Hostages of Iran

Ayn Rand Institute:

"There is a profound, but unrecognized, lesson in the West's weak response to Iran's hostage-taking of British naval personnel," said Elan Journo, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute.

"The U.K. government and Washington are widely regarded as aggressive defenders of their interests in the face of Islamist aggression. But the present Iranian hostage crisis shows, again, how these would-be defenders of our life and freedom are pathetically timid--while our enemy is shameless and ever more confident.

"Iran is a leading world sponsor of Islamic totalitarianism and has long been waging a terrorist proxy war against the West, through groups such as Hezbollah. In Iraq, Iran's proxies have been slaughtering U.S. and British troops. Iran initiates all of this aggression--to say nothing of its nuclear weapons program--with the confidence that it has an Allah-given right to murder. No surprise, then, that when 15 British naval personnel came near Iranian waters, Teheran took them hostage--and unabashedly demanded an apology from Britain, its victim.

"What has been the British, and American, response to Iran's outrage? What has the West done in the face of such a confidently evil regime? Did Britain give Iran an ultimatum backed by the threat of force? Far from it. With Washington's endorsement, London meekly protested, renounced using force to free its troops, and solemnly vowed to pursue 'patient diplomacy.' It has brought up the issue at the international sewer known as the United Nations, London is hoping that the U.N. will condescend to issue a press statement--its weakest possible statement--deploring Iran's actions. But since the U.N. is packed with Iranian allies and sympathizers, even this futile gesture is unlikely to happen.

"What underlies this unconscionably weak response? Fundamentally, it is the corrupt moral principle that dominates the West, the principle that regards selflessness as a virtue and self-assertion in pursuit, and defense, of one's interests as immoral. To punish Iran militarily for its many acts of war would be wrong, it would flout the will of the 'international community,' it would, on this premise, be 'selfish.' It is this premise that inhibits, and thus disarms, the West in the face of the enemy--and, as a result, spurs our enemy.

"While the British may hope that their timid, deferential approach will avoid inflaming the crisis and antagonizing Iran, they are accomplishing the opposite. The spectacle of Western nations bowing in submission is an encouragement to Iran and Islamic totalitarians worldwide.

"Iran and other evil regimes grow stronger and more threatening precisely because the morally good nations, who should defeat Iran's regime, are cowardly, apologetic, and meek."

Call Security, Get Sued?

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

Recall that back in Novenmber, six Islamofascist agents provocateur deliberately impersonated terrorists in order to cause themselves to be thrown off a US Airways flight, only to start whining about "flying while Moslem" in preparation for a lawsuit-cum-media circus. Back then, I said the following.

It is not religious persecution for airline security personnel to make sure a Moslem isn't going to turn an airline flight into a huge bomb. It is common sense, reason applied to the limited evidence one has available at the moment. To begrudge a man of that is to declare moral bankruptcy.

It is both reason and evidence that these imams want you to ignore any time their religion can be brought up on even the remotest pretext. This is why Moslems behaved violently after the Pope criticized their faith -- for condoning violence. They were not really "offended". Whatever we infidels think is beneath contempt to them. They want to intimidate us to the point that we quit thinking whenever they want us to, so when they say "Jump!" we'll ask "How high?" if we dare say anything.

This act of unmitigated gall is no blow for civil rights. No. In this case, a real blow for the only rights that exist -- individual rights -- would be to stand up proudly for US Airways and its other passengers. Forgotten in this controversy are the property rights of US Airways to deny service to anyone they please, and the right to life and liberty of everyone who acted rationally in an effort to prevent another atrocity like those that occurred on September 11, 2001. [bold added]

Sadly, the Islamofascist Six may have come up with a clever way to do achieve their goal. According to an editorial in USA Today, they are attempting to drag individual passengers into their already frivolous and unjust lawsuit.

Their lawsuit, filed earlier this month, accused the airline and Metropolitan Airports Commission of anti-Muslim bias. That was expected. What's unique and especially troubling, though, is the effort to identify an unknown number of passengers and airline employees who reported suspicions so they might also be included as defendants. For example, the imams want to know the names of an elderly couple who turned around "to watch" and then made cellphone calls, presumably to authorities, as the men prayed.

This legal tactic seems designed to intimidate passengers willing to do exactly what authorities have requested -- say something about suspicious activity.

...

US Airways can afford to defend itself and the crew in court. Passengers who notified authorities don't have those resources. Several lawyers have promised to represent such passengers for free. The American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a moderate Muslim group, will raise funds for their defense. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., has introduced a bill to shield from legal liability those who report suspicious behavior.

It shouldn't have to come to that, especially if a judge has the wisdom to throw out the complaints against the "John Doe" passengers before they're identified. [bold added, links dropped]

I applaud USA Today for making this report, which should serve as a wake-up call to a country that seems to have hit the snooze button -- again -- since the religiously-motivated atrocities of September 2001.

However, this editorial does make a dangerous concession to the enemy: It brings up "ethnic profiling" only to call it "reprehensible". Although ethnic profiling for the purpose of arbitrary discrimination would certainly be morally reprehensible -- if anyone were ever actually guilty of it in this day and age -- it should be within the legal rights of US Airways to engage in it if it pleases, as an extension of its right to refuse service to anyone, which in turn stems from the inalienable right to property of its owners.

But the only reason ethnic profiling comes up at all is because the overwhelming majority of terrorists happen to be followers of a certain major religion, Islam. It is thus not unreasonable to take a passenger's religion (or apparent religion) into account when deciding whether to allow someone onto an airplane, as I said in November.

This editorial should have at the very least made the distinction between the profiling as a means of discrimination and as a means for screening passengers more efficiently with limited resources. Unfortunately, it does not, and in the process concedes the evil moral premise of the Islamofascist Six, even while correctly identifying its deadly results. Contrary to this premise, ethnic profiling should not be punishable by law.

This lawsuit, as emphasized by this deliberate harassment of some of the passengers, is a naked attempt by these imams to employ our nation's dangerously broken legal machinery to make dhimmis of all of us.

-- CAV

PS: One further point bears making. The only remotely valid reason to file a lawsuit over something someone says at an airport would be if what that person could reasonably be construed as slander (which clearly does not apply to the other passengers), or incitement (which might be worth exploring in the case of the imams). Nothing else -- even if passengers shouted epithets at this heap of human refuse -- should be a basis for touching so much as a hair on their heads.

It's a concept that seems increasingly foreign to the so-called civil rights movement: Freedom of speech.

PPS: Here's another disturbing thought. As if it is not bad enough that Steve Pearse sees the need to introduce legislation that would shield reports to airport security from liability, consider the precedent it sets for later governmental abuse. Will people who act as government informants for such non-crimes as violating environmental laws similarly be protected?

Just as fraud was already illegal, meaning there was no need for further legislation after Enron, so is free speech already in no need of further legal protection. This bill, an understandable but mistaken reaction to the problem posed by our legal system (and exploited by the Islamofascist Six), can ultimately introduce more problems than it solves. (Of course, this is not to say there aren't already such laws as I envision already on the books.)

Updates

Today: (1) Minor edits. (2) PS and PPS.

A World Without Tipping?

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Imagine this rich fat guy. Let’s call him Diamond Jim.

Diamond Jim knows you only live once and he wants to live in style. He is very particular in his demands and he only wants the best. When he goes to his favorite restaurant, he expects the valet to park his Cadillac in a special spot and to keep an eye on it. He expects the maitre d’ to seat him at his favorite table by the window. He makes special demands on the waiters.

The grubby socialist who sits at the dark corner table glowers at Diamond Jim in resentment. Why can’t he accept the normal service everyone gets? What makes him special?

After dinner Diamond Jim likes a waiter to serve him a cigar on the patio and even to light his cigar. Furthermore, Diamond Jim expects the waiter to stay with him to engage in conversation, and he demands that the waiter be a Christian-socialist-environmentalist because he likes to argue with fools as he smokes.

Do the valet, maitre d’ and waiters hate Diamond Jim? Quite the contrary, they love him; they even arrange their schedules to be working when Diamond Jim shows up. They do this because Diamond Jim tips like Frank Sinatra on New Year’s Eve. You see, Diamond Jim lives by the Spanish proverb: take what you want and pay for it. He pays for it.

Now, imagine the Senate has passed the Inspector-Van Horn Act, which outlaws tipping. Inspector and Van Horn, the Senate’s two most notorious communists, resent tipping because they think everyone should be paid the same for the same work. Tipping forces individuals to think about how much they should tip, which causes “fears.”

So what do the restaurant workers think of Diamond Jim now? They loathe him because he expects more work from them than the other customers, but they do not get any more money for it. Diamond Jim’s quality of life disappears because he cannot tip. The grubby socialist at the dark corner table cackles with glee because Diamond Jim has been brought down to level of everyone else.

****

This story, like all satire, exaggerates to make a point. Inspector and Gus Van Horn, I am fairly certain, would not advocate a law against tipping. However, they want restaurants to voluntarily do away with the practice.

An individualist, capitalist society is a horn of plenty, offering each individual many choices in every aspect of life. Each individual has the option of choosing his own values, no matter how different or fancy, as long as he can pay for it.

If 90% of the people like blue towels, the other 10% is not forced to buy blue towels just because it is the collective norm. Red towels or yellow towels or checkered towels might cost more, but if someone is willing to pay for them, chances are they will be produced.

Tipping is a force for individualism. Doing away with tips, like all egalitarian actions, penalizes those who want more than the average guy. It forces people with higher standards to accept the service that the statistical average are content with.

Those who have average standards would not be affected by being unable to tip. Collectivists would be delighted because everyone is treated the same.

Only the passionate valuers -- people who think about what they want and then go after it in every aspect of life -- only those people would suffer. Of course, egalitarians don’t care about those people.

Life without the ability to pay for individualized service would be a bit grayer than it is today. It would be one more step in the value-deprivation that is suffocating modern culture.

Conservatives Ape Left -- Again

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

Whether they're taking over the welfare state, censoring a major scientific debate, using government "encouragement" to reduce carbon emissions, or boarding the racial quota express, conservatives are looking more and more like their fellow altruists, the leftists, all the time. Today, we can chalk up another example: Conservapedia.

Recall that there is nothing conservatives like more than to complain about the "Mainstream Media" -- not that I am getting ready to deny the well-known biases of news media dominated by left-wing reporters and commentators.

But if conservatives are going to complain about "liberal bias" with the implication that they are champions of objectivity, projects like the new Conservapedia speak volumes about their motives. An article from the Houston Chronicle lists several excerpts from Wikipedia and Conservapedia head to head, including the following from their respective entries on dinosaurs.

• Wikipedia: Dinosaurs were vertebrate animals that dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over 160-million years, first appearing approximately 230-million years ago.
• Conservapedia: Of those Christians who reject evolution, the Young Earth Creationists believe, based primarily on Biblical sources, but also drawing on archaeological and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the Creation Week approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the Garden of Eden in harmony with other animals, eating only plants; that pairs of various dinosaur baramins were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today.

No missing evidence or ideologically-motivated distortion there! Riiiiight.

-- CAV

Updates

3-28-07: Corrected a typo.

Rampant Criminalization

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

Jonathan Turley has an interesting column up at Jewish World Review in which he catalogs the astonishing array of new, victimless crimes that has sprung up like weeds over recent years. Here is just one example.

Consider the budding criminal career of Kay Leibrand. The 61-year-old grandmother lived a deceptively quiet life in Palo Alto, Calif., until the prosecutors outed her as a habitual horticultural offender. It appears that she allowed her hedge bushes to grow more than 2 feet high -- a crime in the city. Battling cancer, Leibrand had allowed her shrubbery to grow into a criminal enterprise. (After her arraignment and shortly before her jury trial, she was allowed to cut down her bushes and settle the case.) [bold added]

I found it no less astonishing that Congress had recently outlawed the sale of horse meat for human consumption and that public profanity is a crime in some locales.

Turley is right to say that this epidemic of criminalizing noncriminal behavior is political pandering and that it undermines respect for the law, but he could have gone further on both counts.

In considering just the question of why our government has become so intrusive, I said the following some time ago.

And so many of the same people who fight for criminals to be excused from responsibility will support the government taking an ever-larger role in making sure that what ordinary adults and even children used to be trusted to do will get done. A government official will inconvenience you at your own home to make you pump your tanks whether or not you would do that already. And law enforcement will overreact to reports that someone might have something remotely like a gun. And our lawmakers will get closer and closer to banning the possession of firearms outright.

In other words, the politicians are both merely cashing in on our general cultural breakdown and, ironically, serving as convenient scapegoats for the excess in regulations!

Furthermore -- and I have also commented on how such bad laws undermine respect for all law -- Turley doesn't tell the half of it on this score. Awhile back, city officials in Omaha were urging citizens to call 9-1-1 over violations of its new smoking ordinance!

At the moment, the only thing between a few lit cigarettes and a total collapse of the ability of the police department in Omaha to respond promptly to an [actual] emergency is whatever residual rationality the public has left. And that rationality has to be implemented in the form of breaking the law -- by turning a blind eye to a "crime" in progress!

We are not only all being made into "criminals". We are also becoming scofflaws as a matter of survival.

And finally, as we have seen elsewhere, this inordinate concern of the government with the behavior of those citizens it can expect to be law-abiding (from cultural inertia, if nothing else) contrasts with its eagerness to turn a blind eye to the actions, often including real crimes, of those it cannot. The logical end of what Turley describes, has, in other contexts, been called anarcho-tyranny.

The fact remains that the government cannot take care of us, but that it will "take care of us" if we do not begin reasserting control over our own lives and taking the personal responsibility that entails.

-- CAV

In Defense of Income Inequality

Income inequality, in a free market, represents something good; the campaign against it rests on the egalitarian view that the most able should not be permitted to surpass the least able.

By Peter Schwartz

The issue of income inequality reveals one of the ugliest aspects of today's culture. The ugliness stems not from the existence of income inequality--but from the motives of those who denounce it.

Income inequality used to be a rabble-rousing issue of the left. Now it is being raised by mainstream figures, from the head of the Federal Reserve to President Bush, who are apologetically trying to offer solutions. But what is the actual problem they wish to solve? Certainly, it is not a growth in poverty. To the contrary, between 1979 and 2006--the period during which income inequality has supposedly become more acute--real wages for the median worker rose 11.5%. Even workers in the lowest tenth percentile had an increase of 4%.

No, the alleged problem is not that some are becoming poor--but that others are too rich. The complaint is that while the bottom tier enjoyed a 4% rise in income, the top tier enjoyed a 34% increase. The complaint is that over the past 25 years, the share of income of the top fifth of households climbed from 42% to 50%, while that of the bottom fifth fell from 7% to 5%.

But this development represents an injustice only if we use a perverse standard of evaluation. It is unjust only if we measure someone's economic status not by what he has,  but by what others have--i.e., only if he benefits not by making more money, but by making his neighbor have less.

This is the standard of egalitarianism--the standard that demands a uniformity of income, regardless of anyone's ability or effort. It is the standard of envy, whereby a problem exists whenever some have more, of anything, than others. And the egalitarian's solution is to eliminate all such inequalities.

Egalitarianism is the antithesis of the valid tenet of political equality, under which we have equal rights. That is, we have the right to achieve whatever our ambition and talents allow, with no one permitted to forcibly stop us. Egalitarianism, however, is a denial of the individual's right to be left free. It is an abhorrent demand that some people be punished for achieving what others haven't. It is a brazen declaration that an equality of condition must be attained.

And how is it to be attained? By--as the Australians aptly phrase it--cutting down the tall poppies. No one is to be allowed to surpass his fellow-citizen. No one is to be allowed to rise. Which means that the most able must be brought down to the level of the least able. The equal spread of misery and privation is the only "equality" that egalitarians ultimately seek. This is why they extol socialist societies, where all suffer equal destitution, while vilifying capitalist societies, where all are free to advance according to their abilities and where the poorest enjoy greater luxuries than any citizen in a "worker's paradise."

Making others fall does not make you rise. While prohibiting a Thomas Edison or a Bill Gates from becoming fabulously wealthy does indeed reduce income inequality, it does not make the poor richer. Nonetheless, it is what egalitarians desire. They are motivated by what Ayn Rand called "hatred of the good": if they lack something of value, they want to make sure nobody else has it either.

Income inequality is an effect. The cause is the difference in people's economic production. Criticizing income inequality is like complaining that a computer carries a higher price than a paper clip. Price reflects an object's market value--and the money someone earns reflects the market value of his work. There is no fixed, pre-existing glob of income that somehow oozes disproportionately into the pockets of the rich. Wealth is created. The top fifth of the population have ten times more income than the bottom fifth because they have produced ten times more.

In a statist system, people advance through government favors and at the expense of the genuinely deserving. But in a free, capitalist system, income inequality represents something good. It means that exceptional individuals are free to do their productive best, and to reap their rewards. Whenever a Bill Gates arises to make his fortune, the income disparity between top and bottom increases--but so does everyone's standard of living. If so, why shouldn't we welcome an inequality--including a widening inequality--in incomes? And, instead of apologizing for this phenomenon, why aren't our leaders denouncing the egalitarian enviers who want to level us all?

Peter Schwartz is a Distinguished Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, California. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Sarbanes-Oxley Treats Businessmen as Guilty Until Proven Innocent

By Alex Epstein:

Imagine opening tomorrow's newspaper and reading this: "Citing all-too-frequent child abuse and neglect, Congress has proposed the Parenting Reform Act. Under the proposed law, all parents must swear that they have not 'caused unreasonable physical harm or danger' to their children. To verify compliance, all parents will be required to submit their children to a monthly full-body inspection by the new Parental Oversight Board, and account for every cut, scrape, and bruise that inspectors find. If a parent cannot prove the 'reasonableness' of any injuries to the Board's satisfaction, it could result in a loss of custody and 20 years in prison."

Our reaction to this proposed law would be outrage. It is unjust and destructive, we would say, for the government to make arbitrary accusations of abuse and neglect, to conduct baseless investigations, and then to force an innocent parent to try to disprove them.

We should say the same about an existing law that perpetrates such horrors, not against parents, but against businessmen: Sarbanes-Oxley.

Sarbanes-Oxley has been under debate lately--pitting those who say the law must be amended against those who say it must be preserved. But both sides are wrong: Sarbanes-Oxley is a fundamentally corrupt law that must be repealed.

Sarbanes-Oxley was passed nearly five years ago, in the anti-business frenzy following the collapse of Enron--a frenzy in which any corporate crimes were characterized as a black mark on all businessmen. Instead of simply gathering evidence and prosecuting individual perpetrators accordingly, our leaders passed a law that forces all businessmen to prove to the government that they are not cooking their books.

Under Sarbanes-Oxley, the government, without any evidence of possible fraud, has free reign to scour a company's books to determine whether they "fairly" represent the company's finances and do "not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact."

What is "fairly"? What is "material"? Since these terms are undefined, they mean anything government bureaucrats want them to mean. For example, the government under Sarbanes-Oxley can declare a CFO a defrauder for reasonably deciding to capitalize an expenditure instead of expensing it (there are many such judgment calls in accounting).

Further, how can the government hold a businessman criminally responsible for any mistake in a financial report, which is the product of hundreds of people making thousands of individual judgments and decisions? Sarbanes-Oxley says the mistake is "knowing" if the internal controls management establishes to prevent error and fraud are not "adequate." But since the government does not define "adequate," anytime a regulator decides there "should have been" still one more control to prevent even the most inconsequential of errors--management is guilty of fraud.

If parents knew that the government could throw them in jail for every judgment call and innocent error that resulted in a skinned knee, they would avoid "risky" situations like trips to the park, and spend their time tracking their child's every move and their own so that they could rebut the government's arbitrary accusations. The same is true for businesses under the potential guillotine of Section 302 of Sarbanes-Oxley--behavior practically mandated by the extensive testing and documenting of internal controls required by Section 404. Whole companies avoid any action the government might frown upon, and pour endless time and energy into monitoring and cataloging anything that a government inspector might conceivably believe is relevant to financial reporting.

Such behavior is now rampant in corporate America. One study documents businesses engaging in practices like "requiring an auditor to attend a meeting to prove it took place" and "proving that all of the physical keys to an office in Europe have been accounted for since it opened in 1995"! "Even a completely harmless error that nobody cares about," says a lawyer who handles Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, "takes up hundreds and hundreds of hours of the auditors, the CEO, the CFO and the audit committee."

That America's honest, productive businessmen are spending their time and shareholder money to "prove" they are not criminals--when they could be spending those hours and dollars on R&D, new product launches, or mergers and acquisitions--is a monumental injustice. Is it any wonder that misery among top executives is reported throughout corporate America, that top executives are departing at record rates, that more and more public companies are going private, that only a small fraction of the largest IPOs last year took place in the United States?

Sarbanes Oxley must be repealed--not "relaxed," as many business groups are timidly suggesting. And we must start treating businessmen as American citizens: innocent until proven otherwise.

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

The Spreading Desert Sands of Islam

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

"It isn't safe to reckon upon a Dervish's fears. We must always bear in mind that they are not amenable to the same motives as other people. Many of them are anxious to meet death, and all of them are absolute, uncompromising believers in destiny. They exist as a reductio ad absurdum of all bigotry - a proof of how surely it leads to blank barbarism."

The barbarism of suicide bombers? The death worship of Islamic "martyrs"?

"You cannot foretell what they would do. There is no iconoclast in the world like an extreme Mohammedan. Last time they overran this country, they burned the Alexandrian Library. You know that all representations of the human features are against the letter of the Koran. A statue is always an irreligious object in their eyes. What do these fellows care for the sentiment of Europe? The more they could offend it, the more delighted they would be. Down would go the Sphinx, the Colossi, the statues of Abou-Simbel - as the saints went down in England before Cromwell's troopers."

Sound familiar? It is dialogue by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in a novel he penned in 1897, A Desert Drama: Being the Tragedy of the Korosko, and published in 1898. It is the story of a group of British, French and American tourists in Egypt and the Sudan and what happens to them at the height of the Mahdist power in North Africa.

One of the novel's characters, Cecil Brown, a British diplomat, remarks:

"...It is my opinion that we [Great Britain] have been the policemen of the world long enough. We policed the seas for pirates and slavers. Now we police the land for Dervishes and brigands and every sort of danger to civilization. There is never a mad priest or a witch doctor, or a firebrand of any sort on this planet, who does not report his appearance by sniping the nearest British officer. One tires of it at last. If a Kurd breaks loose in Asia Minor, the world wants to know why Great Britain does not keep him in order. If there is a military mutiny in Egypt, or a Jihad in the Sudan, it is still Great Britain who has to set it right. And all to an accompaniment of curses such as the policeman gets when he seizes a ruffian among his pals. We get hard knocks and no thanks, and why should we do it? Let Europe do its own dirty work."

That should sound familiar, as well. Doyle's novel is replete with statements about Europe and Islam that were as true in the 19th century as they are today. As evidence that Europe's ambivalence is nothing new, especially that of France, witness this statement by a French tourist in Doyle's novel when the touring party is attacked and surrounded by jihadist dervishes:

"The Frenchman waved his unwounded hand as he walked. 'Vive le Khalifa! Vive le Madhi!' he shouted, until a blow from behind with the butt-end of a Remington beat him into silence."

Well, that about sums up the current European position. Doyle's novel is full of such gems, almost every one of them recognizable in today's headlines of vacillation, conciliation and accommodation.

(The Khalifa, Abdullah et Taaisha - or Abdullah ibn Mohammad - was the successor of Mohammed Ahmed, or the Mahdi , the "expected one,", who waged a jihadist war on Egyptian/British controlled Sudan between 1883 and 1885, but died of typhus a few months after he captured Khartoum and beheaded British general Charles Gordon.)

It is startling to read how much has not changed, except the irresolution of Europe to confront and combat Islamofication by Muslim immigration under the mantra of multiculturalism, "tolerance," and the Big Brotherish paternalism of the European Union, and the assumption by the U.S. of Britain's former role as the world's "policeman," only handcuffed now by its own altruist ends and self-defeating rules of engagement.

The fundamental character of Islam has not changed, either. Its advocates are still out for blood, conquest and submission.

A retired British colonel, Cochrane, perfectly expresses that same altruist "duty," except that Britain then was not restrained by "rules of engagement" or even Etonian notions of "fairness." Speaking of the successive crises that drew Britain into Egypt and then into the Sudan to crush the Mahdists in 1885, Cochrane laments:

"At the time of trouble we begged and implored the French, or any one else, to come and help us to put the thing to rights, but they all deserted us when there was work to be done, although they are ready enough to scold and to impede us now. When we tried to get out of it, up came this wild Dervish movement, and we had to sit tighter than ever. We never wanted the task; but, now that it has come, we must pull it through in a workmanlike manner. We've brought justice into the country, and purity of administration, and protection for the poor man. It (Egypt and Sudan) has made more advance in the last twelve years than since the Moslem invasion in the seventh century....England has neither directly nor indirectly made a shilling out of it, and I don't believe you will find in history a more successful and more disinterested bit of work."

