Outdoor Monuments in the NYT

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

Dianne Durante's Outdoor Monuments of Manhattan: A Historical Guide has been favorably reviewed by the New York Times. You'll want to search "Outdoor Monuments" to bypass the more extensive review of the autobiography of one Nicky Barnes, a 74-year-old former dope peddler, to get to it, though.

Her guidebook is a perfect walking-tour accompaniment to help New Yorkers and visitors find, identify and better appreciate statues famous and obscure (honoring, among others, the "father of gynecology" and the general who had an unremarkable military and business career but composed taps, the bugle call).

If the above link to the review does not work, Dr. Durante quotes it in its entirety (and is offering to email copies of the scanned page to interested readers) at her blog, Forgotten Delights, which you can now reach through a link in my sidebar.

Based on her articles in The Objective Standard, I would say that it's a safe bet that the book will be well worth it -- even if you never step foot in New York. (Here are a few opening paragraphs from each of the TOS articles, "Getting More Enjoyment from Art You Love" and the fascinating "19th-Century French Painting and Philosophy".) From the first of these:

Favorite artworks play a very special role in our lives. They provide us with enjoyment and inspiration. They help us to recall important events of the past and to project our course of action in the future. They help us to relax when the time is right and to exert ourselves when appropriate. Art, in short, helps us to live and makes life more enjoyable -- which is why we value our favorite works as we do.

Given the vital role of art in our lives, it is worth asking: Are we getting the most from the art we love? Are we extracting all the pleasure we can from these wonderful works? Or are we missing something -- perhaps something crucial -- that would make them even more meaningful, more powerful, more life-serving? There is usually much more to a work of art than one can glean in a passive viewing, listening, or reading. To get the most out of a work of art, we must approach it with an active mind. In the case of a work of visual art, such as sculpture or painting, we must study its details, ask the right questions, and identify its meaning or theme. Heightened awareness gives rise to heightened enjoyment -- and the reward is well worth the effort.

The best advice I can give to those unfamiliar with the TOS articles is to subscribe.

A very close second would be to visit the blog of Forgotten Delights, where the author offers some of her insights about and presents interesting facts pertaining to the sculptures she reviews in the book. For example, in reading her entry on a statue of William Shakespeare, one learns the following:

"About the Subject" reviews New Yorkers' attitudes toward Shakespeare through the 19th century. Did you know that in 1849 twenty-two people were killed at Astor Place in riots over a certain actor's portrayal of Macbeth?

I applaud the Times for its positive review, but its apparent sense of priorities has me scratching my head -- and wanting to crack wise about whether Nicky Barnes really has stopped dealing drugs and whether the staff of the Times are customers. But I'll stop now. Instead, I'll take the page layout as an unintentional demonstration of why we so urgently need the emotional fuel of good art in this day and age. Just look at what the dominant culture would have us thinking about instead!

-- CAV

PS: I originally learned of the favorable review through HBL.

Debates, Past and Future

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Trey Givens blogs a report on a recent debate on the UN between critic Dr. Yaron Brook and defender Dr. Gilligan. (One of these days, opponents of Dr. Brook in debate will realize that they must show up prepared!)

Speaking of debates with Dr. Brook, Boulder's Philosophy Department (or more precisely, its Center for Values and Social Policy) will be hosting a debate on just war theory between Yaron Brook and Martin Cook on March 13th from 7:30 to 9:30 pm in the lovely Wittemeyer Courtroom of the Wolf Law Building as part of its "Think!" series. Martin Cook is a professor of philosophy at the Air Force Academy -- and one of the preeminent just war theorists in the country.

Four simple ways to support ObjectivismOnline

You value this website, right? You wouldn't be here otherwise. Have you considered returning the favor? It's easy to do:

Sign up for a Patron account. It costs just $5 per month, and comes with Premium Membership benefits and special recognition.

Begin your Amazon.com shopping trips or Google searches here. It costs you nothing, but gives us a percentage from each purchase or ad clicked. Just go to the homepage, and scroll to the Amazon/Google search boxes.

Check out the Google ads on the bottom of the forum. You've seen them right? Each click contributes to your values.

Download one of these Google Products. I use and highly recommend both:

No Children Allowed!

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Not too long ago, Mike Mazza posted a quick but good rebuttal to the standard complaint that Objectivism ignores children. It's worth reading, mostly as ammunition for the next time you hear that charge.

Chinese Militarization of Space

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

On the heels of last week's news reports (HT: Resident Egoist) that China successfully attacked and destroyed a satellite in outer space comes a warning of a possible "Space Pearl Harbor" in FrontPage Magazine. China hopes to achieve the capability of attacking American interests in space by the same means the Moslems are waging war against the United States now: By acting in a threatening manner and then telling our weak-willed leaders what they want to hear, namely that it's time to hold "talks".

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is right on the money in his detailed discussion of this topic.

Breaking nearly two weeks of silence, Communist China has now confirmed that it did indeed successfully attack and destroy an aging weather satellite more than 500 miles above the earth. As U.S. intelligence revealed last week, the destructive intercept was performed by a kinetic-kill vehicle (KKV) launched onboard a medium-range ballistic missile.

In making this acknowledgement, however, the Foreign Minister preposterously declared that "the test was not targeted against any country and does not pose a threat to any country." [Such a capability in the hands of a dictatorship is, by its nature, a threat to any civilized nation. --ed] The mendacity of this statement is as transparent as Beijing's military activities in the area of space control and power projection, which are cloaked in secrecy: Communist China intends to be able to deny the United States the ability to utilize outer space for vital national security, and perhaps even economic purposes.

The sudden, indisputable nature of this insight has precipitated confusion bordering on panic in Washington and other allied capitals. One predictable reaction has been to encourage a renewed push by so-called "arms-control" advocates to prohibit the "militarization of space." According to the New York Times, such an outcome was intended by Beijing. It cites Xu Guangyu, a former Chinese Army officer and an official at the government-run China Arms Control and Disarmament Association: "What China is saying is, 'Let's sit down and talk.' There is a trend toward weaponization of space that no one, especially China, wants to see."

Were the United States to fall for this gambit, it would face the worst of both worlds -- at least two adversaries (Russia and China) known to have demonstrated ASAT capabilities and a wholly unverifiable prohibition on such weapons, one whose practical effect would be only to foreclose to this country (and others who adhere to their treaty obligations) capabilities essential to space control. [some bold added]

Read it all and remember this: If our leaders fail to act, as they almost certainly will, and China makes good on this threat, it will not be new-fangled technology that "left us open to attack", but old-fashioned cowardice.

The only valid premise of negotiations between governments is that both are civilized (i.e., respect individual rights). To engage in talks with an armed adversary so blatantly interested in being able to make credible threats is to engage in wishful thinking and to open oneself up to an all but inevitable betrayal.

-- CAV

Yes. The GOP is this bad.

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

This is my first post after converting this blog to the new version of Blogger. That process is mid-stream, so you may notice glitches in the appearance of this page. When I finish or reach a stopping point with that, I will post again, to that effect.

From time to time, I have heard fellow Objectivists say that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats. Often, the implied sense is that it is the Republicans, because they hold themselves out as the "party of small government", who can most easily get away with expanding the welfare state. A Republican state senator from North Carolina demonstrates that fact today by calling for state censorship of films made with government "incentives" in North Carolina!

Citing the controversy surrounding the Dakota Fanning film Hounddog, the leader of the state Senate Republicans says he wants the government to review scripts before cameras start rolling in North Carolina.

That system, said state Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, would apply only to films seeking the state's lucrative filmmaker incentive, which refunds as much as 15 percent of what productions spend in North Carolina from the state treasury.

"Why should North Carolina taxpayers pay for something they find objectionable?" said Berger, who is having proposed legislation drafted. [bold added]

The incentive in question is a tax credit that enjoyed bipartisan support before it was signed into law in 2006 by Democratic governor Mike Easley. It is touted by the North Carolina Film Council, a state agency that is supposed to promote the production of movies in the state through a "partnership" between private industry and government.

But as in any "partnership" where one side wields force, it is the side with the guns that will win any argument that comes up, as we see here. When the operating premise behind North Carolina's film "incentive" is that the tax money confiscated in the first place from the film producers is the government's to keep or give back, then it is only a matter of time before the government will decide that strings might need to be attached.

This is what we are seeing when Phil Berger -- a Republican -- calls for submission to government censors before a film can receive this "incentive". Notice that he does this even though the state isn't even actually funding the production! And notice further that he does this in a way a Democrat could not. Although he accepts the premise that the tax revenue belongs to the government (like any Democrat), he dresses his call for censorship in small-government clothing, by alleging that receipt of such an incentive is the same as forcing his constituents to fund something they do not like!

If Phil Berger were not such a huge fan of the welfare state, he would point out that these incentives are at best a baby step in the right direction, which would be the complete abolishment of involuntary taxation. He would also acknowledge that the government not only should not take property, it should not dictate its use by private parties. The film industry should neither be taxed nor should it be subject to government scrutiny of its productions as a matter of routine.

Berger could have taken this controversy as an opportunity to note that if there were no government interference (via taxation) in the film industry, there would be no question of whether the public is being made to fund something it does not approve of. Instead of making this principled stand, he does just the opposite: He uses the one form of government interference (taxation) as an excuse to call for another (censorship).

Berger ignores the fact that taxation as such is a violation of property rights while treating taxation of industry by the government as if it were a right. In doing so, he notices that the government will presumably make up for any shortfall in revenue by taxing ordinary citizens more. This, he equates with the government confiscating their money to fund activities they find objectionable. He is worse than partly right. The government shouldn't be taking anybody's money.

If Mr. Berger really were so concerned about ordinary citizens having their money stolen from them to pay for others to say things they may not like, his time and energy would be far better spent in abolishing public education, which accounts for a far larger part of the public tax burden than this tax abatement program and is far guiltier of forcing people to fund ideas which they find offensive. He would also support a truly free film industry in his state as I have already noted. This last would be a far better "incentive" than the small break from government looting his state trumpets so loudly now.

But State Senator Berger is not concerned with the economic or personal freedom of his constituents. Instead, like so many other conservatives, he has accepted the notion that we should have a conservative welfare state rather than abolishing the welfare state altogether. Unsurprisingly for a member of the political party that supports censorship of "obscenity" (which is already part of this "incentive") and works nonstop to bring about more intrusion of religion into our government, Berger is taking the opportunity to subject films made in North Carolina to higher taxes if they do not meet with government approval.

-- CAV

Threats from Allah

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I refuse to comment on this letter on principle: I don't argue with threats, particularly not divine threats communicated by human proxy. Still, I thought it interesting enough to repost. (Since I haven't written anything on Islam of late, it must be in response to some earlier post.)

From: mohamed sobah (sobahihavandhoo@yahoo.com)
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:48 AM
To: diana@dianahsieh.com
Subject: Comments on your article

Hey Diana
I don't know who the hell you are, but one thing is apparent to me: You know absoulutely nothing about islam. First of all let me be very clear: European civilisation does not possess any respectable vaues at all. The values that you claim to be of European are lower than crap. In fact animals are far more civilised than you are. You are a nation full of evil, you all are so deviated from the path of God. You have no idea what's right and what is evil. You're so lost and all your damn values stand on materialism. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You have utterly failed to understand the basic reason why you are here, what you are supposed to do, how can you expect to understand the limits of freedom? Now stop crowing about your so called values before God's wrath befalls you. Repent now and think about Islam seriously. Ask yourself the question: what's Islam and what's it all about. What are islamic values. Believe me, you are going to regret what you said about Islam, you have no power over God, do you understand that? Do you think you will not die, and you will not go to the grave. Of course you will, and you can never tell when. And it's in the grave that things will start, rather as soon as you die. So find about islam and think about converting now, if you want to be successful, if you are so serious about your values. It's really simple: compare pure Islam with other religions and i'm sure you will understand the difference and you will be convinced that islam is the religion for you.

Have you ever wondered about the Koran, what it says. i dont think you have. Get a transalation today, go through the contents, and ponder over what you read. If God wills you will be rightly guided. I pray that God guides you to the right path. Just keep in mind that you will be raised again after your death, and you will be questioned about your deeds. You can go ahead, laugh , poke fun at Muslims, but remember, you will regret that in your grave. If you don't believe me, read the Qur'an, its words from God. If you think it's not words of God, then prove that. I'm sure you will fail to prove, cuz you can't fight against God, can you? You will be the loser, so come back to the religion of GOD, dont be stubborn, it wont be of any use.

And dont make hasty comments about islam without even a little knowlege about it. You're wrong, Diana, you're perception about islam is wrong. I hope you will think about this, and embark on finding about islam right away. I'm sure you will end up in finding the truth. may God bless you and guide you to the right path and forgive you of your sins. Good luck, Diana

Lovely, no?

Self-Assertion-Free Oil

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

Via Matt Drudge, I see that a service station called "Terror-Free Oil" is getting ready to open. The idea behind the business is that we should boycott oil from countries that sponsor terrorism as a means of promoting our own national security.

A moment's thought shows that this boycott is an entirely inappropriate way to deal with nations guilty of the act of war that is known as "sponsoring terrorism": The boycotted nations will just sell to other nations more desperate for oil or less worried about terrorism than we are.

I wrote a column about the very movement behind this development awhile back and elaborated upon this point at length:

[T]his boycott, if we carried it out, would completely backfire. The U.S. would no longer be able to avail itself of crude oil which, even at its current prices, is a bargain compared to the less-economical sources of energy we would have to use instead. This will harm our economy by increasing the cost of anything that requires energy. And although we will no longer be "funding terrorism" through the money we pay for oil, other countries, like China and India, will happily purchase Middle Eastern oil instead. This means that funding for terrorism will, at the very best, be slightly reduced without the demand of the United States to support high crude oil prices -- and that's only if OPEC fails to ensure prices it finds satisfactory.

