It's time for some inspiration.

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

Through the OList, I learned of this unexpected and stunning display of virtuosity from a shy and unremarkable-looking talent show contestant. If it isn't all over the place by now, it soon will be. And if you've seen it already, watch it again anyway.


My thanks to Dan Edge for bringing this to my attention!

-- CAV

The Next War

By 1hfa from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Raven In the Wind

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A raven fights the wind, the wind,
The hot wind from the mountain pass
That pelts the cactus plant with sand,
The needles useless, blades of grass.

The Santa Ana wind starts far
Away in Colorado or
Nevada (nothing there but slots),
A devil wind and more, and more.

The spiders know, the lizards know,
The orange trees and palms abide,
But somehow that dumb raven, she
Is on a roller coaster ride.

It’s ugly when a little thing
Goes up to fight that howling force
And slashes wicked up and down
And jigs and jags, all thrown off course.

Perhaps a eucalyptus tree
Somewhere -- Rialto, Riverside --
Is bowing, shaking in the gale,
Its branches thrashing close and wide.

And in that eucalyptus tree
A nest of raven chicks holds on;
They don’t know much, they don’t know death,
They know their mother still is gone.

Jimmi Carter, new-age neo-Nazi

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

[Jimmi] Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Far from encouraging Hamas’s move into parliamentary politics, Carter said the US and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, has sought to subvert the outcome by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military power.

“That action was criminal,” he said in a news conference after his speech.

The political philosophy behind Carter’s statement is that “democracy” is sacred, regardless of the ideology of those in power. I wonder, would Carter have called the Allies “criminals” if they had refused to deal with Hilter when he seized power? The similarities between the NSDAP and Hamas are eerie:

• Lack of economic development due by statism and totalitarianism was blamed on:
  • An external political entity (Israel, the Allies)
  • “Die Juden sind unser Unglück!”- the Jews
• “Arbeit macht frei”- A demand for total self-sacrifice to achieve “spiritual” freedom.
• “Sicher ist der Jude auch ein Mann, aber der Floh ist auch ein Tier..” - dehumanization of the enemy.
• “Heute Deutschland, morgen die Welt!” - aspirations of establishing a global dictatorship
• The major opposition parties (Hamas and Fatah; the NSDAP, SPD, and Communists) shared the same basic philosophy, with the victory belonging to the one which observed its principles most consistently.
• Electoral victory was quickly followed by brutal suppression of the opposition parties.

While Carter has obviously learned nothing from the mistakes of his predecessors, the Jews are not as defenseless this time around. The only culture the Palestinians are likely to annihilate this time around is their own.

Share This

Other People

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Dan Edge has posted about the Benevolent Universe Premise and dealing with people with what he calls the Benevolent People Premise. The post has stimulated discussion here. Inspector has more.

Dan sees a problem among young Objectivists.

For years, I have watched (mostly young) Objectivists struggle with a specific form of the Malevolent Universe Premise. I call it the "Malevolent People Premise." One with a Malevolent People Premise expects the worst out of each new person he meets. He realizes that everyone has the capacity to be rational, but he expects those he meets to be irrational. While he may develop relationships with new people who seem virtuous, he always expects to find faults, and he carefully scrutinizes new friends or lovers for any evidence of irrationality. When he discovers a flaw in the person, he feels betrayed and angry -- but justified.

Since I don't know any young Objectivists, I don't know if Dan is right that this is a common problem. I suspect he overstates his case. Here are my somewhat random thoughts on dealing with people.

Relations with people, like everything else, depend on one's purpose. If your purpose is to buy groceries, the relationship with the person at the check-out stand is simple and formulaic. The conversation is the same every time, and unfortunately includes the question, "Paper or plastic?" because environmentalists think plastic is bad for some reason, so apparently it's better to use tree products. (I once read that someone wrote a spoof academic article called, "Paper or Plastic: An Inquiry.")

For the most part, relations with people are a matter of manners and etiquette. Manners are not quite what they were before the New Leftist cultural revolution, but they're still pretty good. I have read that people are nicer to one another in capitalist countries than in socialist ones. This is because socialism makes everyone an enemy competing for a slice of the pie doled out by the government. It is fascinating that the "dog eat dog" smear that socialists lay on capitalism is actually true about their system.

There is no reason why on this superficial level one should not be positive and cheerful, expecting the best from people. Anyone who is typically unpleasant and grouchy at this level of contact, like Moliere's Misanthrope or Menander's Dyskolos (The Bad-Tempered Man) has a psychological problem. Comic writers have a lot of fun with grouches, but it's no way to go through life.

You get beyond superficial relationships when you talk to people more and find out their ideas. This is when disappointment enters. People quickly reveal themselves as mystics, cynics, buffoonish nihilists, gray ciphers, flattering sycophants (social metaphysicians) or some other type. I find two simple questions, asked with an unthreatening smile, most revealing: 1) What does that prove? And 2) Do you have any evidence? The answers to these questions are usually enough to tell you who you're dealing with. By asking questions without lecturing or arguing, you find out people before they get angry and the defenses go up. First get the facts, then pass judgment.

Most people neither understand nor care about philosophic ideas. It's good to remember their context of knowledge. You've read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, but they probably have not. When you meet someone who is honest and cares about ideas, then you've found a nugget of gold amid the dross.

H.L. Mencken was something of an elitist who called the common man "booboisie." He can be a little intimidating as he wrote before the coming of the New Left, when cultural standards were higher. I remember reading him once sneer at people who blow in their soup; I thought, "Gee, I've done that..."

(Another example of being intimidated by people who were around when America and the west were better places: When I heard on tape Ayn Rand dismiss Wagner as organ grinder music, I thought, "Whoa! I'm a guy who is happy with the Beatles and Black Sabbath and she's looking down on Wagner?")

Is being a curmudgeon like Mencken a bad thing? I suspect Mencken was much more polite to people in person than he was in print. I doubt that he went around being unpleasant and rude. Writing has a different purpose than personal relations, and being a curmudgeon in print served his purpose of entertaining readers and making money from writing. To me, Mencken's curmudgeonliness was just recognizing the reality that if one sets one's personal standards high, most people will fail to meet them. If you want the best out of life, you will be in the minority, as most people settle for much less than the best.

In our culture, most people do have wrong premises of one sort or another. In that respect it's not irrational to "look for the worst" as the chances are the worst is there waiting to be found. But even so, honest people, however flawed, deserve to be treated with respect and dignity until they prove otherwise. And what they choose to think is their responsibility, no one else's. One has no duty to run around like a religious fanatic saving other people's souls.

The most frustrating thing about "the common man"? He occupies his mind with trash and nonsense. In my day job I listen to FM morning talk shows across America, so many of which are obsessed with Hollywood gossip. People love gossip! I don't want to contemplate someone like Michael Jackson, who has all the personality of a sea cucumber, but others might talk all day about him. (Women are a bit more likely to love celebrity trash than men.)

At the age of 50 I find it tempting sometimes to think like Dominique in The Fountainhead or Kay Gonda in Ideal. I long for the ideal, but instead I get "American Idol." I end up feeling, more than anything, boredom. As a result of being bored and uninterested in most people, I stay home too much and I have to force myself to get out and socialize. The advent of the internet has made staying home even more attractive. Were it not for acting in plays, I might be a total shut-in.

UPDATE: Slight revision.

Why Study European History?

By 1hfa from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Fitting History into Your Life

By 1hfa from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Iranian cleric reaffirms call for the killing of Salman Rushdie

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

I hadn't planed on coming off my hiatus until Monday, but this AP story made my typing fingers too itchy:

A high-level Iranian cleric said Friday that the religious edict calling for the killing of Salman Rushdie cannot be revoked, and he warned Britain was defying the Islamic world by granting the author knighthood.

Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami reminded worshippers of the 1989 fatwa during a sermon at Tehran University, aired live on state radio. Thousands of worshippers chanted "Death to the English."

Khatami does not hold a government position but has the influential post of delivering the sermon during Friday prayers once a month in the Iranian capital. He did not directly call for the fatwa to be carried out.

"Awarding him means confronting 1.5 billion Muslims around the world," Khatami said. "In Islamic Iran, the revolutionary fatwa ... is still alive and cannot be changed."

Then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued the fatwa in 1989, calling on Muslims to kill Rushdie because his book "The Satanic Verses" was deemed insulting to Islam. Rushdie was forced into hiding for a decade, and the edict deeply damaged Britain's relations with Iran. In 1998, the Iranian government sought to patch up ties by declaring that it would not support the fatwa but that it could not be rescinded.

Queen Elizabeth II's decision to knight Rushdie drew a complaint from the Iranian government and protests around the Muslim world.

The continued existence of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie is more than just a threat against one man and his publisher; it is a threat against a fundamental tenant our civilization, which is that each individual is free to express himself and his ideas without fear of threats or physical coercion. That Iran's clerics continue to attack the very cornerstone of our civilization reveals yet again that Iran itself continues to be uncivilized. No one had the right to coercively edit Salman Rushdie or any citizen of the West. No government cleric had the right to call for any free man's murder.

Rather than continue to sit idly by while Iran's clerics boast of their savage edict, it's high time that the West respond in kind. At bare minimum, if a jihadist issues a fatwa threatening the life and freedom of a citizen of the West, that jihadist must die.

I think a few 1,000 lb bombs would do the work nicely.

'Save Net Radio' or 'Save the Free Market'?

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

I am a big fan of Internet radio on the grounds that it offers a wide choice of genres and can be listened to over one's existing computer hardware without the special equipment that satellite radio requires. The problem is that net radio is about to be destroyed by the government.

Here's the rub as I understand it: the royalty rate for songs broadcast over Internet radio is not set by the free market. Instead, the government-run "Copyright Royalty Board" (administered by the Library of Congress) determines the royalty paid to music copyright-holders (or more specifically, the government-created monopoly that represents copyright holders). This spring, the CBR ordered a 300% to 1,200% royalty rate increase on net radio, far in excess of what other transmission mediums are required to pay. Furthermore, the CBR eliminated the ability for webcasters to pay royalties as a portion of their revenue; in effect, it mandates a draconian one-size-fits-all solution that is likely to force most Internet radio stations to shut down their services.

It gets even worse. The webcaster-supported alternate proposal to the CBR's rate increase is a bill before the Congress that mandates a flat-rate revenue sharing model. While the bill restores parity between net radio and satellite services, it fails to address the fundamental problem plaguing the broadcast of intellectual property; that is, it fails to protect the property rights of all parties by abolishing government intervention in the music broadcast industry. Instead, the proposed legislation merely resets the terms of the government's intervention. Talk about unsatisfying reform to save an industry that I otherwise value.

After all, let's look at the issue philosophically. A new technology is developed that promises to enhance people's lives for the better. This nascent technology requires a complex business transactions involving many parties and many interests. Classic "I Pencil," right—complex in form, yet simple in principle. Yet here we have each and every party lobbying for the government control the terms of the transaction. Practically no one argues in favor of voluntary negotiations and voluntary exchange; here everyone seeks to compel everyone else.

So how then did coercion come to define new media? How did the ideas animating this industry become so corrupt that solution is little better than the problem? In my view, the net radio debate underscores one of the most vexing problems of our times: almost every transaction has an element of coercion attached to it and practically no one has a problem with it. In fact, it seems the more novel the transaction or new the technology, the more likely someone will demand the right to impose his will upon others without consent. We live in an era where web-browsers and search engines are scrutinized by government regulators, where medicines are authorized for use only after some regulator gives his blessing, and the royalty paid to a copyright holder is determined by the czars of royalty payments.

I can't blame net radio for this. They are responding to the status quo in intellectually property and government regulation thought, not setting it. Nevertheless, their mantra "save net radio" rings a little hollow for me. Their real headline ought to be "save the free market."

New List: OAcademics

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Along the same lines as my OBloggers mailing list, I've created a list for Objectivist in academia: OAcademics:

The OAcademics mailing list is a private forum for Objectivist academics to discuss teaching, research, coursework, dissertations, job prospects, publication, and all other aspects of life in (or after) academia. The list is basically a means of sharing knowledge and experience as ever more Objectivists enter academia.

The list isn't limited to philosophers: all Objectivists in academia, whether professors or graduate students, are welcome. (Those in the process of applying to graduate school are also welcome to subscribe.) If you're not an Objectivist in academia, please do not subscribe.

No subscriber is obliged to participate in list discussions. However, I do make two requests of subscribers:

(1) That you post the syllabi from the courses you teach (including the list of readings) at the beginning of every semester so that others may consult them in the process of their own course development.

(2) That you post any significant announcements about your work, e.g. the successful defense of your dissertation, an article accepted for publication, a fabulous new teaching job, or leaving academia to hunt bears in Alaska.

The list is not moderated. Please make sure that your posts are polite, friendly, and on-topic.

Messages will be archived, but those archives will only be available to other list members. Please do not forward list messages to anyone else or post them to any other forum without permission from the author.

If you have any questions, please e-mail Diana Hsieh at diana@dianahsieh.com.

Objectivists in academia are welcome to subscribe themselves to the list. I'll also be contacting people privately, but since I don't have e-mail addresses for all the Objectivists in academia I know, please feel free to spread the word.

FYI: If some responsible person wants to manage an "OLawyers" or "ODoctors" or "OWhatevers" list, I might be willing to host that. Just drop me an e-mail. It's not that I want Objectivists to talk to each other in some cloister -- quite the contrary, in fact. The point is to foster success in the real world by sharing advice, experience, and expertise.

Post Normal Science

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A while back, Billy Beck sent me a link to this horrid bit of "post-normal science":

But there is also a third way of interpreting contemporary science, which is yet one further step removed from the binary truth-falsehood view of Singer and Avery. This third way of seeing science pays more attention to the social and cultural context in which science works and speaks than to the phenomena being studied. Who are the scientists, what are their values, motives and preferences, why are they being asked to study this particular problem rather than some other problem, and who funds them? This understanding of science is what sociologists have termed its social construction.

In fact, that's nothing even remotely like an "understanding of science" -- unless that quaint notion of "reality" is discarded as white man's trash.

How did science get so bad? In a word: Kant. For the gory details of Kant's destructive influence on science, see Dave Harriman's course The Philosophic Corruption of Physics.

OAC Applications Due July 30th

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I cannot recommend ARI's Objectivist Academic Center heartily enough for students serious about studying Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism:

Ayn Rand Institute Offers Educational Program for the Study of Rand's Philosophy

Irvine, California (June 14, 2007)--Fifty years after the publication of her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, interest in Ayn Rand has never been greater. For those who want to study her ideas in depth, the Ayn Rand Institute's educational program, the Objectivist Academic Center, offers systematic instruction in Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.

More than one hundred students currently participate in the OAC's graduate and undergraduate programs, which for years have been offered as a supplement to a standard college education. The undergraduate program helps students develop a basic understanding of philosophy, of Objectivism as a philosophical system, and of the art of clear, objective thinking and writing. The focus of the graduate program is on mastering Objectivism, with special attention paid to proper philosophical methodology.

Students from all over the world attend classes online and via teleconference. Local students also have the option of attending classes at ARI's headquarters in Irvine, California. Select courses are open to auditors.

As a benefit to students who would like to receive college credit for their OAC coursework, ARI has partnered with Chapman University to offer two OAC courses, "Introduction to Philosophy" and "Introduction to Writing," through Chapman's distance learning program. Students are able to take the classes for credit, transfer the credits to their own university, and apply them toward their college degree.

Most full-time students receive tuition waivers, as well as other generous scholarships to help defray the costs of participating in the OAC. Additionally, ARI offers a wide array of support for OAC students, including grants, scholarships, and mentoring.

The application deadline for the 2007-08 academic year is July 30.

For more information on this program, please visit the Objectivist Academic Center website at www.objectivistacademiccenter.org or contact:

Debi Ghate
Vice President, Academic Programs
Ayn Rand Institute
(949) 222-6550, ext 206
dghate@aynrand.org

I probably owe ARI my firstborn son for all that I've learned in my three years at OAC. Thankfully, they're more interested in donations of cash than children. (Children are hard to sell.) If I recall correctly, ARI is interested in expanding OAC, but they need money to do that. In any case, I'm sure that donations specifically to support OAC are welcome. Personally, I'm extremely grateful to all who've made OAC possible, particularly OAC teachers, ARI staff, ARI donors. You rock!

(Oh dear, I'm a bit punchy. I do have a good excuse, however. I just finished the first draft of my dissertation outline. It's sixteen pages, single-spaced. Yeah me!)

Genetics and Reproductive Rights

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

Over at Arts and Letters Daily is an article that does just about as good a job as possible of discussing potential biological causes of homosexuality in today's context of politicized science, legislated morality, and the left's co-option of the issue of sexual preference. I highly recommend the article as a very interesting read, regardless of your sexual orientation. It is that good.

I wish here to focus on one issue that appears twice in the article: Although the area of research described in this article is in its infancy, one clear implication is that science could discover a biological basis for homosexuality and invent a way to allow a couple to prevent their child from developing as a homosexual.

