profound enemy of actual human life and happiness. Its goal is to turn women into breeding mares whose bodies are owned by the state and whose rights, health and pursuit of happiness are sacrificed en mass--all in the name of dogmatic sacrifice to the pre-human.

The result in South Dakota is the only pro-life result.

Christian Beenfeldt, MA in philosophy, is a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org

Of Mice. Then Men?

By Andy from The Charlotte Capitalist (TM),cross-posted by MetaBlog

A FEW blind mice have had their sight restored. The process, which involved transplanting precursor retinal cells into their damaged eyes, promises a cure for age-related macular degeneration or blindness due to diabetes. The mice were blind because they had been bred to have non-functional photoreceptor cells, the eye's rod and cone cells that convert light into electrical signals to be sent to

Two For Plot Writers

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I recommend two books to writers who want to learn how to write plots. Both are books of short stories or novelettes; one book is comedy, the other is action-adventure. You can read one story after another and find the common denominators -- you can induce the principles of fiction.

The books are Yes, Minister by Jonathan Lynn and Anthony Jay and Wolf of the Steppes, the Complete Cossack Adventures, Volume One by Harold Lamb.

Yes, Minister is a fiction adaptation of the BBC comedy series. Lovers of free market economics will get a special kick from the series as it satirizes welfare state politics. In every story the conservative Minister for the Department of Administrative Affairs tries to cut the size of government, but the civil servants always defeat him and end up increasing the budget.

I call the plot principle I induced from these stories “adding a complication.” It goes like this: you get your hero in a bind, then instead of getting him out, you make things worse; the second complication ends up solving the first. This is especially good in comedy because it can be funny how the two complications come together and solve themselves at the end.

To give a serious, if banal, example, let’s say your hero is in a gunfight. He is shooting at a villain across the street. Suddenly, a second villain appears behind him -- added complication, more tension! Then the hero ducks and the two villains shoot each other. The added complication turned out to be the solution to the first problem, but before you get to the solution you increase the conflict. Don’t let your hero off the hook -- make things even worse!

Wolf of the Steppes, which I have not yet finished reading, is pulp fiction from the early 20th century. In Adventure Magazine Harold Lamb wrote stories of Khlit the Cossack, set in Central Asia of the late 16th century. Lamb was one of Robert E. Howard’s favorite writers and you can see the influence of Lamb’s crafty swordsman in Conan the Barbarian.

Lamb was a master plot writer. In these clever stories the hero gets in a terrible bind that you KNOW he cannot get out of -- then he gets out because he had a plan all along. Only on the last page or so does it all come together and you see the plan the hero had the whole time. This technique, "hiding the hero's plan," is fundamental to action-adventure writing. If the reader knows the plan too soon, or knows that the hero even has a plan, then the suspense is killed. It's good to make it look like the hero is putting himself in an impossible position because he is compelled by the pursuit of values, whether rational or irrational -- honor, love, revenge, wealth -- then you see in the end that he was pursuing a rational plan.

Lamb's stories are not deep, but their thematic shallowness helps you see the plot techniques. You could call this book Adventure Writing 101.

What We Owe Our Soldiers

By Alex Epstein

Every Veterans Day we pay tribute to our fellow Americans who have served in the military. With speeches and ceremonies, we recognize their courage and valor. But justice demands that we also recognize that we should have far more living veterans than we do. All too many of our soldiers have died unnecessarily--because they were sent to fight for a purpose other than America's freedom.

The proper purpose of a government is to protect its citizens' lives and freedom against the initiation of force by criminals at home and aggressors abroad. The American government has a sacred responsibility to recognize the individual value of every one of its citizens' lives, and thus to do everything possible to protect the rights of each to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This absolutely includes our soldiers.

Soldiers are not sacrificial objects; they are full-fledged Americans with the same moral right as the rest of us to the pursuit of their own goals, their own dreams, their own happiness. Rational soldiers enjoy much of the work of military service, take pride in their ability to do it superlatively, and gain profound satisfaction in protecting the freedom of every American, including their own freedom.

Soldiers know that in entering the military, they are risking their lives in the event of war. But this risk is not, as it is often described, a "sacrifice" for a "higher cause." When there is a true threat to America, it is a threat to all of our lives and loved ones, soldiers included. Many become soldiers for precisely this reason; it was, for instance, the realization of the threat of Islamic terrorism after September 11--when 3,000 innocent Americans were slaughtered in cold blood on a random Tuesday morning--that prompted so many to join the military.

For an American soldier, to fight for freedom is not to fight for a "higher cause," separate from or superior to his own life--it is to fight for his own life and happiness. He is willing to risk his life in time of war because he is unwilling to live as anything other than a free man. He does not want or expect to die, but he would rather die than live in slavery or perpetual fear. His attitude is epitomized by the words of John Stark, New Hampshire's most famous soldier in the Revolutionary War: "Live free or die."

What we owe these men who fight so bravely for their and our freedom is to send them to war only when that freedom is truly threatened, and to make every effort to protect their lives during war--by providing them with the most advantageous weapons, training, strategy, and tactics possible.