In other words, we are being called upon to re-live the Carter Era with a twist: In addition to imposing government controls on the economy and wasting tax money on projects already declared profitless by the private sector, we would impose an "Arab Oil Embargo" on ourselves. [bold added]

The movement includes an organization called "Terror-Free Oil" and advocates government sponsorship of alternative fuels as a means of implementing this boycott.

Interestingly, a professor interviewed in the article makes a profound integration about this ultimately ineffective marketing ploy:

"From a business perspective, it's kind of a neat way to differentiate yourself from the competition. To me, that sounds an awful lot like what we in environmental economics refer to as eco-labeling. Like, when you purchase a can of tuna with a symbol that there was no harm to dolphins to catch the tuna," [Chris] Decker said. [my bold]

I completely agree, but from a psychological perspective. This is very much the same thing. In both cases, we see people attempting to substitute a sort of feel-good pseudo self-esteem -- obtained by performing a prescribed ritual -- for the genuine self-esteem (and actual selfish benefit) that would come from taking the time to consider what one's own self-interest actually requires and then doing it.

Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute outlines several more viable options at our disposal for dealing with terror-sponsoring states:

The solution is not to punish ourselves by renouncing oil--but to punish our enemies until they renounce their aggression.

As the most powerful nation on earth, the United States has many options at its disposal.

One means of ending the Iranian and Saudi threat would be to issue an ultimatum to these regimes: cease all anti-American aggression immediately, or be destroyed. Many, witnessing the Iraqi quagmire, might scoff at this option. But such a course is eminently practical if America's unsurpassed military forces are committed to the task, not of "rebuilding" or "liberating" these states, but of making their inhabitants fear threatening America ever again.

Another means of addressing the threat would be to remove Middle Eastern oil fields from Iranian and Saudi control, put them in the hands of private companies, and then employ surveillance and troops to secure that oil supply. Contrary to popular assumption, Middle Eastern dictatorships have no right to their nationalized oil fields, which should be private property--the property of individuals who work to find and extract the oil.

Still another option might be a comprehensive, all-out embargo by the United States and its allies to starve the leader of the enemy, Iran, until the regime crumbles and the Islamic totalitarians lose their will to fight. [bold added]

The title of his column -- which should be read in full -- summarizes this very well as follows: "Keep Our 'Addiction' to Oil, End Our Allergy to Self-Assertion".

The only gas station I would boycott, were I a resident of Omaha, Nebraska, would be Terror-Free Oil -- because I am serious about ending state sponsorship of terrorism.

In closing, since the news article has a poll (which doesn't include "boycott" as a choice), I thought I would hold a poll of my own. (Scroll down.) Aside from this being a stupid idea, the name "Terror-Free Oil" is cumbersome. In addition to bringing up several viable alternatives to this worthless boycott, I have thought up a few names that not only do a better job of conveying the actual nature of Terror-Free Oil, but are a bit better on the ears. Choose the one you like best or suggest another in the comments!

-- CAV

Fired Up for Founders College

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

Over the weekend I visited Berry Hill, the antebellum plantation which will serve as the future home for Founders College. I do not think enough has been said about just how tremendous a location this is for this school; it is simply a place without many equals in higher education today. I have visited most of the great homes of Virginia in the past and the Berry Hill manor house alone easily ranks among them, while the richness of larger grounds serve to amplify the beauty of the property in ways that are absolutely breathtaking.

The estate, ten minutes from the town of South Boston, rests in the heart of rural Virginia; the countryside surrounding the property is peppered with tobacco farms and their antiquated log drying shacks. One approaches Berry Hill from the north, where a half-mile tree-lined road takes you the second gate and its surrounding primitive stone wall. To one's right are the stone ruins of slave quarters, ghostly reminders of the plantation's past, and it is here that one first begins to see hints of the Greek revival manor house itself. Built upon the summit of commanding hill, the home's eight Doric columns peek thought the branches of the surrounding oaks in restrained understatement. It is only upon reaching the circular drive directly in front of the manor that one finally sees the unshielded splendor of this temple-home.

And this home is splendorous. On both flanks stand smaller dependencies that echo the style of larger house, and there one is struck by the pungent aroma of the ancient boxwoods that surround the circle drive. (For those familiar with Mount Vernon, it is said that Washington favored the boxwood over all other aromatic plants). I arrived at Berry Hill about a half-hour before sunset, and as I approached, the north-facing house eclipsed the sun, leaving only its afterglow to illuminate the façade.

All the while, I could not help but think to myself: this is to be their college.

Built by the planter and entrepreneur James Coles Bruce in 1842, the main house is in an excellent state of preservation. As one enters the manor, one is greeted by the carefully restored main hall with its grand circular stairways rising on both sides of the hall, meeting on a landing and continuing as one. The home features many original fixtures, including the carved Italian marble fireplace mantels in the parlor and the library. In back of the manor are more dependencies, one of which now serves as a small tavern.

And as I exited the mansion, I was struck by how the modern additions, such as a large banquet facility, guest facilities, and athletic center do not intrude upon the historic aspects of the manor, yet are equally as luxurious. The guest rooms are decorated en suite and feature either ornate four-post canopies beds or sleigh beds (I am told these are to be preserved for the use of students). Each room has a full bath and a spacious veranda that is perfectly suited to catching the last rays of the setting sun. Common rooms feature working fireplaces, and one would be hard-pressed to envision a more comfortable environment for study and enjoyment.

In the last bit of twilight, I left the house and visited the Bruce family cemetery off a ridge to the east of the main hall. There I found graves that go back to the 1840 founding of the plantation.

The next day I toured the larger estate, mountain-biking a perimeter road that bounds the property, which is bordered by the Dan River to the south and adjacent farms to the east and west. A significant part of the estate is wooded; portions are slated to be part of a future residential community and equestrian center that will circle the estate to the northeast, with the rest of the grounds to be kept as is. Horse and mules are already raised on a part of the estate, with these animals having both woods and pasture to graze. I counted two ponds, with one serving as the home of an industrious clan of beavers (as judged by the large den they had built and the over-abundance of pine trees that they had felled). The other pond is in a small cut closer to the manor itself, ringed with large oak trees and a stone's throw from the ruins of two of the plantation's former slave quarters.

It was near here as I walked back to the manor house that I was able to enjoy a few moments away from my guide and take in the serene quiet of the place. There are no nearby roads to disturb one from their thoughts; as I walked, all I could hear was the sound of my feet and the gentile sound of a light rain falling upon the trees. I find that there are too few places today where this is possible and yet still offer all the potential of an invigorating and stimulating life. I obviously do not believe one's environment determines one's being, but if ever are their places that meld nature and man together in exquisite harmony, the Berry Hill plantation ranks as one amoung them. The property is brimming with possibility, and I can only say how fortunate Founders' students and faculty will be that they will have this beautiful place to call their home.

In a future post, I'll talk about what I learned about Founders College's educational philosophy from one of its recently-hired faculty, and how Founders believes that it can provide its students with an unsurpassed educational experience.

Update: Link to Lee Sandstead's images of the Berry Hill Plantation.

Christian Hysteria

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This comic strip on Christianity is absolutely priceless. When I have an office, it'll be the very first thing I post on the door. (Via Glenn Friedman.)

Announcing Objectivist Summer Conference 2007 - Special Student Rates

Ayn Rand Institute Update:

The schedule for the 2007 Conference is now available! There is special discount pricing for students and for anyone who registers before March 15th. See the Web site listed below for complete details.

In addition, we will be holding a session on running successful objectivist clubs and the importance of such clubs on July 6. This event will include talks by Drs. Yaron Brook and John Lewis among others. We encourage all campus club members to attend. Further details are forthcoming.

Hope to see you there!

The official announcement is below:

The Ayn Rand Institute is pleased to announce Objectivist Summer Conference 2007, taking place from July 7 to 15, 2007, in Telluride, Colorado. We have assembled a broad array of lectures and events, highlighted by a six-lecture presentation by Leonard Peikoff from his forthcoming book, "The DIM Hypothesis." The conference will include ten general session lectures, sixteen optional courses, a panel discussion and a series of special events.

In addition to Dr. Peikoff's pathbreaking lectures, subjects covered in our courses include law, physics, history, mathematics, economics, literature and the development of Ayn Rand's ethics and writing--with emphasis on Atlas Shrugged throughout the conference.

We also offer you a spectrum of special events to choose from, with dance workshops, meals, two formal dress banquets and a day-long trip to Ouray, Colorado--the scenic valley town that inspired Ayn Rand's vision of Galt's Gulch.

This will be an unforgettable conference, both for its content and for its beautiful setting. We hope to see you there!

Register by March 15 to take advantage of discount pricing.

For more information visit the Objectivist Conferences Web site at http://www.objectivistconferences.com/ocon2007/index.php?pagename=pricing.

OCON 2007

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Hooray! The schedule for the 2007 OCON in Telluride, Colorado has been posted.

Without a doubt, the highlight of the conference will be Leonard Peikoff's six lectures on "The DIM Hypothesis":

Dr. Peikoff's forthcoming book, The DIM Hypothesis, identifies three different modes of integration, i.e., of interrelating concretes, such as individual percepts, facts, choices, etc. The book then demonstrates the power of these three modes in shaping Western culture and history.

In his lectures, Dr. Peikoff presents and explains six of the chapters in his twelve-chapter book. The first three, dealing with epistemology, explain why there are only three possible interpretations of integration (symbolized by the acronym DIM), and which philosopher is the source of each. The second three illustrate the power of the DIM hypothesis to reveal the anatomy of Western culture, by considering the trends prevalent in literature, education and politics since the Renaissance.

Students will receive well in advance a highly detailed outline of the material. Each lecture will be followed by a question-and-answer period.

This course will not be a repetition of his earlier course by the same name, now available for free from ARI's web site. In fact, I'd highly recommend that first course as preparation for this summer's course.

I'm also very excited by some of the optional courses, but I'll blog about those later.

Lynching the First

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

Censorship by Nickels and Dimes

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

In what seems another age, some thirteen years ago, when Hillary Clinton attempted to foist socialized medicine on the country without even the courtesy of being elected to office, I wrote an article, "Here Comes a Chopper to Chop Off Your Head: Freedom of Expression Vs. Censorship in America," for the quarterly Journal of Information Ethics (St. Cloud State University, Minnesota - Fall 1995). The subject was the steady encroachment of censorship in all fields of expression, ranging from the banning of tobacco advertising to the mandating of the "V-chip" in new television sets as a means of "protecting" children against sex and violence in programming.

Now Hillary Clinton wants to foist herself on the village - excuse me, the country - as president, while censorship itself has inched up like a slow-rising flood to engulf political campaign ads, cresting, for the moment, at the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The principal subject here is the jeopardy in which "political speech" has been put, and this commentary may be treated as a shortened, revised version of my original "Chopper" article.

Let's start by quoting Article One of the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, that is very clear. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" - period. No exemptions, exceptions or special circumstances are mentioned or specified in that statement. No particular subject or form of speech is singled out or exempted from that broad assertion. It is as clear as "two plus two equals four." It means that regardless of one's financial status or political persuasion or the rightness or looniness of one's ideas, one has an inalienable right to say what one thinks, on any issue, about any person, about any thing. It means that one can agree with others on a specific issue and speak with them as a group, or speak as a lone individual, to anyone willing to listen or read.

On what moral principle is the First Amendment based? On the sovereignty of one's mind, a sovereignty given value in reality by the recognized and protected liberty to say what is on one's mind. The least proscription of that liberty is a shackle that ought to be contemptuously rejected, while the would-be censor should be damned. A mind free to think what it pleases, but prohibited from expressing what it thinks, is not a practical, life-enhancing value. A statutory or literal gag does nothing to further an individual's existence or happiness. But it is not any individual's happiness that a censor is concerned with, but rather his mindless obedience or his sanction by silence.

Man lives by his mind, by thinking, and by taking actions based on his thinking. If he is prohibited from taking action - in this instance, from speaking - then the freedom of thought is nullified by the destruction of the freedom to speak, negated as surely as if a lobotomy had been performed on his brain. You will not hear him, you will not know what he thinks, because to speak will earn him punishment.

Punishment? By whom? By those who do not wish him to speak, or by those who do not wish to hear what he has to say or who do not wish others to hear his thoughts. What gives them the power to gag an individual? Fiat, non-objective law. What is the motivation behind the gag? In most circles, and in editorials and commentary, one encounters reams of verbiage about "fairness" or "equity." But all that discussion focuses on irrelevancies.

Fundamentally, the motivation is fear. Fear of the mind, and most especially fear of reason. Reason is the foundation of rational persuasion. A politician or group that does not want others to hear an articulate, rational, persuasive argument against a particular program or policy, will want that opposition suppressed or neutralized. It is mindless agreement such creatures want, not agreement by serious reflection or thought.

The censors will not admit they are censors, or that they are advocating censorship. Those terms still frighten them with nearly superstitious awe. Cowards that they are, they prefer to introduce censorship by subverting the concept of freedom of speech. To paraphrase Ellsworth Toohey in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, "Enshrine 'fairness' or "equal access' or 'diversity of opinion,' and the concept of freedom of speech is razed."

The First Amendment has been abridged, and the issues that have nickeled-and-dimed it to bankruptcy have so atomized the subject -- one might even say vaporized it -- by such a prodigious volume of non-conceptual thought and politically-biased interpretation by theorists, jurists and legal philosophers, that one is virtually stopped in one's mental tracks by the plethora of sub-issues generated by those kinds of thought and interpretations: political speech, hate speech, corporate speech, commercial and non-commercial speech, obscenity, campus speech codes, balanced viewpoints, the "Fairness Doctrine," content-neutral speech, employer and employee speech, harm-based restrictions on speech, government-mandated product warnings, high- and low-value speech....the list goes on. And none of this even begins to address the subject of libel law.

Nielsen ratings, Gallup polls or any other species of "spot democracy" cannot determine the goodness or badness, the truth or falsehood, or desirability or undesirability of anything. A tally of nods and shakes of heads, whether of the entire population, or of a small fraction of it, is no substitute for thought, objectivity and reality. A consensus, real or imagined, is not a valid substitute for a moral standard.