The topic interests me because I am considering having children. I would love my children no matter what sexual orientation they ended up with, but homosexuality is not something I would necessarily want for them. Because the science is young, it is academic to us whether my wife and I could do this, but if it were possible, I would seriously consider it.

Before I answer the obvious question the research brings up, which is, "Should a couple be allowed to implement such a medical technique?" I wish to consider two possible answers from the article. The first answer, which author David France and I both agree is completely unacceptable, is the one that certain religionists would give, namely that such a procedure would not only be acceptable, but should be required by law:

Some of this research may prove to be significant; some will ultimately get chalked up to coincidence. But the thrust of these developing findings puts activists in a bind and brings gay rights to a major crossroads, perhaps its most significant since the American Psychiatric Association voted to declassify homosexuality as a disease in 1973. If sexual orientation is biological, and we are learning to identify how it happens inside the uterus, doesn't it suggest a future in which gay people can be prevented? This spring, R. Albert Mohler Jr., the president of a Southern Baptist theological seminary in Kentucky and one of the country’s leading Evangelical voices, advocated just that. "We want to understand why some persons will struggle with that particular sin," he explained. "If there is a way we can help with the struggle, we should certainly be open to it, the same way we would help alcoholics deal with their temptation."

That in part is why gay people have not hungered for this breakthrough. Late last year, Martina Navratilova joined activists from PETA to speak out against an experiment that sought to intentionally turn sheep gay (it failed, but another experiment successfully turned ferrets into homosexuals, and the sexual orientations of fruit flies have been switched in laboratories). Some 20,000 angry e-mails clogged the researchers' inboxes, comparing the work to Nazi eugenics and arguing that it held no promise of any kind to gay people. "There are positives, but many negatives" to this kind of research, says Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "I will bet my life that if a quote-unquote cure was found, that the religious right would have no problem with genetic or other kind of prenatal manipulations. People who don't think that's a clear and present danger are simply not living in reality."

I do not regard homosexuality as a moral issue, and, of course, recognize that homosexuals, as human beings, possess the same individual rights as everyone else, and that these rights should be protected just as strongly as the rights of all others.

Having said that, what, exactly, is wrong with making all couples adopt measures to have children who will not develop into homosexuals? It is wrong to do this, but it isn't because this would somehow violate the rights of any homosexuals who are alive at the moment, which is how I see the political activist above interpreting such an idea. What is wrong with the idea is that it violates reproductive rights.

I will elaborate a bit more on that last sentence in a moment, but not before I consider the second answer to this question which appears in the article, and which makes the very same mistake, but with the opposite objective!

The rush to declare a biological mandate is motivated by a political agenda, says [feminist biologist [sic] Anne] Fausto-Sterling, the author of Sexing the Body, who is married to a woman after a marriage to a man. "For me and for any feminist, I think it’s a pretty fragile way to argue for human rights. I want to see the claims for gay rights made on moral, ethical, legal, and constitutional bases that don't rely on a particular scientific view of sexual development."

Especially if that view invites the opponents of gay people to consider dramatic interventions meant to stop the development of homosexual orientation in a fetus. What if prenatal tests were able to show a predisposition to gayness? How long would it be before some pharmaceutical company develops a patch to regulate hormone flow and direct the baby’s orientation? [bold added]

The clear implication is that the likes of Fausto-Sterling would seek to ban any such measures -- violating the reproductive rights of a couple, and ironically enough, on the basis of a "scientific view of sexual development" that has been politicized.

To David France's great credit, he does quote someone else who does not make either error, but that person does not adequately explain his stand, only that "There's no reason to ban, or become hysterical about, selecting for heterosexuality," before making such a vague statement on the nature of parenting that I cannot express agreement or disagreement with it.

While I do not think a step that could affect the intellectual and psychological development of a child should be taken lightly, a woman has just as much right to determine the traits of a fetus she brings to term as she does to decide whether to complete her pregnancy. To require by law either that she prevent her future children from becoming homosexual -- or that she forgo an attempt to prevent them from becoming homosexual against her wishes -- is to make the same fundamental error as making abortion illegal, which is to violate the right of a woman to control her own body and thereby to exercise some rational control over the rest of her life post conception to the best of her ability and judgement.

Ayn Rand once said, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." I completely agree. If homosexuals wish to see their rights respected by society at large (and protected as they should be by the government), they must work for the protection of the rights of all individuals within that society, including the reproductive rights of heterosexuals.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: (1) Deleted the word "other" from last sentence. (2) Ergo also discusses this article.

Faith Hijacked?

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

Barack Obama recently made the following short statement while on the campaign trail. I find it well worth exploring.

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a 30-minute speech before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

"Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us," the Illinois senator said.

"There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich," Obama said. "I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version." [bold added]

I congratulate Obama for calling into question the moral authority of the religious right to defend capitalism in just three words. His point, of course, is that what is left of the pro-capitalist sentiment among the Republicans is, as I have noted here numerous times, inconsistent with the altruistic moral code of Christianity.

This is why I think it foolhardy for pro-capitalists to ally themselves with Christians who wish to inject their religion into politics. This is an error fatal to the cause of freedom on many levels, among them being (1) the fact that such Christians will gut freedom any time it conflicts with religion; (2) that freedom, whose value to men lies in allowing us to use our independent, rational judgement unfettered, is, by its nature, doomed to conflict with a belief system based on religious authority at the expense of any contrary evidence or logic; and (3) that doing so incorrectly and immorally concedes that capitalism is a necessary evil at worst and amoral at best, when in fact, it is the only moral political system in history. At least Obama, being a leftist, is an open enemy of freedom, unlike those on the religious right, who pose as advocates of capitalism. So, yes. I agree. Faith isn't compatible with economic freedom or individual rights. Thank you for making that clear, Mr. Obama!

However, having just identified Barack Obama as correct on one level, this pro-reason, pro-individual rights, hawkish, capitalist atheist feels the need to note that Obama is completely wrong on another level! Since even Obama would have to concede that words mean things, it might be useful to consider what "faith" and "hijack" mean.

Obama uses the word "faith" to describe how Christians claim to know what God wants everyone to do. And he uses "hijack" in the same sense that Moslems used passenger airplanes to commit atrocities (that, incidentally, faith "informed" them would please God). Thus, I think it fair to use the following definitions, as those most closely matched to the words that the Democratic Senator used in his sound byte:

• faith -- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
• hijack -- To seize control of (a moving vehicle) by use of force, especially in order to reach an alternate destination.

Obama's metaphor means, then, that he thinks that the religious right has, by convincing voters to help them promote a political agenda he disapproves of, somehow misused faith!

This is a fascinating statement. Why? Because if man, the rational animal, survives through the use of his intellect -- which means, by carefully gathering evidence from the world around him and applying logic -- of what use period can a belief not based on the raw materials of knowledge possibly have? Such beliefs are useless at best, and can be lethal whenever they lead men to act in ways contrary to what facts and evidence would lead them to do.

So if there is no proper use for faith, how on earth can one even conceive of it being "hijacked"? To answer that question, we must ask, "Of what use can faith be, and to whom?"

The answer is simple. Someone who does not wish to live through his own judgement and effort can get others to do the dirty work of facing reality for him if he can convince them to take supposedly divine orders on faith. In other words, the only man who has use for faith -- as a tool for manipulating others -- is a parasite.

This is the underlying motive of the politicians of the religious right, who want to use the state to force everyone to live in accordance with their religion, and of Obama, whose policies might look different at first glance, but are fundamentally the same. It makes not one jot or tittle of difference to me if the government "feeds the poor" (and the egos of those in power) with money distributed through "faith-based" charities or government welfare programs if, in the end, my money has been stolen from me by the government in order to do so.

So the only sense in which one can even imagine that faith -- the means of getting others to do one's bidding -- has been "hijacked" is in the sense that other people are not doing one's own bidding. Barack Obama may have accidentally identified the truth about the relationship between Christianity and capitalism, but in doing so, he has also invited us to examine the meanings of the words he used to do so and, in the process, to learn that he is not essentially any different from the parasites of the religious right, who also hate freedom.

Any politician who regards it as proper to mix faith and political power admits, in doing so, that he is unfit to govern. This is what Obama did when he opined that something so harmful to man was being misused.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 210

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

Dismuke Fires Back!

During my last roundup, I noted that Darren Cauthon took issue with what he called the "webcaster side" of the Internet music royalty debate in a posting against Dismuke. Since then, there has been a vigorous debate in the comments of that post, which has spurred Dismuke into a rebuttal at his web site, as well as a presentation of a "Free Market Answer to Statutory Royalties" over at his blog. I have unfortunately not had the time to do anything other than scan any of this new material.

I will say one thing, though. The other day, when I complained about such spawn of the mixed economy as debates like this, I forgot one thing. On top of the fact that both sides in such debates often have mixed premises, there is also the matter of the crow epistemology. It is easy to lose track of the legal and political minutiae even while actively interested in such debates, and far more so to forget many of them a few weeks later.

Vaclav Klaus Q&A

If you haven't already seen Vaclav Klaus holding court on global warming hysteria, stop by the Financial Times right now.

President Klaus, I agree, so how do rational libertarians [sic] prevent the destruction of our culture by environmentalists? What’s the answer?
Nicholas Horvath

Vaclav Klaus: The "rational libertarians" (I don't mind being called classical liberal) [I would prefer to be called a "classical liberal", or almost anything else besides a "libertarian" for that matter. --ed] should stop being just a silent majority. They should speak out, as well as speak up. They should reveal the real dangers connected with environmentalism. As the subtitle of my recent book "What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?" suggests, I believe that it is freedom which is endangered. And freedom is more than eventual, relatively mild climate changes. [italics added]

Sure, I've been saying that all along, but he said it far more economically, and far more powerfully: "It is freedom which is endangered." (HT: HBL)

The Best Beer Commercial Ever!

Not only is this a really good beer commercial, ...


... it advertises something I can actually drink!

Feinstein Takes Aim at Freedom of Speech

The Democrats are now openly admitting that they want to bring back the "Fairness" Doctrine.

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

WALLACE: But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market.

FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people. [bold added]

And if they restrict freedom of speech on the airwaves, they will target the Internet next.

Psychological Projection by the Left ...

... on the subject of bumper stickers, of all things! Don Surber notes that the latest left-wing version of attacking something as "simplistic" is to say that it is a "bumper-sticker solution".

So, from the people who gave us "Buck Fush" and "Free Tibet" we get the ultimate bumper sticker:

"(Blank) is a bumper-sticker solution."

Let's see how that works.

It's also cunning in a way. Idiotically short-circuit debate as usual for the bumper sticker crowd, but use the Average Joe's justifiable contempt for bumper stickers to smear your opponent.

It's also right in another way: Since the Republicans abandoned principle long ago, they left themselves wide open to such attacks. (HT: Glenn Reynolds)

A Real Beauty

Amit Ghate has posted photos of his latest orchid blossom. Go check it out!

-- CAV

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Ethical

President Bush vetoed a measure promoting embryonic stem cell research Wednesday, claiming that "Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical." Bush went on to trumpet new research which suggests that scientists will one day be able to create pluripotent stem cells (i.e., cells that can develop into multiple cell types) from non-embryonic skin cells, supposedly making the "unethical" destruction of embryonic cells unnecessary.

"There is nothing unethical about destroying embryos in the course of scientific research," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "An embryo is a potential, not an actual, human being, just as canvas is a potential, not an actual, work of art. It is a primitive cluster of cells, which is no more unethical to destroy than the cells that make up one's appendix.

"Calling an embryo 'human life' is an evasion of the distinction between a mass of undifferentiated cells in a test tube and an actual, living human being. Only the mystical doctrines of religion, which hold that a human being is, not a biological entity with certain natural properties--i.e., an independent organism possessing a rational faculty--but a transcendent soul temporarily trapped in a body, could cloud that distinction.

"Stem cell research has the potential to improve the lives of millions by revolutionizing treatments for a number of afflictions, from Parkinson's disease to spinal cord injuries to cancer. Scientists should pursue every possible avenue in an effort to realize this promising technology. If one day they successfully create pluripotent cells from non-embryonic cells, we should cheer that as an additional avenue for research--not clamor for them to stop investigating the properties of embryonic cells. To do so would only hamstring scientists and prolong the suffering of actual human beings.

"We should praise embryonic stem cell research for the life-enhancing breakthroughs it promises--and condemn the immoral attempt to return us to the Dark Ages, before science was liberated from the chains of religious dogmatism."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute.

Hollywood Gets Religion?

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I went to see Knocked Up, a tedious movie with a story so dull that Hollywood producers would have to love it. Is it my active imagination or is Hollywood turning religious?

First, this boring comedy struck me as almost a fantasy because any normal non-religious woman in the heroine's situation would get an abortion. Now, I understand that if the heroine gets an abortion, there's no story (not that there was much of a story anyway), but the movie did not feel the need to justify her decision to have the baby in any way. The woman's mother wanted her to "get it taken care of" but the woman simply refused without giving any reason for her decision. The movie couldn't even say the word abortion; the closest a character came is "shmashmortion."

Second, two of the previews had religious themes: License to Wed and Evan Almighty, both of which look so unbearably bad that you couldn't pay me to watch them.

Am I onto something here or is this just an atheist's hypersensitivity to anything that smacks of mysticism?

If I'm right, what does it mean? Here are the choices:

A. Hollywood is changing and more religious people are making movies.
B. Hollywood is letting a few religious movies get made to keep the conservatives off their back.
C. Hollywood is going where the money is, making more religious movies because that's what the ticket-buying public of America and the world want to see.
D. A little bit of all of the above and some other factors as well. (I include this choice for all you empiricist-minded complexity worshippers who get sweaty palms at the thought of identifying a principle.)

My answer is A. As America goes, so goes Hollywood. And the ominous fact is that America is becoming more religious. Hollywood is not so much a leader of culture as a follower. Any widespread philosophic changes will inevitably change an industry full of timid social metaphysicians who would rather copy a proven success than innovate. We're not talking about visionaries or titans of independence here.

It's not the first time Hollywood has embraced religion. Some '40s movies are drenched in mysticism, altruism and sentimentality and they are unbelievably boring, as if pop culture was just trying to lull people to sleep in that tacky decade. Unless you need a soporific, avoid all '40s movies that involve priests, nuns, doctors or nurses, as these types are invariably portrayed as selfless idealists who sacrifice their happiness for humanity.

Instead of back to the future, Hollywood is going forward to the past. Forward to the past in bad way: Hollywood is rediscovering the worst traditional values while keeping the worst new age values, all the while still ignoring the lost art of romanticism.

(Other than religion the only other trend I see is the same one we've been living with since the rise of the blockbuster -- that is, idiocy designed for the lowest common denominator. I mean, Underdog? Remember when Hollywood used to make intelligent movies? Neither do I.)

UPDATE: Revision.

The Age of the Cockroach

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

During a brief trip through the paper this morning, this article in the Houston Chronicle caught my eye because it followed up a story that amused me some time ago: A natural museum here had offered to pay kids a quarter per cockroach in order to stock an insect exhibit.

So I read it, and found that it was mainly a Q&A about cockroaches with the museum's curator of entomology. As such, it was okay for what it was, but it didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know.

Nevertheless, one of the answers caused me to come up with what I think is a fitting name for this era of global warming hysteria and fanatical environmentalism:

[Cockroaches] eat decaying vegetation, decaying stuff, mostly. And if we didn't have them -- and the termites and dung beetles and decomposers -- the world would be piled high in trash. They're very important recyclers. [bold added]

This is undeniably true, but I would have called them "scavengers" rather than "recyclers". This led me, in turn, to recall some of the other contexts in which I have seen that r-word pop up since environmentalism became so fashionable. For example, men used to speak of "reclaiming" used rubber when discussing what we would now call "recycling". And note that even long before it became all the rage in Hollywood, this type of activity did occur frequently -- but only when it made actual, economic sense to do so.

So yes, the cockroach fills a major ecological niche, but no, I would not insult one by accusing it of (pointlessly) "recycling" things. In that respect, its behavior makes far more sense than that of the average curbside recycler since its life actually benefits from its activity. By contrast, most people who hoard newsprint like it is gold, and then set it out by the sidewalk every week are wasting one irreplaceable resource (time from their own lives) to save a renewable one (paper) that is so cheap it is uneconomical to reclaim it.

But this sort of mindless behavior, which we are urged to do quite often without even the pretext of benefiting mankind, or ourselves individually, has become the latest ideal of the collectivist left, the latest avatar of the assault on freedom it must dupe us into performing for it.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus puts this best (HT: HBL and Jim May):

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

I could not find a good example of this (at least that I have any familiarity with), but I recall back in the heyday of Communism that those of us who valued freedom compared the social system of communism disparagingly to an anthill. (And some proponents went so far, I think, as to make such comparisons in all seriousness, as if an anthill were a society to which we could and should aspire.)