Shamefully, America has repeatedly failed to meet this obligation. It has repeatedly placed soldiers in harm's way when no threat to America existed--e.g., to quell tribal conflicts in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. America entered World War I, in which 115,000 soldiers died, with no clear self-defense purpose but rather on the vague, self-sacrificial grounds that "The world must be made safe for democracy." America's involvement in Vietnam, in which 56,000 Americans died in a fiasco that American officials openly declared a "no-win" war, was justified primarily in the name of service to the South Vietnamese. And the current war in Iraq--which could have had a valid purpose as a first step in ousting the terrorist-sponsoring, anti-American regimes of the Middle East--is responsible for thousands of unnecessary American deaths in pursuit of the sacrificial goal of "civilizing" Iraq by enabling Iraqis to select any government they wish, no matter how anti-American.

In addition to being sent on ill-conceived, "humanitarian" missions, our soldiers have been compromised with crippling rules of engagement that place the lives of civilians in enemy territory above their own. In Afghanistan we refused to bomb many top leaders out of their hideouts for fear of civilian casualties; these men continue to kill American soldiers. In Iraq, our hamstrung soldiers are not allowed to smash a militarily puny insurgency--and instead must suffer an endless series of deaths by an undefeated enemy.

To send soldiers into war without a clear self-defense purpose, and without providing them every possible protection, is a betrayal of their valor and a violation of their rights.

This Veterans Day, we must call for a stop to the sacrifice of our soldiers and condemn all those who demand it. It is only by doing so that we can truly honor not only our dead, but also our living: American soldiers who have the courage to defend their freedom and ours.

Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.

The Scientist and the Preacher: Disintegration v. Misintegration

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

I think this short clip of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and recently disgraced evangelical preacher Ted Haggard is quite revealing. It shows the conflict between a philosophically disintegrated advocate of science ("we live in a world of subtle shades and not sharp black and white") and a philosophically misintegrated advocate of mysticism ("we believe the Bible is the word of God") and in my mind, makes it clear which argument is the worse cultural force.

In the clip, Haggard claims that evangelicals embrace the scientific method as a means of explaining how God created the Earth. Dawkins confronts Haggard with the claim that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Haggard responds saying that Dawkins’ claim is just one view of many that people hold. Haggard then states that "intellectual arrogance" is the reason why those who dispute creationism have issues with people of faith.

In analyzing the material presented in the clip, I came to the conclusion that Dawkins is weak, but Haggard is vicious. Dawkins respects science (albeit with heavy dose of Humeian skepticism), but Haggard rejects science outright by reducing it to little more than the handmaiden of his faith. Haggard is the deeper philosophic threat, because he attacks the very means by which a person would crawl out of skepticism and irrationality—he attacks reason itself (and with some irony, even tries to employ skepticism to do it).

And lest we forget—it is Haggard and not Dawkins who has our President's ear.

Our long national nightmare is over . . .

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

. . . to be replaced by our new national nightmare. Nevertheless, we are presented with a substantial opportunity to communicate our message given that the religious and pragmatic Republicans have been trumped, and the Democrats have no principled message, save for "not George Bush."

But before that can begin, we Objectivists need to examine our own house. The causes of our deep divisions must be addressed. This is not a debating game we are playing here; the choices we make and the public stands we take directly impact the health of our movement to change our culture and our ability to be persuasive beyond our own private voices.

Needless to say, I will have more to offer on this topic the coming days, but in the interim, it is time for some serious soul-searching among Objectivists.

The Decline of Popular Music

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Maybe There's A Reason

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Learn Physics the VanDamme Academy Way!

David Harriman, philosopher and historian of physics, is the originator of VanDamme Academy's revolutionary science curriculum. An expert both in physics and in proper pedagogy, Mr Harriman developed and taught a two-year course on the history of physics for VanDamme Academy. His unique approach is to teach physics historically, thereby teaching it inductively. From the early Greeks to Copernicus to Newton, this course presents the essential principles of physics in logical sequence, placing each in the context of the earlier discoveries that made it possible and explaining how each was discovered by reasoning from observations.

Teaching physics by this method not only renders physics thoroughly intelligible--it also makes physics an inspiring story of discovery, in which great thinkers triumph in their quest to grasp the nature of the physical universe.

VanDamme Academy is now making this revolutionary physics course, "Introduction to Physical Science," available to the public. While Mr. Harriman's easily accessible presentation makes the course appropriate for students as young as grade seven, the course's profound content (unavailable anywhere else) makes it equally valuable for adults: from those seeking to gain the science education they never had to lovers of history who want to understand how we reached today's wondrous world of technology.

Part 1 of this one-of-a-kind course (60 hours) is available now, for only $495 on Audio CD and $695 on DVD. Part 2 will be available in November.

Each part of the course consists of video or audio of classroom instruction delivered to a junior high class by Mr. Harriman, along with a day-by-day course outline and notes of blackboard drawings. Introduction to Physical Science  is recommended for adults and for children in grade seven and above. An adult should guide junior high students.

For more information on this revolutionary course, see:

• Lisa VanDamme on the history and uniqueness of David Harriman's physics class.
• Lisa VanDamme on the crucial role of hierarchy in science education, and how VanDamme Academy's science curriculum (originated by David Harriman) is shaped by this principle.
• Testimonial from Keith Lockitch, Ph.D., Physics on the value of the course.
• Philosopher of education Leonard Peikoff on the value of studying physics with David Harriman.

"Dave Harriman seems to know effortlessly everything worth knowing about physics and its history; yet he also knows that the student must be led through the material carefully, in crystal clear steps, if he is to understand the logic and power of the subject. As a result, physics taught by Harriman comes alive in the student's mind as a real part of his thinking. Harriman taught me physics personally, so I know whereof I speak."

Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Philosopher, Teacher, and Educational Expert

To purchase this course, or to learn more about VanDamme Academy and its revolutionary teaching methods, visit www.vandammeacademy.com.

For ongoing information from VanDamme Academy—including inspirational stories, new products, online lectures, and exclusive commentaries and not available anywhere else—sign up for our email list. To subscribe, email custserv@vandammeacademy.com with the subject “Subscribe.”

The Real Key to Fixing Science Education

From Lisa VanDamme:

Science education is a frequent topic in the news these days. This past Wednesday, Microsoft announced a campaign to improve math and science education in the Seattle area. According to Brad Smith, a senior vice president and general counsel for Microsoft: "We're very concerned about the possibility that our kids are falling behind in areas like math and science."

As well they should be. Study after study shows that the average American student has an abysmal level of scientific knowledge. And as we witness greater and greater demand for strong math and science skills--and the thinking abilities that math and science foster--a poor background in science is a greater handicap than ever.

Many smart, wealthy, and well-meaning people are attacking the problem of science education. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic about their chances of success.

Why? Because, from what I have seen, they are not getting to the core of the problem. They are trying to improve science education with a combination of money, computer programs, motivational speeches, and exciting field trips--but without changing the fundamental flaw of almost all science education today.

Consider this example from a newspaper story on Microsoft's initiative:

"One idea being floated is to have Microsoft employees volunteer to meet with kids to explain how they use math on the job, such as in developing the Xbox videogame player. If kids can see real-world applications for the advanced math skills they'll learn in school, it can get them more enthused about the subject, Smith said."

Now there is certainly nothing wrong with showing students the modern, practical applications of math and science. But does anyone really believe that kids talking to Xbox engineers will do anything significant to alleviate the mass boredom that exists in math and science classes around the nation?

Students around the nation are ignorant and bored with science because most science education goes against the most crucial principle of education: the hierarchy of knowledge. In brief, the hierarchy of knowledge is the fact more abstract knowledge, such as Newton's laws, depends on less abstract knowledge, such as Galileo's discoveries.

But consider how most of us were taught Newton's laws.

As I write in my essay, "The Hierarchy of Knowledge: The Most Neglected Issue in Education":

"If your education was typical, the teacher came into class one morning, stood at the board, and declared that Newton identified three laws of motion--which you dutifully wrote down and later committed to memory. No context had been established for these discoveries. No information had been given as to what earlier observations and theories were made by other great scientists, what further discoveries were made by Newton, and how Newton's incomparable genius enabled him to integrate all this information into three fundamental, universal laws governing the behavior of every object in the universe.

"Pick up any grade school science textbook and you will see the same problem. Page one usually displays in vivid color a diagram of the structure of an atom. The chapter tells the students that an atom is a tiny unit of matter, that it has a nucleus made up of protons and neutrons, that the nucleus is surrounded by electrons, and so on. The question that such books make no attempt to answer is: Why should a child believe this drawing any more than he believes the Saturday morning cartoons? He has never seen an atom, or a nucleus, or an electron; he has not been told how scientists discovered the existence and properties of this thing that cannot be seen; nor can he possibly understand the implications of the existence or nature of atoms. Thus, all of the material stands as meaningless gibberish he has been asked to accept on faith.           

"The vast majority of today's science teachers simply do not understand what it means to learn. They do not understand that there is a necessary order to learning, and that adhering strictly to this order is the only way to ensure that the student has a clear, independent grasp of the material. Today's teachers seem more concerned with enabling their students to parrot impressive-sounding words than they are with fostering their ability to think. That is why a high school chemistry teacher of Kira, one of my former students, said the following when he began a section on quantum theory: "This material is far too complex for any of you to really understand--but don't worry, we'll only spend a few days on it.

"Such "teaching" is a betrayal of the purpose of education, which is to give children the essential knowledge and cognitive powers necessary to be independent, productive, happy adults. In terms of content, to the extent that the hierarchy of knowledge is violated in students' education, they learn nothing of the material they are being taught; they learn only to repeat what they are told. In terms of method, to the extent that the principle is violated, students fail to learn what it really means to come to know something; this is replaced with the deadly lesson that knowledge of complex, abstract scientific issues is gained by parroting the words of an authority.

"If students are to be truly knowledgeable about and excited about science, they must be taught by teachers who recognize that there is a necessary order to the formation of the concepts and generalizations that a students learns throughout his education. An abstract idea--whether a concept, generalization, principle, or theory--should never be taught to a child unless he has already grasped those ideas that necessarily precede it in the hierarchy, all the way down to the perceptual level.

"Visitors to VanDamme Academy often comment on the total engagement of the students. It is typical for every student in the class to be completely attentive and actively involved in class discussion. The fundamental reason for our students' excitement is that we teach students knowledge in a sequence that allows them to gain a real, deep understanding of it; they grasp its connection to reality and its importance in human life.

Several months ago, I gave a lecture to the parents at my school about the hiearchy of knowledge--and how it is the most neglected issue in education. If you're concerned about the state of modern education in general, and science education in particular, I highly recommend that you listen to this lecture. I am making it available free, in three parts, on our school's website.

http://www.vandammeacademy.com/audio/hierarchy01.ram

http://www.vandammeacademy.com/audio/hierarchy02.ram

http://www.vandammeacademy.com/audio/hierarchy03.ram

If you are interested in gaining a real knowledge of the scientific principles that animate the wondrous world we live in--or if you wish to help a junior high, high school, or college student gain that knowledge--there is no better source than VanDamme Academy's "Introduction to Physical Science" course by David Harriman.