For example, in an Associated Press article on January 21, "Smoke-free-law movement catching fire across the nation," it was reported that,

"In Virginia, a recent Mason-Dixon poll indicated a majority of the state's voters favored a ban."

It is irrelevant whether the poll truly canvassed all voters or just an infinitesimal percentage of them and then performed a hocus-pocus, statistics-based mathematical projection that would allow someone to say that it "indicated" a majority favored a smoking ban. At stake is the selective seizure of private property to benefit nonsmokers, in the name of "public health" or the "general welfare." Similarly, the Americans with Disabilities Act also mandates the seizure of private property to accommodate mostly wheelchair-bound individuals. Doubtless a poll or survey would "indicate" that "most" people approve of the Act. These and other such policies are a species of eminent domain.

And, similarly, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was intended to "limit" the employment of private property - in this instance, money - during elections. Its target is "big money," donations in the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to the campaign chests of candidates for office or to official organizations that promote the candidates. It is a kind of reverse seizure of property; instead of confiscating it, it prohibits its use to publicly endorse a candidate or a cause.

The law, however, will not restrain the likes of George Soros, the ultra-left billionaire, who will always find a way of circumventing it (he spent $26 million trying to defeat George Bush in 2004), nor will it prevent the creation of numerous ploys to circumvent it through organizations affiliated with political action committees (PACs) that a court, panel, or commission may or may not deem are in compliance.

The flood of censorship has crested with that law, because on December 21st a single spillway was opened that may portend the demise of the law or its stricter enforcement or simply more confusion. It is but a nickel's worth of respite.

A three-judge panel ruled against a ban on corporate or union money that paid for issue advertisements in the weeks before a federal election. A rationalistic distinction was made by the panel between ads that promote a specific candidate and "general issue ads" that may or may not merely mention a candidate's name. In this instance, the Wisconsin Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, brought a case before the Federal Election Commission on the grounds that the rule violated the group's freedom of speech.

It lost the case, but the Supreme Court, instead of throwing out the entire law, returned the matter to the three-judge panel, which ruled in the group's favor. The group's ads, it found, did not violate restrictions against "express advocacy" for or against a federal candidate and so were not "campaign ads" but "general issue ads," because they did not endorse or oppose a candidate, but instead urged voters to contact their senators. Therefore, it was exempt from the "big money" rule and the 60- and 30- day ban of "campaign" ads before elections and primaries.

With such pretzel-like logic, governed by an epistemology which holds that arbitrary rules and not principles are the primary measure of legally permitted speech, we should not delude ourselves that this represents a step in the right direction, which would be a total repeal of the campaign finance law as unconstitutional. Neither the Wisconsin group, the three-judge panel, nor the FEC, nor the Supreme Court knows any more what is or is not constitutional.

In the meantime, Section 220 of the lobbying reform bill now in the Senate would require "grassroots" organizations, bloggers, and individuals who communicate with 500 or more members of the public to register and report quarterly to Congress if their subject is Congress or any political issue, whether or not money changes bank accounts. An amendment to the bill, passed by the Senate, would impose criminal penalties, including one year in jail, for failing to register with Congress.

What does the First Amendment state? "Congress shall pass no law...prohibiting the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In short, the bill would require individuals to seek permission of the Congress to speak and attempt to petition the government to redress grievances. The bill exempts corporations, unions and large organizations, such as Soros's Move On, from having to comply with the proposed law. (Incredibly, the bill is seen as a curative to Congressional corruption! You can be sure that most members of Congress will find a way to get around the "reform.")

Finally, Accuracy in Media reports that "liberals in the House and Senate intend to push legislation giving the Federal Communications Commission the authority to monitor and restrict what conservatives in the media say and how they say it." They want to revive the "fairness doctrine" that would empower the FCC to force broadcasters and popular conservative talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh to grant "equal access" to their programs.

What is censorship? Most dictionaries agree, in their definitions, that it is the practice or system of officials suppressing or deleting material in books, films, letters, news, and so on. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary and the Oxford Concise Dictionary (6th Edition) both imply, in their use of the term "official," that censorship is strictly a government action. The American Heritage Dictionary (2nd College Edition), however, is less exact in implication; censorship, in its definition, is the "act, process, or policy of censoring," while a censor is defined as a "person authorized to examine literature, plays, or other material and who may remove or suppress what he considers morally or otherwise objectionable." The latter definition could apply to government and private actions alike, since it neither identifies a censor as an official, nor specifies on whose authority he acts. Moreover, no extant definition mentions the use of force, and none incorporates the concept of property rights.

The role of force is a crucial element in the action of censorship, and so is the property status of that which is being suppressed. The only institution granted the legal use of force in our society -- or in any society -- is government. The author's definition of censorship, therefore, would be: The employment or threat of government force in the suppression of ideas, information, or material in privately produced books, films, plays, artwork, letters, news, programming in any broadcast medium, and in all other kinds of private written or spoken material.

To clarify this point, some distinctions must be made. A government cannot practice censorship on its own publications. It can practice fraud, falsehood and propaganda. It can suppress, falsify, manipulate or omit information which any of its branches or agencies may generate, and only the honesty of a government employee or the alertness of a journalist may expose the wrong-doing. The federal government already practices informational fraud in a wide range of fields, especially in environmental, health, and economic matters. But this is another subject altogether.

Censorship is not a publisher, broadcaster, newspaper or other medium refusing to carry, promote or otherwise associate with a writer's, artist's or advertiser's material. The reasons which the owner of a medium may cite in any instance of refusal can be rational or irrational, incomprehensible or repellant, but the reasons are irrelevant. No one has a moral obligation to publicize positions or viewpoints with which he disagrees, or to provide a free or paid podium for others because they lack the means of promulgating their viewpoints.

It makes as much sense to mandate a "fairness doctrine" or "balanced opinion" policy for broadcasters, newspapers and other forms of expression as it would to require one to allow a stranger to include remarks in one's own private correspondence, or to force a shopping mall to give space to someone who advocates the overthrow of capitalism. One problem in the matter of "fairness" or "balance" can be found in the assertion by many publishers in their mottos, slogans and public statements that they exist to "serve the public's right to know" or to "serve people's need for information." Flaunting obsequious sentiments of this kind is an invitation to regulation and control by those claiming "needs" and "rights" and by politicians and bureaucrats who wish to satisfy those "needs" and "rights."

Censorship, then, is a government power reserved exclusively for the control of private expression or communication, whether in books, newspapers, films, letters, visual art, advertising, or over the airwaves. None of these forms of expression or communication is "public" in the sense that it is "collectively" owned. It is "public" only insofar as publishers, film studios, or advertisers wish to reach as many readers or as wide an audience as possible, just as restaurants or workplaces are "public" only insofar as their owners wish to trade with individuals.

But as all these forms of expression or communication employ private property (or, as in the case of broadcasters, licensed property) as vehicles, there is no argument that can justify the control of either the form of expression or communication or the property on which it is based. An attempt to control the property is not necessarily an attempt to impose censorship; but control over it can lead to de facto censorship.

What the Constitutional Convention of 1787 established was a republic, or a system of government in which rights are not only recognized and firmly established as absolutes, but are protected from abridgment by the whims and caprices of conniving politicians and envious majorities and minorities. This is the system of government -- albeit imperfect in practice -- which the country had up to around the Civil War. It was designed as best the Founders could to thwart the "democratic" forces in existence even in the late eighteenth century America. The Constitution, unfortunately, was not then, and certainly is not now, democracy-proof.

It is apropos to cite one of the Founders, James Madison, on the subject of power:

"Where the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Government the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of constituents."

The author would append to this truth the observation that government can also become the instrument of a minority of constituents who have the sympathy and support of intellectuals, the courts, the news media, and last, but not least guilty, politicians with axes to grind or nothing else to do but try to justify their continued presence in Washington.

Behind this phenomenon are the ideals of American thinkers such as Herbert Croly, who wrote early in the 20th century:

"The Promise of American life is to be fulfilled not merely by a maximum amount of economic freedom, but by a certain measure of discipline; not merely by the abundant satisfaction of individual desires, but by a large measure of individual subordination and self-denial."

Croly's lengthy, detailed proposal for a fascist reformation of America was published in 1909. Observe the contradiction in his theme. While he deprecates "economic freedom" and "individual desires," he proposes "discipline and self-denial." Now, either one has the freedom to fulfill one's individual desires -- including the desire to speak one's mind -- or one does not. What is the "discipline" but an altruist selflessness subordinated to the collective or the state?

Croly, it should be noted, was a leading theoretician of the Progressive Party. The principal planks of that party's 1912 platform have since been adopted and in place for decades. It might also be noted that he was an admirer of Otto von Bismarck, the German chancellor, who united the contentious German states, instituted the welfare state, and imbued Germans with a national spirit for the nation's "historical mission." That historical mission led, inexorably, to Adolph Hitler.

The question then remains: Are Americans so beaten or so stubbornly complacent that they will allow themselves to endure tyranny? Are they so cynical that they hope that things will last only for their own lifetimes, and let the devil and their children take the hindmost? Time will tell.

In conclusion, another original American should have the last word. Patrick Henry, who was so prescient about the flaws in the Constitution and the powers he was certain the federal government would eventually accrue by default, and who passionately campaigned against ratification, and then for the original ten amendments, said that "if the people would not die or be free, it was of no consequence what sort of government they lived under."

John Lewis in Denver

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

John Lewis will be in Colorado toward the end of this upcoming week. He'll be a busy man! (John is an insightful and vivacious speaker; I highly recommend any of his lectures.)

Event #1

What: CU Boulder Campus Lecture "The Individualist Alternative to the Political Left and Right" by Dr. John Lewis
When: Thursday, January 25, 2007, 7:00 pm
Where: Wolf Law Building (WLFL 207)
Contact: Jim Manley, Club Leader, jim.manley@objectivistclubs.org

American politics is divided today, between the political left and the right-so goes the prevailing wisdom. But the wisdom is wrong: the conservatives' support for the welfare state at home and for "nation-building" overseas shows how close the traditional left and right really are. In this talk, Dr. Lewis will demonstrate how common principles of altruism and statism align both camps in opposition to the sovereign individual-and have offered Americans a false alternative between deadly socialist policies. A true alternative would understand the individual--ethically, politically, and economically--to be the starting point of a proper politics. It is only the individual which exists, and the protection of his rights is the only purpose of a proper government. This is because, ethically, life as a rational man is the only proper standard for a moral code, and individual happiness its only purpose.

Event #2

What: Young Aristotle Competition and Dinner Lecture "Early Greek Lawgivers: Solon of Athens and the Discovery of Freedom under Law" by John Lewis
When: Friday, January 26th, 2007, 5:30 pm
Where: Ridgeview Classical Schools, 1800 South Lemay Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Cost: $10 per ticket, reserve with Joe Collins, jcollins@ridgeviewclassical.com

About the event:

You are cordially invited to the third annual Young Aristotle Competition, Friday January 26 at 5:30 p.m. at Ridgeview Classical Schools, 1800 South Lemay Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. This year's event will feature a dinner talk by historian John Lewis Ph.D. of Ashland University. The title of the talk will be "Early Greek Lawgivers: Solon of Athens and the Discovery of Freedom under Law." Due to fundraising and a generous grant, we are able to offer the dinner and talk for $10.00. Tickets are expected to sell out and can be purchased from Joe Collins at Ridgeview. His contact is jcollins@ridgeviewclassical.com. Please consider joining us for a night of ideas and scholarship and see why Ridgeview is, for the second year in a row, the top high school in the state of Colorado. Rational education is taking hold in northern Colorado.

About the lecture:

One of the great Greek discoveries is that of freedom: the right of each person to live his own life as he wishes, and to conduct his individual affairs free from the coercions of others. This discovery was incomplete, and limited to adult male citizens--yet it set the background for all later advancements in freedom. Part of this discovery was the need for laws: objective rules, justly created in open discussion, used to bring order to human life, and carved into stone for all to see. The men who brought these ideas, and these laws, to the Greeks were the lawgivers: men of wisdom and justice, who created just laws.

Greek lawgivers understood an important truth: that freedom requires law, and proper laws can be created only by free men. This talk will focus on the figures of the lawgivers, and their deeds: who were they? What did they do? Why should we care about them? What is the connection between freedom and law? Is there freedom without law?

If you can't make it up to Fort Collins by 5:30, you might still be able to attend the lecture, as that likely won't start until about 6:40. You can e-mail jcollins@ridgeviewclassical.com about that.

Event #3

What: Seminar on Fighting Socialized Medicine with Dr. John Lewis
When: Saturday, January 27, 2007, 11:00 am to 2:00 pm
Where: Dixon's Restaurant, 16th and Wazee, Downtown Denver
Contact: For more information and to RSVP, please contact Lin Zinser, lin@zinser.com

About John Lewis

John Lewis is assistant professor of history at Ashland University and contributing editor of The Objective Standard. He holds a Ph.D. in classics from the University of Cambridge, and is an Anthem Fellow for Objectivist Scholarship. His research interests are in ancient Greek and Roman thought, military history, and their connections to the modern day. He writes for The Objective Standard, and for Capitalism Magazine.

Don't Revive the Fairness Doctrine

Ayn Rand Institute Press Release

Irvine, CA--At the National Conference for Media Reform last weekend, several lawmakers called for the return of the "Fairness Doctrine," which demands that television and radio broadcasters give a balanced presentation of all sides of controversial issues.

"The Fairness Doctrine is a violation of broadcasters' right to free speech," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "Broadcasters should not be forced to promote ideas they may disagree with.

"Defenders of the Fairness Doctrine claim that, left unrestrained, broadcast corporations will stop some views from being heard. But no private individual or organization can keep people from voicing dissenting views--it is only the government that has the power to suppress speech. By granting a cabal of government bureaucrats the power to arbitrarily dictate what ideas should and should not be heard on the air, the Fairness Doctrine is the real threat to free speech.