As altruistically "disinterested" as was its policy of policing the world and staving off the advance of Islamic barbarism, Britain was not even trying to spread "democracy," as the Bush administration is. When it engaged the Madhi armies, it meant to defeat them, as it did in September 1898 at Omdurman, across the Nile from Khartoum. The Khalifa himself was pursued by the British further into the Sudan, and killed there by them in November 1899. And that was the end of radical Islam as a menace in Africa for half a century.

Not exactly the playbook being followed by the U.S. in its pursuit of Osama bin Laden, author of 9/11, who probably pictures himself as another kind of "expected one," in competition for the role with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Remember that in the 19th century all the British had to work with were camels and perhaps the telegraph, without the advantages of GPS- or laser-guided 500-pound bombs, fighter aircraft, or helicopters. Even altruists with a rational "war-fighting" philosophy can accomplish wonders. It was not a "police action" they were conducting, but war.

Doyle's tourists are captured and are to be taken through the wastes of the Libyan Desert to Khartoum to be either ransomed or enslaved. At one point in the novel the chief of the dervishes offers the tourists an alternative: convert to Islam, kiss the Koran, and grind the cross under their heels - or die on the spot. The tourists waver, thinking that pretending to be converted might save them. But every one of them asserts his Christianity, kneeling to pray to God, not Allah. In reality, they would have been executed, but the British Camel Corps comes to the rescue, ambushing the dervishes and slaying every one of them. Doyle, an agnostic, would not have the reader believe that God had anything to do with it.

Now we are less certain of the value of Western concepts of individual rights, freedom of speech, and other liberties that we once took for granted, thanks to the nihilism of multiculturalism. Iranian dervishes are no less brazen than their ancient counterparts in the Sudan. They can kidnap fifteen British sailors and marines in open waters and send Prime Minister Tony Blair into a Porky Pig dither. The Taliban can behead Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and get away with it. Al Qada can behead Nick Berg and get away with it. President Bush can propose that Americans continue to sacrifice themselves to bring "democracy" to a culture and country whose inhabitants prefer to remain medieval.

In Frankfurt, Germany, a judge rejected a petition for divorce submitted by a Muslim woman whose husband had beaten her and threatened her with death. The judge based her decision, not on German law, but on the Koran's dictum that "men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other." And to treat women as chattel.

An interesting question should be posed to that judge: If the husband had succeeded in killing his wife, would she have countenanced the woman's murder, as well, because the Koran sanctioned it?

Doyle's Colonel Cochrane was worried that the Mahdists might reach the shores of the Mediterranean and swallow Egypt. Over a century later, their desert sands have spread as far north as Germany and Norway, not only in Europe's legal systems, but in men's minds, as well.

Democrats and War

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Thomas Sowell makes some good points on the Democrats and the war.

They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible.

And,

It has been painfully clear that Speaker Pelosi was serious only about scoring political points. Her big grin when she won a narrow vote for a non-binding resolution was grotesque against the background of a life-and-death issue.

You don't grin over a political ploy that you have pulled when men's lives are at stake.

And,

Only an American defeat in Iraq can ensure the Democrats' political victory next year. Their only strategy is to sabotage the chances for a military victory in Iraq without being held responsible for a defeat.

That is the corner that they have painted themselves into with their demagoguery that even their own supporters see through.

Why do the Democrats lack seriousness on the war? Is it because they are cynical and will manipulate any issue to gain power?

I think their lack of seriousness comes from their inability to understand that we are at war. Part of the reason we are in this mess is because many in Washington for decades refused to consider terrorism as a matter of war. Instead they thought of it as a criminal justice matter. John Kerry voiced that opinion in the last presidential election, three years after the World Trade Center attacks. A nation does not go to war against another nation in response to individual criminals.

Nancy Pelosi’s grin and the Democrats’ games show that they still do not really believe we are at war. They still believe that if we just sit down and talk with Iran and the rest of the totalitarian Islamists -- and if we buy them off with enough foreign aid -- then we can fly on by the seat of our pants as we have for decades. In the sophisticated enclaves of Manhattan and Aspen and Napa Valley, the idea of war must seem like an overreaction of the great unwashed masses -- all those jingoist fools who lose their reason in presence of the American flag.

Meanwhile, the enemy is still alive and planning the next attack.

Ted Haggard and Nathaniel Branden

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Ed Cline recently posted a positive review of Jim Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics on Rule of Reason. It's worth a look.

Let me digress for a moment...

A few days ago, I watched an HBO documentary by Alexandra Pelosi entitled "Friends of God." (The video showing an evangelical anti-evolution seminar that I blogged a few weeks ago was from this documentary.) Ted Haggard is featured prominently in the documentary. His downfall from high influence due to his meth-and-gay-sex scandal broke just as the documentary was wrapping up filming, if I recall correctly. In one interview, he speaks passionately of the need for religious leaders to be moral exemplars, not just for the sake of their own flock, but for everyone. Notably, he said that -- with earnest sincerity and perfect ease -- while actually indulging in his own dark vices.

Ted Haggard could not have said what he said in the way he said it -- not if he valued moral honesty. I don't think that mere repression would allow a person to become so very comfortable with that gross contradiction between his own preached ideals and his own behavior. More would be required to seem so sincere, particularly a positive pleasure in the capacity to deceive anyone and everyone. Any guilt he felt was thoroughly suppressed in public; he assumed a persona of his own creation, based on the expectations of others. And that's why he was so very charismatic.

When exposed as a moral fraud, the enormous evil of Haggard's actions probably crashed down on him -- at least for a time. I don't think he just regretting getting caught, as so many criminals do: Haggard wasn't that kind of deliberate con artist. He was a sincere believer in Christian ideals, at least at one time. However, I'm sure that three weeks of therapy can't even begin to scratch the surface of his twisted character, meaning that Haggard's self-excusing and/or self-righteous facade will soon return. A person cannot live in the face of utter moral failure; unless he conceals himself with self-deception, he would be driven to suicide.

I mention the case of Ted Haggard in this post for one simple reason: I suspect that his psychology is fundamentally like that of Nathaniel Branden. Despite the radical differences in the ideals in question, the basic pattern is strikingly similar. If that doesn't seem plausible to you, then you might wish to read Jim Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. It's very revealing, to say the least.

FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Colorado's political machine is poised to institute socialized medicine in the state in the next year or so. Lin Zinser is fighting that ominous prospect with FIRM, a new organization devoted to promoting Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. FIRM's statement of principles reads:

We stand for Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

America was founded on the principles of freedom and individual rights. Applied to medicine, the law must respect the individual rights of doctors and other providers, allowing them the freedom to practice medicine. This includes the right to choose their patients, to determine the best treatment for their patients, and to bill their patients accordingly. In the same manner, the law must respect the individual rights of patients, allowing them the freedom to seek out the best doctors and treatment they can afford.

Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) promotes the philosophy of individual rights, personal responsibility, and free market economics in health care. FIRM holds that the only moral and practical way to obtain medical care is that of individuals choosing and paying for their own medical care in a capitalist free market. Federal and state regulations and entitlements, we maintain, are the two most important factors in driving up medical costs. They have created the crisis we face today.

What does FIRM do?

researches and studies the work of scholars and policy experts in the areas of health care, law, philosophy, and economics to inform and to foster public debate on the causes of rising costs of health care and health insurance.

sponsors and holds public educational programs, lectures and town hall meetings on issues regarding the causes of the crises in health care and health insurance, and on the morality and economic costs of various health care programs and proposals.

makes speakers available for radio and television interviews, for professional conferences or symposiums, and for local, private or public meetings and talks in Colorado.

FIRM provides you with information about how to protect freedom and individual rights in medicine, and you decide how to use it.

FIRM is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization; it does not endorse any health care treatment, product, provider, or organization. Membership levels begin at $35 per year and are tax-deductible, as provided by law.

On the FIRM web site, you can sign up to the "News" and/or "Activists" list. You might also want to read the updated version of Leonard Peikoff's essay "Health Care is Not a Right" and Linda Gorman' informative report "The History of Health Care Costs and Health Insurance."

Also, don't miss FIRM's blog: We Stand FIRM. (If you have a blog, please add that to your blogroll.)

Please help me spread the word about FIRM! In speaking to ordinary people, I've found strong opposition to socialized medicine, but little knowledge of the already-in-motion plans to institute that in Colorado and other states. So please encourage people to write letters to their state and federal representatives opposing socialized medicine, including its modern incarnations in euphemisms: single-payer, comprehensive, universal, and/or mandatory healthcare. If you live in Colorado, you should also write the 208 Commission, i.e. the body charged with soliciting and evaluating proposals for comprehensive healthcare reform.

It is possible to stop the spread of socialized medicine, I think. Now's the time to do it. If you wait now, you'll be waiting much more in the future... in lines for your substandard medical treatment, that is.

Wal-Mart didn't really need Chicago anyway

By Kendall J from The Crucible & Column,cross-posted by MetaBlog

From August 16th, 2006 Wall Street Journal Article "Big Box Rebellion", responding to a new Chicago law,

Target was the first big chain to react, recently cancelling plans to open a new superstore in a run-down area on the city's North side. Only a few months ago the project was hailed by city leaders as an anchor for redeveloping that depressed neighborhood. Now it gets to stay depressed. Wal-Mart has also announced that its plans to build 20 new stores in the city over the next five years are "on hold" until the wage issue is resolved.

This isn't what the politicians said would happen when they mandated that certain mostly non-union "big-box" retailers pay a minimum of $13 in wage and health benefits by 2010, or more than two-and-a-half times the national minimum wage...

The entire "living-wage" movement is the latest product of upper-income politicians who want to stick it to non-union companies in the name of helping the poor. But the working poor lose twice in Chicago: first, in lost retail jobs and then in less access to low-cost goods. Alderman Carrie Austin, who represents the area where the Target store was supposed to locate, puts it this way: "My colleagues are saying, 'Don't worry they [the big box retailers] will come.' Well, mine just left."

There is a contradiction in thinking that lawmakers didn't realize until they actually saw the effect of their actions. Commonly, blamed for "exploitation" of the working class, big box retailers actually help the working class first by providing jobs, and second by figuring out how to deliver the lowest cost goods possible to stretch the working dollar. Retailers cannot simultaneously hurt the community and help it. Punish them for being bad, which they are not, and you'll get to find out just how good they were.

The other thing these lawmakers missed was that any entity that makes investments, whether an individual or corporation, has options. Would Wal-Mart like to have a store in Chicago? Sure, but only if it's a good investment, i.e. only if it can make an above average profit. Investment choices are driven by returns, i.e. profits. A money-losing store is something no investor will invest in, regardless of location. If Chicago wants to turn its city into a bad investment option, well then don't be surprised if investment capital dries up. Now, who really needs who? and who is the bad guy in this senario?

Five strategies for debating global warming and environmentalism

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

I held a debate on environmentalism last month, which included a climate scientist as well as traditional evangelical environmentalists. Not surprisingly, the discussion quickly bogged down on the issue of global warming. My experience as a layperson taking a stand against a coalition of true believers and technical specialists presented some lessons on arguing against environmentalism.

1.) Focus on your strengths

Global warming can be argued on several levels. You could argue that

1. There’s insufficient evidence for a long-term warming trend
2. The earth’s warming is not historically significant
3. The warming is not anthropogenic
4. The benefits of a warmer earth exceed the costs
5. Stopping warming is economically impractical or undesirable
6. Implementing government controls is the wrong response to climate change.

Each response requires knowledge in a different field - climatology, paleoclimatology, environmental geography, economics, and politics. Unless you’re an expert in one of those fields, you should not make them central to your position. You should also avoid original research or original arguments in them.

For example, I have read arguments by amateurs whose entire position centers around whether humans contribute to CO2 levels, and whether that contribution affects climate. For example, human CO2 output is 5.53% of the CO2 related greenhouse gases, and 0.28% of the total greenhouses gases. These numbers are not widely disputed - but the difference that .28% percent makes is. Are you prepared to discuss such details? Unless you’re a climatologist, don’t make it the crux of your position.

There is a crucial field you cannot avoid - epistemology. The issue of scientific methodology as well as the means by which reputable research is recognized is crucial, and you should become thoroughly familiar with it, since the use of junk science, non-scientific claims, and the misuse of valid claims is one of the major problems of the environmentalist movement.

My recommendation for non-experts is to establish that the actual climate predictions from alarmists are moderate, and then focus on how individuals are best equipped to deal with them. This sidesteps the complex technical issues of climatology, and creates an opportunity to educate the audience on capitalism.

2.) Start with a concession

Not every argument made against global warming strengthens your case. Decide beforehand which claims you want to argue, which are unsupported, and which ones you’re not qualified to argue. Here are the concessions I made when arguing my case:

• Humans contribute to CO2 levels
• The earth has gotten slightly warmer during the 20th century
• I’m not qualified to debate whether anthropogenic CO2 contributes to global warming

Conceding arguments which are not central to my position shifts the debate to areas I’m strong on.

Not everyone who shares your position is an ally: there is a widespread perception that climate change skeptics are dominated by religious fundamentalists and corporate interests. There is some truth to the former, while the latter is reversed - 99% of corporate funds -even from oil companies - goes to support environmentalism rather than capitalism. You should dissociate yourself from either group, and respond to ad-hominem attacks by identifying them as such.

3.) Look at the big picture

I’ve seen many arguments about climate change devolve to endless factual disputes over details neither side really understands. This problem is inherent in disputes within scientific fields without a well established methodology. It’s impossible to make conclusions about global trends based on local or short-term observations, yet local and short term observations are all we have to build global models. In practice, this means that debate over factual details should be reserved to the experts.

This doesn’t mean that you can’t challenge absurd claims. If someone claims that the temperature will rise 10 degrees, and oceans will rise 20 feet in the next 100 years, you can point out that temperature rose at less than 1 degree in the 20th century, and oceans are rising at 1-3mm per year according to the alarmists themselves.

However there are broader and more important issues, such as the ability of humans to respond to climate changes, the gullibility of the public and policymakers in accepting absurd and unscientific doomsday scenarios, and the need for cost/benefit analysis when advocating policy changes. The major problem with environmentalism comes from the moral opposition to industrial civilization, not bad science. The scientific process tends to correct bad ideas in the long run, whereas environmentalism generates a torrent of new crises, intellectually crippled students, and bad policies.

4.) Site your sources

Evangelical environmentalists are rarely concerned with facts, and they will often try to hide their exaggeration with rhetoric. For example, In “Inconvenient Truth“, Al Gore claims a 12ft sea level rise, whereas the IPCC itself gives a maximum of 23 inches. You should be prepared to counter this rhetoric with reality - and this requires citing sources. This is especially important in offline debates, where the urge to exaggerate claims is much stronger. I prepared a number of documents and PowerPoint slides for my debate that I did not show during my talk. When responded that my claim that the U.S has more trees now than 100 years ago is absurd, I was able to whip out charts from the U.S. Forest Service backing my claim.

5.) Beware of sophistry

There are a number of logical fallacies commonly used in environmentalist rhetoric. You should be familiar with them and be ready to identify them to your audience. Here are descriptions of the ones I’ve come across - their usage should be easy to recognize:

• Misleading vividness
• Proof by example
• Correlation versus causation
• Affirming the consequent
• Appeal to consequences
• Argument from ignorance
• Appeal to the majority “ad populum”

Share This

Chavez made dictator of Venezuela

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

This has been years in the making, yet it is nevertheless an astounding turn of events.

Venezuela's Congress on Wednesday granted President Hugo Chavez powers to rule by decree for 18 months as he tries to force through nationalizations key to his self-styled leftist revolution.

The vote allows anti-U.S. leader Chavez, who has been in power since 1999, to deepen state control of the economy.

The lawmakers, all loyal to Chavez after opposition parties boycotted the 2005 congressional elections, flaunted their populist credentials by taking the unusual step of holding their vote in public in a square in Caracas.

"We in the National Assembly will not waver in granting President Chavez an enabling law so he can quickly and urgently set up the framework for resolving the grave problems we have," said congressional Vice-President Roberto Hernandez. [Reuters]

One marvels at the intellectual vacuum that exits today for a nation to willfully take such a backward step.

The Banana: Proof of God's Creation

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A link to this 1-minute video proving "the genius of God's creation" via the analysis of a banana was posted to the comments by "rootie." It was just too good not to make into its very own NoodleFood post.



Update: I forgot to add that malaria, bubonic plague, and breast cancer are also remarkably well-suited to humans! Those delights must be due to our sinful nature though.

UCLA Panel Discussion: Yaron Brook, Daniel Pipes, and Wafa Sultan

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Wow, I'd really love to see Wafa Sultan speak in this upcoming panel discussion:

Totalitarian Islam's Threat to the West

Who: Dr. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum; Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute; Dr. Wafa Sultan, outspoken critic of Islam and author of the forthcoming book "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster"

What: A panel discussion on the threat of Islamic totalitarianism and how to deal with it

Where: UCLA Campus: Moore 100, Los Angeles, CA

When: Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 7:00 PM

Admission is FREE.

Description: From the Iranian hostage crisis to September 11 to the London subway attacks to the Iraqi insurgency--it is clear the West faces a grave threat from a committed enemy. Conventional wisdom holds that the enemy is a rogue group of fanatics, who have hijacked a great religion in order to justify their crimes. It tells us there is no way to permanently eliminate these violent groups, that we have entered an "age of terror" and that we must give up the desire for a decisive victory.

But is the conventional wisdom right?

A distinguished panel of Middle East experts will provide new and illuminating answers to the most important questions of our time: Is the West ready to concede victory so easily? Are the terrorists a fringe group of fanatics, or are they part of a much wider ideological movement? What threat do they pose to the West? What can the West do to ensure victory? Is peace possible?

While the experts will answer these complex questions from diverse points of view, they all agree on one thing: Islamic totalitarianism is a real threat, and the right response necessitates engaging in a principled, ideological battle to defend the West from the jihad declared against it.

Speakers' Biographies:

Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a recognized Middle-East expert who has written and lectured on a variety of Middle-East issues. Dr. Brook has served in the Israeli Army and has discussed the Israeli-Arab conflict and the war on Islamic totalitarianism on hundreds of radio and TV programs, including FOX News (The O'Reilly Factor, Your World with Neil Cavuto, At Large with Geraldo Rivera), CNN's Talkback Live, CNBC's Closing Bell and On the Money, and a C-SPAN panel of experts on terrorism.

Dr. Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. He taught history at the University of Chicago and at Harvard University, and lectured on policy and strategy at the Naval War College. He currently teaches at Pepperdine University. Dr. Pipes is the author of twelve books and numerous articles. He is a columnist for the New York Sun and he appears weekly in Israel's Jerusalem Post, Italy's L'Opinione, Spain's La Razón, and monthly in the Australian and Canada's Globe and Mail. His Web site, DanielPipes.org, is among the most accessed Internet sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. Mr. Pipes has appeared on ABC World News, CBS Reports, Crossfire, Good Morning America, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, O'Reilly Factor, The Today Show, the BBC and Al Jazeera.

Dr. Wafa Sultan is a secular Syrian-American writer and thinker, Dr.
Sultan is known for her participation in Middle East political debates, widely circulated Arabic essays and television appearances on Al Jazeera, CNN and Fox News. Dr. Sultan was shocked into secularism by the atrocities committed against innocent Syrian people by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1979, including the machine-gun assassination of her professor in front of her eyes at the University of Aleppo, where she was a medical student. On February 21, 2006, she appeared on Al Jazeera, where she scolded Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently and for not acknowledging the accomplishments of non-Muslim societies, including their greater freedom and capacity for producing wealth and technology. She named the Islamic threat to the West as "a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose." A video of her appearance, widely circulated on Web logs and through e-mail, has been viewed an estimated 12 million times. Her outspokenness has brought her both threats and praise. Dr. Sultan is currently working on a book to be called "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."

Make the Commies Compete

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

Over at City Journal, Sol Stern discusses how Marxist radicals, including a former bomb-maker for the Weather Underground, are using their positions as teachers to indoctrinate students in the public school system of New York City. For just one example, did you know that New York City has a "social justice" high school?

New York schools chancellor Joel Klein often speaks eloquently about the harm that the education system's inability to dismiss incompetent teachers does to children. He's right about that, of course. All the more reason to wonder why Klein has been indifferent to the existence of a group of radical teachers within his own schools who advocate the use of public school classrooms to indoctrinate students in left-wing, anti-American ideology.

One place where this movement thrives is El Puente Academy for Peace and Justice in Brooklyn, the city's first "social justice" high school. The school's lead math teacher, Jonathan Osler, is using El Puente as a base for a three-day conference in April on "Math Education and Social Justice." Osler offers this compelling rationale for the conference: "The systemic and structural oppression of low income [people] and people of color continues to worsen. The number of people in prison continues to grow, as does our unemployment rate. . . . These problems and many others are being addressed by community organizations and activists, and often find their way into Social Studies and English classes. However, in math classes around the country, perhaps the best places to study many of these issues, we continue to use curricula and models that lack any real-world -- let alone socially relevant -- contexts." [bold added]

The only thing more horrible than the disease -- and the posting is worth a full read for that alone -- is the suggested cure!

You might think that public boasting about indoctrinating fourth-graders with canned Marxist agitprop isn't the best way for a public school teacher to advance either his career or the radical cause. Nor would a former domestic terrorist make the best poster girl for social justice teaching. Surely someone responsible for safeguarding public education in New York City has stepped forward by now, to say that the social justice curriculum violates every accepted standard of ethical and professional responsibility for public school teachers!

But no: the city's Department of Education has so far turned a blind eye to these radical teachers -- who are not only subsidized by taxpayers, but also funded by members of the very capitalist class that the social justice literature demonizes: El Puente was founded with funding from uber-capitalist Bill Gates's education foundation, and the conference on math education and social justice has won a grant from Math for America, an organization headed by billionaire hedge-fund entrepreneur James Simons. If Chancellor Klein really wants to banish bad teachers from the schools, there's an easy way for him to start building a dossier of candidates. All he has to do is attend next month's math conference at El Puente Academy. [bold added]

It is certainly bad enough that public schools have become indoctrination camps staffed by an entrenched cadre of leftist faculty, but the only thing that could be worse is this suggestion: to start using political beliefs as a basis for firing faculty members! How can students learn about open debate when their own teachers have to worry that an opinion aired in class might not be the "best way to advance ... his career"? This is a terrible idea.

Stern is correct to imply that Americans should not be forced to fund the teaching of ideologies to which they are opposed (i.e., through their tax money), but the solution is not to involve the government in selecting teachers based on ideology. It is to get the government out of the education sector, where it doesn't belong anyway. Even if teachers such as Jonathan Osler could get jobs on the free market, whichever school hired him would be financed only by those willing to do so, unable to force children to attend, and unable to compete for free against other schools.

Only with a separation of school and state can we be sure that our government is neither forcing us to fund the dissemination of Marxist propaganda nor in the business to telling ordinary citizens which ideas they may or may not teach in the classroom. And besides, the competition of the free market would do much more to address Stern's worries about the overall quality of education than a government bureaucracy ever could.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Minor edits.

Quick Roundup 166

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

Britain: Do Not Apologize for Slavery

Andrew Medworth argues against the notion that Great Britain should issue an official apology for slavery, the barbaric institution that it took the lead in abolishing two centuries ago Sunday.

[T]he proper emotion today is not pride: we played no part in abolishing slavery, and it is very difficult for any individual today to know how they would have behaved in a time when the prevailing morality was so very different. Nor should we feel sorrow or regret: we are not culpable for the offences of our forebears.

Instead, we should feel two things. The first is happiness: we should celebrate the fact that we live in a country which has abolished slavery, and in which people of all races can live together in equality before the law. The second is a steely determination to eliminate the remnants of this vicious practice, along with the fundamental philosophic ideas which give it strength and succour. Without the latter in particular, slavery will last forever.

It is, of course, the very philosophical ideas of which he speaks that are behind efforts on both sides of the Atlantic to redistribute wealth in the name of "reparations", thereby providing us with the uniquely modern spectacle of an attempt to reestablish slavery (albeit in a different form) -- on moral grounds!

Koran Cited in German Court

Moral relativism in the form of multiculturalism can be seen here directly resulting in the government of a free society failing catastrophically to protect individual rights. From Isaac Schrodinger's excerpt of the article in Spiegel Online:

The judge rejected the application for a speedy divorce by referring to a passage in the Koran that some have controversially interpreted to mean that a husband can beat his wife. It's a supposed right which is the subject of intense debate among Muslim scholars and clerics alike."The exercise of the right to castigate does not fulfill the hardship criteria as defined by Paragraph 1565 (of German federal law)," the daily Frankfurter Rundschau quoted the judge's letter as saying. It must be taken into account, the judge argued, that both man and wife have Moroccan backgrounds. [bold added]

It is bad enough that there exists in Islam an ideology so benighted that it is widely believed by its adherents to sanction the beating of women. It is worse that in multiculturalism, we have an ideology that will make escape from the former -- even by leaving the country of one's birth! -- impossible, if carried out consistently.