Rather than putting into  my own words why this course is so valuable for just about anyone, let me quote a review I recently came across, by Andrew Layman of StrongBrains.com, who happens to also be a Product Unit Manager at Microsoft.

"These wonderful lectures, recorded before an audience of students just learning science and mathematics, teach the critical ideas in man's knowledge of the physical world by starting at the beginning of science and showing each step by which more was learned, what evidence and reasoning validated the new knowledge and how each step built on and extended prior knowledge into wider integrations. I was a physics major when I entered college, yet I can easily say that my actual understanding of physics is much greater as a result of this course than I can credit to any other class I've taken - in large measure because I now have a clear grasp of what the physical theories actually refer to and, thus, why they are correct. (ages 13 to 16)" 

This is what it means to have a real science education. Nothing less--for our children and ourselves--will do. 

Do you have an education question you would like Lisa VanDamme to answer on this list? Email custserv@vandammeacademy.com.

The VanDamme Academy Email List features inspiring stories, exclusive commentaries, and special product offers from one of the best schools in America. Subscribe at www.vandammeacademy.com or send an email to custserv@vandammeacademy.com with the subject "Subscribe."

Spread the word about VanDamme Academy! Forward this email to a friend.

To unsubscribe from these emails, kindly email custserv@vandammeacademy.com with the subject "Unsubscribe."

Sacrificing our Soldiers in Sadr City

Irvine, CA--In response to the kidnapping of an American soldier in Iraq, U.S. forces imposed a blockade around Sadr City. Five days later, with the solider still missing, the United States ended the blockade at the behest of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"President Bush has mocked the idea that military decisions should be made by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., yet he is now allowing them to be made by bureaucrats in Iraq," said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "This is disgraceful."

"Yet this is perfectly consistent with Bush's Iraq policy, which aims, not to defend U.S. interests, but to sacrifice American wealth, security, and lives in service of Iraqis. So long as the welfare of Iraqis is paramount, there are no grounds for asserting our right to direct our soldiers as we see fit.

"We must reject President Bush's suicidal policy and embrace a foreign policy aimed solely at protecting the interests of the United States."

GOP Folds on Racial Quotas

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

Two on China

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

My expensive (time-wise) civics lesson continues today. In the meantime, I noticed these two news items on China on a quick visit to The Drudge Report.

Nuremberg Defense Updated

In an article that says Reporters without Borders is pressuring American companies that sell Internet-related equipment and software to China, I read the following:

China is the world's second-largest Internet market.

It employs an estimated 30,000 people to trawl Web sites for subversive material and is a leading jailer of journalists, with at least 32 in custody, and another 50 Internet campaigners also in prison, according to Reporters Without Borders.

The largest U.S. network equipment maker Cisco and several other U.S. technology companies, including Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc., are facing the ire of some U.S. lawmakers, activists and investors for their alleged complicity in allowing the Chinese government to commit human rights abuses.

...

Microsoft senior policy counsel Fred Tipson defended Cisco.

"The condition of doing business in a country is to abide by the law in that country," Tipson said. [bold added]

I can only assume that Tipson is as big a fan of antitrust legislation as he is of Chinese restrictions on freedom of speech. If so, Microsoft at least has the legal representation it deserves.

Interestingly, this is (or promotes) the same error that some anti-immigration types make when they decry illegal immigration simply for being illegal. The fact that something is encoded in law does not exempt it from critical evaluation. Laws are creations of man, not metaphysical facts. They can be changed, and I always suspect the motives of those who want me to forget that.

Gertz on China and Nuclear Proliferation

This Bill Gertz article is a must-read.

China helped North Korea develop nuclear weapons and in the past year increased its support to Pyongyang, rather than pressing the regime to halt nuclear arms and missile activities, according to a congressional report.

The final draft report of the U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission also says that Chinese government-run companies are continuing to threaten U.S. national security by exporting arms to American enemies in Asia and the Middle East.

The report is based on public testimony and highly classified intelligence reports made available to its members and staff. It indirectly criticizes the Bush administration for failing to pressure Beijing into joining U.S.-led anti-proliferation programs and calls for Congress to take action to force the administration to do more.

"China has contributed at least indirectly to North Korea's nuclear program," the report stated, noting that China was a "primary supplier" to Pakistan's nuclear-arms program.

--CAV

Ari Armstrong on Religion in America

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Ari Armstrong recently sent the following on religion in America to FRODO (Front Range Objectivism's discussion list). I thought it worth reproducing here, as it contains some interesting facts and figures. (I've slightly reformatted the plain text e-mail for HTML.) Ari writes:

Leonard Peikoff stated: "In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power. Socialism -- a fad of the last few centuries -- has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast -- the destroyer of man since time immemorial -- is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government."

Peikoff's claim, and his related exhortation to vote Democratic as a way to oppose the rise of the religious right, has been criticized by some Objectivists.

However, Peikoff is exactly right. The evidence is overwhelming. As but one example, consider a recent article by TIME magazine. Be sure to check out the related links, "How We View God" and "Denomination Nation."

Here are some findings from a survey from Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR):

"The film The Passion of the Christ was viewed by 44.3% of those polled... The Left Behind books, very pious and very popular also, only [ONLY!] reached 19%."

"Between 57% and 68% of respondents -- among all four God types -- include 'take care of the sick and needy' in their criteria for being a 'good person'..."