"Those who think their views are not being heard have every opportunity to promote them--on television, on radio, in print, online--but they must earn their audience, not demand that it be provided to them ready-made. As Ayn Rand put it, 'The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.'

"Those who value the First Amendment must oppose the Fairness Doctrine as a grave threat to freedom of speech."

Wasted Words of Wisdom

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

The sight of newly installed Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California on the news recently, surrounded by a gaggle of grinning politicians and slavering reporters, prompted me to dip into the latest edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Political Quotations for an antidote. What prompted me was not anything she said then, but rather the red serape that enveloped her from shoulder to shoulder. It evoked in my mind pictures of Roman emperors draped in the imperial purple or scarlet robes of absolute power. It caused me to recall Tacitus.

"Mom" Pelosi sought power - competing in power-lust with Senators Hilary Clinton, Barack Oboma and others who wish to "manage" the nation and render it "kindlier and gentler"- and attained it. (Does anyone still think the Democrats are so politically far apart from either of the Presidents Bush? The difference between the parties is one of mere velocity. The Democrats want it now; the Republicans will follow in the next bus.) She sought power over the government purse, over the purses and wallets and futures of private citizens, power exercised by force of legislation and by punitive law for disobedience of that legislation. Power to strong arm the House into moving a few steps away from America's current status as an expiring republic and closer to a full-fledged a socialist "democracy."

Women dress carefully for public occasions, so I don't think the shimmering red serape was a coincidental choice of garb for this auspicious event. It was probably the closest thing to a royal symbol of authority she had in her wardrobe with which to telegraph to all that she means to rule the House roost in true hen-house fashion, just as she apparently governs her family. Watching her in the news, she clutched and hefted the Speaker's gavel as greedily as she might have an emperor's scepter. Or a club. Possibly she would have even preferred one or the other to the gavel. The avarice in her eyes was too telling.

But, back to Tacitus. His Annals and Histories record the decline of Rome in the first century A.D. Alternating between dispassionate and lively (and often lurid) reporting on the lives and careers of some of the first emperors, these histories are compelling reading. (I have three of the five Heinemann/Harvard Histories volumes on my bookshelf, and have read them.) He observed in the Annals that, "The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws."

Count the laws recorded in any edition of the Federal Register - never mind state, county and municipal laws - and ask yourself: Are the republic's days numbered, because of these innumerable, endless laws?

In Agricola, a biography of his father-in-law, Tacitus wrote of one emperor, "He has united things long incompatible, the principate (or reign) and liberty." Political corruption could not arise if a government's purpose was strictly defined to preserve the liberty that Romans once valued. And, an emperor's or executive's reign or "principate" could not be so characterized if executive powers were similarly limited. Power and liberty are fundamentally incompatible; if there is a honeymoon between them, as Tacitus notes under Emperor Nerva's reign, it must necessarily be temporary, and would depend on the emperor's ambition or lack of it.

Lord Acton's dictum that "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" remains true. However, William Pitt the Elder's observation to the House of Lords more than a century before delves a little deeper into the phenomenon: "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it."

Here I volunteer my own observation about it, that, given the nature of today's politics, one must already be corrupted to seek political office. Look at the range of candidates for the office of president in both parties. Is there a single aspirant who advocates laissez-faire capitalism, or individual rights?

The next apropos quotations come from H.L. Mencken, the American journalist and critic. He observed, as early as the 1920's (when this was a much freer country) in his In Defence of Women, that "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Were he alive today, he would cite just a few of those hobgoblins: the environment, trans fats, the "epidemic" of obesity, global warming (or cooling), smoking, cyclamates, and so on.

Henry Brooks Adams, author of The Education of Henry Adams, would have agreed with Mencken: "Practical politics consists of ignoring facts."

Had the government little power to enact legislation that pleased the purveyors of hobgoblins, we would hear very little from them. But, since the government has such power, they sense that their causes have half a chance to be heeded and acted on by Congress. Consequently, they feel free to make a lot of noise, concurring with Joseph Goebbels, who said, "Making noise is an effective means of opposition."

In past commentary, I advocated that, instead of elected and appointed politicians choosing to take an oath of office on a Bible, they ought to be compelled to take that oath on a copy of the Ten Amendments to the Constitution. One wonders how many office-seekers would be willing to submit to such a condition. If they behaved as they have in the past and continue to behave in the present, which is violating those Amendments in thought and deed by regularly haranguing the public on the dangers of the latest hobgoblin and what ought to be done about it, they could be charged with lying under oath or perjury.

The prospect of impeachment would scuttle the political ambitions of ninety-nine percent of them. What has attracted them and swelled the ranks of candidacies, because there is very little any more in the way of serious recrimination and accountability, is the prospect of power and privilege and a comfortable living at no cost to themselves, except, perhaps, the bother of having to make noise for the benefit of their constituents to justify their holding office.

In Chrestomathy, Mencken offers a definition of Puritanism worthy of Samuel Johnson: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." Republican or Democrat, no politician wishes anyone to be happy, unless he is a dupe of volunteerism and "community spirit," and didn't smoke, consume trans fats, wink at pretty girls, and drink more than two cups of coffee a day, preferably decaffeinated. A happy man doesn't need government guidance or anyone telling him what he should or shouldn't do.

Speaking of lies with which politicians and hobgoblins regularly subject the American public, Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf knew the formula well: "The broad mass of a nation...will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."

Among the big lies that comprise the American political mantra today and that have congealed in the American psyche as unassailable truisms:

• The fiscal soundness and necessity of Social Security;
• The moral responsibility of the government to provide "free" health care, or any health care at all, in addition to subsidized housing and welfare;
• A central banking system;
• The regulation and policing of the stock market and the airwaves;
• The "fairness" of the propertyless voting franchise;
• Federal aid to states declared "disaster areas," together with federally funded disaster insurance;
• The power to establish "livable" or "minimum" wages;
• Anti-discrimination laws of any kind to advance "social justice";
• The necessity of income taxes and a galaxy of surtaxes, sales, excise and import taxes, hidden and pass-along taxes,
• The imperatives of maintaining the public health and the purity of the environment;
• The absolutely essential necessity of directing the education of the public, the better to produce an informed, responsible and responsive citizenry.

George Orwell weighed in on the subject of truth vs. lies: "Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

And, the grandest lie of all is the one that America is, and always has been, a "democracy." What cannot be forgiven is the sloppiness of past political writers to whom the term "republic" was a synonym for "democracy" and who didn't trouble themselves to make a distinction between the terms.

John Adams, second President, wrote John Taylor in 1814: "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide." And the sure successor of a failed democracy is tyranny. Which is why Adams and the Founders labored to establish a republic. And why Benjamin Franklin was skeptical enough about its longevity when he replied, in 1787, to a question about what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created: "A republic, if you can keep it."

Try any of these quotations on any random politician, presidential aspirant, or bureaucrat, and one is likely to elicit a response: "Yeah? And what's that in relation to?" or "Don't bother me with irrelevancies. Changing reality has changed the rules. Forget the Founders."

Then you will appreciate the irony of your being the "public servant," not he. He is the master, sporting the cloak of imperial power.

What Went Wrong with Robert Tracinski's Account of the Ancient Greeks?

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This evening, Robert Mayhew asked if I might be interested in posting the following essay on Robert Tracinski's discussion of the role of philosophy in the ancient world in his "What Went Right?" essays. I am happy to do so. (For those unfamiliar with his academic credentials, Robert Mayhew is a professor of philosophy at Seton Hall specializing in ancient philosophy.) Bewarned: The essay is fairly long. It is also well worth a slow read.

*** *** ***
"What went wrong with Robert Tracinski's account of the ancient Greeks?"
Robert Mayhew

In the first half of the penultimate installment of "What Went Right?" ("The Summit and the Foundation"), Robert Tracinski presents a view of the development of ancient Greek philosophy, and its relationship to classical Greek culture generally, that is deeply flawed. Further, these flaws seem to stem not simply from his ignorance of the subject matter, but from a desire to have his alternative to the Objectivist philosophy of history seem to fit the facts.

Tracinski writes: "The development of Greek culture at its height did not go . . . from abstract philosophy down to art and the sciences. It went the other direction. . . ." He then presents a survey of some of the (purportedly pre-philosophical) achievements of the ancient Greeks. (All dates are BC. A minor point: few of these dates are known with the precision Tracinski's presentation suggests, and I have altered some of them accordingly, though nothing of importance follows from these revisions.)

In medicine, Hippocrates, On the Sacred Disease (c. last quarter of the 5th century)

In history, Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (last quarter of the 5th century)

Sculpture and architecture reach their peak with Phidias and the Parthenon (c. 490-430)

In drama, Aeschylus (525-426), Euripides (c. 480-406), and Sophocles (495-406)

Science "reached an important peak with the theories of Anaxagoras" (5th century)

In politics, "the Athenian state was fundamentally reformed by Solon" (late 7th, early 6th century), "while the statesman who presided over the height of Athenian power was Pericles" (495-429).

Tracinski then asks: "How does all of this relate to the history of Greek philosophy?" He answers (sort of):

Greek philosophy made some important innovations beginning with Thales (c. 624-526 BC), there was in these early years no strong differentiation between philosophy and science or the other specialized fields, and the views of the early Greek philosophers were a confusing maelstrom, ranging from those who taught that change was impossible (Parmenides, 515-480 BC) to those who taught that there was nothing but change (Heraclitus, c. 535-475 BC). Philosophy did not fully emerge as a separately defined field until Socrates (c. 470-399), who defined the specific questions addressed by the discipline.

This does not really answer the question he posed, as it does not indicate the relationship between philosophy and the Greek cultural accomplishments that he surveys. Rather, it tells us that the first philosopher made some important innovations (no examples are given) but that philosophy in its early years was confusing and not properly distinguished from science. He sums up:

Notice the pattern: Greek art, literature, science, history, and medicine reached a crescendo of achievement in the second half of the 5th century BC--while Greek philosophy reached its crescendo of achievement one to two generations later, in the middle of the 4th century BC. In short, Aristotle was a product of the Golden Age of Athens, not the other way around.

If Tracinski were simply commenting on when the various disciplines reached their peaks, this might count as an interesting observation--though it is certainly questionable (not to say absurd) to claim that ancient Greek science reached its peak in the fifth century. (How much of fifth century science is better than Aristotle's?) But even assuming that Tracinski has his facts straight, notice that it does not follow that if art, literature, medicine etc. "reached a crescendo of achievement" before philosophy reached its crescendo, then therefore art, literature, medicine, etc. must have come to be and/or developed independently of philosophy. Yet in some sense this is what he wants to claim. Recall his statement: "The development of Greek culture at its height did not go . . . from abstract philosophy down to art and the sciences," rather it "went the other direction"--i.e., from art and the sciences up to abstract philosophy.

What Tracinski wants us to conclude is that the greatness that is classical Greece had little to do with philosophy--though he conflates this idea, with another (more obviously true) one: that Aristotle did not come at the beginning of the development of classical culture, but at its end. We receive a stronger, more open, indication of his actual conclusion a bit later:

This history suggests a progression that should, in fact, seem natural and unsurprising: that new ideas arose first from achievements in the special sciences--from physics, mathematics, history, medicine, biology, and politics. These achievements were paralleled by advances in literature and art, which expressed, often in implicit, non-verbal form, the new conception of human life that was suggested by advances in other disciplines. Then at the end of this process, a great philosopher was able to explain what made all of those previous achievements possible, to identify their implicit method, and to draw, in explicit terms, the widest implications for our conception of human life and potential.

* * *
I cannot here reply to everything in this installment which I find objectionable, nor can I take the time to deal with the interesting issue of why ancient Greek philosophy and culture did not continue to progress after Aristotle. I am concerned most of all with correcting Tracinski's presentation of the history of ancient Greek philosophy. But to fully understand where he goes wrong, it is necessary to point out that he equivocates on the meaning of "philosophy."

Let me begin by making the following distinctions: First, "philosophy" in its broadest sense refers to a person's (or culture's) basic ideas about reality and man. It is in this sense that we can say, for example, that ancient Egypt was driven by a philosophy of death; it is also in this sense, I believe, that Ayn Rand claimed that "religion is a primitive form of philosophy" ("Philosophy and Sense of Life"). Second, "philosophy" also (and primarily) refers to the science that studies the fundamental nature of reality and man. Used in this sense, we would exclude the basic beliefs of pre-philosophical cultures, and say, for example, that philosophy was born in Greece (but did not exist, as such a discipline, in Egypt), and distinguish philosophy from religion. Finally, we can also speak of good philosophy and even the pinnacle of philosophy (in the ancient world, Aristotle's). I mention these distinctions because Tracinski moves back and forth between the second and third of these--between when philosophy per se appears and exerts an influence, and when it reaches its pinnacle--and he gives the first sense little consideration (or credit) in assessing the role of philosophy in history. But the view that philosophy is the prime mover in history certainly includes (where relevant) philosophy in this most basic sense--especially when dealing with such an early period as archaic Greece. This is important to the present discussion, because it means that one cannot legitimately claim (certainly not without further argument) that philosophy could yield little or no influence in ancient Greece before it was fully developed and distinguished as an independent discipline (which is what Tracinski implies).

The basic world-view of the ancient Greeks (their philosophy in the broadest sense) was already (before Thales) very good--relative to other cultures in the ancient Mediterranean. (I have in mind the implicit philosophy or basic ideas that we find in Homer and Hesiod, c. 8th-7th centuries.) It was essentially a this-wordly and pro-man outlook, which valued reason and argumentation. As primitive or pre- philosophies go, it provided an excellent potential background for development--a potential that was eventually actualized. But it was still primitive--it was still a conception of the universe as a place inhabited by supernatural deities that one was supposed to accept simply because they had always been believed in--by one's family and one's city.

A somewhat transitional figure is Solon (late 7th, early 6th century). In my blurb on the back of John Lewis' recent book on Solon, I say that he is arguably the first (and only) presocratic political philosopher. He saw the world as a rational, intelligible cosmos (albeit inhabited by some version of the Olympian gods), and he believed that the ancient Greek polis or city-state ought to be organized according to rational principles.