But we are no longer told even to set our sights this "high"! No longer is the betterment of man the professed goal of those from the left, who would tell us to emulate insects. Not that I condone any form of self-sacrifice, but at least when we were being compared unfavorably to ants, it was because we were supposedly not helping our fellow man enough.

Now, we're basically being exhorted to imitate the scavenging behavior of cockroaches -- but curiously, not to emulate them by doing so in ways that will actually promote our own lives. We are now, not even to devote our lives to building a great society, but to waste our lives recycling garbage for the sake of filling some supposed ecological niche rather than living our own lives. We are now simply to rejoin nature in the form of renouncing any personal goals or aspirations we might have -- as if it is "natural" for us to renounce reason, the tool of survival peculiar to our species!

Unless we begin to ask those on the left why we should sacrifice our freedom to their cause, we will soon wake up like Gregor Samsa to discover that we have, for all practical purposes, become cockroaches!

I, for one, wish to avert the Age of the Cockroach to which the left now aspires. I hope you do, too!

-- CAV

How to Stop Iran?

By Elan Journo

Bush's disastrous foreign policy--especially the Iraq fiasco--has led many to conclude that diplomatic "engagement" is our best hope for stopping Iran's nuclear program. But while Bush's policy is a failure, engagement is not the solution.

Bush's "moralistic" approach, we're told, entails denouncing nations as evil, refusing negotiations, and isolating and punishing hostile regimes. That, many believe, is how we landed in the catastrophe of Iraq.

And now Bush's moral denunciations of Teheran have supposedly escalated the nuclear standoff, while his policy of pressuring and isolating Iran by limiting its use of foreign banks has made Iran more defiant. That is why, diplomatists claim, Iran responded to the latest American-backed U.N. sanctions by ramping up production of nuclear material. Military conflict, they warn, and an Iraq-like debacle, loom.

But engagement can supposedly end the Iranian threat bloodlessly, because it discards inflexible moral dogmas. Just as Iran has shown it will meet "confrontation with confrontation," proponents write in the New York Times, so Iran will "respond to what it perceives as flexibility with pragmatism." Iran's recent release of 15 British hostages, we are told, was achieved precisely because Britain engaged in nonjudgmental, patient diplomacy. Putting aside our moral qualms about talking with monsters, would free us to negotiate a deal whereby Iran stops its nuclear program in exchange for Western carrots.

This scheme presumes that Iran, like us, seeks peace and prosperity and that no one--not even the mullahs--would put their moral ideals before a steady flow of loot. But in the three decades since its Islamic revolution, Iran has dedicated itself to spreading its moral ideal--Islamic totalitarianism--by force of arms. Teheran spends millions every year, not to pursue prosperity for its tyrannized citizens, but to finance terrorism and to build a nuclear arsenal to wield against enemies of Allah. It is Iran's commitment to the goal of subjugating infidels, not a quest for peace, that motivated its backing of the Hezbollah-Hamas war against Israel and its support for insurgents who slaughter American troops in Iraq.

Would diplomatic "incentives" encourage Iran to mitigate its ideology? No, they would only intensify its hostility. Negotiations buy Iran time; a settlement would provide loot to fund its nuclear program. Above all, diplomacy grants Iran moral legitimacy as a civilized regime: its hostile goals--"death to America"--and its murder of our citizens are made to seem reasonable differences of opinion. Such appeasement confirms the perverse notion that Allah's warriors, materially weaker but morally self-righteous, can succeed in bringing down the mighty infidel West. The real lesson of the recent hostage incident is how readily Western nations will grovel to appease Iran's blatant aggression.

The amoral policy of engagement fails for the same reason that Bush's policy fails: both reject the need of morality in foreign policy. Iran is intransigent--but precisely because Bush's policy merely pays lip service to rational moral principles.

What has been the administration's response to Iran's nuclear quest, to its funding of terrorists and Iraqi insurgents, to its hostilities stretching back to the 1979 invasion of our embassy? Did it morally judge Iran as an enemy regime waging war on America and fight to defend U.S. lives by militarily crushing Iran?

No. After 9/11, Washington cordially invited Iran into an anti-terrorism coalition; later, Bush denounced Iran as part of an "axis of evil"; now, he embraces diplomatic talks. To the extent that his administration does momentarily recognize Iran's evil, its response has been ludicrous: to thwart Iran's nuclear program, U.S. diplomats scrounged for votes at the U.N. to pass toothless sanctions, and tried to put financial "pressure" on Iran (e.g., by preventing it from trading oil in dollars), an absurdly futile scheme (Iran now trades in euros).

Moreover, when Bush has gone to war, it was not to crush an evil enemy, but to bring it "democracy." Bush's messianic crusade in the Middle East is a selfless war of sacrifice to needy Afghanis and Iraqis--not a war to uphold the moral goal of safeguarding the lives of Americans.

Bush's self-effacing, immoral foreign policy--like the appeasing gambit of engagement--licenses Iran to pursue its hostile goals with impunity.

The rational alternative to both of these self-destructive approaches is a policy committed to American self-defense, on principle. It is a policy that morally judges Iran--and that ruthlessly renders Iran non-threatening by military force. That does not mean a selfless, Iraq-like crusade to bring Iranians the vote. It means upholding the moral right of Americans to live in freedom by destroying Teheran's Islamic totalitarian regime. Nothing less will do.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute 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.

Of Degrees and Inequities

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

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, will never be invited to deliver a commencement address at Harvard University, or to address any American university's graduation class. He is likely one of the few living politicians who is not a fool, a huckster, or a "control freak." He believes in man, in man's place and happiness on earth, and in his freedom to live on it unobstructed by fools, hucksters, and those who want to control, guide, or "manage" his existence.

In his June 13th commentary in the Financial Times of London, under the heading, "Freedom, not climate, is at risk," he remarked:

"As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

"Does it make any sense to speak about warming the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate of the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).

"Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organize themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes."

George Mason University Prof. Walter Williams, another voice lost in a wilderness of "the sky is falling" warnings about global warming, wrote in his column, "Fighting Climate Change, Gun Control and Income Tax Laws" on Capitalism Magazine on May 15th:

"About 65 million years ago, the Earth experienced one of the most rapid and extreme global climate changes recorded in geological history. The period has been named the 'Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.' The ocean was 18 to 27 degrees hotter than it is today. Antarctica, which is today's coldest place on Earth, was home to temperate forests, beech trees and ferns. The Earth had no permanent ice caps.....In the past 65 million years, the Earth's temperature has increased and decreased with no help from mankind....."

What is affrighting the Chicken Littles of environmentalism? An average global temperature rise of a few tenths of one degree Celsius. Cause? Undetermined, but probably related to the natural cycle of earth's atmosphere, which had been going through these cycles long before dinosaurs flourished and long after they all perished, and which will continue to.

But, facts, or their absence, have never stopped power-lusters from concocting a multitude of ways of imposing power. They could more credibly blame the sun or the billions of tons of ash and gases spewed into the atmosphere by volcanoes, but these entities are beyond their control and do not respond well to legislation.

There is a purported "inequity" in the average mean global temperature. Whatever average that might be is open to dispute, but largely up for grabs by the power-lusters who hog the headlines and who are abetted in their fraud by an uncritical news media. Rational, non-politically correct climatologists claim that it is an invalid concept, as invalid and pointless a datum as the average daily calorie intake of an entire population.

That fraction of a degree is allegedly caused by man living on earth, and Al Gore, the European Union, and environmental protection agencies, bureaucracies and ministries around the globe want to put on the brakes now. President Klaus is right that environmentalism has replaced communism as the new totalitarian ideology.

There are other fallacious concepts floating around that center on "inequities." For example, Gary Olson, chair of the political science department at Moravian College in Pennsylvania, on May 17th in the Bethlehem Morning Call under the headline, "Wealthiest Americans owe nation a dividend," denied that private wealth is actually "private." Billionaires such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet benefited from an undefined "social capital," somehow extracting that "social capital" from everyone to turn it into privately-held wealth. He sneers at private philanthropy.

"Some of these plutocrats utter the phrase, 'I just wanted to give something back.' My reaction: Why not give it all back? Or to be fair and just, give back everything over and above any personal effort expended."

Give back to whom? And how much? How would Dr. Olson propose to calculate the value of the "personal effort expended" once a rich person has been relieved of his wealth? What incentives would he devise to encourage anyone to pursue or accumulate wealth, if ambitious, creative men know that extortion and theft are their ultimate rewards?

Well, that would certainly justify the creation of another government agency, such as the Bureau of Social Capital Reimbursement, to oversee the return of that "social capital" and decide how much anyone gets. But, enough of Dr. Olson, chair of Marxist political science. Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams would mop the floor with him in a fair debate and then wring out the remains of him into the janitor's bucket.

That brings us to Bill Gates, who is doing penance by pouring his wealth into the ever-deepening sinkholes of disease, poverty and ignorance around the world. He could serve as an exemplar of Gary Olson's "giving it all back." On June 7th he gave the commencement address to the graduating class of Harvard University. Although he dropped out of Harvard to begin his career as an innovator, Gates was given an honorary degree by the school. After some jocular remarks about having dropped out and unwittingly denigrating the value of a college education, he moved on to the central theme of his address: "the awful inequities in the world, the appalling disparities of health, and wealth, and opportunity that condemn millions of people to lives of despair."

Gates remarked, "I learned a lot here at Harvard about new ideas in economics and politics." Whatever ideas he learned in economics and politics must not have had much to do with capitalism and limited government, and they could not have been new, but the old chestnuts of watered-down Marxism and collectivized rights.

"But humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity. Whether through democracy, strong public education, quality health care, or broad economic opportunity, reducing inequity is the highest human achievement."

Which means: The development of a vaccine to eradicate cancer, tuberculosis, or malaria is not a great advance, but rather it is great in how, in the purest altruistic sense, it can reduce Gates's conception of "inequities."

What are the causes of those "inequities"? As Ayn Rand would put it: Blank out. Is it government controls? Tribal or religious warfare? Tyranny? Statist control of a country's economy? The answers to these questions do not concern Gates, because he has been trained to be oblivious to the questions.

"I left campus knowing little about the millions of young people cheated out of educational opportunities here in this country. And I knew nothing about the millions of people living in unspeakable poverty and disease in developing countries....It took me decades to find out."

Which means that Gates left Harvard before his mind was completely corrupted by the collectivist doctrines being taught there. And it took decades for the culture to succeed in completely corrupting it. The nail in his coffin was his conflict with the federal government over Microsoft's alleged monopoly of the software market. It was only after that was settled that Gates acquired a "social conscience."

One might possibly call it the Scrooge effect, from Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol," when the "ghosts" of government power threatened to destroy him and scared the hell out of him, causing him to become a paragon of altruism and "giving back." (Although the seeds of selflessness lay dormant in him all his life, planted there by his parents and the culture at large.)

Gates appeals to the faculty and students of Harvard:

"Should our best minds be dedicated to solving our biggest problems? Should Harvard encourage its faculty to take on the world's worst inequities? Should Harvard students learn about the depth of global poverty, the prevalence of world hunger, the scarcity of clean water, the girls kept out of school, the children who die from diseases we can cure?

"Should the world's most privileged people learn about the lives of the word's least privileged?"

He did not realize it, but Gates was preaching to the choir. Harvard and other major universities have been churning out professional altruists and collectivists for generations. How else to account for all the graduates who enter government, politics, and "public service"?

Gates approvingly quotes a maxim of his mother's - "From those to whom much is given, much is expected" - in preparation for his concluding remarks:

"I want to exhort each of the graduates here to take on an issue, a complex problem, a deep inequity, and become a specialist in it....Don't let complexity stop you. Be activists. Take on the big inequities. It will be one of the great experiences of your lives."

But, here is his warning to those who claim that they own their own lives and know that nothing was given to them:

"You have an awareness of global inequity....And with that awareness, you likely also have an informed conscience that will torment you if you abandon these people whose lives you could change with very little effort...."

Thus Gates ends his address with a plea to the graduates to become guilt-ridden, duty-strapped, "caring" storm troopers of selflessness - just like him.

If fascism ever comes to the U.S., Bill Gates, and Harvard, and all those students who are shamed into heeding his advice, will be partly responsible.

Smarter Crows

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

In Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand begins the chapter on "The Cognitive Role of Concepts" as follows:

The story of the following experiment was told in a university classroom by a professor of psychology. I cannot vouch for the validity of the specific numerical conclusions drawn from it, since I could not check it first-hand. But I shall cite it here, because it is the most illuminating way to illustrate a certain fundamental aspect of consciousness—of any consciousness, animal or human.

The experiment was conducted to ascertain the extent of the ability of birds to deal with numbers. A hidden observer watched the behavior of a flock of crows gathered in a clearing of the woods. When a man came into the clearing and went on into the woods, the crows hid in the tree tops and would not come out until he returned and left the way he had come. When three men went into the woods and only two returned, the crows would not come out: they waited until the third one had left. But when five men went into the woods and only four returned, the crows came out of hiding. Apparently, their power of discrimination did not extend beyond three units—and their perceptual-mathematical ability consisted of a sequence such as: one-two-three-many.

Whether this particular experiment is accurate or not, the truth of the principle it illustrates can be ascertained introspectively: if we omit all conceptual knowledge, including the ability to count in terms of numbers, and attempt to see how many units (or existents of a given kind) we can discriminate, remember and deal with by purely perceptual means (e.g., visually or auditorially, but without counting), we will discover that the range of man's perceptual ability may be greater, but not much greater, than that of the crow: we may grasp and hold five or six units at most.

This fact is the best demonstration of the cognitive role of concepts.

Apparently, crows have grown smarter since that original experiment, as this article on "How To Shoot Crows" by Ed Zern from Field & Stream (August 1973) demonstrates:

Over the years a number of readers have written, asking me to provide them with my crow-shooting system as it appeared here a decade or so ago. As both of them are regular subscribers I can hardly afford to ignore their request, and hasten to comply.

The system is based on a study of crow behavior conducted by research biologists at Phelps University which showed that crows have a relatively high level of intelligence and are actually able to count, but only in multiples of three or less, so that the conventional procedure for fooling crows-by sending several men into a blind, then having all but one of them leave -- is not likely to work except with very young birds, if at all. Thus, even if six crow hunters go into a cornstalk blind and only five come out, the crows probably won't be fooled, as they will have counted off the hunters in trios and will realize that one of the groups is short a man; as a result they will stay the hell away from there until the frustrated gunner gives up and emerges.

My system for successful crow hunting is childishly simple, and consists of the following steps:

1. Build a blind overlooking a cornfield frequented by crows.

2. Assemble a group of twenty five hunters, all dressed more or less alike and of nearly equal height, build, and facial characteristics. All the hunters should be clean-shaven, but twelve of them should be wearing false mustaches. The group should assemble in a barn or some sort of building not less than 350 yards from the field. (It would be prudent to have a few spare hunters on hand, to substitute in cases of pulled muscles, heart attacks or other contingencies.)

3. All of the hunters should be equipped with 12-gauge shotguns, but it is advisable that these be fairly light in weight, as it is important that all hunters going to and from the blind must travel at a dead run, so that the crows will not have sufficient time for their calculations.

4. As soon as a flock of crows comes into the area, eleven of the hunters are dispatched from the old barn to the blind, running at top speed. The instant they arrive, seven of them turn around and rush back to the barn.

5. When the seven hunters get back to the barn, they are joined by six other hunters and the thirteen of them sprint back to the blind as fast as possible; on arrival there, ten of them immediately turn around and dash back to the barn.

6. Before the ten arrive, eight more hunters are sent from the barn to the blind. When they meet the ten returning from the blind all of them switch hats and false mustaches while milling around in a tight huddle, then break it up and resume running to their respective destinations.

7. As soon as the eight hunters arrive at the blind, five of them turn around and rush back toward the barn; on the way they meet nine hunters running from the barn toward the blind, whereupon the hunters divide themselves into two groups of seven, one of which runs back to the barn while the other rushes to the blind, changes hats and mustaches, leaves two of its members there and dashes back to the barn.

8. Of the twelve hunters now in the blind, nine now rush across the fields to the barn while twelve of the thirteen hunters in the barn charge en masse from the barn to the blind; on arrival they immediately turn and sashay back to the barn taking two of the three hunters still in the blind, leaving a single hunter.

9. It is, of course, essential that all this be done at the highest possible speed, so that the crows will fall hopelessly behind in their arithmetic and in the consequent corvine confusion fail to realize that a hunter is concealed in the blind.

10. Eventually, the crows will learn to count faster, so that the system must be modified occasionally to keep ahead of them. In addition to having the hunters run faster, it may be necessary to introduce false beards and quick-change toupees as well as false mustaches, and to build a second blind on another side of the field so that the traffic will be triangular instead of simply linear, requiring the crows to start working on trigonometric permutations and geometric progressions in order to cope. In severe cases the hunters may be equipped with numbered jerseys from 1 to 25 but with the number 17 omitted and two numbers 21s. (This can also be done with roman numerals, when birds are very wary.)