Home Brewing-Related Curiosity

As a home brewer, I found this wrapper from a Prohibition-era block of yeast interesting.


As the writeup indicates, providing supplies to brewers was one way some breweries stayed afloat during the "Great Experiment". (HT: Dismuke)

Make Microsoft Word Less Annoying

And speaking of companies whose products I try to avoid, Paul Hsieh pointed to an interesting article about how to make Microsoft Word more bearable to use. For example, here is how to correct one of its most irritating default behaviors -- turning email addresses and URLs into hyperlinks.

To stop Word from hyperlinking in the future, click Tools > AutoCorrect Options, then click the AutoFormat As You Type tab. Clear the checkbox for "Internet and network paths with hyperlinks." Then click the AutoFormat tab and clear the same checkbox. If you want to manually add a hyperlink, select the desired text, right-click it and choose Hyperlink.

Like some of the commenters, I use Open Office, LaTeX, or Matlab depending on what I'm doing, but I'll keep this article in mind for the next time I find myself having to use Word.

And if you found the article on Word interesting, you'll probably also like this site.

-- CAV

Right Data, Wrong Lesson

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

Clarence Page pens an interesting column in which he describes the enormous success of America's black immigrants, and yet at the same time, ignores some obvious implications. The interesting question is: Why?

Consider the following data. Each bullet is quoted directly from Page's column.

• 43.8 percent of African immigrants had earned a college degree, compared with 42.5 of Asian-Americans, 28.9 percent of immigrants from Europe, Russia and Canada, and 23.1 percent of the U.S. population as a whole. [These statistics are from a 2000 study. For comparison, the U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2005 for Americans over the age of 25, 28% overall held at least bachelor's degrees, 49% of Asian-Americans, but only 18% of blacks. Not using the age cutoff, the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education reported in 2004 an 11% figure for blacks earning four-year degrees or higher. --ed]
  
• About 8 percent, or about 530, of Harvard's undergraduates were black, ..., but somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of the black students were "West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples."
• Immigrants, who make up 13 percent of the nation's college-age black population, account for more than a fourth of black students at Ivy League and other selective universities, according to the study of 28 colleges and universities published recently in the American Journal of Education. The proportion of immigrants was higher at private institutions, 28.8 percent, than at public colleges, where they made up 23.1 percent of enrollment.

Impressive, no? This is even more so when we compare black immigrants to native-born black Americans.

I am inclined to think that, based on such data, two things stand out. (1) If the America Martin Luther King dreamed of, in which blacks "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", is not already here, it is near at hand. (2) American blacks ought to do some serious soul-searching about why they still remain, in so many respects, at the bottom rung of the economic ladder.

But Mr. Page has no such inclinations. Here is what he thinks of all this.

Are elite schools padding their racial diversity numbers with black immigrants who do not have a history of American slavery in their families? This development calls into question whether affirmative action admission policies are fulfilling their original intent. [italics and bold added]

First, if the emphasis on American slavery seemed odd to you, you are not alone. Second, it is unseemly to whine about being "disadvantaged" (as Page later does, in effect) in the presence of people who have had to live in the desperate poverty of the Third World!

Aside from the bizarre xenophobia, is also interesting to note that Page regards the "original intent" of affirmative action as "reparations for slavery". This is a new one to me. I was always under the impression that affirmative action, whatever the flaws in its basic premise, was supposed to mitigate past and present discrimination against certain demographic groups, and not exclusively blacks.

Be that as it may, Page ends by trying to have things both ways.

[W]e need to revisit the question of diversity. Unlike our system of feel-good game-playing, we need to focus on the deeper question of how opportunities can be opened to everyone who was left behind by the civil rights revolution. We tend to look too often at every aspect of diversity except economic class. [bold added]

What constitutes being "left behind by the civil rights revolution"? Obviously, Page doesn't regard the fact that black men are increasingly being judged on merit as meaning that nobody has been left behind who hasn't stranded himself.

No, to Page, the civil rights revolution was not about freeing the black man from the last vestiges of slavery, but of making countless Americans who never owned slaves forfeit "reparations" to the free descendants of slaves. In other words, Page advocates a kind of slavery, or at least a new kind of Jim Crow, himself. Mighty white of you, Clarence.

With Page, the moral inversion of the Civil Rights Movement has reached its logical conclusion. Instead of seeking the same recognition of the rights of black men as of everyone else, he seeks favors for the descendants of American slaves at everyone else's expense, including that of black immigrants! Instead of looking at the evidence that blacks need no special consideration to gain entry into college, Page complains that black immigrants are muscling native-born blacks out of admission slots they are entitled to, presumably because they are black, and were slaves in America, and, perhaps, poor. Instead of urging black youths to get to work, he panders to the cult of victim-hood.

When a black man fails to celebrate a clear victory for his own race, it is a sure sign that he is not sincerely interested in advancing the welfare of his race, which is to say, ensuring that the rights of all men are protected equally.

-- CAV

Eugene Volokh on the Cancelled UCLA Debate

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Eugene Volokh just posted a blog entry entitled "Who Should Pay for Security at Controversial University Events? on the canceled UCLA debate between Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute and Carl Braun of the Minutemen sponsored by the UCLA Objectivist club, LOGIC. He has a nice summary of the facts, then an analysis of the First Amendment issues. However, I was most interested in his discussion of the the basic moral issue:

3. But it seems to me that regardless of the First Amendment outcome, academic freedom principles should lead the university to pay all the security costs itself. It looks like L.O.G.I.C. will be able to pay for the private security; but many groups might not be able to, and even L.O.G.I.C. might not be able to pay if the expected counterprotest is large enough. Sometimes, the thugs' threatened disruption would get the event shut down, or at least moved off campus to a park.

So the question is: Should the university let the thugs drive debate on important and controversial issues off the university campus? I think the answer is that it should not.

I sympathize with the desire to save money that could be used for other academic purposes. I sympathize with the concern about violence (though I think it's to the university's credit that it will pay the great majority of the costs of deterring and containing the possible violence, rather than blocking the event or requiring student groups to pay for police protection).

Still, it seems to me most important that the university take a stand, even at some cost, in favor of protecting free speech and against those who are threatening to disrupt the speech. If the university doesn't do it, and the thugs win, that will just promote more thuggery in the future. Behave that gets rewarded gets repeated.

Recall also that, thanks to Chancellor Abrams' sound decision to provide police protection at UC expense, the debate now is over sums that are relatively modest for the university. But the sums are not modest for the groups involved, and may in fact lead to some events' being canceled. If $1000-2000 extra for the relatively rare event that requires a good deal of security is the price to be spent for defending free debate at the university against the goons, that seems to me a price the university should be willing to pay.

Seattle Schoolchildren Learning That Private Property Is Evil

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Some Seattle schoolchildren are being taught the evils of private property and property rights by banning Legos. Here are some excerpts from this chilling (mostly pro-property rights) article:

According to the article, the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."

They claimed as their role shaping the children's "social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity ... from a perspective of social justice."

So they first explored with the children the issue of ownership. Not all of the students shared the teachers' anathema to private property ownership. "If I buy it, I own it," one child is quoted saying. The teachers then explored with the students concepts of fairness, equity, power, and other issues over a period of several months.

At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes." The teachers quote the children:

"A house is good because it is a community house."

"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."

"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."

By the way, this was at a private school, not a public school. The teachers explained their philosophy in great detail in their recent article, "Why We Banned Legos". Here is what the children naively believed about the concept of "ownership" before the Lego incident:

If I buy it, I own it

If I receive it as a gift, I own it

If I make it myself, I own it

If it has my name on it, I own it

If I own it, I make the rules about it

And after the "re-education", they learned the following:

Collectivity is a good thing

Personal expression matters

Shared power is a valued goal

Moderation and equal access to resources are things to strive for

These principles were then concretized into the following rules for Lego play:

All structures are public structures. Everyone can use all the Lego structures. But only the builder or people who have her or his permission are allowed to change a structure.

Lego people can be saved only by a "team" of kids, not by individuals.

All structures will be standard sizes.

As the teachers happily noted:

With these three agreements -- which distilled months of social justice exploration into a few simple tenets of community use of resources -- we returned the Legos to their place of honor in the classroom.

The school is the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle. The two teachers who co-authored the article are Ann Pelo and Kendra Pelojoaquin. Ann Pelo's e-mail address is: <annpelo@msn.com>.

The Death of Science Fiction

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Lately I’ve been reading two books of science fiction short stories from the 1950’s, In the Beginning by Robert Silverberg and The Masque of Manana by Robert Sheckley. I’ve been struck by how unrealistic the science is. In every other story characters hop on a spaceship and zip off to Fomalhaut IV or Betelgeuse III (as if people would give a planet a number according to its order from the star instead of a name). Really, the science is sheer fantasy.

Three of the most common tropes from Golden Age science fiction are fantasy: faster than light travel, time travel (going back in time) and telepathy. If you took away those three ideas, you would wipe out most 20th century science fiction, and all three are impossible. What we think of as classic science fiction is for the most part as fantastic as elves, magic and unicorns, but because it uses scientific concepts it has a veneer of plausibility – until you think about the science.

Science fiction today is much more believable. Serious SF does not glibly zip characters off to Aldebaran V, unless the author is making some self-conscious, postmodern homage to the old stuff. The purest expression of the contemporary naturalism in science fiction is a movement called Mundane SF. If the science is far-fetched, then it’s out.

Much of today’s SF is believable and naturalistic. It is also bad. It is often mind-numbingly boring, anti-heroic and plotless. It has all the traits of mainstream modern literature that intellectuals love, or pretend to love, and readers hate.

In such magazines as Fantasy and Science Fiction and Asimov’s we are watching the slow suicide of SF by naturalism. The process started in the 1960’s with the New Wave and the wave continues to this day. The New Wave brought modern literature to science fiction, making it naturalistic and conscious of style. Since then it has been increasingly difficult to take the tropes of Golden Age SF seriously.

This suicide by naturalism is ironic as SF has taken over movies, TV and video games. Visual media love whooshing spaceships, ray guns, aliens and all those giddy concepts from the Golden Age. The science in Star Wars is comparable to 1930’s written SF.

Since the late 1970’s readers have been abandoning science fiction for what used to be its neglected little sister, fantasy. Readers don’t want plotless non-stories about a neurotic scientist suffering a mid-life crisis as he discovers some form of pollution that will destroy mankind. They don’t care if the science is realistic, they want an interesting story about heroes who are fascinating to contemplate. They want romanticism. Today they know they’re more likely to find it in a paperback with a sorcerer on the cover than one with a spaceship or a cover with some modern smears of color on it.

Dissemblers Unmasked

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

I was attending lectures and other events at the Nathaniel Branden Institute in a sub-level of the Empire State Building in 1968 when the Rand-Branden matter "blew up.' Most regular attendees were left utterly ignorant of the reasons behind the conflict. I recall receiving the statements from both Ayn Rand and the Brandens about why it was all over, and of the two statements - even though the concrete particulars of Nathaniel Branden's offenses especially were unfathomable to me and would remain so for years - I gave Rand the benefit of the doubt and granted her statement sole veracity, simply on the basis of her literary and philosophical achievements. But, up until that day, there was no evidence of a conflict between the principals, no hint or suggestion that anything was terribly wrong. The closing of NBI was a surprise.

I have just finished reading James Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens. I was astonished by two things: the scope of the deceit and dishonesty of the Brandens, and the meticulous and scrupulous examination to which Valliant subjected them.

Until Barbara Branden's Passion of Ayn Rand appeared in 1986, I remained in the dark about the exact nature of the conflict and split. I had heard rumors of an affair between Rand and Nathaniel Branden, but couldn't credit them. Since they had left the field of serious philosophical engagement, what the Brandens did or were doing then was of no further concern to me. I had read that Patrecia, Nathaniel Branden's wife, who played a passive role in Branden's deception of Rand, was found dead in his California swimming pool, and that he had subsequently married someone named Devers. But this and other information about the Brandens I collected without any specific interest, in the haphazard way one notes odd things in the landscape as one speeds on a highway, observed one minute, forgotten a mile down the road.

At the time, I was writing book reviews for the Library Journal and other periodicals, and, out of curiosity, requested a review copy of Passion from the Journal. Also, I had recently been interviewed by Dr. Peikoff about writing a biography of Rand. After I read Barbara Branden's biography, I called him and urged him to respond publicly to it, to set the record straight - not about the affair, but about all the backstabbing allegations made in her book, which I characterized as a prolonged character assassination in an elaborately contrived guise of "homage."

Now that I see what was necessary to properly and thoroughly answer her and Nathaniel Branden's books, I not only understand why Dr. Peikoff did nothing about it for so long - the scope of research and depth of intellectual effort that Valliant must have expended are nothing less than marvelous - but understand better why I knew then that I could not write a review of them. A mere book review critical of just Barbara Branden's allegations would not have sufficed; it would have been an inappropriate and inadequate answer.

It is the difference between the Romans opening diplomatic talks with the aggressor, Carthage, to stop the third Punic War, and simply razing Carthage itself to ensure there would not be a fourth. The Estate of Ayn Rand permitted Valliant unconditional access to the journals that Rand kept while acting as Branden's psychotherapist during this period. With them, Valliant has razed Carthage.

When Nathaniel Branden's Judgment Day: My Years with Ayn Rand appeared, on the basis of things I had read in libertarian publications and had heard on the Objectivist grapevine, I did not bother reading it. At the same time, I observed that the whole libertarian "establishment," from party politics to journalistic commentary to scholarly studies, was largely, in spirit and intent, a concerted effort to discredit Rand and to render Objectivism invalidated, "cultish," and an object of derision. In this campaign the libertarians were (and still are) in cahoots with both the collectivist left and the religious right. What an odd yet philosophically appropriate Triple Entente!

(A noteworthy observation: A few years after the dissolution of NBI, "libertarianism" enjoyed a revival. True to their anarchist heritage, libertarians of all stripes pounced on Objectivism like vultures to pick out features of the philosophy à la carte, all the while eschewing the necessity of a philosophical foundation for their politics. Without Ayn Rand, however, there would have been no libertarian revival. What political principles could they have appropriated and "package-dealt," other than the morally contextless arguments from the 19th century? I have always characterized libertarians as "ventriloquists" for liberty.)

I have written fifteen novels, every one of them with a villain, but all my fictional villains are amateurs compared to the Brandens. I could never have conceived of such evil for any of my villains, of the kind of monstrous deception to which the Brandens subjected Rand even while they knew she was attempting to comprehend their behavior and problems, and even trying to salvage their lives and careers. They are beyond redemption. Valliant's book is a long overdue work of justice, and anyone who values Objectivism and the truth should thank him for it. Ayn Rand is the bridge between Aristotle and our future. It would be tragic if her importance were diminished without challenge by backyard fence gossip and vile dissimulation.

Valliant cites one note of Rand's in her journal (on page 375, top), close to the point when she was beginning to understand how much of a complete and unconscionable dissembler Nathaniel Branden was, stuck out in my mind because it reminded me of the fundamental motive of environmentalists: "...he was willing to destroy the earth (its reality) in order not to discover that he was neither worthy nor able to live on it." I can only conclude, given the ample evidence present in Valliant's book, that the Brandens then, and subsequently over the years, shared that same motive.

Valliant himself concludes about Nathaniel Branden:

"While his behavior was not, technically, rape, Branden's was nothing less than the soul of a rapist."

Why?

"While Branden's behavior does not compare [with the actual action of a rapist] - his motive - like that of the "Power-seeking" social metaphysician - in his romantic conduct toward Rand was control and physical gain, not a sincere passion at all. Consent [to sexual relations] can be overcome by fraud as well as by force - Branden himself had written on the relationship between force and fraud as means of manipulation - and what his crime lacked in violence, it made up for in [Rand's] prolonged psychological torment and deception."

Overall, I would say instead that , barring her willingness to be deceived and exploited, Branden et al. wished to destroy Rand because they knew they were not worthy of her or of Objectivism, just as the environmentalists want to destroy man because they know they are not worthy of living on an earth they wish to remain "pure" in some autistic, unreal, anti-life universe of their own, of which they project themselves as the humble (and fundamentally homicidal), man-hating guardians. But, at bottom, they wish to perish, and to take with them anyone who can live successfully on earth.

In another sense, the whole saga of Nathaniel Branden's deception is an object lesson in the exponential nature and consequences of faking reality. Practicing such deceit and maintaining such a façade requires building a house of cards; one lie calling for two more to insulate it from rational scrutiny, then those two requiring four, and so on, until the whole fabrication replaces whatever "soul" the perpetrator might have called his own. And, as Valliant demonstrates, Branden practiced it for over a decade. Having a vested interest in maintaining a lie over valuing the truth, he destroyed himself, but blamed Rand.

After finishing Valliant's book, I wondered if there had been any reply to it by the Brandens or any of their allies. What could anyone possibly say against it, except in the form of more evasions, rationalizations, and lies? On the Internet (and that's as far as I plan to go) I found irrelevant criticisms about some typos in the book, and some inconsistencies in style (National Review vs. The National Review!), comments on the production value of the physical book, and the like. Some anonymous person took Valliant to task for citing Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult, charging him with basing some of his factual statements on material found in that book, when Valliant had otherwise dismissed it as a tract largely founded on Branden material, that "critic" forgetting that Valliant qualified himself in that respect in terms of corroboration with other sources.

I must commend Valliant on a feat of detective work that would have daunted any career detective novelist. I have written one series in which the detective solves what I call "moral paradoxes." It would have been beyond my abilities to imagine anything nearly as complex and insidious as the paradox Valliant explicates in his book. In my mind, Rand never needed exoneration for her actions, and his book more than vindicates my position. Now it all makes sense, that particular, real-life paradox is solved, and I am indebted to him for having undertaken and completed such a prodigious task.

The Separation of School and State: The Case for Abolishing America's Government Schools

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

Here's another event (this one is hosted by the Ayn Rand Institute) that is worth seeing:

The Separation of School and State:
The Case for Abolishing America's Government Schools

Lecture and Q&A by C. Bradley Thompson

Hilton Costa Mesa [map]
3050 Bristol Street
Costa Mesa, California
(At Bristol and the 405 Freeway)
714-540-7000

Why do so many Americans--liberal and conservative--support a compulsory system of government-run education? What role should the State play in educating America's children? Are government schools compatible with a free society? Is it possible to have a free-market in education?

Dr. Thompson's lecture will examine the destructive effects of "public" education in America, he will critique the principal assumptions behind government schooling (e.g., that children have a "right" to an education and that government schools are for the "public good"), and he will call for the abolition of all government schools. Thompson will present a principled argument for a free-market in education that begins with the rights and responsibilities of parents to provide for the education of their own children.

=====

6:30 PM: Bookstore opens
7:30 PM: Lecture
8:30 PM: Q & A

New Reader Seeking Discussion

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This delightful post by Jennifer Janisch entitled Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead seems well worth some comment and discussion. (Please do it on "New Critics," not here in the NoodleFood comments.)

I remember in high school, my mom was pressing me to write an essay for The Fountainhead scholarship. I have always been a voracious reader and had accomplished some impressive literary feats in the past (I read Gone with the Wind at eight), but I've never, ever liked to read for any reason other than for the sheer pleasure and escape of reading. So the idea of reading an enormous and complex book like The Fountainhead for the purpose of writing an essay for a scholarship didn't really appeal to me at the time, and I told her it wasn't happening.

As I look back, I am so glad I stuck to my guns, because knowing how I am, forcing myself to read The Fountainhead would have surely ruined the book for me. The timing just wasn't right, nor was the reason for reading it. But when I moved to New York City exactly one year ago, something compelled me to go to the bookstore and buy it, and after reading a mere few pages, I was completely spellbound. I limited myself to one chapter a night. I savored every morsel.

I realized I had never read a book that challenged my political beliefs, my morals, my ethics, my philosophies, my views on humans and humanity, so completely. I realized we normally read books we know we'll enjoy, we know we'll agree with, we know will inspire us. This was different. Before I read The Fountainhead, I was dismissive of any policy or any philosophy that didn't have the well-being of the masses in mind, and although I remain a social liberal and a critic of free-market capitalism, Ayn Rand's arguments were the first that allowed me to truly see the dark side of my belief system, as well as the bright side of hers. It was truly terrifying, to be honest, to see embodied in characters like Ellsworth Toohey, the inherent corruption and ulterior motives behind socialism and sacrifice, and to find myself cheering for the self-interested and steadfast Howard Roark, who never dreamed of sacrificing himself for others and knew achieving his own happiness was the highest of moral virtures.

It is an interesting and titillating book, indeed, and as we all know, extremely controversial. Ever since I finished The Fountainhead, I've wanted to engage in discussion with both critics and proponents of Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism, as well as the broader issues of capitalism vs. socialism, and individualism vs. collectivism. I feel newcritics may be the appropriate avenue to do just that. If you feel so inclined to post your thoughts on the philosophy, the politics, or simply the book and characters themselves... Let the conversation begin.

The comments posted so far are less-than-delightful, so I really encourage folks to chime in!

Ruling out Reason

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

In today's Houston Chronicle was an editorial by a Hungarian-born American physician who has noted, amid a thicket of nonsensical bureaucratic regulations, a disturbing trend among his countrymen. (An alternate link, which requires registration, is here.) After citing several eye-opening examples, he concludes:

When I first came to the United States more than 30 years ago from then-communist Hungary, I was struck by how Americans were willing to use individual judgment. They seemed to realize that rules were to be interpreted and not just followed with unquestioning servility. It was very different from the super-regimented, state-controlled thinking of my country and I enjoyed it tremendously. It was this attitude that persuaded me to leave the place where I grew up and make the United States my home. It would be a shame to have to accept that the days of the "can do" common-sense Yankee are over.

Of course daily life still requires the exercise of common sense. As a physician, I have to make sensible decisions dozens of times a day. I still have hope that we can reverse this trend and realize, again, that if people are expected to use common sense, they may turn out to have some, and by practice acquire even more.

We may still be able to realize that by holding a steel fork to the carotid artery of a flight attendant, a terrorist could do just as much damage as by holding a knife, and we could do away with this nonsense of plastic knives on airplanes. Or maybe the ladies at the hotel in San Diego were right when they suggested that I should have just gone to the steam room instead of the sauna? [bold added]

His observation is, unfortunately, very good and the remedy he suggests is sound. And the way he delivers it is perfect, for he warns us of how our collective willingness to not think for ourselves will narrow down the options we have in our daily lives if is left unchecked.

His commentary furthermore reminds me of the famous parable of the boiled frog, which I found summarized in this way:

They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will leap out right away to escape the danger.

But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant, and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling, the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late. The frog's survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes.

In the context of political philosophy, I have typically encountered this parable as a warning against the kind of creeping tyranny made possible by the willingness of too many people to accept the gradual loss of their freedom over time.

In that sense, it is true, but recall that freedom is a necessary condition for man to flourish precisely because it enables men to think and act upon their best judgement without having to fear coercion from others. Thus, when men accept less freedom, they are necessarily in effect accepting restrictions on what they may think about. In other words, this column does not just describe the gradual way that free men can succumb to tyranny, it shows us exactly how it occurs! We are, as a people, slowly doing less and less thinking for ourselves, and becoming worse at it for lack of practice.

Do not mistake the calmness of the author's laying out of evidence, his prognosis, and his suggested course of action for a lack of urgency. Yes. He has told us that we may have caught it in time, but the good Dr. Hardi has still just diagnosed what I wish he had described as "cancer of the body politic".

"A republic, if you can keep it." Slavish devotion to bureaucratic regulations and worrying more about potential lawsuits than one's job are not the way to go. We continue to accept such nonsense at the expense not merely of our freedom, but of our very ability to think at all.

-- CAV

The Emergencies of Ethics

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

Yes. The title of this post is a play on that of Ayn Rand's essay, "The Ethics of Emergencies", which appears in her book, The Virtue of Selfishness. The word play is deliberate, because the article I am writing about remarkably takes exactly the opposite of Ayn Rand's philosophical approach as it addresses an interesting question.

In "Numbed by Numbers " (via Arts and Letters Daily), author Paul Slovic considers the fact that people are generally moved to pity (and aid) individuals who are unfortunate in the present, but less so groups, and less so over protracted periods of time. In attempting to explain why this might be so, he cites some interesting research, but because his approach is philosophically flawed, he draws exactly the opposite conclusion about what could be done to alleviate (or avert altogether) such calamities as the genocide in Darfur!

Very briefly, let us consider the essence of the conventional approach to the field of ethics. Most will claim that ethics is a set of arbitrary commands (e.g. meaningless social conventions or divine edicts) which may or may not happen to provide any practical guidance to an individual for furthering his own life. This is reflected in the fact that so many people face ethical dilemmas when what they regard as the moral conflicts with what they regard as the practical.