The first philosopher proper--the person who deserves the title Father of Philosophy--is Thales of Miletus (early 6th century, a younger contemporary of Solon), for he did something truly revolutionary. He was the first person in human history to attempt to explain the universe in rational, naturalistic terms--that is, with arguments and without any reference to anthropomorphic gods (e.g., Zeus, Poseidon). The assumption driving Thales was that the universe is an intelligible place, and the human mind is capable of grasping fundamental truths about it through reason (as opposed to "truths" revealed by seers or Delphic oracles or Muse-inspired poets). Thales predicted an eclipse--something inconceivable on the mythological world view, which held eclipses to be omens from the gods (and in one archaic poem, proof of the feebleness of man's mind). He held that everything was made of or came from water, and on the basis of this it seems he argued that earthquakes were the result of movements of the earth floating on water. This is not cutting edge philosophy or science by our standards, but it is a giant leap away from the traditional attribution of earthquakes to Poseidon's anger. Thales' basic outlook--rational, this-worldy, man-centered--set the trend for the next couple of centuries. Thales did not simply make "some important innovations."

Not long after Thales (and two other Miletian monists, Anaximander and Anaximenes), another Ionian--Xenophanes of Colophon--presented an alternative to the monism of Thales (Xenophanes holding that all things were earth and water) and for the first time, as far as we know, presented explicit arguments against the existence of the Olympian gods. (Xenophanes himself seems to have been some kind of pantheist.)

In the history of presocratic philosophy that followed Thales and the other early Ionians, there continued to be errors, less-than-probative arguments, and major confusions--perhaps most of all about what did and did not count as philosophy. (Most ancient philosophers--including Aristotle--combined philosophy with what we now properly consider the separate sciences. See Ayn Rand's comment on the problem with Thales' approach to philosophy, Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 698-99.) And there were definitely some dead ends--the Pythagoreans, Heraclitus and Parmenides, for the most part--but the basic progression moved in the spirit of Thales.

Incidentally, there is no reason to single out Anaxagoras' achievements in the field of science, nor to count what he did as science in contrast to philosophy. (Presenting him as a scientist was extremely tendentious on Tracinski's part.) And on an important related issue, there is no reason to treat the Hippocratic corpus (mostly 5th-4th century, no works of which can be confidently attributed to Hippocrates) apart from ancient philosophy. That corpus has only recently begun to get the attention it deserves, and it is clear that many of the most important works in it (including On the Sacred Disease) represent fusions of philosophy and science in the manner of the presocratics, except that most of them also deal with medicine. (For example, many of the Hippocratic treatises contain presocratic-like cosmologies of their own--see On Breaths and the very different On the Nature of Man, to name just two.)

We turn finally to Socrates. Tracinski claims that "Philosophy did not fully emerge as a separately defined field until Socrates." This is inaccurate, as Socrates was interested in moral philosophy alone. As the Roman philosopher Cicero observed:

Socrates I think--indeed it is universally agreed--was the first to divert philosophy from matters which nature herself wrapped in obscurity, with which all philosophers before him had been concerned, and apply it to ordinary life, directing its inquiries to virtues and vices, and in general to good and evil. Celestial phenomena he regarded as beyond our comprehension, or at any rate, however well we might understand them, as irrelevant to the good life. (Academia 1.4.15)

Cicero says that Socrates diverted philosophy away from one area--that which interested the presocratics primarily--and focused it on another: moral philosophy. (The sophists--whatever their differences from Socrates--made pretty much the same move, and for the same reason: their conviction that we cannot know anything about the fundamental nature of physical reality. There were exceptions, however: Prodicus of Ceos was a sophist who dabbled in the study of nature, and at least two of the works in the Hippocratic corpus were arguably written by sophists or thinkers influenced by sophists.)

From Thales and the Ionian materialists through the Atomists, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras to Diagoras of Apollonia, and including the unknown authors of the bulk of the works of the Hippocratic corpus, we are dealing with the progression of one cultural movement--the history of ancient Greek philosophy. One might claim that Socrates and the sophists temporarily changed its primary focus, but his student Plato put all the parts together and became the first systematic philosopher. He may have placed less of an emphasis on the issues that we now properly consider science and not philosophy--e.g., the movement of the planets, the nature of matter--but he certainly did deal with them, as did his student Aristotle (to say the least).

Again, what I have described (as briefly as possible) is basically one ongoing development--one series of accomplishments (and confusions and errors)--from Thales in the early sixth century to Aristotle in the fourth. In light of this development, it simply makes no sense to say: first there were major developments in medicine and history and the arts, and then there were the major developments in philosophy. (I'll have something to say on the arts shortly.) They all developed at the same time and no doubt influenced each other--in complex, fascinating ways that specialists try to detail--and there was no doubt a spiraling effect. But there is no reason to think that anything other than philosophy--especially the basic philosophical outlook that I sketched at the outset--was the most fundamental force driving the culture. That is to say--in general terms (though an historian of ideas would try to show the details of the steps)--without the first moves made by philosophers like Thales and Xenophanes, beginning in the 6th century, and those who carried the torch after them, there could not have appeared the Hippocratic On the Sacred Disease or Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War in the last quarter of the fifth century--or for that matter, Aristotle in the fourth.

* * *
I'd like to turn briefly to Greek art. I know very little about ancient Greek architecture and sculpture, so I have little to say on the connection between those arts and philosophy. But I think I can say with some confidence that they reflect a rational, pro-man outlook, and reasonably speculate that it is unlikely that this was in no way an effect of the basic ideas that I have described. These basic ideas--this-worldy, pro-reason, and man-centered--were in the air; they were part of the culture, and I would be surprised if architecture and the visual arts did not feed off of them, while also fueling them.

I do have sufficient knowledge of ancient Greek drama to say something a bit more substantial about how the development of philosophy helped to make possible the achievements of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. In fact, I would say that many if not most of the great ancient Greek plays have conflicts driven by the cultural conflict between traditional Greek religion and the emerging philosophical outlook. (This is hardly an original or idiosyncratic observation on my part; one encounters it all over the place in the secondary literature.) In his great Oresteia, Aeschylus attempts to resolve a problem with the traditional conception of justice, and the religion it is based on--which in some respects he admires--namely: how to prevent the application of justice (which is crucially important to a civilized existence) from descending into bloody tribal vengeance. His brilliant solution (whatever its flaws, and largely borrowed from political developments around him) involves the application of reason and law to the execution of justice. It seems highly unlikely that such a trilogy of plays could have been written outside a cultural context like the one I have described.

In Sophocles' Antigone, we see a clash between an individualist defender of moral absolutes rooted in the existence of the gods (but presented in language that is highly philosophical for a play) and a social-subjectivist conception of morality and politics that may reflect certain views of the early sophists. In Oedipus Rex, Sophocles is again struggling with an intellectual conflict--between his admiration for the new, pro-reason, fifth century enlightenment outlook (he clearly admires the intellectual acumen and confidence of Oedipus, who scholars have long noted uses language and concepts similar to those employed in contemporary intellectual circles) and his concern over the ongoing attacks on traditional religion, which he seemed to think gave morality its foundation. For instance, Oedipus Rex contains criticisms of the notion of prophecy--perhaps the most important aspect of ancient Greek religious practice--which were no doubt in the air in the second half of the fifth century.

Euripides was simultaneously the most explicitly philosophical Greek playwright and the one most at odds with the spirit of Greek philosophy. For example, it has long been argued that in the Medea, he is responding to and rejecting the Socratic view that no one knowingly does what is wrong--for on Euripides' view, reason is impotent in the face of irrational emotion. (In lines 1078-80, Medea says she knows or understands [manthanô] what evil deeds she is going to dare to do, but her anger or spirit [thumos] overpowers her faculty of deliberation [bouleumatôn]. She is planning to kill her own children to get revenge on Jason.) And his Bacchae is in effect a hymn to the irrational that is clearly aware of (and at odds with) the pro-reason outlook of contemporary ancient Greek philosophy.

Setting aside the creative genius of these playwrights, which is primary, the greatness of ancient Greek drama is at least as much the product of what came before it as it is material which helped to make possible later philosophical achievements.

* * *
At some level, Tracinski seems to be aware of some of these problems with his account. I think this is why he conflates philosophy exerting an influence and philosophy reaching its peak. All that he is really able to conclude from his (flawed) presentation of the development of ancient Greek culture is the entirely non-controversial point that Aristotle arrives late in the history of Classical Greece. But even on this point, Tracinski is tendentious: "the greatest Greek philosopher, Aristotle, comes last, after most of the important developments in Greek science, politics, literature, and art." Why not add "and philosophy"? (Aristotle certainly comes after most of the important developments in ancient Greek philosophy.) Because that would not fit the broader conclusion Tracinski wants us to come to (the one not supported by the evidence), namely, that philosophy did not have the primary causal role in the history of ancient Greece that many of us think it had. Again, he seems to be aware that something is amiss with his account, because elsewhere he says "the achievements of earlier scientists (and scientist-philosophers), laid the foundations for Aristotle."

Tracinski writes that "The role of the philosopher, historically, is not as the sole motor of all progress, but rather as the observer, defender, promoter, and intellectual amplifier of that progress." (This is unclear. Is the "but rather" meant to contrast the list of roles that follow with being a motor or with being the sole motor? Does he think the philosopher's role is exhausted by being "the observer, defender, promoter, and intellectual amplifier of that progress"?) I prefer to speak of philosophy and not simply of philosophers. And in my view, good philosophy is the fundamental (not sole) motor of all progress, and it is so, in part by being "the observer, defender, promoter, and intellectual amplifier of that progress," but most of all, and at its best, through the identification, demonstration and dissemination of fundamental truths--truths that make possible a culture open to all that the other disciplines and activities contribute to human progress.

The purpose of Tracinski's discussion of the ancient Greeks is to show that philosophy--whatever its merits and importance--is not the prime mover in human history. The same is true, he believes, of the philosopher. This explains the lukewarm nature of Tracinski's portrait of Aristotle (at least that's how it comes across to this Aristotle-scholar): Aristotle is a product of the Golden Age of Athens, a catalyst and source of the later Classical revival. I prefer (and I'll end with) Ayn Rand's more accurate and reverential account of Aristotle's influence, as it is relevant to the issue of the role of philosophy in history:

If we consider the fact that to this day everything that makes us civilized beings, every rational value that we possess--including the birth of science, the industrial revolution, the creation of the United States, even the structure of our language--is the result of Aristotle's influence, of the degree to which, explicitly or implicitly, men accepted his epistemological principles, we would have to say: never have so many owed so much to one man. ("For the New Intellectual")

Bipartisanship vs. Free Speech

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

Not too long ago, I said the following:

The problem [caused by Congress being so busy] is partly circumvented by the "many eyes" made available via the Internet to watch the Democrats -- provided they don't blind these eyes by restricting our ability to use the Internet or mute our voices by restricting freedom of speech.

And provided that some of us do think in terms of principles. The Democrats can't do anything about this last, so they will work on the first two "problems".

As it turns out, they have not merely hit the ground running in their efforts to quash freedom of speech, they are being very clever about it.

Not only that, the Democrats are poised to capitalize big time on recent Republican stupidity. Recall that recent 98-0 vote in the Senate to require lawmakers to disclose earmarks tacked onto spending bills? The GOP set the stage for that by not making a principled stand for small government, taking its place at the public trough instead. So the party that spent the bulk of the twentieth century transforming the Land of Opportunity into a massive welfare state now gets to pose as the party of small government.

But Republican stupidity didn't end with their majority in Congress. With the Democrats having set themselves up as morally superior, they are now already about to pose as martyrs even as they begin driving a stake into the Internet as a tool for political activism. A lobbying "reform" bill currently under consideration includes something of a non-financial "earmark": a proposal to make any blogger with more than 500 readers a day to register as a lobbyist!

According to GrassrootsFreedom.com, under Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, bloggers who have more than 500 readers will have to register and report quarterly to Congress just like lobbiests or go to jail.

The amazing thing about this provision is that it was given its teeth by a Republican -- who also later co-sponsored another proposal to remove the whole section! Here is a more detailed account:

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.

"The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.

"On January 9, the Senate passed Amendment 7 to S. 1, to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone 'knowingly and willingly fails to file or report.'

"That amendment was introduced by Senator David Vitter (R-LA). Senator Vitter, however, is now a co-sponsor of Amendment 20 by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to remove Section 220 from the bill. Unless Amendment 20 succeeds, the Senate will have criminalized the exercise of First Amendment rights. We'd be living under totalitarianism, not democracy. [bold added]

I am not sure what Senator Vitter was thinking when he introduced both this amendment and its effective repeal, but his actions play right into the hands of the Democrats, who know how to spin the bill's overall disfavor among the Republicans:

The Democratic-led Senate failed to end a Republican procedural roadblock that has stalled a bipartisan bill to revamp the Senate's ethics and lobbying rules.

On a 51-46 vote, the Senate fell 14 short of the 65 votes needed to end more than a week of debate and move toward a vote on passage of the sweeping measure.

...

A Reid spokesman said if Republicans again prevail in preventing a vote on passage, they will have to spend the next two years "defending why they voted against ethics reform." [bold added]

The "procedural roadblock" mentioned here is, I think, based on this report, a filibuster.

As of this evening, January 17, the Senate debate on the entire lobbying reform bill indicates "cloture" on the bill may be delayed or not invoked. Therefore, the Left-Right press conference originally scheduled for 1 p.m., Thursday, January 18 is postponed indefinitely.

Check out our News section to read the letter from the ACLU supporting the Bennett Amendment to strip the grassroots provisions from S. 1. [link added]

Notice that the Reuters story has nothing to say about this threat to freedom of speech and that it appears that the Democrats are more than ready to ram this bill down our throats before anyone notices its Republican-added grave implications -- and using the moral cudgel of "vot[ing] against ethics reform" handed to them by the Republicans!