Well, you asked for it, readers, and you got it. Watch this space next month for an equally simple fool-proof system for outwitting that wily old woodchuck in the back pasture, requiring no special equipment other than a stuffed Guernsey cow and a milkmaid's costume. Remember -- you saw it here first!

Heh.

The Benevolent People Premise

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Ayn Rand's "Benevolent Universe Premise" (referred to in various essays, letters, and journal entries) is her description of a rational man's fundamental psychological perspective on reality. Operating on this premise, one views the universe as a place where he can succeed and be happy. He has a generally positive attitude about life -- he expects to be happy. This does not mean that he is never sad or never experiences failure, but that he believes happiness and success are his natural state of being. He does not repress or ignore negative emotions, but neither does he dwell on them unnecessarily. He focuses on the positive.

Rand contrasts this perspective with the "Malevolent Universe Premise," in which one sees the universe as a place where failure and pain are the norm. One who holds this premise may live virtuously and enjoy continuing success in life, but he is always waiting for the other shoe to drop -- he expects failure and unhappiness. When things are going his way, he begins to experience happiness anxiety. When something bad finally does happen, he feels miserable -- but justified.

For years, I have watched (mostly young) Objectivists struggle with a specific form of the Malevolent Universe Premise. I call it the "Malevolent People Premise." One with a Malevolent People Premise expects the worst out of each new person he meets. He realizes that everyone has the capacity to be rational, but he expects those he meets to be irrational. While he may develop relationships with new people who seem virtuous, he always expects to find faults, and he carefully scrutinizes new friends or lovers for any evidence of irrationality. When he discovers a flaw in the person, he feels betrayed and angry -- but justified.

I believe that the Malevolent People Premise is a subset of the Malevolent Universe Premise, and is psychologically destructive for the same reasons. Either premise can lead to happiness anxiety and severely limit one's capacity for joy. The alternative - a benevolent view of the universe and its inhabitants - is a critical component of a healthy mind.

I must stress that I do not advocate failing to properly judge people. Just as one with a Benevolent Universe Premise always must be ruthlessly honest and judicious in his evaluation of a particular aspect of reality, so one with a Benevolent People Premise must be honest and judicious in his evaluation of a particular person. When Mrs. Rand talked about the Benevolent Universe Premise, she often included a parenthetical like the one found in her Journals. One ought to maintain a Benevolent Universe Premise only "(if he remains realistic, that is, true to reality observed by his reason)." (Rand, Journals of Ayn Rand, pg 555). One can properly judge an aspect of reality, or an individual human being, while maintaining a positive general view of reality and mankind.

I consider myself to be a good example of someone with a Benevolent People Premise. I always expect the best out of people, particularly when meeting them for the first time. When I meet someone new, I am generally very enthusiastic, respectful, and friendly. This reflects my sincere expectation that the person will be rational and virtuous. No matter how many irrational people I meet (and believe me, I've met a lot), I still always expect the best from each new person. This does not mean that I ignore the possibility that people may be irrational, only that I do not consider that to be the natural order of things.

When I say that I treat all people with a certain degree of respect I mean all people. I am friendly to the Latino guy who does the landscaping at my office. I am courteous to the young man who sells me coffee at the gas station on the way to work. I am respectful to the very Orthodox Jews with whom I share this office building. I am kind to the children of the Hatian immigrants who populate my apartment complex.

If I looked carefully, I could find a reason to be wary of each of these people. The Latino guy doesn't speak very good English, and I oppose the multiculturalists who believe he has no responsibility to learn our national language. Perhaps the Latino guy sides with the multiculturalists, and chooses not to learn English on principle. The young man at the coffee shop has accepted a low-wage job, and many people who work as gas station attendants remain in those jobs because they have no ambition. Perhaps the young man is one of those people. The Orthodox Jews are famously ritualistic and devoted to faith-based principles. Perhaps some of my co-workers blindly follow a destructive philosophy which will negatively impact our working relationship. The Hatians are mostly poor and uneducated. Perhaps my Hatian neighbors fall into this category, and their children are trouble-makers.

All of these are legitimate possibilities, and they are things that my subconscious looks out for. I do not want to associate closely with those who will negatively affect my life. However, I am also aware of the potential positive impact these people can and do have on my life. The Latino man works to make the grounds outside my office look aesthetically pleasing; the young gas station attendant works to make coffee and gasoline accessible to me; some of the Orthodox Jews are my business partners, and made it possible for me to start my own company; and the Hatian children play sports in the apartment parking lot each day, displaying a youthful exuberance that is a joy to behold.

Everyone I meet has the potential to have a positive and/or negative impact on my life. While I am prepared for the negative, I focus on and expect the positive. Those around me detect this positive attitude, and most respond in kind. People can also easily detect the opposite -- one with a Malevolent People Premise sticks out like a sore thumb. If you have ever been pounced on by a crabby Objectivist you just met for some miscommunication on technical epistemology, then you know what I'm talking about.

Many young Objectivists are disheartened by the overwhelming tide of irrational philosophy in our culture. They feel alone and isolated in high schools and on college campuses. This is a natural reaction to the discovery of widespread irrationalism. However, one should watch out that this reaction does not become ingrained and solidify into a Malevolent People Premise. Keep in mind that every individual possesses free will -- each man has the capacity for rationality and virtue. You owe it to yourself to maintain a Benevolent People Premise, and open your heart to the great potential values that can be found in other rational beings.

(The Benevolent People Premise is also very important in the context of long-term friendships and romantic love relationships. Unfortunately, I am short of time, so that will be a discussion for another blog entry. )

To the best within us,

--Dan Edge

Creeping Sharia

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

Let's momentarily ignore the elephant of public education for a moment and ask ourselves what is wrong with the following picture, as summarized by Little Green Footballs:

The American Civil Liberties Union has given their blessing to the public funding of Islamic footbaths at the University of Michigan, to let Muslims wash their feet before prayers.

The ACLU says it has nothing to do with religion. [bold added]

Really? And how might that be the case? We can find out through the Detroit News (as excerpted by LGF):

Muslim leaders in Metro Detroit have decided not to raise private money to pay for two footbaths at a local college campus now that the American Civil Liberties Union has said the plan doesn't pose constitutional problems.

The University of Michigan-Dearborn's plan to spend $25,000 on the footbaths was criticized on conservative blogs and radio shows this month. Critics said using public money for the project would violate the First Amendment, which says governments can't favor or subsidize religions.

Muslims are required to wash body parts, including feet, up to five times daily before prayers. University officials say the floor-level wash basins are needed because some students at the 8,600-student campus wash their feet in the sinks.

Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said his group was concerned a public outcry would cause the university to back down from the project.

"If the ACLU had decided to take legal action against the UM-Dearborn, we probably would have called for the university to raise the funds privately, just so that the UM-Dearborn wouldn't have to go through the trouble of having to defend its position against the ACLU," Walid said.

Kary Moss, director of the Detroit branch of the ACLU, said its review concluded the plan is a "reasonable accommodation" to resolve "safety and cleanliness issues" that arose when Muslims used public sinks for foot cleaning before prayers, which often spilled water on bathroom floors.

"We view it as an attempt to deal with a problem, not an attempt to make it easier for Muslims to pray," said Moss, who likened the plan to paying for added police during religious events with huge turnouts. "There's no intent to promote religion." [bold added]

This is a perfect example of how the welfare state functions and how Moslems take advantage of that fact. Since, in the minds of leftists (and increasingly some conservatives), the government exists not to protect individual rights, but to "solve problems" for an infantilized populace from cradle to grave, the students are not held accountable for the fact that they are making a potentially hazardous mess through their practice of washing their feet in the sink and not bothering to mop up afterwards.

Nobody is held accountable for these magically-appearing "problems", and thus their root cause -- the superstitious beliefs and primitive rituals of a segment of the student population -- is simply never on the table. And since the government exists to "solve" such mysterious "problems", of course special accommodations for the Moslems will be made. Despite the obvious religious nature of the footbaths, I think that the ACLU's useful idiots -- being idiots, after all -- really do believe that this is not government funding of religious activity, based on this kind of reasoning.

And of course such willful evasion on the part of someone passing out loot is not going to go unnoticed by Moslems. This is a big part of why they're so often observed making pains in the ass of themselves the world over: They know that they will not be held accountable for any "problems" that just happen to occur as a result of them following the dictum of the moment and that the various Western welfare states will attempt to "solve" such problems not by holding them accountable, but by throwing money at the "problem", which we can conceptualize as a big, outspread, Moslem palm.

For example, observe that the "Palestinians", who elected Hamas, are about to get foreign aid from Israel in an attempt to induce them to stay put. The proper response by Israel would be to blockade Gaza and, perhaps to carpet bomb it if the "Palestinians" weren't eliminating themselves as a threat to Israel fast enough on their own.

But that would entail assigning moral blame to a people who overwhelmingly elected a party that vowed to anihilate Israel. Since Israel clearly sees allowing the "Palestinians" to immigrate as the only other alternative, they are condemning themselves to a succession of bombardments or invasions, for however long that can actually last.

To the extent that we in the West refuse to morally condemn the uncivilized behavior of Moslems and ensure that they face the consequences of what they do, we are already acting as dhimmis. And since we already possess much of the apparatus of a totalitarian state, we will effectively get a creeping sharia in the bargain as the state, always at the service of the most irresponsible people it can find, solves more and more "problems" caused by Moslems. Heck, now that I think of it, the Moslems wouldn't even have to come up with this strategy, although many plainly use it.

-- CAV

What Today's Universities Do: A Snapshot

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

What should a Master of Arts program in Theatre Arts look like? What courses should be required? What is the purpose of an MA degree?

I think graduate degrees should be about training scholars -- creating intellectuals. In Theatre Arts that means a heavy emphasis on the history of drama. If I designed the program, an MA student would read every great play, every good play and some not so good plays, from Aeschylus to Ayckbourn. In addition to book work, the candidate should also do some production work.

Since this program is more or less what I do in life anyway (without getting college credits for it), I checked out the MA program of a local college. It turns out they have a whole different conception of what an MA program should be. Although they say the program is for theatre artists, educators and people who wish to further graduate study, it looks useful only for educators.

The requirements are full of multi-culti classes such as “Chicana/o Latina/o Theatre and Drama,” “Issues in Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Theatre,” “Multicultural Images in Children’s Literature” and “Theatre in the Post-Colonial World.”

Now, what does this program really accomplish? What does it train students to do? It teaches them to teach children. Specifically, and to put it provocatively, the program trains people to use theatre to indoctrinate children with New Leftist pieties.

No, I won’t be attending this program. I will continue reading old plays that today’s MA graduates have never heard of. Why should I interrupt my education to study New Leftist propaganda?

The Fortress America Mentality

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

It seems like every time I turn on talk radio these days -- which is only when I drive -- I hear the words “secure the borders.” Secure the borders! We’re at war and the enemy is sneaking in to sabotage us.

Are people serious about this? Have they looked at a map? America is more or less a continent-wide rectangle with two long borders and two long coasts. We have long been proud to boast that our border with Canada is the longest peaceful border in the world. Our long, unguarded borders are the result of -- and the symbol of -- all that is best about capitalism. Free countries do not live in hostility or fear, but in peace and free trade. As Bastiat said, when trade does not cross borders, then soldiers do.

This Fortress America mentality is something new and something bad. I believe it is the psychological result of America’s inability to wage proper war against totalitarian Islam. Specifically, this mentality is the result of creating the Department of Homeland Security. As Robert Tracinski wrote in 2002,

The War on Terrorism is over. It ended when President Bush pushed to the top of his agenda the creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. This is the climax of a trend that has been building for the past month: the only action the U.S. government is now taking in response to terrorism is purely defensive.

There was no creation of a Department of Homeland Security in WWII. Instead, America waged war -- real, serious, all out war -- against our fascist enemies and destroyed them within four years. We understood then that the only defense is offense; that American security could be achieved only by destroying the enemy.

When he created the Department of Homeland Security, President Bush’s action told the American people and the world that we would not wage a war to destroy the enemy, but would go on defense. The American people got the message that we would just have to learn to live with terrorism as the Israelis do. The enemy is out there, plotting to destroy us, aided and abetted by Iran and Saudi Arabia, and our government has thrown up it hands and said, “Sorry! We will not destroy the enemy, so you’d better prepare for future attacks at home.”

Since the day I heard about the Department of Homeland Security the name has struck me as un-American. "Homeland" sounds European. It sounds collectivist, statist and mystical, like the words "fatherland" or "motherland." Furthermore, it sounds imperialist; only a nation that constantly gets entangled in foreign wars needs a separate concept for defending itself at home. There is nothing in America's individualist past like it. Maybe this is what William Graham Sumner meant when he said in 1899 that America was defeated by Spain.

Bush’s neoconservative policy is suicidal negligence of the President’s duty to protect and defend the Constitution. I do believe, although this is speculation about the future, that one day Bush and the neoconservatives will be held by historians as treasonous in their failure to defend America.

Our government is saying to us, in effect, you can no longer live entirely without fear of being killed by a foreign enemy. Now we must look to the state for colored alerts to tell us the likelihood of our being incinerated. As our government fails to strike fear in the hearts of its enemy, it settles for keeping its own citizens in a permanent state of fear. Such are the fruits of America's altruist foreign policy.

This is a radical new way of living for Americans. The psychological effects of living in fear are still unknown, as is how this new mentality will affect the American character in the long run.

I would guess that the intensity of the emotion about illegal immigrants and the fight to “secure our borders” is in part the result of our new defensive mentality. It is yet another ominous development, but a problem that could be solved if we would just get serious about waging the war and winning the war.

Curtis LeMay, where are you? America needs you.

UPDATE: Revision.

The Great, Avoidable Depression

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

Via RealClear Politics is a review by the Manhattan Institute's Nicole Gelinas of Amity Shlaes' recently-released The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. From the looks of it, the book would seem a worthwhile and interesting read at a minimum and perhaps even a much-needed corrective to generations of misdiagnoses of the causes and purported remedies of the Great Depression.

Shlaes argues that the 1929 stock-market crash wasn't a well-deserved punishment for Roaring '20s greed. Many profits that drove up the market in those days were real - the result of private-sector managers' ingenious exploitation of new technologies.

Nor did the crash guarantee that a decade of depression would follow. Decision-makers, beginning with Herbert Hoover, helped to make it so.

Hoover wasn't unfeeling or incompetent. Before he was president, he'd been a successful businessman, and had won praise as commerce secretary for his compassion and management expertise when he aided the victims of the 1927 Mississippi flood.

After the market crashed, President Hoover immediately applied this same can-do attitude to the economy. To protect workers, he called upon big businesses not to cut jobs or wages. And to protect big business, he gave in to protectionist sentiment and signed into a law a huge tariff on imported goods.

Hoover wanted to help, but instead, he hurt. The tariff ignited a trade war that harmed companies and consumers. Encouraging employers to keep wages and employment up when the economy couldn't support such measures ensured stock prices' continued fall.

After Hoover, President Franklin D. Roosevelt launched his own wave of economic experiments, detailed by Shlaes, ranging from ambitious public-works programs to fiddling with the dollar's value.

Shlaes makes a good case that Roosevelt didn't do any one thing that protracted the Depression. Instead, with his bold and oft-changing ideas, he created an air of economic uncertainty that was deadly to private-sector recovery. Investors had no idea what might come next, so they were afraid to move on.

Many of these points echo those made by Richard Salsman in a series of articles on "The Causes and Consequences of the Great Depression" starting in the June 2004 issue of The Intellectual Activist (and cited by Andrew Bernstein in his discussion of the Great Depression in Chapter 13 of The Capitalist Manifesto).

Following the link at "Schlaes" above will take you to the author's web site, where you can find excerpts from other reviews as well as links to some of them. The book is apparently well-written and informative. However, I am completely unfamiliar with Schlaes' work, and so will be very curious to see how her critique stacks up against Salsman's.

If any of my readers are familiar with Schlaes, I would be interested in hearing from you regarding her other work in general or this review in particular.

-- CAV

Powell History Blog

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

It's about time! Powell History has a blog.

Scott Powell recommends David Allen's book Getting Things Done in his latest post. (In case you haven't heard of it, it's a manual for personal productivity.) I've been using the GTD methodology (to a moderate degree) for the past few years. Over the past month or so, I've been re-reading the book and implementing more of the methodology. (It's impossible to get it all on the first pass.) I don't use all elements of the system -- the overhead involved in the promiscuous proliferation of projects and files would kill me -- but the basic strategy of dumping everything that needs doing into a regularly-reviewed external system has made my life soooooooo much more manageable. I've still got some tweaking to do, but I'm definitely humming along quite nicely these days. I've also established a regular time slot for dissertation writing, something I've never done before. That's working wonders too.

In short, I strongly second Scott's recommendation.

