Preventing Mergers Destroys Competition

Ayn Rand Institute Press Release:

Opponents of a planned merger between XM Satellite Radio Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. are asking the government to block the merger in order to "preserve competition" in satellite radio.

But, said Alex Epstein, junior fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, "The opposition to this merger is irrational. There is no way a voluntary merger can be a threat to genuine competition.

"Proper, free-market competition is a process in which businesses, free to produce and sell whatever products they choose, attempt to outdo one another in making consumers the best offers for their money. No combination of companies can force customers to buy its products, nor prevent other businesses from offering theirs--thus, no merger can thwart free competition. To the contrary, mergers are an extremely valuable form of competition. A good merger enables businesses to combine strengths and strip away unneeded costs in an attempt to improve the appeal and profitability of their products. This is exactly the outcome that the struggling satellite providers Sirius and XM are hoping for--as they attempt to sell a profitable product to customers who have the option of listening to terrestrial radio, high definition radio, Internet radio, audiobooks, podcasts, and CDs.

"When two businesses have so many outstanding competitors that they are bleeding red ink, how can anyone oppose a merger between them as a 'threat to competition'? These opponents do so only because they accept the perverse concept of 'competition' that underlies our antitrust laws. On this view, 'competition' is not a free process--it is an egalitarian outcome, in which every market and sub-market has as many viable competitors as possible, with no one ever growing or succeeding 'too much.' Antitrust advocates believe that the government must forcibly prevent any one company from gaining too great a market share--that is, prevent it from persuading 'too many' customers to buy its products.

"A conception of 'competition' that grants government bureaucrats the power to keep companies from becoming 'too successful' should not be preserved--it should be rejected as perverse and un-American. As a first step, we can tell our government to keep its hands off of satellite radio companies."

Labor vs. Freedom of Speech

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

At Jewish World Review, I encountered a George Will column that details yet another left-wing attack against freedom of speech as well as property rights.

Labor unions hope [the] exquisitely mis-titled [Employee Free Choice Act], which the House of Representatives probably will pass this week, will compensate for their dwindling persuasiveness as they try to persuade workers to join. It would allow unions to organize workplaces without workers voting for unionization in elections with secret ballots. Instead, unions could use the "card check" system: Once a majority of a company's employees signs a card expressing consent, the union is automatically certified as the bargaining agent for all the workers.

Unions say the card-check system is needed to protect workers from anti-union pressure by employers before secret-ballot elections. Such supposed pressure is one of organized labor's alibis for declining membership. [Will later points out that this system would effectively silence any anti-unionization arguments that might come up in an actual vote. --ed]

There are, however, ample protections against employer pressures that really are abusive. [This is overgenerous to the unions at best. See below. --ed] Tellingly, the act would forbid employers from trying to influence -- pressure? -- employees by improving their lot: It would fine employers that, to reduce the incentive to unionize, give workers "unilateral" -- not negotiated -- improvements in compensation or working conditions during attempts at unionization. Clearly, the act aims less to help workers than to herd them as dues-payers into unions.

Under the card-check system, unions are able to, in effect, select the voters they want. It strips all workers of privacy and exposes them, one at a time, to the face-to-face pressure of union organizers who distribute and collect the cards. The Supreme Court has said that the card-check system is "admittedly inferior to the election process." [bold added]

An old saw in economics is, "Controls breed controls," based on the observation that economic distortions caused by any given instance of government meddling in the economy will result in calls for even more government interference as a "corrective" for the resulting distortions.

But that is really just a species of a broader phenomenon, which is I would phrase in this way: "Violations of individual rights lead to other violations of individual rights." Consider the legal protections already enjoyed by unions at the expense of individual rights:

Labor cartels are immune from taxation and from antitrust laws. [We should all be "exempt" from these! --ed] Companies are legally compelled to bargain with unions in "good faith." This innocent-sounding term is interpreted by the National Labor Relations Board to suppress such practices as Boulwarism, named for a former General Electric personnel director. To shorten the collective bargaining process, Lemuel Boulware communicated the "reasonableness" of GE's wage offer directly to employees, shareholders, and the public. Unions also can force companies to make their property available for union use.

Once the government ratifies a union's position as representing a group of workers, it represents them exclusively, whether particular employees want collective representation or not. Also, union officials can force compulsory union dues from employees, members and nonmembers alike, as a condition of keeping their jobs. Unions often use these funds for political purposes -- political campaigns and voter registration, for example -- unrelated to collective bargaining or to employee grievances. Unions are relatively immune from payment of tort damages for injuries inflicted in labor disputes, from federal court injunctions, and from many state laws under the "federal preemption" doctrine. Sums up Nobel Laureate Friedrich A. Hayek: "We have now reached a state where [unions] have become uniquely privileged institutions to which the general rules of law do not apply." [bold added]

And despite the unions being above the rule of law, they have been in decline for quite some time!

Union bosses are desperate and, knowing that most Americans are used to, if not wrongly sympathetic with the state of affairs described in the above passage, the bosses seek incrementally to further erode the rights of workers and employers alike in order to preserve their power. Had this injustice not been so firmly established, no one would have the temerity to propose that anyone could be forced to have anything to do with -- let alone pay dues to -- an organization on the basis of other people being duped or pressured into making check marks on cards!

-- CAV

The Jewish Taliban

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I don't know much about the politics of the various sects of Judaism in Israel, but this NPR story about the demands of the ultra-Orthodox was eye-opening. (I'm not going to recount the story; it's too detailed. I highly recommend reading the article. It's short and interesting.) The description "Taliban-like" does indeed fit these zealots, not just because their demands are borne of insane religiosity that they wish to impose on everyone else by force, but because the particular demands (e.g. for "modesty" and segregation of women) are so similar to those instituted by radical Muslims. According to the article, these ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel are becoming more radicalized -- and more insistent in their demands on everyone else.

In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ever-more people are taking the irrational demands of their religion ever-more seriously -- and threatening the rest of us with earthly punishments if we fail to submit. Given the way of Islam and Christianity, I'm not surprised to see this trend in Judaism. Still, it's downright frightening.

(Via iFeminists.net weekly newsletter.)

Environmentalists embracing pro-industry 'heresies'?

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

The New York Times writes about an early environmentalist who realized he might be wrong about a few things and changed his perspective.

One of the arguments used by those who believe that religion is a bigger threat to civilization than the anti-industrial revolution is that environmental claims ultimately concern reality, and can (eventually) be proven false, whereas supernatural claims cannot. Could this be evidence of an emerging trend?

Professor Ehrlich's theories of the coming "age of scarcity" were subsequently challenged by the economist Julian Sinon, who bet Mr. Ehrlich that the prices of natural resources would fall during the 1980’s despite the growth in population. The prices fell, just as predicted by Professor Simon's cornucopian theories.

Professor Ehrlich dismissed Professor Simon's victory as a fluke, but Mr. Brand saw something his mentor didn't. He considered the bet a useful lesson about the adaptability of humans -- and the dangers of apocalyptic thinking.

"It is one of the great revelatory bets," he now says. "Any time that people are forced to acknowledge publicly that they're wrong, it's really good for the commonweal. I love to be busted for apocalyptic proclamations that turned out to be 180 degrees wrong. In 1973 I thought the energy crisis was so intolerable that we'd have police on the streets by Christmas. The times I've been wrong is when I assume there's a brittleness in a complex system that turns out to be way more resilient than I thought."

He now looks at the rapidly growing megacities of the third world not as a crisis but as good news: as villagers move to town, they find new opportunities and leave behind farms that can revert to forests and nature preserves. Instead of worrying about population growth, he's afraid birth rates are declining too quickly, leaving future societies with a shortage of young people.

Old-fashioned rural simplicity still has great appeal for romantic environmentalists. But when the romantics who disdain frankenfoods choose locally grown heirloom plants and livestock, they're benefiting from technological advances made by past plant and animal breeders. Are the risks of genetically engineered breeds of wheat or cloned animals so great, or do they just ruin the romance? (Emp. mine)

Mr. Brand classifies environmentalists into “romantics” and “scientists” — a distinction between those who treat it as a religion, and those who are sucked in by environmental claims, but still open to reason.

Can we really expect any significant faction of the environmentalist movement to see reason? The article lists only a few of the predictions environmentalists and their precursors have been preaching since 1798, with no sign that they will see the light. The persistent Malthusian prediction of imminent global starvation for over 200 years makes sense only when compared with Christian expectations of imminent rapture for 2000 years.

I experienced both kinds of “romantics” in college. One of my college roommates was convinced that the Second Coming would come “any day now,” while members of the secular student group assured me that we were in the midst of a global eco-apocalypse, and that we were rapidly turning turning earth into a desert. What basis do we have for assuming that one group is any more rational than the other?

GMU Goes Dhimmi: John Lewis Talk Cancelled

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

George Mason University has abandoned its commitment to freedom of expression on campus. At the last minute, GMU has caved-in to pressure from Muslim groups and has canceled Dr. Lewis’s talk, “‘No Substitute for Victory’: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism”, which was scheduled for tomorrow night, Wed, Feb 28, 2007.
Please spread the word.

read more | digg story

GMU Goes Dhimmi: John Lewis Talk Cancelled

From the TOS:
George Mason University has abandoned its commitment to freedom of expression on campus. At the last minute, GMU has caved-in to pressure from Muslim groups and has cancelled Dr. Lewis's talk, "'No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism", which was scheduled for tomorrow night, Wed, Feb 28, 2007. This is all we know right now. We will post details as soon as we have them. Please spread the word.

Please spread the word.

Contact GMU's student paper: http://www.broadsideonline.com/contact.html
Contact GMU's staff paper: staffsenate@gmu.edu

Failing the "Dickie Flatt Test"

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

Yesterday, I relayed my concerns that John McCain is not just an enemy of freedom, but quite capable of doing great damage to same due to his strong appeal to so many Americans.

In his quest for power, this man misses no opportunity to court the basest enemies of freedom and yet, because nearly everyone else is blinded by the false "liberal vs. conservative" dichotomy, he enjoys a reputation as a "moderate". This makes him possibly the most dangerous candidate in the running so far. [bold added]

As it turns out, my estimate of his dangerousness will have sounded low once you read and consider Phil Gramm's pro-McCain editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Each excerpt below is bulleted, followed by my comments, [bracketed and in bold].

• His conservatism is not the result of a studied philosophy, but of common sense and personal observation. [McCain is not an ideologue -- as if people who do not profess an ideology are not still influenced by ideology. We can thank generations of anti-American intellectuals for making so many people so reflexively suspicious of explicit ideology that the lack thereof is so often seen as a credential.]
• John McCain understands instinctively that just as "in war, there is no substitute for victory, in peace, there is no substitute for growth." He believes that "the strength of our economy promotes freedom not just at home but in every distant corner of our planet. End growth in America and the lights start to go out all over the world." [This much is true, and yet McCain proposes massive environmental regulation of the economy. I guess "instinct" isn't all it's cracked up to be.]
• For Sen. McCain, salvaging the social safety net and saving the economy means making the hard choices now to right the current system for those already in it, and building a new system for future workers based on real investments, not empty promises. [Notice (again) that what passes for fiscal conservatism these days is making the welfare state "work".]
• Who else has shown any ability to reach across the party divide and build a bipartisan consensus? Who else could lead worried Americans and shame a reluctant Congress into action? Who else would stay on course with political flak exploding all around him, and his political life hanging in the balance? The easy answer is--no one but John McCain. [Given his other positions, this is what really scares me about him!]
• Who would be more effective than John McCain in using American military power in its highest and best use -- the deterrence of adversaries? [Ummm. I'll take a wild stab: John Lewis. What better "deterrence" of an enemy is there than his total defeat?]

Even if, as Gramm implied it were true that John McCain would actually wage a war against the Islamofascists, his sorry track record on freedom of speech would make him unacceptable.

When he was still in public office, Phil Gramm was famous for applying the "Dickie Flatt Test" when evaluating various federal measures. Unfortunately, he fails to realize that he is not applying this test consistently when he evaluates Senator John McCain. Certainly, Dickie Flatt needs lower taxation and protection from foreign threats, but how will "saving" social security accomplish the former or anything less than a ruthless military campaign with proper objectives accomplish the latter? And what good will either do if his ability to make a living is ruined by a panic-driven Green economic agenda -- and his ability to say something about it compromised by such measures as "campaign finance reform"?

A basic requirement of Dickie Flatt's life (and all our lives for that matter) is freedom -- freedom from being threatened, robbed, or harmed by others. It is only freedom that the government is meant (or able) to provide. Thus, the only way for any politician to really pass this test is for him to hold a consistent committment to individual rights. On that score, John McCain fails the "Dickie Flatt Test" miserably.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Removed one bullet. Corrected a typo.

A Nuanced View of Global Warming

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

If you who wonder how (real) climatologists can "deny" that global warming is a foregone conclusion or know someone who does, I think this article will be helpful. Incidentally, it somehow reminded me of the Left's favorite "n-word" (nuanced) from the 2004 presidential campaign, a word which has been replaced by another (Nuremberg) in the completely inappropriate context of an ongoing scientific debate. Isn't it funny how Leftists attack any and all certainty when they want our ear, but feel powerless -- and yet suddenly know everything when they feel strong? If anything shows that Leftists regard philosophical ideas cynically, this shift in attitude is it.

Contrary to popular accounts, very few scientists in the world - possibly none - have a sufficiently thorough, "big picture" understanding of the climate system to be relied upon for a prediction of the magnitude of global warming. To the public, we all might seem like experts, but the vast majority of us work on only a small portion of the problem.

Here, for example, is an insight that even many climate scientists are unaware of: The one atmospheric process that has the greatest control on the Earth's climate is the one we understand the least - precipitation.

Over most of the planet, water is continuously evaporating, humidifying the air to form the Earth's dominant greenhouse gas: water vapor. Climate scientists will tell you that the extra CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere causes a "warming tendency" at the surface, which will evaporate even more water, which will amplify the warming. This positive water vapor feedback, so the theory goes, ends up turning the relative benign direct warming effect of CO2 - only 1 degree of warming late in this century - into a much more serious problem.

But surface evaporation is not what determines how much water vapor, on average, resides in the atmosphere - precipitation systems do. These not only control the water-vapor portion of the greenhouse effect, they directly or indirectly control most of the next most important greenhouse ingredient: clouds.

These systems continuously recycle the Earth's air, and so exert strong controls over the entire climate system. For instance, the rising air in precipitation systems is what causes the sinking, cloudless air over desert areas. Vast oceanic areas of stratus clouds form below a temperature inversion that is also caused by air being forced to sink by precipitation systems, usually thousands of miles away.

So, what does all this have to do with global warming? Unless we know how the greenhouse-limiting properties of precipitation systems change with warming, we don't know how much of our current warmth is due to mankind, and we can't estimate how much future warming there will be, either. To solve the global-warming puzzle, we first need to learn much more about the precipitation-system puzzle.

What little evidence we now have suggests that precipitation systems act as a natural thermostat to reduce warming. For instance, warm, tropical systems are more efficient at converting water vapor to precipitation than their cool high-latitude cousins. Hurricanes are believed to be the most efficient of all.

I believe that negative feedbacks such as this are the only way to explain the relative stability of our climate. Computerized models of our climate have had a habit of "drifting" too warm or too cold. This because they still don't contain all of the temperature-stabilizing processes that exist in nature. In fact, for the amount of solar energy available to it, our climate seems to have a "preferred" average temperature, damping out swings beyond 1 degree or so. [bold added]

There's much more.

I am glad to see so many good articles directed at laymen being put out on global warming. While these will certainly be wasted on most leftists, they do serve a crucial function: They strip away the veneer of scientific respectability this new form of socialism is appropriating for itself. It is this veneer which is being used to sell global warming to otherwise rational adults.

-- CAV

LaLoonies

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Over the past few months, ARI speakers have occasionally endured some crazed heckling from conspiracy-mongering LaRouchites. (The LaRouchites seem to be completely deranged and insensitive to reality, not to mention thoroughly uncivilized.) Since I hadn't heard about LaRouche for some years, I was curious. I poked around Wikipedia for information about Lyndon LaRouche and his LaRouche Youth Movement. The most interesting source I found was this lengthy article from the Washington Post. If you might run into one of these loonies, it's worth reading in full. Personally, I hope to never see one again.

Marlboro Mendicant

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

"Insanity doesn't run in my family," exclaimed Cary Grant in the 1944 comedy, Arsenic and Old Lace. "It gallops!"

Insanity also gallops in the boardrooms of American business and industry. For over a century, the producers of this country have been the subjects of repeated assaults by government and anti-business groups. When they have fought back, they have without exception resorted to the argument that proposed regulations and controls are impractical and would result in unfortunate consequences throughout the economy, never believing that the "impractical" has never been a standard of their enemies' purpose.

The assaults have been based on the morality of service and sacrifice. American business consequently ceded its assailants the moral high ground, and never responded in kind. It is as though some congenital disease blocked their thinking and prevented them from following the logic of their persecutors.

In one sense, one cannot gainsay American business for not defending itself with the assertion of a rational morality. It has never had a consistent philosophical defender. But, with death or extinction staring them in the face, one would expect that the brightest and proudest American businessmen would sooner or later make the connection between strangulation by statist policies and the continued existence of their enterprises. Instead, they have adopted the role of mendicants, pleading for their lives and promising cooperation with their destroyers in the name of "public service" and the "public good."

The disease is an accepted guilt for simply existing, for working for their own profits and selfish ends.

The most eloquent and thorough moral defense of capitalism appeared half a century ago, in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. So, there is no longer an excuse for business to play the role of helpless mendicant. The novel and its author are too well known, but the novel may as well have never been written. The defense is there, but few have ever availed themselves of it.

One by one they capitulate to force or threatened force: Microsoft, Wal-Mart, McDonald's, the insurance business, the securities industry, the medical profession, even restaurateurs: the role of dishonor grows yearly.

If statism expands unopposed, a point is reached when many victims of it elect to become willing participants in exchange for permission to exist. That their cooperation with the destroyers will make it easier for the destroyers to enslave or destroy others is not a "practical' consideration in the decision to capitulate. The Altria Group, formerly known as Philip Morris, is one of these turncoats. It has chosen to don the armband of the American swastika.

Witness a story from The New York Times of February 16th, "Trying Again for a Bill to Limit Tobacco Ads."

"After being thwarted for years, a bipartisan group of members of Congress reintroduced legislation that would allow the federal government to further regulate the tobacco industry by cracking down on marketing aimed at young people and requiring that reduced-risk tobacco products back up their (sic) claims with science." (Whose "claims"? The bipartisan group's? The tobacco industry's? The young people's? The reduced-risk products'? Well, this is the Times, which hasn't for decades been noted for its grammatical precision.)