The Republicans, apparently too unprincipled to raise a hue and cry over freedom of speech -- are apparently stalling only because they want to attach a line-item veto to this bill! This is why -- if the Bennett Amendment doesn't pass -- the Democrats will not be rightly blamed for destroying freedom of speech if the bill passes. Unless, of course, the Republicans wake up and grow a spine in the meantime.

I'm no great Washington-watcher, but this battle appears to be far from over, and it does appear that some groups that still value freedom of speech have their eyes on this. But it is pretty scary to contemplate how a bill that most Americans would think is a Good Thing can so easily have buried within it such a dangerous provision. Scarier still is the utter and reckless contempt so many of our elected representatives of both parties have for the very rights that make our great nation possible.

It's not just the Democrats we have to keep our eyes on. It's the whole lot of 'em in Congress.

-- CAV

Blame interventionism, not capitalism

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

There is much discussion on Slashdot about a new cancer drug that may never get on the market because it’s not eligible for a patent. Because getting a drug past the FDA costs up to a billion dollars, no drug company is willing to put up the costs when it can’t secure a monopoly. Most readers blamed capitalism for this. My response:

The problem is that drug approval costs so much. The major drug companies are happy with this - a billion dollars is too much for any innovative new startups to get to market. This is not the fault of capitalism, but the opposite - of government interventionism. If a free market, competing private organizations would decide when products are safe, and consumers would be free to choose what risks to take.

By contrast, the FDA creates giant monopolies that exclude competition by lobbying the government for more regulations and “safety controls” to raise barriers to entry, while millions of people die because innovative new medicines and treatments never had a chance.

A revealing look at UK Muslims

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

The UK's Channel 4 network offers a penetrating (if not outright blood-curdling) look at the irrationality, brutality and hatred of the West that exists among British Muslims. The undercover investigation, conducted over ten months, reveals conduct such as religious clerics urging their congregations to start preparing for jihad against non-Muslims and calls for the beating of children who dare stray away from Islamic tenets.

This is the enemy we fight. I urge you to examine this coverage and see the enemy’s philosophy for exactly what it is.

Part One is below, here are the links for Part Two and Part Three.

Unbeatable Concentration?

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

With the movie of Atlas Shrugged edging toward production, it is natural that we'll see articles about Rand and the book and its adaptation -- like the recent one that appeared in the NY Times and other rags, talking about the many abortive attempts at bringing Atlas to the big and small screen. What jumped out in that one was the writer pinning a lot of the trouble on Rand's supposedly conspiracy-tinged outlook.

Not so good, but that was a veritable puff-piece compared to the most recent article I've seen float by. The sneering potshots are nonstop, beginning with the paranoia thing, moving to a hit on The Fountainhead's famous sex scene and "ironies" of the book's movie production, and then switching directions to launch into an extended riff on the Standard Litany of ugly, uninformed smears of Rand, Objectivism, and even O'Connor -- you know, the mythology spawned and tremendously reinforced by the Brandens, then uncritically swallowed and passed on by so many like this writer. (But please, let's all remember that the Brandens' viciously dishonest accounts are marginal and old news and aren't doing any any real damage. Not.) Oh, and along the way there was the routine condescension with a cute connection-by-nonessentials to Scientology: "Her essays and her novels appeal to people who might like to be intellectuals but lack the necessary curiosity and energy. My observation suggests that she attracts devotees who are also candidates for Scientology -- which, like Objectivism, was a novelist's creation."

He wraps it up with another smirking bit of intimidation combined with a slap that contradicts Rand's enduring success: "Even the failures of Ayn Rand (such as her prose) have their own foolish charm. There's something persistently funny about Rand and Randians, though no Randian will ever quite see the joke. It is not possible to have a sense of humour and take Ayn Rand seriously."

Wow, to pack so much ignorant garbage and content-free disagreement into so few words is quite an achievement. Now I'm morbidly curious to see if any piece on the way to the movie's release will somehow manage worse.

Heidi "Lysenko" Cullen

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

One of the darkest chapters of scientific history occurred in the Soviet Union, when the state decided to dictate scientific doctrine in the field of biology. Specifically, the state actively suppressed biologists in the field of genetics. From the Skeptic's Dictionary (which, regrettably, could stand to be less apologetic for and more skeptical toward Marxism and of the leftist assumption that capitalism is based on religion):

When the rest of the scientific world were pursuing the ideas of Mendel and developing the new science of genetics, Russia led the way in the effort to prevent the new science from being developed in the Soviet Union. Thus, while the rest of the scientific world could not conceive of understanding evolution without genetics, the Soviet Union used its political power to make sure that none of their scientists would advocate a genetic role in evolution.

It was due to [Trofim Denisovich] Lysenko's efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lamarckism in favor of natural selection, were sent to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR. Lysenko rose to dominance at a 1948 conference in Russia where he delivered a passionate address denouncing Mendelian thought as "reactionary and decadent" and declared such thinkers to be "enemies of the Soviet people" (Gardner 1957). He also announced that his speech had been approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Scientists either groveled, writing public letters confessing the errors of their way and the righteousness of the wisdom of the Party, or they were dismissed. Some were sent to labor camps. Some were never heard from again.

Under Lysenko's guidance, science was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology. Science was practiced in the service of the State, or more precisely, in the service of ideology. The results were predictable: the steady deterioration of Soviet biology. Lysenko's methods were not condemned by the Soviet scientific community until 1965, more than a decade after Stalin's death. [bold added]

There are those who are working feverishly to bring back this state of affairs, and I am barely exaggerating. Replace "Larmarckism" with "anthropogenic global warming" and the communists with the Democrats, including their stooges in the news media.

And Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel wants to make history, I guess, as the first woman to reprise (via Matt Drudge) Lysenko's famous role.

The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

...

Cullen's call for decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD

...

In addition, Cullen's December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming. See: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

Cullen's call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. The United Nations Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has also steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC's summary for policymakers. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_

Regrettably, there's much more. Notably, the private funding of some scientific research that reaches conclusions Heidi Cullen doesn't like is used as "evidence" that it must be biased.

And this last is even after history has shown us just how "biased" government intrusion into science can be! We are seeing it again, starting with the Big Lie that only government funding can guarantee unbiased research!

-- CAV

Understanding Procrastination

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

Whether you find yourself bedeviled by your own tendency to procrastinate or by having to manage one or more procrastinators (or, perish the thought, putting off the latter), you might find this article from the Toronto Star useful. Although I am no psychologist, its basic conclusion makes lots of sense to me.

The harm caused by procrastination can be immense. [University of Calgary psychologist Piers] Steel points to a study by the tax-preparation firm H&R Block that says putting off doing their taxes costs U.S. citizens an average of $400 each because of errors due to the last-minute rush.

...

Fifty per cent of heart attack patients don't manage to make the lifestyle changes that could save their lives.

...

Over the years, psychologists have come up with a lot of ideas about what makes people procrastinate. In addition to anxiety and perfectionism, some suggested that procrastinators were self-sabotaging, hostile and rebellious, or depressed.

But for Steel, procrastination can be explained by an insight borrowed from behavioural economics called hyperbolic discounting. This is the tendency to value near-term rewards more than long-term ones. For instance, some people will choose a payoff of $50 today over $100 tomorrow.

Steel combined hyperbolic discounting with a theory of motivation called expectancy theory, and came up with something he calls temporal motivational theory (TMT).

The article then provides an equation which I would translate into the following terms: The likelihood of anyone procrastinating is higher when that person does not fully appreciate the value in accomplishing the task, is unconfident of his ability to see it through, or feels like the consequences of failure are comfortably distant in time.

This makes lots of sense to me, and immediately suggests a couple of ways to combat the tendency to put something off. Perhaps the easier of the two is to makes sure the procrastinator understands the benefits of the task. Slightly more problematic (especially for unfamilar tasks), but not insurmountable is to remind the procrastinator that he can do the task, especially if he isn't rushed by putting it off.


The approach suggested by the article is less funny than the above bumper sticker, but it strikes me as far more practical than such impatient, exasperated, and almost always futile commands.

As an interesting aside, an early part of the article mentions that part of the difficulty in studying procrastination lies in defining it. Indeed, when one considers that values are hierarchical and can vary from one individual to another, one can see how easily one might run into trouble studying procrastination. A task that is of crucial importance to one person may not be so to another, making the same kind of delay procrastination for the former, but a rational setting of priorities for the latter.

-- CAV

Reviving the "Fairness" Doctrine

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

Brief Notes

By Blair from The Secular Foxhole,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The New York Times on the Atlas movie

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

The New York Times ran an article today on the long saga of the Atlas Shrugged movie, focusing on how “until now, at least, no one in Hollywood has figured out a formula that promises both to sell popcorn and to do justice to the original text, let alone to the philosophy that it hammers home endlessly” and the pesky (if not outright paranoid) habit of Rand and her heirs to insist on script control.

File this kind of story under “as long as they spell the names right, who cares,” which is where I expect to file a lot of the stories that come as a result of this movie.

What Happens When A Country Bans Handguns?

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

You get a lot of stories about criminals with knives (and vigilantes with swords).

Bush's War, NYT's Quagmire

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

An article -- and its editorial slant -- in the New York Times about the President's proposed troop increases for Iraq illustrates perfectly a point articulated recently by Burgess Laughlin in a letter to the editor of The Objective Standard:

One shouldn't be surprised that an entity's actions follow from the entity's nature. As a political entity, the USA is a welfare state. ...

Just as the welfare bureaucracy of the USA endlessly drains the resources of productive citizens, all in the name of altruism, so the "War on Terrorism" is endlessly draining the resources (and lives) of the USA, all in the name of altruism.

Case in point: Our declared objective in deposing Saddam Hussein was not national security (i.e., the protection of the individual rights of American citizens from a foreign threat), but the ability of Iraqis to choose their own government (regardless of whether said government would protect individual rights or respect those of Americans).

As a result of this immoral and impractical objective, we now have an Islamic government in Iraq (which the Times unabashedly calls "Shiite"). In the sense that our efforts to defeat Islamic terrorism are being systematically hamstrung by our obeisance to an Islamic government in the name of "democracy", the Times is right on the money in calling the mess "Mr. Bush's war". However, when offering an alternative to Bush's troop buildup, the Times, hides its own complicity in the mess partly behind the following recommendation.

We have argued that the United States has a moral obligation to stay in Iraq as long as there is a chance to mitigate the damage that a quick withdrawal might cause. We have called for an effort to secure Baghdad, but as part of the sort of comprehensive political solution utterly lacking in Mr. Bush's speech. This war has reached the point that merely prolonging it could make a bad ending even worse. Without a real plan to bring it to a close, there is no point in talking about jobs programs and military offensives. There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq.

Notice that our government, by the lights of the Times, has a "moral obligation" to Iraq -- but not to our own security. In any war, including the one of which the conflict in Iraq is but a part, the two basic options are to fight or to surrender. In the context of Iraq, where we find ourselves now whether one agrees or disagrees we should have gone there in the first place, there are several viable options that would constitute continuing to fight the broader war -- even including a withdrawal from all or parts of Iraq premised on the notion that our forces could be better used elsewhere.

But this never comes up. Indeed, the Times even seems against the idea of shifting our focus to the more pressing problems of Iran and Syria. "What [the nation] certainly did not need were more of Mr. Bush's open-ended threats to Iran and Syria." Note the description: "open-ended" vice "empty". It has been the emptiness of the threats -- not the threats themselves -- the West in general and America in particular have made against Iran that have emboldened it to: sponsor terrorism, make numerous declarations of its intent to wipe out Israel, and develop nuclear weapons.

All the leftist media (exemplified here by the Times) does is note how injurious war is to America -- as if war is normally a walk in the park -- while failing to mention that it can have a more noble and practical purpose than the deliverance of an entire nation from a secular dictatorship to, ultimately, an Islamic one.

The false alternative put forth by the Times -- of needless sacrifice of American blood and treasure versus surrender -- shows that the Times, despite its carping, fully agrees with the President's stated objective in the war! We see this clearly when we go back to its story on the proposed increase in troops. Its title? "Promising Troops Where They Aren't Really Wanted":

As President Bush challenges public opinion at home by committing more American troops, he is confronted by a paradox: an Iraqi government that does not really want them.

...

Redha Jawad Tahi, another Shiite member of Parliament from Mr. Hakim's party, took a similar view. "You can't solve the problem by adding more troops," he said. "The security should be in the hands of the Iraqis. The U.S. should be in a supporting role."

The plan sketched out by Mr. Bush went at least part way to meeting these Shiite concerns by ceding greater operational authority over the war in Baghdad to the government. The plan envisages an Iraqi commander with overall control of the new security crackdown in Baghdad, and Iraqi officers working under him who would be in charge of military operations in nine newly demarcated districts in the capital.

The commanders would report to a new office of commander in chief directly under the authority of Mr. Maliki. The arrangement appeared to have the advantage, for Mr. Maliki, of giving him a means to circumvent the Ministry of Defense, which operates under close American supervision. "The U.S. agrees that the government must take command," Mr. Abadi said.

The arrangements appeared to suggest that Mr. Maliki would have the power to halt any push into Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold that American commanders have been saying for months will have to be swept of extremist militia elements if there is to be any lasting turn toward stability in Baghdad. ...

Hard-line Shiite politicians have been saying with growing vehemence that these American goals amount to an attempt to deprive them of the victory they won at the polls, and that instead of placating Sunni Arabs, a minority of about 20 percent in Iraq's population of 27 million, the United States should stand aside and "allow the minority to lose." For Americans, whose best road home lies in drawing the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds together, it amounts to a collision with the hard history of Iraq. [bold added]

The article's main focus is on the fact that the Iraqis -- or at least the ruling Shiites with militias to protect in Sadr City -- do not want American troops in Iraq. It claims that America's best way out of Iraq is through "drawing the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds together" (whatever that means) as if we should be there to protect Iraq's ethnic minorities from each other rather than American citizens from Islamofascist belligerence. At the same time, the article implicitly criticizes the United States both for not protecting (1) the Sunnis well-enough from the Shiites and (2) the sovereignity of the Shiite government from ... the United States.