Examine the contents of this link. 31% of the population believes in an "Authoritarian God." Of those, 23% think "abortion is always wrong." 91% think "government should allow prayer in school." 57% think "government should redistribute wealth more evenly."

For EVERY SINGLE category of belief, a majority thinks that "government should redistribute wealth more evenly."

Here's the breakdown by belief type:

Authoritarian God: 31%

Benevolent God: 23%

Critical God [who "will exact divine judgement"]: 16%

Distant God: 24%

And atheists? About 5%. (This is mentioned in the magazine but not online, as far as I found.)

Here's the document from Baylor [on which the TIME magazine article is based].

Here are some additional findings:

"Barely one in ten Americans (10.8%) is NOT affiliated with a congregation, denomination, or other religious group."

"Fully a third of Americans (33.6%), roughly 100 million people, are Evangelical Protestant by affiliation."

54% of Evangelical Protestants spend "more than $50 a month on religious products."

Among all four god-types, a majority wants the federal government to "regulate businesses more closely" (page 33). "Only" 47.2% of those who believe in an "Authoritarian God" want the federal government to "fund faith-based organizations." A strong majority of all four types wants the federal government to "protect the environment better."

From page 34: 21.% of those who believe in an "Authoritarian God" think that "to be a good person it is very important to... convert others to your religious faith." Between 14.3% and 19.1% believe that a good person needs to "consume or use fewer goods."

There is a bit of relatively less-bad news for our region [i.e. Colorado]: "The West has the highest percentages of religiously unaffiliated people (17.6%) and people in other religious traditions (10.3%) of any U.S. region."

(Here are some other "fun" tidbits about the paranormal (page 45):

28.2% of the population believes, "It is possible to influence the world through the mind alone (Telekinesis)."

19.9% believe, "It is possible to communicate with the dead..."

37.2% believe, "Places can be haunted...")

Or, as Peikoff said: "Religion... is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government."

Also of interest, Ari wrote the following letter to the editor regarding the gubernatorial election in Colorado:

Dear Editor,

I have decided to vote for Democrat Bill Ritter for Governor to help preserve the separation of church and state. Republican Bob Beauprez has aggressively injected religion into the politics of abortion and welfare. More disturbingly, his running mate has rejected the separation of church and state.

Ritter also pushes religion into politics, yet to a considerably lesser degree. My vote for Ritter should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any of his policies. Ritter poses a serious threat to our rights to control our income, purchase medical services on an open market, and acquire and use tools for self-defense. Yet Beauprez poses the larger threat of breaking down the separation of church and state, the necessary precondition for freedom of conscience and the choice to adopt and support a particular religion or no religion.

Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong

Washington's Failed War in Afghanistan

By Elan Journo

America's campaign in Afghanistan was once widely hailed as a success in the "war on terror." We have nothing more to fear from Afghanistan, our policy makers told us, because the war had accomplished its two main goals: al Qaeda and its sponsoring regime, the Taliban, were supposedly long gone, and a new, pro-Western government had been set up. But as the daily news from Afghanistan shows, in reality the war has been a drastic failure.

Legions of undefeated Taliban and al Qaeda soldiers have renewed their jihad. Flush with money, amassing recruits, and armed with guns, rockets and explosives, they are fighting to regain power. In recent months, they have mounted a string of deadly suicide bombings and rocket attacks against American and NATO forces; more U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan in the last 20 months than did during the peak of the war.

Taliban forces have effectively besieged several provinces in southern Afghanistan. Local officials estimate that in some provinces the "number of Taliban . . . is several times more than that of the police and Afghan National Army." Taliban fighters are said to amble through villages fearlessly, brandishing their Kalashnikovs, and collecting zakat (an Islamic tithe) from peasants. With astounding boldness, they have assassinated clerics and judges deemed too friendly to the new government, and fired rockets at a school for using "un-Islamic" books.

The Taliban and al Qaeda forces are so strong and popular that Senator Bill Frist recently declared that a war against them cannot be won, and instead suggested negotiating with the Islamists.

How is it that five years after the war began--and in the face of America's unsurpassed military strength--Taliban and al Qaeda fighters are threatening to regain power?

Victory in Afghanistan demanded two things. We had to destroy the Taliban and we had to ensure that a non-threatening, non-Islamic-warrior-breeding regime take its place. But we did not think we had a moral right to do what was necessary to achieve either goal.

Our military was ordered to pursue Taliban fighters only if it simultaneously showed "compassion" to the Afghans. The U.S. military dropped bombs on Afghanistan--but instead of ruthlessly pounding key targets, it was ordered to gingerly avoid hitting holy shrines and mosques (known to be Taliban hideouts) and to shower the country with food packages. The United States deployed ground forces--but instead of focusing exclusively on capturing or killing the enemy, they were also diverted to a host of "reconstruction" projects. The result is that the enemy was not destroyed and crushed in spirit, but merely scattered and left with the moral fortitude to regroup and launch a brazen comeback.

Even with its hands tied, however, the U.S. military succeeded in toppling the Taliban regime--but Washington subverted that achievement, too.

A new Afghan government would be a non-threat to America's interests if it were based on a secular constitution that respects individual rights. The Bush administration, however, declared that we had no right to "impose our beliefs" on the Afghans--and instead endorsed their desire for another regime founded on Islamic law. Already this avowedly Islamic regime has jailed an Afghan magazine editor for "blasphemy"; earlier this year Abdul Rahman, an Afghan convert to Christianity, faced a death sentence for apostasy. The new Afghan regime cannot be counted on to oppose the resurgence of Islamic totalitarianism. Ideologically, it has nothing to say in opposition to the doctrines of the Taliban (two members of the Taliban leadership are in the new government). It is only a matter of time before Afghanistan is once again a haven for anti-American warriors.