The issue here is censorship. The usual suspects, Senators Ted Kenney and John Cornyn, and Representatives Thomas M. Davis and Henry A. Waxman introduced this bill, in addition to another anti-tobacco bill (see "Congress: A Modern 'Diet of Worms'" from February 20th), completely oblivious or hostile to the wording of the First Amendment. But, who is sanctioning this evil?

"The Altria Group, the company formerly known as Philip Morris, is among the bill's biggest supporters."

Why?

"Altria officials maintain that regulation is inevitable and that clear standards would help as the market shifts toward new products like smokeless tobacco and reduced-risk cigarettes...'At some point, this is going to happen,' said Steven C. Parrish, Altria's senior vice president for corporate affairs. 'It would set some clear rules for all the companies to play by.'" Altria is the parent company of Philip Morris USA.

So, now the argument is that proposed regulations and controls - in addition to censorship - are practical and would result in beneficial consequences throughout the economy!

"Mr. Waxman and his co-sponsors argue that regulation by the Food and Drug Administration is necessary because smoking remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the United States."

That's odd. I thought it was car accidents. Or not wearing seatbelts in car accidents. Or high cholesterol. Or obesity. Or heart disease. Well...never mind.

"The bill that was introduced yesterday would give the FDA authority to regulate the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco so they are not marketed to children. It would also regulate marketing to prevent misleading claims related to health....and it provides for stronger warning labels on tobacco products, with more explicit details of the medical consequences."

Of course, the bill isn't just about smoking or cigarettes. The malice felt by politicians and the power they wish to see exercised over tobacco products represent a precedent that allows them also to wish also to regulate the American diet. Thus the hue and cry about trans fats, and obesity, and, more recently, the move to force restaurants to list calorie counts on their menus. The tobacco industry already is forced to practice what could be called "inverse censorship," that is, to derogate their own products. The makers of pastas, spices and other food ingredients are likely next to be forced to carry warning labels on their products.

It is nearly futile to remind the tobacco companies or any other American industry of the issue of censorship and the desire of statists to leave no citizen left behind in their quest to achieve the complete regimentation of American society. American businessmen appear to be unafraid of the consequences, so long as they are permitted to exist in some form. They are either unafraid, or ignorant of those consequences. If one called them cowards to their faces, it is doubtful they would feel offended. And quoting Ayn Rand - "I'm not brave enough to be a coward; I see the consequences too clearly" - would be to go over their heads.

The Supreme Court, of course, cannot be counted on to see the issues and rule on them in favor of individual rights, the sanctity of property, and freedom of speech. The Times on February 20th ran an article, "High Court nixes award against Philip Morris."

"The Supreme Court threw out a $79.5 million punitive damages award to a smoker's widow Tuesday, a victory for Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA, which contested an Oregon Supreme Court decision upholding the verdict.

"In a majority opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court said the verdict could not stand because the jury in the [Oregon] case was not instructed that it could punish Philip Morris only for the harm done to the plaintiff, not to other smokers whose cases were not before it."

Yes. That is the substance of Philip Morris's victory. A procedural error, a technical misstep or oversight by a lower court. When I read that, I recalled the scene in Schindler's List when the Nazi officer's pistol would not fire, sparing the intended victim immediate death and allowing him to creep away, safe for the moment.

Brayer wrote that states must "provide assurances that juries are not asking the wrong question...seeking not simply to determine reprehensibility, but also to punish for harm caused strangers."

Nowhere in this majority opinion does any moral issue play a role. It is as though fundamental Constitutional issues were irrelevant. The verdict may stall class action suits for a while, but that will only encourage lawyers and their looting plaintiffs to try harder to circumvent the Supreme Court's specious reasoning.

It occurs to no one - not to the tobacco companies, not to the regulators, not to the plaintiffs or their lawyers who build such "punitive" cases - that the "inverse censorship" of mandated label warnings on any product will not protect any business against ruinous lawsuits, and especially not against further regulations and controls. (Well, perhaps their predatory, multi-millionaire ambulance-chasing lawyers realize it.)

Further, the issue of the efficacy of mandated warning labels should also have occurred to the Supreme Court; if the warnings are ignored, of what use are they? Cigarette warning labels have been around for decades; they have neither deterred smokers nor stymied individual or class action suits against tobacco companies. Shouldn't the failure of the law to accomplish its purpose - that is, the failure of government force employed to "inform" the public - have deterred legislators? No. The failure has only convinced them that more comprehensive controls are necessary.

But that matter apparently did not pass through any of the justices' minds, either, nor did the question of whether or not the plaintiff's lawyers or doctors could even prove that her husband died of lung cancer caused by smoking Marlboros, regardless of whether or not her husband believed that Philip Morris assured him and countless other smokers that its cigarettes were safe. The causes of lung cancer are numerous and not necessarily associated with or caused by smoking; the disease did not abruptly appear with the first cargo of tobacco from Virginia in the 17th century. How else can one account for the fact that other two-pack-a-day smokers do not contract cancer and live far into old age, or die instead of prostrate cancer or liver failure? The Oregon Supreme Court should have thrown out that suit in the beginning on that basis, at least.

This same issue also applies to warning or nutritional content labels or calorie count labels on menus. And also to cars, coffeemakers, pencil sharpeners, and any other commercial product.

To return to the larger picture, if one ever wondered how the National Socialist Party ever came to power in Germany and was given leave to commit the horrors it did before and during World War Two, it should be remembered that it had the sanction and support of most German businesses and industries, who submitted to Nazi political power in a futile attempt to save themselves. In effect, they "voluntarily" nationalized themselves. Altria's craven endorsement of Congress's latest foray into censorship is no less contemptible.

For details of how and why such a thing is possible in America, see Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America.

Congress: A Modern "Diet of Worms"

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

Revisiting after a long absence Victor Hugo's verse play, Cromwell (1827), which was the opening shot against the tyranny of classicism in literature (the riot against the staging of his play, Hernani, occurred three years later), I encountered these lines:

"They're willing to be crushed and wronged,
But by a Lord Protector, not a king.
As a plebeian tyrant, he was safe."

And:

"That when a yoke bends Liberty's bold brow
A tyrant is less burdensome when small."

I have insisted for decades that when tyranny, or a dictatorship, arrived in America, it would not announce itself with anything so obvious as gangs of brown shirted thugs roaming the streets or mass deportations of dissenters, rebels, and recalcitrants to "reeducation camps." Instead, tyranny, if not identified and opposed, would insinuate itself into American life in subtle, sly accretions which would, among other things, allow Americans time to inure themselves to it - after they had been persuaded it was for their own good.

From the time I first became conscious of politics and its effects on my personal life and the life of the nation, I observed an increasing multitude of statist phenomena daily, weekly, and yearly close in on the nation in a creeping, poisonous fog of death. That fog now envelopes the nation and threatens to suffocate the last of our liberties, one of which is the right to speak out against the perpetuation of our servitude or indenture.

For example, what has not yet arrested the attention of most of our clueless and ambivalent news media is Section 220 of the lobbying reform bill now sitting in the Senate, which would require "grassroots" organizations, bloggers, and individuals who communicate with 500 or more subscribers over the Internet (whether or not they are paying subscribers) to register and report quarterly to Congress, with penalties imposed for failing to register.

The bill has not alarmed most members of the news media, many of them with their own websites, for with very few exceptions, they uncritically (dare I say, religiously?) report government decisions, policies, and findings as though these were commandments of Moses.

The question to ask about this bill is: Why? What is its purpose? What could be the point of conceiving such an intrusive law - unless it was a cowardly move in the direction of censorship, and the censoring of thoughts and words that are feared? Is Congress setting itself up as an American Lord Chamberlain, that is, as a censor? Will the participants of a registered blog or organization or chat room be left "free" to say whatever they wish, so long as they agree with the Congressional consensus of the moment or don't question that consensus in any important way?

And if the manqués charged with monitoring a registered blog, organization or chat room detect "threatening" or "treasonous" discussion and report it to Congress, will action be taken against those making the statements, such as a federal investigation, punitive tax treatment, or even imprisonment? Or will they merely be put on notice to "clean up their act" - or else?

Will blogs, organizations, chat rooms and discussion lists that refuse to register their existence with Congress - citing First Amendment protections, which include not only freedom of speech, but the right to peaceably assemble - be declared "outlaws," and consequently risk physical compulsion by a Congressional counterpart of the DEA, INS or ATF, a gang of goons responsible for policing "illegal" or "unregulated" speech?

Watching Congress now as it works itself up into a lather to "get Bush" over the Iraq war and for simply not agreeing with the Democrats' collectivist agenda - and I am no fan of George Bush - I was torn between two very appropriate nicknames for that less than august body: "Creature Feature," after the name of an old late night television program that ran monster movies; and "A Diet of Worms," after the congress of religious and political authorities called in 1521 in the town of Worms in Germany to decide the orthodoxy or heresy of Martin Luther. When Luther - also no favorite of mine - refused to recant his position, the Diet declared him a heretic and an "outlaw" and he was forced to go into hiding.

I have come down on the side of historical precedent: Congress is indeed a modern Diet of Worms - even though many in Congress are monsters, such as Dorian Grayish Senator Ted Kennedy - the "worms" being every member of Congress, Republican, Democrat, and middle-of-the-roader.

Why worms? While the U.S. is at present threatened within and without by Islamic conquest - by Iran with its growing nuclear threat, by a fifth column of sleeper cells and sleep-walking jihadists now in this country and who willy-nilly attack shopping malls and synagogues and even individuals - what is Congress proposing in answer to President Bush's disastrous "war on terror"?

Basically, to cut and run. In a year, or two years, it matters little. Instead of proposing that Bush eliminate Iran's capacity to strike at the U.S., instead of proposing that the FBI root out every Islamic enemy agent in this country, even if it meant closing down mosques and deporting the principals of organizations like CAIR or at least charging them with sedition - Congress is obsessed with obstructing Bush.

Such is the measure of its obsessional malice - or is it a psychosis? - that Congress is willing to jeopardize the security of this country to execute a repressed vendetta. Neither Harry Reid nor Nancy Pelosi nor John Murtha nor John McCain has asked Bush the question in Congress: "Why didn't you ask us for a declaration of war? Because, Mr. President, we are indeed at war." If Congress wants to find fault with Bush's policies, that is what it should be focused on, his unconscionable adventure in altruism to spread "democracy" to Islamic pestholes.

But Bush and Iraq do not monopolize Congress's obsession. The worms of our political oligarchy - and it is indeed an oligarchy of contemptible plebeians, supported and sustained by confiscatory taxes - also wish to "do good" by imposing more controls on the country and its citizens.

Its latest bugbear is "global warming." There has been enough rational, objective discussion of the hoax of the threat of global warming and its alleged attribution to man's "sin" of living on earth (e.g., "Global Hot Air," Thomas Sowell's excellent commentary) that I waive remarks on it here. But one paragraph in Nick Provenzo's commentary on Rule of Reason, "McCain and Lieberman: the Smoot & Hawley of our generation," tickled my memory:

"OK, let me get this straight: McCain and Lieberman want to pass a law to let the free market forestall the alleged threat of global warming....But that is not what their bill actually does. McCain and Lieberman's bill arbitrarily caps off American CO2 emissions at 2000 levels, forces companies to buy and sell the right to emit CO2 into the atmosphere, and treble fines those that exceed their emission caps. This isn't the 'free market'; it is the antithesis of the free market."

One could dwell here on the observation that the entire population of the U.S. probably exhales more CO2 per minute than the whole industrial capacity of the country does in one year. What tickled my memory was Ayn Rand's description of the creation of a new species Washington lobbyist as a consequence of Mr. Thompson's Directive 10-289 (which "froze" the country's economic life) in Atlas Shrugged: the "defreezers," who, for a fee, bought and sold permissions and exemptions for their "clients."

Of course, an altruist/collectivist measure such as Directive 10-289 or the McCain/Lieberman bill will always contain a loophole or two, the better to perpetuate the guilt of the victims and the corruption of the controllers: the only industries that will be able to take advantage of those CO2 emission permits will be those with political pull. Need I say more? Rand had these worms nailed over half a century ago.

One more obsession: Smoking and tobacco. On February 16th, the Wilmington Star (North Carolina) reported, under the headline "Congressional bill would let FDA regulate tobacco."

"A bipartisan group of lawmakers reintroduced legislation Thursday that would give the FDA the same authority over cigarettes and other tobacco products that it already has over countless other consumer products."

The bill, called the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, according to the article, was introduced by Senators Dorian Gray - excuse me, Ted Kennedy - John Cornyn of Texas, Henry Waxman of California, and Tom Davis of Virginia. Kennedy said, "Congress cannot in good conscience allow the federal agency most responsible for protecting the public health to remain powerless to deal with the enormous risk of tobacco, the most deadly of all consumer products."

The "most deadly of all consumer products"? Last week it was sugar. And before that, trans fats. And before that, cholesterol. And before that, polluting SUV's. And before that...? The list of the consumer products deemed "most dangerous" extends back decades and is complemented by thousands of pages of federal legislation. The products are indeed virtually "countless," and account for all the mandated warning, nutritional, and ingredient labels one sees on them.

Was this a slip of Kennedy's obscene tongue? No. If one wishes to understand why collectivist "lord protectors" such as Kennedy, Waxman, the Clintons, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid et al. never cease concocting ways to govern the lives of Americans and proposing that Americans foot the bill for diminishing their liberties, one must note that Kennedy expressed the quintessential premise of all such worms, that reality is dangerous - especially man-made reality - and only they know how to protect everyone from everything: by government force.

Our Congressional "worms," like any other parasite, will attach themselves to any human value and feed on it to sustain their existence until that value perishes, then find another "host." They have been sucking the life out of American freedom for a century and a half in the name of the "public health" or the "greater good" or other collectivist mantras. Altruism/collectivism is the only morality they wish to know, and force the only power they wish to exercise.

The Islamists are not the only power-lusting creatures who wish to subjugate Americans. While the principals of CAIR and the Muslim-American Council hope to someday to replace the Constitution with the Koran as the law of the land, I do not believe there is a single member of Congress who would object to replacing our adulterated and abridged Constitution with a socialist or communist manifesto. These small, safe, plebeian worms are in a state of denial about the war being waged against the U.S. and the West.

They are not interested in vanquishing this country's enemies; they wish to vanquish America. They are beyond moral redemption and so far removed from the founding principles of this country -- and from the moral and intellectual stature of its Founders - that they are fit only for satire.

From their perspective, we are the worms, they own us, and we can be "crushed and wronged" without limit, consequence, or fear of retribution. It was a presumption that men rejected over two hundred and fifty years ago when they decided they had had enough of their small and burdensome tyrants, and threw off the yokes and shackles from their minds, necks and ankles. Will Americans ever again find the pride and moral mettle to emulate their forefathers?

I ask it now before I can be punished for posing the question, and this site closed down for having dared broadcast it.

The "right virus" is already here.

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

In his "The Toxicity of Environmentalism", George Reisman memorably quotes an environmentalist research biologist as saying the following:

It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

Every time I encounter a catalogue of the damage done to man by environmentalism, I recall this quote. Consider the following from Suzanne Fields at RealClear Politics, who wants to laugh at all the fuss made over global warming, but cannot. "All this could be great fun if it weren't so dangerous," she says as she reels off some of the fatal consequences of past enviro-fads.

• After Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, DDT was banned nearly everywhere. Most of her "evidence" later turned out to be all wrong, but 2 million poor Africans die every year of malaria that DDT was on the way to eradicating.
• The original plans for the World Trade Center called for the interior steel in both towers to be covered with asbestos-based fireproofing material. Asbestos was eliminated when environmentalists objected. Engineers think the twin towers might be standing today but for the politically correct construction. Asbestos would have at least slowed the spread of the fire and the melting of the metal, giving hundreds of those who perished a chance to escape.
• Hurricane Katrina need not have been the tragedy it was. In 1977, the Army Corps of Engineers wanted to build large steel and concrete "sea gates" below sea level to prevent hurricane force winds driving storm surges into Lake Pontchartrain, overflowing into low-lying New Orleans. Such gates have been enormously successful in the Netherlands. But the Environmental Defense Fund, which had been a party to the lawsuit leading to the banning of DDT, persuaded a judge that the sea gates would discourage the mating of a certain fish species. Fishy romance trumped the lives of 3,100 Orleanians. "If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not be flooded," says Joe Towers, who was counsel for the New Orleans District of the Corps. [bold added]
  

The "right virus" is already among us. It is called "environmentalism".

Recognizing the problem is the first step in curing it.

-- CAV

IRANIAN ANIMATED NUKE MOVIE

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

In the news: Iran defiant on nuclear programme - BBC.

"Iran has obtained the technology to produce nuclear fuel and Iran's move is like a train... which has no brake and no reverse gear," President Ahmadinejad, quoted by ISNA news agency, told a gathering of clerics on Sunday. (BBC News, 02/25/07.)

You have to watch this animated movie (International Efforts Fail and Nuclear Plants Are Built in Several Iranian Cities by 2022 in a Tehran TV Animated Film) at MEMRI. You could follow figures with hard hats building nuclear plants in Iran. A strange character, shaped as a peanut president, is yelling and shouting to his allies. [Via Little Green Footballs.]

Have you read Kenneth R. Timmerman's book, Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran?




Related: My post, NUKE DEAL WITH IRAN.

Throw Down

Clemson Summer Conference

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This summer conference at Clemson promises to be an excellent opportunity for undergraduates to learn about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the moral foundations of capitalism from some of its most knowledgeable and engaging experts. (And, it's free!) So please forward this message to any undergraduates you think might be interested in applying.

2007 Summer Conference: Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the Moral Foundations of Capitalism

• What is the moral basis for the free market?
  
• How do individual rights function in a capitalist society?
  
• What does the history of capitalism teach us about its moral basis?
  
• How is Ayn Rand's view of capitalism unique?

The Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism is pleased to announce its first summer conference for college students. We invite you to join us for an exciting program of lectures, seminars, and discussions from June 1-5, 2007.

Students will participate in an intensive and exciting program exploring the moral foundations of capitalism and Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Students will attend lectures, participate in small-group seminar-style discussions, and question and answer sessions. Outside of class, students can relax and socialize on Clemson's campus. Evening activities will include an Atlas Shrugged casting party, a barbecue dinner, and a career advice discussion.

The Clemson Institute will be accepting twenty undergraduate students to participate in the summer program on full scholarships. All housing and meals will be provided on the campus of Clemson University. Attending students are eligible for up to $450 for travel. Reading materials will be provided.