The reason for this common problem is that most ethical systems are formulated without regard to what man actually is or why he might need an ethical system to survive. Quite frequently, when man's nature is considered at all, it is man who is found wanting when his nature conflicts with the ethical system, rather than the validity of the ethical system coming into question. But then, when one accepts the arbitrary, one has placed it outside of rational consideration.

By contrast, Ayn Rand begins by asking what man is, and why he needs a code of morality. Using this approach, she sees right away that man, a rational animal possessed of free will, is a living being and as such must perform certain actions in order to survive. Because man does not have instincts, he must learn everything, including what these actions are.

And because reason allows man to keep track of countless individual concretes efficiently (as well as any important similarities) by means of concepts, it allows him to essentialize the countless similar existents he will face as he goes through life. In particular, man can evaluate various situations (and his actions) conceptually. The science of making such evaluations (and guiding them by considering the evidence for what he needs to live (and flourish) is ethics, or morality.

Bearing this very brief comparison in mind, it is interesting to consider Slovic's analysis of the limits of human compassion and what ought to be done about it.

Most people are caring and will exert great effort to rescue "the one" whose plight comes to their attention. But these same people often become numbly indifferent to the plight of "the one" who is "one of many" in a much greater problem. It's happening right now in regards to Darfur, where over 200,000 innocent civilians have been killed in the past four years and at least another 2.5 million have been driven from their homes. Why aren't these horrific statistics sparking us to action? Why do good people ignore mass murder and genocide?

The answer may lie in human psychology. Specifically, it is our inability to comprehend numbers and relate them to mass human tragedy that stifles our ability to act.

...

The psychological mechanism that may play a role in many, if not all, episodes in which mass murder is neglected involves what’s known as the "dance of affect and reason" in decision-making. Affect is our ability to sense immediately whether something is good or bad. But the problem of numbing arises when these positive and negative feelings combine with reasoned analysis to guide our judgments, decisions, and actions. Psychologists have found that the statistics of mass murder or genocide -- no matter how large the numbers—do not convey the true meaning of such atrocities. The numbers fail to trigger the affective emotion or feeling required to motivate action. In other words, we know that genocide in Darfur is real, but we do not "feel" that reality. In fact, not only do we fail to grasp the gravity of the statistics, but the numbers themselves may actually hinder the psychological processes required to prompt action.

When writer Annie Dillard was struggling to comprehend the mass human tragedies that the world ignores, she asked, "At what number do other individuals blur for me?" In other words, when does "compassion fatigue" set in? Our research suggests that the "blurring" of individuals may begin as early as the number two.

The best point here indirectly mirrors one brought up in discussions of epistemology in Objectivist circles all the time: Man's mind can not deal with limitless amounts of perceptual data. This phenomenon, because it was first observed in experiments that showed that crows could not distinguish numbers of groups above something like three, is often called the "crow epistemology". To a degree, this "blurring" certainly can be accounted for by this limitation of the human mind.

However, the crow epistemology cannot account for all of this "blurring", nor can it account for "compassion fatigue" over time. This is borne out by the fact that it is through such shorthand as numbers (e.g., in the form of statistics) that man can keep track of many instances of a given particular. Slovic grasps this implicitly when he asks, "Why aren't these horrific statistics sparking us to action?"

Now this is an interesting question, and in order to understand what is wrong with Slovic's explanation, the "dance of affect and reason", it is necessary to consider Ayn Rand's insight into the relationship between reason and emotion, which I once summarized (and applied) as follows:

According to Ayn Rand, emotions are instantaneous, subconsciously-made evaluations of what one is experiencing or thinking about at any given moment. Emotions are also experienced, much like percepts. However, what one feels about something will ultimately be based on one's philosophical premises. The concept of rationality doesn't apply to emotions as such, although it certainly does to the thought processes that led someone to adopt the premises underlying the emotion. This is a profound and very important insight ... Let's explore [the implications of] this a bit....

First, this insight can help us interpret the reactions of others. Did you shout with glee and pass candy around like a savage on September 11, 2001? Or did you cry because you saw fellow human beings jumping out of windows? These differing emotions reveal opposite judgments of that event and of the value of human life. (In many cases, one's own: which philosophy led to nineteen men immolating themselves that day?) Were you angry? At America as the "world aggressor" or at the terrorists? Same emotion, different underlying philosophical premises. ...

While I cannot read Slovic's mind, I think he would agree that whether one actually does something in response to news of suffering (be it in the form of a moving film clip or a report tallying a staggering number of unfortunates) would have to be motivated at least in some way by the person's emotional response. Using behavior as a gauge, then, it is fair to say that Slovic himself was moved by reports of genocide in Darfur sufficiently to ask why more people are not similarly moved, write about what he found, and advocate using the findings he reported.

To be fair, columns of numbers and graphs are never going to evoke an immediate emotional response, but this is because like words, numbers mean things. Not only do these numbers (highly abstract data) need to be tied to concrete reality in some way, the existents they describe must still be evaluated according to a person's philosophical premises before he will feel an emotional response, if he feels one at all. And furthermore, these premises will determine what that response (and its intensity) will be. (On this score, if anything is deficient, it is not human nature, but how effective our educational system has been in teaching people how the abstract and the concrete are connected in the first place.)

To take myself as an example, I was once moved by a report of genocide to become very angry, but my response was probably different in some ways than Slovic's would have been, given that he regards Mother Teresa as a moral ideal and I do not.

[W]hen one regards individuals as without rights, or as subordinate to the collective at best, and holds uniformity to be an ideal, one becomes blind to the fact that the "smallest minority", as Ayn Rand once put it is "the individual". Viewed in this light, every socialist dictatorship is guilty of "genocide" countless times over!

Genocide is wrong only because murder is wrong. And oppression of a minority is wrong only because violating the rights of its constituent individuals is wrong. There is no meaningful difference between a government that drives a minority into poverty and oppression and one that does the same thing wholesale to its entire populace. In this respect, leftist condemnations of genocide are missing the big picture at best and constitute dishonest distractions from essential issues at worst.

Robert Mugabe deserves to be deposed, tried as a criminal against humanity, and executed because he is a tyrant. Genocide is only the tip of this iceberg.

Note my outrage. Note further that it is directed in part against leftists, many of whom claim to act in the name of alleviating human suffering. And note why: Precisely as Slovic himself points out, every instance of mass human suffering is endured by countless individuals. As such, every tyranny is an atrocity of appalling proportions.

I will not elaborate further here on why I do not think that the purpose of my life is to alleviate the suffering of others. I will also not detail why, although I promote the protection of individual rights for purely egoistic reasons, I think doing so would do far more to mitigate atrocities such as those in Darfur and Zimbabwe (if not avert many of them altogether) than any amount of charitable donations made while doing nothing to end such regimes.

What I will do is note that human beings are not incapable of being moved to act by statistical data. That such data is not entirely accessible on the perceptual level would certainly make it less easy to use it stir someone who does not think deeply to action. And furthermore, for any data to cause someone to make a charitable donation even after feeling an emotion like pity, that person must hold appropriate philosophical premises.

And even in this last case, the common "problem" of the moral vs. the practical doubtless contributes. Man simply cannot live by consistently practicing self-sacrifice. Even if he holds that he exists to help others, he must still act to further his own life at some point. He will, sooner or later, if he is to remain alive, have to ignore someone else's problems and attend to his own. And then there are also the interesting questions of whether the emotions Slovic wants us to feel could be sustained over long periods of time and whether, if they could, they would result in mental illness.

There are any number of reasons why statistics do not move people to act to alleviate suffering, but using "reasoned analysis to guide our judgments" is actually not one of them, given what reason is, what statistics are for, and the relationship of reason to emotion (and of both of these to action).

Having said that, it was interesting to see Slovic take altruism as a given, then observe so many of us not living by it to his satisfaction, only to conclude that we have a "fundamental deficiency in our humanity", rather than ask whether it is altruism itself -- as Ayn Rand spent a lifetime arguing -- which is deficient as a guide for human action and which, if overcome, could at least thwart countless thugs and tyrants, thereby putting an end to much of human misery.

There are indeed many humanitarian emergencies in the world, but many are caused or worsened by the notion that man does not exist for his own sake and that it is therefore acceptable to enslave him (or worse) in the name of helping the collective. These are "emergencies of ethics" to the extent that they are caused by altruism.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Several minor edits.

Bush and Chavez: The Two Amigos

Dr. Yaron Brook:

As President Bush ends his tour of Latin America, he has vowed to deliver "social justice" to poor Latin Americans.

"In announcing his commitment to achieving 'social justice' in Latin America," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "President Bush is following in the footsteps, not of Thomas Jefferson, but of Hugo Chavez.

"'Social justice' is the notion that everyone deserves an equal share of the wealth that exists in a nation--regardless of how productive he is. Justice, on this view, consists of seizing the wealth of the productive and giving it to the unproductive. This is the ideal preached and conscientiously put into practice by leftist dictators like Chavez.

"But it is precisely this type of envy-driven philosophy that is responsible for the wretched conditions in Latin America. It is no mystery why a nation that shackles and loots its most productive citizens should be weighed down by poverty and stagnation.

"President Bush should tell the people of Latin America to reject the immoral goal of 'social justice' and embrace the American principles of freedom and capitalism."

Cryptographer Creams Psychics

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This story is too funny. A little background: James "The Amazing" Randi has a brilliant, longstanding million-dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities -- whatever ability they choose, shown via any method they like, only requiring that all involved agree their method would demonstrate it under controlled circumstances. Why is it brilliant?

Many have tried, all have failed.

So a while back Randi revised the focus of the program toward challenging high-profile 'psychics' by name (maybe defending the honor would entice them the way a cool million doesn't?) and he is also now only considering applicants who have gotten some media attention as well as convinced some academic -- probably because the endless stream of crackpot losers he has examined is boring him to death. Okay, maybe it is really a matter of resources: the crackpot next door doesn't influence the culture like those who get media attention and confuse academics.

Anyway, today I saw this story talking about how Randi had set up a remote-viewing test and (to prove no cheating on his part) had published an enciphered clue as to what was in the box. Turns out a cryptographer easily broke his amateur cipher and was able to pass the test, beating out the psychics.

The moral of the story is actually a message Randi routinely gives to scientists, who are notoriously prone to being duped while testing paranormalists: if you are in waters where people often fool themselves and others, have a magician on staff dammit! Well, if you are in the realm of hiding information in plain sight, have a cryptographer on staff dammit!

Or at least consult someone who has some dealings with security. Even a moderately knowledgeable software engineer would have immediately recognized this as an important problem that has been studied hard by cryptographers. Randi could have written a detailed description and run it through some common and well-designed cryptographic hash function to produce a mathematical "fingerprint" which he could safely publish. Good hash functions are very chaotic and one-way, making it infeasible (read: essentially impossible) to use the fingerprint to figure out the original string as happened in this story. Then when the box is opened, he need only show his description matching the contents and the hash function generating the published fingerprint.

While I chuckle at the story, in all seriousness my hat is WAY off to James Randi and his long record of kicking butt and making the world a saner place. At the top of his list of achievements is his bringing about that stark fact which deflates so much silliness: many have tried, all have failed -- and on their own terms.

Cryptographer Creams Psychics

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This story is too funny. A little background: James "The Amazing" Randi has a brilliant, longstanding million-dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities -- whatever ability they choose, shown via any method they like, only requiring that all involved agree their method would demonstrate it under controlled circumstances. Why is it brilliant?

Many have tried, all have failed.

So a while back Randi revised the focus of the program toward challenging high-profile 'psychics' by name (maybe defending the honor would entice them the way a cool million doesn't?) and he is also now only considering applicants who have gotten some media attention as well as convinced some academic -- probably because the endless stream of crackpot losers he has examined is boring him to death. Okay, maybe it is really a matter of resources: the crackpot next door doesn't influence the culture like those who get media attention and confuse academics.

Anyway, today I saw this story talking about how Randi had set up a remote-viewing test and (to prove no cheating on his part) had published an enciphered clue as to what was in the box. Turns out a cryptographer easily broke his amateur cipher and was able to pass the test, beating out the psychics.

The moral of the story is actually a message Randi routinely gives to scientists, who are notoriously prone to being duped while testing paranormalists: if you are in waters where people often fool themselves and others, have a magician on staff dammit! Well, if you are in the realm of hiding information in plain sight, have a cryptographer on staff dammit!

Or at least consult someone who has some dealings with security. Even a moderately knowledgeable software engineer would have immediately recognized this as an important problem that has been studied hard by cryptographers. Randi could have written a detailed description and run it through some common and well-designed cryptographic hash function to produce a mathematical "fingerprint" which he could safely publish. Good hash functions are very chaotic and one-way, making it infeasible (read: essentially impossible) to use the fingerprint to figure out the original string as happened in this story. Then when the box is opened, he need only show his description matching the contents and the hash function generating the published fingerprint.

While I chuckle at the story, in all seriousness my hat is WAY off to James Randi and his long record of kicking butt and making the world a saner place. At the top of his list of achievements is his bringing about that stark fact which deflates so much silliness: many have tried, all have failed -- and on their own terms.

Understanding the Founders College Vision

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

I'm back at Founders College again. Obviously for both Ed Cline and myself, this new vision for higher education has captured our attention. As I said before, the campus is stunning-a fitting home for the pursuits envisioned. Here's a photo I took of a walk I was able to enjoy last night though the horse pastures.

During my walk, I noticed something that I had missed the first time I visited the campus. A few short steps from the Berry Hill mansion at Founders College lies the Bruce family cemetery. There, Mrs. Betty Bruce Williams (1878-1943) rests with the following epitaph inscribed upon her headstone:

"She has lived with a heart and soul alive for all that makes life beautiful."

I was struck by how this remembrance intended to encapsulate the meaning of Mrs. Williams' life comes admirably close to capturing the vision of this newly launched college. At Founders, Dr. Gary Hull and Tamara Fuller propose to create a multi-faceted institution dedicated to helping people come to know themselves and the world around them. I find myself utterly inspired by their vision-based upon what I have seen thus far, I believe them to be armed with both ideas and passion necessary to make this vision real.

I'm also struck by the controversy surrounding this endeavor, especially among some Objectivists, whom one would expect would be enthusiastic supporters of the college. It's inevitable that any new project be subject to some amount of scrutiny, particularly when it is as ambitious as this one, so as I've come to understand the ideas behind Founders, I think it would be helpful to examine some of the lingering doubts that I've seen raised over the past months.

Foremost is the idea that since Founders is not an explicit Objectivist institution, it is guilty of being a step away from goodness, or is somehow ashamed of the role Ayn Rand's philosophy played in shaping the thinking of its principals (and its ultimate educational strategy). I admit that I wondered about this issue myself, thinking that perhaps the school simply didn't believe that "the time was right" for an avowed Objectivist institution.

The reality of the situation is much different and it reflects the distinction between an institution with mandate to teach vs. an institution with a mandate to advocate. For example, the Ayn Rand Institute is an advocacy organization; it seeks to present the philosophy of Objectivism to the public and train new intellectuals who will aid the institute is expanding its outreach. ARI's more advanced programs teach individuals who are already committed to Objectivism the history of philosophy and other arts. While this instruction clearly benefits students in a host of life applications, the ultimate aim of this program is to produce scholars who will apply Objectivism to their scholarship and teaching (and thus grow our numbers). This end goal clearly shapes ARI's advocacy, from who underwrites its cost, to who is admitted into its training programs as a student.

In contrast, the goal of an educational institution is to provide a broad base of customers with the training they need to lead successful and productive lives. An institution like Founders College takes the unschooled (and that's putting it politely, given much of the rot infecting education today) and it educates them-many for the first time in a formal setting. And while it's easy to see the critical impact Objectivism has played in shaping the Founders College curriculum (please go to Founders' website and review its curriculum for yourself), it is improper to think of Founders as the equivalent of a bible college.

Ultimately, when it comes to making the integrations about what philosophy its students will use to guide them in life, students must be responsible for making their own choices. I believe Founders will give its students the skills and knowledge necessary to make an informed choice; in fact, I doubt that there is another college in existence that will do more for its students in this regard, but these students will have to make good on the very purpose of their education, which is to think properly and confidently. In my opinion, this is exactly what an education should be.

In any case, as I understand it, Founders will offer a minor in Objectivism. I challenge Founder's critics to name me any other college program in the world that offers such a program and explain to me why this program remains a secret.

Another controversy that I don't quite understand now that I've had a chance to see the college and review its program for myself is over just what assets Gary Hull brings to the table with the Founders' launch. The thinking that I saw argued that since Founders is not explicitly an Objectivist college and Hull is an Objectivist philosophy professor, the value of his contribution is somehow lessened.

With the benefit of a broader understanding, I say that this argument falls into a rationalistic trap by undervaluing Hull's real genius, which is his understanding of the philosophy of education and his groundbreaking practical application of his knowledge to the classroom. Hull's creation of an integrated and conceptual-based curriculum for higher education is revolutionary. His commitment to coach his professors, enhance their teaching talents and then hold them strictly accountable for how they perform in the classroom is pioneering. When I look at his handiwork and talk to people he has already coached, all I can see is evidence of a top-level Objectivist at his absolute best. I think it's high time Hull got some credit for it.

The last concern that I've seen is a minor one, but one that I've nevertheless seen repeated several times. Some are not quite sure how Founders is being financed, speculating that there is some behind the scene mystery donor funding the project. From what I have learned, there is no such financier, but instead a three-pronged business plan that Tamara Fuller, the business visionary behind the project has been able to successfully present to normal commercial lenders. In addition to its educational mission, Founders will continue to use the Berry Hill property as a world-class resort/conference center, as well as develop parts of the outlying estate for residential living. The appeal of this plan is that it allows each branch of Founders' business triad to grow while contributing to the strength of the whole, and places the business in the position of being able to capitalize on the economic benefits it creates. It's a simple and straightforward plan, but obviously sexy when it comes to capitalizing upon the benefits. My eyes often glaze over when I hear business pitches, but with this one, I have to admit-I'm impressed.

My view is now that Founders is out of the gate, its vision is clear and its methodology sound, Objectivists should be outspoken in their support of its mission. Right now, Founders needs (and in my view, deserves) boosters. If Founders fails, it will be only because potential students did not hear about it and not because its educational vision was flawed. And since my own thinking and misgivings have been answered by getting the facts straight from the source, I encourage those who continue to have their own misgivings to take their questions directly to those in charge. Founders College offers the education that I wish I had had when I was 18-and I think the others will feel the same way once they come to fully understand Founders' vision.

Understanding the Founders College Vision

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

I'm back at Founders College again. Obviously for both Ed Cline and myself, this new vision for higher education has captured our attention. As I said before, the campus is stunning-a fitting home for the pursuits envisioned. Here's a photo I took of a walk I was able to enjoy last night though the horse pastures.

During my walk, I noticed something that I had missed the first time I visited the campus. A few short steps from the Berry Hill mansion at Founders College lies the Bruce family cemetery. There, Mrs. Betty Bruce Williams (1878-1943) rests with the following epitaph inscribed upon her headstone:

"She has lived with a heart and soul alive for all that makes life beautiful."

I was struck by how this remembrance intended to encapsulate the meaning of Mrs. Williams' life comes admirably close to capturing the vision of this newly launched college. At Founders, Dr. Gary Hull and Tamara Fuller propose to create a multi-faceted institution dedicated to helping people come to know themselves and the world around them. I find myself utterly inspired by their vision-based upon what I have seen thus far, I believe them to be armed with both ideas and passion necessary to make this vision real.

I'm also struck by the controversy surrounding this endeavor, especially among some Objectivists, whom one would expect would be enthusiastic supporters of the college. It's inevitable that any new project be subject to some amount of scrutiny, particularly when it is as ambitious as this one, so as I've come to understand the ideas behind Founders, I think it would be helpful to examine some of the lingering doubts that I've seen raised over the past months.

Foremost is the idea that since Founders is not an explicit Objectivist institution, it is guilty of being a step away from goodness, or is somehow ashamed of the role Ayn Rand's philosophy played in shaping the thinking of its principals (and its ultimate educational strategy). I admit that I wondered about this issue myself, thinking that perhaps the school simply didn't believe that "the time was right" for an avowed Objectivist institution.

The reality of the situation is much different and it reflects the distinction between an institution with mandate to teach vs. an institution with a mandate to advocate. For example, the Ayn Rand Institute is an advocacy organization; it seeks to present the philosophy of Objectivism to the public and train new intellectuals who will aid the institute is expanding its outreach. ARI's more advanced programs teach individuals who are already committed to Objectivism the history of philosophy and other arts. While this instruction clearly benefits students in a host of life applications, the ultimate aim of this program is to produce scholars who will apply Objectivism to their scholarship and teaching (and thus grow our numbers). This end goal clearly shapes ARI's advocacy, from who underwrites its cost, to who is admitted into its training programs as a student.

In contrast, the goal of an educational institution is to provide a broad base of customers with the training they need to lead successful and productive lives. An institution like Founders College takes the unschooled (and that's putting it politely, given much of the rot infecting education today) and it educates them-many for the first time in a formal setting. And while it's easy to see the critical impact Objectivism has played in shaping the Founders College curriculum (please go to Founders' website and review its curriculum for yourself), it is improper to think of Founders as the equivalent of a bible college.

Ultimately, when it comes to making the integrations about what philosophy its students will use to guide them in life, students must be responsible for making their own choices. I believe Founders will give its students the skills and knowledge necessary to make an informed choice; in fact, I doubt that there is another college in existence that will do more for its students in this regard, but these students will have to make good on the very purpose of their education, which is to think properly and confidently. In my opinion, this is exactly what an education should be.

In any case, as I understand it, Founders will offer a minor in Objectivism. I challenge Founder's critics to name me any other college program in the world that offers such a program and explain to me why this program remains a secret.

Another controversy that I don't quite understand now that I've had a chance to see the college and review its program for myself is over just what assets Gary Hull brings to the table with the Founders' launch. The thinking that I saw argued that since Founders is not explicitly an Objectivist college and Hull is an Objectivist philosophy professor, the value of his contribution is somehow lessened.

With the benefit of a broader understanding, I say that this argument falls into a rationalistic trap by undervaluing Hull's real genius, which is his understanding of the philosophy of education and his groundbreaking practical application of his knowledge to the classroom. Hull's creation of an integrated and conceptual-based curriculum for higher education is revolutionary. His commitment to coach his professors, enhance their teaching talents and then hold them strictly accountable for how they perform in the classroom is pioneering. When I look at his handiwork and talk to people he has already coached, all I can see is evidence of a top-level Objectivist at his absolute best. I think it's high time Hull got some credit for it.

The last concern that I've seen is a minor one, but one that I've nevertheless seen repeated several times. Some are not quite sure how Founders is being financed, speculating that there is some behind the scene mystery donor funding the project. From what I have learned, there is no such financier, but instead a three-pronged business plan that Tamara Fuller, the business visionary behind the project has been able to successfully present to normal commercial lenders. In addition to its educational mission, Founders will continue to use the Berry Hill property as a world-class resort/conference center, as well as develop parts of the outlying estate for residential living. The appeal of this plan is that it allows each branch of Founders' business triad to grow while contributing to the strength of the whole, and places the business in the position of being able to capitalize on the economic benefits it creates. It's a simple and straightforward plan, but obviously sexy when it comes to capitalizing upon the benefits. My eyes often glaze over when I hear business pitches, but with this one, I have to admit-I'm impressed.

My view is now that Founders is out of the gate, its vision is clear and its methodology sound, Objectivists should be outspoken in their support of its mission. Right now, Founders needs (and in my view, deserves) boosters. If Founders fails, it will be only because potential students did not hear about it and not because its educational vision was flawed. And since my own thinking and misgivings have been answered by getting the facts straight from the source, I encourage those who continue to have their own misgivings to take their questions directly to those in charge. Founders College offers the education that I wish I had had when I was 18-and I think the others will feel the same way once they come to fully understand Founders' vision.

Why I Love Forbes

By Kendall J from The Crucible & Column,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Every principled advocate of capitalism should work to continuously concretize those principles, i.e. see and digest real world business examples and then integrate those particulars back into their understanding of the principles. This process deepens understanding of the breadth of scope of applicability of these principles, and helps to counter claims that "capitalism only works sometimes" or "markets sometimes fail". I was first consciously introduced to the process of concretization in business school when exposed to the "case method" of study, whereby students learn and integrate key business principles by immersing themselves in a real world "case study" and attempting to apply those principles to decisions they would be faced with. I learned of the crucial importance of it during listening to Leonard Peikoff's The Art of Thinking.

Today the topic of business strategy and tactics is by far one of my favorites, and I continually try to expand my understanding of business by reading various journals. By far my favorite source of concrete examples of capitalism is Forbes magazine. Given the philosophical shortcomings of most defenders of capitalism today, I find that this magazine comes as close to being a principled surveyor of capitalism as one can find in the popular media today.

The magazine provides broad coverage or all aspects of business today. I am continually stunned by the variety of possible business models in practice today, and Forbes surveys them all, from technology, to commodities, to financial to entrepreneurial. Additionally, the story formats cover enough background and plotting to keep the stories interesting, while keeping the stories accessible to the lay reader.