The failure in Afghanistan is a result of Washington's foreign policy. Despite lip-service to the goal of protecting America's safety, the "war on terror" has been waged in compliance with the prevailing moral premise that self-interest is evil and self-sacrifice a virtue. Instead of trouncing the enemy for the sake of protecting American lives, our leaders have sacrificed our self-defense for the sake of serving the whims of Afghans.

The half-hearted war in Afghanistan failed to smash the Taliban and al Qaeda. It failed to render their ideology--Islamic totalitarianism--a lost cause. Instead, at best it demonstrated Washington's reluctance to fight ruthlessly to defend Americans. How better to stoke the enthusiasm of jihadists?

America cannot win this or any war by embracing selflessness as a virtue. Ultimately, it cannot survive unless Washington abandons its self-sacrificial foreign policy in favor of one that proudly places America's interests as its exclusive moral concern.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.

John McCaskey on the Scientific Revolution

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Tired of the election? Disgruntled? In the depths of despair over our choices at the polls? Need to be inspired? Up-lifted? Want some fun in your weekend?

Enjoy an enthusiastic, inspirational evening learning about science and scientific heroes. John McCaskey is an engaging, interesting, and thoughtful speaker with insights into the history and philosophy of science. If you who have not yet made reservations to come and hear John McCaskey on November 4, this is your last opportunity. An added benefit is spending time socializing with other rational, interested people. Call or e-mail by November 2 at 4:30 pm.

For much of the twentieth century, it was believed that the Scientific Revolution that began with Copernicus and Vesalius was the result of the rejection of Aristotle's methods and the adoption of Plato's. But historians are now discovering that it was the opposite. In this talk, Dr. John McCaskey will explore the foundations of the great age of scientific discovery that ran from Copernicus to Galileo, Harvey, Boyle, and Newton, all the way to Charles Darwin. In particular, Dr. McCaskey will show how historians are coming to better understand the methods that these great thinkers used.

Why what you learned about Copernicus's discovery in high school is wrong (and how you yourself could have known it).

How we know that Galileo really performed the experiments that some have doubted. (We'll try one using water and wine and you'll see.)

The truth about Isaac Newton's interest in alchemy.

That Charles Darwin's ideas weren't rejected by the clergy (as any tourist to London should suspect).

Date: November 4th, 2006

Alert: Special time and event -- two talks for the price of one!

Time:

4:30 pm -- Social Half Hour

5:00 pm -- Into the Historian's Workshop: How Historians are Finding the True Foundations of the Scientific Revolution -- with Q&A 6:30 pm -- Social forty-five minutes

7:15 pm -- Buffet Dinner

Location:

West Woods Golf Club, 6655 Quaker Street in Arvada, Colorado

Cost:

$50 per person, $35 for students

RSVP:

Please RSVP to Lin Zinser (lin@zinser.com) by November 2. Send your check to FROST, 8700 Dover Court, Arvada, CO 80005. Or register via PayPal -- $50, student price $35. Or e-mail and pay at the door.

Hope for a 'Do-Nothing' Congress

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

After Dr. Leonard Peikoff issued his position earlier this month on the fall Congressional elections and how Objectivists ought to vote (which was straight Democratic, regardless of the venality and agendas of the candidates, in order to oust the religious, theocracy-prone Republicans), I drew up a check-off list to compare the two parties' records and aspirations, in order to see which party was the more inimical to the survival of the U.S.

The measure of the comparison being the country's survival and capacity to recover from over one hundred years of statist folly, neither party, in my estimate, wins an advantage over the other. Both are gravely and morally culpable. My comparison takes into account C. Bradley Thompson's brilliant essay, "The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism." Aside from its many noteworthy points, Thompson elucidates that while many "compassionate" and "neocon" Republicans base their agendas on religion, others are the moral heirs of a more secular Rousseau.

First, I focused on the welfare state. Today's Republicans wish to expand it, on the dual premise that it is the duty of the country and its most successful citizens to "share" the bounty, coupled with the "neocon" policy, that, since it exists, and since reducing or abolishing it would cause civil upheaval, it is best to just "deal with it" (and never mind the Republican record of abetting its growth over the last half century or more). The Republicans see capitalism and private property as the most efficient means to serve altruist ends. Possibly the most prominent examples of this policy in practice are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who are "giving back" their fortunes (in defiance of the logic, I might add, that they created wealth that didn't exist before they "took" it).

The Democrats, on the other hand, also wish to expand the welfare state to encompass every aspect of American life. The Republicans may not hate America, but the Democrats do. They wish to inflate the welfare state out of sheer nihilistic malice for the haves, whether they are middle class or wealthy.

So, one must ask oneself: Which is worse - being impoverished from motives of Christian, altruistic duty, or from hatred and undisguised thuggery?

Second, I focused on international relations. The Republicans wish the U.S. to be a partner in a "community" of nations that care, and to defer to the standards of the majority (a.k.a., the United Nations), provided those standards are altruist. The Democrats wish the U.S. to demote itself to just another nation among dozens of indistinguishable nations. They wish to see the U.S. humbled before the court of international opinion.