Direct any questions about the conference or our programs to edan@clemson.edu. To apply to the Clemson Institute's Summer Conference, simply download and fill out the application form and return it by March 5, 2007 to edan@clemson.edu or via postal mail to:

Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism
Summer Conference
165 Sirrine Hall - Box 341310
Clemson, SC 29634-1310

The Clemson Institute has assembled a faculty of leading scholars and teachers who study the moral foundations of capitalism, specializing in fields ranging from history and literature to philosophy, political science, and economics. Our faculty join students for meals and interact with them outside of class for informal discussions and questions. The faculty will be:

• Andrew Bernstein, Ph.D., Visiting Professor, Marist College
  
• Yaron Brook, Ph.D., Executive Director, The Ayn Rand Institute
  
• Eric Daniels, Ph.D., Visiting Scholar, Clemson University
  
• Onkar Ghate, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, The Ayn Rand Institute
  
• C. Bradley Thompson, Ph.D., Executive Director, Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism, Clemson University

When I first heard about this conference, my immediate thought was "Wow, I wish I could sit in on that, as I'd really love to see those guys teach Atlas." Then, much to my surprise and delight, I was asked to serve as the graduate assistant for the conference. (Of course, I accepted eagerly!) Given the faculty, I expect the conference to be an excellent opportunity for students to expand and deepen their understanding of the moral foundations of capitalism.

Spartacus

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I am presently watching Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus. It is painfully, unbearable slow. I've lost track of the number of scenes in which ten seconds is spent watching people walk into a room from a still camera. And oh, the montages! The slave army hard at work. The slave army in inclement weather. The slave army training for battle. The slave army marching through the mountains. The slave army marching through a field. The slave army enjoying wholesome fun.

Apparently, living the brutal and degraded existence of a gladiator-in-training is good for the soul. Although they go a bit wild in their initial revolt, after about two minutes of exhortation by Spartacus, all the gladiators become paragons of respectable virtue. The same is true of the other freed slaves. As a result, camp life is perfectly harmonious and productive.

Apart from a few good but anachronistic lines about slavery and freedom, the characters are utterly dull. Kirk Douglas, the supposed hero, is particularly awful. His acting is wooden, he's far too old for the role, and his face is painfully ugly.

I think I have about another hour to watch. Ah well, at least my suffering will be over soon. At this point, I might just have to cheer for the scheming, decadent Romans. At least they're interesting.

LePort Schools in Search of Teachers

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

While I have no personal familiarity with LePort Schools, I've heard good things. They are looking for teachers:

LePort Schools is seeking full- and part-time teachers for a variety of subjects in our upper elementary and junior high division (Grades 4 – 8) to join our staff in September, 2007.

A thriving private school with 200 students, LePort Schools operates three campuses in beautiful Southern California. Our website is www.LePortSchools.com.

LePort Schools is a warm learning environment that attracts bright, well-mannered students and informed parents. The right candidate can anticipate training and on-going mentoring; a well-prepared, stimulating curriculum; and small class sizes. LePort Schools offers health and dental coverage, generous vacation time, and competitive salaries.

Ideal candidates will possess:

• An interest in mastering a rigorous academic curriculum
  
• A desire to convey knowledge to young minds
  
• Strong communication and interpersonal skills
  
• An enthusiastic and productive work ethic

Teaching certification is not required, but preference will be given to candidates who have experience working with children.

Familiarity with Objectivism is also preferred, but not required.

While all applicants are thanked for their interest, only those chosen for interviews will be contacted. No phone calls, please. Resumes and cover letters should be emailed to:

Lindsay Journo
Executive Director, LePort Schools' Upper Elementary and Junior High
E-mail: LJourno@LePortSchools.com

Critique of Objectivism

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Someone recently e-mailed me to ask me about this critique of the Objectivist ethics by University of Michigan philosophy graduate student John Stephen Ku. I've not looked at it in any detail, but I vaguely recall that someone wrote up some substantial comments in reply. Am I right? If so, are they still available? If so, where?

Casey on the Texas Lottery

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

In this Sunday's Houston Chronicle, I read a column by Rick Casey titled, "The Moral Reason Not to Sell the Lottery", in which its author attacks a plan for Texas to sell off its state lottery because private industry would run it -- get this -- too effectively! After complaining that the state would not sufficiently regulate the buyer, he ends his column in this way:

So should we sell the lottery?

The only argument that makes sense is to do so because the private sector will run it more competently.

And that is the best argument against it.

Before you accuse me of quoting Casey out of context to make him look foolish (since he must have a good reason to fear a "more competently"-run lottery), let me assure you I would actually be helping Casey look better than he deserves by leaving it at that.

Why? Because his rationale for objecting to a privately-run lottery, aside from its blatant (and incorrect) assumption that capitalism is predatory by nature, is based on the fact that a lottery is what many often call an "idiot tax".

The lottery ... preys on the ignorant.

The Texas lottery's own most recent survey proves the point.

The median amount spent by those with a high school diploma was $39 a month. Those with some college: $26. Those with a college degree: $20.

Those with a graduate degree: $12 a month.

The reason they reported median amounts (the figure reported spent by the middle person in each category) is that averages would be even uglier.

A previous report showed high school dropouts spending an average of $173 a month and those with a college degree $49.

The difference is, highly educated people know they don't have much of a chance of winning. They're buying a token number of tickets for the pleasure of an enriched fantasy life until the 10:12 p.m. drawing.

Low-income people with no math skills see the lottery as their only way out of poverty, and bet more than they can afford in desperation.

They want something for next to nothing, but then so do we higher-income taxpayers who abide a system that bilks the desperate poor because we don't want to pay full freight for the services we expect from the state. [bold added]

Notice that the smug, presumably "highly educated","higher-income taxpayer" Casey objects to improving the efficiency of a funding mechanism for the state's education system because it preys on "the ignorant" -- the vast majority of whom are doubtless in their current predicaments at least in part because they received poor educations -- courtesy of deficient educational "services ... from the state".

Notice also that Casey never once questions the presumed infallibility of the state -- except when it allows private individuals to take control of anything away from it. The state should regulate industry, protect "the ignorant" from making foolish choices, and force people to pay for its tender mercies rather than leaving whether to pay and how much up to the individual.

And speaking of tender mercies, Lisa VanDamme has an earful on what our government is forcing us to pay for -- something Casey fully supports -- under the misleading label of "education":

Perhaps the best thing that could happen to America would be the abolition of the Department of Education and government schools. Free market competition in education would allow Classical Education to compete better against Progressive Education and within years the empirical evidence would compel any responsible parent to avoid Progressive Education as if it were a disease.

But just as we pay $20 billion a year for a Department of Agriculture that stifles competition and erects regulations that give us food of less quality for more money, we pay the Department of Education $65.7 billion a year to dumb down America. $65.7 billion a year to cripple minds! [bold added]

$65.7 billion a year -- at the federal level alone -- is a lot of money to waste on a system that has proven to be disastrous in terms that even Rick Casey should be able to understand!

And yet, despite all this, Casey complains not about how poor our educational system is, despite the fact it is far more expensive than many better systems around the world, nor does he even bother to ask why we are planning to shovel even more money into its insatiable maw. No. Casey could complain about these things, but instead, he focuses on the fact that some of our school's worst victims might be free to make a choice -- a choice that system has made them ill-equipped to make! Except that Casey never says anything about why so many people are so "ignorant"!

Rather than complaining that greater personal freedom might make "the ignorant" more able to choose foolishly, Casey would do far more good using his regular column to point out what less freedom -- in the form of mandatory public education funded with stolen money -- forces everyone to endure.

It is tempting to call Casey's "defense" of the less-educated ironic since he himself seems so ignorant about the role of big government in ruining generations of young minds, but for the fact that he is clearly someone who should know better and probably does. And yet there is not one peep from him about abolishing the public schools -- and with them, the need for high taxes or a huge state lottery.

This column struck me first as ironic, but a more accurate label would be despicable. An enemy of freedom is no friend of the poor, or of anyone else for that matter.

-- CAV

The Progress of Medicine

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This brief essay from the New York Times on a young girl who had open heart surgery in its infancy in the mid 1960s shows just how much medicine has progressed in the last 50 years. It's quite remarkable, actually.

Hitchens: Not Even Half-Right

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

Christopher Hitchens, who has had lots of important things to say about the war with the Islamofascists, recently wrote a rather puzzling column about Islamic sectarian brutality that brings up a very important aspect of the fight the Islamofascists are waging against civilization. To understand it, we must begin at the end, where he speaks against the multiculturalist/Islamofascist dogma that we "respect" the Moslems without reciprocity.

[N]o true secularist or even Christian has been involved in anything like the torching of a mosque. ... But where are the denunciations from centers of Sunni and Shiite authority of the daily murder and torture of Islamic co-religionists? Of the regular desecration of holy sites and holy books? Of the paranoid insults thrown so carelessly and callously by one Muslim group at another? This mounting ghastliness is a bit more worthy of condemnation, surely, than a few Danish cartoons or a false rumor about a profaned copy of the Quran in Guantanamo. The civilized world -- yes I do mean to say that -- should find its own voice and state firmly to Muslim leaders and citizens that respect is something to be earned and not demanded with menace. A short way of phrasing this would be to say, "See how the Muslims respect each other!" [bold added]

This last is true, but why? It certainly does not follow (or flow very smoothly) from the earlier part of his column, where he condemns indifference to the fact that some barbarians are exterminating others:

I have met a few very hard-line right-wingers who say: So what? If one lot of Islamists wants to slaughter another, who cares? It's very important to repudiate this kind of "thinking." Religious warfare is the worst thing that can happen to any society, and it now has the potential to spread to societies that are not directly involved. For the most part, official U.S. policy in Iraq has been sound in this respect, always working for a compromise and recently losing American lives to rescue the moderate Shiite leadership from a murder plot hatched by a messianic Shiite militia. Even where this policy fell short -- as in the appalling execution of Saddam Hussein -- the American Embassy urged the Maliki government not to conduct the hanging on the day of the Eid ul-Adha holiday that would most humiliate the Sunnis. We cannot flirt, either morally or politically, with divide and rule. [bold added]

Don't accuse me of being a "right-winger", but .... If family or friends of mine were about to be attacked by a pack of wolves and I saw the beasts starting to tear each other apart, I would be relieved to the extent that the wolves made themselves less able to harm my loved ones. So why is Hitchens so concerned that we repudiate applying the same kind of calculus to barbarians?

His answer, interestingly enough, is only somewhat apparent in the above passage, where he makes the common-enough error of supporting the American policy of nation-building in Iraq despite our disastrous failure to ban religion from its government. It is clearer in the first passage, in this parenthetical comment, which I removed from the excerpt:

The last time that such [religiously-motivated violence] did happen on any scale -- in Bosnia -- the United States and Britain intervened militarily to put a stop to it. We also overthrew the Taliban, which was slaughtering the Hazara Shiite minority in Afghanistan.

I have heard the invasion of Afghanistan justified in many ways, ranging from the valid (i.e., American self-defense) to the invalid (i.e., self-sacrificially providing freedom for others), but this is the first time I have heard it praised so explicitly in terms of American soldiers being used to protect Moslems from their own squabbling!

Hitchens ends sounding almost like he is defending individual rights, and yet he is clearly an altruist. The column, claiming moral justification in terms of self-sacrifice, ends, oddly, in a strange mixture of attempting to shame Moslems via altruism and demanding that they respect our rights. What is going on here?

I have frequently-enough argued here against the morality of altruism that my views on that matter are clear, and I will also not argue here again that one cannot defend individual rights on altruistic grounds. Instead, I will simply comment that Hitchens himself, like Western civilization as a whole, is influenced by two competing and antithetical intellectual traditions, the mystical, altruist-collectivist, Judeo-Christian tradition and the this-worldly Greco-Roman.

As an altruist, he feels that we must help the less fortunate, even if they are causing their own misfortune as the Moslems are. As a man of this world, he is rightly indignant that the Moslems do not respect individual rights, specifically ours. And as a man of mixed premises, I think that the fact that the concept of "rights" pertains to man's relationship with other men confuses Hitchens. (Ayn Rand once put it this way, "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context," in "Man's Rights", Virtue of Selfishness, p.124) This disjointed column strikes me as the product of a man intellectually hobbled by (or perhaps grappling with) the inherent contradiction between altruism and individual rights.

Hitchens' inability to reconcile the desire to be treated like a human being with the moral premise of altruism (expressed most purely by the bald demand by the Moslems that we simply immolate ourselves) is not entirely philosophical. It is also, I am sure, rooted at least in some part in good will: He sees fellow human beings suffering and is moved to put a stop to it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the suffering he describes in the Moslem world is largely a direct result of the beliefs -- and the actions that flow from those beliefs -- of these very human beings. And if, as he says, "[I]t now has the potential to spread to societies that are not directly involved," might that be due, not to our failure to put an end to the suffering, but to the fact that we are propping up a medieval society, shielding its residents and supporters from seeing the full consequences of following Islam?

It seems that I have been citing John Lewis in every other post lately, but when somebody is right about so many things....

Specifically, I am thinking of the how the lesson we taught the Japanese during World War II would apply today:

The bombings marked America's total victory over a militaristic culture that had murdered millions. To return an entire nation to morality, the Japanese had to be shown the literal meaning of the war they had waged against others. The abstraction "war," the propaganda of their leaders, their twisted samurai "honor," their desire to die for the emperor--all of it had to be given concrete form. This is what firebombing Japanese cities accomplished. It showed the Japanese that "this"--point to burning buildings, screaming children scarred unmercifully, piles of corpses, the promise of starvation--"this is what you have done to others. Now it has come for you. Give it up, or die." This was the only way to show them the true nature of their philosophy, and to beat the truth of the defeat into them. [bold added]

Lewis is, of course, speaking of the successful American military campaign against a more civilized and formidable foe. But in speaking against what he calls "this kind of 'thinking'", Hitchens is shrinking from this war's analogue.

The Islamic world is weak (so far), and yet there is no shortage of "holy" warriors or their supporters. Left without American aid, the likes of the "Palestinians" would reform -- or self-destruct in very short order. Without money from nationalized (i.e., stolen) petroleum assets, there would be no massive funding of madrassas by Saudi Arabia or nuclear bomb development by Iran. Indeed, without petrodollars, these nations would have had to advance by a significant degree culturally simply to become or remain as populous as they are today.

Indeed, as many on the left claim, much of this violence is the fault of the West -- but not in the way they claim. The Islamofascists are not justifyably reacting to American "imperialism", but are simply following the malevolent dictates of their poisonous faith while living parasitically on the material bounty of Western civilization. Perversely, it is people like Hitchens, who want us to protect the Moslems from themselves, who are acting to prolong the senseless religious bloodshed, by delaying or preventing a Western victory. In the latter case, this would be merely to forestall the human cataclysm that would be life "lived" fully in accordance with Islam. In putting off the inevitable, we only ensure that more people will live as slaves, suffer, or die because of Islam.

In fact, we should, for our own sakes, not only engage in what Hitchens dismisses as "this kind of 'thinking'" (i.e., permit the barbarians to do some our work for us), and wage war ruthlessly against state sponsors of terrorism, we should also remove every single form of material assistance that is propping up the Islamic world in order to hasten the consequences of its animating ideology for any who insist on practicing it.

-- CAV

Updates

2-21-07: Reworded penultimate paragraph. Corrected two typos.

Boaz Simovici on Robert Tracinski

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A few weeks ago, I told Boaz Simovici that I'd be interested in publishing an essay from him on Robert Tracinski's recent "What Went Right" series, if he were interested in writing something formal. (I was impressed by the perceptiveness of his comments in the sordid debates on SoloPassion.) He was able to write the following two-part essay before other matters demanded his attention. (I mention that only because the essay ends without a proper conclusion.)

I did carefully re-read Tracinski's essay in preparation for posting this response. I noticed many of the same problems that Boaz explains below, problems that I didn't see so clearly initially. So that makes me particularly grateful for Boaz's contribution. So without further ado...

In what follows, I'm presuming that the reader is well acquainted with Robert Tracinski's (still unfinished) essay, "What Went Right," enough to judge whether I interpret him fairly.

Rational Egoism by Osmosis?

By his own account, Robert Tracinski's working theory of history is consistent with the Objectivist view of the role of philosophical ideas in social change. But the core of his argument tells a different story -- and his story of the role of philosophy in the destiny of a culture is unconvincing.

Tracinski argues that western institutions are the mechanism of philosophical change in today's world. The experience of scientific education, capitalism and liberal democracy leads to a wider acceptance of enlightenment ideals: reason, individualism, the pursuit of happiness. Men are "inducted" into a rational worldview -- they form new and better ethical concepts implicitly -- by experiencing the rewards of certain virtues (honesty, thrift, initiative). This mechanism constitutes nothing less than a "virtuous cycle," at the end of which a philosophy of reason takes over the culture. Western institutions --> implicit philosophy --> Moral revolution:

...But observation of today's world indicates that these institutions [scientific and technological education, global capitalism, representative government] are self-reinforcing and self-propagating. And I think the evidence suggests something more: that these institutions are not just a product of the influence of Enlightenment ideas across the world; they are the leading edge and specific mechanism of that influence...

...Both an individual and a culture have to learn a rational method and world view, not just from instruction in explicit philosophical tenets, but first from learning the specific methods and world view of the sciences and seeing the validity and power of that method in all of the myriad concretes it can explain to them and in all of the concrete problems it allows them to solve. If people who have been trained in a scientific education then encounter the basic tenets of a pro-reason philosophy, they will regard them as practically self-evident [italics mine]... because the broad philosophic truths are implicit in so many of the truths that the individual has grasped in his studies of mathematics, geometry, physics, engineering, medicine, and so on...

...Wherever it goes, and to the extent that it is adopted, global capitalism is not merely a practical or material force; it is a moral force. Capitalism does not have a moral impact by preaching any particular virtues; it is mute. It simply re-arranges the incentives that men face, lowering the resistance and massively increasing the reward for certain kinds of behavior... If the main effect of scientific and technological education is to induct men into a rational method of thinking, the main effect of global capitalism is to induct them into rational egoism [italics mine]. And in both cases, I mean the word "induct" in an epistemological sense: capitalism encourages individualism inductively, by giving men the experience of being independent agents seeking self-interest through rational, productive effort. ["The Metaphysics of Normal Life"]

Much of this argument has the ring of truth. It's true, for instance, that existential and political conditions play an important role in the spread of ideas. This is hardly an original point -- within or outside of Objectivism. Leonard Peikoff made a similar argument about how values can spread indirectly, once explicit philosophy has set the stage for a given political system:

...Philosophy works in two ways to produce such a psychology [of dependence or independence]: indirectly, by shaping a nation's institutions, and directly, through the explicit statements of its intellectuals...Philosophy shapes a nation's political system. Then the political system encourages and appeals to a certain kind of psychology. For instance, under a statist system...the average man has less and less control over his life. He becomes increasingly dependent on the government and/or on a pressure-group simply to get by. At the same time, since statism doesn't work, he is confronted by one crisis after another -- inflation, depression, riots, war, etc. The average man soon comes to feel that he is out of control, that he cannot trust his judgment, that he cannot make sense of events, that he is helpless on his own...these consequences arise quite apart from any abstract message he is given explicitly...A rational philosophy works the same way, but in a positive direction. Such a philosophy leads to the establishment of a free country...the system demands and rewards independence. Men's daily existence is not dotted with inexplicable crises; the general standard of living and of well-being is constantly rising... ["Philosophy and Psychology," The Objectivist Forum (October 1985)]

What is also true -- and, again, this is old and undisputed ground -- is that fundamental philosophical ideas penetrate the culture indirectly, inadvertently, by shaping how people are taught to think and giving rise to a characteristic pattern of life. So it's true that Aristotle's influence in India (and Lebanon and Iran and Iraq) comes in the form of scientific education and the benefits of an industrial economy, however tenuous (and quite possibly short-lived) such benefits have been.