Ari Armstrong's "Serious Food Economy Challenge"

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

From Ari Armstrong:

Media Release

'Serious' food-stamp challenge expanded after Denver Post refuses

Contact: Ari Armstrong, 303.412.8366

The "2007 Food Stamp Challenge," in which various public officials, activists, and journalists ate on $3.57 or less per day, resulted in numerous calls for increasing the tax dollars spent on food stamps.

Ari Armstrong replied, "The original Challenge was not a fair test. The participants I've read about didn't make a serious effort to economize in their food purchases. My mom used to feed our family with nutritious meals for far less than that amount, accounting for inflation. My wife and I are so confident that we can eat on less than $3 per person per day that we're willing to do it for a full six months, not the mere week specified by the original Challenge.

"There's a catch: for each dollar we come in under budget over that period, supporters of increasing the food-stamp subsidy have to collectively pay $10 to a nonprofit of our choice.

"I'll call this 'The Serious Food Economy Challenge'."

The Armstrongs originally made this challenge to Diane Carman and the editorial writers of The Denver Post, none of whom agreed to the challenge, even though they suggested that the current food-stamp budget is inadequate.

"This just goes to show that these writers for The Denver Post lack the courage of their convictions," Armstrong said.

The Denver Post also declined to publish Armstrong's response as a guest editorial. It is available here.

Armstrong criticized several food choices made by participants of the original challenge:

Bill Scanlon of the Rocky Mountain News admits to wasting part of his budget on Ramen noodles.

Yet, according to NutritionData.com, this food has little nutritional value. No good points are mentioned for the food under the web page's opinion. The web page states, "This food is high in Saturated Fat and Sodium." (Scanlon didn't specify the exact type of noodles, so the exact nutritional content may vary.)

"It's no wonder that when people spend their limited budget on food that's not very good for them, they don't feel so great," Armstrong said.

Roxane White, manager for Denver Human Services, wasted $5.46 on "instant soups" and $7.45 on "five prepackaged frozen meals," according to the Rocky Mountain News.

"If White can't economize any better than that, then I have to wonder why she's trusted with a tax-funded job that oversees the spending of tax dollars. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that instant soup and frozen dinners aren't the best value for the money, especially while on a tight budget," Armstrong said.

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper ate "a dinner of a baked potato topped with Velveeta cheese," reports The Denver Post's editorial board.

According to NutritionData.com, Velveeta cheese is "a good source of Calcium, and a very good source of Phosphorus." However, it "is very high in Saturated Fat and Sodium," and it gets only one of five stars for "optimum health."

Armstrong summarized: "The argument that the food stamp budget should be increased because it's impossible to eat nutritiously on $3 or $3.57 per person per day is fallacious. And my wife and I are prepared to prove it.
All we ask for our trouble is that the advocates of more tax spending for food stamps agree to fund the nonprofit of our choice once we prove them wrong."

More detailed rules for The Serious Food Economy Challenge may be found here.

Knowing Ari and his wife, I'm absolutely certain that they could eat perfectly comfortably on $3 per day for years. Go Ari!

Right Question, Wrong Answer

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

National Review's Jonah Goldberg pens a column that starts with a bang and ends with a whimper.

The bang? "Here's a good question for you: Why have public schools at all?"

On the one hand, it's nice that someone with such a wide readership is asking such a question. On the other, it is too bad he can't give the right answer. The result is that Goldberg basically grants a conservative imprimatur to the next step in socializing medicine while really only setting the stage for a transition from a mainly socialized education system to a completely fascist one (i.e., from government ownership of the means of production in that sector to one of nominal ownership under tight government supervision). As icing on that cake, he also bows to that criterion of truth so beloved by the environmentalists of late, "consensus".

Stand by for the whimper:

Right now, there's a renewed debate about providing "universal" health insurance. For some liberals, this simply means replicating the public school model for healthcare. (Stop laughing.) But for others, this means mandating that everyone have health insurance -- just as we mandate that all drivers have car insurance -- and then throwing tax dollars at poorer folks to make sure no one falls through the cracks.

There's a consensus in America that every child should get an education, but as David Gelernter noted recently in the Weekly Standard, there's no such consensus that public schools need to do the educating.

Really, what would be so terrible about government mandating that every kid has to go to school, and providing subsidies and oversight when necessary, but then getting out of the way? [bold added]

Let's explore this last paragraph a bit, shall we?

What would be so terrible about the government forcing -- I mean, "mandating" -- private schools to take a certain number of incorrigible and ineducable delinquents as a condition for accreditation? What would be so terrible about government money funding religious schools? What would be so terrible about local authorities determining that "real schools" must teach creationism in science class or sex education to children you do not think are ready for it? (Goldberg should remember that "religious schools" will include madrassas and perhaps should replace the word "creationism" with "evolution"....)

In short, what is so terrible about the government continuing to order people around and remaining in the business of influencing which ideologies guide and are taught in our schools (under the umbrella of "necessary" oversight, of course) -- while pretending to hand the schools over to the private sector? What is so terrible about replacing one failed government system that people at least realize is a government system, with another that people will think is "capitalistic"? And what is so terrible about capitalism once again taking an undeserved rap when this "solution" for public education fails?

These questions, I trust, just about answer themselves. Not only are our public schools so bad that many people will mistake this fascist proposal for a capitalist solution, but almost any change, even this one, would probably bring about a temporary improvement. But I am not interested in temporary improvements or in compounding our lousy educational sector with a lousy medical sector by muddying the political debate.

Goldberg's proposal would be acceptable only as part of a long-term solution, as a transition between our current socialist education system to a fully private one. Goldberg's own data clearly indicate that the public would be receptive to a privatized system. His job as an intellectual is to guide the public towards the best course of action. Sadly, he has failed, as my line of questioning above has already indicated.

Blind rebellion against a failed system when a revolution is needed will not do. We must abolish public education and with it, all government subsidies and "supervision".

-- CAV

¿Dónde Está la Bibliotheca, Pedro?

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

These immortal words from the movie Dodgeball have taken on a special significance for me recently. I have begun to discover the joy that is the local library.

Let me state at the outset that I do not approve of government funded libraries, just as I do not approve of government funded schools, transit systems, postal service, or medical care. All of these industries should be fully privatized. However, since I am already taxed heavily for these services, I have no qualms about taking advantage of them.

Kelly and I now visit the local library frequently, and we're having a blast. We never pay money to rent movies any more - the library has more classic, high-quality films than most video rental stores. In the past month, I have checked out the first three Harry Potter books in succession (in preparation for the release of The Deathly Hallows), an informational book for the "Clueless Groom," a textbook for MBAs focused on entrepreneurship, tape lectures by Peter Lynch and Suzie Orman, and, most recently, a two-tape educational course on intermediate Spanish. (My South American friends will be so surprised when I declare, ¡Yo quiero una jirafa violeta para desayuno!)

Each of these items, whether for education or entertainment, offers a tremendous benefit to my life. As small as my local rural library is, I will never run out of interesting books, movies, and tapes to explore. If you are unfamiliar with your local bibliotheca, I highly recommend paying it a visit. ¡Que Suerte!

--Dan Edge

NEVER Say, "'Health Care' Reform"!

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

Glenn Reynolds points to a piece which suggests that Rudy Giuliani might be in favor of substantive free market measures to reduce government interference in the medical sector of the economy:

[W]hat Giuliani is doing is far more radical than his folksy debate answer suggests. Essentially, he is calling for the complete abolition of the current way healthcare [sic] insurance operates in the United States. It echoes the analysis of libertarian economist Arnold Kling, who argues that what Americans have right now is health insulation, not health insurance. [bold added, links dropped]

This is interesting, but I'm nowhere near getting excited about it. Why? Consider: the lack of details, Giuliani's past record on economic issues, and the fact that other proposals touted as "free market" reforms have failed to challenge the basic premise behind the welfare state -- or therefore to propose getting it completely out of medicine.

And while I'm on this subject, I have just noticed something I really dislike about the way this debate over how Americans should pay medical expenses is being framed. I have long objected to (and avoided using) the phrase "health care" because I regard it as a means for leftists to be able to avoid saying "socialized medicine".

Beyond that, consider the most common name for this particular debate: "health care reform". What do politicians do when they "reform" things, anyway? They pass laws or enact new government policies. While a proper use of the term "reform" would not necessarily exclude the abolition of bad legislation, I think that current usage wrongly implies that medicine is properly the business of the government. Did "welfare reform" end welfare? Or, to take an example of something the government is properly involved in, would (or should) "tort reform" eliminate tort law? No.

While it is not possible to simply step in and change the name of this important debate, it is worth keeping in mind that those of us who want a free market in medicine will have to work harder from the outset to make others understand that the terms of this debate are broader than most people will realize.

Let's not allow the opponents of freedom to box us in to the mere tweaking they mean by the word "reform", or, for that matter, to place us in the defensive-sounding position of merely demanding that we want to get the government out of medicine (although we do).

Instead, let's proudly state that we want to further unleash the power of the free market so that America, home of the world's most advanced medical care, can do even better what it already does best: promote good health and save lives.

-- CAV

The Morality of Demonstrations?

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Here's a Question for NoodleFood on demonstrations from Michael, sent to me a few weeks ago:

Last week in Los Angeles "immigration activists" staged a demonstration / riot that resulted in (retaliatory) force being used by the police.

I can make the argument that the demonstrators used force and violence to further their agenda because in the past they have achieved little traction with a rational discussion of their goals. Blocking streets, taking over parks and inevitably occupying adjacent private property was not "freedom of assembly"; freedom of assembly is renting a hall or meeting on private property with the consent of the owner. Freedom of assembly does not entail violating the rights of others in parks, streets, etc. like the MacArthur Park demonstration did.

Most (probably all) marches and demonstrations I have read about in the news in the past 20 years in the U.S. have been about issues the marchers have not been able to win in the debate of ideas. Immigration activists argue for all the wrong reasons and are therefore wrong.

But the civil rights marches of the 1960's seem justified because the South was not a free society and people like MLK did win the war of rational ideas but that had no effect on the southern political establishment.

Was the violence of the 1960's civil rights marches a negation of reason or a righteous demand for civil rights when reason was ignored? When are demonstrations morally justified under an Objectivist morality?

I've got a few thoughts on this matter, but I think I'll just open the floor for comments.

Whiffing on "New Atheists"

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

With the recent slew of anti-religious books by the likes of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett, it should come as no surprise that some editorialists would begin to ask whether such "New Atheists" (and other secularists) could operate in the political arena in the same way religionists do.

I ran across two such articles yesterday, both by authors who are secularists -- and both of which show exactly why there will be no such coherent movement any time in the near future.

The first article, by Karl Reitz at TCS Daily, is barely coherent, sloppily confusing epistemology with content at one point: "I am atheist because I don't believe in faith, which I believe is the common dogma...." Worse, the whole crux of the Reitz article is based on an incorrect equivocation between secularism and secular religion, culminating in his position that atheists should promote traditional religion on the basis of the fact that it doesn't offer paradise in the here and now!

As an atheist I feel much less threatened by someone who is willing to put off perfection by relegating it to another place than I do by someone who thinks they can create it here and now. In other words, I think that the chance that a religion will "poison everything" is indirectly proportional to the length of time the proponents of the religion think it will take to perfect this world. Therefore, nothing scares me more than the demagogue who promises to immediately do just that. Without traditional religion, I think we would have a lot of demagogues in this mold.

As if the world isn't plagued already by members of traditional religions who act dangerously and demand obedience in "this" life anyway!

As misguided as he is, Reitz does indirectly bring up a pair of related points. Why are there so many secular religions and might there be an alternative to religion as a way to form an integrated view of existence as a means of guiding one's own actions? Yes, his focus is on being free to live his own life and he rightly sees various religionists who want to "immanetize the eschaton" as a threat to that freedom, but he does not go far enough. Mired in his paranoia about secular religion, Reitz fails to ask why anyone is concerned with an eschaton at all, or whether there has ever been a thinker who focused on living one's life on earth as an end in itself and what such an approach might entail.

But at least Reitz expresses some reservation about the various secular religions. The second article, by Ronald Aronson at The Nation, is very interesting reading at first, but it quickly becomes apparent that Aronson is playing the same old game leftists always play: subvert a political cause (separation of church and state) to the goal of obliterating capitalism.

After noting that there may be sufficient numbers of Americans fed up with attempts to mix religion with politics, Aronson makes the valid point that absence of a belief is no basis for a political movement -- before simply asserting ex nihilo his own pet cause as a substitute:

Where does the work of the New Atheists leave us? I hope they have roused a significant portion of America from its timidity. But to what end? Living without God means turning toward something. To flourish we need coherent secular popular philosophies that effectively answer life's vital questions. Enlightenment optimism once supplied unbelievers with hope for a better world, whether this was based on Marxism, science, education or democracy. After Progress, after Marxism, is it any wonder atheism fell on hard times? Restoring secular confidence will take much positive work as well as the fierce attacks on religion by our atheist champions. On a societal level, as Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris point out in Sacred and Secular, living without God requires creating conditions in which people are free from the kinds of existential vulnerability that have marked all human societies until the advent of Europe's postindustrial welfare states. Markedly more religious than any of them, the United States provides a life that is far more unequal and far more insecure. [bold added]

Never mind that the United States is the most prosperous and technologically advanced society in the history of the planet -- or why. And don't bother asking for a this-worldly basis for Aronson's demand that we abandon the remnants of capitalism in America.

No. The question isn't "How can we 'live without God'?" It's "How can we expect to live lives proper to man with God (i.e., based on faith)?" Living period requires that man be free to apply the faculty of reason to the problem of surviving in reality and that he chooses to do so. The problem isn't that man can't "live without God" until the almighty state delivers him into an Eden-like Worker's Paradise. It's that belief in God requires man to turn off his mind, his tool of survival, at least part of the time.

Worse, those who make this mistake attempt to use government force to cause the rest of us suffer from the same consequences (via the mechanism of religiously-inspired laws) as if we did this ourselves. Forcing people to act against their rational judgement -- moral or economic -- is the greatest harm big government of any kind can do. Big government makes people unable to exercise their minds fully, and Aronson wants ... big government!?!?

Both articles admit on some level that atheism is not the basis for a philosophical or political movement, and they are right to that extent. Atheism is merely the absence of belief in God. Reitz, incorrectly holding that any integrated system of thought is necessarily a religion, folds like a cheap lawn chair in the face of the false alternative between religion and socialism -- between "pie in the sky" and empty pie shelves. And Aronson just dives to the left, making him look like he's correct.

But if atheism, simple non-belief in God, is no basis for living on earth, what is? What is the proper organization for society? What is the ethical way to lead one's life? Does one's life have a purpose or is it an end in itself? For that matter, what is man, anyway? Until those who profess to uphold reason can adequately answer such questions (Hint: Go in reverse order.), the cause of secularism will remain at the mercy of the false alternative between those who claim that we cannot have a fully secular government (like Reitz) and those who would give us religious tyranny -- minus only the old gods (like Aronson).

Only one secular philosopher I know of, Ayn Rand, has addressed the many issues raised here, and she is conspicuously absent from both discussions. Only Ayn Rand has explained exactly what is wrong with faith, while also explaining that religion is an attempt to fulfill various moral and psychological needs -- and showing that we can discover how fill these needs through reason. Only Ayn Rand ever bothered to ask what man is and why he needs a morality at all -- and in the process discovered a rational (and practical) ethical system. Only Ayn Rand examined the relationship between reason and freedom -- and discovered the full meaning and importance of the nearly universally misunderstood term, "capitalism".

If secularists really want to get anywhere in the marketplace of ideas, they will have to start paying some attention to Ayn Rand. It is not enough to call people morons for taking the answers to important questions on faith. One must show people, as Ayn Rand did, why faith is dangerous to one's own life. One will not win the moral high ground by slogging through the swamp of moral relativism or by waving a white flag. One must show that the morality of altruism is both immoral and impractical. One will not achieve freedom for the mind by instituting slavery for the body. One must understand that freedom is indivisible -- like the human beings who need it to survive.

The New Atheists are making an Old Mistake: They are opposing something horribly wrong, but offering nothing in its place.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Minor edits.

Sowell on "Adolescent Intellectuals"

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

Thomas Sowell's latest column over at RealClear Politics is just as interesting for what it fails to say as for what it says.

To a small child, the reason he cannot do many things that he would like to do is that his parents won't let him. Many years later, maturity brings an understanding that there are underlying reasons for doing or not doing many things, and that his parents were essentially conduits for those reasons.

The truly dangerous period in life is the time when the child has learned the limits of his parents' control, and how to circumvent their control, but has not yet understood or accepted the underlying reasons for doing and not doing things. This adolescent period is one that some people -- intellectuals especially -- never outgrow.

Sowell is tantalizingly close to naming a fundamental truth about many intellectual movements, particularly the New Left, and gets even closer when he comments on the proliferation of the common misuse of the term "liberation".

But he never explicitly says that the New Left rejects the primacy of existence, or even goes so far as to note that the cardinal sin of that ideological movement is that it fails to test its theories against reality!