The magazine conveys a tone of respect and admiration for business throughout. Successful business leaders are treated with admiration, and their insight and fortitude is celebrated. Business failure is analyzed, not as scandal or a pervasive blight, but honestly, and as an integral part of market function. Finally, the fruits of labor, material and spiritual happiness are celebrated rather than scorned.

The magazine argues from sound economic principles (albeit mixed philosophical principles). Steve Forbes is one of the premier advocates for the gold standard. Publisher Rich Karlgaard understands that it is man's reason and insight that drive entrepreneurs. The analysis of business structure is usually clean and essentialized.

Compare this treatment with Fortune, which treats business failure with the air of tabloid scandal, and successful businessmen as "players". Or worse yet, consider what passes for "business news" on NPR's Marketplace, whose broadcasts drip with contempt and sarcasm for the very object they purport to cover and serve, and who spend more time reviewing "market failures" than the markets themselves.

If you fancy yourself and advocate of Capitalism, whether you are in business or not, a subscription to Forbes is worth the price. It is accessible to the lay person. It will help you concretize the principles behind the workings of business, and most importantly, will give you a weekly shot of reverence for business and businessmen.

Why I Love Forbes

By Kendall J from The Crucible & Column,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Every principled advocate of capitalism should work to continuously concretize those principles, i.e. see and digest real world business examples and then integrate those particulars back into their understanding of the principles. This process deepens understanding of the breadth of scope of applicability of these principles, and helps to counter claims that "capitalism only works sometimes" or "markets sometimes fail". I was first consciously introduced to the process of concretization in business school when exposed to the "case method" of study, whereby students learn and integrate key business principles by immersing themselves in a real world "case study" and attempting to apply those principles to decisions they would be faced with. I learned of the crucial importance of it during listening to Leonard Peikoff's The Art of Thinking.

Today the topic of business strategy and tactics is by far one of my favorites, and I continually try to expand my understanding of business by reading various journals. By far my favorite source of concrete examples of capitalism is Forbes magazine. Given the philosophical shortcomings of most defenders of capitalism today, I find that this magazine comes as close to being a principled surveyor of capitalism as one can find in the popular media today.

The magazine provides broad coverage or all aspects of business today. I am continually stunned by the variety of possible business models in practice today, and Forbes surveys them all, from technology, to commodities, to financial to entrepreneurial. Additionally, the story formats cover enough background and plotting to keep the stories interesting, while keeping the stories accessible to the lay reader.

The magazine conveys a tone of respect and admiration for business throughout. Successful business leaders are treated with admiration, and their insight and fortitude is celebrated. Business failure is analyzed, not as scandal or a pervasive blight, but honestly, and as an integral part of market function. Finally, the fruits of labor, material and spiritual happiness are celebrated rather than scorned.

The magazine argues from sound economic principles (albeit mixed philosophical principles). Steve Forbes is one of the premier advocates for the gold standard. Publisher Rich Karlgaard understands that it is man's reason and insight that drive entrepreneurs. The analysis of business structure is usually clean and essentialized.

Compare this treatment with Fortune, which treats business failure with the air of tabloid scandal, and successful businessmen as "players". Or worse yet, consider what passes for "business news" on NPR's Marketplace, whose broadcasts drip with contempt and sarcasm for the very object they purport to cover and serve, and who spend more time reviewing "market failures" than the markets themselves.

If you fancy yourself and advocate of Capitalism, whether you are in business or not, a subscription to Forbes is worth the price. It is accessible to the lay person. It will help you concretize the principles behind the workings of business, and most importantly, will give you a weekly shot of reverence for business and businessmen.

Casino Royale

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Paul and I watched Casino Royale last night. It just came out on DVD. (I've minimized spoilers in my comments below.)

The plot made more sense to me this time, although I still think some more hint about the French Algerian was needed. (Since he wasn't ever seen, he still doesn't feel real to me.)

I love Daniel Craig as James Bond. However, I'm most in love with the portrayal of James Bond as internally conflicted: the sharp rationality and intense emotional control versus the bloody physical brutality of his killings. Both are required of him by his job -- and required simply to remain alive from moment to moment. Yet the conflict threatens his very person, i.e. his soul. That's new for Bond -- and it's very compelling to me.

However, I think the movie goes astray starting with the hospital scene. The introduction of the emotional pull of the romance muddies that sharply-drawn physical/rational/emotional conflict. It's not wholly unrelated, of course, but it's still a tangent. (It's as if the writers didn't quite know how to use that conflict for a dramatic climax, so they opted for the more predictable romantic betrayal.) The attraction in the romance also isn't well-justified: it's not clear me to why Bond would choose that woman over any other lovely smart woman, let alone so completely and unreservedly. (While the scene in the train shows her to be his equal, that's not enough for love.)

All in all though, I liked the movie even more than I did in the theater. And I'm excited about the new direction for the franchise.

Casino Royale

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Paul and I watched Casino Royale last night. It just came out on DVD. (I've minimized spoilers in my comments below.)

The plot made more sense to me this time, although I still think some more hint about the French Algerian was needed. (Since he wasn't ever seen, he still doesn't feel real to me.)

I love Daniel Craig as James Bond. However, I'm most in love with the portrayal of James Bond as internally conflicted: the sharp rationality and intense emotional control versus the bloody physical brutality of his killings. Both are required of him by his job -- and required simply to remain alive from moment to moment. Yet the conflict threatens his very person, i.e. his soul. That's new for Bond -- and it's very compelling to me.

However, I think the movie goes astray starting with the hospital scene. The introduction of the emotional pull of the romance muddies that sharply-drawn physical/rational/emotional conflict. It's not wholly unrelated, of course, but it's still a tangent. (It's as if the writers didn't quite know how to use that conflict for a dramatic climax, so they opted for the more predictable romantic betrayal.) The attraction in the romance also isn't well-justified: it's not clear me to why Bond would choose that woman over any other lovely smart woman, let alone so completely and unreservedly. (While the scene in the train shows her to be his equal, that's not enough for love.)

All in all though, I liked the movie even more than I did in the theater. And I'm excited about the new direction for the franchise.

John Lewis Rescheduled

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

It looks like John Lewis' GMU talk has been rescheduled:

On April 24th at 7:30pm in the JC Cinema the [College Republicans] will be hosting a lecture by Dr. John Lewis, Ph.D. Lewis is a history professor at Ashland University in Ohio. He will be discussing his article, No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism. This talk was previously scheduled to appear at Mason, but because of its controversial content its original sponsors were no longer able to sponsor it. We have decided to hold this talk because, as a club, we value discussion and debate, both internally among our own members, and externally, with others on campus. We also believe that Dr. Lewis' ideas for winning the war are of interest to our members and the larger Mason community. This talk is being sponsored by the GMU College Republicans, GMU Objectivist Club, and the Objectivist Standard. Please mark your calendars for this exciting event! It will be Tuesday, April 24th, 7:30pm in the JC Cinema!

The announcement can be found on Facebook. (Yup, I do have a Facebook account.)

John Lewis Rescheduled

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

It looks like John Lewis' GMU talk has been rescheduled:

On April 24th at 7:30pm in the JC Cinema the [College Republicans] will be hosting a lecture by Dr. John Lewis, Ph.D. Lewis is a history professor at Ashland University in Ohio. He will be discussing his article, No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism. This talk was previously scheduled to appear at Mason, but because of its controversial content its original sponsors were no longer able to sponsor it. We have decided to hold this talk because, as a club, we value discussion and debate, both internally among our own members, and externally, with others on campus. We also believe that Dr. Lewis' ideas for winning the war are of interest to our members and the larger Mason community. This talk is being sponsored by the GMU College Republicans, GMU Objectivist Club, and the Objectivist Standard. Please mark your calendars for this exciting event! It will be Tuesday, April 24th, 7:30pm in the JC Cinema!

The announcement can be found on Facebook. (Yup, I do have a Facebook account.)

USA OUT OF IRAQ - MOVE ON TO IRAN

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Only 1000 people demonstrated in Gothenburg against America's invasion of Iraq. [Editor's note: 1460 days since "Uncle Sam Tour" paid a visit to Iraq.] I didn't have time for a counter-demonstration this year. Here is a picture from 2005.



I "agree" with the demonstrators that USA should leave Iraq, but I add the following condition: USA should attack / invade / terminate the HQ of terrorism - Iran. Please participate in the EGO Poll (scroll down the page, right column).

The Iraq Talks

USA OUT OF IRAQ - MOVE ON TO IRAN

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Only 1000 people demonstrated in Gothenburg against America's invasion of Iraq. [Editor's note: 1460 days since "Uncle Sam Tour" paid a visit to Iraq.] I didn't have time for a counter-demonstration this year. Here is a picture from 2005.



I "agree" with the demonstrators that USA should leave Iraq, but I add the following condition: USA should attack / invade / terminate the HQ of terrorism - Iran. Please participate in the EGO Poll (scroll down the page, right column).

The Iraq Talks

Spartans: Two - Iran (née Persia): Zero

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

One of the most ridiculous accusations leveled against the U.S. by Iran is that "300," the movie depicting the heroism of the Greek Spartans against the invading Persian hordes under Xerxes in 480 B.C., is a product of "a comprehensive U.S. psychological war aimed at Iranian culture." This movie allegedly "insults" Persian civilization.

The allegation was made, according to the Iranian Fars News Agency, by Javad Shamquadri, filmmaker and art advisor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Fars is not so much a news agency as it is a vehicle for propaganda and misinformation.

The allegation is baseless on two counts.

First, no program of psychological warfare is being waged against or about Iran or any other Islamic state. We can only wish one existed. Hollywood is not in cahoots with the CIA, NSA, or the State Department to insult any country, least of all Iran, to which the U.S is making meek overtures to stop killing American troops in Iraq and to stop development of nuclear weapons.

In fact, if anything, Hollywood is waging a kind of psychological war against the U.S. without any connivance of the government. During World War Two, Hollywood turned out dozens of films that "insulted" Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan, some at the behest of the War Department, others independently. How many films has it produced about the "war on terror," other than one or two non-judgmental films about the 9/11 hijackings? None.

Second, Persian cultural accomplishments in literature, the decorative arts and architecture - great portions of them cadged or adapted from other cultures - were more or less nullified with the Arab/Islamic conquest of Persia in the mid-7th century A.D. Under the Muslims, much Persian literature simply vanished. At Marathon and Thermopylae, the Spartans and other Greeks were not fighting jihadists or Islamists in a holy war of conquest. They were opposing a megalomaniacal tyrant, Xerxes I, who did manage to sack Athens.

Up until the Arab conquest, the dominant religion in Iran or Persia was Zoroastrianism, founded about two hundred years before Marathon and Thermopylae. Like Islam (and Christianity, as well), it featured a bizarre divinity and farcical cosmology. The apostles of Mohammad subsequently cleansed Iran of that religion and all Greek influences in Persian culture.

Why is Javad Shamquadri so touchy about a pre-Islamic Persian tyrant, nominally an infidel? Historically, Xerxes couldn't have heard of Allah, because that divinity wouldn't be invented for another thousand years. Why boast of a civilization that his creed erased some 1,500 years ago? If Shamquadri was going to complain about anything, it might have been that the hairless, androgynous Xerxes in the film resembled nothing like the 6th-5th century B.C. bas-relief of Xerxes in the Archeological Museum in Tehran. Also, most of the film's Persian soldiers dressed suspiciously like...Arabs. But, those are mere details.

"Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Hollywood and cultural authorities in the U.S. initiated studies to figure out how to attack Iranian culture." There's a xenophobic conspiracy theory for you. The efforts of those plotters, such as the movie "300," would be fruitless, because "values in Iranian culture and the Islamic Revolution are too strongly seated to be damaged by such plans," said Shamquadri. And there's package-dealing for you, too, a coupling of nationalism and theocratic fervor. And which values does he mean: Islamic or non-Islamic?

What, basically, is "300" about? The refusal of Spartans and Greeks to submit to tyranny, preferring to die defending their freedom and autonomy rather than live as conquered subjects. And what does the term "Islam" mean? Submission.

Regardless of the movie's flaws - and there are stylistic and technical ones - this is what really upsets Shamquadri and his own tyrant, Ahmadinejad, and not any imagined cultural aspersions. The box office success of "300" in the U.S. is evidence that the West is not yet vanquished, in spite of the best efforts of Hollywood and the pragmatists of Foggy Bottom. To date, "300" is the only movie in my memory to champion the superiority of the West - because of its heroes' unequivocal value of freedom. To borrow a scene from the movie itself, "300" is Leonidas's spear that grazed Shamquadri's cheek.

OCON 2007 Early Registration

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Thursday, also known as tomorrow for a few more hours, is the deadline for early registration for the 2007 OCON, to be held from July 6th to 15th in lovely Telluride, Colorado.

The program looks excellent. Obviously, I'm hugely excited about Leonard Peikoff's six lectures on "The DIM Hypothesis," as well as many of the other general lectures. As for optional courses, I generally choose them first by expected quality of content, then by topic, then by fun. Expected quality of content is based on the reputation of the speaker with me based on prior lectures I've heard, whether live or on tape. As for topic, I tend toward the more philosophical topics, for obvious reasons. As for fun, some lecturers are particularly delightful to see live, e.g. John Lewis, Robert Mayhew, Yaron Brook.

Here's what Paul and I are taking this year. We're totally overlapped, except that I'm opting for Robert Mayhew over Yaron Brook.

GROUP A

The Science of Selfishness by Craig Biddle

American Slavery, American Freedom by C. Bradley Thompson

GROUP B

Two, Three, Four and All That by Pat Corvini

Plato's Laws by Robert Mayhew (Diana)

The Corporation by Yaron Brook (Paul)

GROUP C

Atlas Shrugged as a Work of Philosophy by Greg Salmieri.

GROUP D

The Meaning of Victory: 1945 by John Lewis

I'm nearly certain that I'll order The Scientific Revolution by David Harriman and The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant (part 1 of 3): Kant's Theoretical Philosophy by Jason Rheins on CD. I just can't fit them into my schedule. My head would explode if I tried take more than three optional courses per session again.

Also, Property Rights in American History by Eric Daniels is sure to be a phenomenal course. However, I won't need it, since I'm in the middle of a full-year "History of Capitalism" course with Eric right now. Simply due to time alone, his OCON course will be a drop in the bucket compared to the two-and-half hours I've been enjoying every week for this academic year. (Yes, you should be turning green with envy! But remember, you can audit the course. It's a bargain, given what you're getting.)

Please post a note in the comments if you plan to attend OCON this year!

Thoughts on "Thoughts on Music"

By Kendall J from The Crucible & Column,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Steve Jobs publicly posted his essay Thoughts on Music today, advocating that the music industry drop DRM (digital rights management) requirements for online music sellers, such as Apple's iTunes. DRM software protects copyrights for music purchased electronically, and is viewed as necessary by music companies and as a difficult maintenance challenge by online music/software companies. I am usually intrigued by public relations announcements such as this, since they are meant as a broad statement to sway those who might have influence in the issue, say politicians for instance, or music consumers. After all, if he wanted to talk to the record companies, he could have done that privately. No, he wants to talk to you. So, let's put him in proper context.

First of all, let's recognize his position in all of this. iTunes is a channel for media content. By that I mean that Apple acts in cooperation with music producers to help them get their products to consumers. Retailers and distributors are other types of channels as well. The music companies can also be thought of as channels for the real producer which is the artist, but in this case since artists work under contract, let's consider the music companies as the primary producer. The thing to remember is that channels and producers don't necessarily have congruent interests. A producer worries about effects that impact all of their volume and profitability. Channels worry about the extent to which a producers products move through their specific channel, and their comparative advantage with other channel competitors.

Now, let's think about the basic issue at hand: copyrights. Copyright is important. It's a form of property rights, and property rights are the basis upon which innovations allow profits to flow to the innovators. They are a form of legal justice if you will. Open source advocates who demand that because they listen to music should be allowed to listen to it freely and in any manner they see fit are not advocates of capitalism. The copyright is owned by the author, and he is free to set whatever terms he deems fit as to the use of his copyrighted material. You as a consumer are free to enter into this agreement or not.

In this context, let's look at what Jobs is asking for and why he is petitioning you, and not the music companies directly. He makes several claims in his essay that are interesting to dissect once you understand the context.

First, Jobs claims that the problem with DRM is that because of the constant threat of hackers "any company trying to protect content using a DRM must frequently update it with new and harder to discover secrets". This is true, but what it means is that from a channel perspective is that online venues bear the cost of maintaining DRM. This is the equivalent to a retailer putting anti-theft precautions into its stores, and Jobs is complaining that such efforts cost him money.

Next, in analyzing three different scenarios, Jobs claims that the status quo in digital music sales does not have an effect on locking consumers into one music player or another, because most of the music on players isn't purchased online. I find this debatable. One need not have a majority of their music be proprietary in order for it to be enough of a hassle to switch formats that the average consumer is effectively deterred from switching. Also, it is probably music purchased more recently that is in proprietary formats and so a user is more attached to this music and values keeping it more than older music. For example, I buy 100% of my music online today, but I would guess that only 5% of the music on my player is proprietary. Why? Because I transferred 15 years worth of CD purchases to digital format when I got my player. I researched players extensively before I did this because I didn't want to have to take the extra time to convert newly purchased formats should I decide to change platforms in the future.

So if proprietary music does in fact effectively lock users into certain players, why would Jobs want to dispense with it? The answer lies in looking at Jobs' competitive advantage relative to his other online competitors. What does Jobs have that his competitors don't? A head start and strong brand recognition, and an integrated player / storefront. His competitors, especially Microsoft, have only recently attempted an exact duplicate of Apple's business model with Zune. In fact, Apple would stand to be the least impacted by a shift to open standards, relative to its competitors. This is true regardless of whether music companies are impacted by the move.

Job's next claim is that it doesn't believe it can license it's DRM to other online store fronts and players and maintain protection of it's suppliers' music. Yet, this doesn't matter to music companies, if they can get non-exclusive distribution agreements with key online stores. A music company simply wants to get its music distributed in as many stores as possible as long as each store protects. Again, it is Apple that stands to lose if other online stores copy its model and take business away from it, not the music company. It Apply cannot effectively license it's DRM then it does not participate in any way in other online stores revenue.

Finally, Jobs final claim is that most music, sold as CD, is unprotected and that piracy is therefore not prevented by selling the small fraction online under DRM. This is true, maybe today, but not necessarily in the future. More and more music is moving to online purchase, and certainly it would be easier to distribute electronic media than it was previously to copy CD's. Music companies are justified in looking for improved security in what is to be its dominant future market, even if that future market today experiences leakage from older markets. However once the music industry makes the decision to go open source, it will be almost impossible to go back. Thus it is in the music industry's interest to hold out for increased security in future markets until such time as it is absolutely sure that it cannot compete in any other way than open source.

This essay, taken in its true context, is a plea by Jobs to move in a direction that favors Apple's interests over those of its competitors, regardless of whether such a situation would be good for its suppliers, or the industry as a whole. Artists and music companies would be right to resist such a plea, and so should you.

Founders College: A Strategic Division of Labor

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

After spending a weekend at Founders College near South Boston, Virginia – a place I now think of as the future “Galt’s Gulch” of education – I have had time to reflect on the importance of that place and its vision. And one of the first things to occur to me, once the means and ends of the institution had percolated in my mind for a while, was how ingenious an educational strategy had been conceived by its founders.

If a goal of a liberal arts college is to prepare a student with a “comprehensive knowledge and deeper understanding of great ideas, their connections and consequences,” structured as an “integrated, logical whole,” then that goal would complement perfectly a student’s pursuit of a profession in the work world or if he matriculated into a university to master a specific field of knowledge.

This is truly a revolutionary concept, having no precedent even in the liberal arts colleges of the 19th and early 20th century, when educational standards were immeasurably higher than they are at present. I recall a Wall Street Journal article some time in the 1970s when the paper reprinted part of a private New Jersey high school’s entrance exam. It required an active knowledge of American, European and ancient history, of a language other than English, of calculus and trigonometry, of philosophy, of science, of law, and the ability to solve complex problems. The test, as I recall, had been given to modern Harvard and Princeton juniors; every one of them flunked it miserably, unable to correctly answer a fraction of the questions or to solve any of the problems.

Yet fortunes were and still are being spent on these students’ education, sending them out into the world barely less ignorant than when they matriculated, and if not indoctrinated by vicious, anti-mind ideas, then indifferent to all great ideas.

Of course, even in the 19th and early 20th centuries, education was “traditional,” that is, it relied chiefly, as the Founders College brochure describes it, “on rote memorization of a random set of disconnected facts and opinions.” It might have been at a higher, more demanding, and an even comprehensive level of knowledge, but it was largely disconnected and certainly not logically integrated. In only a few students would education instill in them a “lifelong passion for knowledge and discovery.” It was up to the students to discover the “whole” on their own efforts, possibly encouraged by the even rarer teacher with a passion for his subject.

If we treat as an absolute truism that ideas can influence the direction of a culture – indeed, of a nation – and that those ideas flow from the centers of education, then the power of reason – in this instance, the logical integration of ideas from a wide spectrum of human endeavors – should be enhanced in the student, in the culture, in the nation.

Ideas can certainly influence the direction of a culture and nation. Witness the influence of bad ideas inculcated in students for a few generations – of collectivism, of nihilism, of environmentalism, of religion, of virtually every brand of anti-reason, anti-mind philosophy – and then observe the state of the country and of the world. These ideas are spread by the colleges and universities. The best institutions are today in a state of criminal decrepitude – the logical dead end of a century of promulgating irrationalism – and the destruction they are wrecking in every field of human action is of an unimaginable magnitude.

Countering this phenomenon is the Ayn Rand Institute’s Objectivist Academic Center, which trains students in an unadulterated philosophy of reason, together with its efforts to place as many of its graduates as possible in the country’s top universities. There is no other such organization or program in existence. And it is such an organization with which Founders College can establish a complementary relationship. It is a perfect educational fit.

Imagine it: A student who graduates from Founders would be far better prepared to grasp and absorb a philosophy of reason than a student who, similarly motivated, had to endure two or three years of agony in a liberal arts school that sought to cripple his mind and which regularly extorted his silence or agreement over irrational ideas and opinions. In the context of an irrational culture, Founders would serve as a kind of advanced crèche for adolescents and adults alike.

There is a mutual benefit to stress here. Instead of Objectivist teachers and scholars having to struggle with students who have been mentally stunted and flayed of any pro-life, pro-reason values, they could begin to have in their classes students ripe for the refinement of reason and imbued with pro-life values, students who value an “integrated whole” in their education, and who would exhibit a far broader and deeper knowledge of the liberal arts – philosophy, politics, law, literature, and so on – than most students could even imagine today.

And, instead of the most able and intellectually ambitious students having to resort to outwitting their extortionate, irrational teachers just to pass a course or obtain a degree, they could encounter teachers and scholars hospitable to their ambition and abilities, and who reciprocated excellence and performance with recognition and academic justice.

Excuse the hubris of an individual who decades ago was repelled by the modern, “traditional” mode of “higher” education, but I see no conflict between the two levels. If the goal of the OAC is to produce professional intellectuals, what better preparation for that role could there be in today’s educational environment than Founders College? Founders College would be the next step up from such pro-reason, pro-individual, pre-college schools such as the Van Damme Academy and the Leport Schools, whose typical students are so far advanced in every important respect over their traditional or public school counterparts that one is hard put to find a credible measure.

What I find incredible is that anyone who values reason and the mind would express opposition to the idea of Founders College. Such a person must be blind to the overall, revolutionary strategy conceived by Founders’ principals.

Founders College is the missing piece of the vast puzzle of turning a culture and a nation back to life-saving, life-enhancing reason. If I had the funds to spare, I would without hesitation invest in its future.

Expedition highlighting global warming called off due to extreme cold

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

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

“Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey,” said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

Record cold temperatures in one part of the world aren’t conclusive evidence that global warming isn’t happening. However I can think of a few lessons this episode could teach:

• The climate is inherently variable, unstable, and unpredictable

The explorers “were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.” Instead “outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero.”
We didn’t blame the record number of ice storms this winter on a new ice age. So why does the media pretend that any warm weather is “proof” of global warming?
If you can’t predict the temperature of a single trek, how can you predict the next 100 years?

• Humans are much better equipped to deal with hot temperatures than cold ones.

The natural population of Antarctica is 0, while people have lived in Death Valley and the Sahara desert for thousands of years, (and even built cities). By comparison to the South Pole, Sarah is a veritable rainforest.

• Nature is deadly without the proper technology.

The explorers blamed the frostbite on damaged snowshoes, which are an essential tool of survival in the arctic wilderness -just as industry is essential to our survival in civilization.

Times Shades Gore

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

Although this article from the New York Times does not dispute the basic claims behind global warming hysteria, it notes that many climate scientists, including even some who accept the notion of anthropogenic global warming are unhappy with Al Gore's sensationalist approach to the science.