This does indeed constitute the spread of good implicit philosophy, and that's precisely the problem. Good ideas, so long as they remain unidentified and unintegrated -- so long as they remain deathly silent -- can only go so far.

For if Tracinski were right, and the right existential conditions (politics) and the right combination of pajama epistemologists (people doing good work in specialized fields) could enact rational egoism on the scale of a whole culture (!!) -- if a thriving civilization could result from these factors alone -- then we should have expected our leaders to incinerate our enemies in the Muslim world long ago. For "What Went Right" to be right, we should expect Pakistanis in London and Moroccans in Amsterdam to wage war against Jihad -- not cheer it on, or (at best) acquiesce in their own slaughter.

If Tracinski were right that an implicit rational method, embodied in scientific education, could render self-evident a rational, this-worldly philosophy, then our legions of engineers, doctors and scientists would long ago have thrown off the shackles of religion. Sure, most of them don't pray or believe in miracles, but they won't challenge those who do. They admit of the "possibility" that Jesus rose from the grave; that "meaning" transcends truth; that virtue is about giving things up; that killing our enemies is evil.

What in the American experience, in the "induction" into freedom and (semi-)capitalism of our own citizens, is prompting our current healthcare policies? Has any of the inculcation of good values wrought by previous policy -- say, the 80's boom -- taught America anything important about what happens to any industry under "managed care"? Not in the least. Sure, people balk (and politicians bristle) at the phrase "socialized medicine," but the urge and political will to subsidize and regulate the field remains, accelerating with each attendant crisis. The economic arguments have been there for two hundred years; the "inductive" base of a capitalist civilization, decades of immersion in the glories unleashed by the unfettered mind...all for what? Mirabile Dictu! Socialized Medicine!

Theory and Practice

The salient, tragic truth about our culture is that we are heirs to warring traditions, theories about the meaning and purpose of life -- about where our loyalties should lie and our moral boundaries begin and end -- and these theories collide everyday. The result is an unstable mix, a civilization in profound tension with itself. So it is exasperating to watch Tracinski wax eloquently about the myriad strides forward in many fields, as if no Objectivist before him had recognized such developments, as if any Objectivist of note has even intimated that the work of philosophers is the fount of all knowledge or that Objectivism was an indispensable blueprint for innovation in the sciences.

Is there any doubt that the veritable phalanx of new technologies (and massive profits) we've seen in the last decades represents progress? Don't Microsoft, Intel, Cisco and the Biotech industry move our civilization forward? Of course they do. Great minds and great new ideas can have an impact in almost any culture. The question is how -- and how deeply -- such strides would indicate meaningful cultural change, a change in philosophical outlook that can alter the course of a nation. And on this point I agree entirely with Noumenal Self's analysis: "Insofar as special sciences make concrete discoveries that can improve human life, civilization will move forward in concrete ways." (italics mine)

For it is precisely in the realm of all these discoveries and economic achievement that we see the nature of the clash between good implicit ideas and destructive explicit philosophy. Great businessmen can achieve much despite their casual adherence to bad moral precepts -- they operate on a good implicit philosophy -- and their accomplishments inspire thousands of new entrepreneurs in pursuit of their own happiness. But if these same men bow to affirmative action shakedown-artists on Monday and Tuesday, intone (on television and in their mission statements) on their fundamental duty to consumers on Friday and Saturday, endow environmental causes with millions on Wednesday, and applaud the president when he spits in their faces in public, they do nothing to halt the steady and stealthy pace of socialism. The implicit philosophy serving them well in one field -- where it doesn't overtly conflict with the bible -- is impotent when it comes to changing the deeper fundamentals of their culture.

What applies for a philosophically mixed individual applies equally for a good country beset with philosophical poison.

The story of Israel's war with Hezbollah in July of 2006 will reign forever in history as a spectacle of self-inflicted torture and humiliation. On one side, a largely pro-reason culture wielding superior technology, with all the resources of years of army intelligence in Lebanon and training in guerilla warfare in the stench of Gaza; on the other, men so cowardly they would stoop to firing on fleeing civilians in order to seal them inside their villages, the better to ratchet up the death-count on CNN.

Israel knew where their enemies were; they knew they could bomb villages in the south and thus draw Hezbollah's foot soldiers out into the open, where they would stand no chance. They knew that bombing Hezbollah strongholds in Beirut wouldn't be enough, that only a significant invasion in the south (after using airpower to destroy village bunkers and soften up Hezbollah's supply lines) would ever eradicate their enemy. They did none of these things. They chose a political half-war, knowing full well that it would mean another flare-up in a year or two...

They've chosen a permanent war of attrition.

Israel isn't a methodically altruist country, not by a stretch -- not if the standard is implicit philosophy. Its better premises have preserved it largely intact, its economy has bloomed in recent years, its secular culture lends joy and excitement to many of its people. (At least for the moment.) But when push comes to shove, the same pattern emerges in each of its conflicts: fight only to survive and save face -- never to win. In doing so, the Israeli leadership genuinely believes it is being "realistic" -- which would be true, if realism meant that you could never indulge in mere "theory," that you have to play the game by the world's standards. But Israel has its own standards, too: their morality tells them they need to be humane, that they uphold the right cause by sacrificing their children to avoid civilian casualties. They say it openly -- and proudly.

Now, I ask you: is it plausible that what Israel needs philosophically is more science, markets and democracy?

NoodleFood Question on Sacrifice

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A "Question for NoodleFood" from Ergo:

I understand that Objectivism believes that sacrifices imply giving up a higher value for a lesser value, and that they are neither necessary nor moral under a rational moral code.

But what is the moral course of action in a case where one is faced with having to choose between two (or more) equally valued and necessary options. For instance, having to choose between two equally close friends.

In essence, I am questioning the premise that all values are hierarchical and that one can choose one over another based on how important or necessary the value is to their own lives. Could there not be a case wherein I value two things equally and thus having to choose between them necessarily demands a sacrifice from me (assuming there is no force acting upon me and that the situation arises from my own actions)?

A few comments:

First, I should mention that Leonard Peikoff talks about the problems associated with having to choose between friends in his short lecture course Judging, Feeling and Not Being Moralistic. Although he's mostly concerned with cases in which two of one's friends are irreconcilably conflicted, it might still be a good resource.

Here are my own thoughts on the matter, which may or may not be consistent with the Objectivist ethics:

Strictly speaking, I'm doubtful that two substantially different goods (like people) can be genuinely equal in value to a person. It can be difficult to discern which is more valuable than another in the context of one's whole life. Yet I cannot imagine them to be equal, in substantial part because you won't value their different good qualities equally. (Plus, those qualities are ranked ordinally rather than cardinally, so it's impossible to conclude that both friends are worth 4.6 utils, for example.)

When the choice is non-exclusive, minor differences between values are of little importance: it's perfectly reasonable to alternate between ordering your two favorite dishes at your favorite restaurant. However, sometimes the choice is exclusive simply due to the constraints of time: you can only work one job, pursue so many hobbies, enjoy one perfect friendship, etc. In those cases, you need to try to discern the greater value to you in the long run using your full context of knowledge -- and pursue that. (In keeping with Aristotle, I'd say that such weighing requires experience, skill, and judgment -- meaning that it gets easier with practice.) In that case, the lesser value is obviously not sacrificed, even though it's possible to regret your inability to pursue it.

Even if two exclusive values seem equivalent to you, I don't think the choice of one over the other ought to be described as a sacrifice of any kind. Sacrifice is the deliberate renunciation of a greater value to a lesser value, but that's not what's happening in such hard choices.

Thoughts?

Digg: Polio Rises as Muslim Clerics Declare War on Vaccines

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

The parents of 24,000 children refused to allow health workers to administer polio vaccine. Aid workers are being targeted due to the “vaccines are evil American plot” idea. Fatwa on employees of the UN, WHO and all other foreign organizations: “Killing their employees is in line with the teachings of jihad in Islam,” said a notice.

read more | digg story

Flattery vs. Self-Esteem

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

Via Arts and Letters Daily is an article by Po Bronson that makes quite a few excellent points about how confusion about the nature of self-esteem is leading many parents and educators to work against the cognitive and psychological development of children despite their best intentions. How? By giving them empty praise for their "intelligence" rather than earned praise for hard work.

It is worth noting that the way most people use the terms "intelligent" and "smart" implies innate ability, which is not under one's control, while the amount of effort one puts in to a problem is well within his control. In addition, effort can improve one's intellect through use and one's (genuine) self-esteem by providing repeated experiences of conquering difficult problems.

Dweck sent four female research assistants into New York fifth-grade classrooms. The researchers would take a single child out of the classroom for a nonverbal IQ test consisting of a series of puzzles -- puzzles easy enough that all the children would do fairly well. Once the child finished the test, the researchers told each student his score, then gave him a single line of praise. Randomly divided into groups, some were praised for their intelligence. They were told, "You must be smart at this." Other students were praised for their effort: "You must have worked really hard."

Why just a single line of praise? "We wanted to see how sensitive children were," Dweck explained. "We had a hunch that one line might be enough to see an effect."

Then the students were given a choice of test for the second round. One choice was a test that would be more difficult than the first, but the researchers told the kids that they'd learn a lot from attempting the puzzles. The other choice, Dweck's team explained, was an easy test, just like the first. Of those praised for their effort, 90 percent chose the harder set of puzzles. Of those praised for their intelligence, a majority chose the easy test. The "smart" kids took the cop-out.

Why did this happen? "When we praise children for their intelligence," Dweck wrote in her study summary, "we tell them that this is the name of the game: Look smart, don't risk making mistakes." And that's what the fifth-graders had done: They'd chosen to look smart and avoid the risk of being embarrassed.

...

Scholars from Reed College and Stanford reviewed over 150 praise studies. Their meta-analysis determined that praised students become risk-averse and lack perceived autonomy. The scholars found consistent correlations between a liberal use of praise and students' "shorter task persistence, more eye-checking with the teacher, and inflected speech such that answers have the intonation of questions." [bold added]

The article is invaluable for making arguments along these lines, but it does suffer from the widespread confusion about the term "self-esteem". For example, Bronson specifically (and rightly) blames the pervasive notion that a child's self-esteem can be bolstered by false praise for these problems, but sounds at points like he is in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water: "Highly aggressive, violent people happen to think very highly of themselves [Do they really? --ed], debunking the theory that people are aggressive to make up for low self-esteem."

Nevertheless, the article does more than once make the connection between effort and the kind of increased self-confidence indicative of high (genuine) self-esteem: "Jumping in with praise is like jumping in too soon with the answer to a homework problem -- it robs [one's child] of the chance to make the [conclusion that he is smart] himself."

At this point, two other related articles are worth bringing up.

First is Edwin Locke's article in The Objective Standard on "The Educational, Psychological, and Philosophical Assault on Self-Esteem", which further discusses further how the educational establishment has been undercutting genuine self-esteem by pushing the false, second-hand variety described by Bronson. Especially valuable in this context is this paragraph, which cuts through the fog and makes Bronson's article, as good as it is, even more intelligible.

Self-esteem is recognized at some level, even by those who fail to understand its actual nature, as a critical psychological need. It is generally viewed as "feeling good about yourself." This is superficially true: Self-esteem is a positive subconscious estimate of oneself. More accurately, however, self-esteem is the conviction that one is fundamentally worthy of success and capable of dealing with life's challenges. Self-esteem is not a causeless feeling or appraisal. It has to be earned by means of specific actions, especially mental actions, but most people have never been taught what these actions consist of. Consider the field of education. [bold added]

Viewed in this light, it is clear that any attempt to grant a child "self-esteem" by such measures as the repeated incantation of "You're smart," will fail -- while teaching a child how to earn the real thing, by encouraging him to try harder, will at least have the strong possibility of success.

Second, this article reminds me of another from about five years ago by Mark Goldblatt of the Fashion Institute of Technology, which brings up another dimension of the problem caused by our educators' fetish for pseudo-self-esteem.

[U]nlike in the past, ignorance is no longer tempered with humility. Rather, after years of psychotherapy disguised as pedagogy, ignorance is now buoyed by self-esteem -- which, in turn, makes students more resistant to remediation since they don't believe there's a problem. This resistance, indeed, is part and parcel of a wholly misplaced intellectual confidence that is the most serious obstacle to their higher education. For the last two decades, I've taught freshman courses at CUNY and SUNY colleges in the city; the majority of my students have been products of the city's public schools. I am saddened, therefore, to report that more and more of them are arriving in my classes with the impression that their opinions, regardless of their acquaintance with a particular subject, are instantly valid -- indeed, as valid as anyone's. Pertinent knowledge, to them, is not required to render judgment. [bold added]

In other words, if praise is divorced from a child's effort of focusing on reality by teaching him from early on that social approval is more important than hard work, then that child's ability to evaluate how effective his mind really is -- or whether what he thinks corresponds to reality -- will become severely impaired through disuse. Furthermore, children who are not confident enough to spend time studying difficult problems in order to form their own opinions will opt for the easy way out -- praise for parroting whatever indoctrination they receive. They will appear to be confident, but that will only be because they are now oriented to the task of earning praise, at which they will have learned to excel by the point they get to Goldblatt. And as for doing anything that requires mental effort, why should they? What they did before was always good enough.

It is encouraging that the concept of "self-esteem" is being examined critically today, but confusion about the concept risks lowering the value of much of this work. The goal of education is to help children become rational, efficacious adults. The emotional component of this goal is, in fact, self-esteem, which will be an effect of a good education. By knowing the true nature of self-esteem (rather than dismissing it completely because it is so widely misunderstood), we understand better the errors of current theories of education and can more quickly correct them.

-- CAV

Chavez does something useful ...

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

... completely by accident, of course. He has gotten some Cuban physicians off of Cuba and into a location from which escape is easier.

Recall awhile back that Cuba and Venezuela were teaming up to export Marxism throughout Latin America by giving out operations to the needy. How? Hugo Chavez would prop up Fidel Castro's regime with "free" oil while Cuba would supply the slave labor for Chavez's propaganda campaign. In some cases, patients were flown in to Cuba, where they'd be bused to hospitals while the Cubans waited for inferior public transit or simply gave up and walked. This comes from an old report in the Chicago Tribune.

Some Cubans express resentment at the resources being poured into Mision Milagro, complaining that foreigners get better medical treatment than they do. Other Cubans seethe as they watch foreign patients driven to and from hospitals in new Chinese luxury buses while they wait for hours for scarce public transportation.

"I was standing in the blazing sun, and three of these Chinese buses with patients passed with an ambulance behind it," said one Havana resident. "I thought these buses were for us."

Despite the complaints, Castro announced that Cuba is equipping and staffing hospitals throughout the island to sharply increase the number of eye operations.

But in other cases, Cuban medical personnel were being sent abroad. In at least one of these cases, the "medical personnel" seem to have been sent merely to destabilize the host country, so I was initially a little skeptical when I first saw the headline. Wouldn't Cuba keep its better medical personnel well-guarded?

Indeed, Cuba would. It is the doctors posted in Cuba's ally, Venezuela, who are beginning to leave in droves! From the Houston Chronicle:

In his quest to reach the United States, Ariel Perez slipped away from Cuban informants, evaded Venezuelan border guards and kept his distance from Colombian guerrillas.

But Perez, a Cuban physician who fled to Colombia from Venezuela last year, faces one final hurdle: U.S. bureaucrats.

That's because Perez and dozens of other Cuban defectors who have fled from Venezuela have been waiting for months for permission from the U.S. Embassy in Bogota to emigrate to the land of their dreams.

"I want to be free," said Perez, 36, who lives in a slum in the Colombian capital with two other Cuban defectors. "But I don't know how long it will take."

Dispatched by Fidel Castro's government for humanitarian work [sic] in exchange for oil and other badly needed supplies, a small but growing number of Cuban medical personnel are using their foreign postings as stepping stones to the U.S.

...

About 360 doctors, dentists and physical therapists have applied under the new Cuban Medical Professional Parole program. About 160 have been accepted, while most other cases are pending, said Ana Carbonell, chief of staff for Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., a longtime advocate for Cuban exiles. [bold added]

The article in the Houston Chronicle notes that some claim concern for the poor as a rationale for complaining about the Bush administration's encouragement of the defections.

But some critics contend that, in its drive to embarrass the Castro government, the Bush administration is sabotaging health programs in poorer countries such as Bolivia, Pakistan and Venezuela, which have accepted the Cuban doctors.

"This is an evil and mean-spirited effort to undermine health services for the poor," said the Rev. Lucius Walker, executive director of IFCO/Pastors for Peace, a human rights group that opposes U.S. policy towards Cuba and organizes humanitarian aid convoys there.

In Venezuela, about 15,000 Cuban health workers staff 8,000 clinics located in the poorest and most dangerous neighborhoods of Caracas and other cities, where local doctors traditionally refused to go. In exchange, Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest oil producer, provides energy-starved Cuba with 93,000 barrels of low-cost oil per day, worth nearly $2 billion annually.

Left out of all this is why Cuba is "energy-starved" in the first place.

Were such critics genuinely concerned for the poor, perhaps they would demand that Bush do more to overthrow regimes such as Fidel Castro's and do something to topple that of Hugo Chavez, who is beginning to starve his own people.

-- CAV

Founder's College Weekend Get Away

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

Lee Sandstead called and then followed up with the following. He wants to make sure that all of our friends in the Carolinas are aware of the following. I am planning on attending. If you make a...

First Commercial Quantum Computer

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

D-Wave just demonstrated the first commercial quantum computer. I think it’s too early to say whether the current quantum computing technology is practical, but a promising commercial effort is a good sign.

Quantum computers could represent the sixth generation (electromechanical, relay, vacuum tube, transistor, integrated circuit) of digital computing. They are unlikely to ever replace integrated circuits, but will function as specialized processors for certain (NP-complete) types of problems common in simulating real life and encryption. (Incidentally, quantum computing may one day break all current methods of encryption, but also to introduce theoretically-unbreakable encryption - which has the Feds sniffing.)