Maturity, apparently "just happens" for some and not for others, and "intellectual" remains an adolescent fixation rather than a potentially valuable vocation -- at least for those intellectuals armed with philosophical ideas that have firm bases in factual data and the uncompromising application of logic.

His error is a common one, in which he treats an implicitly rational, reality-oriented philosophical outlook as a given, rather than as an implicit example of just another possible ideology. My last would doubtless strike many, probably including Sowell himself, as moral relativism at first blush, but it is not. For if the rational, "adult" ideology that Sowell implicitly favors can be judged as an ideology, so must all other ideologies be examined under the cold light of reason, and compared against the facts of reality, which include the requirements for man's survival.

It is easy, but wrong, to hold all intellectuals in such disdain, for to do so is to cede the deadly premise that so many of them have that a rational philosophy is not worthy of consideration in the marketplace of ideas, that ideology is somehow the one realm of human endeavor that is exempt from reason. Indeed, it allows them to go on pretending this is the case. Worse, it allows them to continue their attack against rational morality openly and unashamedly, while doing real damage to our civilization.

Funny that an adult I hold so much respect for -- and an economist at that -- made such a mistake after coming so close to the truth!

-- CAV

Copyrights: Response to Mark Helprin's NY Times Op-Ed

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

Mark Helprin, a noted writer whose 1983 novel Winter's Tale was a bestseller, wrote an Op-Ed for The New York Times pleading for perpetual copyrights. What follows is my response to that article.

Dear Mr. Helprin:

Your New York Times Op-Ed of May 20th, "A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright?" intrigued me.

First, I'm assuming that the term of copyright you mention in your last paragraph was extended by Congress in 1998 to the life of the author plus seventy years. I wasn't aware of that extention until you mentioned it, but presumably it would allow one's heirs to benefit as assigned owners of one's copyright for those seventy years after one's decease.

A more difficult issue you raise is the one surrounding intellectual property. You make the statement in your essay that "ideas are immaterial to the question of copyright." As I have always understood the purpose of copyright law, it is to secure one the benefits of originating and publishing an idea. I write novels. Those novels begin as ideas, or they could be interpreted as being ideas, expressed in the specific format of story-telling and (hopefully) concretized in the form of physical objects, books. As ideas, these novels are intellectual property. The Constitution and complementary copyright law secure for me the right to profit or benefit from their publication for the term of my lifetime plus seventy years.

You cite the Barnes & Noble practice of publishing novels whose copyrights have long expired, in cheap editions (but, to my mind, nicely and attractively packaged), and not having to pay royalties to their authors' heirs, as a species of unfairness to those heirs. I'm also thinking of the Dover softcover editions of works long, long out of print and in the "public domain." I think Ayn Rand made a very valid point on this subject, in her 1964 article, "Patents and Copyrights," to wit:

"It is in this issue that our somewhat collectivistic terminology might be misleading: on the expiration of a patent or copyright, the intellectual property involved does not become 'public property' (though it is labeled as 'in the public doman'); it ceases to exist qua property. And if the invention or the book continues to be manufactured [by, say, Barnes & Noble or Dover], the benefit of that former property does not go to the 'public,' it goes to the only rightful heirs: to the producers, to those who exercise the effort of embodying that idea in new material forms and thus keeping it alive."

(Preceding and following comments in square brackets are mine by way of illustration.)

She also notes:

"The right to intellectual property cannot be exercised in perpetuity. Intellectual property represents a claim, not on material objects, but on the idea they embody, which means: not merely on existing wealth, but on wealth yet to be produced - a claim to payment for the inventor's or author's work. No debt can be extended into infinity. [Although the Federal government, the great confiscator you name in the beginning of your essay, believes otherwise.]

"....Intellectual property cannot be consumed [by neither its originator nor its beneficiary]. If it were held in perpetuity, it would lead to the opposite of the very principle on which it is based: it would lead, not to the earned reward or achievement, but to the unearned support of parasitism. It would become a cumulative lien on the production of unborn generations, which would ultimately paralyze them." [Again, much like the Federal debt, footed in a losing battle by the taxes you highlight in your first paragraphs. I share your obvious animus for them.]

I might add that if a novel or other form of intellectual property, such as a philosophical treatise (e.g., John Locke's works), proves its cultural longevity during and even beyond an author's lifetime, the idea is "out there" for anyone with the least amount of curiosity to investigate. It is as much a known entity as the moon or Mars. It remains for anyone to either repair to the library or buy a reprint of such a work. Regardless of one's own estimation of the intellectual or esthetic worth of a novel, its cultural longevity and "public" interest in it moved a producer to go to the effort and expense to reproducing, for example, all the extant plays of Aeschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles, which were certainly not copyrighted (although their more recent translations may be).

So, while I agree with you that Congress should again extend the term of copyright to an author's lifetime plus more than seventy years (only because of the increasing, potential longevity of his heirs), I would contest the idea that a copyright should continue in perpetuity, which is what you seem to be implying. You remark at the end of your essay: "Would it not be just and fair for those who try to extract a living from the uncertain arts of writing and composing to be freed from a form of confiscation not visited upon anyone else? The answer is obvious, and transcends even justice."

No, I would say that a perpetual copyright would result in an injustice, that is, it would benefit generations of an author's relatives or a succession of assignees perhaps three times removed, for no good reason other than genealogy or legal fictions. The character or moral stature of the holders of a perpetual copyright is irrelevant. Hypothetically, the cost of paying royalties to the distant relations of Shakespeare, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, James Fennimore Cooper, et al., would discourage the production and dissemination of their works, making their production costs prohibitively high. A perpetual copyright would abbreviate a work's longevity.

Now, I can name individuals I know personally as heirs to my copyright, relatives of mine or not, or assign them the copyright in the event I am incapacitated in some way. However, I cannot know who might be my future relatives or "heirs" beyond my immediate generation. They might be moral, productive people, and I would wish them well in their own endeavors, if I could.

But, they might be parasitical bums whom I would not want to see benefit from my work. For all I know, they might hold my work ransom and demand exorbitant, unearned returns on the copyright. In which case, my work would disappear from the culture. So much for perpetuity.

Your last sentence is: "No good case exists for the inequality of real and intellectual property, because no good case can exist for treating with special disfavor the work of the spirit and mind."

I'll let Ayn Rand answer that one, too, from the same essay:

"Intellectual achievement, in fact, cannot be transferred, just as intelligence, ability, or any other personal virtue cannot be transferred. All that can be transferred is the material results of an achievement, in the form of actually produced wealth."

Or literary wealth, if you will, in the form of books. The "work of the spirit and mind" is a personal virtue, and part of my spiritual remuneration is to see it "out there" in the culture, objectified as an entity in reality - the "material results" - to be valued or not by others. No one, not even my most ardent fans, can repay me in that respect. I would not expect them to, and the more perceptive and grateful among them would know they could not.

To paraphrase Howard Roark in Rand's The Fountainhead, when he is asked how he would be rewarded for (secretly) designing a housing project: "What will I get out of it? I'll have written Sparrowhawk."

I highly recommend Rand's article on this subject, which is reprinted in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.


Edward Cline
Yorktown, VA
7 June 2007

Medical Miracle

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

A man in Poland named Jan Grzewski recovered from a 19-year coma recently. Three things immediately strike me as interesting about the case.

First, there will be the inevitable comparisons, medically warranted or not, between this man and Terri Schiavo. I suspect that given the medically distinct terms, "coma" and "persistent vegetative state" for the respective cases of Grzewski and Schiavo, such comparisons will not be medically valid -- not that such silliness as scientific facts would ever deter religionists hell-bent on keeping people alive despite their own wishes and a well-established legal apparatus designed to implement them.

And speaking of the patient's wishes, such comparisons, even if warranted, would be irrelevant. Why? Because we human beings possess the inalienable right to life. Specifically, our own lives are ours, individually. Part of this right to life includes the right to determine the manner and time of our death and , in particular, whether we wish to be kept alive should we end up in certain medical states.

Second, the wonder of Grzewski at the vast improvement in the quality of life within Poland since the fall of Communism is noteworthy:

Wojciech Pstragowski, a rehabilitation specialist, said Grzewski was shocked at the changes in Poland's economy -- especially its stores: "He remembered shelves filled with mustard and vinegar only" under communism.

Poland shed communism in 1989 and has developed democracy and a market economy. [bold added]

Third, the amazement of this sort of time traveller is rather timely and has a direct medical relevance to us today -- here in America, where our shelves never were bare during these nearly two decades.

If government planning of something as mundane as grocery stores yielded such poor results as shelves full of things nobody needed, why should we expect its running of the far more complex medical sector to be any better?

Paul Hsieh, in a must-read column, presents us with ample evidence that even in prosperous America, such schemes fail, as he chronicles the problems of TennCare and notes the essential problem with all programs of government rationing as he fights against socialized medicine in Colorado:

The problems of TennCare are not aberrations that can be fixed with a few minor reforms. They are inherent in any system of government medicine. Under such systems, bureaucrats and politicians decide what care individuals can receive, not doctors and patients. This has long been the case in Canada's "single-payer" socialized medical system, with its infamous waiting lists for critical medical tests and treatments. For the sake of my patients and myself, I don't want this to happen in Colorado.

Socialized medicine is not the cure for Colorado's health care problems. Forcing everyone into a government-run medical program because some people are uninsured would be just as wrong as forcing everyone to live in a government-run housing project because some people are homeless. [bold added]

Or forcing everyone to patronize government-run stores that end up stocking everything you want -- as long as it's mustard or vinegar -- because we need food.

The disastrous TennCare program that Dr. Hsieh discusses has been around for just over a decade. Do we really want to know what two decades of socialism can do to our medical system?

We need to wake up fast or we're going to find out.

-- CAV

12 Steps to Evading Responsibility

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Anyone who has ever had a loved one addicted to drugs or alcohol has a stake in addiction recovery programs. These programs are supposed to help the abuser get clean and stay clean. Those who commit drug-related crimes are often required by the state to attend addiction recovery groups. Millions of tax dollars and the hopes of countless loved ones are invested in these programs each year.

By far the most popular philosophy guiding addiction recovery is the 12 Step Program. This program was initially developed by a group of alcoholics who later formed Alcoholics Anonymous. Almost all addiction groups approved by the state follow the 12 Step philosophy.

Discouragingly, this popular method of recovery is not at all effective – “relapse” is common. Statistics have consistently shown that 12 Step Programs do not yield any better results than self-recovery. How could such a widely practiced recovery method prove to be so ineffectual? The answer: 12 Step Programs encourage the addict to evade the responsibility of fixing his own problems.

The first of the 12 Steps affirms, “We admitted we were powerless over [drugs or] alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.” From the outset, one is compelled to concede that he is impotent to solve his own problems. But if one is incapable of recovering by himself, then how is it possible to recover at all? We are told in step three that we must make “a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we [understand] him.” By the time one reaches step seven, his will is strong enough to “Humbly [ask God] to remove [his] shortcomings.” So if one is successful in staying away from drugs or alcohol, then the credit belongs to God. (Addicts internalize the direct implication: that the credit for “relapse” is also God’s.)

One’s “higher power” does not have to be the traditional Christian God, 12 Step advocates are quick to add. We can choose any conception of a “higher power” we like, as long as it is outside of the self, separate from one’s own will. For this reason, they believe it is impossible to renounce drug abuse once and for all. If one’s will is fundamentally impotent, then he is only capable of staying clean “one day at a time.” There’s plenty of proof that permanent recovery is impossible, we are told – almost everyone in the 12 Step Group has “relapsed.”

The truth is that the 12 Step philosophy sanctions and encourages “relapse” (which is itself a dubious term implying that drug abuse is an uncontrollable disease like cancer). These programs will never be successful because they are based on a false premise: that one is incapable of mending his own character. We all have free will – we have the choice to think or not, to live or not, to stay away from drugs and alcohol forever or to commit slow suicide through substance abuse.

If one truly wishes to overcome drug or alcohol addiction, his first step must be the exact opposite of what the 12 Step Program advocates. He must embrace the responsibility for his own faults and acknowledge that he alone can fix them. His next step must be to renounce drug and alcohol abuse for all time. Otherwise he is setting himself up for failure and “relapse.” One must recognize that no values are possible for the drug addict. What use is there in apologizing for past offenses or creating new values if one is only going to throw it all away the next time he “relapses?” That one’s will is capable of renouncing drugs and alcohol forever is blasphemy to 12 Step advocates, yet that is precisely what one must do if he hopes to live a normal, happy life.

If you ever have the misfortune of witnessing a loved one struggling with drug or alcohol addiction, do not make the mistake of advising him to seek shelter in Alcoholics Anonymous or some similar group. Encourage your loved one to think hard about whether or not he truly wants to get clean. If he is not fully dedicated to reforming himself, then recovery is impossible — neither the will of God nor the will of the group can save him. But if he sincerely wishes to reconstitute his character, refer him to a rational self-recovery program (like www.rational.org). He will thank you for the rest of his life.

--Dan Edge

This article was written for my "Intro to Writing II" class at the Objectivist Academic Center, and is the property of the OAC. It does not necessarily represent the views of the OAC or the Ayn Rand Institute. I reproduce it here with permission.

Addiction?

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

For many years, I've been annoyed by the extension of the term "addiction" from physical dependencies on chemical substances (e.g. heroin, alcohol) to include psychological dependence on self-destructive behaviors (e.g. gambling, sex). The two are very different phenomena. A person with a physical addiction will suffer from well-defined symptoms with the withdrawal of the drug, such as tremors, sweating, headache, nausea, and hallucinations. A person with a psychological addiction finds the experience of life unpleasant (perhaps very painfully so) without engaging in the destructive behavior, whether in the form of drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex, or whatnot.

My general view is that, as currently used, the concept "addiction" is a package-deal designed to absolve the psychological addict of responsibility for his voluntary actions. Contrary to the dogma of recovery cults like Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, alcoholism and drug addiction are not diseases like cancer, trapping poor helpless victims in their downward spiral. Rather, people automatize such behaviors by repeated voluntary choice as a means of insulating themselves from the harsh facts of reality. They continue to act voluntarily, even when the self-destructive habits are well-entrenched. Their emotional responses do not force them to act as they do. (This understanding of the choice involved in "addictions" is supported by the personal stories of most alcoholics and drug addicts, as well as by the psychological studies discussed in Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease.) In short, these "addictions" are self-destructive habits, usually used to facilitate evasion of unpleasant facts. To describe them as diseases, as the recovery movements do, merely adds another layer of self-excusing evasion to the phenomena.

Thoughts?

The Missing Virtue

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

While reading this depressing story of the 15 “greenest” celebrities, I pondered what drives them to embrace environmentalism. I think the fundamental problem is the desire to conform to the group. They get their moral validation from the group and can’t bear to live without it.

This is the fruit of progressive education. Dewey stated that the goal of education is to socialize the individual to the group.

According to [progressive education’s] founder, John Dewey, "The school is primarily a social institution," whose central purpose is not "science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography...but the child's own social activities." Our schools certainly embrace both parts of this doctrine: teachers now attend to the child's "social" needs as devoutly as they dismiss his intellectual ones….

The Progressive philosophy maintains that the cause of social strife is the unwillingness of an individual to sacrifice his convictions to the group. Dewey maintained that it is the insistence on distinctions such as "true versus false" and " right versus wrong" that generates social conflict. If only children did not hold strong ideas, disagreement and conflict would evaporate in the sunshine of social harmony. Truth, therefore, is socially fractious--while ignorance is bliss.

Hence, what the Progressives mean by "socialization" is the surrender of one's mind--of one's independent knowledge and judgment--to a "group consensus." According to Dewey, "The mere absorbing of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no clear social gain in success thereat." This explains why educational standards have plummeted over the years -- why Progressive teaching methods consist primarily of class discussions where everyone's arbitrary opinion is considered equally valid--and why Johnny can't read, write, add or think.

Once truth and logic are dismissed, Johnny is left with one fundamental guide to making choices: his emotions. Explaining the Progressive practice of engaging children in whatever "scientific experiments" they feel like doing, one teacher said: "If students enjoyed working with science-type materials, such as magnets or mirrors, I really don't care if they learned anything." To which a principal replied: "As an educator, I fully agree with that view. As a parent, it scares me to death."

Dewey’s education theory has been quite successful. Progressive education in government schools is bad not primarily because it makes kids stupid, although it does do that, but because it makes them afraid to think for themselves.

Once progressive education has made little conformists, in steps political correctness to direct them as to how they should think. They gladly go along with the group because they can’t stand life outside it.

Even if you sat one of these conformists down and explained that environmentalism makes no sense economically, is bad science and is at root just a leftist attack on capitalism, they couldn’t accept these conclusions for any length of time. Their subconscious mind would bring them back to the fold because they feel bad outside the group. They don’t have the self-esteem and self-confidence to really believe they can be right when so many disagree with them.

What they lack is the greatest victim of progressive education: the virtue of independence.