Next, I focused on Iraq and Afghanistan. The Republicans, in their campaign to "democratize" these two backwater pestholes at the expense of American blood and treasure, have more or less succeeded. Both countries have attained "democracy," and voted themselves nominal theocracies, and wish the U.S. to leave. The "war on terror" focuses on Islamic "extremists," and thus rules out dealing with states that sponsor terrorism and attacks on the U.S. and the West.

The Democrats wish the U.S. to throw in the towel, as it did in Vietnam. It did so under a Republican president, Nixon, even though it was a Democratic president who took us into Vietnam, John F. Kennedy, a war prosecuted disastrously by another Democrat, Lyndon Johnson. Today's Democrats have always wished the U.S. to fail in its military matters. They despise efficacy and strength in all matters, especially military ones.

Next, I focused on Iran. The Republican policy has been to negotiate, bribe, and hope Iran's getting the bomb isn't as serious as the evidence indicates. That goes for North Korea, as well. The Democrats do not wish to contemplate the matter at all, and act as though they were oblivious to the Iranian threat. They would probably be more submissive and traitorous in any dealings with aggressive tyrannies than have been Bush and Secretary of State Rice, as their record has shown.

So, in the end, I don't see that the Republicans have a single leg up on the Democrats, except possibly that they don't wish to destroy the country, just see it transformed into "Christian" nation in contravention of the Constitution. Both parties are in effect elective oligarchies that wish to remain in power in order to "run" the country, the Republicans, out of "compassionate" expediency, the Democrats, out of malice for the country's origins and existence now as a semi-free nation.

Lest anyone doubt that the Democrats regard free Americans as a greater enemy than Iran, Syria or North Korea, consider an article on the agenda of Representative Henry Waxman of California, "Waxman Plans Tougher Oversight of Companies" in The Wall Street Journal (October 28), which reports that a Democratic victory in the House would see Waxman head a committee that "would aggressively expand oversight of many large industries - with the focus on drug prices, oil company profits and Halliburton Co.'s contracting work in Iraq." Waxman was the pit bull who attacked the tobacco companies and subjected them to a Congressional auto-da-fé, and sponsored and helped to write numerous coercive, nanny state federal laws.

An editorial in the same issue of the WSJ focuses on another power-luster, Representative Nancy Pelosi, also of California. "The Pelosi Democrats favor a 'windfall' profits tax on oil companies and a virtual moratorium on drilling for more domestic oil in Alaska and on the outer continental shelf (where the U.S. may have more energy than Saudi Arabia)." The editorial goes on to state that the Democrats would also mandate higher fuel efficiency standards and campaign to have the U.S. sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

It has always been clear that the Democrats' first priority is to bring the U.S. to its knees and convert it into Marxist paradise buoyed by the wealth produced in the country's past, regardless of what predators lurk beyond its borders. The Democrats smell blood this fall, and are already assembling their leashes, cattle prods, and Mace.

On the Republican side, The Washington Post on October 29 reported that "a Harvard University curriculum committee proposed that, since a poll indicated that most college students believe in God, graduates be required...to take one course in an area that the committee styled 'reason and faith.'" Such a course "would deal not so much with the relationship between reason and faith as with reasoning about faith, religion and religious institutions and their impact on the world."

Odd. I had always regarded the fundamental relationship as one of reason versus faith - as one of mutual hostility.

The article, written by the provost of University of Notre Dame, argues that all universities should implement programs that emulate his school's program, "to create classes that convey the intellectual riches of a religious tradition and help students engage in reasoned reflection from within the perspective of faith." Among other things, such a course requirement would help students counter the religious fanaticism of Muslims and that of other religious "extremists" and contribute to "social cohesion and civic culture."

The article reflects a domestic consequence of the Republican campaign to Christianize America, and certainly anticipates by at least a year, if such a program is already in place at Notre Dame, Pope Benedict's call for "dialogue" between Christianity and Islam. It is a form of Bush's faith-based initiative that completely conforms to courses and programs in middle and secondary public schools that indoctrinate children, multiculturally, about the alleged benevolence of the Islamic creed.

Another form of that initiative is reflected in our foreign policy, which rests on the belief that reaching out to Islam in out-of-the-trenches and over-the-top sorties of blubbering tolerance will win the U.S. friends, allies and generous reciprocity. But, as evidence of the utter air-headedness of such a policy, Cal Thomas, a writer for Jewish World Review, on October 25th interviewed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (The interview was published on October 28th.) It came out during the interview that Rice apparently bases her diplomacy on polls and wishful thinking, chiefly wishful thinking.

"The great majority of Palestinian people...they just want a better life," Rice told Thomas. "This is an educated population....I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. I think the mothers want their children to grow up to go to university. And if you create the right conditions, that's what people are going to do."

What a fantasy! Firstly, women do not call the shots in Muslim society; men do. And the frequent stories and news footage of Palestinian and Muslim women elsewhere who boast that their sons or daughters died as suicide bombers burst that balloon, as well. And the barbarians who breed and kill each other in Gaza and the West Bank (besides in Iraq and Afghanistan) can hardly be called an "educated" population. I don't doubt that the Palestinians want "a better life," which, going by their actions, would mean one in which all Jews were exterminated and the Islamic crescent fixed atop the Washington Monument, Big Ben, and the Arc de Triomphe.

"I don't believe that most people in the Middle East really want to blow themselves up," said Rice, "and believe in this ["extremist"] ideology....There are always extremists who are going to do that...always ideologues who are going to believe and they are always going to recruit from a pool of disaffected people. So you have to lessen the pool of disaffected people, give them alternatives, and people choose other paths...."