Originally uploaded by jurvetson.

Hedge Funds, The SEC, Puppies & Kittens

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

Jonathan Hoening is Managing Member of Capitalistpig Asset Management and regular panelist on Fox News "Cashin' In". He shared his efforts to oppose increased SEC regulation of hedge funds. My...

McCain and Lieberman: the Smoot & Hawley of our generation

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

In the post below, I presented the remarks of Czech President Václav Klaus on the alleged threat of global warming. In stark contrast, let's examine John McCain and Joe Lieberman's op-ed today in The Boston Globe. According to McCain and Lieberman (discussing the same report Klaus eviscerates):

There is now a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it. The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming. This report puts the final nail in denial's coffin about the problem of global warming.

Pretty good ROI for what Václav Klaus notes is an oversimplified summary for pro-green politicians. That said, McCain and Lieberman note that others have helped with the "final nail" too:

In addition, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified a warming climate, and the resulting melting of sea ice, as the reason polar bears may now be threatened as a species. The US Center for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health has cited global warming as the largest looming public health challenge we face. And President Bush has himself called global warming a serious challenge that we need to confront.

And how ought we confront this threat? The senators have reintroduced their Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. According to them:

The bill, which has growing bipartisan support, would harness the power of the free market and the engine of American innovation to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough and quickly enough to forestall catastrophic global warming.

OK, let me get this straight: McCain and Lieberman want to pass a law to let the free market forestall the alleged threat of global warming. Sounds great to me, but that not what their bill actually does. McCain and Lieberman's bill arbitrarily caps off American CO2 emissions at 2000 levels, forces companies to buy and sell the right to emit CO2 gasses into the atmosphere, and treble fines those that exceed their emissions caps. This isn’t the "free market;" it is the antithesis of the free market .

At root, McCain and Lieberman are announcing that they seek to be the Smoot & Hawley of our generation. They seek to choke the life out of the American economy in the name of a sill highly-specious theory—and a theory that's more green dogma than science.

And odds are, they will get their way if we don't begin to act now.

Official Aid and Comfort

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

President Bush, who not so long ago, listed North Korea as a member of the "Axis of Evil", and who vowed never to "falter" or "fail" to fight against terrorism -- or to negotiate with our enemies -- has completely sold out to the North Koreans.

North Korea agreed today to close its main nuclear reactor in exchange for a package of food, fuel and other aid from the United States, China, South Korea and Russia. The breakthrough, announced by the Chinese government after intense negotiations, came four months after North Korea tested a nuclear bomb.

The partner nations agreed to provide roughly $400 million in various kinds of aid in return for the North starting (!) a permanent disabling of its nuclear facilities and allowing inspectors into the country. [Didn't we try "inspectors" already with Saddam Hussein? --ed]

Perhaps equally important, the United States and Japan agreed to discuss normalizing relations with Pyongyang. The United States will begin the process of removing North Korea from its designation as a terror-sponsoring state and also on ending U.S. trade and financial sanctions.

Among the negotiators, Japan did not agree to the aid package, however, saying it first needs to work out further bilateral issues regarding abductions by the North.

The accord sets a 60-day deadline for North Korea to accomplish the first steps toward disarmament, and leaves until an undefined moment -- and to another negotiation -- the actual removal of North Korea's nuclear weapons and the fuel manufactured to produce them.

Under the agreement, the first part of the aid -- 50,000 tons of fuel oil, or an equivalent value of economic or humanitarian aid -- would be provided by South Korea, Russia, China and the United States; in the case of the United States , that would require congressional approval, which is likely to be difficult to get. [my bold]

I bloody well hope congressional approval will be "difficult to get"! And as for our side bleeding itself dry "in exchange for" the prospect of future negotiations on whether North Korea will actually reciprocate, remember how long it took even to get to this point! The "six-party talks" of which this is the outcome were stalled for fifteen months when I last blogged about them in March of last year!

Our Constitution specifically describes treason in the following manner:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. [links dropped, bold added]

Some time back, I speculated on whether Noam Chomsky could be tried for treason and concluded that our failure to declare war might be among the impediments. This is worse, and our government's whole treasonous conduct of this war should be punished accordingly. But how? The very officials who should be considering the charges have not declared war and are by that fact complicit in the very act, whether they agree to Bush's particular form of surrender or not.

This is sickening and nearly unreal. For the icing on the cake -- massive evasion and a contradiction so blatant as to insult the reader's intelligence -- we need only read the following two sentences from the Times:

But North Korea has sidestepped previous agreements, and is thought to have many mountainside tunnels where it can hide projects.

The deal marks the first concrete plan for disarmament in more than three years of six-nation negotiations.

Thank God the New York Times is so committed to its mission of making sure its readers are as well-informed as possible! Let me translate the above: (1) North Korea is able and, according to ample evidence, willing to violate this "agreement". (2) This farce of assisting and trusting North Korea represents a "concrete plan" towards the disarming North Korea.

We have neither the leaders nor the press we had at the time of the American Revolution. Instead, our lives are becoming increasingly dependent on the weakness and incompetence of our enemies -- the only two problems our leaders seem willing or able to address.

-- CAV

No Child Let Ahead

Ayn Rand Institute Press Release:

With the No Child Left Behind Act up for reauthorization, critics are pointing out that it is preventing gifted children from advancing ahead. Because the act forces states to ensure that the weakest students are not left behind, it has dried up funding for programs intended to challenge the strongest.

"The problem is not just with No Child Left Behind," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. "The problem is inherent in the very system of public education, itself. When people's tax dollars are taken to pay for the education of other people's children, there is no way to distribute those dollars fairly."

"The inevitable result is a massive government bureaucracy making collective judgments involving millions of students. And given the egalitarian philosophy dominating that bureaucracy, should it be any surprise that it is our nation's best and brightest that are sacrificed in the attempt to serve the weakest?

"Only a free market in education can prevent the injustices of the current system--a system that, like any government-run industry, has deteriorated into a junk heap of dismal public schools that meets no one's educational needs."

Endangered Species Sighting!

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

Yes. Politicians with spines do exist!

Via HBL, Matt Drudge posts the entirety of Harvard Professor Lubos Motl's translation of excerpts from an interview with Czech President Vaclav Klaus that pertain to global warming hysteria. Here's a sample.

Q: On Wednesday, the European Commission has approved carbon dioxide caps for new cars. One week earlier, the U.N. IPCC climate panel released a report that has described, once again, the global warming as one of the major threats for the whole civilization. The Stern report about similar threats was published before that. And you suddenly say that the global warming is a myth. Try to explain, how did you get this idea, Mr President?

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a myth and I think that every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" and "if's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.

This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians... If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues. [my bold]

This is nothing. Klaus also discusses how an intelligent layman ought to think about global warming and questions Al Gore's sanity.

Need I tell you to read it all? Better yet, he is writing a book on the subject!

[T]his topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article grew in size and it became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.

Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.

As soon as I get wind of a title, I will be sure to spread the word.

And speaking of books on the science of climate change, I have added links to a scientific report and a book on the theory of climate change I blogged about yesterday. Follow the link and scroll down.

-- CAV

"We Haven't Had That Spirit Here Since 1769"

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

Well, we really haven't had that spirit here since 1775. In the final installment of his Sparrowhawk series of novels, Ed Cline writes:

In Mecklenburg, North Carolina, the provincial congress on May 31 adopted resolves that suspended the power of all royal authority in North Carolina, and sent them to its delegates at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. The colony thus earned the distinction of being the first to declare its independence from Britain, more than a year before the United Colonies -- or, as Patrick Henry preferred to refer to them, "The United States" -- declared their independence. [Sparrowhawk Book Six: War, Cline, p.193]

Is there any remnant of that spirit here in Mecklenburg County? Or in North Carolina? The spirit which lead the independence away from Britain and towards the free United States of America. I don't see it. Instead there is a growing dependence upon government and against freedom.

Examples include:

1. A government funded arena which voters rejected 57% to 43%, but the powers that be built anyway.

2. A light rail system which few will ride, attempts to force people to live in certain areas, continues to grow beyond double its original cost, and boosted our sales tax over 8% -- all in the face of evidence which shows every light rail system in the country has failed.

3. Recent news that Charlotte is once again the most highly taxed city in North Carolina.

There are more examples -- how could I forget Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools? The point is that governnment-initiated force against individuals continues to rise in Charlotte Mecklenburg. The spirit in 1775 represented a trend in the complete opposite direction -- setting the proper role of government as the protector of individuals from those who initiate force. Government is now the criminal in Charlotte Mecklenburg.

There is some controversy about the existence of the Mecklenburg Resolves. Here is the opening as published in the Raleigh Register in 1819:

1. Resolved, That whosoever directly or indirectly abetted, or in any way, form, or manner, countenanced the unchartered and dangerous invasion of our rights, as claimed by Great Britain, is an enemy to this County, to America, and to the inherent and inalienable rights of man.

2. Resolved, That we the citizens of Mecklenburg County, do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us to the Mother Country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British Crown, and abjure all political connection, contract, or association, with that Nation, who have wantonly trampled on our rights and liberties¬and inhumanly shed the innocent blood of American patriots at Lexington.

Notice the focus upon rights.

There is more evidence of The Tryon Resolves, from Tryon County, North Carolina. They were drafted and signed a few months later on August 14, 1775:

The unprecedented, barbarous and bloody actions committed by British troops on our American brethren near Boston, on 19th Apriland 20th of May last, together with the hostile operations and treacherous designs now carrying on, by the tools of ministerial vengeance, for the subjugation of all British America, suggest to us the painful necessity of having recourse to arms in defense of our National freedom and constitutional rights, against all invasions; and at the same time do solemnly engage to take up arms and risk our lives and our fortunes in maintaining the freedom of our country...

It is clear that this region was full of revolutionary spirit with a focus upon freedom. Is there a chance that could ever return? Can the people of Charlotte Mecklenburg perform a 180 degree turnaround? I think it is possible and I am more than hopeful. The seeds are in the ground here in the Carolinas. It may take a few decades, but there is promise.

The real 'inconvenient truth' about environmentalism and global warming.

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

Luboš Motl, a Harvard professor and physicist recently translated a refreshingly frank interview with Václav Klaus, second president of the Czech Republic, on his view of the alleged threat of global warming [HT: Drudge Report]. The original interview appeared in Hospodářské noviny, a Czech economics daily

Q: On Wednesday, the European Commission has approved carbon dioxide caps for new cars. One week earlier, the U.N. IPCC climate panel released a report that has described, once again, the global warming as one of the major threats for the whole civilization. The Stern report about similar threats was published before that. And you suddenly say that the global warming is a myth. Try to explain, how did you get this idea, Mr President?

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a myth and I think that every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" and "if's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.

This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians... If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.

Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it, I don't plan to learn it, and I don't pretend to be an expert in such measurements. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article grew in size and it became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.

Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...

A: ...I am right...

Q: ...Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr. Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person hardly. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say that he has. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.

It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.

That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you simply present your honest opinion.

I don't know much about Klaus, but if this interview is evidence of how he uses his mind, he strikes me as one of the most active-minded politicians I've seen in years. Thanks to Professor Motl for this translation; views like Klaus' are something we don't see enough of in American media.

Chavez's Disastrous Nationalization Plan

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has recently announced plans to nationalize utilities and telecommunications companies.

"Chavez claims that this theft of private property from its owners is necessary to improve the lot of the poor in Venezuela," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "But as history has shown, nationalization is both immoral and impractical. Industries under state control are highly inefficient and much less productive than private industries free to function in a capitalist market. As production is throttled, rich and poor alike suffer.

"Marxist policies always lead to poverty and disaster. There can be no significant progress, prosperity or wealth creation in a social system that does not recognize individual rights, particularly property rights. Property rights are both moral and practical.

"If Venezuelans want to avoid an economic disaster that will eventually wipe out their savings, their investments, their businesses and their livelihoods, they must get rid of Chavez and reject the Marxist ideology he embodies."

Copyright 2007 Ayn Rand Institute.

Grasping at "Principles"

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

Via Instapundit, I have learned that self-described "libertarian conservative" Arnold Kling hopes to address a little problem Objectivists have known for decades concerning libertarianism: its unprincipled approach to politics. Here is how Kling puts it.

I invite readers to participate in an Ideological Affirmation Task Force (IATF). The first Request for Comment (RFC) is given below. It is a draft document that attempts to articulate a set of principles for contemporary libertarian conservatives. To comment on these principles on your blog, write a post that includes the phrase "IATF RFC." [Okay, Mr. Kling. --ed] I will use that phrase to search for comments. Please elaborate on the wording that most appeals to you and the wording that needs the most improvement. There are certain to be revisions, and comments themselves are an important part of the conversation.

...

To the extent that a set of principles serves to clarify who we are, it can be a tool in the ideological war. Our principles can be used to connect with our friends in other English-speaking countries, but they could also be translated into every language and posted on street corners around the world. [bold added]

Since my inclusion of "IATF RFC" may draw some attention to this post, let me start with a disclaimer before I move on. I am neither a libertarian nor a conservative. I am a radical capitalist. I am also not particularly interested in quibbling over the wording of a libertarian/conservative "manifesto" or "statement of principles" or whatever else the end result of this effort will be called for reasons that will soon become apparent.

Why? Because freedom at my home in America and abroad is in dire trouble for deeper reasons than the fact that lovers of freedom are unable to "connect". I am afraid that the time is too early -- as the history of the Libertarian Party in America demonstrates (See Peter Schwartz.) -- for a political movement to come to the rescue. No culture on the face of this earth would suffer real freedom for long because too many people cherish notions incompatible with liberty. This includes many who consider themselves friends of freedom, but because they are unclear on what the concept means, support political ends (e.g., environmental regulations or anarchy) that would injure or destroy freedom if implemented.

For one thing, many who profess to love freedom cannot even agree on what the term means. Since I consider myself an Objectivist, I'll start off by citing what I have heard called the "Objectivist point of view" -- this passage from a condensed version of the Schwartz pamphlet I cited earlier.

(Yes. This is from a polemic against Libertarianism. Those genuinely concerned with freedom should take this as "tough love" and follow me to my point.)

So while Libertarians believe there are many avenues to their notion of liberty, they apparently draw the line at Objectivism -- and they are entirely right to do so. Objectivism is incompatible with Libertarianism, on every philosophical issue. Objectivism says: live by reason, follow a rational code of morality, practice self-interest as a virtue, establish the principles of limited government to define the appropriate uses of retaliatory force. As its name implies, Ayn Rand's philosophy upholds an objective reality, objective cognition, objective values, and objective law.

Libertarianism's relationship to Objectivism is not merely that of an enemy, but of a parasite. Without Objectivism, there would, ironically, be no Libertarian movement today. It is Objectivism that has offered a moral defense of liberty -- which Libertarianism has stolen and mutilated. It is Objectivism that has imbued so many young people with a deep commitment to capitalism -- which Libertarianism has seized upon and corrupted.

Libertarianism seeks to appropriate some of the fruits of Objectivism while trying to uproot the tree. Its anti-conceptual nature makes it consistently desire effects without causes -- politics without ethics, liberty without reason, social change without philosophy. It wants to use the words of Objectivism's noninitiation-of-force principle, but not the ideas that give them meaning. It wishes to feed off the by-products of Objectivism's defense of capitalism, while repudiating the nature and roots of that defense. (332) [bold added]

The bold here is crucial. And, given that Kling has opened up a discussion on the subject of "principles", it is completely on topic. In fact, Kling himself demonstrates why in this very article, not to mention in his previous work.

Consider point (1):

We weave a thread of self-reliance into a sturdy fabric of interdependence. By respecting the law, we reinforce impersonal justice. By competing intensely and fairly in an impersonal global market, we raise our standard of living through specialization and innovation. By upholding Constitutional principles for limited government, we sustain our individual freedom.

What on earth does Kling mean by "interdependence"? At best, he means that human beings can profit through specialization by freely trading with one another, which this paragraph seems to imply.

At worst, "interdependence" means that the rich (people or nations) are somehow obligated to aid the poor. (Indeed the first sentence of Kling's next "principle" would seem to indicate this: "We are creative and pro-active in helping one another."

If "interdependence" means trade, this participation in a capitalist economy is a form of self-reliance into which there is no need to "weave a thread of self-reliance": There is only the need to remove the poisoned thread of government controls from the economy. Although Kling has bad things to say about government welfare programs, his list of principles does not rule out other ways for the government to violate our rights, such as the "market-based" controls on fuel consumption so many conservative libertarians seem to like.

So why not simply state that we should achieve laissez-faire capitalism? Does Kling not actually favor this? Does he fear antagonizing those libertarians who do not want it? Or does he hope to convince advocates of laissez-faire that his actual advocacy of a mixed economy is somehow the same fight for freedom. Your guess is as good as mine.

So far, all I have shown is that I find these "principles" vague at best. That is true, but I also completely reject the IATF RFC, this whole "ideological affirmation", on principle. It is doomed to fail because it is actually an effort -- like the libertarian movement as a whole -- to pretend that political principles exist in a vacuum apart from deeper philosophic principles.

Consider again the following passage, in which Kling explains why he thinks an "ideological affirmation" is necessary:

To the extent that a set of principles serves to clarify who we are, it can be a tool in the ideological war. Our principles can be used to connect with our friends in other English-speaking countries, but they could also be translated into every language and posted on street corners around the world. [bold added]

Certainly, it is crucial to be clear about what one stands for in a cause, in order for others who might join that cause to be able to understand it. But principles are not just important as a means of convincing other people to join a cause. They are also important to individuals -- to you and to me -- as guides to action. In their outward-focused zeal to "educate" others, libertarians consistently fail to appreciate the fundamental role of philosophical principles in man's life.

Should I join my cause with that of Arnold Kling, and if so, why? I can answer that question only by recourse to philosophical principles.

Kling claims to value "liberty". And like many libertarians, he is quick to point out that government controls are ineffective at securing the welfare of human beings. But what is the welfare of a human being? Well, that depends on what a human being is, doesn't it?

Before we return to Kling, let's see where a few different answers to that last question might lead us.

Suppose I feel that as a human being, I am God's property to do with as he pleases. Obviously, those who think that God wants humans to become bombs or missiles will not regard Arnold Kling's vague idea of freedom as an ideal since it could thwart God's will by forbidding us to injure infidels. Indeed, such a person might regard "true" "freedom" (from temptation, or impiety, or whatnot) as impossible except in a totalitarian Islamic state!