The left likes to sneers at America as a nation of conservative sheep. This is projection. America is a nation of sheep -- but of sheep who follow the New Leftist ideologies and political correctness that have been indoctrinated into them in 12 years of public education.

If we’re ever going to turn this country around, we need to get people to think for themselves again. This country started with a Declaration of Independence; now it needs a Restoration of Independence.

The Eagle

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson is only six lines, but each line is superb. It is a little gem cut to perfection.

The Eagle
He clasps the crag with crooked hands;
Close to the sun in lonely lands,
Ringed with the azure world, he stands.
The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls;
He watches from his mountain walls,
And like a thunderbolt, he falls.

Our Semi-Comatose Judiciary

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

Few are the instances when our judiciary emerges from its moral coma to wiggle its toes or blink twice in answer to a question to prove that it still has the capacity to rejoin the realm of the conscious.

The judiciary groaned, wiggled a toe and blinked once within the span of a week.

On May 26 The New York Times featured a story under this headline: "Radical Environmentalist Gets 9-Year Term for Actions called 'Terrorist.'"

A Federal District Court judge sentenced Chelsea D. Gerlach to nine years in prison after she was convicted of "arson and other destructive actions at an electrical transmission tower; timber research centers; a Eugene (Oregon) police station; a ski resort in Vail (Colorado); and other sites in five Western states that they viewed as threats to the environment or their mission" between 1996 and 2001.

In addition to Chelsea Gerlach, Judge Aiken sentenced Stanistas Meyerhoff to 13 years in prison for his role in the crimes, "which included setting fire to more than 30 sport utility vehicles at a dealership," and Kevin Tubbs 12 years and 7 months.

"It was your intention to scare, frighten and intimidate people and government through the very dangerous act of arson," said Judge Ann L. Aiken to Gerlach at the sentencing.

But, to what end were those actions taken? To scare, frighten and intimidate people--especially private property owners--into obeying the wish of the "activists" by not building that property, and ultimately, by ceasing to exist.

The Times article elaborates:

"The cases have provided a window into conflicts in the radical environmentalist movement about strategy and loyalty. They have also highlighted a debate over what constitutes domestic terrorism at a time law enforcement and the military, as well as public attention, have focused on the terrorism of September 11, 2001."

Aye, there's the rub.

Yes, the "intentions" of the defendants were criminal in nature. And they could be labeled "terrorists," since they used terrorist methods to accomplish their ends. But apparently the destruction of property played little or no role in the judge's cogitations and in the court's convictions and sentencing.

That underscores the very low status of private property in the American judiciary today. The only person reported in the Times article who raised the subject of property was a federal assistant defender assigned to Gerlach. Speaking of her actions, Craig E. Weinerman of Portland, Oregon, said, "It was only intended to damage property."

"Defense lawyers had argued that the environmental cases were not terrorism because they did not take aim at people's lives," reported the Times.

Well, not immediately. It is doubtful that the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense, not to mention the bench, have bothered to thoroughly examine the philosophical and moral ends of environmentalism. If they had, they might have concluded that, yes, fundamentally, and ultimately, those actions were taken against people's lives.

"Last week," goes the Times article, "Judge Aiken rejected those arguments, ruling that some of the crimes could be sentenced under the 'terrorism enhancement' classification, which can add substantial time to a prison term, if they were intended to retaliate against, coerce or intimidate the government."

"For each of the three defendants who had hearings this week," reads the Times article, "Judge Aiken found that at least some of the crimes warranted the 'terrorism enhancement' classification."

"Indictments of most of the defendants [Judge Aiken will sentence six or seven other defendants this week] were announced in Washington in January 2006 by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Robert S. Mueller III, director of the F.B.I. Mr. Mueller said then that prosecuting crimes committed in the name of the environment was one of the bureau's 'highest domestic terrorism priorities.'"

However, Gerlach and his colleagues were not agents of foreign powers seeking the defeat of the U.S. government or acting to facilitate the conquest of America.

Ideally, the defendants should have been indicted, convicted, and sentenced for having destroyed private and government property. Instead of elevating their actions to acts of terrorism, the court should have simply treated the defendants as the criminals they are. Instead of granting the defendants an aura of martyrdom for a "cause," it should have branded them as vandals. No distinction should be made between the criminal actions of non-ideological thugs and those of "domestic terrorists."

Ideally, the best way to rob the environmentalists of their ideological thunder and deflate their cause is to treat their activists as common criminals, and, in the bargain, reinstate the sanctity of individual rights and the sanctity of property.

Any person who initiates force against others can loosely be deemed a "terrorist" who intends to "scare, frighten and intimidate" his victims. But that would be a dangerously improper identification, for the vast majority of criminal acts are not committed from political or ideological motives.

But, the focus in these cases, it seems, was not exclusively on property as such, but on actions that were perceived as having been taken against the state. That is the drift of law today, away from protecting individual rights (and the nominal sanctity of "public" property, such as the Eugene police station) and toward the idea of "crimes against the state." The reasoning of Judge Aiken cannot be construed any other way. It represents the encroachment of statist jurisprudence upon objective criminal law.

Adding to the confusion, however, is the position of the defendants' supporters.

"For some radical environmentalists," the Times reports, "the terrorism label is offensive. 'It's an outrage that they're being put into the same category as Osama bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh,' said Jim Flynn," who was in the courtroom when Gerlach was sentenced. "'It weakens the word 'terrorist.'"

Beyond this individual's grasp is the fact that bin Laden, McVeigh, and Gerlach and Company each subscribed to an anti-life ideology of destruction, and each took "terrorist" actions in conformance to his particular ideology. Islamist jihadists do not like being called "terrorists," either. They prefer the label "freedom fighters." They wish to "purify" the earth of the "infidel" West with the same death-worshipping ardor that environmentalists wish to "free" the earth of man.

Timothy McVeigh conspired against the U.S. government by bombing a federal office building, arguably acting to overthrow the government. Bin Laden is an agent of state-sponsored terrorism.

Bin Laden, however, was not merely attacking real property when his hijacking killers brought down the World Trade Center. He was explicitly attacking everything the West stood for, which just happened to include car dealerships and electrical transmission towers. Compared to him, Gerlach and her Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front henchmen are myopic, obsessive/compulsive amateurs.

In his June 4th newsletter, Daniel Pipes had this interesting development to report:

"Federal prosecutors have named CAIR [the Council on American-Islamic Relations] and two other Islamic organizations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust, as 'unindicted co-conspirators' in a criminal conspiracy to support Hamas, a designated terrorist group.

"In a filing last week, prosecutors described CAIR as a present or past member of 'the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.' They listed ISNA and NAIT as 'entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.' Josh Gerstein of The New York Sun reports that spokesmen for CAIR did not respond to requests for comment.

"This development occurred in connection with the trial, scheduled to start on July 16 in Dallas, of five officials...of the now-defunct Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, accused of sending funds to Hamas. This court filing listed some 300 individuals or organizations as co-conspirators."

Pipes comments further in the article that it "is only logical that CAIR, whose origins lie in the Islamic Association for Palestine, which was founded by Hamas, be legally investigated in connection with Hamas."

That is a step in the right direction, but one that would not need to be taken at all if the Bush administration took military action against the state sponsors of Hamas and other terrorist organizations, namely Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. These states have declared war on the U.S. by ill-disguised proxy through those organizations.

The most perfect outcome of such a legal investigation would be that the federal prosecutors would find that these organizations are waging war against the U.S. and have been for decades, and then send the evidence to the White House with a recommendation that there exist grounds for a declaration of war. It is doubtful, though, that anything more dramatic will happen other than the conviction of the five individuals connected with the Holy Land Foundation and the embarrassment and inconveniencing of officials of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT.

One step forward, two steps back. When the U.S. declared war on Japan and Nazi Germany, did it focus on defeating just kamikaze pilots and the Luftwaffe, or the governments that unleashed them on civilization? When Joe Blow robbed a convenience store or slashed the tires of his neighbors' cars as a malicious prank, was he treated as a national security threat, or as a common criminal?

Before it relapses into semi-consciousness, our judiciary should ponder these crucial distinctions.

Culture clash

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

Found at Aqoul.

Share This

Progress Report

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I've written the first two scenes of my verse play. Here are the last two speeches of Act I, sc. ii, a scene of conspirators (the villains). The play is set in 6th century BC Ionia. An actor could chew some scenery with this final soliloquy.

TRYPHOSA

Our lives are weighted in the balance now;
If gravity tilts to Simonides,
Our fall is final.

PANTHER

Fear thus framed is waste.
Conserve the energies inside your soul
For anger, courage, hatred -- useful turns
Of mind that point as a pack to our goal.
When action waits, then resolution tells
The outcome, firm resolve brings on success.
But fear, base fear, is father to defeat,
A bastard child unwanted and unclaimed.
Now go, prepare: seek out the steel inside
Your breast and shine it till it gleams. Enough.
No words now.

(DRAKON and TRYPHOSA exit.)

No words now; what are words? The stuff of lies.
Without our words the world would be a school
Of honesty and fairness and we men
Would handle our affairs in silent
Righteousness, superior to gods.
For I myself have used words with deceit:
I know how lies go; I know what they do.
Brave Drakon names our cause a noble case;
His words are honorable and most true,
And I will ply them as a carpenter
His studs of pine and beams of sturdy oak.
The words of Thales, Heraclitus,
Democritus and Parmenides, the
Best words of our gabbing race, are but
Battalions bent to serve me as I wish.
They meet my end, my purpose hidden here
And burning all my being in a hot
Inferno; blasting, all-consuming flames
That do devour all my waking thoughts;
The goal that is my very form, my life:
I live for power. Power! Let the rest
Of vast existence fade forgotten all,
Until the final, tired tick of time;
The universe is nothing to my end,
I live for power, yearn for power, yea,
And food and water fuel me for my fight.
Delights and worldly pleasures tempt me not,
Distractions have I none, for power is
The matter and the form, the actual
Potential; all the raining atoms of
My soul collide, congeal and integrate
As one to this, my everything and all,
As power is existence, being, breath;
Without it lies the empty void of death.

Quick Roundup 200

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

Wow! It's hard to believe I've posted two hundred morning roundups....

Sharia Supreme in Malaysia

Malaysia's highest court recently ruled, in effect, that Malaysian citizens cannot leave Islam.

Malaysia's highest federal court earlier this week refused to recognize the conversion of a Muslim-born woman to Christianity. The panel ruled 2-1 that the decision was beyond the secular court's discretion.

Lina Joy, 43, converted from Islam to Roman Catholicism in 1998. Her troubles began shortly thereafter when she tried to change her religious affiliation on her national identification card. Because Islam requires adherents to marry within the faith, Joy would not be allowed to wed her Catholic fiancee if she was registered as a Muslim. [bold added]

Aside from illustrating an egregious amount of state interference in the personal lives of the ordinary citizens of Malaysia, this story demonstrates that attempting to avoid "conflict" by not imposing secular restraints on Islam subordinates all law to sharia.

First, the Malaysian constitution -- at best -- tries to have it both ways. "Malaysia's constitution is conflicted on church-state relations because it simultaneously establishes Islam as the official religion and defends free exercise of other religions." Given that Islam nominally "tolerates" other faiths in lands that it governs (so long as members of other religions live as second-class citizens), whatever "conflict" there is would seem to exist only in the mind of a person reading the constitution very generously. Be that as it may, the true extent of this "free exercise" was bound to be tested sooner or later.

Second, the high court, in its ruling that this case was a "religious matter", just subordinated itself and, along with it, Malaysia's entire government, to sharia. Islam regards everything as a "religious matter". The refusal by Malaysia to recognize that Joy has left her religion is bad enough by itself, but the fact is that this "moderate" Moslem-majority country now unambiguously suffers from the cancer of Islamic law. Why? Because the precedent has now been clearly established that secular law cannot override the rules of Malaysia's official religion.

Christian Theocrats Get Theirs

I have long regarded people who dream of imposing their will on others through force as short-sighted at best. Why? Because one moment's thought would indicate that, aside from the inherent difficulties (i.e., opposition from others) to such a goal, there is the inconvenient fact that one is quite likely himself to go under the yoke of an alleged ally or someone one has had to dupe along the way. My private mental term for this form of context-dropping has been the "dictator fantasy", and two recent news stories show that Christian theocrats labor under this delusion.

First, Dinesh Pillay points to a story about the possibility that sales of the Bible in Hong Kong might be limited to those at least eighteen years old on the grounds of its "obscene" sexual content.

Second, The Wall of Separation reports on the unhappiness of some Christian parents upon learning that their children were recently sent home from public school with materials promoting a Pagan holiday -- after they themselves had fought to make such occurrences possible!

[A] Pagan group in Albemarle County, Va., ... took advantage of a Religious Right-sponsored move to open a public school's "backpack mail" system to religious promotions.

The backlash was swift and harsh when parents received flyers announcing a Pagan holiday celebration at the local Unitarian Universalist congregation. One mother was livid that the school would send home in her child's backpack anything it did not endorse. A "pagan ritual" is "an educational experience my children don't need," she fumed.

...

If public schools allow private groups to use "backpack mail," they must prohibit teachers from deciding which messages are and are not worthy. It is absolutely unacceptable for public school teachers to decide that one religious belief is "offensive" and "outrageous" but others are not and then promote that perspective in their official capacity.

The last paragraph is correct, but does not go far enough. The government should not be in the business of promoting any ideology. Nevertheless, philosophical ideas ultimately figure in at multiple levels within education. The only way to prevent petty government officials (e.g., teachers) from promoting ideologies at government expense is to privatize education.

Needless to say, that last argument will not be persuasive to someone who labors under the "dictator fantasy" (i.e., who has abandoned reasoned persuasion as a means of dealing with others in favor of forcing them to do as he pleases). However, it should impress upon those of us who do favor freedom the importance of removing all instances of government force from our daily lives.

People who suffer from the "dictator fantasy" will try to use any and all such existing means of imposing government force on others in order to live out their fantasy. While it can be amusing to see them get a taste of their own medicine from time to time, we mustn't forget that we will get caught in the crossfire sooner or later.

Why, Indeed?

In a column titled, "Why Fred Thompson?", Robert Novak points out a couple of red flags we should be aware of regarding the newest darling of the GOP.

In his Senate voting record and his public utterances, Thompson is more conservative than Giuliani, McCain or Romney. He takes a hard line on the war against terror (referring in Connecticut to the danger of "suicidal maniacs" crossing open borders) and worries about immigration policy creating a permanent American underclass. His one deviation from the conservative line has been support for the McCain-Feingold campaign reform.... [bold added]

It seems that we have yet another Republican who should work on opposing socialism rather than immigration. Unfortunatley, that would require him to exercise his freedom of speech -- a fundamental right that his support for McCain-Feingold would indicate he doesn't appreciate.

Gore's Cry for Censorship

Since he started his "What went right?" series, I have been very reluctant to cite self-described "secular right" pundit Robert Tracinski (for reasons given here, here, and here), but I haven't seen anyone else make the following point:

Early coverage of Al Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason, has focused on the fact that the book is largely an assault on the Bush administration. But they have glossed over the most significant and alarming theme that Al Gore has taken up: his alleged defense of "reason" includes a justification for government controls over political speech.

Judging from the excerpts of Gore's book published in Time, his not-so-subtle theme is that reason is being "assaulted" by a free and unfettered debate in the media--and particularly by the fact that Gore has to contend with opposition from the right-leaning media.

Developing a dangerous theme that the left has been toying with for years, Gore says that reason is being suffocated by "media Machiavellis"--that's a veiled reference to Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch and Bush political advisor Karl Rove, the twin hobgoblins of the left. According to Gore, these puppet-masters take advantage of "the clever use of electronic mass media" to "manipulate the outcome of elections." [bold added, minor format changes]

That last paragraph reminds me of a conversation with a leftist I recently blogged, which was clearly heading towards the "need" to prevent such outlets as Fox News "controlling" the American political process. The person I was speaking with was by no stretch of the imagination an intellectual. That fact makes Gore's crusade all the more alarming to me because it indicates just how much penetrance the idea of government control of the media has within certain segments of the population.

The Straight Dope on "Disappearing" Honey Bees

This post from the Straight Dope on "Colony Collapse Disorder" should be interesting to at least one person on my blogroll:

[T]there's no reason at this point to think European honey bees are going to be wiped out, now or ever. The die-offs so far appear to affect some beekeepers more than others, sometimes in the same area. That's one reason scientists are so puzzled, but it strongly suggests the losses may have something to do with how individual beekeepers are managing their bees. The "significant percentage" of failing hives is still a drop in the bucket when viewed against the global population of honey bees, and there are lots of beekeepers (even in the U.S., which appears hardest hit) who have not had, and may never have, significant losses of colonies. Plenty of honey bees remain to replace the ones that have died. It's not yet time to scream that the sky is falling.