Two things should be clear that when one sweeps aside the principle of individual rights in favor of the imaginary rights of ethnic groups: (1) There is no way to achieve actual peace. (2) There is plenty of guilt to be passed around when peace mysteriously fails to materialize from all the gunfire, smoke, and carnage -- provided someone is willing to accept it. (I have a feeling that the "Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds" aren't going to help us there.)

This article, although it does report the real story, it also buries it and evades its true significance: Bush's plan for increased troops in Iraq still represents a failure to protect American interests.

Prime Minister Maliki clearly has no interest in protecting the rights of all Iraqis -- as one could predict from the fact that he hails from a sectarian political party. President Bush, by continuing his fundamental error of not insisting on a separation of religion and state in Iraq, has not significantly altered his doomed course -- as one could predict from his own religious conservatism. And the New York Times busies itself by carping about it all (but for all the wrong reasons) -- as one could predict from its leftist devotion to the idea that the purpose of our government is to sacrifice the productive to the unproductive.

All are collectivists and all are therefore failing to advocate the one principle that could cut through the fog and guide American policy (and Iraqi policy too, for that matter) in Iraq: that the sole purpose of government is the protection of individual rights.

Clearly, the Times recognizes that our stated goals in Iraq are not achievable and revels in the fact rather than offering criticism from the premise that America's interests are not being served. Its only recommendation is to stop fighting. Either way, American interests are subordinated to the desires of the most powerful faction of thugs in Iraq. And when that happens, the Times, although an active accomplice, will have Bush as a scapegoat.

Whether Iraqis want more troops in Iraq is of precisely zero significance. Whether America will be protected better by such a move should be the only consideration.

-- CAV

Union Rules vs. Employer Survival

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

It Ticks! (Chortle!)

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

Well! Only about a year after I noticed that the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists appeared to be stuck, it seems that they are finally going to move its hand forward from -- Say this in an ominous voice. -- seven minutes to midnight!

That's what passes for the "good news", if you count such things as wakefulness by a bunch of doddering lefty scientists as such.

The bad news is ... that a bunch of doddering lefty scientists are the ones doing the moving. According to the news story, they are being coy about what direction they plan to move the hands of their clock, but the clincher is this:

The group did not say in which direction the hands would move. But in a news release previewing an event next Wednesday, they said the change was based on "worsening nuclear, climate threats" to the world. [bold added]

Well, if, as I pointed out, their detailed knowledge of Iran's -- What was their word for it? Oh yeah. -- impressive degree of development of nuclear technology wasn't enough to prompt them to move the hand forward by now, then obviously, global warming would be.

Heck. Maybe they'll even move the hand back if they see this story between now and next Wednesday.

Idiots.

-- CAV

Rational Christian

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Oh delightful: It's a "rational Christian" response to Ayn Rand's ethics. Here's my favorite bit:

Ayn Rand rightly claims that "A" cannot be "non A" but she misapplies this principle in her critique of Christianity. For example, when Christ said that "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" there is no true contradiction (i.e. "A" being "non A"), as Ayn Rand claims, because the both cases in which the words "first" and "last" are used within the context of the passage have different applications and reasons for usage. Jesus was simply saying that in this world a person is considered "first" or "last" for different reasons than why a person is considered "first" or "last" in God's kingdom. Again, there is no real contradiction (i.e. there is no "A" equated with "non A").

Gee, I wasn't aware that Ayn Rand criticized Jesus on "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" on the grounds of the Law of Identity! Fancy that! Oh, and somehow, although the author does not specify how, Ayn Rand's ethics depends upon the theory of evolution. I never knew that either. Amazing!

Calif. Bill Mandating Universal Health Insurance Is Immoral

Irvine, CA--On Monday Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed a plan to mandate health insurance coverage to nearly all of California's 6.5 million uninsured. Under Schwarzenegger's plan, all Californians would be required to have insurance, including those unwilling or unable to afford it; the poorest would be subsidized.

According to Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, "Gov. Schwarzenegger's plan is a moral travesty, and must be rejected.

"The governor's plan is immoral," said Dr. Brook, "because it is based on the premise that the needs or desires of some people give them a claim on the lives and property of others. This vicious double standard turns the providers--doctors, hospitals, businesses--into the serfs of those deemed to be in need. There is no right to health coverage. The governor's scheme, like other socialist healthcare schemes, requires wielding government force to violate the rights of untold individuals."

A Toehold for Net Neutrality

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

For those who might not be familiar with the concept, Alex Epstein describes "net neutrality" in his article, "Net Neutrality vs. Internet Freedom". Net neutrality is the idea that ISPs should not be able to favor some types of data over others; their networks must be "neutral" among all the data they carry. Net-neutrality supporters claim that if ISPs are free to give preferential treatment to

Unions Have No Right to Seize Wages of Non-Members for Political Campaigns

Irvine, CA - On January 10 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Davenport v. Washington Education Association. One of the questions at issue is whether labor unions have a First Amendment right to seize and use for political purposes the wages of employees who have chosen not to become union members.

"Unions have no moral or constitutional right to seize the earnings of non-union members in order to promote the unions' own political agendas," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"Labor unions have a First Amendment right to freely speak on behalf of their members. They have no right, however, to force non-members to finance their speech.

"There is no such thing as a 'right' to take away someone's property without his or her consent--for whatever purpose. And this is a crucial principle that the U.S. Supreme Court would do well to affirm."

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

The Pursuit of Happyness

By Jennifer Snow from Literatrix,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Rights: "Civil" vs. Individual

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

Via Isaac Schrodinger comes this link to a rather lengthy post at Gates of Vienna about something I have noticed before: the gradual subversion of the civil rights movement from just cause, to special treatment for actual racial minorities, and lately, even to preparation of non-Moslems for dhimmitude. Baron Bodissey makes some very good observations, but he also makes a couple of major errors at

Pelosi shows C & F how it's done.

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

Hmmm. It looks like, as good as Cox and Forkum are, they are going to have to take it up a notch now that the Democrats are in power. Messrs. Cox and Forkum "do" Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi "does" herself. (HT: Matt Drudge) Call me crazy, but Nancy Pelosi did a better job of making herself look foolish than they did today! Bwahahaha! -- CAV

Quick Roundup 134

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

GOP flunks first post-election tests. From the looks of things, it would appear that the Republicans do not realize that they lost Congress at least in large part because they welched on their professed support for small government. Although Nancy Pelosi had the limelight yesterday as she touted her jihad against sound economics for the sake of "the children", she was not alone. California

Quick Roundup 135

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

Even Better the Second Time Around If you still haven't seen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I highly recommend it. Again. I stand by my original review, but will add that this is one that is well worth watching again for things missed the first time. If you could simply erase a painful memory, should you? This film treats the subject very well and on many levels. (My wife first saw it

Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Last night, my pre-ordered copy of Robert Mayhew's new anthology Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead arrived. It looks quite excellent. Here's the table of contents from the publisher's web site:

Part 1: The History of The Fountainhead

• "The Fountainhead from Notebook to Novel: The Composition of Ayn Rand's First Projection of the Ideal Man" by Shoshana Milgram
  
• "Howard Roark and Frank Lloyd Wright" by Michael S. Berliner
  
• "Publishing The Fountainhead" by Richard Ralston
  
• "The Fountainhead Reviews" by Michael S. Berliner
  
• "Adapting The Fountainhead to Film" by Jeff Britting

Part 2: The Fountainhead as Literature and as Philosophy

• "The Fountainhead as a Romantic Novel" by Tore Boeckmann
  
• "What Might Be and Ought to Be: Aristotle's Poetics and The Fountainhead" by Tore Boeckmann
  
• "Three Inspirations for the Ideal Man: Cyrus Paltons, Enjolras, and Cyrano de Bergerac" by Shoshana Milgram
  
• "Understanding the "Rape" Scene in The Fountainhead" by Andrew Bernstein
  
• "Humor in The Fountainhead" by Robert Mayhew
  
• "The Fountainhead and the Spirit of Youth" by B. John Bayer
  
• "The Basic Motivation of the Creators and the Masses in ,The Fountainhead" by Onkar Ghate
  
• "Independence in The Fountainhead" by Tara Smith
  
• "Roark's Integrity" by Dina Schein
  
• "A Moral Dynamiting" by Amy Peikoff
  
• "Epilogue: An Interview with Leonard Peikoff"

I was very impressed with the two prior volumes in the series -- Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem and Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living -- so I'm really looking forward to reading this new collection. Speaking of the other two volumes, I found their tables of contents on the publisher's web site too. Here's Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem:

Part 1: The History of Anthem

• Anthem in Manuscript: Finding the Words" by Shoshana Milgram
  
• "Publishing Anthem" by Richard E. Ralston
  
• "Anthem: '38 and '46" by Robert Mayhew
  
• "Reviews of Anthem" by Michael S. Berliner
  
• "Adapting Anthem: Projects That Were and Might Have Been" by Jeff Britting
  
• "Anthem and 'The Individualist Manifesto'" by Jeff Britting

Part 2: Anthem as Literature and as Philosophy

• "Anthem as a Psychological Fantasy" by Tore Boeckmann
  
• "Anthem in the Context of Related Literary Works: 'We are not like our brothers'" by Shoshana Milgram
  
• "'Sacrilege toward the Individual': The Anti-Pride of Thomas More's Utopia and Anthem's Radical Alternative" by John Lewis
  
• "Needs of the Psyche in Ayn Rand's Early Ethical Thought" by Darryl Wright
  
• "Breaking the Metaphysical Chains of Dictatorship: Free Will and Determinism in Anthem" by Onkar Ghate
  
• "Prometheus' Discovery: Individualism and the Meaning of the Concept "I" in Anthem" by Greg Salmieri
  
• "Freedom of Disassociation in Anthem" by Amy Peikoff
  
• "Anthem and Collectivist Regression into Primitivism" by Andy Bernstein
  
• "Epilogue: Anthem: An Appreciation" by Harry Binswanger
  
• "Appendix: Teaching Anthem: A Guide for High School and University Teachers" by Lindsay Joseph

While I enjoyed the whole anthology, I thought the essays by Tore Boeckmann, Darryl Wright, Onkar Ghate, and Greg Salmieri in this volume were particularly excellent. I learned more about Anthem (and Objectivism) from reading these essays than I thought possible, and I appreciated the novella more than ever before.

Last but not least is the anthology on my favorite novel by Ayn Rand: Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living.

Part 1: The History of We the Living

• "From Airtight to We the Living: The Drafts of Ayn Rand's First Novel" by Shoshana Milgram
  
• "Parallel Lives: Models and Inspirations for Characters in We the Living" by Scott McConnell
  
• "We the Living and the Rosenbaum Family Letters" by Dina Garmong
  
• "Russian Revolutionary Ideology and We the Living" by John Ridpath
  
• "The Music of We the Living" by Michael S. Berliner
  
• "Publishing We the Living" by Richard E. Ralston
  
• "Reviews of We the Living" by Michael S. Berliner
  
• "Adapting We the Living" by Jeff Britting
  
• "We the Living: '36 & '59" by Robert Mayhew

Part 2:We the Living as Literature and as Philosophy

• "We the Living and Victor Hugo: Ayn Rand's First Novel and the Novelist She Ranked First" by Shoshana Milgram
  
• "Red Pawn: Ayn Rand's Other Story of Soviet Russia" by Jena Trammell
  
• "The Integration of Plot and Theme in We the Living" by Andrew Bernstein
  
• "Kira's Family" by John Lewis
  
• "Kira Argounova Laughed: Humor and Joy in We the Living" by Robert Mayhew
  
• "Forbidding Life to Those Still Living" by Tara Smith
  
• "The Death Premise in We the Living and Atlas Shrugged" by Onkar Ghate
  
• "Selected Bibliography"

While this volume didn't have as much new and exciting philosophy as the anthology on Anthem, I did very much enjoy many of the essays, particularly the literary analyses. (The historical essays on the publication of the novel weren't of much interest to me, I must admit. That's just a matter of my personal taste though, as those essays were well-written.)

ARI's Free Books for Teachers in Action

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Now this blog post is interesting. In it, a teacher discusses her introductory lesson on Anthem. Yes, it's very confused by Objectivist standards. However, she's using the copies of the novel and lesson plans provided for free by the Ayn Rand Institute. Some of the comments on the post are from other teachers also using the book sets.

I hope she'll post more as the students work through the text, as I really wonder what they'll say about the book itself.

9th Annual Rocky Mountain Philosophy Conference

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I'm pleased to post this announcement for all kinds of reasons that I probably ought not specify in print:

CALL FOR PAPERS

9th Annual Rocky Mountain Philosophy Conference
University of Colorado - Boulder
April 20-21, 2007

Keynote Speaker: Jaegwon Kim

Jaegwon Kim is currently the William Herbert Perry Faunce Professor of Philosophy at Brown University.

The RMPC is an open-submission graduate student conference -- all philosophical topics are welcome. Papers should be no more than 4000 words (suitable for a 20-minute presentation). Papers must be accompanied by a brief abstract (approximately 100 words in length). Both the paper and the abstract should be prepared for blind review.

Papers should be submitted electronically in PDF or MS Word by January 29, 2007. Direct submissions to Kristin Demetriou at RMPC@colorado.edu, using the subject title "RMPC07 Submission".

Smart rooms with stadium seating will be provided for all presentations.

There is no conference fee. Speakers will be invited to stay with local philosophy graduate students to help allay the cost of participation. (Other attendees are also invited to request local housing -- these requests will be granted as space permits.)

Please visit our website: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/rmpc/rmpc.html

Relationship between intellectual property and consumer electronics prices

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

Is it reasonable to expect all high-tech products coming out today to be cheaply available in the future?

Of course it’s a truism nowadays that electronics are getting better and cheaper all the time, but I wonder if we can generalize to the following argument:

Consumer electronic products (I am speaking mostly about audio/video/computer products) have three somewhat unique properties. First, they are relatively low bandwidth and low power, due to the hardware limitations of homes and consumption by a few people. Second, they are mass-produced. Third, they are mostly information products, which means that are not limited to any particular form of material.