But what of those who think God likes free markets -- as long as they are under the "stewardship" of a "nongovernmental" Council of Elders that will not levy taxes, but will "only" enforce tithing to religious charities -- oh, and "objective" standards -- revealed by God -- of decency in broadcast media? How do we know what God's will is? And if there is some conflict between what God wills and some lowly human's idea of what constitutes a free market, whose desires should settle the debate? This person's idea of "freedom" may or may not resemble Kling's, but ultimately, his ideal society will only allow citizens to act in ways that do not displease God's self-proclaimed "representatives".

Or what of those who reject religion, and think that we should all be "free to do our own thing"? On what basis will they accept a government's placing any limitations on what they do? Suppose a pederast thinks that laws governing age of consent are "intrusive". On what basis will a libertarian pederast with his eye on young Jimbo and Jimbo's father be able to agree on what constitutes the proper role of government? Or will they just reject the whole idea of a central government a la the Lew Rockwell crowd and leave Jimbo's fate to which village he happens to live in, or even to whether the pederast or his father is better-armed or a more clever tactician?

Clearly -- as libertarians see -- a huge variety of different kinds of opinions are held by the citizens of any society. But contrary to the libertarian "big tent" approach, the vast majority of these views do not lead to the idea that we should have a government which refrains from violating the rights of individuals within our society.

However, in my experience, the standard libertarian tack is to paper over all of this and pretend that the desirability of freedom is as uncontroversial as that of taking another breath of air or imbibing water on a regular basis. In fact, they often do not even bother to define "liberty" (or "freedom" for that matter) -- an obvious deficiency of the Kling piece.

The result of all this is that whatever good there might be in a position a group of libertarians start out with, it eventually gets watered down as the various factions in the "big tent" contest whatever aspect of that position they do not like. The goals of an Islamofascist, a fundamentalist Christian, a pederast, and someone who knows and appreciates what freedom is are not the same because they hold different answers to questions that precede "What is the ideal political system?"

So before I answer the question, "Should I join my cause with that of Arnold Kling, and if so, why?", I must answer many other more fundamental ones. Here is a quick and dirty summary of those answers:

At the root of our individual rights is the fact that man is the rational animal. His mind is his tool of survival. His mind can be rendered ineffective by other human beings only by the initiation of force on their part. We form governments by ceding our right to use force in self-defense to the government, whose sole purpose is to protect our rights. A proper government protects our ability to profit from the unfettered use our own minds, but does not feed us, clothe us, provide us shelter -- or make us do any of these things for other people.

In other words, "freedom" is the condition in which I do not have to fear others depriving me of my ability to exercise my rational faculty to further my own survival.

Note that the method -- reason -- by which I reached this definition entailed asking what I am, as a human being, and that both the answer to that question and my method of answering it lead to the conclusions about whether we should have a government and what its purpose -- and hence its limitations -- are.

Note also that other very common methods -- like faith or whim -- will lead to arbitrary conclusions that may or may not sound like my answers, but do not provide a rational basis for arguing in favor of freedom or defending it intellectually.

What kind of outcome will we have in an "ideological war" in which we give the pass to anyone and everyone who claims to support the idea of "liberty" -- including those who define it incorrectly or fail to define it at all?

We need only look at some of Arnold Kling's earlier work to find out. Not long ago, I encountered Kling arguing for a sort of "give-and-take" with the Democrats in which he was willing to basically run medical experiments on the populations of entire states without their consent. Quoting Kling:

For example, I would welcome an experiment in which four or five diverse states adopt single-payer health care. My guess is that if people were to experience single-payer health care for ten or fifteen years, that would provide powerful evidence that it is a bad idea for the United States.

So much for Arnold Kling as a staunch defender of individual rights. You can read my objections in detail at the above link. As to why he is open to such "experiments" in the first place, we have this quote from an earlier article of his ("From Far Left to Libertarian"):

My goal as a libertarian is to counter the heavy-handed marketing by politicians of bigger government. I want to constantly remind people that personal responsibility and free markets are more powerful forces for progress than is government. For those people who are still on the Far Left, my advice is to study the consequences of policy, not simply the motives and intentions of those who advocate the policy. Once one understands and corrects for the Fundamental Attribution Error, the passion for better public policy translates into a support for libertarian principles. [bold added]

Or, in my words:

So we have a huge welfare state not because people overwhelmingly think that the role of government is to make everyone take care of one another -- but because people in the government are such good "marketers" of "government solutions". (And never mind that for crime and military invasion, government is ultimately the only solution.) And the big problem with someone like Noam Chomsky is not that he hates or ideologically opposes freedom, but that he just hasn't considered the consequences of, say, cutting off all military aid to Israel. Freedom is self-evidently desirable, everyone wants it, and if they'd only observe cause-and-effect, they'd stop "blundering" into massive mistakes like Vietnam or the welfare state.

It is clear from all this that Kling completely fails to grasp the role of philosophical principles in leading to politics and even in effecting political debate! If getting people to accept limited government is just a matter of crunching numbers, the whole world should have become a laissez-faire paradise ages ago! And there would be no need to create a laundry list of principles anyway.

Kling's lip service to "principles" to the contrary, he does not regard fundamental principles as having any bearing on the political debate or on his own course of action with regard to advancing the cause of freedom. This is why he proposes medical experiments on American citizens rather than learning why socialized medicine is immoral and impractical and arguing from those grounds that it is completely unacceptable.

If one cannot (or will not) even define "liberty" in a list of principles for "conservative libertarians", then plainly one does not understand or care about the actual importance of philosophical principles. And as a consequence, one will not make a convincing intellectual case for freedom or acquire actual allies in a fight for freedom. Indeed, one might even find himself making the case that some individuals must lose their freedom or their lives for the sake of a hare-brained "experiment".

Do I really need to answer the question, "Should I join my cause with that of Arnold Kling, and if so, why?"

Until more people realize what they are and why they need freedom as a result of what they are -- that is until our broader culture becomes more rational -- our freedom will constantly be in peril. A political movement that attempts to avoid this fact will waste the time and effort of genuine advocates of freedom, give undeserved credit to some of her enemies, and even succeed in "selling" statism under the brand of "capitalism" (e.g., "markets" in carbon tax credits).

While concrete political action -- like opposition to the latest socialized medicine scheme (Didn't we all know that was impractical back in 1994? Why is this coming up again, Mr. Kling?) -- is necessary to preserve freedom for as long as possible, these will only be holding actions and broader political change for the better will not occur simply because we wish that principles didn't matter.

What has to be done is to learn what we are, why ideas are important, and what the correct ones are so we can continue to live. We need to do this for our own sakes first, and only then will we have any hope of convincing others who might be open to our ideas. Kling is correct that this is an "ideological war", but it cannot be fought with the the muskets and bayonets constituted by an empty lip-service to "liberty". It has to be won with the nuclear arsenal of rational philosophic ideas, one active mind at a time, and throughout our culture.

It is not just the various leaders of Iraq who, as Kling points out, do not "have what it takes to live in an open society". It is the people who elected them. And that is true to a lesser extent throughout the world.

We need to work to make more people understand why freedom is necessary for a proper human existence. After we do, the politics will more or less take care of itself.

-- CAV

Flemming Rose

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A while back, Ari Armstrong reported on Flemming Rose's December lecture in Denver. Even better, he posted the whole speech in MP3 format.

Also, the full set of lectures from the fall 2006 Boston weekend conference "The Jihad Against the West" is now available from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. That version of Flemming Rose's talk was definitely better than the one given in Denver.

I really enjoyed talking to Flemming Rose while he was in Denver. He's a remarkable -- and very admirable -- man.

Ground Rules for a Rational Discussion

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

So there I was, minding my own business quietly reading at a coffee store last weekend, when an acquaintance struck up an ideological conversation.

It was entertaining enough and skipped around various mixed-economy things, but soon got goofy in the ways I've grown accustomed to seeing. Sadly, there seemed to be a tinge of anger behind his (understandable) frustration with being challenged in ways he didn't expect, and it snowballed from there before we pulled the plug. Very unsatisfying.

In this instance, my delightful mate had been watching it unfold and later wondered aloud if I shouldn't carry around a little business-card-sized Agreement to try to forestall that sort of thing. Here's what she sent me as an example:

I, _______________ [your name] do of my own free will, voluntarily agree to enter into an intellectual discussion with Greg Perkins. I acknowledge that Greg will use all of his knowledge and skills to present evidence and argument in support of his position. I agree to not be offended and angry, or to become upset and throw things at Greg when I cannot do the same. I agree to attempt to digest the evidence presented by Greg, in lieu of making unfounded assertion after unfounded assertion. I agree that when I begin to turn red and snap at Greg, that I should surrender my argument at that point and go learn more about the topic and what Greg has offered for my consideration.

Finally, I agree to hold Greg's fiancée, Tammy Ryan, entirely harmless for any and all pissed-off feelings I have toward Greg following the discussion.

Hilarious and flattering as it is, that may not be quite what is needed. Thinking over the common ways things go off the rails while talking with non-Objectivists, I put together the following to try to set expectations, keep things on the rails longer, encourage more seriousness and intellectual honesty, scare away the unworthy, and so on. (And yes, it is depressing that almost all of it should go without saying.)

Ground Rules for a Rational Discussion

• Intellectual conversation has a purpose: to share, compare, and test our understandings of reality with the goal of our both better seeing the truth of the matter(s) under discussion. And perhaps more important, it constitutes training that develops our capacity for thinking and communicating well.
  
  
• First and foremost, evidence and reasoning shall be offered in support of assertions that are in doubt. If an objective case cannot be made, or the case runs contrary to other evidence and reasoning, then the commensurate level of qualification is expected in the presenter, along with an appreciation of an appropriate level of skepticism in the recipient(s).
  
  
• The same standards apply to everyone involved. If something is disallowed for one, it is disallowed for all; if something is required of one, it is required for all.
  
  
• In particular, reason is not a tool for merely convincing others of what we otherwise hold to because of feelings, tradition, faith, authority, "just knowing," or whatever. It is hypocrisy to expect the canons of reason to guide your partner in pursuing knowledge while not expecting the same for yourself.
  
  
• Finally, if the conversation does not proceed as expected and your position is not faring well, then your preexisting confidence does not warrant assuming that this surprising turn of events is due to mere rhetorical skill or sophistry in your partner; it could well be that your disagreement is with reality and that you are in effect shooting the messenger. Indeed, if you have been participating in an error so widespread and/or subtle as to evade identification up to this point, gratitude and happiness is warranted.

Toward Beneficial Training

• Regarding the training mentioned above, for it to be beneficial requires internalizing the idea that while winning an argument can be a satisfying affirmation of prior work, letting a desire for victory take precedence over a commitment to correctness is a dangerous inversion of values -- a reversal of cause and effect -- as well as a recipe for a humiliating demonstration of weak character.
  
  
• First and foremost, relying on weakness in others' training, intelligence, knowledge, or psychology to maintain your position cultivates this inversion of values, and it corrodes the presumption of intellectual honesty (importantly, in your own understanding of yourself, but also in others' knowledge of you as such reliance is realized).
  
  
• Cultivating the opposite means always assuming (even eagerly hoping) that deficiencies in your reasoning and argumentation will be noticed and pointed out. If and when that happens, how you address such a report can speak volumes about your training, intelligence, character, and general worth as a thinker and discussion partner.
  
  
• This of course comes in degrees. For example, sustained failure to appreciate your dependence on a basic fallacy may result in termination of the exchange with the judgment that you are simply not equipped for such a discussion. But it would be far worse to evade acknowledging and correcting such a condition by throwing up rhetorical dust with, say, a clumsy accusation that your accuser is committing some conversational sin (all too often your own alleged sin) -- in which case you would be relying on his not having sufficient self-esteem and skill to clear away the dust, refute the smear, and add the incident to your snowballing list of unworthy moves. An evasive escalation like this can quickly destroy your credibility and result in termination of the exchange with the judgment that you are deficient both intellectually and morally.
  
  
• Finally, please note that sophomoric debate tactics only underscore desperation, immaturity, and blind commitment to the inversion of values mentioned above. For example, shifting from arguing some point to a position of extreme skepticism will be seen as transparent sophistry: if there is no reality, or there are no truths to know about it, or knowledge is generally unavailable to us, then there is no need for the conversation you were eager to undertake so long as you felt good about the direction it was headed. The same goes for other self-excluding gems from Philosophy 101 like disapproving of someone for making value judgments per se, clinging to the (black and white) idea that nothing is black and white, and so on. Appropriate analysis will follow and termination of the discussion may result.

But the above is just what I quickly came up with. I imagine many here have had similar experiences to mine -- what would you put in a brief boilerplate for garden-variety intellectual conversations?

New article on Environmentalism on the Objectivism Wiki

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

I’ve started a wiki article on the Objectivism Wiki to serve as a resource on environmentalism. Here is the introduction:

Philosophically, the essential principle of the ideology of environmentalism is the belief that “nature” has inherent moral value, and therefore the influence of man, and especially that of industrial civilization, is evil. Politically, this means the advocacy of various limits on industrial civilization, since all productive human activity has some kind of byproduct. While few (but alarmingly many) advocates of environmentalism recognize it as such, the ultimate goal of the environmentalist movement is the total destruction of industrial civilization, and the vast majority of the human race whose existence is made possible by it.

Please contribute!

Request for Suggestions

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Mike of Primacy of Awesome is seeking suggestions for future posts. He writes:

I got a lot of positive feedback from my post about children and Objectivism. I'd like to solicit any readers for ideas on possible similar posts. Posts on some stereotype about Objectivism or Objectivists or Ayn Rand etc. So you give me the stereotype, and then I bitch slap you with a bunch of contradictory facts.

He then comments briefly on the charge that Objectivists won't cooperate with anyone.

Since that sounds like a worthwhile series, if you have any suggestions, please post them to his comments.

Digg: Chavez fixes prices,profit motive evaporates,Result: massive food shortages

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

CARACAS, Venezuela — Meat cuts vanished from Venezuelan supermarkets this week, leaving only unsavory bits like chicken feet, while costly artificial sweeteners have increasingly replaced sugar, and many staples sell far above government-fixed prices.

read more | digg story

A "Neo-Compassionate" Conservative?

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

Over at Jewish World Review, I ran into an article by Mona Charen titled, "Is Giuliani a Conservative?" in which she first acknowledges Giuliani's lack of appeal to social conservatives.

... Social conservatives have trouble with Giuliani, but by no stretch of the imagination is he a Rockefeller (i.e. liberal) Republican. In fact, in many ways Giuliani is the most conservative of the top three candidates for the Republican nomination. He came by that conservatism in the toughest crucible. [bold added]

So she then pitches Giuliani as a fiscal conservative.

New York's welfare system was among the most bloated in the nation. Giuliani first culled the ranks for cheats and frauds -- eliminating 20 percent of the caseload. The mayor then introduced a workfare requirement -- able-bodied adults would be expected to do 20 hours of work in municipal offices in exchange for a welfare check. There were howls from the New York Times. The mayor was undeterred. Giuliani transformed welfare offices from check distribution centers into employment offices, where welfare workers coached clients on how to read the classifieds, how to dress for interviews and how to prepare a resume.

His approach toward the homeless was similar. Those who were able to work were encouraged to do so. Those who rejected an offer of shelter and insisted upon blocking public spaces and harassing passersby were issued summonses. For this Hillary Clinton lectured the mayor that Jesus was a homeless person. [bold added]

Twenty percent of the caseload!?! That's me you hear whistling through my teeth. You could eliminate the entire welfare "caseload" -- if you'd only eliminate welfare. So what if he was mayor? He could have at least broached the subject. Oh. He "has to" pander to constituent groups? It's long past time for the "self-reliant" to live up to the description and demand a little "pandering" of their own.

It is almost amazing how what passes for fiscal conservatism has changed over the past quarter century! Yes. I said, "Almost." Recall that not too long ago, I took a look at how the GOP stand on racial quotas had changed over a similar time span from principled opposition to outright support and made sense of the change by drawing upon C. Bradley Thompson's essay, "The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism". (I'm not one to appeal to authority, but City Journal thought it worth a look. Search "Gus Van Horn" and follow the link.)

In essence, the altruistic "compassionate" branch of the movement has decided that the moral purpose of government is to "encourage" able citizens to look out for their less-fortunate fellows. The pragmatist neo-conservatives have decided that for the conservative movement to remain politically relevant, it must coopt the welfare state in order to perpetuate itself in power. Or, as I said then, "[T]he Republicans, guided by these two factions, think that the welfare state is not only moral, but practical."

When seen in this light, it makes perfect sense that Giuliani, the federal prosecutor who brought down financial revolutionary Michael Milkin for breaking vague and unjust securities laws, would eventually emerge as the standard-bearer for the supposedly pro-business Republican Party. And it also makes perfect sense that what passes as impressive to a major conservative pundit nowadays is the fact that Giuliani's idea of a welfare state sounds "tougher" than the Democrats' idea!

Tougher than a Democrat! That's not saying much, Mona.

So is Giuliani a "Compassionate" Conservative or a Neo-Conservative? There is no important difference, so I'll call him a "Neo-Compassionate Conservative".

And I'll heave a sigh of relief that I read Thompson's essay. Why should someone like me -- who voted for the GOP in 1994 so they could dismantle the welfare state "brick by brick" as I believe Newt Gingrich once put it -- have to settle for someone who is content merely to reduce the welfare case load a little -- by using my money to pay for someone else's job hunting instead?

If you like Giuliani, you're probably a limited government guy like myself. You owe it to yourself to see what the conservatives are up to before you throw your support to Giuliani. He may be the best the GOP has to offer in 2008, but you deserve better.

-- CAV

But who guards the guards?

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

120 prisoners escaped from a North Korean concentration camp yesterday. They were imprisoned for the crime of .. trying to escape from North Korea.

In related news, an entire platoon of border guards (one of the most lucrative jobs in that country) escaped the next day.

Both groups were risking their lives to escape to Manchurian China, which is a very poor and totalitarian area itself, and which helpfully returns escapees to North Korea for continued torture and starvation.

Aren’t you glad that the U.S. government has sent the North Korean slavemasters over $1 billion in aid since 1995?

Whenever I read these stories, I think of Ayn Rands words: “If they ask you, in America--tell them that Russia is a huge cemetery and that we are all dying slowly.”

The GOP's War on Terror Wagers

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

"Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." -- H.L. Mencken

It's good to see that President Bush and the GOP are doing their part to make America safe from religious fanatics this year.

If the U.S. government gets its way on Super Bowl Sunday, all bets will be off -- all online bets, that is.

Federal prosecutors and agents in the FBI's organized-crime unit have been mounting a large-scale crackdown on Internet gambling, with indictments against executives at gaming Web sites, arrests of foreign businessmen who process payments and subpoenas to investment banks that may have helped bankroll the operations.