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. [Don J.] Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for "getting the message out," Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were "overselling our certainty about knowing the future." [bold added, link dropped]

While this is newsworthy in and of itself, all the really damning quotes are unfortunately buried late in the article. Consider the following:

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore's film did "indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios." But the June report, he added, shows "that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years."

...

"Hardly a week goes by," Dr. Benny J. Peiser said, "without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory," including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

...

"Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet," Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. "Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change."

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. "I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company," Dr. Easterbrook told the group. "And I'm not a Republican." [bold added, links dropped, added link for Peiser]

Quickly: How the hell is defending oneself from a smear "getting personal"? Moving on....

The article clearly emphasizes the damage done by Gore's alarmism to the credibility of the crusade for warming-based environmental legislation at the expense of the obvious question of whether the crusade itself is an attempt to "fix" an imaginary problem. Thus the Times is clearly only paying lip service to the need for objectivity in the public debate, and in doing so lends undeserved credibility to Gore's position. Otherwise, why spend the first half of the article regurgitating the mantra that global warming is the "consensus view"? And don't hold your breath for any kind of an editorial questioning whether the global warming political agenda is really such a good idea.

The article may report some damaging attacks to Gore's credibility, but it also blunts those attacks and unjustly provides Gore and the allegedly scientific environmentalist agenda with shade from the bright light of scientific criticism.

-- CAV

The Power of Faith

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

The "News Bizarre" section of today's Houston Chronicle carries the following story:

Buddhist monks, who are bound by faith to nonviolence, are grappling with how to rid a temple of a severe ant infestation without killing the insects.

Stinging red ants have plagued the Hong Hock See Temple in northern Penang state for a year, causing one worshipper to be bitten so badly last month that he had to receive hospital treatment, said Elma Lin, a temple volunteer worker.

A temple disciple tried using a vacuum cleaner to gather up the ants before freeing them in a nearby forest, but the method failed to purge the insects, Lin said.

"We haven't found a solution so far," Lin said. "Nothing has worked."

The temple's chief monk, Boon Keng, was quoted by The Star newspaper as saying that the monks had to "respect other living things" in the temple.

"When an ant drops on you, you must not flick it away or blow on it," he told the newspaper. "If you do, it will bite to hold on. You just have to shake it off."

The newspaper published a photograph of Boon Keng standing beside a sign at the temple that read: "Beware poisonous ants. Do not sit under the tree."

The decades-old temple has more than 10 monks living there and hundreds of devotees, Lin said. [bold added]

Well, faith may not be able to "move mountains", as some like to imagine, but behold its power to level the playing field between an intelligent being capable of space travel and a lowly social insect!

How is this so? While no one would deny that these painful bites serve the purpose of helping the ants survive, many, even in this day and age, pretend that man can survive without recourse to his tool of survival, reason, through which he applies logic to data from the world around him. Faith, the claim to knowledge independent of evidence and superior to logic, is simply the rejection of reason.

To the extent that men rely on faith, they hinder their own lives. At least this time, the result was a merely a good laugh for everyone but the faithful!

-- CAV

Update on the Clemson Institute Summer Conference

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Here's an update about the Clemson Institute Summer Conference Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the Moral Foundations of Capitalism. (I originally blogged about it here.) In brief, the deadline for admission has been extended to March 19th, graduate students are now welcome to apply, and the schedule of classes has been posted.

New Information and Opportunities Available!

The Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism had updated its website with details about the schedule for our upcoming summer conference, "Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the Moral Foundations of Capitalism." Visit our website to view the full schedule of events during this exciting three-day conference.

The Clemson Institute has also opened admission to the conference to qualified graduate students. If you'd like to apply, simply download and fill out the application available on our website and return it via email by March 19. Undergraduates are also still eligible to apply until the new March 19 deadline.

Coverage of John Lewis' Cancelled GMU Talk

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The cancellation of John Lewis' lecture at George Mason University has gotten some generally favorable press.

The AP carried a story: Professor's Invitation At GMU Pulled, Muslim Complaints

The Chronicle of Higher Education had a very good article with some hefty quotes from Dr. Lewis' excellent article "No Substitute for Victory," but the link will only be good for another day or so: Scholar Who Calls for War on Iran Loses a Speaking Gig at George Mason but May Get Another

Virginia's Daily Press published an op-ed that mentioned the incident, albeit stupidly: It Says a Lot

It's also been noted in the blogosphere. For example:

SCSU Scholars: Where are your papers, young student?

Jihad Watch: Dhimmitude at George Mason University

Thought Crime: The Logical End of Politically Correct Speech

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

“It is not so curious that in the wake of the Danish cartoon conflict, during which the American press and news media revealed their tepid commitment to freedom of speech and the inviolacy of the First Amendment, incidents of assaults on that freedom would not only multiply, but assume odd but no less ominous forms.”

That was how I opened a commentary on the corruptive power of politically correct speech in “Moving Towards Freedomless Speech” on this site in May 2006. I further remarked:

“To return to thought control: The ‘control’ that enforces ‘orthodoxy’ in speech by individuals is simply fear of retribution, reprisal, or financial and personal ruin. To work, thought or speech control relies exclusively on self-censorship. The instances of operable thought control are as ubiquitous and innocuous in our culture as countless drops of water falling on one’s forehead in a Chinese torture.”

And,

“On a fundamental cultural level, it is no coincidence that the introduction and gradual acceptance of the concept of ‘hate crimes’ paralleled the stealthy and de facto imposition of politically correct speech. Politically correct speech, in turn, has established the grounds for punishable ‘tactless language.’”

Politically correct speech, we are seeing, inevitably leads to politically correct thought, if the speech is not flouted, opposed, or corrected. Who can enforce that epistemology-wrecking and metaphysics-warping nomenclature? Who can enforce mental blank-outs?

Inevitably, government force. But our federal and state governments have not yet imposed censorship. They are evading that damning label – the term still carries an onus of tyranny that its advocates avoid like primitive savages, even though it is tyranny they wish to impose – by stealthily coming in through the backdoors of speech codes, vocabularies of “sensitivity,” campaign finance laws, and the like. No, they are allowing the gauleiters of correct speech to lay the groundwork for censorship in numerous fields of thought and action.

The latest casualties in freedom of thought and speech in the name of orthodoxy may be science and scientists. The Daily Telegraph (London) of March 12th featured this disturbing article, under the headline, “Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’”:

“Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

“They say the debate on global warming has been ‘hijacked’ by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

“Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change. One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.”

What is the next step after threats to enforce goodthink in a semi-free society? Outright force, as we witnessed when homicidal anti-abortionists took shots at doctors, terrorized women seeking abortions, and firebombed abortion clinics.

“Last week,” the Daily Telegraph article continued, “Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle…a documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a ‘religion,’ forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.”

Yes, environmentalism is a religion, although it didn’t just recently become one. It has been a religion – a system of reason-proof intrinsic values that places nature far above man’s survival – ever since the first savages sacrificed one of their own to placate the mysterious moods of gods. Reality, facts, evidence, and proofs have never stood in the way of faith in the incomprehensible.

“Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology – who also appeared on the documentary – recently claimed: ‘Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of science.’”

Another scientist on the program stated, “The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro-managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do.”

Premise check here: Climate change, or global warming, is not a “problem.” And that scientist errs in another premise, that environmentalists wish to micro-manage everyone (as totalitarians are wont to do), presumably for their own good and the good of the earth. If he examined the Green movement as closely as he might data from a sample ice core from the Arctic or Antarctic, he would conclude that environmentalists wish to micro-manage man out of existence – first with solar and wind power, then with ethanol, then with florescent light bulbs, and God knows what other “energy-conserving,” “environment friendly” doodads and scams someone or some group might foist on a defenseless public.

What the environmentalists do not wish to hear – nor wish anyone else to hear – are some of the conclusions and observations of the scientists who appeared on the Great Global Warming Swindle program: that if there is warming, it is caused by sunspot activity, which drives up CO2 levels, which may or may not mean anything; that the environmental movement is driven by politics; and that scientists who question or deny the “truth” that man is causing the rise of CO2 levels find their names appended to international reports that endorse the man-made global warming mantra. That is consistent with the style of environmentalists: threats of force, preceded by fraud and forgery.

What about those polar bears clinging to melting icebergs as they drift into the ocean (and often landing in Iceland, where they are shot)? Another Daily Telegraph article from March 9th, “Polar bears ‘thriving as the Arctic warms up’,” among other things reports a rise in the polar bear population.

“Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists. The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared – boosting the bears’ food supply. At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears.”

But those poor bears, hanging ten on shrinking ice cubes! Said one professor from the University of Alberta about “a celebrated photograph of a bear and its cub floating on a tiny iceberg, the animals often travel in that way. ‘Bears will often hang out on glacier ice or large pieces of multi-year ice.’”

Last week a biologist on a San Francisco radio program raised the point that since polar bears are a species closely related to grizzly bears, both species carnivores, they have no problem hunting on land and finding food that way.

“Tina Cummings, a biologist attached to the Alaskan government, questioned whether they needed sea ice to survive, saying they could adapt to hunt on land and find alternative food sources to seals.”

So, it isn’t just Muslims who object to freedom of speech and the “inconvenient” truths about Islam such freedom might reveal. The fire and brimstone faithful of another religion, environmentalism, also wish to squelch anyone who questions the soundness or truthfulness of their “science” of global warming and man’s contribution to it.

“Slay them wherever you find them,” orders the Koran about infidels and unbelievers. “Call them names, accuse them of denial, of trafficking with the capitalist Satan, of using tactless or insensitive language, shun them,” order the environmentalist gurus. And if the unbelievers won’t shut up, threaten them with death.

When men begin to resort to death threats and ad hominem arguments as means of persuasion, then one should know immediately that a fraud is being perpetrated and that the facts of reality are not on their side. To submit to such persuasion is to submit to thought control, which can “work” only if one vanquishes one’s own mind. A mind cannot be forced, said Ayn Rand’s John Galt; it can only abdicate.

Other articles by Edward Cline on censorship:

“Here Comes a Chopper to Chop Off Your Head: Freedom of Expression vs. Censorship in America” Essay: The Journal of Information Ethics (St. Cloud State University, MN/ McFarland & Co., Publishers, Jefferson, NC), Fall 1995

“The Ghouls of Grammatical Egalitarianism” a review of Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing, ed. Marilyn Schwartz and the Task Force on Bias-Free Language, The Social Critic, November/ December 1996

“Censorship” Entry: The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, ed. Allen Kent, Marcel Dekker, New York, Vols. 62 (1998) and 70 (2002)

“Moving Towards Freedomless Speech” The Rule of Reason, 18 May 2006

To Save Lives, Legalize Trade in Organs

By: David Holcberg

The right to life includes the right to buy and sell organs.

If you were sick and needed a kidney transplant, you would soon find out that there is a waiting line--and that there are 70,000 people ahead of you, 4,000 of whom will die within a year. If you couldn't find a willing and compatible donor among your friends and family, you could try to find a stranger willing to give you his kidney--but you would not be allowed to pay him. In fact, the law would not permit you to give him any value in exchange for his kidney. As far as the law is concerned, no one can profit from donating an organ--even if it cost you your life.

This deplorable state of affairs led to the emergence of "paired" donations, arrangements whereby two individuals--who can't donate their organs to their loves ones because of medical incompatibility--agree that each will donate a kidney to a friend or family member of the other. But this exchange of value for value is precisely what the law forbids. Thus, under pressure to allow this type of exchange, the House passed last week the "Charlie W. Norwood Living Organ Donation Act," which exempts "paired" donations from prosecution under current law.

But if our politicians' goal is to eliminate the irrational laws leading to innocent people's deaths, they should legalize not only "paired" exchanges but all voluntary trades in organs.

According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the risk to the life of a kidney donor, for instance, is just 0.03 percent--not negligible, but not overwhelming either. Moreover, kidney donors usually live normal lives with no reduction of life expectancy.

A person may reasonably decide, after considering all the relevant facts (including the pain, risk and inconvenience of surgery), that selling an organ is actually in his own best interest. This may seem like a radical idea, but it need not be an irrational one. A father, for example, may decide that one of his kidneys is worth selling to pay for the best medical treatment available for his sick child.

Those who object to a free market in organs would deny this father the right to act on his judgment. Poor people, they imply, are incapable of making rational choices and must be protected from themselves. The fact is, however, that human beings (poor or rich) have the capacity to reason, and should be free to exercise it.

Of course, the decision to sell an organ is a very serious one, and should not be taken lightly. That some people might make irrational choices, however, is no reason to violate the rights of everyone. If the law recognizes our right to give away an organ, it should also recognize our right to sell an organ.

The objection that people would murder to sell their victims' organs should be dismissed as the scaremongering that it is. Indeed, the financial lure of such difficult-to-execute criminal action is today far greater than it would be if patients could legally and openly buy the organs they need.

Opponents of a free market in organs also argue that it would benefit only those who could afford to pay--not necessarily those in most desperate need. But one person's need does not give him the right to damage the lives of others, by prohibiting either sellers from getting the best price for their organs or buyers from purchasing organs to further their lives. Those who can afford to buy organs would benefit at no one's expense but their own. Those unable to pay would still be able to rely on charity, as they do today. And a free market would enhance the ability of charitable organizations to procure organs for them.

Ask yourself: if your life depended on getting an organ, say a kidney or a liver, wouldn't you be willing to pay for one? And if you could find a willing seller, shouldn't you have the right to buy it from him?

The right to buy an organ is part of your right to life. The right to life is the right to take all actions a rational being requires to sustain and enhance his life. Your right to life becomes meaningless when the law forbids you to buy an organ that would preserve your life.

If the government upheld the rights of potential buyers and sellers of organs, many of the tens of thousands of people now waiting for organs would be spared hideous suffering and an early death. How many?

Let's find out.

David Holcberg is a media research specialist at the Ayn Rand Institute (www.AynRand.org) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org

Jesus Camp and Friends of God

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The documentary Jesus Camp is now available on DVD. (It's now at the top of my NetFlix queue.)

John Stark just forwarded me this scary clip from it. In it, I learned that PowerPoint problems are the work of the Devil. (Seriously. These nutters prayed over their electronic equipment, including in tongues.) I was more seriously disturbed to see a young child -- probably about seven years old -- speaking shamefully of his occasional lack of belief in the Bible.

I wasn't at all surprised to see all the pro-Bush political activism from the pulpit, particularly from Ted Haggard. I suspect that his gay-sex-and-drugs scandal has put something of a damper on Christian evangelical designs for political change in America. They need to clean their own house before they can continue to self-righteously clean ours.

The second clip was from the documentary Friends of God. It begins with a traveling minister preaching against evolution and for creation. "The Bible is the History Book of the Universe." He is teaching about "the authority of Scripture." We should trust God, not the scientist, he warns. Yet the rank-and-file were quite determined to cloak themselves in the veneer of "creation science." (I guess they don't trust God and His Scripture that much!)

They are right about one thing: The Bible demands that we shut down all questions, all doubts, all thought. We lowly humans ought do nothing more than believe and obey.

Morally Bankrupt Regulators

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

Following up on an earlier post about the danger posed to Internet radio by a semifascist partnership of businesses and government regulators, I am announcing the existence of a new blog on the subject.

At Radio Dismuke: Save Internet Radio, Internet broadcast hobbyist Dismuke plans to keep his listeners and other interested parties up to date on developments and advise them of opportunities for activism. This blog will be available from the sidebar at least for the duration of this crisis.

Crisis? My use of this word might sound borderline ridiculous until you go over there and do a little reading. For example, in one post, we learn that, thanks to the current moral bankruptcy of some in the recording industry and some in government, certain Internet broadcasters face retroactive financial bankruptcy.

This is no abstract, potential threat that may emerge down the road. It is ugly and it is imminent.

Imagine, for a moment, that you had an ongoing business relationship with an organization in 2006 and have already paid the $2,000 in charges that the organization had billed you for during that year. Now, imagine it is early March, 2007 and a governmental board announces that the rate should have, instead, been somewhere between $10,000 and $40,000 and that you have to pay the balance now retroactively. And, not only that, since January 1 you have been building up a bill with this organization at a rate which, by the end of the year, could result in you owing it up to $100,000.

...

What I have described above is exactly what the Copyright Royalty Board [link added] did on March 2 to Live 365's most successful independent broadcasters who had signed up for the Live 365 X5000 package. These broadcasters are private individuals such as myself who are passionate about the music that they play and broadcast as a hobby, often investing considerable time and expense and usually getting no other reward than the the pleasure they get from doing it and the emails they receive from happy and grateful listeners.

Many of these broadcasters are now facing the prospect of financial ruin and perhaps even bankruptcy. [Happily, Dismuke himself is not among them. --ed]

...

According to Mark Lam, the CEO of Live 365:

"The average X5000 station under these "per performance" rates will find their 2006 royalty obligation around $10,000, with some stations surpassing $40k. At current TLH, without any change in the new rates or streaming, some could find their 2007 SoundExchange bill approaching $100,000."

Again, keep in mind that the individuals he is talking about are not deep pocketed corporations who have lawyers who can fight this out in court. They are ordinary private citizens such as myself who run an Internet radio station as a hobby and are already probably spending more that they probably would like to on maintaining their stations.

Oh, and by the way, my understanding is that the royalty bill on these new rates is due very soon, with no regard for the appeals process which will hopefully overturn all of this.

...

The Copyright Board, SoundExchange and the RIAA, which is behind the actions of both, are not content to just force these stations to go off the air - they want blood and are perfectly willing to knowingly drive decent individuals into personal bankruptcy.

...

Please do not allow the Copyright Board, SoundExchange and the lawyers and lobbiests at the RIAA to get away with it. Do not allow them to bring innocent men and women whose only crime was to have a dream of sharing the music they enjoy with others in a legal and lawful manner to be financially ruined in the name of protecting a technologically obsolete and increasingly irrelevant recording industry from the emerging competition it dreads and knows it will have a difficult time standing up against.

Above all, do not allow them to take away your freedom of choice in the sort of music you are able to listen to.

This is appalling to say the least, and it should be to anyone who uses the Internet to do anything, even if he is completely deaf. Why? Because what we are seeing here is a particularly vicious example of how government regulations that have no obvious connection to freedom of speech are being used to curtail it.

This move is designed to ruin one group of people in such an ugly manner as to frighten away anyone else who wants to do the same thing. This is America, and yet ordinary citizens are facing financial ruin because government regulators can decide after the fact what rates they "should have" paid. How the hell can anyone function when the future whims of some petty functionary have to be be factored in to whatever business he conducts?

This is bad enough, but consider the further implications. Who knows what other bureaucratic apparatus is already in place out there, just waiting for someone else to commandeer it to snuff out something else on the Internet he doesn't like? After Internet radio, what next? And after a few Internet broadcasters are driven to financial ruin, who will be next? And for doing what other completely innocuous activity?

This issue is far bigger than whether, as too many people will put it too dismissively, listeners in a few niche markets suddenly lose their ability to listen to their music over the Internet. Government intrusion into legitimate business transactions may be taken for granted as "the way things work", but it is wrong, and can, besides, unleash all manner of unforeseen consequences later on.

-- CAV

PS: After examining the Live365 site, I must add a major reservation to this post. From the table at the top of the page, it appears that no rates had been set for 2006. Leaving aside whether the government should be involved at all in setting royalty rates, it seems foolhardy on everyone's part to have entered any kind of contract to broadcast anything without a preexisting, agreed-upon rate. If I am drawing the right conclusion from this table, then in this sense, the rate increases are not really ex post facto. (But then, if the government is "supposed to" set the rates, why hadn't it at least set a temporary one?) [Update: Dismuke elaborates further on this in the comments. Based on what he says, I have no problem with asking Congress to intervene on an ad hoc basis. Needless to say, Congress ultimately should not be setting rates.]

Also, for the record, I cannot fully support the aims of Live365, which are stopgap measures at best. Ultimately, the government must get out of broadcasting altogether, including auctioning off the airwaves, and act only to enforce mutually agreed-upon contracts between buyers and sellers of copyrighted works. I would be very interested in hearing more on the various subjects this episode is bringing up from others more knowledgeable than myself.

Updates

Today: (1) Added a link and a clarification. (2) Added a postscript.
3-12-07: Updated the postscript.

SAVE INTERNET RADIO

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I play (stream) Radio Dismuke at Blue Chip Café. The music is an important "ingredient" in the business concept. The "cool" music from the 1920's & 1930's has a soothing and relaxing impact on the atmosphere and our guests are giving positive feedback. Personally, I get in a cheerful mood by listening to this kind of music. Do you see any possible solution to this situation? How could we help Mr. Dismuke in his attempt to share his music collection with the listeners? How could you send a message to Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in Washington, DC?

From Dismuke:

Your ability to enjoy the vintage 1920s and 1930s recordings on Radio Dismuke and other Internet radio stations along with your ability to enjoy the virtually unlimited variety of genres that can only be found on Internet radio is in grave jeopardy.

On March 2, the U.S. Copyright Office released the new royalty rates that all Internet radio stations are required to pay to SoundExchange in order to legally play copyright records and CDs. These royalties are paid on top of the royalties that stations already pay to other organizations such as ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. AM and FM radio stations, by the way, are exempt from having to pay SoundExchange royalties for their over-the-air broadcasts.

The new royalty rates, pushed through by lawyers for the RIAA (the trade organization for the major record labels), if allowed to stand, will immediately kill off the emerging Internet radio industry. For even the most profitable and commercially viable Internet radio stations, the cost of these new royalty rates would be in excess of 125% of ALL total revenue that such stations currently bring in. (Dismuke.org)

Please read the following posts:

Retroactive Bankruptcy by Dismuke.
Morally Bankrupt Regulators by Gus Van Horn.
Say Goodbye to Webcasting by Mark Cuban.
RIAA Pushes Through Internet Radio Royalty Rates Designed To Kill Webcasts by Mike of TechDirt. [Via InstaPundit.]

Posts that contain RIAA per day for the last 30 days.

Get your own chart!

The AP covers the canceled John Lewis talk

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

Matthew Barakat of the Associated Press reports on the canceled (and soon to be rescheduled) John Lewis talk on totalitarian Islam at George Mason University.

Note how the spokesman from the Council on American-Islamic Relations claims that Lewis is an "unfit" public speaker--as if it is his right to vet who speaks and who doesn't speak on an American college campus.

A TOS Suprise!

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Craig Biddle just sent out the table of contents for the upcoming Spring 2007 issue of The Objective Standard. Here it is:

• From the Editor
  
• Letters and Replies
  
• "The 'Forward Strategy' for Failure" by Yaron Brook and Elan Journo
  
• "The Rise and Fall of Ancient Greek Justice: Homer to the Sermon on the Mount" by Robert Mayhew
  
• "Induction and Experimental Method" by David Harriman
  
• "Egoism Explained: A Review of Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist" by Diana Hsieh

Wow, fancy that last article! What a surprise! (If this post is the first you've heard of it, you're not alone. I told just a very few people about it, even once publication was certain. That was precisely so that I could enjoy foisting this little surprise on my NoodleFood readers.)

Here's how Craig Biddle describes my review in his editor's note:

Finally, in "Egoism Explained," Diana Hsieh reviews Tara Smith's latest book, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, and finds it to be a welcome addition to the existing literature on the Objectivist ethics--and a sizable challenge for critics of egoism.

That's exactly right. In editing my review, Craig did rightly excise some substantial discussions of side-issues. I'll post those here on NoodleFood, when I have a moment to spruce them up a bit.

Also, as a delightful coincidence, Tara Smith's excellent book will soon be available as a $25.99 paperback, not just as a $63.80 hardcover. That cheaper paperback is available for pre-order from Amazon; it's scheduled for release on April 30th.

The article will not be freely available on the web. So regarding subscriptions, the fine Mr. Biddle notes:

If you had a one-year subscription that began with the inaugural issue (i.e., Spring 2006), then the Winter 2006–2007 issue was the fourth and final issue in your subscription. Don't miss the Spring issue; it mails in just a few days! There are three quick and easy ways to renew:

1. Renew online by clicking here.

2. Print and fax (or mail) our PDF order form.

3. Or call us toll free at 800-423-6151.

If you've not yet subscribed to TOS, now is the time to act. While supplies last, you can still begin your subscription with the inaugural issue. Subscribe today and receive the first full year of the journal all at once, followed by the Spring 2007 issue a few days later. Or start your subscription with whichever issue you like; just let us know your preference.

All in all, I'm really quite honored to be included in an issue of such sure-to-be fabulous articles.

Some Comments on 300

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Paul and I saw 300 tonight. I was seriously disappointed.

I was most disappointed aesthetically. The movie failed to connect its loudly-proclaimed broad abstractions to its concretes, mostly notably in the case of the ideas of reason and freedom. Consider a few examples.