These properties are especially suitable to rapid innovation and a trend towards automation of production. The trend has accelerated with the shift from analog to digital, which makes data integrity much easier. The key to the process is that increasing automation shifts production costs from manufacturing and materials to design. More and more of a products retail costs becomes intellectual property. For example, low-end DVD players can be found for under $30. I read somewhere that the licensing required to decode DVDs alone costs about $20. (This is also about the cost of a DVD plug-in for Windows Media Player.)

Are the any inherent cost factors I’m overlooking?

Let me put the question another way: today or soon, a $3,000 LCD TV might cost $30 in raw materials and $30 in labor, and the rest in intellectual property. (Those numbers are WAGs.) Is there any reason to think that it would not be $60 in 15 years, when the IP has expired and/or been reverse-engineered?

Discuss here.

If we don't stand up for the rights of dwarf planets, who will?

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

This is amusing. Back in September, Gus Van Horn blogged about a first grade teacher who got her students to start a school-wide petition to protest the demotion of Pluto to "dwarf planet" status on the grounds of "sticking up for the little guy," (or more accuratly, the frigid, inanimate, and too small to be properly classified as a planet "little guy"). Van Horn wrote that he was appalled that children in science class were being taught that truth is a matter of majority vote and that feelings should guide each voter.

Flash forward to the present and the teacher involved (or someone claiming to be her) apparently paid Van Horn's blog a visit and posted a comment to complain about her coverage.

I am constistantly (sic) shocked at the uneducated rants of the educated. I teach 1st grade, I teach complex concepts on a level that is both appropiate (sic) and understandable to my audience, so when I happened upon your blog I was surprised. I will try to educate you on our Pluto campaign. The children were give a lesson on democracy and not science. The IAU which is comprised of over 2000 scientific members who met in Europe last August. Less than a majority attended and voted to demote the ninth planet. We decided to vote as well, a vote of popular opinion. Our tiny class of 14 stated their case for Pluto and we secured a majority agreement from fellow classmates. A great lesson on democracy and appropriate avenues for debate. I hope you now understand that this campaign was about processes and not just planets. We also teach five oceans in our class, and last year the class voted to include UB313 in our planetary line-up. Teaching children that it is acceptable to question and debate is a good thing.

Needless to say, Van Horn (a scientist by trade) was none too impressed with this 2nd attempt to democratize science.

The anthropomorphism in what the paper quoted you saying (Pluto is an inanimate object, not a "little guy" to whom school children really can or really should relate.) and your immediate ratcheting up to emotionalism ("uneducated rants") upon encountering my comment indicates to me that perhaps I was even more on the mark than I suspected.

The appropriate time to teach about government -- and thank God, so to speak, we do not live in a "democracy" -- is civics class. Likewise, the time to teach science is in science class. A scientific congress is not a government and the government has no business attempting to dictate scientific consensus. You have not only confounded two disciplines (science and civics), but you have failed to teach a good lesson in either.

Science -- and I mean the process of finding evidence and logically evaluating it -- is supposed to teach us about the universe; the consistency of the concepts (e.g., "planet") we form with reality is a fact not subject to majority vote. Government is the only social institution that can legally wield force. Studying this institution should make people aware that it is a blunt instrument suited and properly used ONLY to protect citizens from having their individual rights violated.

The scientific congress that "demoted" Pluto was not, furthermore, composed of elementary school students or even their teachers, but of scientists. Just to vote on this matter (and any review of scientific history would show that scientific debate really isn't settled by a quick vote anyway) required something you should educate your students about or better yet, help them become better able to earn: qualifications.

All I can say is "amen, brother."

Religion in College

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

While I haven't been teaching long enough to notice any difference in the religiosity of my students over the years, this professor's observations are consistent with my general knowledge on the topic. He writes:

More American college students seem to be practicing traditional forms of religion today than at any time in my 30 years of teaching.

At first glance, the flourishing of religion on campuses seems to reverse trends long criticized by conservatives under the rubric of "political correctness." But, in truth, something else is occurring. Once again, right and left have become mirror images of each other; religious correctness is simply the latest version of political correctness. Indeed, it seems the more religious students become, the less willing they are to engage in critical reflection about faith.

The chilling effect of these attitudes was brought home to me two years ago when an administrator at a university where I was then teaching called me into his office. A student had claimed that I had attacked his faith because I had urged him to consider whether Nietzsche's analysis of religion undermines belief in absolutes. The administrator insisted that I apologize to the student. (I refused.)

My experience was not unique. Today, professors invite harassment or worse by including "unacceptable" books on their syllabuses or by studying religious ideas and practices in ways deemed improper by religiously correct students.

Distinguished scholars at several major U.S. universities have been condemned, even subjected to death threats, for proposing psychological, sociological or anthropological interpretations of religious texts. In the most egregious cases, defenders of the faith insist that only true believers are qualified to teach their religious tradition.

At a time when universities are obsessed with public relations, faculty members can no longer be confident they will remain free to pose the questions that urgently need to be asked.

For years, I have begun my classes by telling students that if they are not more confused and uncertain at the end of the course than they were at the beginning, I will have failed. A growing number of religiously correct students consider this challenge a direct assault on their faith. Yet the task of thinking and teaching, especially in an age of emergent fundamentalisms, is to cultivate a faith in doubt that calls into question every certainty.

Any responsible curriculum for the study of religion must be guided by two basic principles: first, a clear distinction between the study and the practice of religion, and second, an expansive understanding of what religion is and of the manifold roles it plays in life. The aim of critical analysis is not to pass judgment on religious beliefs and practices -- though some secular dogmatists wrongly cross that line -- but to consider the many functions they serve.

It is also important to explore the similarities and differences between and among various religions. Religious traditions are not fixed and monolithic; they are networks of symbols, myths and rituals, which evolve over time by adapting to changing circumstances. If we fail to appreciate the complexity and diversity within, and among, religious traditions, we will overlook the fact that people from different traditions often share more with one another than they do with many members of their own tradition.

If chauvinistic believers develop deeper analyses of religion, they might begin to see in themselves what they criticize in others. In an era that thrives on both religious and political polarization, this is an important lesson to learn -- one that extends well beyond the academy.

Since religion is often most influential where it is least obvious, it is imperative to examine both its manifest and latent dimensions. As defenders of a faith become more reflective about their own beliefs, they begin to understand that religion can serve not only to provide answers that render life more secure but also to prepare them for life's unavoidable complexities and uncertainties.

Until recently, many influential analysts argued that religion, a vestige of an earlier stage of human development, would wither away as people became more sophisticated and rational. Obviously, things have not turned out that way. Indeed, the 21st century will be dominated by religion in ways that were inconceivable just a few years ago. Religious conflict will be less a matter of struggles between belief and unbelief than of clashes between believers who make room for doubt and those who do not.

The warning signs are clear: Unless we establish a genuine dialogue within and among all kinds of belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly.

Mark C. Taylor, a religion and humanities professor at Williams College, is the author of "Mystic Bones."

(This op-ed was also printed in the NY Times a few weeks ago.)

Many serious Christians are genuinely committed to replacing the political correctness of today's academia with their own Christian dogma. They are determined, they are numerous, and they are extremely well-funded. That's not good news: rule of academia by religious correctness would be no better -- and surely much worse -- than rule by political correctness. Sadly, my general impression is that the conservative criticisms of academia's closed doors will enshrine religious correctness, not merely overthrow political correctness. Too many in that movement aim to do just that.

Personally, I do worry that I'll face serious student complaints someday, probably sooner rather than later, for my teaching of Christian ethics. I'm not similarly concerned about the leftists.

How Integrated are You?

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Which are you more interested in: what is actual or what is possible? In approaching others, is your inclination to be objective, or personal? Do you go more by facts, or by principles? Are you more comfortable in making logical judgments, or value judgments? Which rules you more: heart or head? Do facts speak for themselves, or illustrate principles? Is it a greater error to be too passionate, or too objective?

Those are from a Myers-Briggs test for programmers that a friend sent my way. This is my second such test: maybe fifteen years ago, the head of the little company I was working at gave me the Myers-Briggs test he'd picked up at some management training program (I'm not sure why, maybe out of curiosity to see how I might contrast with him). I began taking it and was soon jammed up because of choices like the above. Impatient, he insisted that I nonetheless pick whatever answer was even a smidge better for me and just get through it without so darned much analysis. Pressing on, my concern grew as I noted an accumulation of basically arbitrary choices. After finishing, I explained that the more of those that went by, the less meaningful the results had to be for my case. Further, since many of the problematic choices seemed to be based in philosophically-unsound alternatives, I was a bit suspicious of the overall methodology (heck, anyone with a little exposure to Objectivism would have seen it like that). He was aghast that I would presume to second-guess the psychological authorities and their scientific techniques, and it seemed to boggle him the most to find a young know-nothing upstart like me saying there were obvious and flawed philosophical premises behind the carefully-designed questions of those experts. Throwing up his hands, he headed back to the management end of the building and I turned back to my work with a shrug.

Fast-forward to now. Going through this test I noticed that a significantly higher percentage of the questions were unanswerable (as before, by being meaningless for lack of context, or for presenting a false alternative, etc.). Naturally, this leaves me with the even stronger impression that Myers-Briggs tests simply aren't worth much, at least for Objectivists.

Well, I take that back: the formal results don't seem to be worth much, but a cool metric for Objectivists may lie in how many of the questions are honestly unanswerable and invite an arbitrary selection -- the higher the percentage, the better your level of integration! Way back when, I couldn't answer maybe 15% of the questions, but this time I genuinely couldn't answer 66%+ of them! Sweet, it looks like I'm growing. :^)

Hence the question: How integrated are you?

Quick Roundup 133

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

Two Good Videos on Socialized Medicine

I thought I would commemorate the swearing-in of the Dhimmicrats by pointing out the following two excellent videos about socialized medicine.


This I learned about from the Harry Binswanger List. Soon after that mailing, another subscriber pointed out a twenty-five minute video by the same people.

The filmmakers are currently in production on a feature-length film addressing health care in the U.S. and Canada slated for release in late 2006. As an interim offering, they have produced this short film which debuted at the Liberty Film Festival in West Hollywood, CA on Oct 21, 2005. We hope you enjoy it!

This is very good news. We will need to defend our right to decent medical care yet again very soon. Ammunition like this can only help.

Islam Minus Alcohol Equals Zero

Zero, as in "protection against MRSA" in Great Britain.

Some Muslims are undermining the battle to rid Britain's hospitals of killer infections by refusing to wash their hands when visiting sick relatives.

Dispensers containing anti-bacterial gel have been placed outside wards at hospitals all over Britain in a bid to get rid of superbugs like MRSA and PVL. It prevents people bringing in more infections. But some Muslims refuse to use the hand cleansers on religious grounds because they contain alcohol.

Health watchdogs are so concerned they intend to meet with NHS bosses in the New Year to try and hammer out a solution.

Funny how the same system that refuses to treat the obese and bans advertisements of junk food from television seems so slow to prevent the superstitious from exacerbating real health problems! Chalk another one up to anarcho-tyranny, I guess. "Hammer out a solution"? Why not just ban visitors who refuse to wash with the soap upon entering the hospital?

One day, I hope, we in the West will realize that our choice is to tolerate the irrationality of religious fundamentalism or remain alive. (via Little Green Footballs, HT Isaac Schrodinger)

Of Sanction and Victims

John Lewis has written an excellent piece on how a cover-up of and the outright evasion -- by our federal government -- of Yassir Arafat's direct involvement in the 1973 "Palestinian" terrorist attack upon the Saudi Embassy in Khartoum allowed Arafat to wage war for decades against Israel and the United States.

Without America's help, Arafat had nothing. America is strong precisely because Americans are in general rational, productive, and free; the Palestinians are weak precisely because they do not value rationality, productivity, or freedom. The only weapon that the Palestinian leadership can hold over America is its claim to an altruistic moral high ground because of the self-created, debased condition of the Palestinian people. This weapon cannot work without our sanction.

Ayn Rand called such sanction "the sanction of the victim"; it entails placing one's virtues in the service of one's own destroyers by granting an undeserved moral status to one's enemies.

In addition to providing this timely analysis, Lewis links to a report on the attack and the recently-released State Department memo by Caroline Glick, who quotes from it:

The cable released by the State Department's historian states, "The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, (PLO), and the head of Fatah. Fatah representatives based in Khartoum participated in the attack, using a Fatah vehicle to transport the terrorists to the Saudi Arabian Embassy."

Lewis also has a very lengthy chronology of Islamic attacks against Americans over at his web site. (Users of Firefox will may it easier to read if they use it to reduce the font size.)

2006 Junk Science Retrospective

Issac Schrodinger points to Steve Milloy's top ten list. Item 7 looks good to this Southerner: "The widely-held 30-year old notion that low-fat diets are good for your health went 'poof' this year." (Of course, given the media's overwhelming scientific illiteracy, I tend to ignore most reporting on matters of diet anyway.)

Google Patent Search

Yesterday, I discovered by accident that Google now allows searches through the texts of all U.S. patents. Slate has a somewhat amusing article about it here.

Opinions on New Blogger?

I have recently begun paying closer attention to how long certain phases of my blogging take and found that proofing and minor editorial changes soon after publication take far more time than they should. This is due mainly to the fact that the native Blogger editor -- at least for the "old" version -- is inordinately slow.

I had some time Tuesday to address any problems that could arise from transitioning to the new version of Blogger, so I tried it, only to be told that my user account (which permits me to post to three different blogs) could not be switched over. So, while I am waiting for this problem to be addressed, I can't judge for myself whether the "New Blogger" really is better.

I'd like to hear from anyone who has made the switch about two issues in particular. (1) If you have a complicated template, did this get goofed up when you switched? (2) Is the new "instant publishing" all that it's cracked up to be?

-- CAV