The aggressive campaign has gathered steam recently, as Americans prepare to wager more than $5 billion on today's game between the Chicago Bears and the Indianapolis Colts, the biggest betting day of the year, according to industry experts. [bold added]

If you've been wisely following this blog, this will sound familiar. Let's hop onto the way-back machine and revisit a post I made shortly after April Fool's Day last year:

Apparently, Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) is both a fan of this blog and interested in saving me from myself. Having missed the fact that the date for this post was April 1, he has introduced a bill to prohibit internet gambling! No need, Congressman! I only play nickel-ante poker at home a few times a year.

Well, Goodlatte's particular bill didn't pass, but that didn't matter because the GOP slipped a similar measure into a port security bill last year -- doubtless aided by the convenient camouflage of the controversy about whether a Dubai company really should be in charge of operations at six of our ports.

He didn't mention an unrelated provision that seeks to put teeth into laws that forbid most online gambling. Instead, Bush focused on the multiple ways the legislation tightens security and closes a loophole in anti-terror defenses, especially at ports.

Instead, Bush's remarks focused on the multiple ways the legislation could reduce the likelihood that terrorists could sneak a nuclear, chemical or biological weapons device into the country in one of the 11 million shipping containers that enter the country each year, many without any inspection. [bold added]

In other words, our wartime President hoped nobody would notice that he shares the same basic goal as the religious fanatics waging war against America: To force Americans to obey the religious dictates of others. There are two differences, one unimportant and one important. The unimportant one is that Bush is acting as if forcing obedience to Christianity is somehow different than forcing obedience to Islam. The important one is that Bush and the GOP used this bill to posture as defenders of American freedom while acting to betray it.

It may pay to be wary about betting online this year -- but work to make your country more free next year so you don't have to. We should be able to celebrate the Super Bowl without having to look over our shoulders for the religious police.

-- CAV

Yes, but is it true?

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

Via Matt Drudge is a column -- by Timothy Ball, a dissenting climatologist from Canada -- that calls the idea that global warming is due to carbon dioxide emissions from human activity "the greatest deception in the history of science". Here are a few of the more interesting parts.

• Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
• In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
• As [MIT meteorologist Richard] Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
  
• I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction. [bold added]
  

Read it all. We owe brave men such as this our thanks and our support. They are doing their best to stop the Lysenkoites of our time. We are in serious trouble when men can lose their scientific careers for asking, "Yes, but is it true?"

Thank you, Dr. Ball.

-- CAV

UCLA Penalizes Student Group's Exercise of Free Speech

Irvine, CA--UCLA has cravenly scuttled a student-sponsored forum on U.S. immigration policy--and revealed the administration's contempt for freedom of speech. The administration not only refuses to protect free speech, but also penalizes those who wish to exercise it on campus.

Scheduled for Feb. 6, the canceled event was to feature a debate between Carl Braun of the Minutemen and Dr. Yaron Brook, an open-immigration advocate and president of the Ayn Rand Institute. The forum, sponsored by the UCLA student group L.O.G.I.C., was approved by the administration weeks ago. When the student group learned that protesters from outside the university threatened to disrupt the event, it asked UCLA to protect the group's exercise of free speech by providing security for the event.

UCLA refused either to let the student group pay for its own security--claiming not enough security would be available--or to hold the event without security.

"The administration's decision is a double injustice," said Dr. Yaron Brook, "In the face of threats, UCLA refused to protect the student group's free speech--that's bad enough. But when the student group offered to pay for its own protection, UCLA put up further obstacles. UCLA is punishing the victims of intimidation. Instead of forbidding the protesters who threatened violent disruptions, the university is penalizing the student group for being a victim of threats.

"By preventing the event from taking place, UCLA apparently hopes to appease the protesters by doing their work for them. That an American university is suppressing, rather than enshrining, freedom of speech is a moral travesty."

Moreover, adding to the injustice, the university wants to burden the student group with the costs involved in canceling the event and turning away audience members and protesters. UCLA's line is that because the student group wanted to host a controversial forum--which the group had the right to do--it thereby created a problem and now must pay for resolving it.

"Free speech protects the rational mind: it is the freedom to think, to reach conclusions and express one's views without fear of coercion of any kind. And it must include the right to express unpopular views. UCLA--which like other universities grants tenure to protect intellectual freedom--ought to recognize the crucial importance of this principle and defend it," said Brook.

Copyright 2007 Ayn Rand Institute. All rights reserved.

The Right Parrot for the Job?

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

Via Matt Drudge, Oregon is preparing to fire its state climatologist for doing his job, while Delaware's is facing intense criticism for his stand on global warming. From the first of these articles:

In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.

...

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.


...

Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies."

Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change. [bold added]

Setting aside whether there should even be such a thing as a "state climatologist", just what the hell is a "consultant" supposed to do? According to Brad Avakian, it is apparently to serve as a yes-man. Global warming is, after all, "so important" that it trumps any evidence or theory to the contrary.

A parrot could qualify for the job of state climatologist by Brad Avakian's standards for scientific debate!

It is bad enough that state funding of science poses the threat to objectivity that it does, but to see open attempts by government officials to dictate what scientists say is a new low.

-- CAV

Developing Intuition

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

My actual poker game is nowhere near the point at which this book will do me any good, but I have been reading Randy Burgess's The Ultimate Guide to Poker Tells off and on anyway. I have found his treatment of the subject far better than I expected it to be. But then people can be surprisingly rational when the prospect of making money enters the equation.

I recently started a chapter called "Become a Poker Psychic", which outlines four basic objectives at the start, one of them being to help the reader learn "to develop and trust [his] intuition". It is on this subject that the book, far from veering into superstition as some might expect, sounds like it has a good point. Burgess himself introduces the subject in this way:

We use intuition every day of our lives, whether we're conscious of it or not. When we label it as such, it sounds mysterious, but of course it's not mysterious at all, rather a basic function of the human mind.

Burgess is, of course, a poker player, not a psychologist. So he draws on others at this point. Specifically, he cites a book titled Reading People by Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, who helped select the jury that acquitted O.J. Simpson. Here is her definition.

What we call intuition is nearly always the surfacing of a submerged memory, a barely noticed event, or some combination of the two. That "feeling" doesn't come to us over the cosmic ether, but drifts up from our own subconscious. This means that all we have to do to greatly improve our intuitive abilities is to find new ways to gather information, store it, and retrieve it from our subconscious.

I think that this is almost in register with my own thoughts on the matter. However, I think the term "feeling", while it accurately describes the experience, is somewhat ambiguous here. I would say that intuition has evaluative/emotional aspects and a component of dim awareness of information not quite fully in focus.

In any event, Burgess quickly goes on to sketch out Dimitrius' three-step process of improving one's intuition (briefly: recognize intuition, figure out what it is telling you, go through the evidence later) .

So far, this all sounds reasonable, but it barely even begins to scratch the surface of what Dimitrius had to say. I am curious now about Dimitrius' book. Has anyone here read this and if so, what did you think?

-- CAV

Letter to the Editor on Health Care

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Last week, I wrote a letter to the editor for the Rocky Mountain News responding to Paul Campos' column on "myths" about American healthcare. It was published in full on the web, albeit apparently not in the print version. Here it is:

Paul Campos ("Our Sickly Healthcare," Jan 30) notes the enormous influence of the government on America's ailing market for medical care. Yet he misses the obvious: government meddling is the fundamental source of those ills. His proposal for more government-controlled medicine--for socialized medicine--would be a disaster for medical providers and patients alike.

Already, government bureaucrats set prices by arbitrary fiat via the Medicare system, then overwhelm doctors with paperwork and regulations. Already, consumers are encouraged to pursue medical care without regard for cost, thanks to tax laws encouraging employers to provide medical insurance for even routine expenses. Already, taxpayers are burdened with the cost of ever-growing medical entitlement programs. Already, FDA regulations drive up the cost of life-saving drugs and prevent doctors from prescribing drugs known to be safe. The result of that government meddling is an expensive bureaucratic labyrinth that prevents healthcare providers--doctors, nurses, drug companies, hospitals, clinics--from providing the best medical care for the patient's dollar.

The solution to these problems is not more paternalistic government regulations, bureaucracy, and entitlements. It is to allow--and require--people to take personal responsibility for their own health by separating medicine and state.

Diana Hsieh
Sedalia

I was pretty pleased with the letter, particularly with the fact that it didn't take me too long to write. (RMN allows comments on letters; so please post away!)

The forces of socialism are gearing up to impose government-controlled medicine on Colorado, so I expect to be writing more on this topic over the next year and a half. (I'll say more about all that later.)

Lights Out

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

The following letter of mine is slated to appear in the Hampton Roads Business Journal:

"The lights are going out all over Europe" - and in America, too.

That is what I usually append to Edward R. Murrow's famous observation of Nazi Germany swallowing more of Europe in the lead-up to World War II, when I read of another smoking ban or a proposal for one. At first glance, the connection of smoking bans with Hitler might seem a fatuous association. It really isn't, not in the historical particulars, not in the broader, fundamental sense.

Hitler was as rabid a non-smoker as any U.S. surgeon general, and if he'd won the war, had plans to ban smoking throughout Pax Germanica, the better to protect a healthier, "pure" Aryan race and a healthier population of slaves, all of them living for the state.

Well, they are going out again in Europe, again, only the aggressor now is an axis of the health bureaucrat, the nonsmoker, and the ubiquitous statistic. Britain and France, for example, have both legislated nation-wide bans that will take the pleasure out of dining out and having a good time.

I recalled Murrow's observation again when I read Mary Worrell's "Owners worry ban will send business up in smoke" in the January 8-14 Hampton Roads Business Journal. "A potential ban on all smoking in Norfolk restaurants has some business owners seeing red - not black," she wrote. They have every right to worry about the fate of their businesses. But, over the past, in numerous articles like Worrell's about smoking bans in California and New York City and Chicago and elsewhere, I have read the same complaints of restaurant and bar owners who predict drastic reductions in their business and even financial ruin. They argue, basically, from the perspective of practicality and unfairness. That, however, in the long run, is a futile and impractical position to take.

I have yet to see any property owners invoke the right to private property. I have yet to see any restaurateur or publican take a moral stand against the arbitrary, selective seizure of his business or property. For that is what smoking bans amount to. Like the policy of eminent domain enacted in favor of other private interests (re the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, and other such cases), in which homes and businesses are condemned, seized, and destroyed to make way for other private, higher tax -revenue-garnering developments, smoking bans are, in effect, arbitrary seizures of private property in favor of a particular segment of the public or a particular group of people, namely, nonsmokers.

So, when one gets beneath all the propaganda about the alleged health risks of smoking, all the guff about protecting "our children" (whose?), all the tilted statistics about the dangers of secondhand smoke, and all the government-encouraged vilification of smoking and smokers (largely paid for by compliant tobacco companies, no less), all there is to see is just the ogre of political power exercising itself on a targeted, defenseless minority at the behest of an alleged majority.

"The city could be messing with fire if revenues at restaurants are hit by an ordnance banning smoking, which could equate to decreased food and beverage tax revenues, Bourn said," writes Worrell. "You can't legislate social behavior." Chad Bourn owns a retail tobacco store in Norfolk.

But petit tyrants can legislate "social behavior," and will, if they think they can get away with it. They believe they own everyone, that men exist by their whim and by grace of their permission and act and conduct their lives according to their rules. And they can do that if the victims sanction that kind of power. One of the most ironic terms that politicians dress themselves in is "public servant." But, if one is paying taxes to pay these "servants" to make it increasingly difficult to live and conduct business in the name of some dubious "public good," who is the servant, and who is the master?

It costs the "public servant" nothing to pass laws against smoking, trans fats, and cholesterol-heavy foods and whatever else activist, intrusive Chicken-Littles rail against; it costs the opponents of those laws a fortune if not their livelihoods if they decide to revolt against such laws. Modern lawyers, after all, will not advocate a moral approach to the issue. That, they would say, would be "impractical." They are not of the same passionate mettle as, say, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, and everyone should know what happened when they dug in their heels. Neither man, incidentally, was a smoker, but they would both be incredulous about how much freedom Americans have surrendered to big tyrants (the feds), and petit tyrants (the governing council of any city you wish to name).

Worrell concludes her article:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that even with proper ventilation, secondhand smoke exposure is not eliminated and that establishing smoke-free environments is the only effective way to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke. The CDC also cites homes and workplaces as the primary locations where nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke."

Well, the government speaks, so it must be true.

The nation, and not just Hampton Roads or Norfolk, is creeping by increments to outright statism, that is, a "democracy" in which everyone lives for the sake of everyone else, and, ultimately, for the state. If the business owners of Norfolk plan to put up a good fight against their tyrants, they had better stand on the principle of their individual rights. They should proclaim: This is my property, and if you can't abide smoking or secondhand smoke, go elsewhere, or start your own restaurant. This is not a "public service," nor is it a "public place."

If they don't take a moral stand, and expose the tyrants for what they are, and what is truly at stake, then more lights will go out in America, and in this state, which over two hundred years ago lit the torch of revolution. It appears as such a petty issue - the rights of smokers and restaurateurs - but resistance to the Stamp Act of 1765 heralded a greater revolution.

Learn from history, gentlemen.

The high price of tortillas

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

Here's a story by Ioan Grillo of the Associated Press that evidences the abysmal state of news reporting today. Grillo writes about a protest in Mexico over rising prices.

Some 75,000 unionists, farmers and leftists marched to protest price increases in basic foodstuffs like tortillas, a direct challenge to the new president's market-oriented economic policies blamed by some for widening the gulf between rich and poor.

Since taking office Dec. 1 after a disputed election, President Felipe Calderon has drawn his greatest criticism for failing to control the largest price spike in tortillas in decades. Tortillas are a staple of poor Mexicans' diet.

The national uproar has put him in an uncomfortable position between the poor and some agribusiness industries hoping to profit from the surge in international corn prices, driven mostly by the sudden explosion of the U.S. ethanol industry. A free-market advocate, Calderon has said he does not want to return to direct price controls enforced by many former Mexican presidents.

OK, so President Calderon supports the free market and thereby opposes price controls. Yet notice how the third paragraph offers only one justification for Calderon's position: it gives agribusiness larger profits (which allegedly hurt the poor).

What about the fact that the "sudden explosion of the U.S. ethanol industry" is due to government mandates and subsidies, and that these mandates and subsidies coercively steer producers away from fulfilling market demands and instead push them toward fulfilling government demands? Don't misguided government mandates hurt the poor?

What about the fact that price controls discourage production and thereby encourage shortages by mandating that a good be sold at below market rates? Don't shortages hurt the poor?

What about the fact that the abolition of price controls will lead to an increase in production-an increase that creates jobs? Doesn't the creation of new jobs help the poor?

And what about the fact that the lure of new profits compels participants to learn how to be more efficient (and thereby reduce prices), rather than simply troll about for the government-set price? Don't decreasing prices help the poor?

There are a host of critical points about the impact of price controls upon people's lives, yet this news article fails to consider any of them. So what then does it consider?

High tortilla prices put some Mexicans in danger of being malnourished.

The poor eat an average of 14 ounces of tortillas daily, giving them 40 percent of their protein, according to Amanda Galvez, who runs a nutrition research institute at Mexico's National Autonomous University.

With the new prices, workers earning the minimum wage of about $4 a day could spend a third of their earnings on tortillas for their family.

"Some people can switch to more unhealthy alternatives. Others just go without," Galvez said.

Does this information offer any information or insight as to what the government of Mexico should do with its price controls? Does the reporter even think it is relevant to present economic evidence in his story beyond that the poor are poor? Apparently not, yet this is what often passes for news reporting these days.

It's no wonder Latin America is lurching toward the left; free market ideas (let alone their moral base) don't even show up on the radar screen.

Ecoterrorism, Ecotyranny

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

Even in conservative Texas -- the "even" makes sense only if you remain under the delusion that the conservative movement is fundamentally opposed to environmentalism -- environmentalism has made significant progress in its drive towards ending industrial civilization.

First off, we have this story, from the Houston Chronicle, about a possible ecoterrorist in Lubbock.

A 62-year-old man is suspected of stringing wires at neck level across a popular bike path, as well as scattering nails, broken glass and rocks across the trail in a series of traps set because he wanted to protect the environment, police said.

"This could kill someone," said Dewayne Wallace, an avid cyclist who said his friend was cut across the neck by one of the wires and was thrown from his bike.

A grand jury was scheduled to review the case next week, to see if the man will face two third-degree felony charges of attempted aggravated assault with a weapon. Each count carries a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Detective Rene Martinez said he questioned the man about the traps set over at least a yearlong period, and the man told him he just wanted to protect wildlife.

"He just loves nature," Martinez said. [bold added]

You will note that I had to identify these attacks as "terrorism" since neither the paper nor Detective Rene "He just loves nature." Martinez would or could do this.

It is one thing for the government to be flat-footed in its response to an ecoterrorist, but quite another for it to be complicit in implementing this anti-man ideology. Unfortunately, complicity is closer to home for me, as indicated by this story about the City of Houston's new proposal to sue "emitters" (a Newspeak synonym for "polluters": both mean "producers"):

Houston is trying to become the first place in Texas to set a standard for hazardous air pollutants, a move that would make the city stricter than the state and federal government in policing the amount of cancer-causing substances in its air.

An amendment proposed to the city's nuisance ordinance would allow Houston to sue industrial facilities emitting toxic pollutants that, over time, could cause one additional person in 1 million to contract cancer. [bold added]

This "clear, transparent, nondiscriminatory standard" -- for the persecution of industrialists -- is in fact so "clear" and so "transparent" that the Chronicle felt the need to explain it in a sidebar:

A risk level of one in a million implies a likelihood that up to one person, out of 1 million equally exposed people, would develop cancer if exposed 24 hours per day to the specific concentration of a pollutant over 70 years (an assumed lifetime). This would be in addition to those cases that would normally occur in an unexposed population of 1 million.

Given that Houston's metro population is perhaps six million, this law would not save even six lives in seventy years for an ordinance violation for any given pollutant! This level of risk is nowhere near the level at which one could say that the activities of these "emitters" pose an objective danger to those nearby and so might warrant government intervention of some form. Clearly, the purpose of this law is to loot industrialists in the area during the process of further discouraging their valuable activities.

I am not happy to see the huge surge in green momentum since the Democrats won in November, but the very fact that even in Texas, environmentalism has this much of a cultural foothold -- along with its acceptance among so many within the mainstream conservative movement -- tells me that this intellectual tsunami was going to strike sooner or later.

At least with the Democrats in charge, capitalism won't get blamed for the inevitable consequences of any green policies that do get passed at the federal level.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Added a clarification.