*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***

First, Leonidas was supposed to be uncompromising. He wasn't swayed by the appeals of Xerxes (and the deformed Ephialtes) to be reasonable by submitting to Persian rule. Yet he compromised from the very start, not just by submitting to the mystical demands of the Ephors, but then by circumventing their demands without directly challenging them. The fact that he did so begrudgingly, as a necessity of Spartan political life, shows him to be open to compromise in the name of necessity. So why not compromise with the Persians too? Just because, I guess.

Second, the Spartans were repeatedly said to be superb warriors, not just for their strength, courage and skills, but also for their use of reason. However, the training of the youth was not just purely physical, but also mostly the endurance of pains like freezing cold human brutality. Even worse, the training was positively irrational, e.g. the young men had to steal food to live, then would be brutally punished if caught. Unsurprisingly then, the Spartans showed basically no ingenuity in battle in the movie. They relied solely on their strength, skill, discipline, courage, and even indifference to life -- not on any clever tactics. In contrast, Herodotus recounts that the Spartans would often fake retreats, then turn back en masse to slaughter unwary Persians. It's significant that that bit of actual history was omitted from the movie, I think.

Third, Sparta was clearly portrayed in the movie as a fundamentally totalitarian society. (That's certainly accurate.) Yet those concrete facts were never reconciled with all the Spartan talk about the value of freedom. So really, what made life under Persian rule so much worse than life under Spartan rule? That totalitarianism was also grossly inconsistent with Sparta's supposed ideal of reason. Unsurprisingly, no rationale was ever offered for Sparta's overwhelmingly militaristic culture: it was just supposed to be obviously superior to a city in which the army is composed of reservist potters and sculptors.

Fourth, and perhaps most galling of all, the final heroism of the Spartans was portrayed as nothing short of senseless adherence to duty. The Spartans were forbidden from retreating in battle. They could only stay, fight, and die -- and that's what they did. To retreat was portrayed as obvious cowardice -- yet the movie Spartans had absolutely no rational reason to stand their ground. As recounted by Herodotus, the Spartans stayed for a very rational reason: the unprepared Greek city-states to the south desperately needed time to muster their forces. The Spartans fought at the pass after the betrayal to hold off the Persians for a bit longer. Unlike in the movie, where all were slaughtered immediately, the real Spartans achieved that purpose with their deaths.

These failures to connect the abstract ideals of the movie with its concretes was the reason why, I think, the dialogue of the movie often seemed like a disconnected series of stirring but empty one-liners. It was, to put it in terms of Leonard Peikoff's "DIM Hypothesis," very much M1. It aspired to be more than the writers could muster, I think.

That's not to say that I didn't like some of the elements of the movie. I very much enjoyed the characters of Leonidas and Gorgo. Plus, those nearly-naked Spartan soldiers were mighty easy on the eyes. I decided not to focus on those better elements of the movie not just because I regard them as inessential, but also because I've already seen much praise for the movie, including from Objectivists.

Overall, I thought the movie a serious failure. That was disappointing.

Reminder: Justice in War Debate Tomorrow

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The debate between Yaron Brook (Ayn Rand Institute, just war theory critic) and Martin Cook (Air Force Academy Philosophy Professor, preeminent just war theorist) will be held tomorrow evening in Boulder. (This event is hosted by Boulder's Philosophy Department, not any campus club.)

What: "Justice in War: A Debate" with Dr. Martin Cook (US Air Force Academy) and Dr. Yaron Brook (Ayn Rand Institute)

When: Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 8:00 to 9:30 p.m.

Where: Wittemeyer Courtroom, Wolf Law Building University of Colorado, Boulder

America is often harshly criticized at home and abroad for its conduct in war, not just by "doves" hoping to restrain our military might but also by "hawks" seeking more vigorous military action. What does morality require of America in war?

Dr. Martin Cook will defend the "just war tradition" and examine its application to the world today, including to the war on terror. Dr. Martin Cook is a Professor of Philosophy and Deputy Department Head at the United States Air Force Academy.

Dr. Yaron Brook will argue that the "just war tradition" is an immoral, self-sacrificial restriction on the military for the sake of America's enemies and their supporters. Dr. Yaron Brook is the President and Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

This debate is free and open to the public. For more information, the Think! web site. All "Think!" events are sponsored by the Center for Values and Social Policy in the Philosophy Department of the University of Colorado at Boulder and funded through the generosity of The Collins Foundation.

Forging the Shaft

By Kendall J from The Crucible & Column,cross-posted by MetaBlog

My wife and I were in New York City last weekend for a shopping and sightseeing trip before the holidays. We stayed in Midtown just south of Central Park. On Sunday, we got a chance to spend some time at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. With only a couple of hours to spend, we both peeled off and headed for our respective favorites; she for Asian and Egyptian, and I for 19th century European and American.

Except for Greek and Roman sculpture, the 19th century has most of the gems of painting and sculpture. It is too bad however that Kant's influence in philosophy can be seen making its way into late 19th century. This decay included choice of subject, and so it is a tragedy that just as the Industrial Revolution was occurring, that art was turning its back on so wonderful a subject.

My find for the day was this painting which I stumbled upon by accident in the American wing. It is "Forging the Shaft" by John Ferguson Weir ca. 1868. A larger version can be found over on the Met's website or Pursuing Praxis blog (which has a nice overview of the American wing - I like an idiot left my camera at the hotel).

This was not the most prominently displayed painting, and frankly I walked by it the first time. With little time I was scanning galleries quickly and seeking out only paintings that quickly caught my eye. This one from a distance is smaller and, since the color palate is very dark, it didn't catch my eye.

However, once I saw it up close, I was blown away. It is exceedingly difficult to find industry as the subject of paintings of the era, and much less to find one so well executed. There are two aspects to this painting that I found fantastic. One is the rendering of light, using the furnace and the metal ingot as the only source of light. The second is the depiction of effort and tension (i.e. of work) on the part of the laborers.

This was by far my favorite. I sat and looked at this painting for over 15 minutes.

When I returned home, I realized that he has several paintings using similar themes, including "The Gun Foundry" and "Tapping the Furnace".

Random reason quote on your Google Homepage

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

Do you use Google’s Personalized Homepage? You can add my random quote widget to your page. Just click “Add Stuff”, “Add by URL” and add this URL: http://www.rationalmind.net/random.php?format=gadget

More:

• To add random quotes to any HTML page, add this to the source:
<script language="Javascript" src="http://www.rationalmind.net/random.php?format=js;">
</script>
• You can specify quotes by topic or author by adding &topic=TOPIC or &topic=AUTHOR to the URL. For example, http://www.rationalmind.net/random.php?format=gadget&author=Ayn Rand
• Other formats include, “txt”, “html”, “xml”
• View all quotes.

"Only in America" is right!

By Kendall J from The Crucible & Column,cross-posted by MetaBlog


"Maybe I shouldn't disagree with the Oracle of Omaha," I interjected, "but I think that the stock [Coca Cola] will take a big hit tomorrow [the day after announcing the resignation of CEO Doug Ivester]."
Unfortunately I was proved to be right as the stock declined about 10%. Warren [Buffet], to his credit, chased me down in Washington the next day to say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong and you were right. You are the new oracle!"
At the next finance committee meeting, when the Coca Cola CFO asked him a complicated financial question, Warren responded by saying, "I don't know, you better ask Paul!"

The "Paul" in this excerpt is Paul F. Oreffice, former CEO and Chairman of the Board of The Dow Chemical Company. The excerpt is from his new autobiography Only in America: From Immigrant to CEO which I just finished. This is a wonderful book, overviewing the extraordinary life of an charismatic industrialist and I heartily recommend it.

Born into a middle class Jewish Italian family in 1930's Italy, Paul's father was persecuted by the Fascists, and his family fled on the last commercial vessel to leave Italy before it entered World War II. Abandoning everything and emmigrating first to Ecuador, and ultimately to the United States, Paul finished college at Purdue and began work at Dow in 1953, ultimately earning the position of CEO, and then Chairman. Having experienced both the best and the worst the world has to offer, Paul succeeded because of his character and upbringing. His experiences sharpened his outlook on life, and allowed him to develop the principles, attitudes and habits that would bring him lasting success. At Dow he was instrumental in transforming a national chemical company into one with a global reach, and innovated the use of some of the financing mechanisms to operate globally. His hard charging, get the job done attitude makes for some interesting stories.

It is the story of Paul's development and his adventurous outlook on life that make this book worth the time. It is a glimpse into the benevolent world of one of America's titans, and into the environment that America offers men who wish to make something of themselves.

I first met Paul Orefice as a young co-op student at Dow (he was the key executive on the Dow recruiting team for his and my alma mater, Purdue University), and he served as an inspiration for me early in my career. You'll understand why when you read this book.

I met him for a second time last month when he signed my copy of Only in America.

Hannah Krening: An Evening of Romantic Piano Music

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I know Hannah Krening from Front Range Objectivism's 1FROG discussion group, so I'm particularly looking foward to hearing her play for the first time.

Hannah Krening, classical pianist, will present an evening of Romantic piano music on two Saturdays in March in Denver.

On March 10th she will perform at Evanston United Methodist Church, 2122 S. Lafayette Street (at Evans, just west of DU) at 7:00 pm. A donation of $10 per person will be requested at the door.

On March 17th, Ms. Krening will perform at Chris Finger Pianos, 102 Second Avenue, in Niwot (near Boulder), also at 7:00 pm. Tickets are $10 in advance, $12 at the door. Advance tickets are available at Chris Finger Pianos or e-mail dhkren@indra.com for more information.

Ms. Krening holds a Bachelor of Music and a Masters degree in Piano Performance. She has taught privately, in college and other school settings, and is a MTNA Nationally Certified Music Teacher. She has performed as a symphony pianist and as a soloist in various locations throughout the United States.

The program consists of: Beethoven: Sonata, Op. 27, no. 2, Brahms: Klavierstcke, Op. 119, Schubert: Sonata in A, Op. 120, and Mendelssohn: Variations Srieuses, Op. 54.

Portions of the proceeds from the Niwot recital will benefit FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine).

For more information, please contact: Hannah Krening at (303)681-2122 or dhkren@indra.com. A flyer for this event is available here.

You can find out more about FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) at www.WeStandFIRM.org. The site is not yet officially launched, although it's looking pretty good. (I'm the webmaster, so please let me know if you notice any problems with it.) I'll post the official announcement when the doors are officially opened.

Anarcho-Tyranny "Lite"?

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

The following passage, from Victor Davis Hanson's followup blog posting at City Journal to his article on "Mexifornia", reminded me somewhat of the emerging concept in Europe of "anarcho-tyranny", where multiculturalist welfare states simultaneously shut down public debate while failing to uphold law and order.

All these now-neglected or forgotten rules proved costly to the taxpayer. In my own experience, the slow progress made in rural California since the 1950s of my youth -- in which the county inspected our farm's rural dwellings, eliminated the once-ubiquitous rural outhouse, shut down substandard housing, and fined violators in hopes of providing a uniform humane standard of residence for all rural residents -- has been abandoned in just a few years of laissez-faire policy toward illegal aliens. My own neighborhood is reverting to conditions common about 1950, but with the insult of far higher tax rates added to the injury of nonexistent enforcement of once-comprehensive statutes. The government's attitude at all levels is to punish the dutiful citizen's misdemeanors while ignoring the alien's felony, on the logic that the former will at least comply while the latter either cannot or will not. [bold added]

There is much regarding immigration and government interference in the economy that I disagree with here and in the rest of Hanson's piece. The essence of my disagreement is directly pertinent to the passage in bold above. To wit, as I have stated several times before: "[O]bserve how many [conservatives] oppose immigration because it strains the welfare state -- rather than opposing the welfare state."

Here, we are not observing censorship (although it does have a foothold in America in the form of "hate crime" legislation), nor are our Latino immigrants harming us (or plotting to do so) in any way save by taking advantage of the welfare state. But the basic pattern -- of the government acting against the individual rights of its citizens while also failing to protect them from the actions of a non-assimilated population -- remains the same as the more blatant example we see in Europe. The question is: Why?

The welfare state is premised on the notion that government exists, not to protect individual rights, but to redistribute wealth on the implicit assumption that whatever property anyone holds is not his by right, but by permission. This is the original idea behind California's original presumption that it could tell property owners what standards their buildings had to meet and it is the premise behind its current high taxes.

Needless to say, those who are productive almost always have more property as a result and so will get the lion's share of attention from the welfare state. After all, they are the targets of the welfare state's attempts to gather funds for redistribution, whether this takes the form of forcing owners of buildings not to lease "substandard" units to the poor during a time of increasing prosperity, or simply taxing them to finance the educations and medical care of the poor during times of decreasing prosperity.

That immigrants are so frequently the beneficiaries of such plunder is a direct result of the fact that they came here to escape poverty in the first place. The main concern of the welfare state with the poor is of passing them whatever loot it can. Leaving aside the validity of current immigration law, that the immigrants may be guilty of felonies is of little or no concern to such a state.

This does not explain the whole story behind "Mexifornia's" gradual sliding towards anarcho-tyranny, but it does point to the explanation. America is no tyranny. People could vote in the next election to begin dismantling the welfare state on the principle that it violates individual rights, most prominently, the right to property.

Instead, the best California has been able to muster was a half-hearted attempt, in 1994, to stop permitting illegal aliens to avail themselves of public funds. This measure was struck down by a federal court and then allowed to die during appeals by Gray Davis, doomed by the overwhelming acceptance by the public in California and America at large of the basic premise behind the welfare state. If only more Americans felt righteous indignation at the notion that the state could ever simply take their property (vice mere annoyance at who was receiving it), they would not be so modest in their political aims or lacking in determination to see them enacted, and this aspect of the "immigration problem" would evaporate.

Our culture's acceptance of altruism, which manifests in the broad mandate for the welfare state, is not just resulting in the violation of our rights as individuals. It is having the additional direct consequence of transmuting the gold of a vast supply of incoming, highly motivated labor, into the lead of new welfare state dependents. The solution does not lie in building a fence, or "improving" the welfare state. It lies in fighting against the idea that the individual human being does not exist for his own sake.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: (1) Added a clarification in last paragraph. (2)Deleted one sentence.

Sneak Preview in Denmark

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

Earlier this week, I blogged about the Marxist indoctrination some school children in Seattle received because their "teachers" observed that the children were making too many "assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys" for their tastes.

After their short reeducation, their pupils were parroting such bromides as, "A house is good because it is a community house," and "It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building." They had, it seemed, already begun absorbing their teachers' lessons about "collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

Suppose some of these parents fail to come to their senses and either demand the firing of these teachers or send their children to a better school? How would their children turn out, barring other, better influences or tremendous independence on their parts? We need only look to the rubble-filled streets of Copenhagen, which are burning after a very disgraceful display of -- how did that go? -- "collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

Copenhagen police braced for more violence Saturday after two nights of street clashes with leftist youths from several countries that have turned parts of the Danish capital into a battlefield strewn with burning cars and shattered glass.

As the smoke and tear gas cleared Saturday morning, police said 188 people were arrested overnight Saturday, while more than 200 were arrested the day before.

In the early Saturday clashes, a school was vandalized and several buildings were damaged by fire. There were no reports of serious injuries overnight Saturday; the night before, 25 people were injured. Police said the street violence was the worst in a decade.

"In the last 10 years we haven't had riots like we've seen in the past two days," police spokesman Flemming Steen Munch said.

The violence started Thursday after a police anti-terror squad evicted squatters from a downtown building that for years has served as a popular cultural center for anarchists, punk rockers and left-wing groups. [bold added]

The clincher is this paragraph near the end.

The building at the center of the recent riots, known as "the youth house," has been viewed as free public housing by young squatters since the 1980s. The eviction had been planned since last year, when courts ordered the squatters to hand the building over to a Christian congregation that bought it six years ago.

The squatters refused, saying the city had no right to sell the building, which has become a hub for cultural events and concerts, featuring performers like Australian Nick Cave and Icelandic singer Bjork. They have demanded another building for free as a replacement. [bold added]

Well, that sounds shockingly familiar! Do Lego bricks feature prominently in the architecture of Copenhagen as well?

By what right do the squatters demand a replacement building? The protesters clearly reject the civilized notion of property rights, which the building's purchasers have attempted to exercise.

When there is no recognition of individual rights by a society, brute force replaces rule of law. This is what the squatters did when they seized the building (although with little resistance) in the 1980's and that is what will necessarily have to happen again if the government "gives" them another building, as I fear it will in a futile attempt to appease the anarchists.

In the second case, although the riots may stop for the moment, the squatters will not merely have obtained a building. They will have won a little more acceptance by the larger society of the notion that the the collective (i.e., the government) will award material goods -- Oops! I was about to slip and say "property". -- on the basis of the poison of loud claims and threats, sugar-coated by the word "need".

Look long upon Europe, my fellow Americans. This will be us in another quarter century if we keep teaching children that individual human beings do not have rights by nature and that mob rule (often praised as "democracy") is a social ideal.

-- CAV

The AARP's "commitment to all generations" ad campaign is dishonest and hypocritical

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

Have you seen the AARP’s latest ad campaign? It shows a series of children who urge us to take action on the “five core needs” of AARP: “the need for health; the need for financial security; the need to contribute or give back to society; the need for community and to stay connected to family, friends and social networks; and the need to play and enjoy life.” The children imply that the policies advocated by the AARP will benefit future generations. The reality is that the policies the AARP advocates are not just wrong, but are viciously dishonest in harming the very people they claim to champion.

The AARP started out as a shady scheme for selling insurance to retirees. Since the government investigated its non-profit status in the 1990’s, it has added a focus on political advocacy. The policies it advocates primarily support the continued existence and growth of the welfare state - largely in the form of benefits to the retired or unemployed. These “benefits” can only come at the expense of younger working people and claims on the future income of children - the very groups the current ad campaign claims to champion.

Contrary to the claims of better ties between older people and the community, the welfare policies the AARP advocates create division and bitterness. Working young people hold no delusions about the “benefits” programs like Social Security and Medicare promise. Even if the claims pan out, they return a pittance compared to voluntary investing and waste a huge portion of the confiscated funds on bureaucratic waste and unrelated projects.

The AARP’s lobbyists know that our welfare system will go bankrupt as baby boomers retire - but they staunchly oppose efforts to reform it. They want to milk as much as possible from working people for as long as possible - regardless of the hostility and division it will create when today’s children and young adults are forced to pay for the living and healthcare expenses of a growing retired population.

The alienation experienced by many retired people is a real problem - but its cause is the very policies that organizations like the AARP advocate. Instead of fostering responsible investing, financial independence, long-term planning, and mutual support of family members, the welfare state replaces individual decision making with central planning, family members with an intrusive nanny state, and individual responsibility with faith in the omnipotent state to provide for all needs.

The policies the AARP advocates to solve the “needs” of its members are a claim of ownership over the lives of the very people its commercials claim to champion. Contrast the socialist policies implied by their commercials to the capitalist model of the ads of financial companies: instead of stealing your future from working people, we will help you turn the fruit of your own productivity into wealth. Which one is just?

An Inconvenient Parallel

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I watched Gore's award-winning An Inconvenient Truth the other night with some friends.

Sigh. Gore's movie is without a doubt the strongest, slickest, most utterly dishonest piece of propaganda I have ever seen. So much so that I was getting depressed because any regular person watching it pretty much should react with something on the order of, "If even half of what Gore says is right, we're all doomed and have to do something NOW!" It has already won Academy awards, it seems set to earn him an honorary doctorate and a Nobel peace prize, and he might even parlay all this rock-star visibility and seeming authority/vision into a winning Presidential run or perhaps some kind of UN Global Environmental Czar position.

In the ensuing discussion, one fellow observed that while he could see factual and emotional manipulation, he was "less willing to throw away Gore's data" than I am, and that the badness he could see "isn't enough ... to say there is no baby in the bathwater." While I wasn't claiming Gore gets nothing right, I am indeed quick to find fault and slow to accept whatever truths he offers. As I explained:

That's reasonable -- you haven't built up as much inductive data on the deep-green crowd, so I wouldn't expect the same attitude in you. In my case, after seeing many and varied environmentalist scares exhibit spectacular errors and outright dishonesty aimed at harming the life and happiness of mankind (as well as an occasional bit of confirming candor), it is difficult not to draw the conclusion of a rotten philosophic driver. DDT, overpopulation, resources, nuclear energy, recycling, genetically-modified crops, acid rain, global warming, on and on. Consider how Creationists grope for the respect and power of the mantle of science ("scientific creationism", "intelligent design") to push their bad ideas: unlike with real science, they are not interested in discovering the truth, just in rationalizing the "truth" they already believe. Deep greens look exactly the same to me at this point: straining to don the mantle of science to defend and spread their religious convictions, rather than participating in science to discover the truth. For any religious rationalizer, the (religious) ends justify the (dishonest and damaging) means -- and you will find that in spades in both movements.

This suggests a way to understand my emotional stance toward Gore, and my cognitive bias away from him in favor of his critics: picture slick Creationist presentations. They will include some solid logic and facts, but also exaggeration, distortion, error, and even intellectually dishonest material. And having identified something as Creationist in nature, you know that the entire project is not reason looking for the truth, but religious dogma looking for a rationalization -- any rationalization, factual or not, logical or not, honest or not, destructive or not. Sure, the better proselytizers tend toward the good poles, but no matter where they land in the spectrum, they are still on a mission of rationalization and not of reason. So if you consider the cause of your (hopefully!) differing levels of eagerness to accept data and conclusions from "scientific" Creationists as against other scientists, you will see the cause of my analogous stance regarding the "scientific" Greens as against other scientists.

Poking around before the viewing for someone critically commenting at length on Gore's presentation, I found CEI Fellow Marlo Lewis' blow-by-blow commentary on the movie/book. It is pretty good and matches the above expectations. The biggest complaint I have about it is also one of its virtues: it is exhaustive to avoid the charge of cherry-picking, but that comprehensiveness also tends to pull focus away from fundamentals.

On a promising note, a documentary that apparently runs strongly against the alarmists' scientific "consensus" is set to air this Thursday on UK TV (as well as on the web): The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Speaking of "consensus," one of Gore's bigger and more insidious points concerns how he and the debate-is-over crowd get a lot of mileage (up to this day) out of citing an extensive survey showing essentially NO peer-reviewed scientific dissent from the human-caused-GW position, as against close to half of non-peer-reviewed articles which do dissent. It is his primary tool to poison the well against skeptics -- in his movie, on Oprah, in articles and interviews. And we hear similar intimidating claims from many quarters. Gore's slide certainly caught my attention when we were watching his movie. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that (way back in 2005) someone tried to replicate that study and only falsified it. This researcher's letter to Science to disclose the falsification and urge Science's retraction of the original study to limit its damage was strangely rejected. His follow-up letter cited the original study's large and unhelpful influence, and also discussed interesting surveys of climatologists which likewise contradicted the debate-is-over consensus position.

Mark Skousen on Ayn Rand

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I haven't even had time to read this Christian Science Monitor essay on the 50th anniversary of Atlas Shrugged by Christian economist Mark Skousen, but I thought I should link to it sooner rather than later, as I'd love to see some good letters to the editor written in reply!

MI-5

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Paul and I have been watching the fourth season of one of our favorite dramas: MI-5. I thought I'd say a few good words about it, particularly since I don't think I've mentioned it before.

It's a gripping British spy drama, better than ever this season, I think. It's fundamentally realistic in its characters and plots, never crazy-weird like Alias was. So the drama isn't contrived. Yet it's not naturalistic like Battlestar Galactica: its heroes are not sullied every few episodes in the name of "gritty realism." With rare exception, the agents are genuinely and consistently heroic. (I say that even though I often have substantial philosophic disagreements with their actions and policies.) The drama often revolves around the difficult choices faced by the MI-5 agents, not external dangers, car-chase action, or shocking horrors. Every episode is thoughtful in a way almost unheard-of with American television.

If you haven't seen the show yet, you can surely find it on NetFlix. It's also available on Amazon: Season One, Season Two, Season Three, Season Four. They are short seasons, but long episodes.

U of M Talk by Adam Mosoff

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I've been studying the history of property rights in my excellent "History of Capitalism" course with Eric Daniels, so I'd definitely say that this topic is more interesting than I once thought. Across countless issues, the history of the American political-legal system shows the disastrous consequences of the failure to provide a solid intellectual base for liberty, rights, and capitalism. That's a lesson that still desperately needs learning today, including amongst Objectivists.

"The Rise and Fall of Property in America"

Who: Professor Adam Mossoff, Michigan State University College of Law

What: A talk on the rise and fall of property rights in America, discussing the intellectual history of the right to property and how early twentieth-century Progressives destroyed property rights.

When: Wednesday, March 14 at 7:30pm

Where: University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Angell Hall Auditorium D

The public and media are invited. Admission is FREE.