[I]t's almost impossible to get hard numbers on how many colonies have died recently, and how much of the current uproar is media hype based on guesses, estimates and anecdotal accounts from the handful of beekeepers who have had the most colony losses. If you talk to other beekeepers, most admit they have colonies die off every winter, but they don't always keep records on how many. A lot of the reports we're hearing are based on personal recollection rather than careful documentation. In other words, the scary figures you're hearing could be exaggerated. [bold added]

The writer dismisses one explanation, the prevalence of cell phones, that I recall seeing bandied about in the media awhile back as an explanation for the alleged crisis. Interesting.

Carnival of the Cats # 167

My cat, Miss Maple, and Martin's Morris both appear in the latest Carnival of the Cats over at Justin's Random Thoughts.

Go, Owls!

Coach Wayne Graham and the Rice Owls won their regional tournament and are a step closer to competing in the College World Series. Coach Graham says it all: "We're back on target."

-- CAV

Around the Web on 5-31-07

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

No. My regular "Around the Web" feature didn't die with the new year. It simply became irregular!

Some time around my annual Christmas blogging hiatus, I decided that I'd let myself get into a rut with the feature and that I would take a vacation from it for awhile and then reevaluate. The year got very busy and stayed that way. And then I heard from Martin Lindeskog as he was gearing up for his own vacation from blogging.

He asked whether I would I like to guest-blog at Ego again. I told him I'd be glad to, despite my own hectic schedule and decided to go ahead with at least one of these while he is away since I'd always cross-posted these big roundups to his blog and he liked them.

How I feel after I write this will go into the "reevaluation" hopper, but it will be a moot point for the foreseeable future. Things at work seem like they might be getting interesting (scientifically, which is good, and scheduling-wise, which may be very bad, at least for blogging) and I am hoping to finally work on a couple of interesting non-blogging pieces soon.

That said, here goes....

Oops! Not so fast! First, allow me to wish a belated happy birthday to Martin!

Face of a Movement Disappears from View

Via Glenn Reynolds, I found that the following comment on Cindy Sheehan's recent decision to return to private life treated the subject with about the right degree of dignity and respect:

[I thought about posting a fictional c]onversation between Cindy Sheehan and Billy Jack. Punchline: something having to do with Sheehan's being the "face" of a movement, with a possible play on "movement." Or "face." or "Jack."

Myrhaf thinks that Sheehan will soon resurface. I agree. He also makes some good comments about how the whole story illustrates the left's feeling that reason is impotent. Dismuke also makes some interesting comments, the first from a psychological angle.

Market Forces and Organ Donors

"Captain" Ed Morrissey -- even as he argues for a more capitalistic method of organ transplantation -- unwittingly demonstrates why patients in desperate need for an organ donor are mercilessly subjected to long, terrifying, and potentially deadly waits by an inefficient system of rationing.

[W]hat do we do to save the lives of everyone else on the list? The simple fact is that we have a rationing system that does not work, as Dr. Satel explains. We have a demand that far exceeds the supply, and we have put in place regulations that artificially keeps the supply low -- for noble reasons, but those noble reasons are costing thousands of lives every year.

...

I'm not suggesting a kidney bazaar, where the highest bidder gets the organs and only the rich can find transplants. [How would this be the case if we increased supply? --ed] However, we have to find a system that generates a much larger supply for organs than the one we have now, and we have to move away from the old methods of rationing if we want to save lives. Satel's proposals put us on the right track. It's certainly less disturbing than grinding up embryos to find elusive treatments for diseases, and much less ethically objectionable. [bold added]

For what "noble reasons" do we artificially keep supplies low? Altruism, as Sally Satel explains:

We need to move beyond the idea that organs must be relinquished as gifts. The altruistic motive is deeply noble and loving. But relying upon it as the sole legitimate reason for giving an organ is causing too many unnecessary deaths.

Both Morrissey and Satel agree that altruism is impractical, but both make the fatal error of failing to ask whether it really is "noble" or "loving", or even moral for that matter. But to do that to any meaningful extent, each must become willing to apply reason not just to the logistical and legal aspects of organ donation, but to the moral issues concerning organ donation as well.

The reason we don't already have a market in live organs is because our culture, inheriting the morality of self-sacrifice from its religious past, damns the profit motive as evil. To the extent that someone honestly questions this morality, he will see that it has no basis in reason and he will reject it. To the extent that he fails to apply reason, he will continue to accept it.

We see this with Morrissey, who starts out by making a strong, this-worldly case for freer organ donation, but ends by proposing some restrictions of his own to the supply of organs for transplantation. What is so "ethically objectionable" about embryonic research -- or an organ market, for that matter? (Even with his arguments, Morrissey has qualms about using capitalism to save lives in the context of organ transfers between consenting adults.)

Until we ask deeper questions across the board, we will continue sacrificing human lives for ideals whose alleged nobility exists in the same realm as their justification: the imagination.

Bush vs. Capitalism (and Safe Beef)

And speaking of ways we should be unleashing the power of the free market to save lives, Isaac Schrodinger points to the latest anti-capitalist outrage by the Bush administration:

The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

The Agriculture Department tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. A beef producer in the western state of Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows.

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well.

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry. [bold added]

That last paragraph is plainly an excuse. What company in the business of selling meat is going to scare off customers with a false positive? A moment's thought would show that one would take reasonable precautions and then perform some kind of follow-up testing if a sample popped positive.

Lives would be saved by any company that really did detect tainted beef and kept it away from the market, and such action would instill confidence in any company that made such a move. Instead of allowing the innovative portion of the beef industry to take this step, however, the Bush administration would apparently prefer to gamble with our lives in order to protect short-sighted companies which deserve to go out of business.

Furthermore, since customers will not have the recourse of buying meat from companies that do test all their meat, Bush is ensuring that should a confirmed case of mad cow arise, the entire beef industry will fall under suspicion. This will adversely affect our diets and potentially lay waste to huge swaths of that industry as the public, knowing that mad cow is out there, but that almost all meat goes untested, panics.

It is immoral to prevent someone from doing his job, which is exactly what Bush is doing by forbidding a company from taking a common-sense measure to ensure the safety of its customers. Not only that, it is impractical on every level, including the implicit goal of "protecting" an industry vital to the economy!

Chavez Closes Private Television Station


Cox and Forkum nail it, as usual. See their blog for the story.

This weekend, I was in a conversation with a leftist, who was making the standard complaint that Fox News "controls" "too much" of the news in America. She then proceeded, by way of enumeration (of just television outlets, naturally), to show how "few" sources for news we had. Sensing that she was about to make a point that this meant we "needed" government intervention, I pointed out that Chavez is busy making sure that there is only one source of news in Venezuela.

I didn't get to finish that conversation, but I suspect that my point would have still been a hard sell since, you see, the government isn't "polluted" by the profit motive and in any event Pragmatism is so ubiquitous in our culture that I would have probably been told that the lessons -- if any -- from Venezuela wouldn't apply to America anyway.

Still, at least the conversation has caused me to consider such objections, so it was worthwhile to me.

The Scoop on John Lewis

Fellow fans of John Lewis, who recently appeared on the Mike Rosen show to discuss his recent talk at George Mason University will be interested to know that he will be working to complete a new book, Nothing Less than Victory: Military Offense and the Lessons of History, over the next year. Diana Hsieh also blogs about some other major changes for him, and provides links to an audio of his GMU talk as well as to two posts about it at Rule of Reason.

And for more, stop by Michael Caution's blog to learn about a recent review of Lewis's Solon the Thinker.

Color Me "Heretical"!

Mike N. has retitled a series of posts on global warming hysteria....

My readers may have noticed that I changed the title of my series from "Why I'm Pro-Skeptic" in Pt.1 to "Why I Side With the Critics" in the rest. I don't like the words skeptic or denier or doubter. The proper name for those who disagree with the establishment notion of global warming is critic. That's what they are, critics.

I have no respect for anyone who uses those terms whether they are reporters, editors or even scientists. Those words are nothing but euphemisms for "heretic."

He's right. And he reminds me.... In another conversation with the same leftist I mentioned above, I was "corrected" when I used the term "global warming" and told to use "climate change" instead. So I countered that I would do so as long she called me a "heretic" rather than a "skeptic".

The Unjust Imprisonment of Jack Kevorkian

Thomas Bowden of the Ayn Rand Institute hits the nail on the head.

[E]ach individual has the right to decide the hour of his death and to implement that solemn decision as best he can. The choice is his because the life is his. And if a doctor is willing -- not forced -- to assist in the suicide, based on an objective assessment of his patient's mental and physical state, the law should not stand in his way."

Read it all.

Toiler's New Abode

Acid Free Paper has moved! Update your links. I just did.

Hugh Hewitt on "Bigotry"

Myrhaf makes some good comments on something I ran across the other day, but didn't have time to blog. One conservative pundit, Mike Gallagher has run afoul of another, Hugh Hewitt, for raising perfectly legitimate questions about Mitt Romney's religion.

Hewitt saw early on that Romney's Mormonism would produce questions such as Gallagher asks and decided the best strategy would be to label the questioners as bigots the way the New Left calls anyone who questions multiculturalism a racist. Hugh Hewitt is happy to ape the left and degrade the national conversation a little more if it helps to elect a Republican. [bold added]

I couldn't have said this better myself. Myrhaf also goes where Gallagher didn't go, pointing out that the same sorts of questions should be extended to all religions.

Galileo Defends "Price-Gouging"

Here is how he ends a very good post on the subject:

With the anti-gouging bill, the House of Representatives is grandstanding at our expense. In an effort to curry votes from ignorant voters, the House lays the groundwork for new gasoline shortages. Moreover, it diverts attention from the party responsible for high oil prices, themselves.

If you don't check in on his blog frequently, you're missing out.

A Few More...

1. Darren Cauthon on "How to gain support for net neutrality":

I wish that net neutrality advocates would openly explain their position, but they know better than that. It is probably easier to get someone to sign an online petition or state that they want "fairness" on the internet (leaving it to the net neutrality advocates to explain what that means later) than it is to convince them that the government should seize control of someone’s private property. And it is your "support" that they after, not your actual agreement with their entire position. They claim to have over a million and a half signatures and the support of their first GOP presidential candidate, so why would they change anything now?

2. The "One-Minute Case for Sweatshops"....

What? You want me to excerpt something you can read in one minute?

3. A blogger sees her column on "The Che Paradox" translated into Polish!

That's all folks!

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected a typo. Sorry, Darren!

My Op-Ed Opposing Socialized Medicine in Colorado

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Rocky Mountain News just published my op-ed opposing socialized medicine in Colorado:

Free market holds key to ensuring quality for Coloradans

By Paul Hsieh, M.D.
June 2, 2007

The Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform recently selected four health care reform proposals for eventual consideration by the Colorado legislature. Although they differ in their details, these differences are dwarfed by their fundamental similarity - they all entail a massive increase in government interference in medicine in the name of "universal coverage."

All four plans inject government force into the doctor-patient relationship. They include some combination of forcing all residents into a single health program, forcing some or all individuals and/or businesses to purchase a state-approved insurance policy, requiring insurance companies to provide new additional benefits, establishing a new bureaucracy to set payments to the doctors for services they provide, and doubling the Colorado Medicaid population.

These are just disguised forms of socialized medicine.

Similar programs already have been tried in states and other countries. They have all failed, resulting only in higher costs and lower quality patient care. The TennCare disaster - Tennessee's failed attempt at "universal coverage" - offers an important lesson for Colorado.

In the 1990s, the Tennessee government expanded the state Medicaid program to include people earning up to 300 percent of the federal poverty line, i.e., a middle-class family of four making $55,000 a year. The state also forced insurance companies to offer expensive new benefits and forced employers to either buy health insurance for their employees or else pay into a state fund for the uninsured. Many employers chose the second option, shifting their employees' health costs onto taxpayers. Because of the new regulations, many insurance companies withdrew from Tennessee, forcing more patients into the state health plan.

The Tennessee government initially offered a generous benefits package. Predictably, costs skyrocketed because patients had no incentives to spend prudently. In response, the government attempted to control costs by slashing payments to doctors and hospitals.

Hospitals closed and doctors left the state in droves. Many doctors who remained stopped seeing TennCare patients since they lost money on each one. Families with sick children often had to drive long distances to find a doctor who would see them. And they had no alternatives to TennCare because the state regulations had all but destroyed the insurance market. Ironically, TennCare ended up causing the most harm to the very people it was intended to help - the working poor and rural patients.

Nor did TennCare save money. Instead, it nearly bankrupted the state budget.

The problems of TennCare are not aberrations that can be fixed with a few minor reforms. They are inherent in any system of government medicine. Under such systems, bureaucrats and politicians decide what care individuals can receive, not doctors and patients. This has long been the case in Canada's "single-payer" socialized medical system, with its infamous waiting lists for critical medical tests and treatments. For the sake of my patients and myself, I don't want this to happen in Colorado.

Socialized medicine is not the cure for Colorado's health care problems. Forcing everyone into a government-run medical program because some people are uninsured would be just as wrong as forcing everyone to live in a government-run housing project because some people are homeless.

Instead, Colorado should adopt free market reforms such as the FAIR Program ("Free-Markets, Affordability & Individual Rights") proposed by Brian Schwartz, Ph.D. Such programs are especially good at providing affordable quality care for the working poor and rural patients. They work precisely because they encourage individual responsibility and they respect the right of the individual to spend his health care dollar according to his best judgment.

Colorado has an opportunity to become a real innovator in health care reform. Instead of recycling failed government programs, we should set an example for the rest of the country by adopting free market solutions. Only the free market can provide Coloradans with the high-quality, affordable health care they need and deserve.

Dr. Paul S. Hsieh is a practicing physician in the southern metro area. He is a founding member of the Colorado group Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

A "Carelessness Preserve"

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

If you have any doubt that environmentalism is an anti-reason movement, an ibroglio in Laredo, Texas should remove it.

In the impassioned fight to save a wetland here from a developer's ambitious blueprints, the contenders agree on little except for how the piece of land was formed: carelessness.

More than 10 years ago, the growing city built a retention pond at Laredo International Airport as part of its drainage infrastructure. But the man-made pond was not properly maintained, and over the years it evolved into a lush habitat nearly indistinguishable from a naturally occurring one at neighboring Lake Casa Blanca State Park.

...

[Some] defenders of the project say the critics are confusing the public to make them erroneously think that the nearby state park will be built on. [bold added]

Chalk up a first for the annals of environmentalism! As one "secular conservative" might put it, the "good news" is that the environmentalists have stopped damning everything man does for a moment. The bad news is that the essential characteristic of this action is that it did not involve the use of that species' natural means of survival, reason, or promote its survival.

The environmental movement ignores the fact that change occurs constantly in nature whenever it damns man for changing his environment to further his own survival. The environmental movement furthermore treats as sacrosanct every other change wrought by living beings as they try to survive -- except when man makes changes as he tries to survive. And the environmental movement exempts from moral evaluation the means by which every species survives -- except Homo sapiens, for whom the exercise of reason is (at best) the new Original Sin.

The fight to save this "wetland" -- this man-made swamp -- strips bare the absurd notion that the environmentalists are sincerely interested in "preserving" nature. If they were, they'd have tried to make the City of Laredo "remediate" the erroneously-created swamp long ago.

This fight also exposes as fraudulent the oft-repeated claim that environmentalism is a crusade to keep the earth habitable by humans. Otherwise, why would some moist piece of ground be treated as more sacred than even a single one of the 1300 life-giving jobs the development that would replace it would create?

So man changing nature isn't bad, after all, so long as it isn't done on purpose. If you, gentle reader (and fellow human being), appreciate the fact that your own happy life is your only purpose, and that you must use your mind actively to achieve it, you will appreciate that it is not damage to nature, but precisely your mind and your life that the environmentalists are warring against.

This piece of land, if "saved", will be neither a nature preserve nor a park. It will be a "carelessness preserve", a monument to the utter contempt for human life that provides the animus for the environmental movement. A monument to how little they care about us.

-- CAV

Why Fashion Can't Be Copyrighted

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Under current copyright law, fashion designs can't be copyrighted. This is why it's possible for stores to sell "knock-offs" of original designs. Of course, a replica maker isn't allowed to put trademarked labels on the new works, but the details of the design (such as a novel shape of skirt or a jacket tail) can be freely copied without penalty.

This article and discusses the resultant economic effects, albeit with a utilitarian slant.

The explanation as to why fashion can't be copyrighted is also interesting:

Why can't designers copyright clothes? Essentially, the law says that anything that is inherently useful can't be copyrighted. Because clothing is designed to cover the body (most of the time), it remains a utilitarian object. Items that can be separated from the clothing, such as a trademark, can be copyrighted. Hence, the horseback polo rider on Ralph Lauren clothing is copyrightable, while the polo shirt it rests on is not. A similar policy applies to handbags, which explains why Louis Vuitton, Coach, Fendi, and others liberally sprinkle trademarks all over the leather or fabric used in the bags.

I'd be curious if others think this is a proper application of intellectual property rights in this particular context. (I myself don't have a well-formed opinion yet.)