If there were a grain of truth or the slimmest link to reality in that "belief," I would like to ask Madame Secretary: So, where are all the Muslim tap-dancers? The Muslim Garbos? The Muslim Edisons and Salks? Am I mistaken, and those two Rovers on Mars are actually Saudi probes in a quest for knowledge? But, since there isn't the least fealty to reality in any of Rice's statements, one can only conclude that she is blind to the fundamental nature of Islam and Muslim life, which is a cult of death. Islam breeds disaffection with life, and the "disaffected" practice their creed fully and consistently.

Do the Palestinians really want "a better life"? John Galt had an answer to that, and if Rice were any kind of reputable "ideologue," she would know how to quote him to any Arab's face: "I know that I want to live much more intensely than you do....I know that you, in fact, do not want to live at all." (Atlas Shrugged, p. 1104, said to Mr. Thompson, Head of State)

Rice is not likely to "offend" any Arab with such wisdom, nor is any Democratic envoy. Cal Thomas believes she is "utopian and rather naïve"; I think that is too generous an appraisal of her character. But the Democrats are nearly as nihilistic as Islamists in their hatred of men and are in a state of criminal denial; they see too much of themselves in parasitical Saudi princes and looting Muslim tyrants.

(My thanks to two individuals for alerting me to this illuminating and revealing interview, John Lewis and Robb LeChevalier).

A key issue governing next week's elections will be Iraq and its endless cost in American lives and fortunes. Is either party - or, for that matter, any commentator or pundit - observing that it is the wrong war, and that it is a signal instance of the philosophy of sacrifice and duty that both parties advocate and practice? No. Both parties have a stake in one form or another of the same morality.

To Objectivists, therefore, I can only recommend that they hope for the creation of gridlock in Congress, a state that would neutralize or minimize, for a time, the capacity of either party to further damage the country.

The incentives for climate-change doom and gloom

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

I subscribe to a global climate change news feed. In it, I get stories such as this one, that is, stories that treat global warming as a self-evident tale of impending death and despair. Yet I wonder what the spin would be if it was alleged that human existence was leading to global cooling instead of global warming (as it was maintained as recently as the 1970's).

Would we be hearing tales of an impeding ice age? Would we be hearing tales of cooling that will lead to subsequent warming (the inverse of what I recently saw on a climate change TV special on the Discovery Channel)? Would anyone argue that the weather is the weather, it changes, and we should treat it as a metaphysically given?

Of the three options, it's the last scenario that is the most implausible. After all, what incentive is there to publish research that says that the sky is not falling? Honesty? Integrity? One would hope, but it would be interesting to track which climatologists receive the most government funding: those who predict disaster, or those who say the evidence argues against disaster.

After all, government is by-and-far the prime supporter of climate research. If the motives of anyone who speaks from a pro-technology perspective can be questioned, why can't we equally examine the motives of someone whose lifeblood depends on government largess? Shouldn't we understand how these researchers respond to incentives that they have been given—and how those incentives might skew their focus and findings? In fact, when has there ever been massive government funding of science, and a verdict of "nothing to see here, please go about your business"? Science demands independence and objectivity, yet that is precisely what science lacks today.

The same can be said for economics. Consider this report, paid for by Shell Oil, that argues that climate-control regulation will be a boon to business.

Combating global warming won't bankrupt Britain's economy and could be worth billions for business, says an oil company-sponsored report released Thursday.

The cost of action will amount to 0.3 percent of Britain's economic output, but that works out to business opportunities worth $55 billion over the next decade, said the report published by Shell UK, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, as part of its Springboard project to encourage business action on global warming.

Globally, the report said the market could be worth a trillion dollars in the next five years, the report said.

The report said business opportunities were mainly in developing products and systems to comply with regulations designed to cut energy use. That includes tighter building standards, supplying biofuels for road transport and renewable energy generation.

"The cost-benefit equation of action to tackle climate change is favorable. That's true not just for the U.K. but internationally as well," Shell UK Chairman James Smith said in an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

To encourage innovation, the report proposed that the government offer prizes -- as it did in 1714 when it offered a reward to the person who solved the problem of measuring longitude. [AP]

Let's make sure we have this right. The expense of climate-control regulation will be offset by all the profits to be had from developing pro-green technologies. Sure, the same way all the devastation of Hurricane Katrina was offset by the profits to be had in post-hurricane reconstruction. Shell UK is trying to spin a regulatory disaster—rather then admit the hard truth that regulations do not create wealth. After all, why does Shell call for a "government prize" to the creator of pro-green technologies? Aren't these innovators going to get wealthy enough on their own, without a handout or a government imprimatur?

At root, we are faced with the mind-numbing philosophic conformity that simply declares that the market is broken and that human beings are a blight on this Earth. If the climate changes on its own, so be it-but if our existence changes it, then that existence must be regulated and squelched. Again, how much funding and support goes to those who see the free human mind as the "ultimate resource," in contrast to those who favor a coerced reduction of the "footprint" of humanity?

I expect highly skewed numbers in favor of man's destroyers-and that, my friends, is the crisis of our age.

Made in China

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

Here's shocking video from a mountain-climbing trip to Mount Everest that reveals the Chinese to be as murderous as ever. In it, Chinese soldiers shoot Tibetan pilgrims without seeming provocation or due process. Here's a link to The New York Times’ coverage of the episode.