Summary: What happened to property rights in America? Our laws today do little to protect property owners from either the dictator abroad or the bureaucrat in D.C. How did this come to pass in a country founded on the principle that all men have the inalienable right to life, liberty and property? In this lecture, Professor Adam Mossoff explains the rise and fall of property rights in America. He first discusses the intellectual history of the right to property and how the Founding Fathers turned 17th-century theory into 18th-century practice. He then explains how early twentieth-century Progressives destroyed property in order to remove this fundamental obstacle to the implementation of their socialist programs.

The effects of this assault are still felt today, which he illustrates with examples from famous and recent court cases in which judges disintegrated basic property protections, such as the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kelo v. City of New London. Ultimately, the lesson to be learned is that a renaissance in the protection of property rights will not occur through politics or law, but rather in the proper justification of property as a fundamental moral right.

For more information on this talk, please email sardone@umich.edu.

Update: The poster is here.

Sarbox Used to Deputize Attorneys?

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

In the Houston Chronicle is a rather disturbing article about a novel use of a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that threatens to deputize American lawyers as government snitches in a manner that makes intentional efforts to do the same to physicians seem tame by comparison.

The arrest of a prominent attorney on charges of destroying evidence in a child pornography investigation is raising alarm bells that a law targeting corporate accounting schemes could be used to prosecute lawyers over work done on their clients' behalf.

"Every criminal defense lawyer in the country has to be alarmed at the indictment," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers. "It's going to upset a lot of assumptions about how lawyers can represent clients. I think this is a boundary-pushing case."

Philip Russell was charged Feb. 16 with destroying a computer that contained child pornography at Christ Church in Greenwich. ...

Russell, the former attorney for the church, is accused of obstructing an FBI investigation that led to the January conviction of the church's music director, Robert Tate, for possessing child pornography.

Russell was charged under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which Congress passed in 2002 after a wave of corporate accounting scandals to make it easier to prosecute such cases. He faces up to 40 years in prison if convicted.

"The case will test the meaning of those new provisions," Gillers said.

The law, which was aimed at cases involving corporate document shredding, made it easier to prosecute obstruction of justice by requiring only that an investigation was foreseeable rather than already pending. Prosecutors also no longer have to show the defendant acted with corrupt intent to keep evidence from investigators, experts say. [bold added]

Norm Pattis, who blogs on police and legal issues at The Cool Justice Report adds:

Philip Russell of Greenwich has been charged with violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1519. That provision makes it a crime to tamper with potential evidence in "contemplation" of a federal investigation. Unlike pre-Sarbanes-Oxley tampering statutes, there need not be an investigation in place or even imminent as a predicate for prosecution. The statute appears to criminalize what was once considered prudence by defense counsel. The mens rea for such crimes is now virtually limitless.

According to sources close to the case, Russell is alleged to have been consulted by a … Church whose music director was being investigated for looking at child pornography on a church computer. He advised the client to fire the employee and to destroy the computer. Apparently, Russell himself destroyed the device. Shortly thereafter, the feds came looking for the computer.

Section 1519 makes it far easier to charge someone with obstruction. Previously, a defendant need almost always have some knowledge of an actual proceeding, and the things destroyed must have some nexus or connection to the proceeding. Section 1519 relaxes those requirements. An open question is whether the section now deputizes all of us as junior G-men, mandated to preserve incriminating evidence. [bold, italics, and link mine]

Although the Chronicle story, another news report, and Pattis all indicate that the investigation of Tate had already begun when Russell destroyed his laptop, the fact that they all also fail to state explicitly whether Russell knew about this implies that either Russell destroyed the computer without knowledge that a federal investigation was in progress or that he considered his actions legal because he thought the normal requirements for treating the computer as evidence for such an investigation had not been met. In any event, the fact remains that the letter of the law in Sarbox makes such considerations moot, and that the federal government intends to take advantage of this fact.

Those familiar with Ayn Rand's essay, "America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business" (found in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal), will find the following passage from the Chronicle story chillingly familiar:

"Lawyers will have to be soothsayers," said Martin Pinales, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "They will have to figure out what some prosecutor in the future may or may not be charging." [bold added]

As with businessmen, who already had to function in this way long before Sarbox, now lawyers have to practice under the uncertainty of non-objective law. Commenting on A. D. Neale's analysis of antitrust law in The Antitrust Laws of the U.S.A., Rand puts the similar plight of the businessman this way:

This means that a businessman has no way of knowing in advance whether the action he takes is legal or illegal, whether he is guilty or innocent. It means that a businessman has to live under the threat of a sudden, unpredictable disaster, taking the risk of losing everything he owns or being sentenced to jail, with his career, his reputation, his property, his fortune, the achievement of his whole lifetime left at the mercy of any ambitious young bureaucrat who, for any reason, public or private, may choose to start proceedings against him.

Substitute "attorney" for "businessman" and "prosecutor" for "bureaucrat" and this gets quite close to the current situation, as far as I can tell.

It is tempting, given the fact that so much business law amounts to "perpetual employment legislation" for lawyers, to shrug at this and say to the legal profession, "welcome to the world you helped create". And the feds have made it hard to side with Russell here: Wisely -- for such an otherwise brazen attempt to seize greater power for the government -- the feds have chosen a case for which public sentiment will strongly favor the prosecution.

But the fact remains that we are seeing in this case an attempt to use the federal persecution of businessmen -- which is bad enough -- as an excuse to force another profession to act as government spies on ordinary citizens, while in the meantime raising the specter of an entirely different segment of the population than originally targeted not knowing whether they might be tried at some point in the future for the ordinary conduct of their jobs!

This attempted expansion of government intrusion into the daily lives of ordinary citizens is not a reason to amend Sarbanes Oxley, which should never have been passed in the first place. It is yet another reason to repeal it, and all other legislation like it. For as we should have learned in World War II, government power expanded at the expense of one class of citizens violates the principle that it should protect all individuals, leaving everyone open to abuse later on if it is accepted. The words of the Reverend Niermoeller, although usually invoked in the memory of the atrocities of National Socialism in World War II Germany, apply equally well here.

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.

I am not impressed with the actions of Philip Russell, but they should not be used as an excuse for the government -- in America! -- to conscript criminal informants.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected two typos.

An Evening with Novelist Edward Cline

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

What: a live lecture by novelist Edward Cline, author of the Sparrowhawk series of revolutionary war-era historical fiction.

When: Wednesday, March 7th, 7:30 pm

Where: GMU Fairfax Campus Johnson Center 3rd Floor - Meeting Room A [Campus Map]

Edward Cline has been writing since graduation from high school in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Primarily a novelist, he has written fifteen novels and nearly one hundred published nonfiction articles, book reviews, monographs, and essays for such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Colonial Williamsburg Journal, Marine Corps League, The Social Critic, and the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science on subjects ranging from censorship to politically correct speech. His articles have also appeared on websites such as Capitalism Magazine, The Rule of Reason, and Dougout. His article on John Locke in the Colonial Williamsburg Journal was reprinted twice in McGraw-Hill Dushkin’s Western Civilization II, a college textbook, and also served as the basis of a course in political science at Virginia Wesleyan College in Norfolk.

Of his novels, First Prize, the second in a series of stories that feature a detective who solves murders based on moral paradoxes, was published in 1988. Whisper the Guns, the first in a suspense series featuring an American entrepreneur hero, was published in 1992. In 2001 the first of his Sparrowhawk novels, set in Virginia and England in the decades preceding the Revolution, appeared. The sixth and last title in that series debuted in December of 2006.

Sponsored by the GMU Objectivist Club and The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism.

My remarks at Founders College

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

NB: Below are the brief remarks I made at my book-signing event at Founders College this weekend.

The Founders College website, under "Our Vision," states:

"A Founders education will spark in you a lifelong passion for knowledge and discovery....We focus on the great ideas and significant events that have shaped civilizations. Your mind will be prepared with a comprehensive knowledge and deeper understanding of these great ideas, their connections and their consequences. You will enjoy life with a much better understanding of yourself and of the world around you."

Doubtless, an admirable goal and method—and a rationally proper one, as well. Presumably a Founders student will study the sciences, politics, philosophy—and literature.

Well, how would literature help Founders to achieve that goal and fulfill that mission? What place has literature, or any of the other arts, in that program? What connection can literature have with business, history, law, science, or philosophy? Is it mere disconnected "entertainment," or does it serve a greater purpose than passing one's time or diverting one from the tasks of living?

Now, I will say at the outset, to paraphrase Ayn Rand in The Romantic Manifesto, that literature is not a didactic medium. To teach is not its purpose. Its paramount purpose is to show. Its value lies in its capacity to serve as emotional and psychological fuel.

Ayn Rand, in her essay, "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art" (in The Romantic Manifesto) writes:

"When we come to normative abstractions - to the task of defining moral principles and projecting what man ought to be - the psycho-epistemological process required is still harder. The task demands years of study - and the results are almost impossible to communicate without the assistance of art. An exhaustive philosophical treatise defining moral values, with a long list of virtues to be practiced, will not do it; it will not convey what an ideal man would be like and how he would act; no mind can deal with so immense a sum of abstractions. When I say 'deal with,' I mean retranslate all the abstractions into the perceptual concretes for which they stand - i.e., to reconnect them to reality - and hold it all in the focus of one's conscious awareness. There is no way to integrate such a sum without projecting an actual human figure - an integrated concretization that illuminates the theory and makes it intelligible."
And the means of projecting such a human figure is in a novel, a play, or a painting, to render that philosophy or moral ideal in the perceptual concrete of such a figure, and to make that figure as memorable as one's skill allows.

Rand's conclusion: "Art is the indispensable medium for the communication of a moral ideal." So, art is a perfect, complementary partner of philosophy.

Now, I think that any novelist, whether he writes romantic novels, or romantic realist novels, or naturalist novels, or even historic novels, explicitly or implicitly, consciously or unconsciously, strives to create a moral ideal, endeavors to recreate in his heroes or principal characters an "ought." His success in that task depends on many factors, such as his purpose, his skill, his fundamental views of reality and life. Not even a naturalist novelist can avoid selecting what he perceives as "life as it really is"; he must employ selectivity in what he chooses to represent. If he didn't employ selectivity, he wouldn't be able to write the first word. And if he were consciously consistent in his view of things, he wouldn't attempt to write a novel at all.

A romantic or romantic realist novelist, however, is one driven by a passion for values, for men and things as they ought to be.

I can tell you why I wrote Sparrowhawk and all my other novels, but will dwell only on Sparrowhawk here. I wished to dramatize, or bring to life, the caliber of the men who made the Revolution possible. It was a lifelong ambition that I realized after writing nine novels before I took the first note for Sparrowhawk. I wished to do literary justice to the time and the events as my predecessors in the genre never did. The task entailed recreating the British-American culture and politics of the time to better dramatize the men and the events, to better tell an epic story, rather than relate a history, though writing the epic required a knowledge of history. That meant, in part, applying the same principles that comprise the philosophy of education of Founders College, to communicate and dramatize the connections between the great ideas and discoveries that have always made Western Civilization possible, and sustained it, and moved it forward, and to integrate them all into a story which I believe has no parallel in the genre.

The Founders College brochure states: "We work hard to produce extraordinary thinkers - individuals who will make a real difference." The thinkers and actors of the pre-Revolutionary period were extraordinary, and made a difference. I often tell people that the American Revolution was a culmination of the English Civil War of the 1640's, a conflict fought over many of the same issues that ignited the Revolution. But, why did the British trade a Stuart monarchy and its tyranny for a Puritan regime and its tyranny, and ultimately invite the Stuarts back? Why didn't the American Revolution collapse, or follow the same course as the English Civil War?

It was a thinker who made the difference, one whose ideas the American patriots had the advantage of, but which the British did not. That was chiefly John Locke, the 17th century political philosopher, who explicated the principles of a proper government by integrating, or making the connections between, metaphysics, epistemology, and morality (but not nearly as successfully and completely as Ayn Rand would two centuries later in Atlas Shrugged). And one of the most extraordinary exponents of Locke among American patriots was another thinker, Thomas Jefferson. His Declaration of Independence is written almost solely in Lockean language.

After reviewing the course curriculum of Founders College - especially its Literature and Arts program - I am gladdened to see that it addresses every one of the points I have just mentioned. I confess that I will be envious of any student who enrolls in this institution. My own experience with college level studies was, to paraphrase English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, "poor, nasty, brutish and short." So, I had to make do without the benefit of what I believe young people will experience here at Founders College, which has been created as an antithesis of and an alternative to what passes for "higher" education today. Imbued with the knowledge and experience "based on the integration of a carefully structured core of great ideas" gained at the College, its graduates will be able to face their lives, careers and the world armed with a combination of confidence, passion, and a reverence for their own lives and accomplishments.

Quote of the Day

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

Which historic figure is known for saying, "We owe to our Mother-Country the Duty of Subjects but will not pay her the Submission of Slaves"?

If you took the following behavior on the part of its administration as a hint, you would never guess that the below institution was named for him.

Under pressure from those who oppose American self-defense (i.e., Islamists and/or their sympathizers), and on a technicality (i.e., the GMU Objectivist Club failed to file requisite paperwork), GMU has cancelled John Lewis's talk "'No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism," which was scheduled for tonight (Wed., Mar. 28)

Those who would destroy our freedom or take our lives in the name of Islam certainly do not deserve the disgraceful subservience shown them by George Mason University, nor do they even deserve to be shown anything like the "duty of subjects". All they deserve is to be presented with the same choice we offered the belligerent Japanese during World War II: "Stop acting upon your evil ideology -- or die."

Although no institution is obligated to provide anyone with a forum to air his views, George Mason agreed to host this talk, then reneged at the last moment, thereby depriving John Lewis of the opportunity to make other arrangements in a timely fashion. In doing so, George Mason University has helped silence a patriot who wanted to speak his mind.

Given the value our Founding Fathers recognized in free public debate and the subject matter of this talk, it is a sacrilege that this school continues using the name of one of our Founders. Its administration has two honorable choices: to apologize and reschedule this event, or to change its name.

In any event, I will pay close attention to the outcome of this very disappointing turn of events. After all, as a future parent, I would owe it to my children to discourage them from attending such a school, and to urge anyone else I know who shares my love of country to do the same.

-- CAV

Socialism doesn't work in a non-authoritarian system either

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

When confronted with the universal failure of socialism to achieve the material prosperity and social equality it promised, socialists do one of three things: they pretend the evidence doesn’t exist, they claim that socialist governments do not represent “true” Marxism-Leninism, or they change their philosophy to reject material success: environmentalism. With the failure of the Soviet bloc, and increasing signs of the instability of European welfare states, the remaining socialists often point to voluntary communes as examples of “successful” collectivism.

The Israeli kibbutz was one of the most prominent and benign forms of voluntary collectivism in the 20th century. Benign - because, unlike socialist prison states, they existed in a mostly free nation, and the members were free to leave. However, even voluntary forms of collectivism have faced universal disaster. Two thirds of Israeli kibbutzes have voted to privatize, as the Christian Science Monitor writes, and more are continuing to do so. They remaining ones persist mainly because of massive government subsidies.

Has the universal failure of the utopian socialist dream forced its advocates to change their philosophy?

“The kibbutz was an attempt to create a miracle and transcend human nature. By trying to create a miracle, the kibbutz was instinctively seen by Jews as a worthy symbol of the miraculous return to Zion,” says Yossi Klein Halevi, a senior fellow at Jerusalem’s Shalem Institute.

“We’re so past the point of being shocked by the decline of the collectivist dream that this isn’t a moment that took anyone by surprise. Nevertheless there’s poignancy…. We’ve lost something precious and essential in what defines Israeliness,” he says.
…
What remains of the kibbutz ethic of self-sacrifice, activism, and egalitarianism is unclear. In Israel’s high-tech economy, do the old kibbutzes have a role to play?

Rogalin says that their role will be to cultivate a quality education system that will teach children values of social justice. And with a safety net for members, the kibbutz hopes to remain a model of social welfare in a society with a large gap between rich and poor.

Whatever the decision, founder Mr. Katz knows that the ideals upon which Gaash was founded are no longer attainable. “At my age, I’ve reached the conclusion that humans are egotists, and like to keep things for themselves rather than the general public,” he says. “The idea that everyone will eat from the same plate doesn’t exist anymore. I’ve done my part. It’s over. We aren’t an example for anyone.”

"What Went Wrong With The Republican Revolution"

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

Dear Friends of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism,

On Wednesday, March 14th, the Institute will present a public lecture on:

"What Went Wrong with the Republican Revolution?"

Stephen Moore, the Wall Street Journal

364 Sirrine Hall, 1:00 - 2:00 p.m.

***Free PIZZA lunch at 12:30 p.m. ***

What is the state of American Political Right in 2007? What happened to the idea of limited-government conservatism?

Have conservatives been corrupted by power, or is there something in their basic philosophy that has led them to embrace big government?

Is there any meaningful difference today between liberals and conservatives?

In answering theses questions, Mr. Moore will discuss how, when, and why Republicans became the party of Big Government and lost their revolutionary fervor to downsize government.

Stephen Moore is Senior Economics Writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial page and a member of the Journal's editorial board.

Moore is also a commentator for CNBC TV, CNN and FOX networks and National Public Radio's marketplace.

It will be tough, but I may be able to swing this. No, not for the free pizza. You just think you know me that well.

I think at the root of the "Big Government" problem that Mr. Moore will discuss is the same issue with respect to environmentalism -- cowardice. (Deeper than that is conservative acceptance of mysticism and altruism.)

Modern Stonehenge

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This video is amazing: an ingenious construction worker figures out how to build Stonehenge-like structures by very primitive techniques. (Via GeekPress.com and Howard Roerig.)

Jesus Dead and Buried

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I must admit, given all the reading I've done on the historical Jesus and the history of early Christianity of late, I'm rather fascinated by the recent claim that the tomb of Jesus -- with his bones inside -- has been identified. So little is known about the historical Jesus that I'm highly skeptical that Jesus and his family could be positively identified. Perhaps physical evidence of a crucifixion might be apparent with Jesus and perhaps the bones could be dated to within the right time period -- but could anything definitively identify any of these people as the characters from the Gospels? (The Gospels themselves aren't even reliable historical documents!)

An Exception to Prove the Rule

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

I am not prone to use the phrase in the title, but I can think of no better way to describe this situation....

I am glad I am not facing the prospect of raising children in Seattle. No only are the public schools dumbed down by political correctness, at least one private school is succeeding spectacularly in giving them a run for their money, according to an article at TCS Daily.

The teachers [at Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle] decided [the accidental] destruction [of a classroom Lego town] was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."

They claimed as their role shaping the children's "social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity ... from a perspective of social justice." [bold added]

Ayn Rand once wrote a famous essay, "The Comprachicos", in which she drew an analogy between a barbaric practice, once described by Victor Hugo, of forcing children to grow up encased in containers that would cause them to grow up into circus freaks -- and modern educational practices like this one, that seek to mold the minds of children rather than train them to think for themselves. The teachers tease us with quotes from some of their best -- um -- products:

"A house is good because it is a community house."

"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."

"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."

Would that these teachers had such a comparatively innocent motive as selling their pupils! At least they would realize the low commercial value of Marxist indoctrination!

It is easy enough to show that these teachers are at least attempting to destroy the young minds in their charge. Just consider a few of the implications of any of these arbitrary, self-contradictory notions at any length at all. If your power over "your own" building is no different than that of any passer-by, who are you to forbid the peeping tom or thief (Oops! Silly bourgeois me!) or escaped murderer from next door to move in with you? And what if you want or need a bigger house than the one you have now? Do you just take over space in another's house? Do you submit to some authority? If so, how the hell does he know what you need? What would he care, anyway? Maybe he "needs" all the houses and knows that everyone in them "needs" a one-way train ticket to a "work camp".

It may seem ironic that I, an advocate of the total privatization of education, would report such a glaring failure on the part of a private school, but it is not. No private industry is free of incompetence, shoddy quality, or even the occasional instance of fraud, and this example merely shows us what that would look like in education. The advantage of extending property rights to the field of education by privatizing it is the same as it is for any other industry: That we would not all be forced to place our children in the care of monsters like the faculty of this outfit. (Nor would its principal, upon hearing about this travesty, need fear firing these "teachers".) We could take our business -- and our children -- elsewhere.

Instead, as we see with public education every day, we have "community schools" which provide their students with the same meager -- but "standard" -- preparation for adult life, and over which everyone has "the same amount of power" (i.e., none) to change. Fleeing to private schools is not an option for most because taxation makes it harder for many parents to afford better alternatives and -- along with the fact of competition that charges nothing -- for other parties to provide them.

So by providing Marxist indoctrination to children, these child abusers are demonstrating to responsible parents everywhere the value of a private educational system. If you don't like what you are paying for, you can take your business elsewhere. That is real power, and that is what teachers like this want to take away from you and your children.

-- CAV

Missing Information

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

John Leo, famous for keeping tabs on political correctness for years in U.S. News and World Report, has an eye-opening post over at City Journal titled "Sins of Omission", in which he describes several egregious failures on the part of major news media to report on the race, religion, and political beliefs of individuals central to news stories. In particular, he notes the following:

1. Don't identify people in the news by race unless race is important to the story: that's the policy of most newspapers. But in practice, outbreaks of sensitivity in the newsroom often lead reporters and editors to withhold racial identification even when police are seeking a suspect after a major crime. Newspapers mention all details that might help the authorities find the perpetrator -- except skin color.

A current example is the so-called "second rape case in Durham," an eerie mirror image of the Duke lacrosse case: here the suspect is black and the alleged victim is white. North Carolina's News & Observer described the suspect as "in his late teens or early 20s, about 6 foot 1 and wearing a do-rag, a gray sweatshirt and blue jeans." That's word-for-word from the police description, except that the police said that the suspect was black. The newspaper deleted the reference. It also couldn't bring itself to mention that the attack allegedly took place at an African-American fraternity at Duke.

2. In Nashville last week, readers of the Tennessean were probably able to deduce the religious affiliation of a cabbie who tried to run over two Christian students after a heated discussion of religion. His name: Ibrahim Sheikh Ahmed. The paper reported: "Metro police spokeswoman Kris Mumford said one of the students is Catholic and the other is Lutheran. Mumford said that Ahmed's religion was not known."

3. Giuliana Sgrena, the Italian journalist whose vehicle was fired on in Iraq by American troops, said that the troops were lying when they claimed that her vehicle had attempted to crash through a checkpoint. Much of the news media delicately failed to mention that Sgrena is notably anti-American, identifies with the insurgency, works for a communist newspaper, and is a communist herself. The New York Times called her employer, Il Manifesto, a "leftist" daily. A more detailed description of her opinions and commitments might have helped readers trying to judge her credibility. [bold and numbers added]

Given that most people involved in reporting within the news media are politically on the left and many are trained that objectivity is impossible in journalism anyway, the only surprise here is how blatant the omissions are. Each one of these is so insulting to the intelligence that the few readers who haven't correctly guessed the missing information will feel no surprise upon eventually learning it.

It is at times like this that I remember some good advice from Ayn Rand, which she delivered through the mouth of Ellsworth Toohey, the villain of The Fountainhead: "Don't bother to examine a folly -- ask yourself only what it accomplishes." So what exactly does it accomplish for a journalist to omit race from a crime report when the suspect is black, religion when an attempted act of terrorism was almost certainly committed by a Moslem, and political affiliation when a communist blamed American troops for lying?

The obvious (and wrong) answer is that mentioning race, religion, or politics in these stories would unjustly reinforce stereotypes of the omitted groups. But what if the stereotypes exist for a reason? After all, is it not true that blacks are responsible for a disproportionate share of crime, Moslems for terrorism, and communists for attempts to undermine America generally? If your response right about now is to think, "What a racist!" the journalists have achieved their goal.

"Racism" is the new "bigotry". (Which partly explains why we keep hearing America's war condemned from the left as "racist".) Or, to be more precise, it is the new term that is being used to confound the perfectly moral act of drawing rational generalizations (that the left disagrees with) about certain groups with the immoral act of refusing to judge individuals on their own merit. It is patently absurd to hold that if one notices that black culture is especially crime-ridden, one is therefore unable or unwilling to judge a black individual on his own merits.

What the leftist media want to do is to cause those of us who notice things like the ones in the second paragraph from the above to lose credibility with others (by prejudicially labeling us as "racists", "Islamophobes", or "McCarthyites") and, more importantly, to lose certainty in our own morality. The hope is that we will be afraid to speak our own mind about certain kinds of facts.

But to take note of the fact that crime is generally higher among blacks than other segments of the populace is not the same thing as racism ("a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement ...") or even prejudice ("any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable"). Nor is asking serious questions about why this is so racist or prejudiced. Indeed, this would necessarily be one of the first steps towards working to rectify the problem.

It is interesting what asking Toohey's question can unearth. The only questions that remain are for the journalists to answer: Why not work to understand the cultural pathology that causes crime to be higher among blacks? Why not examine what it is about the ideology espoused by so many terrorists that motivates them to threaten and kill us over religion? Why not examine communism closely-enough to understand why so many communists are inimical to America?

Why not, indeed.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Added two sentences.