Global Warming Marionettes

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

The latest attempt to disguise as capitalism new government intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens would be a proposal by Garrett Gruener, the founder of Ask.com, that the government give us the "choice" of either (a) spending our own money or (b) having it confiscated from us in the name of fighting something that may or may not exist (global warming):

Voters on the American political left might be content to stop there and let the federal government spend the tax proceeds to fight global warming as it sees fit. Voters on the right would likely object on grounds that taxes are already too high, that market solutions to the energy problem are preferable or that government investment in clean-energy technologies will only spawn inefficient bureaucracies. But because taxes are a third rail of U.S. politics — touch it and you die -- politicians might never get around to making us pay for the solutions we all know we need. [We all "know" we "need" this? Really? --ed]

The alternative is to place the authority to spend the tax money directly in the hands of the American people. This approach would make a carbon tax more palatable, equitable and efficient at reducing greenhouse gases. The average American would pay roughly $555 a year for all of the carbon used in his gasoline, electricity and home heating.

But instead of going to the Treasury, the tax money would be credited into individual "energy savings accounts." Each taxpayer could decide how best to spend it to reduce carbon emissions, to benefit himself and the planet. You could use your $555 toward installing solar panels on your roof, cutting your electricity bill to zero. Or you could direct your tax money to a charity that plants fast-growing trees at the equator, or to a private company that would suck up the carbon in the atmosphere and sequester it under the ocean floor. You could pool your "cooling tax" money with your neighbors and build a windmill to supply your town with electricity or a plant to supply you with a non-carbon alternative to gasoline. [And leftist cast Henry Ford as some kind of tyrant for saying "any color you want, so long as it's black"! --ed]

Any plan that produces energy without emitting carbon, or gets rid of carbon already in the atmosphere, would qualify. Companies would compete for your business, and more would surely develop to serve the burgeoning clean-energy market.

If you don't want to be bothered with this scheme, or if you believe the federal government is the best "decider" for how to solve global warming, you can do nothing. The Treasury would collect unallocated funds from energy savings accounts and put them to work tackling global warming as it deemed best. Poor people could apply for tax rebates, so that the tax would not be regressive. And better market choices would presumably reduce the tax bill for most people each subsequent year. [bold added]

"If you don't want to be bothered"?! -- like being told, "Spend your money on global warming hysteria, or else!" doesn't count as being "bothered"! This proposal is fascism -- the pretense of private property with government control -- plain and simple.

Gruener is one "venture capitalist" whose theoretical understanding of capitalism is just a wee bit lacking. Two things are worth commenting on here.

First of all, I have said it before and I'll say it again:

Just because the government creates a 'market' by permitting the wholesale violation of rights (liberty in the case of slavery or property in [the case of California's 'market' in carbon tax credits]) does not mean that it is promoting capitalism.

Gruener here confusing the fact that our names (and a very circumscribed amount of discretion) would be on these accounts with the notion that they would still constitute our "property".

Second of all, a very valuable lesson for actual advocates of capitalism lies buried under all this. I recall, back in the mid-to-late eighties or early nineties, that school vouchers were first becoming a popular idea, especially among advocates of capitalism. Implicitly, many of us saw these as a good first step towards removing government control of education by at least giving some citizens the power to use the money that had already been taken from them to send their own children to decent schools.

I also recall around that time reading an essay, probably by an Objectivist, to the effect that advocates of capitalism should be very careful about supporting voucher programs, which are in fact fascism (as I described above for these so-called "energy savings accounts"). I do not recall much else from that essay, but ever since I read it, it has been clear to me that one must always very carefully evaluate just what advocates of any given "market-based" form of government interference are trying to accomplish.

For example, in the case of school vouchers, many efforts have nothing to do with transitioning from a public education system to a private one at all. Instead, they are just attempts to fund religious schools with government money. And here, we see a leftist proposal designed to appeal to many of the same people who have been hoodwinked by the religious right to call a massive effort to establish government funding of the Church of Gaia "savings accounts".

This is why a full understanding of what capitalism is is necessary to become an effective advocate for capitalism. Not only can programs look like they could aid in the transition away from the welfare state while in fact they are doing nothing of the sort -- but many "market-based" reforms are being actively used today to accelerate the growth of the welfare state in new ways.

The lesson for advocates of capitalism is this: One must be very especially careful to evaluate the context within which any "market-based" proposal is raised before even beginning to consider lending one bit of support to it. And then, if lending this support, one must be very clear that this support is contingent on the measure leading towards a genuinely acceptable state of affairs. Furthermore, if such a proposal does not deserve support, defenders of capitalism should make it clear that it is anything but capitalism.

To wit: These so-called "energy savings accounts" are clearly designed to force everyone in America to pay, in one way or another, for a series of leftist goals. This idea is a form of fascism, a gross trampling by the government of individual rights, and as such, it deserves no support whatsoever. This last would be true even if we knew for a fact that human burning of fossil fuels caused global warming to occur exactly as Al Gore claims.

It is bad enough that so many people are falling for global warming hysteria. It is also unfortunate that so many are confused as to the true nature of capitalism and the proper role of government. It would be far worse, however, for those of us who do understand capitalism to stand back and allow both forms of confusion to feed off one another and further threaten our freedom.

-- CAV

Rednecks and the Hajib

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

A very apt analogy occurred to me as I read some news items about how certain individuals and groups wish to lasso the First Amendment and put it in a corral. For those who doubt that censorship is creeping ever closer, or are confused about the various issues and see no connections between them at all, the analogy will help to concretize the phenomenon.

We have all heard the joke with a thousand variations, such as, "You're a redneck if your front yard boasts three rusty washing machines and seven cars sitting on cinder blocks." Does a rank-and-file Muslim differ much from the legendary American redneck? Fundamentally, no. What defining characteristics do they share? They are notoriously non-intellectual, mentally arrested, tribal in outlook, and prefer to stick to traditional ways of living and of doing things. On the latter characteristic, they are hostile to the prospect of venturing into new and possibly better ways of thinking, living and doing things, and resent the imposition of having to think and choose. They prefer to be left alone to exist in an insular universe of the mundane and the perceptually familiar.

Their reading habits are mainly limited to violent and bloody ghost stories, that is, to the Bible and the Koran, which represent the limits of their grasp of a moral code. What they do not share are a thirst for alcohol and their traditional cuisines. A Muslim would faint with horror or walk away in a holy snit if served a plate of chitterlings by a waitress in a Hooters outfit, while the redneck would feel offended if offered Southern-fried goat meat or a falafel fajita. But they are otherwise cognitively inert, passive manqués who unthinkingly heed the advice of their Bible- and Koran-thumping spiritual leaders.

Their more "advanced" or ambitious brethren are activists of many suasions. For the redneck, these are represented by the Ku Klux Klan and religious conservative politicians. For the Muslim, these are represented by Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qada and the Council on American-Islamic Relations or any of its well-heeled "watchdog" clone organizations throughout the country. The "activists" believe that the status quo, tradition and God's writ can be preserved for all time with violence or by insinuating their oppressive creeds into the larger polity under the sly guises of "tolerance" and "moral uplift and purity."

To this end, the Klan believed in instilling terror and obedience in the minds of Negroes, Jews, and Catholics, and in staging house burnings or lynchings to prove they meant business. Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Qada believe in instilling wholesale terror in the minds of any group they designate "unbelievers" and blowing up as many of them as possible, and in a dozen or so beheadings and dismemberments, to show that they mean business.

The Klan would leave alone those who "knew their place" and submitted humbly to its "superior" moral code and a Jim Crow political system. Islamic activists claim they will leave alone those who humbly accept the status of dhimmitude and acknowledge their subjugation to a "superior" moral code and a theocratic leviathan, also known as a caliphate. The Jim Crow enforcers would impose a poll tax on those who were barred from voting and all participation in politics. The Islamists would impose a jizya on non-Muslims, and that would be the limit of theocratic politics in the caliphate, for Muslim and redneck unbeliever alike.

Enough of the analogy. I think the point is made. Two of the news items that triggered this diversion are these:

On December 13th, in "Our Saudi Foes," I remarked on how CAIR received, at CAIR's instigation, submission from the Fox network and diluted the moral appeal of "24" by "humanizing" Jack Bauer's Islamic enemies or by simply diversifying his enemies so that they weren't always Muslims. British Muslims, however, are bolder and are going after bigger game.

Lawrence Van Gelder, in a New York Times article on January 26th, reported in "Arts, Briefly," that:

"A British Islamic group complained yesterday that Western films as old as 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' in 1981 have promoted a negative stereotype of Muslims, Reuters reported. The group's report called upon British censors to be given expanded power to cut 'objectionable material' and urged cultural watchdogs to be more effective in ensuring 'responsible coverage' of Muslims. 'There is no such thing as a Muslim good guy,' complained Arzu Merali, a coauthor of the report by the Islamic Human Rights Commission. Its study, attributed to responses from nearly 1,200 British Muslims, said that 62 percent felt the British media were 'Islamophobic,' and 14 percent called them racist. 'Cinema, both in Hollywood and Britain, has helped to demonize Muslims,' Mr. Merali said. 'They are portrayed as violent and backward. That reinforces prejudices.'"

As "violent and backward" as rednecks? Do not for a moment think that Mr. Merali and his colleagues on the Commission are unaware that it is Muslims who are raising holy hell - otherwise known as jihad - all around the world in a kind of global Hatfield and McCoy feud against each other's sects and everyone else, if the daily death toll in Baghdad is any measure. They are hoping that the employment of the term "prejudice" will scare off anyone who might make that point and ask that a Muslim "good guy" to be pointed out to him. They are hoping that no one remembers that uncounted thousands of Muslims around the world cheered the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 and the Madrid and London and Bali bombings, as well, and hailed the perpetrators as "good guys," if not heroes.

Indiana Jones or James Bond impersonators they were not. By Koranic standards, can there be such a thing as a Muslim "good guy"? The only Muslim "good guys" one can observe are the so-called "moderates" who express queasiness about the actions their "extremist" champions take against especially Westerners, but who won't lift a finger in protest against such "stereotyping."

"Prejudice"? A year ago I stopped patronizing a Muslim-owned tobacco shop for two reasons: I couldn't be sure that some of its revenue was being extorted by or "donated" Mafia-style to Islamic organizations up in northern Virginia's "Jihad Alley" that in turn funneled the money to terrorist gangs with sub rosa connections to CAIR and other domestic Islamic entities; and because I grew tired of seeing the otherwise gorgeous Muslim woman at the register going to fat and seed, garbed in hajib, and deferring humbly to her scruffy-looking Muslim husband. Call me prejudiced. I can live with the disapprobation.

Mr. Merali should not worry about Hollywood ever offending Muslim sensibilities or stereotyping Muslims. Other than producing a few insipid films that dealt with 9/11 but which barely mentioned or didn't mention Muslims at all, Hollywood has been resoundingly silent on the subject of Islamic jihad. In fact, the one portrayal of a Muslim that should not offend Muslims is that of Naveen Andrews, who plays the competent and eminently rational Sayid on ABC's "Lost." As a former Iraqi Republican Guard, Sayid has only once taken time to bow to Mecca. (I watch the program because I like some of the characters in it, but I have no idea where it is headed, and I don't think its producers and director knew where it was going, either, when they premiered it.)

Let us turn to the redneck notion of imposing dhimmitude.

The Wilmington, North Carolina Star on January 26th carried a story, "Republican: Scripts need reviewing, Movie prompts lawmaker's incentive idea."

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

"That system, said Berger, 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."

In the film, 12-year-old Dakota Fanning's character reportedly is subjected to a graphically filmed rape. Berger may find the scene "objectionable," and so may many of his redneckier Christian constituents.

But, why indeed are North Carolina taxpayers being forced to subsidize filmmakers? In addition to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities? And any other governmental, tax-financed program that promotes "culture," whether or not it produces anything deemed of any esthetic merit? The artistic value or content, or lack of it, of a film is irrelevant. The article goes on to explain Berger's "objections":

"State law denies the incentive to films that are obscene. In state law, obscenity is defined as depicting sexual conduct presented in an offensive way that appeals to prurient interest, lacks any 'serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value,' and is not free speech protected by the state or federal constitutions."

And who typically has the power to determine "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific" values? An appointed bureaucrat, otherwise known as a censor.

"Berger said the film-incentive ban should be broadened to include material considered objectionable. He said there should be no First Amendment concerns because the producer would be seeking money from the state government. But he did say that if constitutional questions confused the matter, it would be better not to have a film incentive at all."

True enough, and if the film incentive program were ever dropped, it would save Berger the bother and embarrassment of pondering the true meaning of the First Amendment. But nascent censors like Berger usually think of something else to spend taxpayer money on. Constitutional matters will always confuse or confound his ilk, but won't stop them from taking advantage of the confusion. It should be pointed out, however, that censoring films subsidized by the government is only one step away from censoring films not subsidized by it, on the grounds that they contain "objectionable" material or have no "definable" social or artistic value.

For a clue to what else other than badly made movies may be deemed "objectionable," please refer back to my commentary on the British Muslims above. What the Muslims and rednecks have in mind to fit over everyone's minds is not anything as skimpy as a veil or a hajib. It is a burkah.

Happy Birthday Ayn Rand

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

Today marks the 102nd anniversary of Ayn Rand's birth.

The Super Bowl And Goal Achievement

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

The Super Bowl really is about goal-achievement: But how can heroic stature arise from a perfectly useless act like carrying a football across a goal line? The answer is that the non-utilitarian nature of sporting goals provides a limited, safe context in which everyone's focus can be on the process of goal-achievement as such, not on the particular nature or value of the goal.

Much more from Tom Bowden here. Go Bears!

A Brilliant Tour in 2500 Words

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I just took a look at a brief overview of Rand and Objectivism authored by Greg Salmieri and Allan Gotthelf for a dictionary of modern philosophers. Wow! They accomplished so much in so little space, and so brilliantly. Reading it feels almost like reading a poem. One can tell that everything from the major structural decisions down to the last jot and tittle was carefully balanced and designed to work in concert to squeeze in maximal meaning and clarity for any engaged, attentive reader whose eyes might fall on those 2500 words. And while it is dense and aimed at distinguishing and explaining (and enticing further study of) Rand's system for an academically-trained audience in terms they can understand, it is nonetheless accessible to the rest of us.

I could gush about its particular virtues for more than its own length, so I'll leave it at gesturing to just one of my favorite structural choices and the wonderful connections it supported. They closed out the metaphysics by pointing to the importance Rand placed on distinguishing the metaphysically-given from the man-made, and then as they worked upward through the normative branches of her system, they called on it in ways that would clarify what Rand was up to (always striving to distinguish her approach from others it might be superficially confused with). After all that, they strode into a conclusion that used the distinction to address the objectivity of values while reinforcing the integrated nature of her system by making a gigantic connection with references that resolved all the way down through metaphysics. This also set them up to credibly point to her distinctive conception of objectivity and its pervasive influence on her system. That gigantic connection appeared in the final two sentences of their penultimate paragraph, and I actually laughed out loud when I saw how they were cashing in on what they had set up:

On her view values are objective. Values (like concepts) are formed by a consciousness in accordance with the facts of reality. To be a value something must be identified by an agent as furthering his life. The identification is man-made, as is the choice to live that gives it meaning. But the relationship between the value and the agent's life is metaphysically given, as is the need to identify this relationship conceptually.

That's just righteously cool.

I'm Not "Impressed"

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

It looks like I foresaw a split in the environmentalist camp. Last week, while writing about Al Gore's "Inconvenient Interview" I noted:

Maybe the fact that even the United Nations, which one would think would lead the hysterical global warming charge, has a view different from Gore's has him a bit shaken. If Gore is truly right, why wouldn't he spread his message unabashedly to all listeners. It looks like he has something to hide -- knowledge. And that behavior by itself doesn't prove Gore is wrong, but it sure is motive for doubt about his claims.

At The Reference Frame, physicist Lubos Motl:

Just like in the case of the Catholic Church and Protestants, the environmentalist church of consensus is going to split. Everyone in the church agrees that there is a 100% consensus among all experts but unfortunately the two equally strong groups of experts disagree what the consensus says.

and...

The IPCC report is going to say that Antarctica won't see any significant difference even if CO2 levels continue to grow. In fact, Antarctica has seen some cooling and increased precipitation is raising the total amount of ice mass on this continent, as the IPCC report also mentions. The frequent readers of this blog also know that Greenland has cooled down in the last 70 years, too. Its ice mass seems to be increasing there as well.

Lubos notes that some are protesting the IPCC's view because it gives the wrong "impression":

The goal of a scientific report is apparently to "give the right impression".

Without "impression", there would be no environmentalist movement. "Impression" is an important philosophical term and extremely applicable to the global warming hysteria.

"Impressions" have their root in Democritus' materialist, atomist epistemology. Democritus did not support an objective reality which you and I perceive with our senses and then seek to understand through concept formation and logic. Instead, Democritus thought that we can not really know reality through thought. We have only "impressions":

...[I]t follows that thought, which knows the true real, can be explained only from an impression which this truly real makes upon the fiery atoms, -- explained therefore itself only through the efflux of such images. As a psychological process, therefore, thought is the same as perception...

Odd and fantastic as this sounds, the indications are yet all in favour of the supposition that Democritus drew this conclusion from the presuppositions of his materialistic psychology. This psychology knew no independent, internal mechanisms of ideas or conscious states, but only an arising of ideas through the motions of atoms.

Hence it regarded ideas that were evidently deceptive as also "impressions" and sought for these the exciting images. [Windelband, p.114 - 115].

The environmentalist movement clearly supports this epistemology and bombards you and me with atomistic images in order to make an "impression". Instead of making a scientific case based upon hierarchy and context, we are indundated with pictures of floating icebergs and dripping water in order to make an impression.

Two thousand years later, David Hume carried on the idea of impressions:

Only in characterising Hume's doctrine, it must not be forgotten that this absolutely certain matter-of-fact quality, which belongs to impressions, is solely that of their presence as mental states. In this meaning and restriction intuitive knowledge embraces not only the facts of inner experience, but also those of outer experience, but at the price of recognising that the latter are properly only species of the former, -- a knowledge, that is, of mental states. [Windelband, p. 472]

Translation: "Sure you can attain certainty, but not certainty based upon reality, but a certainty based upon what you make up in your head."

Thus, scientific knowledge based upon reality and built hierarchically and in context is not important. You can just be certain of what you have made up in your head. And what is in that head? Just impressions of contextless melting glaciers.

The result is the explanation for the success of the global warming religion -- materialist and skeptic view that we can't really know reality ("I just can't or don't want to know") coupled with an intrinsicist "I just know based upon whatever I feel." This is why both liberals and conservatives support environmentalism -- and why science is dismissed. The growth in religious belief over the past two decades is both a reflection of the increased intrinsicism in the culture and an aid to those who wish to believe in environmentalism.

I, however, am not "impressed" with either.